IPFS News Link • Environment
The Manic Drive To Return Land To Nature While Destroying Agriculture
• https://www.technocracy.newsSince 1992, war on agriculture and food production in the United States has been under fierce attack, but the greatest heat has been felt in the West.
Ranchers have had their long-existing grazing and water rights methodically stripped away on Federal land. Farmers have been relentlessly sued by environmental groups and over-regulated by the government.
The so-called Sagebrush Rebellion was just gaining momentum when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1979. As a Westerner, even Reagan counted himself part of the Rebellion.
At the heart of the early stages of the Sagebrush Rebellion was the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In the 35 years since 1979, the USFS and BLM have steadily advanced like a Sherman tank, treading over any who would resist and destroying any who would actually attack.
An ignorant and apathetic public never came to the aid of their beleaguered brethren, leaving them to crushing machine of the Federal government. This could change shortly, because the recent Bundy (Nevada) and Hammond (Oregon) confrontations have raised public awareness of the resurgent Sagebrush Rebellion.
The larger picture is seen with the U.N.'s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in June 1992. The Earth Summit also codified and produced Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century).
President Clinton signed the CBD treaty on 04 June 1993, but ratification was flatly rejected by the Senate after the above map was introduced on the Senate floor. However, ratification aside, the Executive Branch has steadfastly prosecuted the CBD's policies and agenda until the present, primarily through operations of the BLM and USFS.
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
1 Comments in Response to The Manic Drive To Return Land To Nature While Destroying Agriculture
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America begins with these words: The Congress shall have Power . . . Clause 17 continues with: 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; The upshot of this language is: Outside Washington, D.C., any lands held by the central body of the federal government must be defense-related or a post office. An excellent 54-minute presentation of what powers Congress has (and doesn't have) can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAUwrz3wmpY Whether the un-ratified treaty was even Constitutional is in question. If the Constitution does not grant the central body a certain power, it cannot get that power except through Constitutional amendment. It cannot pass a treaty "under the authority of the United States" that exceeds the power of "the United States". The central body of the federal government is precluded from using a treaty to "write its own ticket" by the phrase "under the authority of the United States" in the supremacy clause. Even if ratification of that treaty was Constitutional, giving it force of law even though it's not ratified is clearly UN-Constitutional. DC Treybil