Most all major news outlets in America, if they even cover it, have couched the disturbance between the Bureau of Land Management and Cliven Bundy as one based on the Bundy Ranch refusing to pay for grazing rights on Federal property. Yet, a similar incident between the U.S. Forest Service and Kit Laney in New Mexico, in which the Forest Service claims part of the Laney Ranch is on Federal property, has the same basic principle at stake and it has nothing to do with grazing rights or boundary disputes. Those issues are moot points if we answer a more basic question; what legal authority and for what purpose does the Federal Government have to “own” property in the United States?
As Woody Guthrie’s ballad proclaims and in spite of his Communist beliefs, the idea that public property is your land and is my land, is more in line with the original intent of the Constitution when understood in the context as being between the Federal government and citizens of the United States. In other words, public land belongs to the people, not the government and the national government’s authority over it is limited by the US Constitution.
As much as modern American labor unions would like to obscure their origins to imply they were part of the struggle for American independence, the facts are contrary to their rhetoric. Modern organized labor grew out of communist theory developed in the 1840s, which itself evolved from the bloody French Revolution of 1789.
Speaking to college students in Jakarta, Indonesia on February 17, 2014, John Kerry reiterated President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address claim that, “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” In this, both of them are correct. The earth’s climate is changing as it has in its entire history, but no evidence exists to support their underlying assumption that humans are the cause. That debate is not settled and their assumption is not fact.
In 2008, Joe the Plumber correctly identified Obama’s policies as socialistic when Obama responded to Joe’s question concerning the candidate’s small business tax policy by saying, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” This statement is a foundational tenant of socialism straight out of Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
President Obama and the Democrats have embraced a legislative policy that focuses on one of their tried and true political issues, income inequality, which they define as the income gap between higher and lower income earners. They claim the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
The Republicans, on the other hand, counter that the Democrats are only trying to distract attention away from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and tee up an issue upon which they can run, since the ACA is politically a losing proposition. The Republicans are most likely accurate, but income inequality is a real issue that must be addressed, although neither party has proposed a viable solution to fix it.
Five years into President Obama’s landmark administration, his campaign slogan of hope and change might as well be “He hopes there will be worthwhile change.” Like the Hindenburg, the hope Obama promised has gone up in flames and the wreckage is laid bare for everyone to see. While the audacity, about which he wrote, has manifested itself by his having Jay Carney stand behind a White House lectern, day-in and day-out, and tell America everything is fine, when obviously it is not. America is burning and Obama is playing a fiddle.
Unfortunately, too many people today do not understand the actual historical causes of the war that set brother against brother and State against State. It is unfortunate, because that war encompasses many fundamental causes of current American problems and without understanding its true cause we will be unable to repair what went wrong or prevent it from happening in the future.
Dr. Dawinder S. Sidhu, professor of constitutional law and national security at the New Mexico School of Law, wrote an article in which he presented the historical actions of Eldridge Gerry Spaulding, chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Banking and Currency, to create the fiat currency known as the greenback.
The advent of the greenback, green paper currency not backed by anything of intrinsic value, like gold or silver, created as a war measure in 1862, was a lawless act because it violated restrictions in the Constitution prohibiting such measures.
The case against secession was best made before 1861 by James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, the 15th and 16th Presidents of the United States. Buchanan made his case during his December 3, 1860 State of the Union address and Lincoln made his case during his March 4, 1861 first inaugural address. Unfortunately for their cases against secession, their speeches were filled with a smorgasbord of logical fallacies and unsupported political rhetoric.
Their speeches also showcase how politicians mislead the public, wittingly or unwittingly, into policies that are destructive to the entire nation. The war that transpired as a result of the general acceptance of their rhetoric was completely unnecessary and avoidable. Its prevention required a President willing to act within constitutional bounds and only resort to war for a just cause and then only as the very last resort to restore justice under God’s Law.