Cliven Bundy, the Nevada cattle rancher who has been refusing to pay
government fees for having his cattle graze on public land since 1993, now finds
himself owing the federal government over 1 million dollars. In the process he has
become the newest/latest cause celebre of the Republican propaganda machine
which has created the narrative that Bundy is a victim of a "big government"
trying to invade his private property.
When Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada called Bundy and his supporters "domestic
terrorists," Fox and Friends were so outraged that eventually Republican
politicians heard the story, got the message, and began referring to Bundy and his
armed militia as "patriots." Sadly, the Democrats and their cheerleaders at
MSNBC toned down the truth and suggested Sen. Reid "may have gone over the
top" by calling a spade a spade.
Bundy is on record as saying, "I don't recognize (the) U.S. Government as
even existing." In addition, Bundy and his family "have repeatedly threatened
violence, invoked revolutionary rhetoric, and issued public statements making
known that they own firearms and appear willing to use them."
Mainstream media never did ask exactly when did Bundy begin withholding his
"recognition." Is his recognition withheld when the U.S. Government
is controlled by either party? Did Bundy ever vote in a presidential election
and if he did, does he understand that he was giving his consent to be governed
by someone he didn't recognize as being legitimate? Does a stable mind consent
to that which is illegitimate? And when Bundy said "I abide by almost zero
federal laws" how does he define "almost?"
Federal agents showed up to round up Bundy's cattle that were grazing
on federal property without a fee being paid for over 20 years by the owner of
the cattle (i.e. Bundy). Bundy responded with an armed militia that trained their
sights on federal agents and threatened to put their own women supporters on the
front lines to frame the story "federal agents kill innocent American women."
By forcing the federal agents to back down in this way, they were participating in domestic
In essence Bundy and his patriotic supporters were involved in acts which
were dangerous to human life, appeared intended to influence the policy of
government by intimidation, and took place in Nevada. These acts seem to meet the
criteria to be considered "domestic terrorists" - but the flame throwers at Fox
never did have any regard for the facts especially if/when they got in the way
of a good conservative paranoid spin about "big government." To them, Bundy - the
tax cheat and domestic terrorist - was a "patriot."
Not to digress but when a Bundy
supporter claimed they would put women in the front lines if armed violence was
imminent, I thought: don't middle eastern extremists do the same thing with
their women and children when they resort to intimidating any opposition to the
beliefs and values they wish to impose on everyone else? That's the kind same
kind of extremism where anti-woman agendas are born.
In addition it is tempting to imagine the possible outcomes - from drones to
full military assault - if Cliven Bundy was Ahmed Hassan Bundy, or if Bundy's
skin was black or brown. But the reality is that Bundy isn't middle-eastern
or black or brown, and even in post-racial America (wink, wink - nod, nod) that
Bundy is still on the conservative talk show circuit makes it quite obvious that
there are advantages to being white.
This is an uncomfortable truth: based on documented facts, Bundy and his
supporters at the ranch are domestic terrorists according to the FBI definition
of "domestic terrorism" printed below. If we are indeed a nation of laws, Bundy
and the armed militia should be arrested and charged with the federal violation
of domestic terrorism, and those pandering politicians and propagandists should be
prosecuted under the aptly named "Patriot Act" for aiding terrorism here at
That Bundy et al have yet to be held accountable for committing the crime
of domestic terrorism compels me to conclude that we are in fact becoming more a
nation threatened by armed men posing to be "law abiding citizens" who violate federal
law because they don't "recognize the legitimacy of this government or its
laws" - at least when the Democratic Party controls the government, and especially when the face of the government is black.
Today Cliven Bundy couldn't stop talking about "the negro," MSNBC couldn't
stop replaying the voice of racism but continued to stay away from "domestic
terrorism," FOX wasn't ready to come out of the closet preferring their dog
whistle racism to Bundy's in-your-face approach - so they went from Bundy to
Benghazi in prime time and Republican
politicians were "offended" by their "hero." But apparently they were not the least
bothered by his anti-government disregard for the law and his acts of
In 2014 America there are no laws
against being a racist; but there are laws against being a domestic terrorist.
Time for the mainstream
media to get on the same page and refer to Bundy as what he and his militia are in
reality -domestic terrorists - and time for our Justice Dept to enforce the
law against domestic terrorism before it spreads like a
A good start would be to give Bundy 24 hours to tell the armed militia on
his property to leave or face charges of aiding domestic terrorists -
i.e. the armed militia, who would be given 72 hours to disperse and leave the
Bundy ranch or be charged with domestic terrorism. Give Bundy 30 days to submit
a plan to repay his debt or hold him accountable accordingly. On day 31 use the
full force of the federal government to enforce the rule of law. If not now,
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic
terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three
acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence
the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the
conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the
18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an
calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or
coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
- Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c)
(relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility
with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing
of officers and employees of the
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.