Because the Battle of the Bundys is about ownership , perhaps time to review criteria of ownership. I have other articles posted on my web-site describing & defining ownership in general,and City, County, State and Federal parks in particular.Because the dispute over Bundy Ranch is not over, you will be hearing more questions about who owns the land.
To begin, I go back to the great moral guide of the Ten Commandments. In a sense they relate to property ownership and an admonition to respect the Rights of Property of others. Seven are , “Shall nots” and three are positive reminders.
Theres a difference in ownership and possesion. A criteria of ownership is ability to control and or destroy. Perhaps an over simplication, is eating a grilled cheese sandwich, one owns and destroys when eating it.
The dispute over the Nevada ranch land is whether the State of Nevada, the Federal government, or some individual owns it. Plus the Rights of ownership relative to the cattle, claimed to be owned by Rancher Bundy. In a nutshell the Federal government claims ownership of the land, Rancher Bundy leases.The Federal government wants possession of the land, and recently entered the ranch with armed malitia, rounded up & confiscated the Ranchers cattle. Killed a number before returning those they did not kill, which is the private property of Rancher Bundy.
So what is government? two kinds political and self-governing. Political government is a group of men & women put to-gether, for the original purpose of protection, for those they rule over , using combinations of charters, treatse, laws, contracts, customs, specification, regulations and etc.which wind up with conditions much less than protection.
Regardless of political government starting out for protection it winds up controlling. by force.A reminder political government is a devise, a tool, put to-gether by men & women, which tru out history, even starting out to protects, winds up being the aggressor, to control & take property from owners and producers. The more power political government gains, the more it wants and takes.. Like a hungry cattapiler of men & property.. Therefore the tool man devised for protection, becomes the enslaver of bondage
In the case of the Bundy Ranch,Mr. Bundy maintains the State of Nevada owns the ranch land he leases. The Federal government maintains they own it,and entered the property coupla weeks ago, Confiscated & destroyed some of the Bundy cattle, with armed malitia, before returning the live ones they had confiscated. Violating Mr Bundy1s constutional rights of private property ownership., by confiscating and destroying some of his cattle..Abusing with Dogs & Taser at point of guns.
The people of this nation, pay for the armed militia, and pay the salaries of those behind the invasion, who ordered it.Therefore the people have a stake in the Battle of the Bundys, and political government.
According to news reports The Bundy family has leased the property for many years but in arrears,.claiming the Federal government does not own the Ranch, but the state of Navada does. If thats the case, why did the federal not take Mr, Bundy to court to claim lease payments. Furthermore if the State of Nevada owns the land, have they billed Mr Bundy for lease payments.?
Mr Bundy knows he owes lease payments, the question is who rightfully owns the land to legally and rightfully collect payments/ The overseer of the ranch is Budget Land Managenment, BLM,an organization run by the son of Us Senator Harry Reid.
Its reported the Senators son is a highly paid Lobbyist for a Chimese company who wants the land for a proposed Chinese project.
So we return to the question of who owns the land? Is it the Federal government? Nevada State government., or the people who pay the cost of over-seeing the usuage of the property.? Us Senator Reid, nor his son nor Clive Bundy do not own the land, But who does, is the question? No doubt its going to wind up in court, which is where the dispute should have been settled in the first place.Now the question is why was the dispute not handled in the courts, with native Nevadans deciding the out-come. Probably because the federal government has so successfully used , “the Broken Window” stratedgy so many times successfuly, they expected it to work, to confiscate the Ranch this time. initiating destruction, for a desired purpose., like they did with “Cash for clunkers” property.However dealing with live property with a live owner who objects, is a bit different ball-game..than older vehicles.
Fortunately Rancher Bundy has a lot of supporters of his position, willing to travel to his Ranch to circle the wagons,with armed resistance for the property Rights of Rancher Bundy.. Every citizen in this country has a stake in the out-come.Its Freedom and property Rights on trial. versus political government take-over
Individual, in-aleinable Rights are not on trial, they are set in concrete of Natural Law. But the right to exercise them are , specifically in relation to Property Rights.
Charles Krauthammer of Washing Post said’ ” The Brady bills only effect will be to desentize the public to regulation of weapons for their ultimate confiscation”
In this connection consider the likely possibility, the campaign of Senator Harry Reid, calling supporters of Rancher Cliven Bundy, an un-veiled threat of “domestic Terroist’ to desentized with fear of retribution by the Federal Government, if they participate in the next round of this on-going battle. between the government & the citizeny…
LET FREEDOM RING
JUST ME AC