Post
by voguy » 01-05-2016 08:19 PM
Understanding the big picture can be tough, especially with web sites created for "astroturf" to push opinions and agendas which are not true. And I'll say this; both sides of the argument are guilty of their Nazistic PR campaigns. But there is some truth.
Yes, the federal government is gathering up lands as never seen in history. And I'll add this, the states are also grabbing land record levels for the fed, and in some cases are using the eminent domain law to cheat and defraud land owners out of property. Further, they will buy up rings of land, thus "land locking" a property of a private individual forcing them off their land with little or no compensation. This happens even in states where land-locking is forbidden by law. But.... we are the feds, and we can break the law and there is nothing you can do.
What the Bundy family is mad about, (and lets include others who have been slighted as well), is the persistent rule and contract changes made at will, and sometimes unknown, which have been thrust upon them. Let's see if I can relate some of this to you.
Suppose you contract with your neighbor to use their driveway for parking as you are having a party. You agree upon $10 per car for one night. Four cars park there and attend your party. Next day you're told you agreed to $15 per car. You protest, and show your agreement. You're told; we're the government, we make the rules, and unless you pay $15 per car, we'll take your driveway... and oh, by the way, it should actually be $30 per car because technically they parked there on Saturday night and then it turned to Sunday so that's a new night. Hey, we're the government, we make the rules. Try to fight us.
The issue here is not so much the payment, as the rule and situation changes, PLUS the fact the government tells them they have no right to fight nor if they do garner a fight and win in a court of law, they will not be paid for damages or costs. Imagine for a moment if you go to court and the person you have just prevailed over says "yeah, too bad you won, but you'll never see anything for it." This has all the makings of a federal government using their position to bully people, extorting them, and damaging them.
The case also is based on the so called "arson" which is actually multiple events, and again a condition placed on the ranchers after they have agreed to a lease. In this case is the "back fire" set to prevent another fire from overtaking the leased land. This is not so much as reported as is the "burning of the land to enrich the soil." Again, more astroturf.
Another facet is the feds claim that they, under a weak interpretation of the law, says that if they do something to some, they can not be held responsible. This is similar to what we have seen in the news where a police officer kills someone, and is considered innocent or at the least tried and found not guilty. The message being sent is we could have another Waco or Ruby Ridge and nobody on the government side will be prosecuted or found guilty.
I think these guys just got to the point when they had enough BS and reacted. And if the fed blows into a bird sanctuary with guns blazing, this could be the stick of dynamite lit which shuffles us into civil war. Just this noon I heard some fellows in a restaurant talking about what they could do if this whole thing blows up.
As for the land grabs, let me say this. A couple of states have been systematically buying up lands in such a way as to choke out people who own land. I saw one case where the feds owned three sides of a 167 acre parcel, with a private citizen in the middle. They picked up the fourth side, (which had legal right away from the prior owner), then refused to let the citizen in the center have right of way. These people basically lost their land and possessions on the land. Is this fair?
There are several theories why this is happening, from mineral rights, to reducing the open lands and forcing people into big cities, to possibly setting up a system like the Philippines where you don't own property; you lease from the government.
I really hope this is defused without bloodshed as I feel any killing will set off something none of us want to see. BUT, I also think we have snakes in the fed which after this is over will try something else, and continue to play the two-rule system against the citizens. To this point I have to agree with a lot of people I've heard talking; we are ripe for a good revolution of government.
Just remember when you're reading web sites, most of them are pure unadulterated bravo-sierra. If you want to read a site and get good information, study the legal sites, reference the laws, and then look at case law. If the law reads you can't take a man's property, and the government does it with malice, we should be pissed as hell about it. It's theft. And being the government doesn't change the definition.
Sorry for typos or punctuation problems. I'm on a new laptop which is really hard getting used to.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
I wonder why he wasn't sceaming for the same thing in Fergeson?
