THIS ISN’T OVER!

In reference to Cliven Bundy’s resistance in Nevada, Senator Harry Reid whined, “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have American people that violate the law, and then just walk away from it. So, it’s not over.” Cliven Bundy and his ancestors had been grazing their cattle on what is Nevada state land for generations, but he has been told he must pay fees, his herd was confiscated, and many were concerned at the potential outbreak of violence.

For many, it may be difficult to understand their position. So, I shall attempt to elaborate. The U. S. has three branches of government that possess executive, legislative, and judiciary authority. Naturally, this power has an origin. When we the people formed our Constitution, our representatives acted as lawyers on our behalf. They signed a social contract, the Constitution, stating we the people would hand over our powers to determine our own laws, judge one another, and to execute our will to the government under agreed upon limitations. When the federal government surpasses these predetermined limitations, they trespass into our authority. We have given them authority to write law, judge law, and execute law within specified parameters. I do not recall any time we the people agreed the government could own anything.

Our present government has been operating as if the money it spends, the people it governs, and the land it controls belongs to it. However, government only has the power and authority we permit. I frequently hear the concept of “government interest” brought up in my Constitutional Development class. There is no such thing as government interest; it’s not allowed! Government is not an independent entity. It is a tool of the people. When the government decides it is going to assert its own prerogative, it must be thwarted. The government cannot be permitted to take action outside the will of the people. We do not wish for government to control the land. As a dependent entity, how can it rightly possess land? The state of Nevada has pronounced the grazing area Bundy utilizes as public land, a public utility. As the Bill of Rights codifies, all authorities not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. It is legal for Nevada to define it as public land, but it is completely outside federal authority.

It is feared if this trespass of the people’s authority goes unchallenged it will only lead to further usurpations. This is absolutely true historically. Any power gained by the government is lost by the people, and it is rarely recovered. Fascist crackpots like Harry Reid are bound and determined to stamp this out before it sets a trend of defiance. To assert defiance and to further assert your will over that of government’s makes the fascist crackpots shake in their boots. They truly are fearful that their Progressive religion will be challenged, that enlightenment ideas will spread, and that they will not recover their power.

I do fear, however, that violence could become the tool of reversing government usurpations and reasserting natural law. I find it difficult to fathom the repercussions of a break-out of violence on U. S. soil. American versus American. I cannot express how greatly this outcome ought to be avoided. Glenn Beck often speaks of Jesus, Gandhi, and M. L. K. when giving examples of peaceful resistors and societal reformists. I would like to point out they were all murdered. A slight modification of tactics might be necessary. Carry arms so that you may not be abused, but reserve not to use them.

2 responses to “THIS ISN’T OVER!”

  1. JoeT says :

    While I agree with a few points you have, I can disagree with Mr Bundy. Period. The US has owned that land, to preserve it, since the 1800’s. As a part of the management of the lands, there are permits issued each year to allow grazing and to manage the funds to keep “our” , the tax payers, liability, and overhead to a minimum. Mr. Bundy has refused to pay for his permits for years AND has not managed his cattle as others do. He has abused the resource and has rallied the anti-government groups to back him. It is very mis-guided in cause. It has nothing to do with his “racism” comments or ideas, rather he is nothing more than a scofflaw trying to sway people into being sympathetic towards his personal gain. He is abusing the land under a welfare ranch system and claims the government is against him. The government/law is actually protecting us, the taxpayers, from people like Bundy who abuse the system and make us, the taxpayers, lose. If I own 1,000 acres of grazing and lease to you for $20 an acre per year, you owe me $20,000. If you don’t pay me, and you allow your cattle to roam past our agreement, what is my recourse? Kick you off and take your cows. Period. You agreed, reneged, and my obligation is to remove you so that I can gain from what I have. It is a simple contract and Bundy is nothing more than a cheat of the system, hiding behind the gripes and whines of why he has been wronged. Untrue. Bundy is actually what is wrong with the US, not what is right. Cheaters will not win.

    • thelyceumblog says :

      I won’t dedicate much time to this as it is an old story. True. He’s ruining the area for the other ranchers. Crop rotation and other aspects of land management have to be taken into account. There is something wrong, however, with the federal government trespassing on State authority by “owning” the land. As a matter of fact, the federal government “owns” approximately 50% of Western American land (65% West of Denver as I recall), land they have promised to return. Neither party is right in this matter. Part of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution reads, “…exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”. The federal government may only own land it has purchased at the consent of the state legislator, and that land has a few codified uses. The federally “owned” land should be returned, and these matters should be handled on the state level. Bundy’s criminality should not have been met with a federal response, and Bundy should be held accountable. No one holds the moral high ground in this argument. Both sides are in err.

Leave a comment