You know it’s going to get deep when peeps start evoking the name of the pope; and by pope, I don’t mean the pontiff at the Vatican.
But since the bramble started in Nevada over land rights, I’ve heard the name Waco uttered on more than one occasion. It’s spoken not as a reminder of something we all want to avoid but rather as a rallying call for some sort of possible insurrection.
As I read an account from Fox News, there are some phrases that just shout out to me. One in particular speaks not just to the issue of a deadbeat rancher refusing to pay over a million dollars in grazing fees owed over the past twenty years but rather it questions “the basic authority of federal officials”.
It continues to boggle my mind just how many Americans are ready and willing to take up arms against this country that they say they love so much. Last week, the standoff came to an abrupt halt-Thank God- as armed militia men showed up in support of the Bundy family. What exactly would they have done had the federal government forced the issue and not backed down? And do they consider such aggressive actions taken in defense of the Bundy clan, illegal?
Ever since the first black President took office in America, there’ve been more than a few attempts to take this nation down the very dangerous and sorry road of revolution. I could list numerous occasions but doing so would take us away from the core issue here.
The core issue here is that a land owner is delinquent in his payments to the federal government and the federal government wants to collect what’s due them. And by the way, what’s owed the government is also owed the American public in the form of revenue. Of course, he has the right to any and all legal support that’s afforded him via the Constitution. But after all of his appeals have been exhausted, it’s time to pay the piper. And that time appears to be now.
I hate doing so but I have to ask myself a question. In fact, it’s a question that we all should be asking. If Mr. Bundy were a black man in the middle of Harlem, refusing to pay his taxes and owing the federal government some extraordinary amount of money accumulated over the past two decades and had amassed a heavily armed group in support of his defiance, would these supporters out there who are now questioning the legality of the government feel the same way about this African-American’s circumstances or would they be the ones challenging the government as being soft on crime and tax deadbeats?
What if such a situation were to occur now, at the end of the Obama presidency? Would these militia men still feel as strongly about state’s rights and their right to defend those rights to their death or would they say that the President was being intentionally soft on his own kind in an effort to create more welfare states by giving away government freebies?
Better still, what if Mr. Bundy were a Mexican-American landowner in Texas, who owed fees to the government but refused to pay because he didn’t recognize the legitimacy of the state of Texas and looked to secede from the union back to Mexico and had gathered the necessary monies and weapons to do so? You get my drift, I think.
Mr. Bundy and all those of like mind need to recognize that government, even government for and by the people, is not government that you can cherry-pick and choose what parts of it you want to keep. It’s government and it doesn’t work that way. Either it’s the same for us all, is consistent in the manner in which it deals with each of us or it just won’t work. And once it becomes obvious that it isn’t working, all that’s left is anarchy.
Truthfully though, I not only think that they already know that but also I think they’re counting on it.