Harry Reid weighed in on the standoff at the Nevada ranch after federal authorities at least temporarily retreated, saying, “Well, it’s not over.” He added, “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” What’s he talking about? People that habitually violate the law currently run the country. But that’s not over, either. – Unknown
I have said this before and I will say it again and again until my face turns blue.
One of the basic rights that we inherited from the Constitution is the right to own property. This right brought us into the modern world and no man was longer beholding to nobles to till the fields.
Our Founders new this (God Bless them all) and yet the government doesn’t know it or most likely they choose to ignore it. And if you wonder why…ask Karl Marx.
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
Just look at this of the United States and portion in red is the land controlled by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and when you consider that the EPA now considers that any all water in the United States is now subject to their control including your houses because rain falls on it; ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXTINGUISED and under government control.
He, who controls the land and water, controls everyone’s destiny.
And just who is the BLM? It is a government agency under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior. The BLM was set up mainly to administer government lands in the West, some of lands where purchased and others were confiscated by the military in the days of the old and wild west.
And just where did the BLM get their money from to purchase land? From the American tax payer.
These lands that BLM control are considered “Trust Lands” which is a very complex law and hard to understand. But basically what it means that the BLM are only stewards of the property. They don’t own it, We the People do. So I come back to my basic premise that I have preached for many years that all the land in in the United States belongs to We the People … every square inch of it.
And never forget that!
A longtime friend of this website “GD” pointed me to this article from a year ago which mirrors the BLM standoff in Nevada and the property rights of ranchers.
Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds
In an historic 104-page ruling, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada has struck a major blow for property rights and, at the same time, has smacked down federal agencies that have been riding roughshod over Western ranchers and property owners. The long-awaited ruling, which had been expected before the end of last year, was finally issued at the end of May. The court case, U.S. v. Hage, has been keenly watched by legal analysts and constitutional scholars — but has been completely ignored by the major media. (No surprise)
Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”
In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”
Startling revelations about the agency’s misrepresentation of data.
In a stunning admission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy revealed to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that the agency neither possesses, nor can produce, all of the scientific data used to justify the rules and regulations they have imposed on Americans via the Clean Air Act. In short, science has been trumped by the radical environmentalist agenda.
The admission follows the issuance of a subpoena by the full Committee last August. It was engendered by two years of EPA stonewalling, apparently aimed at preventing the raw data cited by EPA as the scientific foundation for those rules and regulations from being independently verified. Two studies, the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 1995 Cancer Prevention Study II, had verified that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less were responsible for killing thousands of Americans every year. They became the baseline by which the EPA regulated particulate emissions from power plants, factories and cars. Airborne particles of that size are equivalent to approximately 1/30th the diameter of a human hair.
Apparently Smith and other Republicans had an inkling of what was going on at the EPA last November. At that time, Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced the Secret Science Reform Act aimed at barring the agency from proposing new regulations based on science that was neither transparent nor reproducible.
SideBear: Now let me get this straight. The EPA is forcing the coal industry out of business because of emissions, Nuclear energy is taboo because is supposedly will give people cancer, burning wood for heat is now outlawed by the EPA, and that brainless twit from California Sen. Boxer says the Keystone Pipeline will give you cancer. She offers no proof or data to back this up.
In the meantime the cost of our energy bills are going through the roof and all of this is subject to unproven science. What’s wrong with this picture?
Barack Hussein Obama’s miraculous ascension to the presidency was the greatest marketing ploy ever conceived and implemented. Mainstream media, Hollywood, and leftist intelligentsia conspired to hoist a community organizer with no experience in business, very few life skills, and insignificant qualifications, to the most powerful position on earth.
Careful manipulation and control by leftists and MS media was clear even in the primary election. Anyone using Obama’s full name was immediately pounced upon and called racist, Islamophobic, and anti-American. Their parameters were unmistakable and presented with an unambiguous warning that using Obama’s middle name would be a declaration of war. Media manipulation and control were unprecedented.
Leading the free world wasn’t even an afterthought to media or to the ill-informed, government indoctrinated electorate that voted for this highly skilled actor. Although he delivered his writers’ leftist ideological script with mastery, he was decidedly unskilled in every other requirement for leading America into the future and preserving liberty for its people.
Additionally, to anyone who listened to his speeches or read his writings, it was painfully clear that he was a disciple of redistribution and was, likewise, vehemently anti-Capitalist. He went well beyond anything even seen in American politics with an unwavering drumbeat of class warfare and race hustling. His “Fundamental Transformation of America” speech left no doubt about his aspirations to destroy American culture, exceptionalism, and constitutional authority.
In a bone-chilling interview, Obama said the Constitution was a “charter of negative liberties,” full of constraints imposed upon us by our Founding Fathers. He often proclaimed he was a constitutional scholar, but his studies were like a military leader probing for weaknesses. It was preparation for an anticipated assault on the Constitution and laws of our land. The assault continues at full bore using every federal bureau, bureaucracy, and court to attack American citizenry.
The biggest problem Christians and conservatives have in making the case for marriage to the younger generation is we don’t speak the same language, and I’m not referring to the number of ‘likes’ inserted into each sentence that replace thought. Our frame of reference has only a tangential connection with that of the younger generation.
The default authority for Christians when explaining their opposition to homosexual marriage is the Bible. But it’s not for the generation born after 1980. The Washington Times reports, “More Americans are doubting the infallibility of the Bible, treating it as a guidebook rather than the actual words of God, according to a survey released Wednesday.”
This belief (no pun intended) puts that generation in agreement with Episcopalians, Methodists and Unitarians who also don’t understand what the big deal is when Rev. Adam and his wife, Steve shake hands with the faithful as they leave the sanctuary on Sunday.
This finding was part of a survey conducted on behalf of the American Bible Society. In the Times its president, Roy Peterson explained, “I think young people have always questioned their parents, questioned the church…Today the skeptics are saying, ‘It’s just like any other piece of literature, and it’s no different from that.”
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that when a Christian references the Bible, the youngster counters with, “You may like the Bible, but I’m partial to the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, if there was a modern language translation, the Egyptian Book of the Dead also has some value for those who want to increase their spirituality quotient.”
This declining interest is an indication there’s a real chance the Bible may lose it’s spot as the perennial number one best–seller, although this is not sufficient cause for Ellen to hope her bio will take its place.
The importance of the Bible for moral instruction has also declined. In 2013 almost a third of respondents “blamed a lack of Bible reading as the problem” behind a decline in American morals. This year it’s only 26 percent, but that decrease may be explained by the corresponding number of Americans who purchased 70” TVs in the intervening months.
So how does one explain opposition to homosexual marriage in terms the young can grasp? How does one put in context the aggressive demand that Christians conform to an unprecedented definition of marriage that didn’t exist even 25 years ago and flies in the face of all of human history?
How can they relate to our rejection of this absurd definition of marriage that completely upends an accepted way of life in the interest of pleasing an intolerant minority and its cheering section.
There are essentially no sexual taboos today, so approaching the problem from a Biblical angle is like expressing your opposition to the healing power of crystals by using the Physicians Desk Reference, when your audience hasn’t read either one.
Fortunately in today’s brave new culture food taboos have replaced sex taboos and it is here Christians can make our case in a way that duplicates the situation we encountered with homosexual marriage and is simultaneously understandable by the younger generation.
My analogy works regardless of whether you’re locked in debate with a smug and superior homosexual marriage supporter or you’re simply answering a question from one of those ‘love and let love’ types unable to understand why we feel so strongly about the issue.
The demand that Christians completely redefine marriage and accept a radical new definition that institutionalizes and affirms a form sexual practice the Bible specifically forbids, is the exact equivalent of pork lovers demanding that vegan restaurants serve bacon.
If America’s homosexuals can demand “marriage equality” then bacon lovers can demand “flavor equality.”
A vegan’s unconstitutional exclusion of bacon is simply elevating personal preference over a fundamental human right to have food that tastes good. And even diners who aren’t eating bacon because of an irrational fear of being attacked by their heart, can still feel the pain and humiliation of being ostracized.
Just try wearing an Arkansas Razorbacks’ Hog Head hat into your nearest Busboys & Poets restaurant if you want to see how a real second–class citizen is treated by kale bigots.
And who says vegans get to define what qualifies to be labeled as “vegan?” Flavor is flavor, people. Just as we’ve been told “love is love.” You may like the slimy feel and hay–infusion aftertaste of tofu, but I like the crunch of crispy, fried bacon and how can that be so wrong?
One doesn’t choose to love bacon any more than one chooses whom to love. It’s fried into my DNA.
I should be able to go into Sweet & Natural bakery and ask them to whomp up a delicious quiche Lorraine and not get a bunch of sanctimonious static about beliefs, animal rights and cholesterol.
Who are these Pharisees to tell me I can’t eat pork?
And the same goes for the photographer who refused to document my family’s annual fall hog butchering reunion and hoe down. If she/he (I think the photographer was undergoing some sort of transformation) is open for business to the public, then the photographer should not be allowed to discriminate based on unscientific belief and superstition. Go down that path and the next stop is Montgomery and Bull Connor.
Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If Western Sizzlin’ can offer food for vegans then its only fair that Arugula ‘R We be forced to offer a BLT.