Posted on 02/18/2016 1:02:18 PM PST by Jim W N
They were very patient. Identified those who showed up armed and have now begun rounding them up. 68 last count and Cliven Bundy as he landed in Oregon.
Oh...in addition to the news report, this was also being reported on Oathkeepers media youtube.
And they are the real true patriots who would fight for Liberty. The Patrick Henrys.
That is the goal of these evil Marxists in the White House-—to jail and intimidate the masculine male population. That is why they have total control over the MSM-—for perceptions—to keep the sheeple in chaos-—so they are filled with disinformation and believe lies about these patriots.
They need the male population to consist of males like in France and Germany-—ones who just watch the takeover and raping of their land and wives and children.
And here we sit, thumbs up our noses...
Good for you! The federal gooberment has become no better than the big cattle companies in Motana and Wyoming in the late 19th century: avaricious bullies who won’t be satisfied until they have a monopoly on everything the see.
The only real difference is that at least the big ranches were supplying beeves to the market. Here, as usual, the feds produce nothing but hard feelings.
Now that they’ve started shooting ranchers, that changes everything.
Remember Nate Champion.
Cliven Bundy owns 140 acres of private property. The title to that land goes back, from owner to owner, back to the Federal Government acquisition from Mexico. Do you think Cliven recognizes the chain of ownership of his own private property?
If so, it’s the same chain of ownership that the Federal Government has now to the public lands. He can’t have it both ways.
Until folks have nothing else to lose, they will lose. This is one reason all this nonsense is placed on us so slowly. If they were to take bold actions, say like, gun confiscation, folks would rise up.
The ol frog in the pot theory
As I state in the opening of my profile page: Americans DO NOT WANT freedom or liberty, because Americans DO NOT WANT the responsibility that comes with it.
Think about this for a spell. Ammon Bundy has children, a wife. He will likely go to prison. Not sure how long, but the ferals will attempt to make an example from him to others.
His children will probably not see their daddy on the outside till they are young adults. That's a HUGE price to pay. Freedom in exchange for a 6x9 cell....for a decade.
Have to be awful important for me to defend that hill.
Patriots should consider the following video by the late(?) Steven Pratt.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution
Pratt references the Resolution of 1780.
1780 RESOLUTION ON PUBLIC LANDS
Pratt claims that Congress ignored the Resolution of 1780 for the last 12(?) states, the western states I believe, that were admitted to the Union.
A tangle of viable topics related to this issue which I will not address at this time include Supreme Court cases dealing with treaties with Native Americans, water rights, slavery, Congresss naturalization powers (1.8.4), Conresss constitutionally express power of land disposal (4.3.2), and state sovereignty.
Is not the future of the Republic important enough? I've heard from others..."This isn't the hill we fight for". In my humble opinion, that's just code for "I'm too chickensh!t to stand up and risk all the cool stuff I've amassed by being a slave to debt and the state all my life."
The Founders had family, businesses, jobs, farms - they had LOTS to lose, but they still stood. We are failing their legacy, simply because we believe that, somehow, we're more important and have more to lose than they did.
Sam Adams said it best: "If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
And, among other things, that leaves National Parks outside constitutional authorization and any unconstitutional act by the feds is by definition an act of tyranny. National Parks are, therefore, acts of tyranny and should be repossessed by the states and the individual owners right away.
What “public lands”? Again, if it is land within a state, other than Indian reservations, the feds have no constitutional authority to won those lands outside the constitutional requirements cited.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Who made who.
As evidenced above, the central federal government was made by men in all thirteen states for specific purposes outlined, again, above.
It wasn’t made to enrich the federal government. The rider rides the horse, not vice versa.
Yes, well, of course that is the way to read and interpret the Constitution: AS WRITTEN AND ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD AND INTENDED. That is the job of every federal official and SCOTUS Justice who have long since abandoned such duties.
Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17 is pretty clear and the resolution you cite comports to any reasonable understanding of that passage. So now it is up to the states to assert their sovereignty and confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and TAKE BACK THEIR land.
Well, there’s nothing in the Constitution authority the feds to take such action and the presumption of the Constitution is US gov’t authority is expressly enumerated and delegated or it is not a valid act.
So here the default must be that land within a state belongs to that state, not to the feds because the Constitution authorizes no such federal ownership of land within a state except by the constitutional requirements cited.
The correct was to read and interpret the Constitution (as any law) is as written and originally understood and intended. The Resolution of 1780 http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/1780%20%20on%20Public is good material to help understand original intent here - except for Indian reservations, land within the state belongs to the state and the individual landowners.
You need to read the plain language of the Constitution. You are trying to find something in the Constitution (that isn’t even there) to disparage the claims of the United States to the land; claims which pre-date statehood.
I’ve mentioned Nevada, since that’s a state of interest to you all; now let’s look at Oregon, which acknowledged federal ownership of the the land at the time statehood was granted. “ That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct”
A US Gov’t act is not per se constitutional because it is a US act. And there are UNSTATED presumptions in the body of the Constitution that are confirmed as presumptions by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The feds are presumed NOT to have a power - ALL federal power is delegated to them by expressed powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Let’s see you follow your own advice here about reading the plain language of the Constitution and cite where the Constitution authorizes the feds to do this.
Yup. What the regular joe does not understand is, as all forms of government expand, they have to do something to justify their "worth". So they write administrative code (unregulated) and then "regulate".
Like the frog in the pot of water, when the heat is slowly turned up, by the time it is boiling, it is too late.
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.