Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday to deal with the issue of the occupation by ranchers and patriots at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. While I do not agree with every sentiment that Walden stated, I do appreciate that he attempted to understand the concerns of the protesters and the growing tyranny coming out of Washington, DC, but let's be honest, Walden has been part of the problem for far too long.
I'll say from the get go that I fully realize that Rep. Walden is not a full constitutionalist as demonstrated by his voting record. That does not mean that he does not make some valid points here.
The refuge that the Bundys and others are held up at is within the district of Congressman Walden. As a result, the congressman encouraged his fellow representatives to "understand what drives people to do what's happening tonight in Harney County."
"The people there love the land," he said.
"I have seen what happens when overzealous bureaucrats and agencies go beyond the law and clamp down on people," said Walden as he spoke about the ranchers and local rural citizens' frustrations with the heavy hand of government and their mismanagement of land they should not claim as their own.
While Walden did not agree with the men's occupation of the refuge and encouraged them to go home because they had made their point, he did state, "I understand and hear their anger."
Walden was also outspoken about the sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond, saying that that punishment was too harsh. He called them "longtime responsible ranchers in Harney County."
During the speech, Walden made reference to the late Theodore Roosevelt, who was a huge advocate for usurping Constitutional authority and conserving land for the federal government.
"Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave," he said. "It's just gone too far. It's hurtful."
"To my friends across Eastern Oregon, I will always fight for you," said Walden, as he was emotionally moved. "But we have to understand there's a time and a way."
"Hopefully the country, through this, understands we have a real problem in America: how we manage our lands and how we're losing them."
But I must ask Rep. Walden, who has been in Congress for 18 years, what have you been doing all this time to drive feds from claiming ownership for land they have no right to? What have you been doing for nearly two decades to keep this from coming to this point? What have you been doing to call out the tyranny of the Bureau of Land Management and point to the Constitutional limitations of the Constitution concerning land? I do believe what has taken place could have been avoided and frankly, I'm torn about it being the best measure for redress, but it took this occupation of public land in order for Rep. Walden to stand and say what he did, even though he disagrees with the occupation.
Walden seemed to also reference a compromise by Congress on the management of the Klamath Basin and asked that Obama not make the Owyhee Canyonlands into a national monument.
On the other side of things was liberal Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is introduced a resolution that condemned the occupation and urged the occupiers to leave.
Both actions are not constitutional, in my opinion. While I do appreciate that Rep. Walden said that he understands the ranchers and such, he condemns their stand. The problem is that the ranchers are both exercising their rights protected under the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, but as Ammon Bundy pointed out to Megyn Kelly, their rights to redress government for grievances is falling on deaf ears because the feds are not only the plaintiffs against the Hammonds (an all other ranchers), but also the prosecutors. At the same time, they are the ones violating the Constitution.
What is Rep. Walden doing asking Obama not to do something that is unconstitutional, namely taking land and turning it into a national monument? He should be telling him that if he does, he will have articles of impeachment drawn up, although that should have been done long ago.
The same is true with Rep. Grijalva. Why should Congress vote on a stupid resolution that condemns free speech and a calling out of unconstitutional actions by those in Washington, DC? I'll tell you why. It's because both the Legislative and Executive Branches have become domestic enemies of the American people… and the Judicial Branch covers for them.
As a final note, I was told in the comments sections of a previous article that I attack those who disagree with me. That is not true. I am happy to engage those who disagree, but the reality is that we have only one Constitution and it is clear regarding the issue of land and the enumerated powers of Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch. There is only one reality to be had when it comes to that, just one; and only a proper understanding of original intent and meaning will make us united on this issue.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.