Posted on 04/15/2014 11:34:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Harry Reid seems to have taken the Bundy standoff rather personally:
"Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over," Reid said.
It is a very scary thing when a government officer takes such things personally -- given that the government can and does order the use of lethal force against citizens.
What is the rationale for Reid's We-Must-Not-Let-This-Insult-Pass attitude? Were Reid talking about a slight from a hostile foreign power -- such as Russia, or, for that matter, al-Qaeda -- he's more than likely counsel us to not lose our heads in bull-headed, testosterone-fueled anger.
Yet here he is counseling just that -- "Let's throw our weight around."
This can only be justified if you believe that the American people are roiling in a state of near-rebellion, and we must squash individual shows of defiance lest the people rise up in open revolt.
Several objections to this:
First, the left often criticizes the right for having a "paranoid" view of government, seeing it as a menace which must be contained.
But notice here that the left harbors its own paranoid views of menaces that must be stamped out -- notably, the American people themselves.
Second, if the populace were really in such a state of near-rebellion such that the tiniest spark from a Nevada cattleman could set off a conflagration, wouldn't that be a sign that perhaps the government needs to adjust its behavior and attitude, rather than Harry Reid's suggestion that it must Show Who's Boss Here like a juvenile street gang demarcating its turf?
Governments do not in fact have to use Maximum Force to crush dissenters. France, for example, allows quite a bit of civil unrest (chiefly from the leftwing). One needn't go so far as to endorse the French model and permit union workers to kidnap their bosses and hold them for ransom in labor "negotiations" (yes, that's a real thing that really happens) to suggest that perhaps the American government, and its agents of enforcement of state will, could perhaps temper the zeal with which they show everyday citizens which gang really controls this turf.
Kevin D. Williamson wrote a piece about this, and finds it troubling that a nation born in revolution and devoted, once upon a time, to the idea that citizens are masters of the state, and not vice versa, should respond so spasmodically to such a minor provocation.
Harry Reid is beneath pond scum
I for one am tired of seeing the government respond to every incident with people dressed up like combat infantrymen.
Committees of Correspondence
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/coc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence
A free republic is the enemy
And yet Holder has said he can decide which laws to enforce.
I really don't know where all of this government oppression will lead. I suspect that too many Americans are just comfortable enough not to care very much.
So I suspect that we will drift into a one-party (Democratic) semi-fascist imperial nanny state. Not a very pleasant thought. But I suppose it could be worse.
this is about agenda 21 and thestatedeptdoc freedom from war, pub. 7277.
BINGO!
You are on the right track; to which I say: If the government is going to war on its citizens, then, yes, things must really be that bad.
Agreed.
What is it about elected government officials from the DNC, such as Reid, Obama, Holder, Pelosi, Clinton, Cummings, Rangel, Weiner, ad infinitum, that makes them believe they can skirt the law of the land and yet expect the rest of us peasants to obey the very same laws that they thumb their noses at? At what point do we finally flip them the bird and drag their worthless arses into the street, by their feet, and hang them from the nearest lamp pole after we tar and feather them?
Really? How about Obama and Holder? They break whatever laws they want and enforce whatever laws they want and they refuse to enforce whatever laws they don't like.
And the obvious corollary: while Reid cannot have an “American people” who violate the law, he apparently has no problem with non-Americans who violate the law.
Well, Harry, we have a president who walks away from any law he doesn’t like or changes the law to further his agenda. The American people certainly have more right to walk away from laws that take away freedom, because this is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”.
We are not serfs, put here to do the federal government’s bidding. Thank God there are still real Americans who know who we are. It was great to see them stand up for freedom in Nevada.
How about the millions of illegals that the Harry and the ‘rats reward for breaking our laws?
I’m shocked, shocked I say that FedGov responds to delinquent grazing fees like it’s an act of war and to terrorism (”workplace violence” at Ft. Hood), illegal aliens, and other existential threats like they are “acts of love”. If I didn’t know better, I would start to wonder which side Obama and his followers are on.
If all you own is a hammer then the world looks like nails. This is what a hostile takeover looks like after a series of uncontested stolen elections. In twenty years we will all be bowing to Mecca.
Some times I wonder what exactly some of these dingleberries are on that they can live with themselves...Senator Yee....Reed,Soros.....yrs of rationalization.wow
“Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.”...........
Never mind Clevis Bundy, certainly there is more than enough evidence that Reid himself has violated numerous laws which justify getting him arrested, tried and convicted. Problem is, who is going to step forward and DO IT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.