Cliven Bundy vs The BLM

Greetings,

So things are still heating up between Ukraine, Russia, The EU (European Union), and the USA. But I think the bigger story is the showdown in Nevada.

Now, regardless from which source you consume your news, this story represents a bigger problem in American government.

I'm not going to get into taking sides with the feds or Cliven Bundy. I think both sides have done things wrong. First, the federal government made bad laws and created agencies with too much power over individual life and liberty. However, Cliven Bundy knowingly broke the law. After what went down with Gibson guitars a few years ago (http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department ), it seems like American citizens would have realized that the federal government has the "right" to do anything it wants. I do commend Cliven Bundy on standing up to the feds and purposely disobeying an unjust law knowing the consequences.

But I digress. In keeping with the theme of this blog, the larger problem lies within "We the people." As I've said before, we generally care more about the Kardashians or the Final Four than we do about our own government. We elect politicians who then vote such legislation into law. All party affiliates are at fault. Libertarians are notorious for not going to the polls en masse until its too late. Republicans and Democrats care more about keeping someone with an (R) or a (D) in front of their name rather than doing what's right for the country. So we continue to reelect people who vote for bad legislation. Gibson Guitars is just one example of the repercussions of this lack of participation on our part. Gibson was one of the few remaining American made producers. Now they have to import wood in its finished form, taking jobs away from the Americans previously finishing that wood before it was transformed into a guitar. Similarly, Cliven Bundy runs a ranch that employs people, and provides food to the local market. Now, that may all be gone very soon.

According to Politico.com, the federal government owns a little more than 81% of land in Nevada, which is "managed" by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). So to protect some desert tortoises and some rare flowers, we have this huge government agency who comes and inhibits a cattle rancher's ability to make money. That's what it all boils down to. So I guess we'd rather Cliven Bundy go apply for welfare and unemployment so that some desert tortoises may live? That would be more acceptable, right? So our taxes pay for the BLM, the public land it manages, and then maybe Cliven Bundy's welfare check because he can't graze his cattle on land that is not even being used for anything by the feds except protection of an animal that provides no apparent benefit to the nation as a whole.

Another story that isn't making it to the mainstream is how the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has colluded with the Chinese to build a solar energy plant on the land (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/).  Furthermore, the price to lease land for grazing rights in that part of the country is around 25 cents an acre for a 99 year lease. Bundy says he estimates that he only owes $300,000 and he's actually willing to pay it. But this issue of the money he owed never came up until he refused to be kicked off the land to save the desert tortoise.

But let me get back to the issue. Cliven Bundy, Gibson Guitars, and any other person or company doesn't matter. It's really about the psychology of the American public as a whole. Why do we allow the government, which we fund, to do the things it does? Why do we give up responsibility for governing ourselves at the micro level to a big bureaucracy who messes things up the majority of the time? It doesn't take the EPA, or BLM, or anyone else to save the desert tortoise, or the rare wood used in Gibson Guitars. And in my opinion, the federal government has no business owning "public lands" except for military bases and federal buildings. Do you really believe that the federal government is the only benevolent entity that is capable of maintaining parks and land for the good of the people? And even if you do believe that, why should all taxpayers pay for land that is used for a small majority of people's recreation, or to protect animals? Isn't that what zoos and private parks are for? Or at least state and city parks?  Do you really want the feds coming in from Washington, D.C. to tell you what you can do in your own backyard? Do you think that they are capable of understanding what goes on in your own backyard?

The answer to these problems lies within us. We only have ourselves to blame for allowing people like Harry Reid to stay in office for so long. Go vote. Get active in all levels of politics. Take responsibility for managing your own life. Is education or medical treatment really a human right? Think about it. That means that an educator or a doctor will be forced to give you a service that you think you are entitled to. So that must mean doctors and educators aren't human because they don't have the right to deprive you of a service that you believe is your right. We heading down a path to severe oppression because "we the people" expect/want too much from our government. Think about it, what will we do when there aren't enough doctors or educators to provide these supposed human rights? I guess the government will then have to step in yet again to force people to become educators and doctors in order to provide the citizenry with their assumed human rights. Think about that the next time you see the bumper sticker reading "Healthcare is a Human Right." When we give the government the power/responsibility to govern aspects of our life, we also give up certain liberties.

This has been more of a plea to my fellow citizens to stand up and start taking back responsibility for own lives in order to make this country a better place. How many more Gibson Guitar or Cliven Bundy incidents will it take for us to do something? Or, how many more wars will we have to allow our politicians to put us in before we actually start participating in our government? I hope not too many.

Until next time, stay active and please participate in the operations of this republic, before it's too late.

Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley

The World According to Condi Rice

Greetings, 

Well now that we are unofficially in the "New Cold War," I think it's a good time to add a new entry. 

On Tuesday night this week, I went to see former Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice speak at Texas A&M. Let me start by saying that she is an extremely charismatic, well-spoken, witty, and humorous public figure. She had a lot of interesting perspectives, both good and bad in my opinion, which I'll get to in a minute. If you're a conservative, this is the person you should be pushing as the only viable candidate in 2016. Honestly, who is going to compete with Hillary Clinton (assuming she runs)? Every other household name in the Republican Party either has too much baggage, or is too far right. As for me, I'm not in support of either of the main parties, which may not be the smartest way to vote. But in my opinion, "tactical voting" has only propagated our problems. 

So I'll start with the positive things that Condi had to say:

1) Ms. Rice is pro public education and actually took a more Democratic stance on this issue. Now, I actually agree with the ideology, which, oddly enough, is contrary to the overall Libertarian platform. She asserted "American K-12 public schooling is in a dire state." She also pointed out that if college becomes too expensive for most people to afford, then America's role as a nation with equality of opportunity would severely diminish. Like I said, I agree with Condi's statements. However, she didn't propose any solutions. 

I'm not quite sure that the federal government is necessarily the solution to all of America's education problems. But yes, they should play some sort of role in the reform process. I think communities and municipalities are best suited to figure out what will work best for them. Then, if they need help monetarily from the federal government, they should apply for it and if deserved, be given that help. College is an entirely different animal and I personally feel that all the subsidies do is make college more expensive. 

2) She also said; "Entitlements are killing us." True, but again, she didn't propose any solutions. 

I've already mentioned this in previous posts, so here's a quick summation of my proposal. Implement the Fairtax (H.R. 25); everyone under the age of 28, unless they are already receiving Social Security and Medicaid benefits, will now be responsible for their own retirement (including medical health planning for post retirement years); Welfare and Unemployment should be handled entirely at state and local levels; and finally, disability should be the responsibility of the entity that caused the person the disability. Now, with all that being said, there would obviously be some exceptions to the rule, but those should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Again, this is just a brief summation. I realize that it would be more complicated and require detailed legislation to govern certain circumstances. 

3) Another good point; "We need to continue to be a country of immigrants." I agree. All this anti-immigration rhetoric coming from the right is pretty hypocritical when you think of Adam Smith's view of the world and laissez faire economics.  Free crossing of international borders in all directions stimulates competition. Our current protectionism is what makes prices high on American made products. A truly free market (which would require more reform than just immigration) allows for competition to give the consumer (of any good or service) the best possible product for best possible price. I'm not saying just let anybody come across our borders or through our air and seaports; but beyond screening out criminals and fugitives, we should allow free flow of people. This doesn't mean give them access to benefits, but let them come and earn their own way and let the citizens here buy goods and services from them. If people here at home are robbing us in the market because they don't have to compete with equally skilled labor at lower prices, then that isn't a free market at all. 

4) Lastly, Ms. Rice made a simple statement that I still agree with and it's something that drives me in my everyday living. She said; "The class you're born into doesn't have to determine the class you are as an adult, and ultimately, the one in which you die." So true. Even with our problems, this country still allows us to be the masters of our own universe, though not without struggle and hard work, but that's okay. As bad as gets here, we still should be thankful that we don't live in places like North Korea, where there is literally no hope or chance to move out of the class you're born into, unless the state allows or facilitates that (i.e. Olympic athletes). So Ms. Condoleezza Rice, thank you for your positive thoughts and wisdom.

Now, here's where she went off the rocker, at least in my opinion. 

1). She literally called Putin an "oppressive dictator" and compared the Russian annexation of Crimea to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Wow. Really? Whether or not you believe that the Crimean people's vote to become part of Russia was legitimate or not, the fact remains that there was a vote. Saddam actually invaded with a full force whose intent was to take over the country. Furthermore, in both instances, the West drew the maps in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. So we only have ourselves to blame for the all the turmoil and upheaval now happening in those parts of the world. So let's try not getting involved for a change and see how "letting nature take its course" plays out. Frankly, I don't see any conflicts overseas threatening our way of life. Beyond insuring international trade and commerce remains open, we have no business taking sides in foreign conflicts. 

2) Condi, who by the way has never been to war, said; "If I were in charge, I would put a brigade in the Baltic States to show Russia we are serious." Come on! How is Russia threatening America here and why is it important for us to stop them? Please answer those questions first, and then maybe I would consider foreign intervention providing some utility for America. Is another conflict what America really needs right now? Is more American money worth stifling Putin's ambition? Are more American lives worth exerting American influence abroad? I think not. 

Please comment and list your thoughts and response to this, whether good or bad. I want to hear if these issues are of concern to my peers, friends, and family. And if so, what are your thoughts? 

Until next time...stay conscious my friends. 

Semper Fi,

Chris Bentley