The Freedom of Religion “The Very Origin of Existence of the United States”

The Freedom of Religion

“The Very Origin of Existence of the United States”

Even though the Framers of the Constitution were very careful to give only a few delegated powers to each of the three branches of government, that is, about twenty powers to congress, six areas of power to the president, and only eleven kinds of cases assigned to the federal courts, still there were some who were not satisfied that enough protection had been provided to the people and the states in the Constitution. They therefore let it be known that a Bill of Rights had to be included in order to receive their endorsement. This was the reason the Bill of Rights was nearly the first item of business taken up by the new government.
When a Bill of Rights was suggested at the last minute in the convention, some of the Framers said they did not think it was necessary because they had not given the national government enough power to trample on the rights of the people. Some of the wiser observers of history, like George Mason, however, knew human nature and he would not be satisfied until the protection of a Bill of Rights was added.
It is interesting that the Bill of Rights includes a Preamble, which most Americans have never read because it is not included in most printings. It reflects the importance the Founders placed on the protection of some very special rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights:

"The Conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution, [be it] resolved...."

Freedom of Religion:
The Most Important of the Rights Listed

The freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed in the very first amendment to the Constitution and thereby prevent the federal government from any action dealing with these two sacred rights of citizens. If any laws were needed in these areas they were to be left to the states’ jurisdiction. It would seem then that that was all that was needed to keep the national government in check, since the freedom to say and write whatever one wishes would give one complete freedom of conscience to also believe whatever one wishes. But the Founders knew something more was needed. Constitutional scholar Dallin H. Oakes explains that the freedom to practice one’s religious beliefs should receive an even greater position than the freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment. Said he:

“Religious belief and preaching must be protected against government action…. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the Constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious preaching and action than to other kinds of speech and action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.” (Dallin H. Oakes, “Fundamentals of Our Constitutions,” Utah’s Constitution Day Celebration, September 17, 2010, emphasis in original)

It should also be remember that Thomas Jefferson placed religious freedom on the highest pedestal when he wrote his own tombstone inscription. He did not even mention the fact that he had been twice elected to the presidency of the United States. Instead, he included as one of his accomplishments, by which he wished to be remembered, that he was the author of the “Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.” Jefferson’s philosophy that the number one protection that government can give individuals, is also reflected in the inscription which encircles the inside of the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D. C.:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

President Jefferson was insistent that the right of conscience of individuals was completely outside the purview of government:

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority. It has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries.” (Bergh 16:332, 1809. Quoted in The Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 605 )

President George Washington was equally emphatic that one only need answer to God and not to government for his religious opinions and mode of worship:

“I have often expressed my sentiments that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” (To the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia. Fitzpatrick 30:321n, (1789. Quoted in The Real George Washington, p. 764 )

Congress itself, in its code of laws, has consistently held that:

1. “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.” And that:
2. “Freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal human right and fundamental freedom…” (22 U.S. Code § 6401)

“Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Founders knew that beliefs drive actions. History is full of such examples. Without the ability to act on ones’ beliefs, the beliefs are really not fully protected as sacred. For this reason, the Founders included not only the prohibition on the federal government from telling people what they must believe (establishing a religion), but also a prohibition against the federal government from preventing citizens to freely exercise their religious beliefs (prohibiting the free exercise thereof). In America, citizens were free to show by their actions what they believed in their hearts. The Bible is filled with examples, parables, and doctrines to the effect that unless a person’s actions reflect a person’s belief, he is a hypocrite, a whited sepulchre, or as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Actions must follow beliefs if humanity is to rise above the natural man. It would seem then that any government which prevents its citizens from acting on their beliefs is reflecting the tool of tyrants and is using an age-old technique to gain master over its citizenry.

Should there be any limits on the exercise of one’s religion?

Does freedom of religion, then, mean one can do anything he wants to do in the name of religion? The Founders said not exactly. Like any other freedom, it must be held within the restraints of morality and reason. But freedom of religion, as well as speech and press, are such sensitive issues, the Founders felt that any limits on these must be established by state and local governments, where abuses can be more easily detected and corrected and where differences can be allowed from one place to another. Hence, the prohibitions in the First Amendment are directed toward the federal government and are absolute. Not even the federal courts were to take on such cases. The states were left free to establish any regulations in these matters.
Thomas Jefferson explains that even the freedom to exercise one’s religion has its limitation when it comes violating another’s unalienable rights. One cannot commit a crime and justify it on the basis of religion:

“Whatsoever is lawful in the commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the commonwealth in their ordinary uses, and therefore prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things, or in a private house, to murder a child. It should not be permitted any sect, then, to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves and lambs. They may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the state required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration.” (Ford 2:102. Quoted in The Real Thomas Jefferson, p.603)

In other words, government has a legitimate role in protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens from those who would infringe on them, even for so-called religious reasons.
But what happens when government officials begin to think they can and should regulate the way people operate their businesses and begin to demand that they do things that violate the people’s conscience and their religious beliefs in areas that have nothing to do with protecting unalienable rights?

The encroachment of government on the exercise of religion today

In a recent interview, Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, gave this summary of the intrusion of the federal government on the exercise of religious freedom:

“I think we're currently seeing increased threats to religious autonomy, which is eroding our right to religious freedom. Certainly, in the context of colleges and universities, we're seeing more and more policies that are being set that would require religious student organizations to have leaders that are nonbelievers and these policies are forcing these religious student groups off campus. There are also threats to religious individuals in their professions and not being coerced to acting in a way that's contrary to their religious beliefs. So, for example, Christian pharmacists who object to dispensing abortion-inducing drugs and state regulations that would force them to dispense these drugs even when the state can very easily permit them to refer these customers elsewhere, yet they are forcing them to do so against their religious convictions. Another example is photographers or innkeepers who would be forced by regulations to provide commercial services to those whose behavior is censured by their religious teachings. For example, a Christian wedding photographer was fined because she refused to photograph a ceremony that violated her religious teachings on the family. Freedom of conscience is the right to not be forced to do something that violates the truth that God has spoken to your heart. And so it’s that freedom of conscience that undergirds the freedom of religion.”

This intrusion of government into the exercise of religious is fueled by a misapplication of the word “discrimination.” Americans have been fed such a steady diet of anti-discrimination propaganda that many now think that any kind of discrimination is wrong even in our own affairs. But all of us discriminate all the time and every day in what we wear, what we eat, our daily activities, what we chose for leisure, with whom we associate, where we live, and in a hundred other ways. Truly free people are a discriminating people, but, of course, there should be no discrimination in the application of law (all laws should be made for all the people), before the bar of justice (protecting equal rights), or in the use of the public funds for public purposes (equal benefit of legitimate tax-payer dollars).
When governments begin to mandate that a person must perform an act which directly contradicts the way a person choses to exercise his religious beliefs, it is an affront to the Founders, to the American way of life, and to the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. This is especially egregious when the federal government does so because, under the Founders’ formula for freedom, it is strictly prohibited from involving itself in such matters, as before noted. It is opening the door wide to tyranny over the most precious American freedoms and, hence, to all our freedoms. Restricting our exercise of religious beliefs is, in effect, denying us religious freedom, the most precious of all our rights.
Hopefully, the time is coming when enough Americans will awaken to a sense of our awful situation.
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.

Who Really Owns America’s Land?

 

Who Really Owns America’s Land?

Under English common law, a most unique significance was attached to the unalienable right of possessing, developing, and disposing of property. Land and the products of the earth, in their natural state, were considered a gift of God to man, but then man was commanded individually to cultivate, beautify, and subdue it and bring it under his dominion.
This is the root of private property ownership, for without a certain exclusiveness, one cannot fulfill the command to “subdue” and gain “dominion” over property.
America’s Founders took this Biblical injunction literally and believed that no government official has a right to interfere with this God-given, unalienable right and mandate. Their belief that the land belonged to the people, not the king, was the impetus for including the grievances in the Declaration of Independence that, 1) “He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States;… and rais[ed] the conditions of new Appropriations of Land, and, 2) the “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” King George also attempted to prevent the colonists from possessing the new lands west of the Appalachian Mountains.

The Land belongs to the people, not the Government or the King

This, like many other ideas of the Founders, led them to reject the old established way of centralized control of land and to institute orderly control at a much more local level which would be administered close to the people for their benefit. State, counties, and local governments became the support for organized, private ownership of land, with only a little bit dedicated to the common usage of the people.
To ensure that this arrangement would forever be maintained, the Founders gave very specific restrictions to the federal government concerning the ownership and control of land. While the federal government would maintain control of territories such as the District of Columbia, Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the U. S. Constitution clearly states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired by the national government if, first, it has the consent of the state legislature, and, second, it must only be for one of four purposes: military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.
It is interesting to note that no state legislature exists before a state exists, so all the land within a state comes within state jurisdiction when a state is created. Thereafter, the federal government may ask the state legislature for specific parcels of land for the above-stated purposes. It was this procedure that was to guarantee that the age-old tendency of power-hungry national or kingly governments to grab up and deprive the people of their God-given land would forever be avoided in the United States.

New States would come into Union on an
Equal Footing with the Original Thirteen States

The Founders made sure that the original thirteen states had both dominion and sovereignty with respect to land within the states’ borders and that the national government’s land holdings were very little and in accordance to the purposes outlined in the Constitution. But what about new states that were surely to come into the Union at a later date?
The Founders declared in several documents that all future states were to be accepted into the Union on an “Equal Footing” in all aspects with all the original states. Language such as, “…on an Equal Footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever…” and “…and shall have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other states;” is found in documents such as The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and others which outline the specific procedures for accepting new states into the Union.
It is interesting to note that when land came into possession of the United States in the Founders’ Era, such as the huge Louisiana Territory, efforts were made to organize it so that, when sufficient population was present, it could be converted into sovereign states. Much of the land was sold directly to the people and the proceeds used to pay off the national debt. The year 1835 was the only time in our history the national debt was completely paid off. The Founders were loyal to the Constitutional requirements in two ways: 1) The disposition of land to the people, and 2) The paying off of the national debt.

Enabling Acts of the Western States

The original thirteen states and the later Midwestern and Southern states currently have very little federal lands (as low as 1%) within their boundaries as required by the Constitution. But when the western states applied for statehood, a whole new philosophy was in vogue in Washington, D. C. It is as though the age-old kingly philosophy that the Founders fought so hard to eliminate had returned and the central powers saw opportunities to control the people by retaining control of their lands, even after statehood was granted.
Statehood Enabling Acts are passed by Congress to facilitate the creation of each state. They provide, among other things, for the state to enjoy equal footing with the other states and that the federal government will be unhindered in its disposal of previously held lands. The California Enabling Act is reasonably typical of all other western states, with some modifications. It says:

“…That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an Equal Footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” And

“…That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned;…”

The passage of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891

It was not long after some western states came into the Union (e.g. California in 1850, Nevada in 1864) that the tendency grew for the federal government to not dispose of land within the respective states as agreed in the Enabling Acts but to “set aside” lands for other purposes. Yosemite and Yellowstone were among these. Congress finally passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 which included authority for the president to do just that, even though it was outside the boundary and authority of the Constitution. This act included a short rider to Section 24 which reads:

“That the president of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forest, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the president shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservation and limits thereof.”

As a result the federal government today claims to own or control the following percentages of the western states: Nevada – 86%, Arizona – 75%, Utah – 75%, Oregon – 75%, Idaho – 75%, Alaska – 71%, Wyoming – 65%, New Mexico – 60%, California – 55%, Colorado – 50%, Montana – 45%, Washington – 40%.

How the West was Lost

In his book, How the West Was Lost: The theft and usurpation of state’s property rights, author William C. Hayward documents the gradual and powerful takeover of one of America’s most precious resources – its land. It is interesting that the loss of America’s property ownership nearly parallels the ongoing loss of individual rights in so many other areas. It is a new philosophy that is engulfing this majestic land and a philosophy that will destroy America if we do not awaken to our awful situation. The following are excerpts from Mr. Hayward’s book.
“This 1891 Act was used by Presidents Harrison, Cleveland and Teddy Roosevelt. This one-sentence rider of this act gave to the president a new, far reaching authority [although unconstitutionally] to unilaterally, by decree, establish reserve land – land to be known later as forest reserves. They withdrew millions and millions of acres of the West's hills and mountain ranges from public settlement. This was done in the name of conservation. Thus the National Forests began, as did the precedent of set-aside land. As we know it today, these millions and millions of acres of set aside public lands that found their beginning in 1891 are under the administrative control of the BLM, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Defense. In more recent years parts of these public lands were further designated as ‘wilderness’ by the Wilderness Act. Thirty-eight million acres have been set aside as wilderness. Eighty-five percent of this land is in the state of Alaska. While it is well known that no motorized vehicles are permitted within wilderness areas, little known is the fact that any and all natural resources of all kinds are likewise set aside: mining, timber harvesting, etc. are precluded from exploitation or use…. In the name of conservation, Yellowstone national park, set aside in 1872, became the first of what are today 364 National parks, monuments, or reserves – far more than most people realize.
“Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have set aside public land by their personal edict and without further authority from Congress [or the Constitution]. President Carter did so as well in the only place Public Domain remained of any consequence – Alaska. Today, Alaskans are still bitter over this huge reserve established by a single decree of President Jimmy Carter. Alaskans were upset. They still are! Among other things, their bitterness is over the proposal by the federal government that any new oil royalties will be shared on a 50 percent-50 percent basis rather than the present 90 percent-to percent basis. The oil is under Forest Reserve land. Not surprising; the composition of Alaska land is as follows: 59 percent federal, 28 percent state (which came from the federal lands as a trust for education), 12 percent Alaskan native, leaving 1 percent in private ownership…. Today these reserves, along with the other set-aside land, constitute a third of the nation.
“One could surely ask how an act such as the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, whose constitutionality must surely have crossed more than one congressman's or senator's mind, could have been passed. If the issue of constitutionality was brought up, little has been said about it. The paramount issue, therefore, must have been the simple need, in their minds, for preservative legislation. From a historical point of view, the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 was the culmination of a mounting concern for the preservation and wise use of the nation's natural resources as well as the preservation in perpetuity of natural, scenic wonders such as Yosemite and Yellowstone. This concern was voiced and debated across the nation. The media for this debate were a number of magazines, such as Atlantic Monthly, North American Review, Review of Reviews, Yale Review and a number of others. The West was captivating to the Easterner; he could enjoy its adventure and grandeur vicariously. The mystique of the West was captivating. Artists such as Remington and Russell gave spice and verve to this presentation of the West with their illustrations and art. Conservationists such as John Muir presented their verbal picture as well; all appeared in these and other early magazines, tabloids and journals.
“Another factor was quietly increasing in importance: the expansion to the West itself. And the census reports every ten years reflected this movement – ever westward. In each census report the Western frontier was traced as though it were a waterline of a rising tide. Its line moved inexorably westward, leaving the reader 'with the impression or certain knowledge that land was running out.
“Such misstatements were compounded by claims that loggers ‘simply burned over twenty-five million acres of forest each year and managed to cut four-fifths of it in less than a century.’ The message was plain: Waste!”

The Westerner didn't have a chance

“This was the stage-setting for the pivotal Forest Reserve Act of 1891. Something had to be done about waste and abuse and Congress was ready to do just that [even without any Constitutional authority]. The Westerner didn't have a chance, for the East was the center of communications, commerce and commitment. Further, the population centers were concentrated in the northeastern states, giving numerical superiority in the House of Representatives to those manufacturing-oriented states. For most representatives, their understanding and judgments were based upon what they read or heard[most had never even been out west]. And it was romanticized or negatively exaggerated! But part of it was real. By 1891 the mind-set was reasonably firm: Waste and abuse had to be stopped. Commitment to this end was a reasonably foregone conclusion. The nearly sole voice of John Wesley Powell was not enough to sway the East and Congress; supposed waste must be stopped; natural resources must be preserved and husbanded; land must be retained. After all, they were told, there was very little left!” (Excerpts from Hayward, pp. 22-24)

What is to be done?

After all is said, what are constitutionally-minded Americans to do? First, we must recognize that the entrenchment of the Washington D. C. bureaus and agencies is so deep that they will not willingly relinquish claim on western lands. They really believe they own it. Second, governments which have become too top-heavy eventually collapse of their own weight. In the meantime, we must, knowing time is always on the side of truth, continue to teach correct principles of land ownership and try to elect people who understand it, so that when the time comes we will be ready with an answer – the Founders’ answer for Constitutional ownership of America’s land.
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.


 

The Most Damning Belief of All Time

Seth Adam Smith / January 30, 2014

The frozen in Dante’s Inferno

There is a popular belief among all of us that I think is pure evil—and I don’t use that word lightly. It is a contemptible, destructive philosophy that crushes hope and it freezes its followers in a lake of stagnation. Instead of ennobling and strengthening those who embrace it, this belief drags men and women down. It encourages isolation, fosters fear, and perpetuates resentment. It robs men and women of their strength and will to fight; it makes them give in and fall down instead of hold true and stand up. In short, this philosophy is anything but liberating—it is damning. Like a pernicious plague, this belief—if embraced—can stunt our growth and limit our life.
The belief?
I can’t change. I am a victim of my circumstances.
Yet despite all of its side effects, we nevertheless cling to this belief to one degree or another. In order to make it go down easier we sugarcoat it with pleasing justifications and reassure ourselves that this belief will actually soothe our pains. And for a time, it does. Like the addict who self-medicates with drugs, or the alcoholic who escapes life through drink, we run to victimhood to make ourselves feel better. The belief that we’re not responsible for our actions gives us a buzz, or a temporary relief, before dropping us down lower than before. This belief is like a chocolate-covered razor blade—it tastes sweet, but after you swallow it, the chocolate will wear off and the razor will be exposed. You see, victimhood is vicious; it takes and tortures its prisoners. Unaware that the belief is the thing that is hurting us and halting us, we will continue to blame anything and everything around us—even our own bodies—but certainly not ourselves.
Busy with blame, we will invariably overlook this important truth:
We may not be able to control what happens to us, but we can always control how we react.
We are not victims of our circumstances. We are always free to choose—to act and not be acted upon. The sooner we embrace this belief and accept our responsibility, the sooner we will triumph over our circumstances and become a victor instead of a victim.
Please point me to anyone in history—anyone who has changed the world for the better—who embraced the belief that they were a victim. The men and women we revere are the individuals who refuse to be a victim of their circumstances; they take responsibility for how they react to the things that are given to them. By taking responsibility for life, these individuals are able to transcend their circumstances in a most beautiful (and oftentimes ironic) way.

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill, the venerable Prime Minister who led Great Britain to victory in World War II, has become an icon of oration. His words inspired millions in the fight against Nazi Germany. In his first speech to the House of Commons he said: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”
Yet for all of his success in speaking, as a boy Churchill struggled with a speech impediment. Had he believed himself a victim of his circumstance, we may never have seen “victory in spite of all terror.”
Helen Keller was both deaf and blind, yet went on to earn a bachelor’s degree, become a political activist, a lecturer, and a prolific author. After accomplishing what many would deem ‘impossible’ Helen Keller would later write this: “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement; nothing can be done without hope.”
Nelson Mandela was an anti-apartheid revolutionary who was imprisoned for 27 years. While in prison, he memorized the poem “Invictus,” which reads, in part: “It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” Instead of blaming his circumstances, Nelson Mandela accepted responsibility for his fate and emerged from prison a different kind of revolutionary—one whose attitude of forgiveness would change the world.

Indeed, the world is filled to bursting with individuals who have refused to be the victim of their circumstances and have chosen instead to be the victor of their own story. I know women who were abused as children but refuse to remain the victims of their abusers. Instead, they offer hope, help and guidance to others in similar situations, and actively work to prevent the abuse of other children. I know a man who, when he was a child, was beaten by his father and eventually placed in foster care. He has refused to remain a victim of his father’s negligence and abuse and has chosen instead to become a loving husband and a caring father. I know a girl who was born with cerebral palsy, but has gone on to chase her dreams and earn a degree.
On a personal level, I suffer from chronic depression which can be very debilitating and very heart-wrenching. Depression is something that runs in my family and it would be easy (and acceptable) for me to use that factor as an excuse. And for many years, I did use that as an excuse. Those were the hardest and most difficult times of my life.
And of course they were. Because I was allowing myself to be a victim of my depression. I had voluntarily surrendered all of my power to this idea that I was a victim. I believed I was trapped. Why wouldn’t I be miserable?
But I can attest to a marvelous, inexplicable power that has come to me whenever I accept the full responsibility for my depression. Whenever I truly believe that “I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul,” then I’m given the strength to face my demons. Author Robert Louis Stevenson once said: “You cannot run away from a weakness; you must some time fight it out or perish; and if that be so, why not now, and where you stand?”
It hasn’t been easy, and it hasn’t been a one-time event, but taking ownership of my life has been worth the fight.

Satan in Ice

I called the philosophy of victimhood the most damning philosophy of all time—I called it evil. I stand by that. In Dante’s Inferno, the Devil is found at the lowest level of Hell surrounded, not by fire, but by a lake of ice. This lake is kept frozen by the beating of Satan’s wings.
For Dante, Satan’s punishment symbolizes several things: 1) the isolation of Hell, 2) the fact that there is no progression in Hell, and 3) that the isolation and stagnation of Hell is of our own making. By blaming everyone else (and most especially by blaming God), Satan has sunk to the lowest levels of isolation. There, by the beating of his own wings, the Fallen Angel remains, crushed by the weight of his own victims, and mired in a frozen lake of victimhood.
Now, we are not like the Fallen Angel of Dante’s Inferno. But let me appeal to the “better angels” of your nature. If you feel like life is Hell, stop beating your wings (or fists) at the world. We cannot always control what happens to us, but we can always control how we react. Abandon the idea that you will forever be the victim of the things that have happened to you.
Choose to be a victor.
Embrace that belief and I promise you that you will feel the weight of Hell drop from your shoulders. Because we are always free to choose.
And that is the most liberating belief of all time.

Raisin Farmer Fined $700,000 for not Giving USDA 47% of Their Crops FREE, (maybe this is why USDA is asking for machine guns?)

Raisin Farmer Fined $700,000 For Not Giving USDA 47% Of Their Crop

 

The USDA takes 47% of raisin farmers crops, doesn’t pay them for it, and fines them severely if they resist.
All US raisin farmers are required to give a portion of their crop to the feds under the 1930s Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act. The feds keep the raisins in reserve to jack up prices to keep the market from collapsing, they claim.
Losing half their crop to the feds are causing farmers to lose their land.
Fed up with this theft, one California raisin farmer, Marvin D. Horne, stopped handing their crop over to the feds and got slapped with $700,000 in fines. He and other farmers sued because the 5th amendment states that if the government takes your property you must be compensated.
They lost their first case because the raisins weren’t ‘physically seized’ by the government. They have appealed and still await their day in court.
Here we have another clear case where the federal government steps into a market and steals from citizens using some flimsy excuse for doing so, in this case based on price controls issued way back during the Great Depression.
The politicians utilize private industries for these activities, which employ their cronies who surely give ‘kick backs’. Everyone is on the take, lining their pockets with money that should be going to the hard working farmers.

The federal government can prevent American farmers from participating in the free market, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
A decision in a case called Horne v. Department of Agriculture effectively forces some farmers – for instance, raisin farmers — to sometimes turn nearly half of their crops over to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
“I didn’t choose to fight, all I did was to choose to pack and market my own raisins,” California raisin farmer Marvin D. Horne said. Horne and his wife Laura Horne are facing $700,000 in fines for refusing to follow the rules made by the Raisin Administrative Committee, which in 2002-03 told raisin formers to turn 47 percent of their crop over to the committee, which markets the produce for them. Of the raisins that were turned over, farmers got paid for only half.
The percentage fluctuates from year to year; in 2003-03, farmers had to turn over 30 percent of their raisins.
All US raisin farmers are required to turn a portion of their crop over to the committee under a 1930s law called the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act. The farmers are not paid for the raisins, but instead the raisins are held in reserve in an effort to jack up prices and to keep the market from collapsing
‘Diabolical Marketing’ In Raisin Industry
“The raisin marketing order is diabolical,” the Hornes’ attorney, Brian C. Leighton, said.
New Natural Fertilizer Doubles Garden Production!
Farmers such as the Hornes contend that they have not been paid for the raisins held in reserve for many years. They also contend that the program is driving many farmers out of business. Leighton alleged that the raisins are turned over to politically connected packers who sell them at a low price and make a profit.
“It was a theft. The reserve was nothing but highway robbery,” Marvin Horne said. “They want us to pay for our own raisins that we grew.”
“There are already farmers that have lost their land,” Laura Horne. “You cannot work for a whole year and give 47 percent of what you made away and keep that business afloat.”
The raisin program was created during the Great Depression when politicians feared that low crop prices would drive farmers out of business which would lead to social and political unrest. Ironically enough the program was originally created to keep farmers in business.
To the Supreme Court and Back
Leighton sued the USDA on behalf of the Hornes and other farmers. His contention was that the raisin reserve violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution which requires government to compensate citizens for property it takes.
Story continues below video
“Property rights are bundles of rights,” Leighton said. “The ability to possess, keep, give away, sell ownership. When they take title to your raisins you can do none of that.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled that the reserve program was not takings because the raisins were not physically seized. Instead, it merely stated that the Hornes had simply violated federal farm regulations and the case was one of a simple fine.
Leighton appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the Ninth Circuit had to consider Hornes’ Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the Raisin Reserve program again on May 9 this year.
Court Claims it has No Authority to Rule on Regulations
In its ruling the Ninth Circuit claimed that it has no constitutional jurisdiction over agricultural regulations.
“While the Hornes’ impatience with a regulatory program they view to be outdated and perhaps disadvantageous to smaller agricultural firms is understandable, the courts are not well-positioned to effect the change the Hornes seek, which is, at base, a restructuring of the way government regulates raisin production,” Judge Michael Hawkins wrote in the court’s opinion. “The Constitution endows Congress, not the courts, with the authority to regulate the national economy. Accordingly, it is to Congress and the Department of Agriculture to which the Hornes must address their complaints. The courts are not institutionally equipped to modify wholesale complex regulatory regimes such as this one.”
Case Heading Back to Supreme Court

The case appears headed back to the Supreme Court. If the last round of arguments is any indication, the Hornes will win.
“I don’t think it’s close at all,” Justice Antonin Scalia said of the Agricultural Agreement Marketing Act last time. “That’s a crazy statute.”
Justice Elena Kagan described the act as possibly “the world’s most outdated law.”

Exclusive: Confidential source reveals to me what really happened in Benghazi - Allen West



Exclusive: Confidential source reveals to me what really happened in Benghazi

Written by Allen West on May 23, 2014

Share!

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods

Today as I returned from Detroit, I had a moment that I truly felt was God sent, as I don’t believe in coincidences. It happened on one of my flights, and it was two hours I will never forget.
I was seated beside someone who personally knew one of the men who was there on the roof in Benghazi. This person was excited to share with me the “ground truth” of what happened September 11, 2012.
My seat mate drew schematics to orient me to the “time and spacing” and the direction of the attack. I learned about the repeated orders to the men at the CIA annex to stand down and do nothing — thank God two of them, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, lived up to their code of honor and ran to the sound of the guns, resulting in their loss of life — but the preservation of life for others, their fellow Americans.
I learned about the proximity of the staging area of the attack to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the attackers were indeed Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaida. I came to understand why Ambassador Chris Stevens was there in the first place and that he had in fact requested better security but was denied – the question is, by whom? And I learned that the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade were in charge of security and were the ones who opened the gates, then fled.
I learned there are those who are being threatened with their pensions being cut off if they come forth to speak.
And I learned, as I presumed, that there was a covert weapons scheme going on in Libya, Benghazi. We had been supplying radical Islamists with weapons against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi, effectively supplying the enemy and destabilizing that country. And it seems that there was a CIA weapons buy-back program, the aim of which was to ship the retrieved weapons out of Libya through Turkey, and to the Islamist forces in Syria.
Benghazi and the operations in Libya are shrouded in a fog of lies, deceit, manipulation, threats, intimidation, coercion, abandonment, and worst of all, potentially treason.
No, it was not about a kidnapping scheme, it was about something, as I’ve stated, that will make Iran-Contra look like Romper Room. The web of lies spun is coming apart, and all other committee hearings on this matter should be shut down.
The House has established a Select Committee — quite telling that the same has not been done in the Senate — and those involved, to include the President, MUST appear before Rep. Trey Gowdy.
And to those Democrats appointed to the committee: if you seek to obstruct the revelation of the truth, you are complicit and guilty as well.
Am I afraid because of what I now know? Heck no. I’m honored to have been entrusted, so I for one can be on the right side of history.

Tags: Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Trey Gowdy

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/exclusive-confidential-source-reveals-really-happened-benghazi/#cXoDMZcHsj1QE6LH.99

ORLY TAITZ WAS REAR ENDED BY A TRUCK AFTER SHE PRESENTED THIS TO ERIC HOLDER:

 

ORLY TAITZ WAS REAR ENDED BY A TRUCK AFTER SHE PRESENTED THIS TO ERIC HOLDER:
******************************************************
Letter to attorney general ...Eric Holder (From Orly Taitz)
| Orly Taitz

Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Phone 949-683-5411 Fax 949-766-7603
12.14.09.
Via Certified Mail
Attn Mr. Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20530-0001 USA
Dear Mr. Holder,
On March 1st on behalf of my clients I have submitted to you a request to file Quo Warranto against Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. The request was filed due to following troubling facts:
1. According to a number of licensed investigators National Databases show Mr. Obama using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, which included the numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
2. Number 042-68-4425 that Mr. Obama used for most of his life and is currently using while residing in the White House, is a number assigned to an individual born in 1890, who resided in the state of Connecticut and this Social Security number was issued in the state of Connecticut where Mr. Obama never resided.
3. One of the leading forensic experts in the country Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has prepared an affidavit, stating that Mr. Obama’s short version Certification of Life Birth cannot be treated as genuine without seeing the original on file in the Health Department in HI.
4. The state of Hawaii since 1911 had in its statutes a provision allowing Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents of get Hawaiian Birth Certificates(currently statute 338-17) and currently statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital.
5. In spite of over 100 law suits filed around the country and 12 Citizen Grand Jury indictments Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent to unseal his original birth certificate currently sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii and all the other vital records.
6. Ms. Chiuomi Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has provided a statement that there is a document on file in Hawaii, however she refused to provide any information, as to what document is on file: whether it is a Birth Certificate given to a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident, whether it is an amended Birth certificate, obtained when Mr. Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. She refused to answer any questions as to whether his birth certificate was obtained based on a proper hospital birth certificate or based on a statement of one of his relatives only, which needs to be corroborated.
7. Regardless of place of birth of Mr. Obama, since birth and until now Mr. Obama had a split allegiance. He had British citizenship at birth, Kenyan since age 2 and Indonesian since age 5. Allegiance to other Nations goes as a clear violation of the Natural citizenship clause of the article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.
8. Under the Freedom of Information act 5 US 552, since no response was provided to numerous certified mail letters received by your office nine months ago, I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days. On behalf of my clients I demand an answer, as to when the Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama will be filed by the US Attorney General office, or in the alternative if the Attorney General office refuses to file Quo Warranto, I demand an ex-relator status for my clients to proceed with the Quo Warranto action against Mr. Obama in the DC court or the Supreme Court of the United States.
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
Counsel to the plaintiffs-ex relators.
Attachment
Quo Warranto request, Dossiers
**************************************
2 April, 2014
Dr. Orly Taitz has been hot on the trail of fraud and fraudulent documents of the Obama regime for years. Could it be that she is getting a little too close to exposing the imposter in the White House and they felt a need to “take her out?”
Of course accidents do happen, and she’s had her guard up for years, but how do you avoid something like this, being rear-ended by a truck? The force of the impact spun her vehicle completely around, coming to a stop facing towards the traffic. She is fine and resting at her home.
She was on her way to make an endorsement at the Los Angeles Times, which she obviously missed.
FDR, our previously most infamous socialist president, said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
This might have been just traffic, in which things do happen by accident. It’s safe to say it is more than a little suspicious.
Let’s hope she stays off of airplanes and doesn’t have any similar mishaps in the future. She’s a great asset to the fight for the truth and revelations regarding B. Hussein Obama, one we can’t afford to lose.
 

Time for the states to take back their land from the feds

May 19, 2014

Time for the states to take back their land from the feds

By Alan Caruba


According to a 2012 report by the Federal Research Service, "The federal government owns roughly 635-640 million acres, 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States."

Four agencies administer 609 million acres of this land: the Forest Service (USFS) in the Department of Agriculture, and the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI). Most of these lands are in the West and Alaska. In addition, the Department of Defense administers 19 million acres in military bases, training ranges, and more. Numerous other agencies administer the remaining federal acreage."

I suspect it may come as a surprise to many people that the federal government owns just over a quarter of the nation's landmass and, other than land set aside for military bases and naval ports that may seem excessive. It is.

The drama that ensued when the Bureau of Land Management lay siege to the Nevada Bundy ranch over unpaid grazing fees called attention to the fact that the BLM oversees, according to a recent article in the National Review, "the largest piece of leasable real estate in the American West – 245 million acres, an area bigger than the mid-Atlantic states and New England combined. The BLM is its landlord."

In theory one can apply for a license or lease "to make productive use of this land" noted Travis Kavulla in his article "Public-Land Colonialism." In practice "The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires an excruciatingly complex process before even mundane land-use decisions can be made." It is a regulatory nightmare for anyone who might want to create a mine to access coal or valuable minerals or extract oil or natural gas.

The process is subject to government policies, spoken or unspoken, to restrict access. A current case involves actions by the Environmental Protection Agency to stop the creation of the Pebble Mine project in Alaska even before a permit is requested. A May 12 Wall Street Journal editorial noted that "The EPA's inspector general's office last week announced it will investigate the agency's February decision to commence a preemptive veto of the Pebble Mine project, a job-rich proposal to develop America's largest U.S. copper and gold mine in southwest Alaska."

The Obama administration has been devoted to stopping all kinds of projects that might generate jobs and revenue from projects like the Pebble Mine. Its opposition to the building of the Keystone XL pipeline is the best known example, but the EPA's "war on coal" has closed many mines in addition to coal-fired plants needed to provide electricity.

The EPA is requesting jurisdiction over all public and private streams in the nation and this has been called "the largest land grab in the history of the world." So it is not just public lands that are affected, but private lands as well.

In an article on World Net Daily, Alana Cook pointed out that "The proposed rule tinkers with the definition of 'navigable' waters which was the central point of litigation in a battle between the Supreme Court and the EPA regarding the Clean Water Act." The proposal would "allow the EPA in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Energy and the Army (Corps of Engineers) to dictate on a never-before-seen scale everything from grazing rights, food production, animal health and the use of energy on private lands."

This is, simply stated, Communism in which the government owns all the land.

As Craig Rucker, Executive Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) points out, "There is no engine on Earth as powerful at creating prosperity and improving the condition of both man and nature than free markets. There can be no free market without the right to property." He warns that "Property rights are under siege."

One of the BLM's reasons cited for its actions against the Bundy ranch involved "endangered animals" and Rucker said, "Take away a person's right to choose how to use their land and in effect you've seized that land." The attack on private land ownership is led by the United Nations Agenda 21.

The government's control over public lands and its grasp for control of the use of all private lands reflects the Marxist agenda of the Obama administration. It is so manifest that, in mid-April, officials from nine states got together in Salt Lake City to discuss ways to retake control of poorly managed federal lands.

There are federal laws that have been on the books a very long time that are intended to protect private property from the actions we have seen by the BLM and the EPA. One is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, so this issue has been around awhile, but what is generally unknown is how vast federal control is.

In his National Review article, Kavulla noted that "In Montana, one county that is a traditional center of natural gas production has a whopping 53 percent of its subsurface minerals controlled by the BLM. Proposed resource management plans (RPM) in Montana "more than quadruple the land off-limits to 'surface occupancy' which makes oil and gas drilling virtually impossible. Only about one million acres of a ten million acre federal estate would be open to drilling activities under standard leasing conditions."

America is under attack from within by federal government agencies that are striving to deny access to the greatest energy reserves in the world and to control the lives of ranchers and farmers whose work feed the rest of us.

It is time for the states to take back their land from the federal government and to oversee its use for the development of the economy, the security of the nation, and the protection of private property, the keystone of capitalism.

© Alan Caruba