Our Marxist Regime and Our Land

by Al Benson Jr.

I recently dealt with how our Marxist Regime in Washington (which is omnipresent regardless of which “party” controls the White House or Congress) feels about the biblical concept of private property. Since the origin of private property is biblically based they naturally hate and loathe it. Any expression of biblical truth must be expunged so “those people” (the Yankee/Marxists) can indulge their lustful desire to play god. After all, what is this desire on their part for a One World Government but a gross magnification of what occurred at the Tower of Babel?

In order to control people, their lives, thoughts, and activities totally you must first take away their guns and then you must control the land (which is always much easier if they don’t have any firearms). Years ago someone gave me a copy of an independently printed book called The Battle of Jefferson Canyon, written by a Don Bowman. Mr. Bowman dealt primarily with much of what has been called The Sagebrush Rebellion. The book was published back in 1996 and similar situations to what Mr. Bowman described in the book are still occurring. The Bundy Ranch situation was one.

Bowman called it a “war” and he was right. It was, and is, first and foremost, a cultural war, just like the war being waged on the South over her flags and symbols. It’s all the same war and Westerners and Southerners both need to start realizing this and getting together and talking about how they can help one another, because we all have the same problem and the same adversary (and just because you can’t see his red tail doesn’t mean he’s not there).  It is to the advantage of him and his disciples to keep us divided. It is to our advantage to sit down and talk strategy with one another, making sure in that process we weed out the agent provocateurs.

Bowman noted in his book a story by writer Lee Pitts that was in a September, 1994 issue of the Livestock Market Digest. Mr. Pitts stated: “You can’t tell a New Mexican family that all the Bureau of Land Management does is to look after the welfare of our federal lands. In July of this year BLM Rangers allegedly shot out their car’s tire, maced the driver twice, kicked one woman, stomped another and broke her ankle and told the other family members they would have their heads blown off. What was this family doing wrong you may ask? Who knows? The BLM Rangers to this day  have failed to file any charges…The driver’s mother tried to help her son but was knowked to the ground by the ranger who then stomped on her leg before handcuffing her. After handcuffing the mother the BLM Ranger went back to the driver and sprayed him again in the face with mace.  All this time the children were crying and the ranger yelled at them to shut up.  According to the complaint the BLM Ranger said he was going to blow their (expletive deleted) heads off. Only the timely arrival of a deputy sheriff and a tribal police officer may have kept the rangers from brutalizing  the family further.” It gets worse, but I could only type so much without gagging at what these so-called “public servants” do to those that pay their salaries. Folks, these are the jack-booted federal thugs that are supposed to “protect” public lands and they seem to do a thorough job of “protecting” them from the public. That give you any ideas about who they think the land really belongs to?

Last week I read an article on http://thefreethoughtproject.com   by John Vibes which stated: “This week militia members have begun a standoff with federal agents after occupying  Malheur National Wildlife Refuge HQ in Oregon. The protesters are refusing to leave and are demonstrating against the impending imprisonment of two ranchers, and the overreaching policies of the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency that has been appropriating land for their own benefit…In 2013 it was reported that the BLM sold 29 federal land leases which covered more than 56 square miles in northeast Nevada. The agency itself reported that the oil and gas leases in Elko County sold for $1.27 million to six different companies.” Question–If this is public land then why is the BLM selling it off? Where do they get that authority? Maybe, like good old Mao in China they believe their “authority” comes out of the barrells of their guns. Whatever you think of fracking one way or the other, $1.27 million ain’t exactly chump change. Where did they get the authority to sell public land? I thought they were supposed to be preserving and protecting it for “the people.” Well, yes, that may be true, but for what people? Certainly not the American public.

Going back to Bowman’s book we run across Zane Miles, Lander County District Attorney, who had some thoughtful comments to make about the land. Bowman observed: “Citing legal and historic authorities, Zane says  that public lands in Nevada and in many other Western states are not ‘federal lands’ owned by the federal government. According to Miles, the federal government has continued to control the public lands, but only as a trustee for the states. The Lander DA says the United States coerced the people of the territory into an illegal act of ceding the public lands to the federal government.”  And remember, in Nevada, this all happened during the Lincoln administration when Lincoln wanted to get more states into the Union so he’d have those extra electoral votes to beat McClellan in 1864. So would the federal government lie, cheat, coerce, and steal to promote one of its agendas? In a New York minute, Baby!

And don’t forget, they are engaging in a culture (Marxist) war here, so there are no holes barred. And don’t forget also that a culture war is also a theological war. Our total destruction is their agenda, specifically if we are Christian, in the South and West, so we better wake up!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Our Marxist Regime and Our Land

  1. Uses And Misuses Of Eminent Domain

    Abuse of Power: How Government Misuses Eminent Domain
    Eminent Domain Is Now Used to Advance Any Public Purpose

    Fee Website
    http://fee.org/freeman/abuse-of-power-how-government-misuses-eminent-domain/
    By George C. Leef and Steven Greenhut
    July 10, 2010

    BOOK:
    Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain Paperback – June, 2004
    By Steven M. Greenhut (Author) : http://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Power-Government-Misuses-Eminent/dp/1931643377?tag=duckduckgo-ffsb-20
    Paperback from $0.01; 25 Used from $0.01 5; New from $10.88

    #Government Intervention : http://fee.org/resources/topics/government%20intervention/

    Eminent Domain has become a two edged sword…
    Donald Trump supports eminent domain, but how would he feel if the city politicians in a town, where he owns a casino, condemned his multi-million dollar casino to build a parking lot for other casinos in the area to benefit all gamblers? The original definition of eminent domain was to confiscate personal property to benefit ALL citizens or society. The most recent redefining of eminent domain by socialists is for corrupted town politicians to confiscate personal property to benefit themselves financially and their co-conspirator Realtor executives and construction development executives who make million on other peoples’ legally owned property for commercial gain instead of serving the public’s good…

    Finally, the 5th Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Constitution from Wikipedia
    The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced.

    When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced.

    Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.

    James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term “public use” rather than “public purpose”, “public interest”, or “public benefit”.

    The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: The taking must be for public use (NOT private or commercial use!—Barrs) and just compensation must be paid.

    Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, British soldiers forcibly sought housing and food in whatever homes were near their military assignments.

    To address the latter problem, the Third Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner’s consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate “just compensation”, a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the Fifth Amendment.

    All U.S. states have legislation specifying eminent domain procedures within their respective territories.

    The (constitutionally delegated) power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty.

    This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes.

    The legislature may take private property by passing an Act (law) transferring title to the government. The property owner may then seek compensation by suing in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

    The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land.

    Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government’s right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of public use. In 1832 the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and operations by flooding an upstream neighbor. The court opinion stated that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit.

    In Clark vs. Nash (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that different parts of the country have unique circumstances and the definition of public use thus varied with the facts of the case. It ruled a farmer could expand his irrigation ditch across another farmer’s land (with compensation) because that farmer was entitled to “the flow of the waters of the said Fort Canyon Creek … and the uses of the said waters … [is] a public use.” Here, in recognizing the arid climate and geography of Utah, the Court indicated the farmer not adjacent to the river had as much right as the farmer who was, to access the waters. However, until the 14th Amendment (not an amendment of the Bill of Rights!) was ratified in 1868, the limitations on eminent domain specified in the Fifth Amendment applied only to the Federal Government and not to the (sovereign) States.

    That view ended in 1896 when in the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago case the court held that the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment were incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus were now binding on the States, or in other words, when the States take private property they are required to devote it to a public use and compensate the property owner for their loss.

    This was the beginning of what is now known as the “selective incorporation” doctrine.

    An expansive interpretation of eminent domain was reaffirmed in Berman v. Parker (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed an effort by the District of Columbia to take and raze blighted structures, in order to eliminate slums in the Southwest Washington area. After the taking, held the court, the taken and razed land could be transferred to private redevelopers who would construct condominiums, private office buildings and a shopping center. The Supreme Court ruled against the owners of a non-blighted property within the area on the grounds that the project should be judged on its plans as a whole, not on a parcel by parcel basis.

    In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Supreme Court approved the use of eminent domain to transfer a land lessor’s title to its tenants who owned and occupied homes built on the leased land. The court’s justification was to break up a housing oligopoly, and thereby lower or stabilize home prices, although in reality, following the Midkiff decision, home prices on Oahu escalated dramatically, more than doubling within a few years.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues.

    This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad.

    In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain.

    The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

    The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court’s decision nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city. The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.[13]

    Compensation
    American courts have held that the preferred measure of “just compensation” is “fair market value”, i.e., the price that a willing but unpressured buyer would pay a willing but unpressured seller in a voluntary transaction, with both parties fully informed of the property’s good and bad features. (But the trick is to determine what “unpressured” market value is?) Also, this approach takes into account the property’s highest and best use (i.e., its most financially profitable use) which is not necessarily its current use or the use mandated by current zoning if there is a reasonable probability of zone change.

    Tax Implications
    When private property is destroyed, condemned or disposed of, the owner may receive a payment in property or money in the form of insurance or a condemnation award. If property is compulsorily or involuntarily converted into money (as in eminent domain) the proceeds can be reinvested without payment of capital gains tax provided it is reinvested in property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted, no capital gain shall be recognized.

    Bush Executive Order
    On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property to “public use” with “just compensation” (both of which are phrases used in the U.S. Constitution) for the “purpose of benefiting the general public”. The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used “for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.” However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the Federal Government.

    —Al Barrs 2016
    ————————————————————————————————————

    The essential difference between a market economy and a socialist one is that in the former, individuals decide how to use the resources they own, while in the latter, government officials make the decisions.

    The market system is consistent with individual liberty and works well without the use of coercion. The socialist system is not consistent with individual liberty and works poorly because it necessitates the use of coercion.

    America at one time was a market economy, but as the country has aged, we have slid toward socialism in many respects.

    Among the signs of this slide is the loss of freedom to control one’s own land.

    That’s the case with farmers, for example, who must abide by government regulations on the crops and livestock they grow. It’s the case with urban landowners, who must abide by zoning regulations. And it’s also the case when land is taken from owners under what is called eminent domain.

    This is the theme of Abuse of Power by journalist Steven Greenhut, who has followed this subject for years.

    What Greenhut gives us is a thorough investigation of the rampaging growth of this assault on private property, which frequently leaves the reader shaking his head in disbelief at the villainy of the process.

    The original concept of eminent domain sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution is that government may take private property when it is necessary for a public use, and then only if just compensation is paid to the owner.

    Even that is a dangerous departure from libertarian principles; government should no more make anyone “an offer he can’t refuse” than should criminals.

    But so long as eminent domain was limited to property seizures only for true (and honest use) public uses—roads, for example—the damage was fairly small. The problem, Greenhut informs us, is that eminent domain is now routinely used to take land from people not for some public use, but instead to advance anything that might be called a public purpose. By going along with this, the courts (the U.S. Supreme Court is now the main culprit!) have allowed an almost limitless expansion of eminent domain!!!

    As Greenhut shows with many, many cases, eminent domain is now routinely used to transfer land from one party to another simply because politicians believe that it will be put to better (and more profitable) use.

    “Better” here simply means “paying more in taxes”. An old house or a small business brings in a small tax take for the town council. Condemning the property and forcing its sale in order to hand it over to a big commercial enterprise that will generate far more tax revenue is regarded (falsely!) by many politicians as a ‘public purpose’. They have no qualms about slapping the label “blighted” on people’s homes or businesses so they can force them out (and drive down the value of the property…).

    Forced transfers to satisfy politicians and well-heeled developers are appalling enough, but the other side of the transaction is also terrible.

    The requirement of “just compensation”, Greenhut contends, is often ignored. “Almost always”, he writes, “the government tries to lowball the property owner, in many cases offering a fraction of the property’s value”. The unfortunate property owner usually loses! Even if they hire an attorney to contest the amount offered, the legal expenses involved generally mean a considerable net loss in wealth for the original owner, (who may be the fifth or sixth family generation to own the property and considers it valueless…). (Of course, “compensation” in a forced sale can never be “just”; justice requires consent of the original owner/owners!) (What about farms and ranches where generations of landowners and their families have been interned in family cemeteries?—Al Barrs)

    Where is the judiciary in all this?

    Won’t judges step in to stop these seizures?

    Unfortunately, no, as Greenhut demonstrates.

    Judges are often indifferent to the plight of individuals targeted for removal. (That is because our once nation of individualism has been transformed into a socialist nation where the group rules individual thought and action!!!—Al Barrs)

    Most people seem to share the mindset of the (corrupt) politicians: That people who fight against eminent domain are greedy opponents of social (actually socialist progress not social!) progress.

    Not even churches are safe from eminent domain. (I know of at least one early pioneer cemetery in west central Florida that a railroad was constructed right through it destroying countless graves, many with permanent headstones, one of which was my GG Uncle.—Al Barrs)

    Actually, tax-exempt property is among the least desirable of all uses from the standpoint of tax-hungry politicians. Greenhut’s cases where churches have been eminent-domain victims will raise the reader’s ire further.

    An instructive side lesson is that many of the (corrupt self-serving) politicians guilty of eminent-domain atrocities are “liberals” (socialists/communists/progressives) whose campaign rhetoric oozes with “compassion” for the supposedly downtrodden citizens. They don’t mind treading all over real (common) people, however, if it will enable them to achieve the supreme (socialist) objective of an expanded tax base, enabling them to spend more on their favorite projects and constituencies. Eminent domain is another piece of evidence for the Public Choice economists.

    Greenhut offers helpful advice to people who find that they need to fight back. It can be done. Bravo to the author for showing how in his book.

    George C. Leef
    George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

    Steven Greenhut
    Steven Greenhut is the California columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune. Greenhut formerly was vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, where he managed a team of 35 investigative reporters and editors who covered state capitols across the country.

  2. from: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2016/01/31/why-did-robert-lavoy-finicum-have-to-die-the-connection-between-malheur-putin-the-clinton-foundation-and-big-money/

    “…Let’s take a step further into the darkness, thanks to Jon Rappoport –

    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/the-clintons-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/

    Is uranium at the heart of the Oregon Malheur federal-protestor standoff? That’s the question I’m asking. It isn’t a flippant question.

    I realize there are many other issues swirling around this event. The Hammonds, the Bundys, militias, the feds, cattle grazing on federal lands, federal land grabs, and so on. This article isn’t meant to take apart those matters.

    It’s meant to follow up on my previous article, in which I present a circumstantial case for the Clintons’ heavy involvement in a scheme that’s transferred 20% of US uranium production to Putin and Russia. And the key company in that piece is Uranium One. Remember the name. It’s apparently a major clue in what I’m about to discuss.

    I also want to say, at the outset, that I don’t know how many independent news outlets and websites are covering the uranium question, or which outlet initiated this line of investigation. I’m relying on one provocative January 23 article at intellihub, by Shepard Ambellas:

    “Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians, along with one-fifth of our uranium ore.”

    Down in the body of that article, the author provides a link to a page at the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior.

    On that BLM page (“National BLM > OR/WA > Energy > Uranium Energy”), in a section titled, “Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA,” [(image of webpage forthcoming)] is the following statement:

    “In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the ‘New U’ uranium claims…”

    There is more, lots more. The Bundy Ranch and their ancestral rights of land use sit plumb smack on Senator Harry Rieds son’s land deals with Chinese foreign interests of use of BLM land.
    It’s marxist shakedown inforced with armed badged federal leg breakers.
    I’ll hazard a reason out of many why LaVoy was executed, those boys where uncovering connections to the highest level’s of the regime in DC and beyond. Connections that could not be allowed to get out. Remember the last election and the “Truth”, 40 American’s left to die in Benghazi, optics you know.
    And that is only just one reason why.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s