Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   4/29/2014

Lawlessness, terrorists—in eye of beholder

The just-concluded Red Bluff Roundup is a reminder that the entire sport—from ranch hand rodeos displaying practical aspects of cattle wrangling and horsemanship, up to and including commercialized, widely promoted events—are based on the range, the ranch and the men and women whose vocations derive there from. Take away the range, either through conversion into residential spreads too small for herds or by arbitrary governmental regulatory decree, and there is the risk of relegating the entire heritage and viability of cattle ranches into outdoor museums.

The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a relative new kid on the western block compared to century-plus ranching operations, makes decisions about species and habitats never specifically voted on by the people’s elected representatives. Such decisions recently stirred up armed resistance in Nevada. The BLM also simply decreed, again absent a vote by the people or their elected officials, that a legal, longstanding grazing right for rancher Cliven Bundy in Nevada was now subject to further limits on the number of cattle—a fraction of what he and generations of Bundys had sustainably grazed there.

He refused to recognize the BLM’s authority and right to issue decrees over the 20+ year old designation of turtle habitat, while continuing to charge grazing fees for a vastly reduced economic value. Bundy was the victim of a literal “taking” of a previously agreed monetary grazing right—without compensation as would be required were the BLM to condemn part of his private property for a public use, like a road, etc. The BLM then used legal, regulatory and judicial authority to commence seizing what they deemed “trespass cattle,” meaning they acted as, if not the judge and jury, certainly the executioner or jailer for Bundy’s private property.

I’ve stated it as forthrightly as possible, while presenting facts and a perspective that has eluded even certain conservative commentators who have simplified the situation to a “rule of, and adherence to, the law until it’s legally changed through the democratic process.” The “Bundy-as-scofflaw” theme is an arguable one and contains correlations to the so-called “tax protester” refusing to pay income taxes. However, tax laws are changed and amended by our elected representatives, not by the enforcing mechanism of the IRS itself; the actions of the BLM, as stated above, proceeded from bureaucratic decisions many degrees removed from direct Congressional votes.

Indeed, when an existing use of land or resources predates newer rules or laws by agencies or lawmakers, the most important considerations and rights are 1) the “grandfathering” of those uses previously legal—for over a hundred years in Bundy’s case—or 2) a fair and open compensation for value lost. These are among the most basic of mandates upon government in the panoply, or bundle, of private property rights that predate even the U.S. Constitution.

The willingness and appearance of armed citizens and militia members is troubling on one level but encouraging on another when one considers that the only recourse against militarized despotism by agencies such as the BLM, ATFE, and others (the Department of Education has SWAT teams and vast stocks of ammunition—for what, I ask?) is an armed citizenry. Our Founders knew this and wrote of it—“the militia” was the entire population of armed adults capable of mustering against governmental oppression, not just the Militias or National Guard under government authorization. I think it was a perhaps necessary provocation by armed citizens, that produced the reasonable reaction by BLM to back off, return the seized cattle (minus some calf deaths) and, hopefully, pursue their case against Bundy in a less militarized, less dictatorial manner.

I must call attention to one of the most despicable, hypocritical and arrogant Senators in history: Harry Reid of Nevada (decried “lawlessness” by Bundy). To most on the progressive left, “lawlessness” is subject to their interpretation: Immigration laws are apparently meant to be broken, I mean adapted to consider the needs of the masses who broke our laws to be here. Obamacare getting rewritten at Obama’s whim—not a problem. In Reid’s case, he is accused of illegally taking six-figure bribes to make “a federal investigation into (Jeremy Johnson’s) company quietly disappear” (Salt Lake Tribune). Guilt is yet to be determined. Reid never expressed a discouraging word over then-Pres. Bill Clinton’s felonious actions obstructing justice, as determined by courts.

Along with numerous Democrats, Reid has zero shame calling the militia and armed citizens at the BLM/Bundy confrontation “domestic terrorists.” Leftists never said a bad word about gun-wielding Black Panthers in the 1960s, as I recall.

Finally, has Reid ever called Islamist murderers “terrorists”, such as Capt. Hassan’s terrorist attack on unarmed people at Ft. Hood? Did Reid or media reporters identify Hassan as a “Soldier of Allah” (stated on his own business card)? However, “neo-nazi” and “white supremacist” accompanied every mention of the guy who killed people at the Jewish centers in Kansas. Duplicitous hacks and speech manipulators proliferate in Congress and the news media.