Title: Daryl Hannah and Elderly Land Owner Arrested for Trespassing on Land Stolen Under Eminent Domain Source:
infowars URL Source:http://www.infowars.com/daryl-hanna ... d-stolen-under-eminent-domain/ Published:Oct 7, 2012 Author:Kurt Nimmo Post Date:2012-10-07 07:39:40 by noone222 Keywords:None Views:1333 Comments:83
Actor Daryl Hannah and an elderly land owner were arrested in Texas on Thursday for criminally trespassing on land stolen under eminent domain.
From the Washington Post:
Hannah and landowner Eleanor Fairchild were standing in front of heavy equipment in an attempt to halt construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Fairchild’s farm in Winnsboro, a town about 100 miles east of Dallas. They were arrested for criminal trespassing and taken to the Wood County Jail.
In August, a court in Paris, Texas, ruled that the Canadian energy company has the right to build a pipeline on private land despite widespread opposition by land owners. The transnational corporation is exploiting a loophole in Texas’ oil and gas regulation, according to the New York Times.
In Texas, if a company qualifies as a “common carrier” the state allows it to condemn land without the consent of land owners, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which state “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
As the founders knew, property ownership is a natural and unalienable right. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1766, English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that there are three natural rights: the right to personal security, the right to personal liberty, and the right to private property. In America, circa 2012, we have mostly lost the sense of this and have allowed the state to steal our private property under “eminent domain” without much of a fuss.
As William Norman Grigg notes, the Fifth Amendment has unfortunately served as “one of several Hamiltonian-mercantilist Easter eggs covertly embedded in the Constitution…”
The familiar civics class platitude describes this provision as necessary for the construction of bridges, hospitals, and other amenities that are supposedly “public goods” only government can provide. The inescapable reality is that eminent domain is a particularly vulgar form of plunder used to enrich the political class and their corporate cronies at the expense of the rest of us.
Predictably, the state has characterized the theft of private property as job creation in order to get the commoners to accept the act of corporate rape as somehow beneficial. In April, as partisan politics played out as usual, House Speaker John Boehner lambasted Obama for his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
“He should listen to the voices of the American people and unlock the project so we can get Americans working and address high gas prices,” said Boehner.
This, of course, does not include the voices of the Tar Sands Blockade carried out by a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and environmental activists opposed to TransCanada’s use of eminent domain to steal private property for the pipeline.
The words "eminent domain" aren't in the Constitution. Corporate use isn't public use.
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again).
Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect.
[This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity.
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again).
Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect.
[This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity.
Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities. They are interlopers, trespassers, secessionists, invading forces. Nullify their intrusions. Void their false claims to overrule the Constitution and Americans of it.
Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities.
Bullshit. Do you have a Social(ist) Security Account Number ? If so, you are one of those in opposition to the Constitution "just like them" !
Every license, permit or contractual agreement you share with that govt makes you a "partner" pard. Not only that but each time any of us signs on to a program of the government we are in effect condoning their authority.
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it and Unconstitutional "laws" aren't valid. I'm guessing you don't want to discuss Constitutional enforcement.
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it
You're in error.
The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't.
The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't.
I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution.
In a tyranny it really doesn't matter whether you had informed consent or not and it matters even less if you were coerced "in a blatant dictatorship."
America is a very short distance from being a full blown tyranny so the "laws" starting with the Constitution are elastic and mean whatever some corrupted judge says they mean. The whole idea being to keep the idiots believing in the constitutional fairytale in order to maintain control. In this way, the judge is able to "instruct" the mullets on every jury as to what the law is (despite desparate attempts to enter jury nullification) and the couch potatoes on the jury like all clapping seals give the prosecutor his victory 98% of the time.
The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
I disagree. The 2nd Amendment provides a gun in a free state. What people do with those guns is up to them.
I'll conclude with this statement and I think we can agree on some things. Our Constitution is only as valid as our ability and willingness to enforce it.
Currently, we're living in a police state wherein the Constitution is just a "G.D. piece of paper." Of course, much adoration and tribute is paid the Constitution by the scumbags holding offices of trust because they don't have another choice other than all out civil strife. They'd prefer to limit the strife to a few "tin foil hat" wearing patriots, and they do that by placating folks like you with a lot of patriotic fairytales and other nonsense that causes good folks to spend countless hours researching and preparing cases for court that have NO MERIT, and that get good (but stupid) folks put into prisons or to death.
I think we'd also agree that we're not going to escape violent revolution before we return Constitutional Government. In the mean time we should admit at least to ourselves that we live in a (virtual) democratic dictatorship not a democratic republic.
Me: The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
You: I disagree. The 2nd Amendment provides a gun in a free state. What people do with those guns is up to them.
I'll conclude with this statement and I think we can agree on some things. Our Constitution is only as valid as our ability and willingness to enforce it.
Don't forget the first part:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You might recall me telling you some time ago about the removal of Benjamin Franklin's son from office by his State's Militia.
America's Secret Army: "if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45 [My note: between meaning 18-44], you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know."
Chap. XXX III.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able- bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. [cont.]
Edit to add that I don't think it's a racially prohibitive law anymore since the Post Civil War Reconstruction era and such.
I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
Umm, I think you're referring to the professional standing army. The other militia (Title 10 USC Sec 311 (section b)) refers to the non-professional able-bodied men and women. See here ; http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt This is the very same statute I read to that teacher whom afterwards attacked my character. These fellow travelers are working tirelessly in our American classrooms paid by our state taxpayers to foment uprisings and undermine our laws and Constitutions by making such blatant subversive statements in the classroom like that which are not protected by the First Amendment.
I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
Umm, I think you're referring to the professional standing army. The other militia (Title 10 USC Sec 311 (section b)) refers to the non-professional able- bodied men and women. See here ; http://uscode.house.gov/do wn load/pls/10C13.txt This is the very same statute I read to that teacher whom afterwards attacked my character. These fellow travelers are working tirelessly in our American classrooms paid by our state taxpayers to foment uprisings and undermine our laws and Constitutions by making such blatant subversive statements in the classroom like that which are not protected by the First Amendment.
Read through the link, thanks. I agree that women are to be included as drafted into their Constitutional State Militias. My objection is to their presence inserted in combat zones rather than some other capacity, the same as I object to that within the regular Military. If they happen to come under attack in the course of their non-combat duties, of course they should be capably trained to defend themselves and others in the vicinity, just as the males are trained. However, standards have been lowered to "gender equalize" fitness, which means the men are undertrained and, as if that's not bad enough, women have been allowed to walk instead of run obstacle courses if they wanted to. After a while, I noticed there was a change from boot camp action videos to photo format footage of that so it wasn't as obvious that's what was happening. No amount of training or ego can redefine women as just a somewhat smaller version of males physically with monthly concerns. A male serviceman down who can't be pulled to safety quick enough by a female serviceperson could be the difference between whether he lives or not and her too if targeted in the process, especially in hand to hand combat. There are a number of other problems such as not having the upper body strength to throw a grenade far enough that they and others around them won't get blown up or hit by the shrapnel. One of the worst Naval ship disasters was a female jet pilot that crashed. That sort of thing. Not saying at all that women shouldn't be in the Military or the Militias -- just not attached to Combat Arms Units, for the safety of our men as well as theirs. Would like to address a section at your link in another post...
Edited to activate link and to add the word "jet".
No amount of training or ego can redefine women as just a somewhat smaller version of males physically with monthly concerns. A male serviceman down who can't be pulled to safety quick enough by a female serviceperson could be the difference between whether he lives or not and her too if targeted in the process, especially in hand to hand combat. There are a number of other problems such as not having the upper body strength to throw a grenade far enough that they and others around them won't get blown up or hit by the shrapnel.
Then females should NOT benefit from Affirmative Action for promotions in the DOD or municipal gov't services like fire or police, etc - all of which - have a pre-requisite of physical strength and prowess.
Tell that to Sandra O'Connor and hear her (personal AA benefited) response.
I'm a woman and frankly all this "sisters B.S." bugs me bigtime. If my "sisters" want to benefit from AA than they need to put their asses at risk, on the line- what have you- to earn their promotions over their brothers. Otherwise, step aside, and let real men earn their stripes by putting their lives at risk for others.
Standing ovation and applause! If Sandra Day O'Conner and NOW, et al. Feminazis really think they're physical equals with men or better in combat zones, they should be in favor of women on the frontlines with no male backup.
they should be in favor of women on the frontlines with no male backup.
Indeed!
Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor mistakenly believes that sitting in the SC court room today and glaring at the SC Justices as the University of Texas affirmative action policy is debated constitutes "enough" front line battle as her AA selected SC self can handle.
AA for the female gender should include Selective Service sign up. "Equality" should not be a one way street to success - some heavy lifting and SACRIFICE are in order as well.
Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor mistakenly believes that sitting in the SC court room today and glaring at the SC Justices as the University of Texas affirmative action policy is debated constitutes "enough" front line battle as her AA selected SC self can handle.
I say we waive discriminatory age-limit barriers too so that she and others like her in the overage bracket can be treated fairly and equally to actual combat frontline duty.
AA for the female gender should include Selective Service sign up. "Equality" should not be a one way street to success - some heavy lifting and SACRIFICE are in order as well.
I agree up to and including heavy lifting. I think I know what you mean by the rest of your statement...like no specially comfortable quarters and such. If so, I agree on that too. If they and their egos don't get in the way of our men and their Military performance by "PC" propulsion, that would be more as it should be, imo.