Tag Archives: property rights

The Incredible Raisin Heist

If this story wasn’t so serious, you would have to laugh because it is almost unbelievable in it absurdity. Keeping it simple, due to past bad policy, that was never remedied, there currently exists on the federal level an actual Raisin Administrative Committee (and we wonder why are deficit is so high) which exists, with the full force of the law behind it, to determine how much of a raisin grower’s crop they should each year confiscate from the raisin farmer. Enter stage left a raisin farmer and his wife who have had it with giving over the fruits of their labors with no compensation and are willing to take their case to the Supreme Court to get some relief from legalized theft by the Federal Government. You can’t make this stuff up.

Unfortunately, the outcome of this story has as huge of ramifications for property rights in America as did the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision where the Supreme Court upheld the idea that private property could be taken from private citizens if it provided a greater financial good for the community even if the property owner had no wish to sell.

On a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being REALLY important), this Wall Street Journal editorial from April 20th, 2015 is a 12. To read this article…  Continue reading

Virginia land trust’s transgressions draw legal, legislative scrutiny

Mary Boneta has been fighting the conservation easement placed on her 64 acre Virginia farm by the powerful PEC (Piedmont Environmental Council) since the day she bought her land in 2006. It has been a long fight-much like David and Goliath-but the tide in the last year or so has turned in her favor. To read an update on her inspiring story follow this link.

Land Grab! Obama To Lock Up ANWR’s Oil

Every land grab by the federal government is a threat to state sovereignty and property rights. Late January 2015 President Obama signaled his latest land grab. To learn more about the effort by the feds to lock down the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge along with all the natural gas, oil, and minerals underground, click on this link.

Try, Try, Again-Mo. Lawmaker’s Bill Would Protect Private Property From Agenda 21

Missouri Representative Mike Moon appears unwilling to allow the veto last year by the Missouri governor of a bill to stop property right infringement through the use of Agenda 21 policies to remain unchallenged. On December 12, 2014, Representative Moon introduced House Bill 216. While currently not on the House of Representative calendar, we must hope for its further advancement, as what happens in other states affects our own. To learn more click on this link.

Utah to seize own land from government, challenge federal dominance of Western states

Thirty-one percent of our nation’s land is owned by the federal government while 63.9 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the federal government. This prompted Utah to pass in 2012 a bill to attempt to force the federal government to return to the state control of over 20 million of its acres-by December 31, 2014-along with the ability of the state to garner economic activity from the land and the minerals under the land. It is a state vs. federal rights issue with serious implications for the several other western states that find themselves in the same predicament. This situation will not resolve quickly-if at all-but bears watching.

To read the actual bill click on this link.

To read a brief (1 page) informative legal overview of the issue, click on this link.

To read a series of talking points that explains, among other things, why certain states after statehood managed to force the feds to give them ownership of their own land, while others, like Utah, did not, click on this link

Trick or Truth? What EPA and the Corps of Engineers Are Not Saying About Their “Waters of the U.S.” Proposal

For most of this year the federal government, specifically the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, has been forwarding a set of proposed regulations that would greatly expand the definition of “navigable waters”. The EPA and the Corps wants the citizens to trust that if the EPA and the Corps are allowed to expand the definition that the wet zone in your back yard or the intermittent creek that in the spring flows along the side of your house will not be included under the newly expanded regulation. Should you believe them? Hello! By now only the most naïve amongst us still trust the federal government to tell the truth.

Good news. The American Farm Bureau Federation, knowing that whoever controls the water, controls not just the water but  the land on which the water lays, in order to protect property rights, has in this article gone toe-to-toe with the EPA to tell you, the citizen, the truth about these over-reaching regulations. To learn more click on this link.

BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch

The most recent and ongoing land grab by the federal government is occurring along the Texas Oklahoma border, where again the now infamous Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is attempting to steal 90,000 acres of privately owned ranch property. One of the things that the Obama crowd is proud of and always attempts to do is “to control the language”. In this case the BLM is selectively using two terms “accretion” and “avulsion” to create an argument as to why the land along the Red River in Texas really belongs to Oklahoma. This then will allow an opening for the BLM to confiscate the Texas ranchers’ land. To learn more click on this link.

Chinese Buying Land In US Communities All Over America

Like we don’t have enough problems trying to keep the U.S. Federal Government from advancing Agenda 21 by stealing our property, now China is busy buying up acreage and businesses in the United States (and other countries). At the rate the private lands are being swallowed up by the feds and China, due to the law of supply and demand, what land is left will be able to be purchased only by the elite. It makes it easy to imagine that the federal government and China are both in collusion to advance Agenda 21. To learn more click on this link.

Do you know your Constitution, because just maybe Cliven Bundy does.

There are many opinions on the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his battle with the federal government. Some folks think that regardless of whether Bundy thinks he should or should not pay the feds his fees, if he doesn’t, then he is a free loader, or that because his speech is not PC enough, we should ostracize him completely and negate his property concerns. Others, who feel that the federal government has no business owning massive amounts of what should be state owned lands, are just grateful that FINALLY someone has brought attention to the loss of state sovereignty, property rights infringement, and the heavy hand (can you say thugocracy?) of the feds. All that said, I highly recommend that you read the explanation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution known as the Enclave clause which authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state only under a specific set of limited circumstances by clicking on this link.

Mahoning County farmers fight eminent domain for bike trail

Property Rights are the cornerstone of personal liberty in America. Without them We the People would simply be serfs. The loss of personal property rights is a key goal of those advancing Agenda 21. Remember this as you read this article, which highlights the horrible process that is being used all across America to advance a massive network of bike paths.

Below is a list of the wrong-headed ways the land for this bike path is being procured and its impact on the land owners, taxpayers in general, and the Constitution.

            1. The property owners, if they lose this lawsuit, will lose their property rights, privacy, personal security, and legal fees.

            2. Without asking the taxpayers, if they approve of this board’s actions, the purchase of the land for the bike path will be paid for by taxpayer dollar.

3. The officials, who are promoting this, are unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. If you do not like what they are doing, you have no direct recourse such as voting them out.

            4. 80% of the money being used to buy the land is money being diverted from the Federal Highway Fund. The success of our economy hinges on adequate, well-maintained highways not on the existence of bike paths.

            5.  The land for the bike path would be taken through eminent domain. Eminent domain should be used only in an effort to create significant economic good for society-not for recreation, as is the obvious reason in this case.

            Bike paths are great, but only IF the bike paths are paid for AND maintained with private funds AND the land is purchased without the use of eminent domain.

To read the entire article click on this link.