Saturday, April 19, 2014

Bundy Supporters Are "Domestic Terrorists"

So said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier this week after the standoff at Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch. He reiterated it while on a local show on a Nevada TV station just a few days later.

“Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism. There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”

First of all, Harry, you don't get to make up your own facts. Sniper rifles in the freeway? Really? The only sniper rifles I saw were in the hands of the feds on hilltops and bluffs. And none of the people there who were not law enforcement officials had automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are illegal in this country. but you're probably ignorant enough to believe that AR-15s are "automatic assault rifles."

The FBI defines domestic terrorism as follows:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
*Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
*Appear 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; and
*Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Which of those three things did the protesters do, Harry? They did nothing that was dangerous to human life nor did they violate federal or state law. They may have intimidated the BLM agents but I think that's simply because the BLM was outnumbered. (And remember - they showed up with automatic weapons and sniper rifles first.) They didn't try to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. They didn't try to influence the government by intimidation or coercion nor did they cause any mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. 

It seems to me the only ones who tried to intimidate anyone by force was the Bureau of Land Management. Are they domestic terrorists, Harry?

And speaking of terrorists - yesterday, President Obama signed a bill into law that would prevent a former Iranian terrorist from obtaining a visa to enter the United States as Iran's UN ambassador.  Hamid Aboutalebi, who was one of the hostage takers during the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, has been named by his country as their new UN ambassador. The law, drafted by Senator Ted Cruz and approved by both the House and Senate, prevents Aboutalebi from entering the country. Good move, right?

In yet another act that demonstrates that he will do what he wants when it comes to enforcing laws, President Obama said:

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation.”

“I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion.”

In other words, "I'll enforce it if I so choose." I can't help but ask - what's the point of signing a bill into law if you're going to ignore it and do what you want? Does he believe the symbolic signing of the bill appeases people? And will he allow this terrorist into the country after all? Time will tell.

No comments:

Post a Comment