RSSIt’s Dangerous to be Right When Your Government is Wrong
David L Lamon | April 29, 2010
4/29/2010
It’s Dangerous to be Right When Your Government is Wrong
David L Lamon
Voltaire noted, “It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong.”
Jane Chastain and Me
Dems to Take Your Property Rights Away
The following quote is representative of the Democratic Party philosophy as a whole. Peter Berle (president of National Audubon Society; board member Sierra Club) a well-known (Democrat) liberal leader said, “We liberals reject the idea of private property.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it Democrats! Are you starting to see where your Party has gone? All you God fearing, freedom loving Democrats better wake up because your property, your children’s and grandchildren’s property is also on their list. The Democrats are fast establishing a total dictatorship on America and we must react by firing them and liberal Republicans. Might as well face the facts, with the far-left wing of the party in control no opposition is allowed so if there are those good ones in the party they still have to toe the line. What they should do is jump ship now to send a message to the communist in control of their party and they are communist by definition. Look it up and while you are at it look up socialism and Marxism for a surprise. Educate Yourselves!
Definition in real terms of a Wetland
A wetland is simply the jurisdictional term of choice used by the federal government. It has expanded to the point that it has covered the occasional backyard mud puddle. And, the mud puddle in question didn’t have to come from a natural source like an overflowing pond or even rain water; it could be created by a drippy hose or a broken sprinkler pipe. Many times during the Clinton administration opponents of his and his liberal party would sick the EPA on them and confiscate their land. The liberal Democrats ignore the court and proceed as though the court didn’t make a decision against them.
Example of What Happens Once Government Takes Over
Consider the case of Bill Lyons who built a little ranch near San Francisco on land he reclaimed from the desert. In 1990, a representative from Fish & Wildlife discovered some water in a low spot by a gate where his cows went in and out to pasture. There was no water anywhere for miles that didn’t come from his well, but his property was declared a wetland. In 1987, the definition of a wetland was so broad that if you dug down 18 inches and found moisture, not water, for seven days during the “growing season” you had yourself a wetland, and the government had the power to stop you from improving or, in some cases, using your land at all.
Needless to say, millions of dollars have been spent by countless private (and public) land holders like Mr. Lyons in the attempt to fight these onerous regulations.
Latest From the High Court
Recent Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 attempted to rein in these excesses by reaffirming the existence of both statutory and constitutional limits on the scope of these regulations. However, the high court refused to wipe out the onerous wetlands regulations entirely. Instead, the Supremes said federal control only extended to those wetlands that have a “significant nexus” to the navigable waters of the U.S.
Unfortunately, the court didn’t define “significant nexus.” Therefore, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers held on to that 1987 regulation. Landowners are still twisting in the wind, and private property is still being “taken” through this regulation.
Constitution Ignored
When these takings occur, a property owner is not compensated as is the case with “public domain” Instead, the property owner holds the title to the land and still pays the taxes on it, but the property owner cannot put that land to the use he or she intended. In some cases, the property owner cannot use the land at all.
Nevertheless, the radical environmentalists are not satisfied. They are leaning on their Democratic friends to pass this bill in order to strip the term “navigable” from the law. If that happens, the feds will go back to confiscating property with abandon.
Note:
Do the Democrats dare move forward with this legislation before the 2010 election? Many see the handwriting on the wall and want to push it through for fear they will lose their grip on the controls of Congress. They see this as their one big chance to gain absolute control of our land.
Find moisture, not water, on your property and you could be left with a tax bill for land you simply cannot unload or use. That will put us further down the path to Obamatopia.
Some Insight
Former U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson put it simply: “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” This justice’s comment is a far cry from what we hear from these “liberal lawmaking judges” today. “We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts, “ said Abraham Lincoln, “not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” A government that is anxious to give alms to as many people as possible is even more anxious to commandeer their earnings. Witness, through Federal, State, and local taxes, a man/woman pays 40% or better of their income in taxes. One might ask, “Why have we become a nation of such horrific lawlessness?”
One of the main reasons is when the state becomes the violator of liberty and property rather than its guarantor; it debases respect for all law. People in society develop an increasing disrespect and disregard for what the law demands. They view the law as the agent for immorality in the form of legalized plunder for the benefit of some at the expense of others, and this same disrespect and disregard sooner or later starts to creep into dealings between individuals (trickle-down theory). Society verges on the brink of lawlessness. Stop and think, when individuals began to ask government to do things for them, rather than merely to secure rights and property, they began asking government to violate others rights and property for their benefit. An example would be the leftist liberals demand that no one in America has a right to own property. Amendment 5 of the Constitution says private property can’t be taken for public use without just compensation, and yet (without compensation) we see story after story where the government (unchecked or unregulated agencies run amuck) goes in someone’s backyard and finds a mud puddle and declares it a wetland or finds a plant, that they think might be extinct and seize the people’s property in the so-called interest of preserving natural resources, again without just compensation. To sum up the liberal’s feelings concerning property rights,
Contributor's website: http://thevoice.name
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
