February 5, 2016 at 8:16 pm #47082
Here is sign that I was talking about on another thread. Before I got a chance to go take a photo, his post came out on Facebook. Our friends at the EPA are putting these up. This is a political ad, but it clearly shows the signs they are putting up. The EPA is saying they own all water, including the rain water that falls on your roof and comes out your gutter.
February 5, 2016 at 9:39 pm #47084
- This topic was modified 4 years ago by Roadracer.
Piss on the EPA, they own it.February 6, 2016 at 3:32 am #47085
The fact is that all resources in the state are owned by the state. This has already been established in several cases throughout US history and one of the most recent was the one where the Oregon guy was just prosecuted a couple years ago. The guy was prosecuted for “stealing” water from the State and not the Feds.
If I remember right it stems back to the same series of laws that established national parks, forests, monuments, etc…. It also the basis of the Pittman Roberson Act and how the money for conservation programs are distributed among the states based upon sales, hunting license sales, and a number of other obscure forces of politics. This is also the basis for the argument that the Hammonds and Bundys are using for their protest against BLM and how BLM seizes land illegally.
http://ageofdecadence.comFebruary 6, 2016 at 3:03 pm #47086
The EPA is the poster child for bureaucracy gone totally out of control. There were real problems to solve when they were created and they did a good job addressing those problems. However, as occurs with bureaucracies over time, their continued growth and that of the envirocrazies industry that feeds off them is dependent upon them legislating via their own authority solutions to increasingly obscure problems.
As someone with a pond, several small streams, and some wetland areas on my property I don’t like their expansive claim of controlling all waters. I truly don’t expect them to ever show up on my property, but the very fact that they could is disconcerting. The EPA with threat of lawsuits and court orders has forced VT to issue new regulations impacting farm practices so as to reduce pollution reaching Lake Champlain. That the EPA’s own data says the farms are only a minor contributor to the pollution problem means nothing, the farmers were a group they could take action against. Bear in mind these are mostly small family farms, many of them organic even. Than again, Monsanto and the big-agri corporations that have great influence at the Federal level have been waging an all out regulatory war against small family farms in recent years.February 6, 2016 at 6:01 pm #47087
The fact is that all resources in the state are owned by the state.
Tell it to the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and the President. And don’t forget the battle Andy Johnson has been having with the EPA (federal, not state) out in Wyoming. The State of Wyoming told him he could build his pond. The feds are up to over $20 million in fines they claim Johnson owes them for his federal violation(s). I don’t know legally who’s right, but one thing’s certain: the feds most clearly believe that might makes right and are demonstrating that on an increasing basis. The most recent update I could find on that case was just a couple of weeks ago:February 6, 2016 at 6:42 pm #47088
Technically and legally, Johnson is in the right.
And a local, I can be at his spread in 40 minutes easy.
This is a subject that will divide this country like no other, not just property rights, states rights, but suddenly the simple act of placing a potted plant outside to catch the rain is illegal? This effects everyone.
This will not end well as soon as Colorado and other states decide that the fed is out of line and decide to allow their farmers and ranchers to use as much water as they need, to hades with those downstream. Same for Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and more. What happens when CA can’t get any water because the Colorado is just a trickle?
Unlike the Mississippi, which is a cargo carrier, the western rivers are water sources. Shut them down and what happens?February 6, 2016 at 9:51 pm #47090
Piss on the EPA, they own it.
They’ve earned it!
This is a subject that will divide this country like no other
(¶ 1.) The Congress shall have power …
(¶ 17.) 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, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
(¶ 18.) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The original constitution (the one said to be “for” the United States of America, (as opposed to the one adopted as bylaws for the municipal corporation now ruling the nation, which is only said to be “of” the United States of America, declares an actual boundary, on the (otherwise unlimited) power of the Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.” It might be difficult to determine an exact date when, or decision wherein, the Supreme Court first specifically and deliberately yielded the concept of such boundary to the desires of the federal government to legislate “exclusively” for State (non-federal) territory, but it is clear that the Congress, and multiple presidents, at least, have desired to at least ignore, if not obliterate, such limits.
And though they have never formally ruled to discard the boundary, nor to delete its constitutional verbiage, it is also clear that the Court has indeed, piece-at-a-time, ignored or yielded such bounds on federal power, many times over. Witness their decisions in Obamacare, “gay” marriage, and the steadfast refusal of the fedgov to yield to the (mostly western) States, lands that were originally intended by the founders to be turned over to the States, to name but three instances. This is the reason (to name one more instance), that it is commonly understood, by people on both sides of the issue, that shifting the balance of the Supreme Court leftward by one “Justice,” will effectively eliminate all legal protection for the right to keep and bear arms, and soon thereafter, for the rights of free speech, press, assembly, and religion, if not more.
Sadly, the majority of citizens since the founding, have either ignored their federal government’s desire for ever more power, or worse, have voted for candidates who sought it, to get a share of the promised freebies and advantages. I think it is now only a matter of time until de facto becomes de jure.
I hope I’m mistaken.
February 6, 2016 at 10:00 pm #47092
- This reply was modified 4 years ago by L Tecolote.
This will not end well. The EPA is going way to fare on these rights.February 6, 2016 at 11:15 pm #47095
As I always knew ……………my ancestors were correct . Modern times prove it , time and time again . How’s it working for you now ?February 6, 2016 at 11:18 pm #47096
Tolik, Great song.February 7, 2016 at 5:25 am #47097
At the end of Tolik’s video , at the very lower right corner (at least at the time I watched it) is a video of an older black man wearing a Confederate uniform and carrying a Confederate flag (visible in the lower left corner of that particular video clip). I recommend it highly. If one thinks about it, one might come to realize what’s really going on in society. The man in the video hits it squarely on the head: they’re destroying our culture (all across the United States). All but the most nonsensical know full well that the vast majority of people that fly (or want to fly) the Confederate Flag, have zero desire to go back to slavery. It’s about a way of life in the 20th and 21st century, not what was happening politically in the 19th.
In the Russell Means video I posted in another thread, he hit it right square on the head: it’s about losing our culture. Or as Ol’ Karl said 167 years ago, it’s about destroying the social and political order. The issue isn’t hatred. It’s about Saul Alinsky’s Rule #12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than
Then move to Cloward & Piven’s strategy of putting people in a position where the government IS the source of everything – i.e. dependency by the people on the government. Do it by force, do it by coercion, or do it by slight of hand where it appears the government is coming in to “save” us – it makes no difference. It’s all the same outcome.
By the way – I was happy to hear recently that Utah apparently came to its senses – the land of people TAUGHT to be prepared, and until recently they weren’t even allowed to collect rain water that was coming off their roofs and store it in barrels! Now, reportedly, they can. THANK YOU! (I’m surprised the Feds haven’t tried to go after that, too!)February 7, 2016 at 6:13 pm #47106
You hit the nail on the head ! I fly one because of family history , but many others fly it as a protest symbol , much like the greatly over used ” dont tread on me ” flag .February 7, 2016 at 11:41 pm #47109
GS, Thanks for the tip.
H K Edgerton is a proud exponent of the tradition that people fight for home ground, and their traditions. Brother Ken Hamblin used to remind us that there were Black Confederate Soldiers, just as there were White Southern Abolitionists. The very essence of racism, as Ayn Rand said, is the false idea that genetics determines intellect and morality.
February 8, 2016 at 12:49 am #47113
- This reply was modified 4 years ago by L Tecolote.
I fly one because of family history , but many others fly it as a protest symbol , much like the greatly over used ” dont tread on me ” flag .
Sadly, I have chosen not to fly either one. I used to fly the Gadsden on the other side of the Stars and Stripes on federal holidays, particularly 4th of July. But once it got hijacked by the Tea Party, I retired it, hoping it would eventually lose its association with the Tea Party. It did not. The flag was thrown out. Both it and the Confederate flag have been hijacked, and particularly the latter has become so polarizing that it’s not worth sending the “wrong” message to otherwise reasonably decent people who’d misunderstand my own intent by flying it. So with great sadness, we own neither anymore.
But I do not consider that a victory for anyone else, at least personally. I find other ways of making my positions known, and they often evoke questions, like “what’s that?” or “what does that mean?” Take for example my front license plate (and I’ve seen an increasing number with the same one, even just in my own area – some thanks to me). It’s the Bonnie Blue. And then there’s the III% symbol. Yes, I took the III% symbol off my vehicle because I have occasion to go on a military installation from time to time, and they’re REALLY monitoring everything (scanning all IDs and they have cameras facing the REAR ends of the vehicles as they proceed past the check points). No need to evoke further paranoia of Brother. (You’d have loved the brief conversation I had with the black gate guard one day when he asked about my Bonnie Blue on the front. He knew I wasn’t a general, but he wanted to know what it meant. I told him what it symbolized to me – a symbol of the South without the alleged hatred some have tried to attach to the Stars and Bars. He LOVED it! It was an amazing experience.) The loss of my ability to fly the Gadsden without being assumed to be a “Tea Bagger” is a really big irritant to me, though. I want nothing to do with the professional hijackers that took over that movement.February 8, 2016 at 7:39 am #47121
You would be completely correct if this paragraph was never written.
The EPA is using this as their hammer: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
I just read the Federal Register (the link is here,http://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/final-clean-water-rule) The EPA has page after page after page of court cases used as proof of the EPA’s jurisdictions.
The last time any real effort to get around this clause occurred, over 600,000 men died in battle.
- This reply was modified 4 years ago by 74.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.