Posted on 02/04/2016 5:03:19 AM PST by Nextrush
Actually what there was the Oregon enabling act which admitted Oregon as a state in 1859 and which outlined what federal property was deeded to the state. As for the remainder, the state of Oregon gave up all rights to it.
The Constitution specifically details WHAT LAND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE... for military basses and other specific needs... otherwise the land belngs to the State
No, it doesn't. It gives those as examples of reasons the federal government may obtain land from the states. It does not apply to land that belonged to the government before the state was created.
In conflicts between a federal agency and citizens of the state THE LCOAL SHERIFF IS THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY...
And the Constitution says that where?
So that is why BLM backed down in the previous encounter with BUNDY and the local sheriff in the HAMMOND protesters case SHOULD AHVE STEPPED IN..... BUT DIDN’T
No, the BLM let the ranchers off the first two times they ignored the law, and nailed them the third time around.
I'm not talking "revolution". I'm just pointing out the social media talkers who are delivering "the government line".
In this case, the social media talkers are claiming that LaVoy Finicum DESERVED to get killed because he committed a felony by driving away from a "lawful stop".
Of course, when you bring up the fact that Finicum's truck was fired upon at "the lawful stop", the SM talkers suddenly change the subject, or disappear.
And YOU just don't get it.
We have an out-of-control Fascist government that spends money like water to squash dissent with military might.
The government's kettenhunde snap to attention and march on their SWEET mercenary dime, dressed in their Cool Pretend Soldier outfits, at a moment's notice.
I think some guys that created this country would be doing a WTF.
It's NOT "my" movement.
I'm a freeper. It's our duty to shine a light on dirty dealings.
For a small footnote in history LaVoy sure has a few flattering tribute ballads already on YouTube. IMHO, this one is the most catchy.
Depends on who is doing it. Black "revolutionaries" like the New Black Panthers can do so with impunity. Rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore were allowed free rein with nary a word of rebuke from the feds. And before you tell me the latter two were state, not federal, issues, give me a break. The Feds have a multitude of laws, regulations, rules appropriate to any situation. The ATF alone could have gotten involved, followed by the FBI.
But let a group of white protestors take over a wildlife refuge miles from anywhere, closed for the season in any case, and neither harm nor threaten anyone; then, by golly, that is a capital offense.
I posted that on social media. I pointed out that people are memorializing LaVoy with Ballads . . . not torches setting fire to private homes and businesses and cop cars.
Also see all the tributes and condolences on his memorial site. http://www.hughesmortuary.com/notices/Robert-Finicum
Scroll down and down and down. Brought tears to my eyes, and a realization that LaVoy’s life, example, instruction and his tragically obscene death have resonated far and wide. Most people are still in the dark, but look at the tributes. All over the States, including Massachusetts, even Canada. Australia, Lithuania, Italy. Thailand. A nice tribute from an Apache.
It is heart breaking, it is uplifting. I encourage all freepers to add their own condolences.
The sheer number and breadth of condolences and tributes, IMHO, may indeed help to keep others alive. How many martyrs do they want? How many thousands do they want awakened?
Prayers for the family, friends, and justice, and no more deaths.
This guy is pretty articulate, IMHO.
The Panthers show up, line up and march in the streets with their AKs and LEO does jack. Witness last summer, Texas.
Whites, however....cannot takeover the streets of Dallas/McKinney, let alone shack in the winter in some wilderness.
*SB a shack
I was just stating the problem.
That doesn't put a pretty face on the situation because it just doesn't have one.
If that came off as 'holier-than-thou' it wasn't intended to, mainly because rural folks get that constantly from those of the urbane set who consider themselves innately superior by virtue of living in town. That is a bias which is reinforced by decades of film and other media presentation.
It's tedious, and most of us try to treat others as we would be treated.
Pardon us if we have a tendency to tune that out or have a little thicker skin. It is either that or walk around pissed off all the time, and, frankly, life is too short.
Why is it you guys cannot not accept constructive criticism?
For the sake of discussion, I will assume the double negative is unintentional.
We have been bombarded by folks who come up with patently insane 'constructive criticism'.
Someone with a freshly printed diploma in range management or land use or some such is always willing to tell people who have farmed or ranched land for generations just how to do it--and that they are doing it "all wrong".
Lysenkoism is again rampant in the halls of academia, with a heavy twist of dirt-worship environmentalism, slathered generously with Anthropogenic Climate Change. While that's a fad, methods which have been used for (in some cases) centuries, updated for equipment, still work.
So we turn a jaded eye toward much 'constructive criticism'.
People, too, seem to be missing the main point, here.
If the Federal Government occupies your land, you are supposed to let them take it and like it. Yowsah, Boss!
Occupy a Federally owned piece of land, they'll shoot your ass.
In a nutshell, our employees are in armed insurrection against their employers.
As long as y'all approve of that, it will continue.
My advice, posted here, was for the protesters to vacate the Refuge property as soon as the story hit the national headlines. Do a couple of high profile interviews, get the complaint out there in the media, set up a website/twitter hashtag/Facebook page, whatever, where people could follow or add to the body of evidence and accounts of incidents of Federal encroachment, and get out of the area. Funds could be raised to keep a website going, issue an e-newsletter, even set up a defense fund.
Why do it that way?, Because the general population has been conditioned to feel that 'invading' or occupying any Federally/publicly owned land is like trespassing, and tends to equate it with homeless camps or people crapping on police cars, even though supposedly that land belongs to all of us unless it is cordoned off for military or safety or specific reasons.
The objective of raising awareness (for a news cycle or two, anyway) had been achieved.
From a strategic standpoint, extended occupation only gave those who opposed it time to muster their assets and evaluate others, and as history shows, make the Government more determined to kill someone. (The longer the 'standoff', if it is over government policy or resisting a government action, the more likely someone is going to get killed.)
That was my opinion. I was derided for thinking of the long game, and I understand and sympathize with the ranchers. I did not think there was any more to be peacefully accomplished there that could not be accomplished elsewhere at that point.
Please keep in mind, there won't be any winning as long as this is seen as something "you guys" are doing.
This ties into property rights, the right to use your property in a way that hurts no one else, as you best see fit, to make that property productive, and be secure in that property, in that no one can take it--least of all the government which is supposed to be securing those rights instead of violating them.
That issue affects us all, sooner or later.
The population in general does not understand the vast amount of land required to keep a ranching or farming operation running at a profit, whether that land is deeded (owned outright) or leased (from private parties or the Government, usually for the purpose of grazing livestock).
Unfortunately, the trend has been toward seizing property for ever more spurious reasons, from increasing tax base with new development (which may or may not happen, but seems to get the approval of everyone but the owners), to a host of 'environmental' reasons. It isn't always the Government which gets the land, but the actions of the Government can cause land to lose value and productivity, often to the point where the result is economic disaster for the owners and they are forced to sell. (Klamath Valley, where deeded water rights were overruled for a fish, and without irrigation for two years the farmers were forced to sell the land. Who bought it? IIRC, The Nature Conservancy, for about 20 cents on the dollar.)
Often those fine-sounding 'conservation' or 'environmental' organizations are the ones who bring suit to create the problem, (or others do) and then take advantage of the situation to acquire land.
Those organizations sue the EPA, for instance, for not enforcing some rule and applying it to the mud hole Farmer Brown filled in in the barnyard, claiming Farmer Brown has violated a rule against filling in an intermittent wetland without a permit, EIS, etc.
Farmer Brown is fined a ludicrous amount of money for filling in said mud hole, now deemed to be an 'intermittent wetland', and can't pay the fine unless he sells all he has...
Furthermore, the value of the property is degraded because there is (now) a Federally designated and protected 'intermittent wetland' blocking access to the shop, storage buildings, and grain bins on the property, and those would have to be moved to be used, requiring another set of permits and EIS because of their proximity to said 'intermittent wetland'.
And another one bites the dust.
Farming/ranching is a 24/7/365 occupation, more a way of life than a job. It does not pay well enough to keep an attorney on staff full time, and the volume of new/amended regulations coming out in the Federal Register is amazing. With those regulations come increased opportunity for the Government to take more land. That removes the land from productivity, locks up resources which have a 'use by date' (especially timber and grazing), and adds to the tremendous landholdings of a Government which owns roughly half of the land West of the Mississippi.
BUMP.
I have been thinking of a way to engage “city folk” = “wage slaves” e.g. living pay-check-to-paycheck because they are not freeholders i.e. do not own the means of production (land, capital) to even earn their own livings. Hence they fear.
It is turning the “income inequality” narrative back on its head. It is not income but capital inequality, the means of production / capital INTENDED by natural law and the Constitution to be in the hands of the many, the individual families. When the means of production of one’s livelihood is not held by the individual, but corporately by government etc., one is not a freeman, not a smallholder, but a serf, a “wage-slave”. Who fears the Leviathan that controls his paycheck.
The young people supporting Bernie cry about income equality. WHY? Because they fear for their future, which promises them only a wage-slave existence.
They need to understand that they would be better off with the ability to purchase, inherit (without death-taxes) acquire, own, and work their own land and other productive capital (tools of the trade for craftsmen, equipment and inventory and buildings for the small business owner) than they ever would be as wage-slaves dependent on others.
They need to understand that taxing, taking mere income from others, no matter how much they believe that the excess taken from the “greedy billionaires” will solve “income inequality” — will never solve their need for income independence. There is simply not enough “income” to be redistributed, and even if it were redistributed to the last penny of the wealthy, without the means of production, those to whom it was redistributed would be still where they were, wage-slaves, fearing for their next paycheck.
I know too well, as do the ranchers, that even owning the means of production, mortgaged and taxed and subject to endless regulations which limit legitimate free use of private property, is already a stressful struggle. Indeed it is a labor of pure love, love of the land, love of working as a freeman. Love of freedom itself. But the freeman would rather labor for even a subsistence living, the value of his endless labor not even reaching anyone’s notion of a decent minimum wage, much less a fair value of return on equity — than live as a wage-serf alone. Many have outside jobs we use to plow money into our farms and small businesses.
The problem IS that government owns too much of the means of production already, and wants more.
Well said. Without control of their own means of production or enough to ply a trade or do sustenance farming or practice their profession, people cannot be truly free.
We tried to abolish the real estate property tax here a few years back with an initiated measure. It failed. Astroturf groups of realtors and teachers (the latter figured it would cause education funding cuts) popped up, did a saturation campaign against the measure and blew away like dust when the ballots were in. Amazing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.