For almost 20 years now, Cliven Bundy has lived off government welfare that he is not properly entitled to claim under the laws of the US government. He has not properly paid the grazing fees required of him and used government land without permission.
If the US government had been dealing with an group of OWS types who had taken over land owned by the government, then those OWS should have been ejected from the land just like Cliven Bundy's trespassing cattle.
That makes Cliven Bundy a welfare rancher, no different than any other welfare recipient who is not properly entitled to their ill-gotten gains.
Criticizing a welfare recipient does not imply support for the welfare program, just like criticizing Cliven Bundy for using welfare does not imply support for the ownership of the land by the Federal government.
One can say that the land should be sold, returned to the state of Nevada, or for some other purpose useful to the true owners of the land -- the US public at large. But to say that Cliven Bundy somehow owns or has rights to the land is not based on any law or fact.
There is a false dichotomy being setup by the two main sides on this issue, when there are really three sides to the issue. This third stance is that neither Cliven Bundy nor the Federal government should own the land. And this is a stance that is completely consistent with the message of limited government embraced by many in the Liberty movement.
I believe the Liberty movement has gotten off track by supporting this welfare rancher. ALL welfare programs are suspect because they transfer wealth using force, and Cliven Bundy has shown that he supports the use of force to continue receiving his welfare. It does not matter whether Bundy happens to use the "correct" anti-government rhetoric that many might agree with -- he is still a welfare recipient that has illegally acquired his gains at the expense of the US taxpayers.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
This means that the US government lands can be used for whatever purpose the Congress desires -- for saving turtles, or doing nothing with it at all.
The land in dispute first came into the possession of the US government after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, in which Mexico ceded lands to the US government in what is now known as the state of Nevada.
All of Bundy's claims to the land have been reviewed by the Federal courts and all such arguments have been rejected. Therefore his cattle should be ejected from the land, and this welfare rancher should go try to live off the proceeds of his own work, instead of trying to live off the US government.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us