Meanwhile, Back At the Ranch . . .

In the past week, the Bundy ranch incident has quietly split the American conservative movement.  Was the arrival of armed Americans in defense of the Bundy ranch and its cattle a fundamentally American reaction to government overreach?  Or was it the wrong action at the wrong place at the wrong time?

The Bundys have very little legal footing.  They have grazed their cattle on public land since the 1870s.  Properly speaking it is federal land, although ranchers since before the Civil War have chafed at the overwhelming amount of land owned by the government.  Since the 1980s, ranchers grazing on federal land have agreed to pay grazing fees intended to maintain the land.  The Bundys contend that the fees have started funding policies that undermine their ability to compete and decided to stop paying.  Somewhere along the line a turtle got involved.

Government officials, after 21 years of litigation, sent a small army complete with automatic weapons to rustle the Bundy family's cattle.  In opposition, a small army of fellow ranchers and others brought weapons and horses, surrounded the federal agents who then relented.

Opponents within the conservative movement see the ranch militia as a different kind of Occupy movement.  They fear that it will put a radical face on conservatism that could make it less appealing.  Also, they point out that the federal government has the property rights in this case.  So they see the arrival of armed citizens as a hysterical overreaction, despite conceding that the federal agents themselves did the same.

A problem of understanding comes from regarding this as a single incident.  If anyone looked simply at the Boston Tea Party, they would wonder why Americans so irrationally opposed a small tax on tea.  Only looking back over the course of the preceding years would reveal the logic of the colonists' rage.

Same here.  Americans just do not decide to go down the road to put themselves in the way of armed federal agents.  Not even in Nevada do Americans in large numbers go out spoiling for a gunfight.

The Bundys are likely in the wrong.  But dismissing the anger that led to the reaction is a huge mistake.  Also, the men and women who showed up in Nevada included property owners, veterans, former elected officials.  Not the floatsam and jetsom of society, but its foundation.

Why?  Why so much anger?  Decades of a government that refuses to leave the people in peace have done this.  Farmers in California with fields dried up, irrigation cut off due to a salamander.  Power plants in West Virginia about to shut down because of the EPA.  Farmers facing fines because the government says they have too much dirt.  Federal agents spend $1 million, mobilize a SWAT team, and trump up drug accusations to stop a farm from selling raw milk.

The anger is real.  Agree or disagree with the reaction, but there is logic and there are years of reasons why this happened.   You can't build a country's foundation on rebellion against tyranny and not expect resistance to the federal government pushing the people too hard.

Lest anyone forget, this was a peaceful protest.  No one fired a shot.

First, Second Amendment Under Threat. Plus, More People Hurt By Obamacare

Stories from Obama's America . . .

Natalie deMacedo in American Spectator brings three stories that Harry Reid and the New York Times claim do not exist.  Real Americans who were caused hardship by Obamacare.

Melissa Quinn of Red Alert Politics reports that a US Marine veteran gun store owner in California refused ATF demands to turn over customer information lists.

Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner's Leijla Sarcevic explains that the United States has fallen below 50th on the world press freedom list.  Sarcevic reports that the federal government's ignoring of Freedom of Information Act laws are a major reason why.  So might also be illegal seizures of reporter notes.

It's been a tough few years for the Bill of Rights . . .

West Virginia Citizens' Defense League Releases First Round of Candidate grades.

The West Virginia Citizens' Defense League, a group dedicated to fighting for Second Amendment rights, released its grades of candidates running in 2014.  These were not endorsements, but ratings based upon return of a survey and record.  

For United States Senate, the WVCDL gave both Shelley Moore Capito and Pat McGeehan an A+ rating.  Capito's House of Representatives and McGeehan's House of Delegates voting record on gun rights was spotless.  The WVCDL noted that Capito repeated some of its arguments in the days after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Natalie Tennant received an F for supporting gun control schemes and previous statements.

So far, WVCDL has only rated two candidates for the 2nd Congressional District.  Alex Mooney received an A+ for a strong record of defending gun rights at the legislative level.  Meshea Poore of Charleston received the dreaded F- rating, along with the admonition "DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS CANDIDATE."

The group also handed out grades for state legislators.  In the Eastern Panhandle, Craig Blair, Gary Howell, Allen Evans, Dave Sypolt, Larry Faircloth, John Overington, Larry Kump, Jason Barrett, Michael Folk, and Eric Householder all received A+ ratings.  John Unger only earned an A, but the WVCDL expected him to rise to A+ at the end of this session.

Senator Joe Manchin is not running, but WVCDL marked its displeasure with the Democrat by criticizing statements made supporting his gun proposals.

WVCDL rated many Democrats among its A+ grades, indicating that West Virginia's stance on full Second Amendment rights remains a bipartisan affair. 

An Armed Citizen Is a Safe Citizen

Chicago has seen a rash of violent mob attacks in the past several months. Now Milwaukee has seen its first.

Racially motivated attacks on whites have been on the rise lately. In Milwaukee, one young woman heard an attacker gleefully proclaim "oh white girl she bleeds a lot."

Violence may be color blind, but there is really only one way to stop these attacks. Cities need to understand that police can't be everywhere to protect everyone. Violent mobs and criminals already know this. The main way to counteract this behavior is to encourage good citizens to buy guns and learn their proper use.

I'd much rather see a story like this. Mob of youths attack peacful law abiding group. Individual pulls handgun and severely wounds or kills several attackers, ensuring the safety of herself and her friends.

That is the only way to halt mob attacks, regardless of motivation.

The Biggest Threat to Our Constitutional Rights

Credit Don Surber for bringing this to our attention.

Let's do some math.

Take the Department of Homeland Security listing tea partyists, NRA members, veterans, etc as potential terrorists.

Add it to a current proposal by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenburg to outlaw gun ownership for anyone on the TSA's no fly list.

What do you get?

A system by which the federal government could outlaw gun ownership to anyone that could not prove their innocence to a liberal bureaucrat.

It is interesting that liberals are so concerned about the rights of those captured on the battlefield, while they seek to void the Constitution for law abiding American citizens.

"Liberalism" is supposed to be based upon the same root as "liberty." All liberals seek to do is tax your wealth, infringe upon your rights, and augment their power.

These people seek to not only roll back the Reagan Revolution, but to also redefine the ideals, values, and very freedoms of this nation. I teach my students that rights are given by God, not a list of things the government lets you do. These people never took that class. At the end of the day, if we let them, we will end up with all the freedoms of North Korea along with the prosperity of that ill starred land.