March 9, 2016 7:43 AM

You can protest, but don't be surprised when someone calls "Bullshit!" on you

PORTLAND, Ore. — At least 50 people took to downtown Portland Saturday afternoon to protest the jailing and prosecution of Ammon Bundy and the other armed occupiers of the 41-day standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns…. “They did not receive due process. They did not receive justice. They received cruel and unusual punishment, they received excessive fines, they received threats,” said Kelli Stewart, the leader of the rally…. Protesters sang the national anthem and God Bless America, listed off the names of the jailed occupiers, and voiced that the government doesn’t have the ability to limit people’s rights and take over private land…. “Respect the constitution, respect the people!” one of the protesters’ signs said…. “We do not support breaking laws, we do not support abusing people,” Stewart said over a bullhorn to the group.

If you paid any attention at all to the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon (If you live outside Oregon, you could be forgiven for not giving a damn), you know that the “issues” in question revolved around the law and the Constitution. That the protesters chose to stage their protest by breaking federal law seems not to bother them or their supporters at all. In their minds, the occupiers’ cause is righteous and just, and federal officials are the ones who must be called to account for breaking the law and oppressing the People. I suppose this is where selective outrage meets a world-class lack of self-awareness and then combines forces with a pronounced, self-righteous refusal to accept that moral relativism makes for a damned poor argument. The rule of law applies across the board; calling oneself a “patriot” doesn’t connote upon one the right to ignore laws deemed disagreeable.

I could hold forth at some considerable length about the self-interested and inaccurate interpretation of the Constitution that provided the “justification” for the occupation, but that’s not my purpose here. I’m far more interested in the hypocrisy of those who support the occupiers and are willing to blithely ignore the laws they broke while demanding the government be held accountable for the laws they allegedly broke.

Let’s dispense with the first and most obvious example of illegal behavior: Armed militants led by Ammon Bundy took over and occupied federal property in clear violation of federal law. During the course of the 41-day occupation, significant damage was done to the property and the contents of buildings. The federal and state governments have incurred (and are continue to incur) significant costs, both in monitoring and containing the occupation and in the extensive ongoing cleanup effort. The costs, currently estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, mount by the day as federal officials continue processing the crime scene. Cleaning up the mess left behind by the militants will, of course, be borne by taxpayers.

The idea spread by some supporters that no crimes were committed by the occupiers and that they should be allowed to go free seems patently absurd, almost as much as the claims made at the rally, which are deserving of being addressed, ridiculed for their astonishing ignorance and tone-deaf self-righteousness, and debunked. Without further ado, then….

They did not receive due process. They did not receive justice. They received cruel and unusual punishment, they received excessive fines, they received threats. The overcooked absurdity of Stewart’s claims make it difficult to know where to begin. She cites no evidence to support her assertions; perhaps in her mind the obvious and self-evident nature of the claims are sufficient proof. Unfortunately, believing in something and claiming it to be true is not ipso facto proof of incontrovertible truth. It only means you’re too lazy to make an actual supportable argument.

The truth is that law enforcement- on the federal and state laws- exercised an abundance of caution in their approach to the occupation. Some (myself included) would argue that law enforcement was too cautious and allwed the occupation to drag on for far too long. The occupiers were treated almost deferentially in being allowed to come and go as they pleased, and they were allowed to receive supplies from the outside- all while openly violating federal law. To claim that they didn’t “receive justice,” that they “received cruel and unusual punishment,” that they received “excessive fines” and “threats” strains credulity. Stewart’s claims are so thin, so ridiculously overcooked, that it’s difficult to evaluate them without being reduced to laughter.

We do not support breaking laws, we do not support abusing people. This claim by Stewart is as dishonest and disingenuous as it is just plain wrong. Breaking laws is EXACTLY what the protest was organized in support of. Not only that, several of the occupiers had in the days and weeks leading up to (and even during) the occupation engaged in behavior that some in Burns interpreted as abusive and harassing.

If Stewart possessed any integrity, she’d be claiming “We do not support breaking laws (unless we oppose them),” and “We do not support abusing people (unless they refuse to support our cause).”

One thing that I loved about LaVoy is that he stood for everybody’s freedom. LaVoy Finicum “stood for everyone’s freedom” in the same way Stewart is being honest about the reasons behind the protest. Finicum’s definition of “everybody’s freedom” seemed to revolve around the freedom to disobey laws they don’t like. What he refused to acknowledge is that in a society governed by the rule of law, picking and choosing the laws one decides to obey is a recipe for chaos and lawlessness.

Finicum’s “suicide by cop” may have made him a martyr for the cause, but he was little more than a self-interested criminal determined to disobey laws he found inconvenient. That’s not standing “for everybody’s freedom,” that’s the textbook definition of a self-absorbed sociopath.

That the protest led by Kelli Stewart was an exercise in hypocrisy and devotion to a cause that exists only in the overactive imaginations of those present is the only honest thing to emerge from the rally. Clearly, Stewart and her fellow travelers have no problem with breaking the law if it suits their agenda. They also see nothing amiss with holding the federal government to standards they’d never dream of holding themselves to. The hypocrisy of Stewart and her fellow protesters is almost palpable.

There was nothing oppressive, inappropriate, or tyrannical in the actions taken by law enforcement in their attempt to end the occupation. The militants led by Ammon Bundy should be held responsible for the considerable damage done to the wildlife refuge and for all costs incurred by taxpayers stemming from the occupation. Despite Stewart’s protestations to the contrary, those arrested and jailed richly deserved to be detained (and LaVoy Finicum determined his own fate through his actions).

Decisions have consequences. Like it or not, there are consequences which should and must flow from the 41-day occupation of the wildlife refuge. Those who broke federal law by occupying the refuge under force of arms should be held accountable for the costs incurred by taxpayers and the damage done to public property. Stewart and her ilk are free to exercise their 1st Amendment rights and protest from now until the end of time if they so choose. None of that changes the facts of the matter, chief among them that Stewart’s claims are as self-absorbed as they are ridiculous, half-baked, and just plain wrong.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on March 9, 2016 7:43 AM.

Uh...in case you were wondering, the answer is "four" was the previous entry in this blog.

Modern Republican debating style demonstrated by chimpanzees is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 6.0.8