When the EPA ‘accidentally’ released 3 million gallons of toxic sludge from an abandoned mine, nobody went to jail. Yet when the Hammonds accidentally burned a miniscule amount of government land in Oregon, it was called ‘arson.’ They were convicted, but then Big Guv wanted a harsher sentence. A federal judge imposed the maximum sentence, thus violating the ‘double jeopardy’ clause in the Constitution.
‘Big Guv’ owns 53 percent of the land in Oregon as well as 60 percent of Alaska and 85 percent of Nevada, the Bundy’s home state. The ranchers in Oregon have been harassed for a long time by the federal governmnet, which does not have a Constitutional right to the land they control:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution outlines how much land the federal government is allowed to own and for what purpose. It outlines a need for a federal capital (Washington, D.C.) and allows for the government to possess lands to administrate and maintain a military presence. It reads:
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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
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 states should have jurisdiction—not the federal government. Then again, Big Guv routinely ignores the Constitution and does what it likes. That’s the tyranny under which we live. The courts, the mainstream media, and the various Fed agencies are all in lockstep.
I couldn’t believe all the negative sentiment hurled at the ranchers who protested. Message boards were filled with people demanding Big Guv to squash the ’terrorists.’ These men were fighting for the Constitution after all other means failed. They are heros who are portrayed as greedy landowners. No! It’s Big Guv who is greedy. He owns most of the land and wants more!
Perhaps you think the Fed’s holdings belong to ‘We the People?’ Try going onto the land and see what happens–if you can find access. Increasingly, the government has been blocking such access. It’s Big Guv’s and the globalists’ land. If you do manage to get on ‘our’ land, you’ll be harrassed with fees and fines. The ranchers own some land and have for quite some time, but Big Guv wants that, too.
It’s all part of Agenda 21*. Don’t like it? Want to push back because all other means are rigged against you? Get ready to be labeled a ‘terrorist.’ Get ready to be shot in the head. Forget about due process.
* Agenda 21
Where one can live and what land should be designated for would, under fully-realized Agenda 21 plan, be controlled by the United Nations and a future one-world government. Consider the following section from the UN website on Agenda 21′s plan for “promoting sustainable human settlement development.” Emphasis added:
The overall human settlement objective is to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rural poor. Such improvement should be based on technical cooperation activities, partnerships among the public, private and community sectors and participation in the decision-making process by community groups and special interest groups such as women, indigenous people, the elderly and the disabled. These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies. In developing these strategies, countries will need to set priorities among the eight programme areas in this chapter in accordance with their national plans and objectives, taking fully into account their social and cultural capabilities. Furthermore, countries should make appropriate provision to monitor the impact of their strategies on marginalized and disenfranchised groups, with particular reference to the needs of women.
Right on, Ben! I would just add—and this is critical—that that arson charge against the Hammonds was “terroristic” arson. Funny how “terrorism” morphed from the farcical account of Muslims hijacking commercial jetliners and plowing them into skyscrapers to matters like asserting a common law right to travel, championing the US Constitution, and accidents like those committed by the Hammonds. That was the intent all along, though: to swivel inwards a massive anti-terror apparatus initially pointing outwards, directed against any who would oppose the coming tyranny here in the U.S. —J.D.