Hannity's Support Of Cattle Rancher Bundy

(Monday, April 21, 2014) The L.A. Times-- "The battle lines are hardening in Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's so-called range war against the federal government over his right to graze cattle on public lands."

COMMENTARY
Sean Hannity may have a few legitimate questions to address with his talking points. For instance: (1) Is it right that the federal government controls over 245 million acres and can tell states in which they located what they can do and not do? (2) Should the government collect fees for land that they don't even pay to maintain? (3) Does the armed government enforcement officers have the authority to confront Bundy for his taxes?

The first two questions are subjective policies. These can be challenged and possibly changed either by the agency resetting the regulations or by court action. Bundy failed in both these efforts. While I may agree with the right to ask questions 1 & 2, I have no doubts regarding the answer to question #3. Yes, absolutely.

Whether one considers them right or wrong, the government does have the authority. Hannity always likes harkening back to the early days of government knit picking through only the history that suits his purpose. What Sean hasn't brought up in his conversations with Cliven Bundy was a little thing called 'The Whiskey Rebellion'.

It took place right here in Pennsylvania in 1794. According to Wikipedia-- "Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On 4 August 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion. On 7 August, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1" Leading the charge into Western Pennsylvania was none other then George Washington himself who had 13,000 men under him.

Further more Hannity implies Bundy is some sort of patriot. Here's where things start to go off the rails. On Thursday, April 24, 2014 'The Washington Post' reported "Cliven Bundy wonders if black people were “better off as slaves”. Hell Cliven doesn't even recognize the federal government as having the right exist in Nevada.

Bundy basis for his argument is on him having ancestral rights. Whoa there Bundy, what about the Indians who were there before his family got off the boat? Even this argument has more holes in then swiss cheese. Documents show his father bought the ranch from another couple on January 5, 1946. This was two years before Cliven was even born. On top of that neither the 1930 nor 1940 census shows a Bundy living there.

Hannity is backing the wrong horse
An argument can be made for legislators changing laws regarding regulatory powers over the issue of federal lands. Indeed we should revisit these. In that I'll agree. However no one, neither Hannity, Bundy or any of us have the right to pick and choose which laws to follow.

This started out as an issue over whether current grazing regulations are right or wrong. I'm all for making the public aware of someone's cause. I'm all for hundreds or even thousands of people coming together to pressure Washington. However when it comes to a crazy ass shootout you lost my support.,, BIG TIME!

If Hannity wishes to pursue what he considers an injustice, go for it. However using Cliven Bundy as a spokesman has just got to be the worst possible person he could have used. Every time Cliven opens his mouth on Sean's program it makes them both look less credible then the time before.

Whether Sean believes it or not, if anything bad happens he played a part in it. Not once did Sean suggest to Bundy he should bag the armed militia idea. Sean may not have suggested an armed conflict, but he sure as hell didn't discourage it either. Seems to me he sent a whole bunch of cameras down there to pick up on all the action if it should occur. The question we should ask ourselves, by his continuing coverage, is Sean exploiting this for himself or truly concerned about the Bundys?


SUMMARIZING
Spotlighting someone like Bundy, who doesn't even have a legally valid claim going back to the 1700's (as he falsely asserted) indicates to me the appeal courts got it right. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about possible government overreach. Ramping up armed militia extremists with their call to arms sure as hell isn't one of them.