August 16, 2018

When Totalitarians Steal Your Presumed Land Rights

Perhaps the first mistake of mind is a false understanding that you, as an individual, are part of “We the People” as found in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was constructed for “We the People”; that is owners or shareholders of the corporation called the United States and from that point passed on down to their posterity as is mentioned in that constitution. Individual states signed on to the corporation and became legal participants. Each time you sign your name to any legal document of the state, you are agreeing and willing to abide by the terms of that corporation. In short, you only have rights as are meted out by the corporation, including land ownership. The corporation permits you to carry out other functions as a benefit to them, not to you.

A tough pill to swallow.

Because from birth we are brainwashed to think we live in a free “democratic” country, where “We the People” are “you the people” you think you have power over others simply by finding more voters to go against their “freedoms.” Believing that a democratic rule is somehow American (being defined as the majority so desires) and serving as the useful idiots for the posterity of “We the People” corporate rulers, our mostly false understanding of democracy has quickly morphed into a totalitarian rule accomplished by years of mind manipulation. In layman’s terms – tying the noose that will ultimately hang you.

We live in a society that seems empowered to force the idealism of enough people onto others regardless of any perceived rights. What makes totalitarianism successful is the ability of the centralized system of government and their controllers to indoctrinate the masses into certain beliefs and attitudes. Once a dictatorial, centralized government has molded the minds of non-thinking people, those people are used to do the bidding for the government in power. It works marvelously!

We can see all this in action wherever we go if we understand the reality and look for it. Few do or care.

Yesterday I was reading an article, several actually, about how the Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) is considering modifying their controls and regulations that could allow for greater development of lands that fall under the government control of the LUPC, i.e. “unorganized townships.”

Useful idiots for a centralized government, ignorant totalitarians, one day decided what their ideal desires were for someone else’s private land. Yeah, that’s right. You see, nobody owns land. We may hold a “tenants in common” deed, that grants us the privilege to pay tribute to the governments in control, under their very strict regulations, but when push comes to shove we are helpless. There may come a time when the government decides they have need of your land and so take it with little recourse to you.

To help accomplish the wishes of centralized government, “education” programs are established that are designed to tell us what it is we want. So-called “change agents” of centralized government go out into the community and using powerful tactics designed from a firm understanding of man’s nature and ease of mind manipulation, convince other people of what society should be like and all aspects that make up our surroundings. With a majority support of the useful idiots, most anything can be accomplished while causing people to believe it is democracy in action.

One of those bits of idealism involves a “vision” of what communities and private land should be. And thus was born the Land Use Planning Commission, or whatever the name of your state’s dictatorial land use organization is called, in order that land use falls within the ideological bounds of brainwashed citizens.

I never hear anyone ask why there is such a commission…never. It also seems that the only time private citizens have much to say about the fascist form of dictatorial rule is when that rule directly effects them – if they can even recognize it. Aside from that, it is always the brainwashed, ignorant totalitarians who demand that you conform to the strict regulations of the LUPC in order that you can have your ideal, protected, isolated fantasy that someone else is paying for.

Ignorant totalitarians care not whether a person or a corporation has invested heavily in any property for purposes of providing a product to consumers, and yes, for profit, they have been convinced that it is imperative that all that land be locked up in order to fit their idealism.

This is totalitarianism at its best, carried out and perpetuated by non-thinkers who believe their democracy provides them the power to steal away the rights and lifestyle of all others.

I was reading another piece of work called, “Forging a Common Vision for Maine’s North Woods.” Think about that title for a moment. Why is it so important to these robotic destroyers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that they forge a “common vision” (communism) of what doesn’t even belong to them? Who do we think we are? What have we become?

Hidden within the disguise of protection, while never hinting at the perpetuation of one’s idealist social agenda, we can read about the effort of “forging a common vision.”

Efforts to protect the working landscapes and rural communities of northern Maine could benefit from a broader, more comprehensive view of the region and its challenges. Indeed, forest fragmentation, parcelization, sprawl, and rural economic development all transcend municipal and county jurisdictions, and suggest the need for a regional or landscape-level approach (Foster 2001). This approach should identify and strengthen the region’s ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets, and place these within the larger context of Maine, New England, the Maritime Provinces, and beyond.

Who says? Millions and millions of dollars of somebody’s money have been invested in millions of acres of land in Maine and these totalitarians, lying and hiding behind protection, feel entitled to dictate to those landowners just exactly what they can and cannot do with their land in order that it fits into their “ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets” so that it nicely fits within the totalitarian landscape of the broader region. Does that mean make Maine like Massachusetts or does that mean lock up all the land in Maine so that those in Massachusetts can have Maine as their idealistic playground?

But what of the future? It appears that the ignorant totalitarians bent on their own demise by placing full control over property in the hands of a centralized, socialistic government fail to realize the loss of that important monetary tribute the joint tenant is permitted to cede to government. That money serves to further carry out and perpetuate the power and control of the centralized government and yet once the landowners decide their tribute far exceeds the benefits they could realize from their investment, they will give up that land and into whose hands and control will in then fall? Will it become the full control of the corporate United States or the corporate state’s where the land is located? Perhaps it will be turned over to non-tax-paying land trusts or the like, always eager to do the bidding of central government.

Totalitarians want what they want. Do they really know what they are doing? I don’t think so, but the idealism behind the push is overwhelming to them.

There once was a day when land ownership was the creme del a creme. Today, with so little left that a person can do with land, is it any longer worth the investment?

Then what?

Share

Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Given Authority Over Turkey Hunting Dates and Bag Limits

An amended bill, LD98, gives the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife authority to set hunting season dates and bag limits on wild turkeys. In addition, the Department can implement special hunts for wild turkeys when it is deemed a necessity.

Each of us will have to decide whether we think granting this authority to the Department is a good thing or a bad thing. But then again, does it really matter if the Department never uses it? For those who are suffering crop damages and/or other livestock or property damage issues, I hope the Commissioner at least opts to implement some special hunts to mitigate the losses.

One report is being spread around the state that an apple orchard company is losing over $1 million a year in crop damage. MDIFW should begin immediately to stop this problem.

Share

Animal Farm or Funny Farm

I recently read a short Letter to the Editor from the Western AG Reporter (the letter was scanned from a newsprint and emailed to me.) The letter writer pointed out that the fish and wildlife department was fining a man hundreds of dollars for “harassing” wildlife. It seems that a bear was attacking his livestock, so he was using his pick-up truck to chase the bear away. The letter writer wanted to know if the livestock belonged to this man and they were on his property, then why isn’t the fish and wildlife department being fined for THEIR wildlife harassing his cows?

The solution is clear. Simply shoot the damned bear!

I’ve always said the Environmentalists always take and never give. They take life from people for their idiotic purposes. In this case, the man would have been better off to just shoot the damned bear. Give the environmentalists exactly what they are asking for.

Mind you, of course, that authorities, who collectively lack enough brains to know to get in out of the rain, along with their buddies at the environMENTAL institutes, teach that “hazing” is a good tool to use to keep large predators from attacking livestock and humans – a means of cohabiting with wild animals. I think a truck is a great tool to use to “haze” a bear.

Get a life!

They’re coming to take me away, aha! They’re coming to take me away oho! To the Funny Farm where life is beautiful all day long.

Share

Do We Live in a Free Country?

wake up americaThis morning I was watching a local news channel from Florida. The subject was about a “city code” that prohibits any homeowner from renting his/her property “short-term.” There was no given definition to “short-term.”

The city mayor said the “code” was enacted by the town council because other residents complained that their neighbors were always changing. What? Are you serious? You mean to tell me that because a neighbor doesn’t like the idea that who might be living next door is a mystery, a city bans a property owner from renting his private property?

And who wants to deny that we live in a fascist state, with totalitarian operatives calling the shots?

But pay no attention to ANY of this. Go get in line for that “EYE” phone spying product coming out. That way you can probably get a FREE “app” to directly report when your neighbors do something you don’t like.

 

Share

Mexican wolves: growing problem in Southwest

Wolves are a predatory creature with primary food sources being large-hoofed mammals like elk, deer and, as ranchers see too often, cattle. The reintroduction of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico is of concern to ranchers as the pack numbers continue to increase…
Source: Mexican wolves: growing problem in Southwest

Share

Wolf expansion has ranchers worried about their livelihoods 

Recent decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to expand the number of Mexican wolves and the area the wolves are allowed to roam, has Greenlee County ranchers extremely worried. Wolves will now be allowed to roam freely across all of Greenlee County and about two-thirds of both Arizona and New Mexico.
Source: Guest Column: Wolf expansion has ranchers worried about their livelihoods – Eastern Arizona Courier: Opinion

Share

Builders flood Congress to block Obama’s EPA rules for creeks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to put under federal oversight any pond or stream that has a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway, even if the smaller body of water flows just a few weeks a year. Opponents fear it could mean permission would be needed to even dig a small ditch or build a road.

Source: Builders flood Congress to block Obama’s EPA rules for creeks – Personal Liberty

Share

Want to Fight Communistic Central Control but Don’t Want to Leave the Country to Do It?

Fight the cancer of Communistic principles from the comfort of your own bunkhouse…. learn how to say No.

Joan Veon said that Public Private “Partnerships” exist to manage the assets of the government. And that would necessarily include assets that the government, usually a bureaucracy, lays claim to control.

Video of Joan Veon on public private partnerships.

All the critics are in agreement that WOTUS[Waters of the United States] is about controlling all waters, and thereby private property land use, of the US.
http://gardner.house.gov/press-release/gardner-votes-protect-colorado-wotus-rule

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/09/24/ncba-issue-another-warning-on-wotus-impact/

It ain’t rocket science. Central control of private property is pure Marxism. (Last part of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto.) Control equals wealth. Control equals ownership. Central control abolishes private property. Central, regional, national, global “planning” schemes are not legitimate options to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. Regionalism is not a safe alternative to fascist Nationalism, the evil philosophical twin to Communism that robs Americans of the sacred individual right to just compensation for takings of private property for bureaucratic purposes of controlling water quality, providing habitat for animals.

Learn how to Just Say No.

So, let’s talk about what communism is or is not. Is all central control of government assets communistic? No, don’t be silly. We are talking about the centralized control of private property and rights that are being systematically seized outside of the normal transfer of rights process and then controlled conjunctively through the administrative state and bureaucracies that are routinely being characterized as lawless by more and more legal scholars.

At some point I think people will begin to connect the take-over of private property land to other private property rights such as employment. For example, Cuba’s Slave Trade in Doctors. (May be a Paywall. Hint: You might be able to bypass the Pay Wall by placing the title in a Google search box.)

Now think about Obamacare. Does Obamacare enable public private “partnerships” to skim the difference off the labor of the enslaved, if you will, American doctors? We now find out that the Obamacare bill was intended to be obscure. And it is in many ways.

It clearly takes over a large fraction of the US economy and that is dangerous to American exceptionalism.

The reason I put the word partnership in quotes is because in a real partnership there is a sharing of profits and liabilities. But government typically dodges liability because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A public private partnership can include a publicly traded corporation that wealthy hedge fund speculators can invest in. The profit margin involved when enslaving doctors can amount to a lot of money for public private partnerships composed of small groups of politically well connected friends of the White House. In fact, such public private partnerships can hire top political figures (amoral opportunists) as safeguards against adverse legislation and or prosecution, and lend the whole scheme an air of legitimacy, of “giving back”.

Instead of true partnerships, the general concept of public private partnerships looks like a special delegation of governmental power to a select private company along with a smoke screen of borrowed sovereign immunity. Favoritism, corporate cronyism, oligarchy and monopoly were disfavored by our Founders who believed in equality under the law. Corporate cronyism fits the Communist form of government far better than the American example of equal treatment. Cronyism smacks of the idea that certain favorites are above the law.

So, let’s take a look at another specific instance of “assets of the government”. Texas has 1,500 years worth of groundwater, even if it does not rain again. Nearly all of it is privately owned. The Texas scare narrative is that we will never develop the technology to get it out of the ground. Surely, the advancement of engineering technology to extract water will not magically stop.

Through a heritage of ancient and relevant English, Spanish and French law, America, including Texas, developed sets of legal concepts that govern relationships between users of surface water with a governing authority managing that surface water and resolving conflicts between users with surface water rights. But in Texas (as in states east of the Mississippi), groundwater is owned outright by the individual land owner, the same as other underground minerals such oil and gas.

So when talking about surface water, the creation of a Texas Water Trust, Texas Water Bank, a Texas Water Development Board and water credits, and the like, are not all that unusual. But I am suspicious of the cover story when such banking and investment schemes are used in conjunction with privately owned groundwater. There is no legitimate way to use “regional planning” to plan our groundwater rights away. Regionalism, in the form of “regional planning” schemes, are not legitimate alternatives to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. I am not talking about the purely voluntary water market made up of purchased groundwater rights. Voluntariness makes a market legitimate. Trickery of planning private property rights away removes voluntariness. That is why, when it comes to private property groundwater, a water trust, water bank, a state level water board and water credits are highly suspect depending upon the source of the title to groundwater rights especially so when we learn that the Greenies in the UN’s Commission on Global Governance say things such as, “Regionalism (think Texas’ regional water planning groups) must precede Globalism.”

Here is something else that is curious. Ignoring for now the unconstitutional nature of the forced “saving” of 50% of private property groundwater, think about this. How can the selling of water credits of groundwater, that can no longer be produced (because the 50% level was reached and all groundwater production was stopped for the paramount benefit of the endangered downstream fish), not end up being some sort of securities fraud?

Now, put on the conspiracy hat for a moment.

What could be the motivation behind getting the private money of American super-rich hedge fund managers and others, even more wealthy, tied up in worthless groundwater assets that cannot be developed to their full potential because of a mandatory 50% preservation of groundwater in 50 years? (Never mind that the state cannot define 100% and that it is impossible to save 50% of something when you don’t know what 100% looked like or when it existed.)

And what about the climate change clap trap? Who or what has the clout (too big to jail?) to ignore all the pump and dump (in my opinion) going on with nearly worthless carbon credits and the climate change con job? Climate change – follow the money.

Conspiracy Hat Moment:
Is the purpose of the various asset grabs to drain the wealth of the US (and other select countries?) so it (or they) can’t fight back in the next world war? (That’s right Dorothy, war is something humans will never be able to end.)

Are America’s most wealthy being duped into duping the average US citizen with the Marxist, anti-economic theme that central control increases total production?

Or is the duping really aimed, not at the general public, but at the wealthy through a campaign that only appears to be aimed at an increasingly skeptical public?

We should remember that citizen wealth is sometimes resorted to, even as recently as the current Ukrainian crisis by an impoverished and unprepared nation. Oil tycoon buys batteries for military vehicles that have none.(Pay Wall)

Knowing how important batteries are to vehicles, what’s with the EPA’s draconian regulations forcing the closure of the last US lead smelter……..

It is well established that the American revolution was financed in part by the personal wealth and family treasure of early American citizens.

So what explains the stubborn global push to keep the climate change con going, the various environmental schemes going against all the available science, the same con jobs that are draining the US Treasury and the portfolios of the most wealthy among us and the pocket books of the average American through “smart” high energy and fuel prices?

So just to recap, communism is top-down, central planning and control of private rights. I think we all need to learn how to say No as more and more are doing daily.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Robert Miller Presentation – International Seminar on the Doctrine of Discovery

Share

Fascist Government, Wild Mongrel Dogs, Lies, And Using Humans as Guinea Pigs

“Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide this fall whether a 27-year program aimed at returning the red wolf to the wild in the isolated swampland of eastern North Carolina will go forward.”

“Now they have letters from more than 500 landowners asking them to remove wolves from their property. It is what they promised they would do when all this began. We intend to hold them to it, even if they don’t want to do it.”

“Wildlife officials assured landowners the wolves would not be likely to stray onto their land. If they did, a call to the recovery center would bring a trained officer, who would trap the animal and take it back to the reserve.”

“If the animal was troublesome, a remote-control “capture collar” equipped with a tranquilizer would be detonated, knocking the canine out.”

“In addition, large parts of the protected land were flooded for waterfowl habitation. That forced the wolves to seek different hunting land.”

“Wildlife officials contend that the wolf population has a minimal impact on private land and that they rely on the cooperation of private landowners for the repopulation effort to succeed.”

“We would not leave them behind,” Miranda said. “Whatever the case, we still have our captive population to populate a new area.”<<<Read More>>>

Share