Commentary: In the Wake of an Unnatural Disaster (Part Twelve)

#1316c

Given 09-Apr-16; 12 minutes

listen:

download:

description: (hide)

Carnal men and women the federal government steal through confiscatory taxation in order to make it appear that the leaders in government are benefactors. Their normal modus operandi is to steal from Peter to pay Paul in order to grease the skids of government thievery. One of the most egregious thefts conducted by the federal government was to buy up millions of acres of land from our taxes in order to to use this land for grazing, lumber, or mineral rights, something disallowed by the Constitution. The original intent for federal land was for (1) military installations, (2) arsenals, (3) dockyards, and (4) other needful buildings. The Founding Fathers intended that the federal government would be allocated 10 square miles comprising the District of Columbia. Over the years, the elected thieves in Washington have stolen millions of acres of land, especially in the western United States, with over 84% of Nevada, 69% of Alaska, and 45% of California stolen by the federal government, taking away these precious resources from the citizenry. As in the times of the Pharaoh, when the government steals the resources of Israel, the people become slaves, not beneficiaries.


transcript:

The previous two commentaries I gave involved governmental immorality on a huge scale. The sin in both cases involved stealing through taxation, done in order to continue the thieves' working life within an elected office by making it appear the official was a wonderful giver of gifts.

The voters, it appears, have taken the bribes by voting to keep the thieves in office. Governmental thieves wear suits and are friendly-appearing folks, but a major reason for their largess to voters is to get back into office. They are still thieves who blatantly steal from Peter to pay Paul as a normal practice of doing business. They do it without blinking an eye.

Today I am going to touch on another form of thievery operated by the government that is less noticeable, especially by us easterners. However this practice is involved in an activity that hit the national news a couple of months ago and resulted in one westerner being killed under mysterious circumstances.

A slice of the history of the settling of the storied American west is held to some degree by most of us, if only from the perverted versions of it provided by American movies starring the likes of John Wayne and a host of others pictured as heroes of a sort. With guns blazing, they fought injustices against the two-gunned villains who made war against the helpless settlers taking advantage of the wide open spaces out on the plains with no lawmen around to prevent their pillaging and sometimes their murders.

In addition to that, there were also sufficient Indians around to fend off as well. Sometimes even the Indians won, as in the battle of Little Bighorn, during which George Armstrong Custer and his soldiers were utterly slaughtered by the angry Sioux who felt they had had enough of what they saw as injustices by our federal government.

The American government doesn’t have a very good historical reputation that was earned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was an arm of the larger Bureau of Land Management, which in turn was eventually an arm of the still larger Department of the Interior.

For most of this nation’s early western history, the Great Plains and both sides of the Rocky Mountains were open range areas. This meant there were few fences even when the cattle herds were continuously growing in size. Much of the land even in areas where fences were fairly common was not owned by anybody. It was common practice for ranchers to graze their cattle freely outside the land they actually legally owned and nobody seemed to care because virtually everybody was doing it and nobody owned the open range anyway.

Here is a literal fact. The ranchers desired their herds to grow in numbers so they make as much money as they could. As long as open range land was available it could be purchased for a nominal fee, most likely from the states, who did it for taxing purposes.

However, sometime in the 20th century, the Federal government began buying up empty land. Mostly empty western land. Again, it was done with our tax monies. For what purpose? Was it really legal for them to do so since the land was within the semi-independent states. The legality issue is interesting. Does the Constitution even allow it? That is truly questionable regarding the lands in question.

Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government control of 10 square miles of Washington D.C. It further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if the federal government first has the consent of the state legislature.

The Constitution further states the federal government is limited in its acquisition of land to only four purposes: military forts, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to own millions of acres. Furthermore, the so-called “public lands” they currently control must be returned to the states.

I want you to think about this because a huge percentage of an individual’s, as well as a corporation’s or a state's or a nation’s wealth, is held and produced from its lands. Be it water, salt, fruits and vegetables, meat, gold, silver, oil, uranium—and given enough time we might name a hundred things more—and who knows how much more wealth hidden below the surface we are unaware of.

But in the past six months, the government has twice stopped ranchers from using land they’ve been using for generations and tried to run them off. In the first confrontation, in Nevada the government backed down when the ranchers confronted them in force. In this second one, the government resisted more firmly and one man was killed. To you this might be a tempest in a teapot, but not to the ranchers.

Are you aware the federal government now owns 84.5% of Nevada; 69% of Alaska. Ask yourself just how much potential wealth is lying underground in Alaska under the North Slope, where some geologists say there may be more oil there than the Saudis ever dreamed of?

The federal government owns 84% of Utah; 53% of Oregon; 50% of Idaho; 48% of Arizona; 45% of California; 42% of Wyoming; 41% of New Mexico and 36.5% of Colorado, and this is just the western states.

It reminds me of what happened in Egypt when the government of the Pharaoh gained control of the money and the land. The Israelites became slaves.

You might say, "Big deal; most of that land doesn’t get enough rain to wet a rock." But you tell me how much God has stored underground where the minerals are. And besides, why are they are moving to guard it more vigorously than at any time since Indian times? And they are guarding it from folk whose families have been using it feed their cattle for generations—and suddenly they begin intervening.

In addition to this, our government, especially under Bill Clinton, gave the United Nations privileged use of much of that land. Why? Is our very land being stolen away from us, as happened to our ancestors in Egypt? This isn’t a huge national issue, but I am suspicious that some skullduggery is going on.

JWR/aws/dcg





Loading recommendations...