Well, apparently a couple of severe cases of Foot-N-Mouth disease have broken out.
One involves the challenger to the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Matt Bevin. The first question I have is why all of the hype?
At a rally to encourage the legalization of Cockfighting in Kentucky, Senate hopeful Matt Bevin spoke. Not about cockfighting, or even the legality/illegality of cockfighting, but on states rights and the over reach of the Federal Government. There was no cockfighting at the rally at all, and no one spoke about cockfighting while Bevin was there. If Bevin was a Democrat we would have never known about the incident.
But he's not. And he is probably beating Mr. Inside-The-Beltway himself, Mitch McConnell. So the media will, between now and May 20, find any reason to bad mouth Matt Bevin. If Bevin gave a 5 minute speech at a Baptist Nursing Home, the media would use that to say he was calling for a return to Prohibition.
This is where McConnell is going. No attack ads on Bevin's positions, no discussion of the problems in Washington; no debates on the issues with Bevin. Have a field day on the fact that one day he spoke to a group who are LEGALLY advocating for a relaxation of the rules on cockfights. And Bevin is right; historically cockfighting was the purview of the wealthy. Some of the Founding Fathers would have attended cockfights, and doubtless some of them raised fighting cocks.
I'm saying that makes the practice fine; I'm saying that the activity was once not only legal, but accepted.
Bear in mind, I am not a fan of cockfighting. I think it is cruel to the animals and should be banned.
But that doesn't mean the effort to have it legalized should be banned. You have the right to free speech, not matter how vile your goal.
Or your speech.
Which brings us to case 2 of the Foot-N-Mouth Club; Clive Bundy. He is our 67 year old Nevada Rancher who is locked in a fight with the Federal Bureau of Land Management.
Yes; he open his mouth way to wide. Yes; what he said was offensive.
Now explain to me how his opinions on Blacks, Slavery and The Modern Welfare State have any effect on his battle with the BLM? Mr. Bundy has the right to hold and express any opinion he wants to hold or express. Can we call those opinions crazy, offensive, out-dated and worthy of the KKK? Yes we can. Can we let his opinions, however bizarre, become an issue in a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything he has expressed a stupid opinion on?
I also have my issues with this quote. Just like with Phil Robertson a few months back, I think a left leaning reporter created a situation from whole cloth. Not that he has put words into Bundy's mouth, but I do think a lefty reporter- like there is any other kind- took an old man who has spent weeks under incredible pressure and let him talk until he got himself into trouble.
That doesn't mean I don't think Mr. Bundy holds these opinions, and that doesn't mean I agree with him, but it does mean that a sneaky bastard got an old man to spout off without his filter. And now is using that quote to discredit him.
And its working. Bundy's support is dropping away like the fall leaves from a maple.
Why? Does his opinion on anything but the BLM case matter to the BLM case?
Or is it that easy for the left to win? Coax someone to say something not generally accepted as a mainstream opinion and then the fight is over?
Clive Bundy's opinion on Blacks, Welfare and Slavery may not make him a more likeable character, but it doesn't change his fight over land with the BLM.
6 comments:
I do have to point out the fact that Bundy rips people for being slaves to welfare when he himself is a "welfare" cattle rancher. The money it would cost him to own the land he used or pay grazing fees to a private citizen that owned that land would be 10 x what the government asked for.
Honestly that what kind of erks me about Bundy look at his issue and tell me it's not the same issue Repubs complian about with welfare. Bundy doesn't own the land near him the government does but he feels that he is entitled to use it for how own personal gain without putting any money towards it. His basis for it is that the government shouldn't own the land but did he pay for it ? No he just thinks because he wants to use it that means he's entitled to do so
Sorry Bundy really irks me. I know the easy response " he'd pay the state if they asked him he's protesting the Feds" bet if you'd ask 90% of ppl on welfare if they'd stop taking it they'd say "if I got a good job" they would . Thing is both Bundy and welfare ppl are making promises they know they'll never have to fulfill so why not claim it
Let's start from the premise that you are correct; Bundy is a Welfare Rancher. And we will assume owe the government several hundred thousand dollars.
Does any of that require the armed siege the Federal Government performed?
This is all subterfuge; designed to take your eye off of the idea that the Federal Government can go after a non-violent American Citizen with Military-Style Force.
And that should scare you to death.
I've read as many reports of the armed protestors as I have armed federal agents. Do I think the government official went a tad overboard probably but that said to me it's just as scare to not enforce the law because a group of armed people are protesting it.
But who was there first?
The Agents, or the protestors?
Post a Comment