So why natural resources you say? Because there are a butt load of them. That's why. And it doesn't stop with diamonds. This is about ALL natural resources.
Natural resources are the MAIN reason for the federal seizure of privately, state/people owned, land. Look carefully at the map and you will realize that any and all of the land west of the Mississippi was up for grabs a while ago.
The Supreme court also decided somewhere along the line that this action was completely Constitutional.
I would like that court or any other to show me where in ANY Constitution, state, federal or otherwise it gives the PEOPLE'S permission to the FEDS to run the show.
They may be perfectly correct, that these areas do need to be preserved for future generations, as they were for me, but nowhere does it say that the states and it's people don't have first dibs on CONTROL of that land and it's resources as well as to profit from those resources. Think about it people.
How many resources are there to be had in any given area, anyway? The answer. A BUTT LOAD! And the feds want to control them.
The mining of coal, sulfur, gold. silver, diamonds, copper, tin, and exploring for gas, oil, water, dams, electricity, the mountains themselves, and what about TREES? Aren't these resources? Are these all property of the federal government? Where does it say that? What DOES our nation's rule book say about it? Let's look.
"The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…"
Last time I looked folks, there were resources all around me that God put here and that We The People have NATURAL RIGHT TO! That's why they're called NATURAL resources people. Because government did not create them, nor did they ordain that such shall exist. In fact, the last time I looked, It went
All of number 4 is subordinate to the rest. Governments do not make laws, only God and Nature do. "The Law of Necessity" is not a man made law. we were born with it, knowing it, doing it, right away, without being told that we needed to.
It's known as "The right to defend myself against harm." Still recognized today in every court in the land as the concept called the right to "Self-Defense".
If you point a gun at my head to rob me of my rights, I have the right, no the DUTY to stop you. Self defense.
That's what Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was trying to get across. It is all the Bundy family is trying defend and it is, by their own admission the number one reason the federal government under Ulysses S. Grant on March 1st, 1872 - Grant signs legislation establishing Yellowstone as the nation's first national park.
There you go, created by statute; the "National" Park/Refuge System.
Don't misunderstand me. I LOVE these places. Have seen many of them. They are magnificent. That's not the issue. Ownership of the RESOURCES and THE LAND! That's the issue.
Right now as you read this, they are occupying those lands, with absolutely NO intention of giving them up. They claim they "belong to the world." They have even labeled them "World Heritage Sites" and put them "Legally" under the control of the Unesco and the IMF.
Yes! Yes, it is! I still cannot understand how in the world she keeps getting away with such horrible acts.
And Harry Reid is grabbing up as much as Nevada as he can, as fast as he can. Who do you think is really behind all this Bundy Ranch thing?
Does Reid have a Certificate of Election? Twenty One days after the vote it has to be filed.
Where is my title ? No , not deed , title .
Better ask the county commisar .
Being a corporation the United States we are dealing with, operates under contract law. The Constitution is one of the bylaws of that corporation. Someone in the chain of command takes an oath to that Constitution. It therefore becomes their employment contract, with duties specified in the various amendments.
Why not sue the individual out in the field who is causing you a damage for breach of contract? Complicated charges like treason are hard to prove. Breach of contract is a much simpler situation. It can directly take care of someone who is stupid enough to follow unconstitutional orders.
Very good Herb,
That is mostly correct, although filing federal charges of crimes against the individual person who is at your door or on the phone is really the thing to do, as well as seeking out their bonding company and making sure the bonding companies are aware of the criminals they are insuring.
This is the ONLY way to attack "them". One guy at a time, starting with the guy at your door.
And video and audio record EVERYTHING THEY SAY OR DO! Period!
This is basic real estate theory 101. The ultimate "owner" of the land is the state (not necessarily one of the fifty). What private persons can own is not the land but title in the land, which is a bundle of rights to buy, sell, hypothecate, subdivide, bequeath, etc. Those rights can be separated and negotiated separately.
The ultimate owner is shown by what authority has the power to tax and exercise eminent domain. Originally, the states admitted into the U.S. were sovereigns over their land. Only the state could take land through eminent domain. The federal government had to get permission from the state to do that (see Art. I Sec 8 Cl. 17)
The 1875 case of Kohl v. United States changed all that, without a constitutional amendment. See http://conlaw.jotwell.com/is-there-a-federal-eminent-domain-power/ It yielded sovereignty over land to the federal government. That needs to be overturned.
If indeed you are correct, then I agree. This and many other actions must be overturned, but I am afraid this will not be enough.