Monday, April 21, 2014

Beware the wolves dressed as 'patriots'

Why ruin a perfectly useful lie?
By Noble Collins
Gazette Columnist

"One nation, indivisible."  Not so much.  Every time I pledge allegiance to our country I wonder about the political climate when this great pledge was written. More and more it doesn't apply. The latest outrage is happening in Nevada, where a rancher insists on grazing his cattle on land owned by you and me (the Federal Government), but refuses to pay a fee for the privilege, like everyone else. The Land Management folks have not forbidden the grazing. They simply have a responsibility to collect fees, and normally this is no issue. It’s done in many areas in the U.S.

Mr. Bundy refuses to pay any damn fees.  He has been to court more than once to avoid paying them, and he has been turned down every time. He doesn't acknowledge the law, however, and continues to graze his damn cattle wherever he damn well pleases.When the govt. attempted to move the cattle off the land, this guy rounds up a band of protesters (with guns) including his family (sob) to demand that the cattle be returned and the law suspended. Admittedly, agents with firearms were sent to quell any violence and enforce the law, but then all sorts of claims broke out claiming "storm trooper" tactics by the Fed. I wasn't there, but I know several things. First, no one on either side has been physically harmed (yet). The Feds returned the cattle in an effort to calm down the confrontation.

Republicans are now claiming "Victory!" Many false stories (lies) are being circulated about the situation. One prominent lie claims that Sen. Harry Reid is plotting to get the land and sell it to a Chinese firm. This absurd story can easily be refuted by simple research, including checking with Nevada Congressmen, but why ruin a perfectly useful lie? So, what we have is a stand-off, because certain people don't want to abide by the law, AND they are being cheered on by people they don't know who have an underground agenda they refuse to acknowledge or understand.. They naively believe this is a personal freedom issue.

I have to think that many of them would not support this revolt if they actually saw what is behind it. At least I hope so. The bottom line is that the law is being flaunted and the govt. will have to find a way to enforce it. I don't like many laws either, but we long ago decided that this would be a nation of laws. I hate paying taxes, and I'm not convinced the way they are collected is constitutionally legal, but I pay taxes and I understand that I am responsible to obey the law unless or until it is changed. Some people in Nevada, egged on by a venomous backing, think that they have a right to disobey a law they find objectionable. The issue has been examined in courts and the law upheld. It’s possible it could be overturned, but only by congressional action, and no one has seriously suggested that route.

Refusing to abide by law (and especially mounting armed resistance) when seen in a calm light for what it is, should be rejected by every American. Increasingly, though, what we are seeing is a subversive effort to bring down the government, using phony pious attacks. It should be obvious that when these attacks are built on lies and misconceptions that they have no merit.

Sadly, a strong negative tide is rising against government - not just this administration, if you look carefully, but against federal government in general. Just look at the increasing fervor for "States Rights." Maybe too many people don't know about or can't remember when the country was torn apart by many of the same short sighted issues. If we are ever to be a country "indivisible" then we must go back to our original agreement to be a country of laws and abide by them. Work to change them if needed, but obey them if we claim to be influenced by our "Founding Fathers." The present effort to tear us apart, under the nefarious guise of "patriotism," is more than worrisome.

It is repugnant. Even worse, certain elected officials from neighboring states have violated their sworn duty and rushed to the defense of this  group of domestic terrorists.  You say that is too harsh? Well, let’s look at a definition created by the George W. Bush Administration: "Terrorism 2002-2005." 

The document defined "domestic terrorism" as "the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives."   In other words, the armed thugs claiming to be “patriots” supporting illegal activity in Nevada, can be considered domestic terrorists.  Of course, Fox News encourages this activity and then sits back hoping to start a war and then yell, “Fight!”

Once upon a time, real patriots found it necessary to take up arms against the government. The situation bore no resemblance to today’s rebellion, however. Those brave men were under military suffocation directed by a king in a foreign country. They had no other recourse. Once the great United States was formed, however, the new country was formed as a nation ruled by laws, not men. Unpopular laws can be changed, but they cannot be flaunted without consequence. 

Our Pledge of Allegiance refers to “one nation, indivisible.” Our currency states: “E Pluribus Unum.” Our Founding Fathers created a nation of “United” states.  Beware the wolves dressing as "patriots" who are making a serious effort to tear us apart.Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form


Anonymous said...

Since you support the ""rule of law"" Noble I guess you think our President and Attorney General should carry out their jobs to the full extent of the law and constitutional responsibility!!.........I think not Noble....

Anonymous said...

You think not that our President and Atty General should carry out their jobs to the full extent of the law?

I don't agree.

Anonymous said...

You think NOT that our President and Atty General should carry out their jobs to the full extent of the law?

I disagree