The Oregon Standoff

Someone posted about the Oregon incident the other day and did not agree with the standoff. One person asked this question: “What in your opinion would justify armed resistance?” He believed it “best to try a peaceful solution before resorting to anarchy”.

My feelings were mixed. Since then, I have done a little more reading. It goes way back. Fish and Wildlife together with Bureau of Land Management has made it difficult for them to get grazing permits, built fences to keep their cattle from the water they had rights to and barricaded roads that they used to access their land.

Bottom line, the government wanted their land. They were in the middle of a wildlife refuge (they were in the middle because everyone else had been forced off and the refuge grew to a point that it surrounded their property).

Sure the Hammond’s acted up a little – who wouldn’t. And eventually the agencies found a way to take them to court. Federal court with a federal prosecutor that was just as anxious to make things as difficult as the agencies had been. And he did. 5 years each for 73 year old Dwight Hammond and his 46 year old son Steven.

And so that is what lead to the standoff. Years of trying to work things out peacefully while trying to stand their ground; and the government just keeps pushing.

So, a few step in to help them. The group chose the refuge headquarters because it was this particular building that these agencies worked out of to do all they did to all the people in that area.

What IS the point that justifies armed resistance? The government just keeps pushing. States have a hard time standing against them. What chance does an individual have?

All this was a result of the government wanting their land. The excuse for restricting grazing permits was that it was hazardous to wildlife. During the court proceeding the Hammonds were forced to grant BLM first right of refusal if they ever decided to sell. They were fined $400,000 and if they did not have it paid by the end of 2015, they would be forced to sell to BLM or face other prosecution.

 

Land Grabbing

Though I only know in part, I will not let that fact keep me from making known that part, of which, I think I know. J Without a doubt, our government is on a ruthless ‘land grab’ campaign. By hook, crook or both, it is taking land. In many cases, it is done in the name of our environment. According to our government, or should I say according to the International Land Coalition which is part of the world wide Agenda 21 initiative, “a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment & Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992” – which our government is on board with – the environment is the priority.

A global alliance exists, that “recognizes a growing international consensus on land governance”. The effort is to “insure compliance with human rights and environmental obligations”. This group has a plan and it is all in the name of what is best for “environmental stewardship”. “Our land and resources are becoming increasingly scarce and under threat; and climate change is among the reasons.” ‘Sustainable Development’ is the guide.

One not too distant past example of how this works took place in California. The California Fish and Game, in order to protect a 2” minnow, shut down the right to farm land that affected the welfare of that minnow. According to the source, a total of 60,000 people were adversely affected by that decision.

A current similar effort is going on in the states of Missouri and Arkansas in what is called the White River National Blueway Designation. The article says that it is an “end run around Constitutional Law” and in the name of the environment, landowners, if the effort is not stopped, will lose their land.

One other tactic is going on in Texas. The Bureau of Land Management is challenging deeds that landowners have held uncontested for 50 or more years. The BLM is claiming Texas had no right to issue these deeds, but as of yet, has offered no legal basis for these claims. The titles, now in limbo, are preventing owners from borrowing against or selling their land.

Our government, without a doubt, is more interested in keeping in step with this new world order than in keeping our own, long standing, Constitution. In the eyes of some, the Constitution now is an obstacle, around which this new order must maneuver. The Constitution is for our good. But to see that good, we who it is for, must stand up to those who it is against.

 

Executive Order 13603 – Part 2

I read a story recently about a group of federal militia training in Texas last summer. In it, there was an overall fear expressed by some, of the President planning to incite a showdown. Texas was not the only state where these trainings were being conducted, which added to the fear. Texas called in the Texas Guard to make sure there was no threat to the general safety and welfare of their people.  Add to that, all the posts lately on military equipment buildup, many are, without a doubt, nervous.

In the story, there was reference to Executive Order 13603, which seemed to suggest it was a part of all that was going on. In addition, I saw a post that said this order would authorize the government to put people to work without compensation. So, I decided I would research this executive order to see for myself if it contained anything that would support the fears that many are expressing. It appeared there was much that didn’t look good.

Executive Order 13603 is an actual executive order. It was issued by Barack Obama March 16, 2012. The order is all about the government’s ability to use all resources (civil transportation, energy, farm equipment, fertilizer, food resources, health sources, materials, water, labor) for the purpose of ‘national security’. I have to admit, when I first read it, I could not believe how invasive it was. It gives the government the authority to take just about anything it needs when our ‘national security’ is involved. And yes, it does actually say, “to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation”.

The order lists, as part of its authority, the Defense Production Act of 1950. I looked at it and noticed right off that it was passed by congress. We had started the war in Korea on June 25, 1950. A little over 2 months later, congress passed this bill to give our then president, Harry Truman, the resources he needed to defend our nation. My first thought was that here was another case where Obama was bypassing congress to do it on his own. And at the end of the order, he even revoked two previous executive orders. I was getting worked up.

I decided to print and read the two orders he revoked. One was Reagan’s Executive Order 12656 and the other was Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12919.

I’m glad I kept digging. The language in the two revoked orders, were very similar to Obama’s. Clinton’s had the same ‘employment without compensation’ line. His order “superseded or revoked” 11 previous orders from 1951 to 1991. Evidently, many Presidents customized their order to the times. One phrase in Obama’s order that I didn’t see in the others, put ‘civil defense’ on the same level as ‘national defense’. That could be significant.

This order, though not originating in Obama’s mind as the heavy handed means by which he will subdue our nation, in the hands of the wrong person, it could be used that way. It’s not really all that hard to imagine. His heavy hand has been pretty active. The more I see, the more I think he would not mind a showdown. And if it’s big enough, every bit of this order will be at the government’s disposal, in the name of ‘civil defense’.

While it makes sense that each president would be interested in this order, as our ‘national defense’ is their primary responsibility; the only thing with this president that does not add up, is why would he be one of the presidents to revise this order and revoke the ones prior, when he has displayed such defiant resolve along the way to not take this role of ‘national security’ seriously. He has been very reluctant to declare war on ISIS, very willing to fund Iran’s goal to destroy us, and in general, very focused on antagonizing the American people.

So what could be his motivation? If he can push the American people beyond the ability to tolerate an out of control government, he, with this one additional clause regarding ‘civil defense’, could put himself in the position of being just that ‘wrong person’. In my opinion, after all my reading, there is at least some support for the fears.

Time to Turn Up theVolume

As late as 1881, during the presidency of James Garfield, 100’s of people, daily, waited in line in front of our capitol with intentions and hopes of ‘petitioning’ their government. Whether to express a grievance, ask a favor, or share an idea; they were there and it was the norm.

We’ve surrendered our voices to the lobbyists. They now do this petitioning. The first amendment gives us, as individuals, the right to communicate withour government officials. I think it is time we, once again, exercise that right.

Continue to exercise your right to post on facebook, but don’t let it take the place of expressing your thoughts about our government to our government.

Every official, from local all the way to federal, can be googled and contacted. We are the ones they need to hear from. They, more than our facebook friends, need to hear what we have to say.

Even the Bible supports this principle. “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault.” Not as much to suggest that our government officials are sinning against us (though in some cases they may be) but whatever we have, good or bad, they are the ones that need to hear it.

Right now, our voices are not being heard. Let’s turn up the volume.

Round 1 – Planned Parenthood

When I heard the report that the two who took the videos were indicted and Planned Parenthood was found to be innocent, I about lost it. After reading about 10 news releases, I am somewhat calmed down because I don’t think it is over; nevertheless, I am still bent over it.

 Huckabee put it best; “It is a sick day in America when our government punishes those who expose evil with a smart phone, while accommodating those who perform it with a scalpel.”

 One of the first lines I heard, which really got me, was from one of the Planned Parenthood spokespersons. “As the dust settles and the truth comes out, it’s become totally clear that the only people who engaged in wrong doing are the criminals behind this fraud; and we’re glad they’re being held accountable.”

 The part that is somewhat calming is from the statement by the Texas Governor: “Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation.” He said further, “The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.”

 Dalieden (the one responsible for the videos) had this to say; “Planned Parenthood cannot rebut the incriminating statements of its own leadership on these tapes. The truth will continue to come out through the congressional probe, through the ongoing state investigations and through the frivolous lawsuit Planned Parenthood now brings in retaliation for its exposure.”

 Regardless of whether is statement was before, during or after today’s verdict, the truth of it is still there. I pray in this case, that the truth will continue to come out. I pray we do not let up until Planned Parenthood no longer exists.

 

When Will Enough be Enough

At what point does our government – at what point do we – say enough? How far do we let Obama and his party committed minions push us beyond where we want to go?

I was reading an article last night about Jade Helm 15, which is an effort by this administration to train a militia for really, who knows what. One such training exercise was conducted in Texas last summer and the governor of Texas was concerned enough, not knowing the true intentions, that he called in the Texas Guard to keep an eye on things.

The point is, Obama knowing the unrest and suspicion he is responsible for, instead of trying to be above board about it all, seems to enjoy the unrest he is creating. That alone in my opinion is a point that we should all be saying ENOUGH.

 

Ancient Boundary Markers

“Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers set up by previous generations.” Proverbs 22:28

Without a doubt, our government, at break-neck speed, is moving the ancient boundary markers set in our constitution. The big question is whether or not they will be stopped.

A vine, if allowed, will grow into a tree. The key is to get it early. If you let it go too long, it will be very difficult to get it out. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves with our government. We have allowed too much and the effort to correct it will be difficult.

Andrew Jackson’s warning to the nation would have been easier advice to heed and apply quite a few years back. Nevertheless, the advice in it still fits.

“But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”