President Barack Obama–or at least Neil Kornze, the director of the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)–has some serious lessons to learn about the uses of power.
For more than 20 years, Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher, has refused to pay fees for grazing cattle on public lands, some 80 miles north of Las Vegas.
BLM says Bundy now owes close to $1 million. He says his family has used the land since the 1870s and doesn’t recognize the federal government’s jurisdiction.
In 2013, a federal judge ordered Bundy to remove his livestock. He ignored the order, and in early April, 2014, BLM agents rounded up more than 400 of his cattle.
Over the weekend of April 12-13, armed militia members and states’ right protesters showed up to challenge the move.

Bureau of Land Management logo
Rather than risk violence, the BLM did an about-face and released the cattle.
Right-wing bloggers and commentators have portrayed the incident as a victory over Federal tyranny.
According to Alex Jones’ Infowars.com: “Historic! Feds Forced to Surrender to American Citizens.”
Right-wingers have depicted Bundy as a put-upon Everyman being “squeeaed” by the dictatorial Federal government.
They have deliberately ignored a number of inconvenient truths–such as:
- He claims that his grazing rights were established in 1880 when his ancestors settled the land where his ranch sits.
- But the Nevada constitution–adopted in 1864 as a condition of statehood–contradicts Bundy’s right to operate as a law unto himself.
- The constitution says: “The people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”
- In 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act gave existing ranchers permits allowing them to run their herds on federal land.
- In turn, ranchers paid user fees, which were lower than what most private landowners would have charged.
- In 1993, the Federal government launched an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.
- Certain grasslands were placed off-limits for grazing, and the government bought out the permits of some ranchers.
- Among others, Bundy refused to sell and kept grazing his cattle on restricted federal land without a permit.
- Amidst mounting fees and fines, Bundy repeatedly slugged it out in court against government lawyers. He lost.
- In 1998, a federal judge permanently barred him from letting his cattle graze on protected federal land.
- In early April, 2014, BLM agents–charged with overseeing grazing rights–began rounding up Bundy’s cattle to remove them from federal property.
Bundy’s family and other ranchers–backed up by a motley assortment of self-declared militiamen armed with rifles and pistols–confronted the agents.
Fearing another Waco–regarded by Right-wing Americans as a second Alamo–the BLM agents backed down and released Bundy’s cattle. And then retreated.
While Right-wingers hail this as a victory for “states’ rights,” the truth is considerably different.
Bundy’s refusal to recognize the federal government’s jurisdiction amounts to: “I will recognize–and obey–only those laws that I happen to agree with.”
And the BLM’s performance offers a texbook lesson on how not to promote respect for the law–or for those who enforce it.
As Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science warned more than 500 years ago in The Prince:
[A ruler] is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute—which [he] must guard against as a rock of danger….
[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude.
As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.
Niccolo Machiavelli
In his master-work, The Discouorses, he outlines the consequences of allowing lawbreakers to go unpunished:
...Having established rewards for good actions and penalties for evil ones, and having rewarded a citizen for conduct who afterwards commits a wrong, he should be chastised for that without regard to his previous merits….
For if a citizen who has rendered some eminent service to the state should add to the reputation and influence which he has thereby acquired the confident audacity of being able to commit any wrong without fear of punishment, he will in a little while become so insolent and overbearing as to put an end to all power of the law.
The conduct of the agents of BLM has violated that sage counsel on all counts.
BLM agents should have expected trouble from Right-wing militia groups–and come fully prepared to deal with it.
The FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, for example, have created SWAT teams to deal with those who threaten violence against the Federal Government.
Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman had a formula for dealing with domestic terrorists of his own time.
Writing to his commander, Ulysses S. Grant, about the best way to treat Confederate guerrillas, he advised:
![]()
General Willilam Tecumseh Sherman
“They cannot be made to love us, but they may be made to fear us. We cannot change the hearts of those people of the South.
“But we can make war so terrible that they will realize the fact that . . . they are still mortal and should exhaust all peaceful remedies before they fly to war.”


ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, BARACK OBAMA, BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACE THE NATION, FACEBOOK, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, RICHARD NIXON, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM DELAY, TWITTER, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT
FASCISTS FOREVER, JUDGES NO MORE: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on May 1, 2014 at 12:08 amRepublicans have a love/hate relationship with Adolf Hitler.
On one hand, they repeatedly accuse President Barack Obama of being another Hitler. They decorate his poster with the toothbrush mustache worn by Germany’s Fuehrer. They dismiss Obama’s eloquence with: “Hitler also gave good speeches.”
Adolf Hitler
On the other hand, they run candidates whose power-lust and ruthlessness match that of Hitler or any of his henchmen.
Among these in the past have been such notorious figures as Senator Joseph “Tail Gunner Joe” McCarthy, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, President Richard M. Nixon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
And now a figure from that past is once again planning a last, desperate grasp for absolute power in 2016: Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich
In a half-hour phone call with reporters on December 17, 2011, Gingrich said that, as President, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country.
“Are we forced for a lifetime to keep someone on the bench who is so radically anti-American that they are a threat to the fabric of the country?” Gingrich asked.
“What kind of judge says you’ll go to jail if the word ‘invocation’ is used? If this isn’t a speech dictatorship, I’d like you to show me what one looks like.”
And appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Gingrich said the President could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.
When host Bob Schieffer asked how he would force federal judges to comply with congressional subpoenas, there occurred this telling exchange:
Schieffer: Let me just ask you this. You talk about enforcing it because one of things you say is if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing.
Some people say that’s unconstitutional but I’ll let that go for a minute. I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol police down to arrest him?
Gingrich: If you had to or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical.
How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word benediction and invocation?
Because before…because then I would encourage impeachment. But before you move to impeachment, you’d like to know why he said it. Now clearly since the congress has the power.
Schieffer: What if he didn’t come? What if he said, no thank you, I’m not coming?
Gingrich: Well that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not, the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. And as a general rule they show up.
I mean, but you’re raising the core question, are judges above the rest of the constitution? Or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?
* * * * *
The politicizing of the judiciary was one of the major hallmarks of Hitler’s Germany. Those judges who refused to hand out the types of verdicts Hitler desired were quickly removed.
They were replaced by judges like the infamous Roland Freisler, who chaired the First Senate of the People’s Court, and acted as judge, jury and prosecutor.
About 90% of all defendants appearing before him were sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The sentences had often been determined before trial.
Between 1942 and 1945, more than 5,000 death sentences were handed out. Of these, 2,600 were issued by the court’s First Senate, which Freisler headed.
Freisler was infamous for humiliating defendants. Several defendants in the July 20, 1944 bomb plot against Hitler appeared before him. One of these was Ulrich-Wilhelm Graf Schwerin von Schwanenfeld.
Schwerin, brought to court without a belt and tie, tried to preserve his dignity by holding up his pants. Freisler mocked him as a pervert for “playing” with his trousers.
When Schwerin said that he had come to oppose Hitler because of “the many murders in Germany and abroad” he was furiously interrupted by Freisler, who finally shouted him down.
On September 8, 1944, Schwerin was hanged in prison in Berlin.
On 3 February 1945, Freisler was conducting a Saturday session of the People’s Court, when American bombers attacked Berlin. A hit on the courthouse unloosed a heavy beam that crushed his skull, instantly killing him.
Adolf Hitler laid out his plans for remaking Germany and the world in his book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle). Newt Gingrich has openly proclaimed his own dictatorial intentions.
Hitler published Mein Kampf in 1925–eight years before he became Germany’s Fuehrer in 1933.
Five years before the 2016 election, Gingrich has given warning of his own dictatorial plans for remaking the United States in his own image.
Most Germans who detested Hitler refused to take him seriously–until it was too late.
History will judge whether Americans act more responsibly than their German counterparts.
END OF PART ONE
Share this: