Just the mention of Clint Eastwood’s name reminds me that Barack Obama could not have won the election honestly, even among know-nothings, for even they saw portions of his performance at the Republican National Convention. Video bytes were the most widely distributed free advertising against Obama during the entire campaign.
But in 1977, Eastwood made a horrible film called The Gauntlet, in which a boozing cop is hired to escort a material witness from Los Angeles to Phoenix. It seems, she (Sandra Locke), has a lot of dope on some prominent people, including the Phoenix Police Commissioner, who orders his men (cops, Phoenix’s finest) to shoot these people before they can get to the court.
Even a low-information voter can understand this plot, and in fact, probably believed the improbable final scene could actually happen in America.
But the final scene, after dodging several other high-action attempts on their lives, was of Eastwood and Locke alone on a Greyhound bus they’d appropriated, about to make that final drive of a few blocks down to the federal court house steps in Phoenix.
Imagine this scene today. What they confronted was the entire uniformed Phoenix Police Department, 
…lining both sides of the street, snipers atop every building, one even shooting an unarmed friend trying to get Eastwood to turn himself in…not holding up a warrant, not demanding he surrender and come in peaceably…but instead opening fire from every quarter, riddling the bus with bullets.
How quaint, I thought. I haven’t seen anything quite like that since the Boston Massacre of 1770
or the Massacre of Amritsar in 1919, or maybe all those church burnings in Arkansas Bill Clinton so ruefully recalled.
All this on the orders of a second level Phoenix city official, the mayor off playing golf in Tucson, the federal district attorney putting on his “see no evil” mask, and the regional ATF and FBI agents-in-charge…well I’ll get to that.
You see, without applying too much thought to this scene, it was generally assumed by the producers that local cops would do exactly as they were depicted in this film…on the orders of one man, as if they were all little Adolf Eichmanns’, just following orders from the Grand Kleagle, who also doubled as the County Sheriff.
The corresponding assumption was that federal agents would in no way behave in this manner. Local cops-bad. Feds-Good., and usually, as in this film, no where to be found when needed.
People accepted this 35 years ago. Probably even Clint. And yes, the media would have been all over it….if locals were the bad guys.
But then there was Ruby Ridge (1992), Waco (1993), Fast and Furious (2009), (where no one was ever fired, let alone indicted for killing innocent citizens) and in an offhanded way, even Benghazi (2011), for had those three men who defended the consulate for eight hours, (Smith, Woods and Doherty…remember their names in both your prayers and “get-even” lists) survived, they would no doubt have been fired for disobeying orders, as are two senior military commanders, now awaiting charges, for also refusing to stand down.
(Note common thread running through all four events…a Democrat administration.)
There’s a lesson here that goes beyond the seeming injustice of federal officials assuming themselves immune to criminal acts. It is that stupid belief, planted in the low information populace’s minds from the Civil Rights days forward, that local cops are bad, and federal agents are good., while clearly, it’s the feds who are willing to act blindly on the orders of their higher ups.
There’s a simple reason for this. As we know from Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast & Furious and Benghazi, the main common link is careerism, and in a bureaucracy is the one thing even the most mild-mannered pencil pusher will kill to protect. (Hitler proved this law, by the way.)
So, would this government actually do something like this?
The answer then is yes, so be forewarned.
