Why were the feds inserting FBI surveillance and snipers into a dispute with people deemed a threat by zero government agencies?
It may be maddening to hear voices on the left support violent protests sometimes, and condemn it at other times. But there’s a method to this madness.
Rather than thinking solely in terms of shooters and terrorists, we must now also think in terms of mercenaries and warlords.
While social-media hotheads storm politicos and backcountry hotheads storm bird sanctuaries, cooler heads should handle the Hammond ranch situation carefully and lawfully.
BuzzFeed pushed a hot story about anti-government activist Cliven Bundy’s claims about President Obama and Donald Trump. The only problem? It wasn’t true.
Some 100 men led by three Bundy brothers have reportedly seized control of an Oregon wildlife refuge to protest government harassment of a ranching family.
Would transferring multiple-use federal lands to the states be in the best interest of the states and the nation? That’s easy. Yes.
Staking out with guns on the prairie isn’t the best way to resolve the conflict. However, there are more promising avenues that Mr. Bundy should consider.
Before we venerate Bundy as a freedom fighter, we might stop to consider the facts.
- How A Plea Reversal From Michael Flynn Could Uncover More Federal CorruptionDid Robert Mueller’s office withhold other evidence icontinue reading >
- 6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun ControlThere are several reasons Second Amendment advocates arcontinue reading >
- Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?In the wake of the Florida school shooting, are we willcontinue reading >