Feds Should Sell, Not Manage, Western Land

Some kooks have occupied a bird sanctuary building in Oregon. At least that’s what you can get out if the news.  Their reasons are all about how much land the federal government owns out west and how poorly they manage it.

Arbitrary federal management of land out west is notorious.  It matters because the federal government owns between 30 to 60% of most western states.  The size of the federal debt is also notorious.  We can solve both problems with a single program.  The federal government should sell western public land to private parties in regular auctions to raise money to pay off federal debt.  This would help in two ways.  First, it would bring in money directly to the treasury.  But secondly, it would also place the land under the management of private owners who would have an incentive to develop and use the land productively.

Placing federal land under state ownership merely exchanges one bad landlord for another.  Worse, it strips the federal government of assets it can use to satisfy its creditors.  Selling the land is the best way to lessen the tax payers debt burden and at the same time put the land into more productive use which would generate economic growth and increased tax revenue without raising tax rates.

If Congress could tie the western land sales to the size of the deficits, it would be perfect.  All of the socialists who don't want to sell western land would face a dilemma.   If they did the usual borrow and spend, land would be sold to make up the difference.  If they budgeted responsibly, they could keep western land in government hands, but only at the cost of fewer votes purchased with federal free stuff.

Trump Only Gets One Thing Right

On paper, judged by qualifications and career results, the Republican field is very strong. The reason the Republican field is losing to Trump has nothing to do with qualifications. The problem is that once in Washington, Republicans generally lose their nerve. They fear being denounced in the national media, so they cave in to avoid shutting down the government. And when their reasons for shutting down the government prove valid, Republicans don't make their point to the press. In general, Republicans have such fear of seeming strident, they say almost nothing in interviews with the Pravda Press. Trump has shown he does not fear the Pravda Press. That's why he's winning.

Republicans shut down the government in 2013 to get a one year delay for Obamacare. They ultimately failed. When Obamacare rolled out, it was barely functional and obviously not ready for prime time. In short, Obamacare was a disaster. That was the time to link the government shutdown to the one year delay of Obamacare. That was the time to kick the administration for a total lack of judgement. They took a government shutdown so they could roll out an Obamacare system that was obviously not ready, instead of taking a one year delay and getting it right. I didn't see one Republican on any talk or news show explaining that Republicans were right to fight for the delay. Obamacare wasn't ready and would have benefited from a one year delay.

I am not a big fan of Donald Trump in most respects. He's ignorant about checks and balances. He's ignorant about foreign policy. I would strongly prefer several other candidates for Republican nominee. But there is one thing Trump does really well. He makes the Pravda Press dance to his tune, not theirs. In the news arena, Trump is an example of "the heck with them" attitude Republicans need to have at the national level. Republican voters will not nominate another doormat for the Pravda Press to stomp on.   

Increased Dependency and Identity Justice

Isn't it about time to question liberal's motivation in all of their verbal maneuvering? When liberals declare words and subjects off limits, it's usually because they are losing the argument.

I think liberals like high crime because it makes individual citizens more dependent on the government. That's why cities that have been one party bastions of liberalism are mostly high crime, high poverty, low education hell holes. If someone mentions an alternative, like vigilantism, that implies people might be able to do without government, liberals declare that even the words describing self-help are pejorative. Liberals want gun control so they can make you vote the way they want. Vote wrong and the police may not respond to your emergency call. Without a gun, you have no chance of defending yourself.

Liberals say that you can't challenge anyone's patriotism. I think that liberals mess up any war they manage, because it's in their interest to make military spending look ineffective. Liberals need all of the defense spending they can cut for domestic programs to make citizens more dependent on government so they have to vote for liberals to continue the gravy train.

Liberals favor teachers' unions over minority children. For liberals, no escapes from failing public schools can be permitted. If someone actually gets a decent education, they might be able to support themselves without government help.

Liberals are taking identity politics to its logical conclusion. It started out that if you voted your identity, the results of government actions were irrelevant. Now, you can be guilty of crimes only if you are not in a liberally favored identity group. As a straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Republican Vietnam Era veteran, I can tell you I am not happy about the prospect of identity justice.

Violence Without Legal Opposition Leads to Vigilante Action

The breakdown of law and order in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve lead to widespread sexual assaults and robbery by roving mobs of Islamic immigrant men.  Police were unable to stop the crime spree.  If this kind of breakdown becomes common, people will resort to rougher methods of self-defense.  When law and order break down, people take the law into their own hands because they have no other choice.  This is called vigilantism.  Liberals give the word a pejorative connotation and then dismiss the possibility that anyone would even consider it.

The pejorative nature of "vigilantism" depends on how much history you know and where you grew up. In the gold fields of Montana in the 1860's, vigilante justice was the only kind available. The Civil War was raging back east, so nobody had time to send the agents of law and order to the gold fields.  In the fall of 1863, a band of outlaws killed about 100 miners. The leader of the outlaws was Sheriff Henry Plummer of Bannack, Montana. In January and February of 1864, the Vigilance Committee of Alder Gulch captured, tried and hanged about 25 members of the gang, including Plummer.

The numbers 3-7-77 have long been associated with Montana vigilantes. These numbers are on Montana State Police patches. When I lived there, they were also painted on the bottom of every Montana State Police car's front doors.

Liberals are so out of touch with reality that they have no idea what honest people will do if they have no other choice. Liberals assume people will not defend themselves, but they most certainly will.  If liberals continue to favor multiculturalism over law and order, they are going to find out that governing without protecting the governed is a good way to lose their consent and let lose the vigilantism they don’t consider an option.