I admit that I ask questions to make people think. I also will ask questions to have an instructor explain a concept in more complete detail even when I know the answer if people attending the class are not grasping the concept or material. In some cases, this will result in condemnation or it will make me look stupid. But I am feeling stupid at this point (after all, I am just a racist teabagger for supporting the Constitution).
Based on the Constitution of the United States:
Article I, Section 8.17
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;
So my question is simple: how did the United States federal government acquire 84% of the state of Nevada? I must have missed the amendment to the Constitution that includes the authority to steal land from an individual state for the purposes of reducing the number of ranches by charging fees by a new alphabet agency (BLM) to raise money to hire military contractors to threaten the people.
As we are beginning to understand, all of the rules and laws instituted by the federal government are not based in the Constitution of the United States. But then at what point is a state in this “union” still a sovereign republic under Article IV, Section 4:
Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I suppose that our current government considers standing up for the Constitution to be domestic Violence. If over 50% of a state is owned by the government, is it still an individual republic? Obviously 84% ownership of a business or property is a majority ownership with limited rights assigned to the minority stockholders or owners. Cliven Bundy makes a good point for not paying a federal government tribute to graze on land that is not legally owned by the government under the Constitution. Or at least the original intent of the Constitution.
So at what point does the Constitution fade away into obscurity through illegal acts perpetuated by corrupt “leaders”? I suppose the real question is what will tyrants do when people stand up against illegal acts? I may be a simple man but no one will be able to argue that our founders ever intended for our limited government to steal the fruits of our labor and property for personal gain or to control the people through paying tribute and intimidation.
I also do not think that anyone would be able to argue that our federal government is moral. The list of grievances grows every day as do the number of people waking up to the truth. The federal government may have retreated but they also know that their agenda must be implemented soon. They can ill afford a “teabagger” revolt. Rest assured that their next attack will be decisive and quick.
Is another civil war on our horizon? I do not see any alternative to fight federal tyranny based on what happened in Nevada. And neither does the government. The number of MRAPs and ammunition stockpiles have shown that it is only a matter of time for them to destroy our Constitution, country and future. It is time to trust in the Lord and ask for guidance. Something that our forefathers understood all too well because they feared the Lord.