David French Analysis Of Cliven Bundy Affair
BY Herschel Smith10 years, 7 months ago
Like Rich, I deeply respect the rule of law. As an attorney who practices in federal courts across the nation, I respect the rulings of those courts (indeed, much of my career is spent securing rulings from federal courts to protect individual liberties) and — having reviewed the pleadings in Bundy’s case — I do not fault the courts’ orders. John Hinderaker is right, “Legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
While rural America literally sustains life for urban America, many urbanites dislike large-scale farming (this parody is worth seeing), would like to see the rest of the country essentially transformed into a nature preserve, and argue that to the extent land is “used,” it should be used for selectively-defined “renewable” purposes, like solar energy or wind farms. The result — when urban regions become dominant — has been amply chronicled by Victor Davis Hanson and many others: rural regions increasingly serve urban ones and do so under comprehensive urban regulatory schemes that disrupt lives, destroy livelihoods, and lead to widespread frustration and despair.
And all of it is legal.
With few options left within conventional politics, rural Americans are beginning to contemplate more dramatic measures, such as the state secession movements building in Colorado, Maryland, California, and elsewhere. The more viable state secession movements aim to limit urban control by literally removing rural counties from their states and forming new states around geographic regions of common interests.
But until there’s a long-term solution, we may very well see more Bundy Ranch moments, where individual Americans (and their allies) simply refuse to consent to laws that destroy their way of life for the sake of regulations that provide no perceivable benefit to others. (I can only imagine my frustration if I had to end a more-than-century-old family lifestyle, arguably for the sake of a turtle that no one will see).
The long-term solution is simple to conceptualize but difficult to accomplish: de-escalate the stakes of our political disputes by limiting the power of government over American lives. Americans have always had profound differences, and we live together with those differences when victory for one side doesn’t mean inflicting real harm on the losers. But when victory for one side means the end of a way of life for the losers, instability can and will result.
I hope and pray that the dangerous standoff at Bundy Ranch was an aberration and not a harbinger, but until we can limit government’s power, I fear that respect for law will increasingly give way to contempt for the lawmakers.
French has missed the mark, attributing the event to differences in way of life to urban versus rural paradigms, instability due to the intransigence of the courts, and so on. The reality is far bleaker than that.
The notion that federal agents should be armed is only a recent phenomenon in American history, and the idea would have been anathema to our wise founders, who would have considered them to be a standing army of occupiers.
But with Bundy we had agents dressed as “tactical operators,” who were prepared to raid the Bundy ranch for the sake of a corrupt deal between Harry Reid, his son Rory, and the Chinese communists, all funded by the taxpayer in the form of stimulus money. Let’s consider that one more time. Agents of the federal government were preparing to shoot civilians for the sake of crony interests and enrichment of communists.
And David French is concerned about the “rule of law.” The comments to David’s article show how out of touch he is from readers, but this isn’t the main point. French has elevated the law to a social religion, even if it’s majority vote or crony, corrupt judges in bed with the politicians.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such hand wringing and gutless commentary from an alleged “conservative” publication, but it does go to show that the divide between progressive and conservative isn’t that large after all. Both sides want to game the system for what they see as the right beliefs, while the founders want to prevent gaming the system altogether.
As to the issue of an aberration and not a harbinger, as I’ve said before, this wasn’t even the first shot of the first volley of the first engagement of what is to come. Gird your loins, because most people, despite your best efforts, don’t even understand what this is all about. There is much more to come, and it’s all just getting started.
Prior:
On April 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm, Sparten1 said:
You are so right. It’s not about the Tortoise or the unpaid grazing fees. It’s about vacating the land like the other ranchers did so the Reid’s can game the system to their enrichment. And those that want to blame the Bundy’s are the “low information voters” that think their beef comes from the grocery store.
On April 26, 2014 at 3:52 pm, joniross1954 said:
You nonsense comment is typical of many southern people whose ignorance shows up when the talk or make racist comments. They ignore the law by arming themselves with guns because that is the only way they can solve their problems.
On April 26, 2014 at 9:38 pm, Pat Hines said:
See, that’s your problem. We ARE armed and we know how to use these arms, so progressive-fascists such as yourself, are spinning in the wind.
If, however, you feel you have the ability to confront us, I have two words: Bring it.
On April 26, 2014 at 10:52 pm, Josh said:
We get it – you’re a statist. You think southerners are more racist than the elites of Malibu, Portland, Boulder, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Pepperdine, Chelsea, Lower Manhattn, etc. You’re scared of others’ world views and want to extinguish them with the boot stamp of the state. You’re scared of weapons and probably other tools, too. You’re generally unfulfilled in life and like to use the internet as a place to behave like an insolent four year old. You worship like a dog at the heels of your liberal masters. And you think the white man wants to eat the black man, but you’re really just a sorry white man yourself that’s indulged in far too much of Malcolm X’s racist, hate-filled diatribes.
You’re a bigot and not a serious man in general. So, forgive me for not taking you seriously – that would be beneath me.
On April 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm, Pat Hines said:
French didn’t just “miss the mark”, he’s dead wrong. The US government has never owned the lands on which Bundy grazes his cattle. They assert “control” over it, but there’s nothing that grants them that either.
The courts in the 19th century, when the western states were entering the compact of states known as the United States, were set up and charged to render verdicts that the new states did not control the lands within their boundaries. That control, contrary to the US constitution, was to remain with the US government. There is NO authorization for that action or law.
Because that “control”, not ownership, is not authorized at all, the US government has no standing to do, well, anything on those lands.
On April 26, 2014 at 3:55 pm, joniross1954 said:
Tell Bundy to pay up or shut up. The man should be jailed for his stinking rotten comments.
On April 26, 2014 at 9:28 pm, Josh said:
The man should be jailed for his COMMENTS? So you advocate for imprisoning people based solely on their worldview. Thankfully, we have guns to keep people like you in check. You would make a fine jihadi or dictator.
On April 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm, Pat Hines said:
Cliven Bundy has broken no law. Therefore, he’s not going to be jailed because genuine Patriots have chosen to protect him from a rogue government.
We in the south expect this sort of behavior from the US government in our lands, we’ll react the same as those who are protecting Cliven Bundy at the very least, perhaps even more vigorously.
Still, we expect statist thugs, such as yourself, to smear Mr. Bundy. We don’t care.
On April 26, 2014 at 11:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Thanks for your comment. It made my night.
On February 16, 2016 at 7:11 pm, MyLovelyNose said:
You are so wrong. This from the crowd that slobbers about how much they “love” and “respect” the Constitution, which is what the rule of law is created from. But if I call you by your right name you’d whine. Now you’re all “nuance.” Hugs for Thugs, Bundy Style.
On February 16, 2016 at 10:44 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I think it’s likely that no one knows what you’re talking about. I’m quite sure I don’t.