The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[AmericanPride]

The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.

I don't think it's about turtles, although environmental conversationism policy is an underlying factor. It's about the fact that a rancher has ignored court orders, failed to pay fines and fees, and has otherwise refused to comply with the law. The radical position in this scenario is the refusal on the part of Bundy to recognize and comply with the authority of the federal government. This is not a David vs. Goliath situation. This is about one man willfully ignoring the laws that inconvenience his desire to freely take federal resources for his personal gain. He's a through and through taker.

President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."

What would Obama's job be in this situation?

And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.

True or not, depending on how one assigns moral responsibility, but my point was rather that right-wing violence is often ignored or downplayed in American narratives. The "Other" - inner city gangs, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, left-wing radicals, and so on - however receives extensive coverage that frequently is out of proportion with comparable coverage. When is the media going to name the recent Jewish center shooter as a domestic terrorist? How quickly would he have been labelled a terrorist if he was Muslim? In 2009, Congress forced DHS to withdraw an extensive report on right-wing violence because it negatively reflected on conservatives, veterans, and gun owners (even though the FBI reported that right wing groups intentionally enlist members in the armed services specifically for military training to bring back home).

So not only is there a long history of reactionary populism in rural America, but there's also an equally long history of violence - and it has undergone various transformations as the country and its institutions change, but it remains in subtext. And not only is there this history of reactionary populism combined with a propensity for violence, but it receives priveleged coverage in American public conciousness and media.

One of the myths embraced by this ideology is the idea of an expansive, over-reaching, corrupt, metropolitan federal government repressing individuals in rural America through burdensome regulations and taxation. But the federal government has been in retrenchment for many years, and it's employeeopulation ratio has shrunk considerably since LBJ's Great Society projected started. As of 2012, that ratio is the lowest it has ever been since 1962. That year, there were 14 non-military federal employees for every 1,000 people. That number is now nine (9). That's a reduction of 35%! Other than expansion from 1967-1969, it has been in general decline. So the government, by this metric, is actually less capable of meeting its obligations to the population than in the previous 50 years.

So my interpretation is that much of this battle is about the transformation of America - it has been rapidly growing in its metropolitan regions and in the process is becoming more diverse in both demographics and politics - and the desire by the rural segment in holding onto its declining privelege. Hence the attack on social services and welfare perceived to be uniquely benefiting the minorities that make up a part of the metropolitan other at the expense of rural America (although statistically speaking this is a myth too). This is expressed on Capitol Hill by the Tea Party, which has outsized influence in Congress on the basis of our political mechanisms - but we're also likely to see growing resentment and confrontation in rural communities. I'm sure there will also be some level of radicalization to accompany it. The question is how much mainstream legitimacy will reactionary populism continue to receive?