The Cliven Bundy saga reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case: it is a very squishy example of a very real problem. Because the facts of these cases could be interpreted either way, they divide the rank and file rather than uniting us against the real enemy from above. In light of this, rather than the nuanced Bundy case, it would have been nicer to see the government forced to back down on a cut-and-dried asset forfeiture in which property was permanently confiscated from someone never convicted of a crime (like Rudy Ramirez), or an eminent domain case in which the government seized private property for the benefit of a private developer (like in the case of Vera Coking).
Sometimes I think that political operators deliberately choose cases that aren’t clear-cut because rather than despite the fact that they will generate grassroots activism on both sides of the aisle. In order for this to work, the case must have merit and flaws on both sides of the argument.
Double Header: Podcasts of April 25 & April 26 Shows on Putin & Ukraine
Friday… Saturday… I referred to these items on the show… WSJ Perpetuates Falsehood NYT Retraction Operation Mockingbird See also my previous posts and shows on these subjects… Exposing the Shadow Government in the Ukraine (and the US?) Putin’s Place in the New World Order Crimea & Self-Determination: The First Principle of the Law of Nations … Read more