Thread: Tombstone, Arizona
For years, I have been writing and saying that governments are inherently evil because they know only one thing, and that is to grow. And left unchecked, they will continue to grow until they swallow up the governed. Well here is a little tidbit that once more proves this to be true.
Frankly, I think that Gov. Jan Brewer should tell the feds to go f--- themselves with this one and Sheriff Joe Arpaio should deputize a few hundred locals, head up to the affected areas and stand ready to protect the crews while they fix the pipelines. What could the feds do about that one? And isn't a sheriff's legal authority higher than any other law enforcement agency or appointee in the nation? (please correct me on this one if I'm in error)
The audacity of the federal government dictating to a state such things just boggles the mind. Time for Arizona, and the rest of the states, to stand up to them and assert that which the Founders intended in the beginning.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
See, this is what happens when you ask a higher government for permission to exercise rights.
Last edited by MAC702; 04-15-2012 at 12:00 AM.
"It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.
If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?
There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.
Would it be safe to assume that the Feds just really hate Arizona and want to diminish them down to tumbleweeds?
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/do...iff/index.html) contains information that conclusively shows there are sheriffs who are aware of the unlawful activity of Federal agents and will work to prevent it. It is true that most county sheriffs are either unaware of their ultimate authority or are afraid to exercise it. However, it is only necessary to clearly show that one educated sheriff has successfully restricted the access of federal agents to his county." That's just a small part of the page, and it is an interesting read. It seems to boil down to, the Feds must request access unless they are on authorized federal business... which is quite limited. Pax...
P.S. Apparently the DOJ doesn't understand the function of the 10th Amendment. They should hire some non-left-wing lawyers that specialize in - and understand- the U.S. Constitution!
Last edited by Gil223; 04-15-2012 at 08:23 PM.
I'm having trouble opening the article (ISP "maintenance") but as I understand the situation the feds are saying they 1) will not contribute money to any repair project and 2) they owm/control the water amyhow.
As regards #1 - so fund it yourself or prove the feds "owe" funding.
As regaeds #2 - I'm pretty sure there are interstate treaties and other legal agreements that deal with the issue. Enforce them.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
Last edited by Gil223; 04-16-2012 at 05:15 PM.
In April, 2001, a Federal Judge ruled in favor of a frivolous and flawed biological opinion put forth on behalf of the Endangered Species Act stating that the sucker fish in Klamath Lake required protection. In response to this, the Secretary of Interior, made the brilliant decision to address the Judge's decision by cutting off ALL irrigation water to 90% of the farmers in the Klamath Basin, a number representing 1400 farming families in two states. They organized and petitioned their government, they held a rally in May where 20,000 people asked for the decision to be reversed. All to no effect, no water flowed in May or June. The families became desperate. In late June, a single individual opened one headgate. The Bureau of Reclamation immediately closed it. A July 4th rally protesting that resulted in the gate being opened again. The government sent two US Marshals to insure the gates stayed closed. Later that week, a vote in the U.S. Senate to reverse conditions was defeated. With no relief imminent, with financial ruin at the door and with their rights being trampled by the government that should have protected them, about 200 farmers took over the headgates and restored water flow (we could learn something from their actions).
It took a decade but, eventually the case hit the OSC, and the results were somewhat surprising...
"Oregon Supreme Court Rules Klamath Water Users Win
WASHINGTON - (Business Wire) The Oregon Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision yesterday, resolving issues that have prevented the water users in the Klamath Reclamation Project (located in southern Oregon and northern California) from obtaining just compensation for the taking of their irrigation water in 2001.
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, (No. S056275) (Or. Mar. 11, 2010). The Oregon Supreme Court held that the Oregon legislature in 1905 did not give away all of its water rights in the Klamath Reclamation Project to the federal government. Further, the Court stated that whatever rights the federal government did acquire in 1905 were for the benefit of the water users: “[I]n acquiring water rights under the aegis of the Reclamation Act, the United States was not acting for its own benefit, but for the benefit of the persons who Congress intended would put the water to beneficial use reclaiming the land” — in other words, the farmers who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit." Sometimes the "good guys" DO win against the Feds! Last I heard, the case ended there... without the Feds appealing to SCOTUS.
P.S. This particular salt-water variety of "sucker fish" (I don't recall the exact name) was not indigenous to Oregon - or fresh water - but was transplanted there by some lame-ass, tree-hugging Kalifornian(s), and it just adapted to fresh water!
Last edited by Gil223; 04-21-2012 at 09:37 AM. Reason: Add P.S.
I wonder if this could be a little retribution for AZ butting heads with the fed over the illegal alien problem...
Apparently, a lot of legal activity is against administration policy.
BTW, the case is being heard by SCOTUS this week.
The first is one of absolute control, somewhat unique to this President, as he's the only President we've had in the last 200 years who spent a large portion of his formative years growing up under another governmental system (Indonesia), one which exercised far more control over its citizens, particularly when Obama grew up there. It's been described as "presidential with parliamentary characteristics," with two bodies, the MPR and the DPR. The MPR's "functions previously included electing the president and vice president (since 2004 the president has been elected directly by the people), establishing broad guidelines of state policy, and amending the constitution," while the DPR was the "premier legislative institution, originally included 462 members elected through a mixed proportional/district representational system and thirty-eight appointed members of the armed forces (TNI) and police (POLRI)." - Source.
Until reforms which began in the 1990s, both the DPR and the MPR were largely rubber-stamp organizations for the President. That's the system under which Obama grew up, and that's the way he expects our government to run. Is Obama's strongarm and dictatorial tactics really any wonder or that he bristles every time he doesn't get his way? Dear Obama: WE ARE NOT INDONESIA.
The second issue is simply a lack of moral integrity, to such as severe degree that Obama has no qualms about lying through his teeth to the American people. Suharto, Obama's role model, got away with it for decades, and Obama expects to be able to do the same.
I concur (mostly) on both accounts, but it's best to keep in mind that the issue is actually very complicated, as a simple review of this multi-page outline on jurisdictional law should demonstrate.I did my due diligence and found this: "This page (http://www.criminalgovernment.com/do...iff/index.html) contains information that conclusively shows there are sheriffs who are aware of the unlawful activity of Federal agents and will work to prevent it. It is true that most county sheriffs are either unaware of their ultimate authority or are afraid to exercise it. However, it is only necessary to clearly show that one educated sheriff has successfully restricted the access of federal agents to his county." That's just a small part of the page, and it is an interesting read. It seems to boil down to, the Feds must request access unless they are on authorized federal business... which is quite limited.
I see this more as being a problem with Holder's failure as a leader than a failure of the DOJ. Any good leader of a governmental organization will open the door to and welcome a solid, well-accepted understanding of our Constitution, its amendments, and all the rules of law and governing regulations derived therefrom. It's power-grabbing dictators like Obama and Holder who want to morph interpretations to the extreme. Regardless, it's the leader who sets the tone.P.S. Apparently the DOJ doesn't understand the function of the 10th Amendment. They should hire some non-left-wing lawyers that specialize in - and understand- the U.S. Constitution!
I've seen military squadrons and even entire wings go sideways when the leadership comes on too strong with a few cock-eyed ideas. When that happens, strong leadership from within the ranks can sometimes right the ship, but without it, or if the leader is too strong, brown-nosers rise through the cracks. The leader will then often mistake such support for approval that his cock-eyed ideas are actually right.
Remember the B-52 crash at Fairchild back in June of 1994? That wasn't the result of one pilot getting a little slow and stalling the aircraft. It was the result of several key failures in leadership which happened over several years leading up to the accident. The study in that failure of leadership is required reading at several key leadership schools in the Air Force.
I just wish our Federal Government had a better training programs! We have almost zero read-in programs to bring leaders and appointed officials up to speed on what does and what doesn't work in government. As a result, it's a massive waste of reinventing the wheel and partisan politics instead of smoothly running institution.
Still, we do try. The government often hires entities such as the Rand Corporation who do know how to get things right to advise them. Such contracts are often significantly longer time span than any of the leaders. Their lessons learned are usually incorporated into the various playbooks for use by those smart enough to refer to that "corporate knowledge." Still, such systems are largely ad-hoc. The lives of our founders were indeed much simpler than things are today. We can fine-tune economic systems with great precision, yet those who hold the purse strings muck things up with gross hacks of the legislative axe based more on earmarks and pork-barrelling than on proper management techniques. Result: GROSS waste of your taxpayer dollars.
Last edited by Gil223; 04-30-2012 at 11:48 AM.
I oppose federal overreach. I also oppose the jack-booted thug named Joe Arpaio that certain types of people continue to adore, for some damn-fool reason.
Is it so hard to realize that both Obama's DoJ and Sheriff Arpaio are bad guys?