We can add “objective” Fox News host Harris Faulkner and “Democrats” Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell to the list of Fox News personnel willing – and seemingly eager - to cheer on and promote Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed insurrection against the federal government. So sympathetic were Schoen and Caddell to Bundy that they suggested it was the federal government that’s lawless and that Bundy is merely “the first spark” in a (deserved) uprising to come.
As Media Matters has explained, Bundy has repeatedly defied legal orders instructing him to remove his cattle from publicly-owned land.
The conflict reached a boiling point on Saturday, when Bundy and hundreds of protesters, including militia members, initiated a standoff with authorities. Violent rhetoric associated with the movement led BLM to abandon its efforts to round up the cattle.
Even Fox’s Megyn Kelly has described Bundy’s cause as without “a (legal) leg to stand on.”
But yesterday, Faulkner and Fox News contributors Schoen and Caddell evidenced no concern for the rule of law or the safety of law-enforcement personnel when they spoke sympathetically and supportively about the Bundys. This is on top of Sean Hannity’s reckless rhetoric and the deliberately inflammatory – but fact-free – conspiracy-theory mongering about the case displayed on Fox & Friends this morning.
Faulkner opened the discussion on yesterday’s Fox Report Weekend by noting the “tremendous outpouring of support” for the Bundys the day before. She made no mention of all those court cases the family lost nor their blatant disregard for the rule of law nor Bundy's extremist views. For example, Bundy has demanded that all National Park Service employees on federal lands turn in their guns - to him. Nor did she mention any concern for the well-being of law-enforcement personnel. Instead, she said, “The feds now backing off and returning the cows to the ranchers.”
Faulkner then chose an anti-government tweet to read:
Yes, we care. This is a government overreach. The government owns 86% of Nevada? We the people own it.
It’s telling that Faulkner’s choice of “Democrats” for the discussion were Schoen and Caddell. Caddell makes no secret that he would rather suck up to Republicans than advocate for Democrats. But that has not put even a dimple in his Fox News “Democratic” bona fides. If anything, it has probably enhanced them. Doug Schoen is Caddell’s soulmate in phony-Democratic punditry. They often appear together.
Schoen spoke first:
This is a classic reaction against government overreaching. We talk every week about anger. And there’s no more anger in America than about the encroachment of the federal government . April 15th is coming up. Tax day inspired the Tea Party – which was initially bi-partisan. Harris, there is a lot of spontaneous anger in America. This could be the first spark.
Instead of trying to calm the situation, Faulkner deliberately inflamed it with more sympathetic-to-Bundy and demonizing-government talk:
Two bits of fact here: The Bundy family… says they’ve been letting their cattle graze on that land since the 1800s. The federal government says it’s public land. They’re trying to protect a tortoise (her emphasis) type there that lives there on that land and they say that this rancher owes $1.1 million to the government.
Next came Caddell. He upped the anti-government ante:
Well, you know, people have been grazing on these public lands since the 1800s. …The government’s coming down on people. Whether it was a disaster – Ruby Ridge or whatever – people don’t like it. But right now, we’ve got – Gallup shows the highest percentage ever of people saying that their threat in their lives is big government, as opposed to big business or big labor. And what we see is the IRS scandal, the corruption of that, whether it’s Benghazi – the government coming after people… No longer do the American people see the federal government as their government. That is a danger in this democracy, as Doug said. We are one spark away from something unpleasant happening, whether it’s with this or another incident. And, you know, and the anger is out there. You just keep pouring into this.
His choice of the word "you" was interesting, eh?
This online clip was cut off mid-segment (and I only saw the beginning of it when it aired). So I don’t know if the third panelist, super right-wing Republican John LeBoutillier, ever spoke on the subject. But who needs a Republican when you’ve got Schoen and Caddell?
After this segment, I wouldn’t be surprised if Schoen and Caddell rushed out and joined the Tea Party, if not some militia movement. Or maybe they did so long ago.
Article IV, Section 3 includes this clause: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Furthermore, I know you right-wingers don’t like it but the power of the Federal government to supersede state laws was put into place in Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
If you knew anything about the history of the US (beyond those lies and that BS crap that right-wingers like to pass as history), you’d know the reason for these Articles was because the previous “constitution,” aka the Articles of Confederation, was incredibly weak. And because of the Articles’ weaknesses, the Founding Fathers insisted that the Federal Government be strengthed UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. For your benefit, here’s a link to a good explanation that shows the major differences between the Articles and the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html