Translate

Friday, April 18, 2014

Support for Clive Bundy

This is an article that my brother wrote.  I liked it so much I thought I would share it on here.
His name is Albert Wilde.  He, my brother Logan and Father own and manage the ranch that has been in our family for over 100 years. 
Despite the many issues of disagreement touching the incident that has transpired in Southern Nevada between a cattle rancher (Cliven Bundy) and the Federal Government, I believe this article will give you at least a fair version of one side of the argument.

Why I support Cliven Bundy:
My family and I are six generation ranchers, we have about 17,000 acres of deeded ground, and about 60,000 acres of BLM and state ground that we own permits to run on from Nov. 1st till April 30th of each year.  There are 3 things that I would like to bring up that should be considered by all in reviewing this important issue.

1. We pay our grazing fees every year and have done so faithfully since about 1934.  However since the 1990's the BLM has made efforts to close the roads we use to access this property.  Essentially attempting to force us from the land that we have had a right to for nearly 80 years and need to continue to operate.  At the peak of the debate over road closures there was enough public outcry at the time, that they were persuaded not to close the roads.  However the agency in charge quit maintaining the roads and necessary livestock water sources.  We have also been told that it is illegal for us to do any upkeep on the roads or water sources, even if it is funded privately out of our own pockets.  There are no Desert Tortoises in our area.

2. Adjacent to some of the deeded portion of our Ranch lies public land.  On this public land there are zero easements. Yet we have five public utility easements(three oil pipelines, one fiber optic cable, and one power line), -none of which are for local use- that have been forced on us.  I say forced because when at all possible these public and private utility/energy companies locate on privately owned property rather than on public land. Why, you may ask is this the case?  Well it is because the farmer or rancher can't afford to fight the government and their big business partners in a legal battle.  Environmental groups protect public lands and can have the government pick up their legal fees.  So when deciding who to tangle with in a legal battle the utility companies are always going to pick the one that they know that they can win against.
People have said to me, "Well these companies have to pay fair market value for any land taken under Eminent Domain." Yet the problem is what is fair market value?  It ends up being what ever they are willing to give you, unless you decide to fight.  If you fight, they get to proceed with their easement and you have to get an attorney.  Under which premise you are not guaranteed and in most cases end up getting no more than you would have, had you settled.  Sometimes even less due to penalizing factors of fighting public utility companies.  There are exceptions to this rule as you always expect there to be, but experience has taught us that you just can't win against multi-billion dollar entities that have politicians and the judicial system on their side or at least in their pocket.  So whether you fight or not you eventually arrive at the point where you have to talk money.  That is when we have to have it appraised for the highest amount we can.  Meanwhile they appraise it for the lowest amount they can.  Then comes round two in court of back and forth and then finally a judge decides.   Despite my use of the term finally this part of the process may take 2-10 years.   Additional to all of this is that when you need to replace that ground -because a farm can't continue to operate on a diminished number of acreage without decreasing production- then you run into a new set of problems.  #1 being that there isn't any available acreage around your farm for sale so you have to travel (up to 40 miles or so) to find replacement ground.  Which then increases not only fuel costs but burden of time in traveling to and from the new location, in addition to a diminished ability to use the new ground as you did the old one because it's not directly connected to the rest of your operation.  That inconvenience is not factored into the fair market value.  Another problem that often arises is the tax burden with the sold property which decreases your spending ability or you have to spend it quickly so as to present yourself with a tax shelter.  And then there is the problem of actually being able to find a apple-for-apple comparative piece of property.  No two pieces of property are ever the same and so you often end up getting less property than you had because you don't have the additional income lying around to be able to spend on buying more property than you had. 
 
3. Finally I find it amusing when I hear talk about America being energy dependent on other countries.  Yet I hear no one complaining about America being food dependent on other countries.  In the 1990's America quit producing enough food to be able to feed its own populace.  Don't get me wrong this was not a problem that just started in the 1990's, but a problem that had been growing for at least 80 years before that time.  In the last two years we have seen food riots in many South American countries.  Why?   Because the food their country is producing is being shipped to the US and Europe at a higher price than what the people of that country can pay.  The people are starving and riots/looting are not uncommon at the warehouses where the food is stored before shipping.  The companies that own the production of the food produced in those countries are either nationalized or they are foreign.  So the people are employed at a sub-poverty level by foreign corporations or their own government so that (once again) the multi-billion dollar corporations can turn a profit, and yet the people aren't being paid enough for their work to be able to afford even just the basic staples of life.  

This situation should make us all pause and wonder, about what is going to happen when those workers, who aren't able to afford the basic staples of life right now without turning to crime of one sort or another (e.g., narco-production, prostitution, arms dealing, etc.) refuse to work for those food producing companies?  Do we not see that there is an impending monkey-wrench that is going to be thrown into our own food production?

The way of life of the American farmer/rancher must be preserved. 


There are solutions to preserving this but we need cooperation, not mandates.  (One great example is the CWMU program here in the state of Utah.  It is the one reason our ranch is still in business.  I would like to see something like the CWMU program for water in the state and around the west.)

Cliven Bundy is crying for help from the government and the people to have a spirit of cooperation like what we as farmer and ranchers use to have even in the Taylor grazing act.   It is sad that it has had to come to this showdown to get someone to hear.  What will be worse is if we fail to act now and live to see times in which the American people are starving, and rioting is a common event seen in our land.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Paradox of Liberties and Freedoms

As a child I was raised in a very polemical environment.
I recognize that is a very broad statement, but my point in making it is that nearly everything was questioned and contended against.  Arguments abounded over everything from what the proper way to tighten nuts on bolts was to the meaning and purpose of life.  The source of this atmosphere, I would have to say originated with my father.  This is not to say that my mother didn't argue, but she was much less desirous to argue or hear your argument about anything.  My father however would tell you on Monday a certain kernel of knowledge about the proper way to herd sheep, and later on Friday he would over hear you imparting that to another and would interrupt to argue with you about the truth of what you were teaching. 

Despite these many arguments hurt feelings were hard to come by.  We were raised with a strong discipline to not pout, or feel bad for yourself.  If you had something to say you quickly learned that you would say it irregardless of who you were saying it too.  By the by, this attribute won me some admiring friends growing up as well as consternation from teachers and other adults.

As a young man I didn't realize that my views would evolve over time.  It was no uncommon occurrence for me to feel the need to teach someone -not infrequently an adult- the error of their ways.  I usually mistook their silence as my success at teaching them of their error.  I now recognize from those younger than myself who posses a desire to teach me that such silence is usually an indicator of the opposite of your success.  For me this recognition results in many embarrassing memories.

Back to my point: When I realized that learning more throughout my life would necessarily lead me to enhancing my views in some areas and altogether changing them in others; well I can tell you that this realization was tough to handle.  It eventually brought me back to the understanding of one of those polemical points that my father would frequently bring up regarding there being an opposition in all things.  Or as he put it: everything that exists, creates its own paradox in the moment that it is created.

Guns shoot bullets which kill people; but they also defend against those who would otherwise seek to kill or at least exploit the innocent.  Children are the bringers of the greatest joys in our life, and yet they are also the harbingers of our greatest sorrows and pain.  Laws protect our freedoms and they also take away our liberties.  You...whoever you are can seek whatever you want in this life.  What you seek is one of the elements that define you.  Yet if you seek for riches to ensure security for you and your family, you must accrue a certain amount of risk; which risk is the opposite or paradox to security.

The Fight For Religious Liberty

Currently there is a great struggle in the United States between Religious Freedom and Secularist ideals.  This, in and of itself is not so news worthy in my opinion because it adds up to the same old 'Left vs. Right' battle that has been going on since the days of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.  However what is unique is the precarious situation that I see that we are in as a result of the rock and a hard spot that exists between the two choices we will be left with.

The Fight

The fight is raging on several different fronts.  First on our tour of these fronts I want to highlight an incident that is going on in Oklahoma.  It started roughly in August 2013 when Oklahoma was sued by the ACLU (Obviously a Anti-American, Communist, pro-liberal organization when you find 'Liberty' in the title) for erecting a granite replica of the Decalogue tablets on the State Capitol front lawn.
Well being that the monument was largely funded by a private, albeit State Representative the lawsuit ended in Oklahoma being granted the right to maintain the monument on its front lawn as a gift by a private citizen.  However, there is more to this story.  The proverbial box of Pandora was opened with this legal interpretation and in walks a group from, "The Satanic Temple" with their desire to erect a 7 foot tall depiction of Baphomet and that's not all.  In addition to this mystical statue will be a couple of children looking unto the Satanic depiction, smiles on their faces and adoration in their eyes.  Not to be outdone, PETA said that if the State of Oklahoma is opening up advertisement space on its front lawn, they want to hang a banner discouraging People's Eating of Tasty Animals.  Then there is the Universal Society of Hinduism and their deity Hanuman, and don't forget about the ever obnoxious Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster with a desire to insert some kind of pasta devotion -however an early impediment may already exists between PETA and the depictions of meatballs in the pasta, (are tofu balls a real thing?)
Well without a clear way of what to do, and the average Oklahoman possessing a complete disregard for the average Satan worshipper (what with their usury taking, defecating on holy Christian symbols and sacrificing of small children and all) that live among them, they decided to vote in a moratorium on all privately funded statues/monuments/billboards/banners/ or anything at all remotely offensive to Christian ideals -as interpreted in the minds of Evangelical Christians of course- on state property.
Surprisingly a lawsuit is pending against the seeming bias of Oklahoma and I won't be holding my breath for the outcome on the Supreme Court's decision.

Case#1- Religious freedom of Satanists/hindu's/ Spaghetti worshippers Vs. Evangelical Christians

Another front exists in the Affordable Care Act's portion of proscribed birth control dispensation to all employers that fall under the ACA's governing jurisdiction.  Surprisingly this battle is even stickier than the former.  It involves Hobby Lobby (wouldn't you know...an Oklahoma based for-profit company) suing for the right to not have to provide such services to lascivious women hell-bent on owning their own bodies.  The question this case seeks to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993.  That law states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

Well as fate would have it, Hobby Lobby isn't a person!  But, you say, the Green's (owners of Hobby Lobby) are people and therefore should have the right to refuse violating their religious beliefs.  This is true.  However ACA isn't enacting power over the Green's individually, but rather over employers who offer insurance.  Hobby Lobby is a corporation.  Corporation's are embodiments to be sure, but not people.  Well that's the way it was originally.  However, over the ensuing 238 years since the founding of this country and the creation of the Constitution of the United States, legal definitions have begun to change regarding the individual/person status of corporations.  If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the interpretation of the Green's and their lawyers, it will be decidedly taking another step towards corporation's having the same rights as individuals.  Now as never before would be an advanced step toward Corporations having Religious Freedom.

I realize that for many people the notion stands that the more Religious Freedom that exists the better.  However in the case of granting more individual rights to corporations will effect the citizens of this country and primarily in negative ways.  The Justices considering this case know that to be the case, and even questioned the defending attorney, "The employees are in a position where the government, through its healthcare plans...is allowing the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position?"  In other words, "What your suggesting is that what we should do is put the employers religious interests over that of the individuals interests?  Even though the employer is a corporation?  And the employee an actual person?  So you're saying a corporation has religious interests?"  In fact when asked this the defending attorney answered, yes: "[A]n employer right now can put some burden on their rights because [The Employees] have to listen to religious music or whatever. That's not as serious as a burden that's coming directly from the government."  Essentially saying, yeah but employers put burdens on their employees all of the time.  Included in this case is Hobby Lobby playing religious music over the speakers in their stores which could be considered a burden.  However that burden pales in comparison to the burden the government is placing on....The Corporation's religious beliefs.

Case #2- In Defense of the Religious Freedom....of corporations.

The Abomination of Desolation 

The final destination on our tour of this war-torn battle of the mind...and internet, is going to be the Queen Mother of all differences between perverse and righteous, destruction and creation, apostate and martyr, etc.  I'm talking about: SAME SEX MARRIAGE!
Previous to this week I was pretty steadfast in my opinion regarding this issue.  It was another non-issue blown up by political parties seeking to strike fear into the hearts of independent voters like myself against even the very thought of contact or assemblage with the opposing party.  I had it all figured out.  "Just kick all government out of the marrying business, and create a civil union for all desiring parties.  Then let any religion do whatever they think it is that they are doing."  Easy enough, right?
Well then I came across an article on Facebook that made me rethink things.  You know the type...a Chicken Little type author running around trying to scream out loud how the sky is falling, all to the arrogant mockeries in my head figuring her to be an unwed 38 year old Mormon, that just needs to get married, have a few kids and stop worrying about it all.  Well, for the most part my arrogance still stands but my mocking has dispersed (what with the Lord referring to those who mock as fools, and all of the talk about them mourning.)  A statement near the bottom caught my attention, "Civil marriage provides the entire basis for presuming the rights and responsibilities of biological parents to raise their own children."  Can it be?  If a resolution to the matter were enacted that brought about the end to civil marriage, could there possibly be a interpretation left open to say that parents don't have the right to screw up their children as they choose, but must submit to the will to the government (i.e. Society at large?)  Of course you could always write the right to raise children into the civil union clause...however, a skeptical view should always be owned by any who seek to alter an age old institution.  Whereas the civil union would be drawn up by far right, far left and everything in between, I'm not so sure that modern views wouldn't be inserted into the clause to define the necessity of governmental interests being enforced to ensure proper cultivation of the proceeds from the union.  Providing the government didn't feel that those interests were being met, then what?  Remember that politically both sides will decide what those interests are, and then ask yourself -whichever side you are on- whether you think the compromise that is created is something that would be for your good and the good of your children?

Case#3- Entrance into the Nanny State as composed by conservatives

 Hegelian Dialectic

For some years I have been aware of the Hegelian Dialectic of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.  Whereas when things are created automatically there exists an opposition and a paradox between those two things, all things come prepackaged to fit this dialectic model.  Providing that you weren't aware of it I hope that this post has begun to bring up the conundrum that exists in 'fighting for' Religious Freedom.  
Today Elder Dallin H. Oaks held an interview on KSL.  I did not listen to the interview in it's entirety.  However I was not surprised to hear a retired attorney arguing that the way to defend Religious Freedom is to have more lawsuits.  Now seems to be the great day of the power of attorneys.  They seem to rule from the rivers to the ends of the earth.  And there are none who will molest or make them afraid.
Yet I stand unconvinced that the way to defend Religious Liberties is to fight lawsuit with lawsuit.  In my life I have seen far too many legal burdens placed upon the people, albeit by an unseemly judicial ruling that sets precedence and by doing thus effectively creates law.  My problem with this system of precedence is that we have imperfect judges.  From what I have seen, judges usually hate to rule all for one side or another.  As a matter of personal experiences I have usually witnessed that judges like to find a compromise where all parties involved win a little but nobody gets what they want.  Often times in scripture judges are compared to God, but in this our model, I liken them more to the devil.  Where one asks for a fish, he is given a stone.  Another asks for bread and is given a serpent.  The judge looks upon it all and says "I am just!"

Speaking of the Devil  

Whether we understand it or not, man's pathway in this realm is not one that is guided easily by God's Good Light.  He makes it affordable to all.  Because He asks no price, only belief.  Yet due to our corruption, pride, arrogance, deafness and blindness it is often that we, in this world reject His glory and seek to walk the pathway of the Hegelian Dialectic.  It is a crooked path.  God does not walk in crooked paths.
We often desire the Hegelian Dialectic because it offers us someone to hate and blame all of our problems on, and then it offers us a sense of personal accomplishment when we arrive at our destination synthesis.

The Way out

If we truly desire Religious Freedoms, we must repent.  We must practice what we preach.  Turn the other cheek.  If a man sue thee for thy coat, give him thy cloak also.  We must reject contention and seek to persuade by our pure knowledge, long suffering, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned.  We must be Christians!  If we claim to inherit God's covenant that He made with Israel, we must seek and follow Him!  Not just some interpretation of what He said in the past.  We must believe that like Israel of old, we are entitled to the blessing of His presence.  We must seek for and embrace truth in all of its form, irregardless of its origin.  In a phrase, we must come to God.

He, and only He, can lead us into true freedom.  In this life, and in the world to come.