Oct 31, 2011
By: Steven Greenhut | 10/29/11 1:10 PM
Special to The Examiner
Resource: The Copco I Dam on the Klamath River, outside Hornbrook, is one of four dams proposed to be removed. (AP file photo)
The nearly five-hour drive from the Sacramento area to Yreka, in Siskiyou County by the Oregon border, was a reminder not just of the immense size and beauty of California, but of the vast regional and cultural differences one finds within our 37-million-population state. Sacramento is Government Central, a land of overpensioned bureaucrats and restaurant discounts for state workers. But way up in the North State, one finds a small but hard-edged rural populace that views state and federal officials as the main obstacles to their quality of life.
Their latest battle is to stop destruction of four hydro-electric dams along the Klamath River. Most locals say the dam-busting will undermine their property rights and ruin the local farming and ranch economy, which is all that’s left since regulators destroyed the logging and mining industries. These used to be wealthy resource-based economies, but now many of the towns are drying up, with revenues to local governments evaporating. Unemployment rates are in the 20 percent and higher range. Nearly 79 percent of the county’s voters opposed the dam removal in a recent advisory initiative, but that isn’t stopping the authorities from blasting the dams anyhow.
These rural folks, living in the shadow of the majestic Mount Shasta, believe that they are being driven away so that their communities can essentially go back to the wild, to conform to an extremist preference for wildlands above humanity. As the locals told it during the Defend Rural America conference at the Siskiyou Golden Fairgrounds a week ago Saturday night, pushy officials are treading on their liberties, traipsing unannounced on their properties, confronting local ranchers with guns drawn to enforce arcane regulatory rules and destroying their livelihoods in the process.
The evening’s main event: A panel featuring eight county sheriffs (seven from California and one from Oregon) who billed themselves as “Constitution Sheriffs.” They vowed to stand up for the residents of their communities against what they say is an unconstitutional onslaught from regulators in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. In particular, they took issue with the federal government’s misnamed Travel Management Plan, which actually is designed to shut down public travel in the forests. Plumas County Sheriff Greg Hagwood related the stir he caused when he said that he “will not criminalize citizens for just accessing public lands.” Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey reminded the crowd that county sheriffs are sworn to uphold the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
As someone who has covered law-enforcement issues in urban Southern California, it’s refreshing to hear peace officers enunciate the proper relationship between themselves and the people. I could pick nits. For all the complaining about the feds, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko had just been quoted in the newspaper praising the Obama administrations for its crackdown on medical marijuana clinics, even though state law clearly allows such clinics. One’s either for state control or not.
I hadn’t been in Yreka long before someone handed me a popular joke. A federal agent shows up at a farm and demands to check out the property. The farmer says OK, but tells him not to go over to one pasture. Then the agent arrogantly tells him he has a federal badge and can go wherever he darn well pleases. The farmer says OK. A few minutes later, the agent is running for his life from a bull. The agent calls for help, so the farmer goes to the fence and yells: “Show him your badge.”
It’s funny but anger-inducing. We’ve got a real sagebrush rebellion brewing in rural California. Urban legislators can ignore it at their own peril.
Steven Greenhut is editor of www.calwatchdog.com; write to him at email@example.com.
Oct 30, 2011
The Truth About Dam Removal
The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Confidential and Privileged Settlement Communication with the exclusion of the General Public’s participation causes injury to the general public and the Shasta Nation.
This Agreement will force the Shasta’s out of existence by the Karok Tribe down river and the Klamath Tribe up river establishing fishing rights below Iron Gate Dam. The Federal Government and several states are willing to destroy the Shasta Nation by creating artificial low fish numbers for absolute control of surface and ground water and our lives through the KBRA. Charter
The Klamath Tribe never had an identified village site on the Klamath River.
The Shasta’s possess prehistoric village sites, as identified in Gibbs Journal, while traveling up river in 1851. Mr. Gibbs documented the Shasta language encountered upon leaving Clear Creek on the Klamath River. The formost up river Shasta village site on the Klamath is near Lake Ewana, headwaters of the Klamath River.
The Shasta’s aboriginal recognized land base on the Klamath river is identified at least 70 miles more or less below Iron Gate Dam, near Clear Creek. Upstream the Shasta’s aboriginal land base on the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam includes more or less 50 miles of the Klamath River, to the lake now known as Lake Ewana. The removal of four dams in the heart of the Shasta Nation Requires that the Shasta Nation and the General Public be allowed due process to file exceptions to the Agreement.
Which has been denied.
Each Party to the KBRA has an “Obligation” to Support this “Confidential Agreement,” no exceptions. Parties were selected that “Shall support and defend this Agreement in each applicable venue or forum, including any administrative or judicial action in which it participates, and which concerns the validity of any Regulatory Approval or Authorizing Legislation.”
To remain “Confidential” the Agreement utilized a Conspiracy of Silence; a secret Agreement to keep silent about an occurrence, situation or subject in order to promote or protect interests among selective groups that promoted the same selfish interests. Conspire; to join in a secret Agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end. Webster’s dictionary.
The Karok Tribe is now attempting to use the stolen Shasta Treaty R as their own to control Shasta Nation Aboriginal lands and water rights, which is where the dam removal currently lies.
Tribes and Government agencies have erroneously disregarded the reserved Shasta Nation Treaty rights including hunting, fishing, and water rights which are Guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. A Tribe need not be Federally Recognized to establish that it is the beneficiary of a Treaty. United States v Suquamish Tribe 901 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1990); It is enough that a group or tribe establish that it has preserved an organized tribal structure that it can trace back to a Federal Treaty. United States v Oregon, 29 F 3d 481, amended 43 F. 3d 1284 (9th Cir. 1994).
Terms of Agreement:
The term of the Agreement as to contractual obligations shall be 50 years from the effective date.
The KBRA will need a Charter, foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our government. A Charter as defined to make this Agreement effective will abdicate Government and declare us out of the protection of the United States Constitution.
As defined by Webster 2. A grant or guarantee of rights, franchises or privileges from the sovereign power of a state or country. 4. A special privilege, “IMMUNITY,” or exemption arising from legislation. The citizens of Klamath, Jackson and Siskiyou Counties will have their right to representation destroyed in an Unconstitutional Dictatorial Charter for 50 years.
Force Majeure shall mean: For the purpose of performing Contractual Obligations under this Agreement. There is no freedom of speech or right to representation by the Public in the creation of this Agreement, and Irrevocable Charter will mandate this. To become a Party to this “Obligated Contractual Agreement” means Government agencies have violated their trusts as public servants by violating the authority of the Constitution of the United States and the will of the People.
Indian Treaties stand essentially on the same footing as Treaties with Foreign Nations, as they are made pursuant to the Constitution, Treaties take precedence over any conflicting state laws by reason of the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Constitution., Art. VI, $ 2; Worcester v Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
Reserved treaty rights are not Dependant on Trust Status. The Supreme Courts case of Johnson v McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) Indian tribes were incapable of conveying their land directly to individuals even before the passage of the Trade and Intercourse Act
The first Trade and Intercourse Act 1 stat. 137 (1790), forbade the transfer of Indian lands to individuals or States except by Treaty, “Under the authority of the United States.” Shasta land transferred to the State of California by Federal Government officials, with the un-ratified Treaty R sealed for fifty years, violates the First Trade and Intercourse Act 1 stat. 137 (1790) of the Constitution of the United States. Indian tribes that occupied and used the land to the exclusion of others had an interest denoted as a right of occupancy, known today as Aboriginal Title. That title cannot be compromised by anyone except by Congress. Only the United States, could extinguish the Indian right of occupancy by purchase, “a treaty.”
The creation and acceptance of an Indian Reservation by Treaty with boundaries constitutes a relinquishment and extinguishment of Aboriginal Title outside of the Reservation. Menominee Indian Tribe v Thompson, 161 F3d 449 462 (7 Cir.1998). Treaty R of the Shasta and Upper Klamath has remained un-ratified by the US. Senate therefore legal interest is retained by the Shasta Nation.
A Tribes Treaty Right to exclusive use and occupancy of it’s FORMER Reservation has been held to protect it from attempts of the BIA to place land within that Reservation in trust for a competing tribe.
Citizen band of Pottawatomie Indian Tribe v Collier, 142 F. 3d 1325 (10th Cir.1998).
The Karok Tribe and the B.I.A. has stolen title of Treaty R of the Shasta and Upper Klamath Indian tribe speaking the same language, now the Shasta Nation. The Karok Tribe are not of the land described in Treaty R nor are they descendants of the treaty signers of Treaty R.
The Shasta and Upper Klamath Indians are listed in the Federal Register, also, the Shasta are listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
Roy V. Hall Jr.
Oct 29, 2011
The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite
The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day. On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time. But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”. In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility. In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite. Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.
READ MORE http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/from-7-billion-people-to-500-million-people-the-sick-population-control-agenda-of-the-global-elite
Oct 29, 2011
POSTED AT 6:05 PM ON OCTOBER 28, 2011 BY TINA KORBE
These days, especially among Tea Partiers, it’s a marker of immense credibility to be called a “constitutional conservative.” But, as with any label, the term is easily coopted, applied as a veneer atop entrenched pro-growth-of-government ideas. Fortunately, we have in The Federalist an eloquent exposition of the intent of the Framers and a sure interpretation of the Constitution.
As it happens, Alexander Hamilton penned the first of the Federalist papers 224 years ago today. Surely that anniversary is worth commemorating, especially as Hamilton’s first-paragraph encapsulation of just what was at stake in the American experiment remains one of the briefest illuminations of the import of that experiment in history and around the world.
First, let’s recall that first paragraph:
[I]t seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.
David Azerrad explains the significance for us today:
At stake in the debate to ratify the Constitution was more than “your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness”—important as they were and remain: Americans were embarking on an experiment in self-government that would, if successful, vindicate man before all the princes, kings, and assorted thinkers who had firmly denied that men could govern themselves.
At the heart of the Founding, as James Madison would later explain in Federalist No. 39, was “that honorable determination, which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all of our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”
Too often, “the American Dream” is conflated with the car, the house, the spouse, the kids, the trips to Disneyland or to the ski slopes. But to reduce the American Dream to the mere material is to miss that the American Founders, rather uniquely in all of history, made a statement to the world that they wanted to be free to govern themselves even more than they wanted to be rich and prosperous. As it happens, freedom leads to prosperity — but, incredibly, prosperity was even less the point than self-government and freedom.
Government regulation — the arguments for and against — has become a hot topic, thanks to the Occupy Wall Street movement. But, all too often, the debate hinges on whether the regulations do what they’re intended to do or on what the costs of the regulations are in terms of dollars and jobs. Those are meaningful discussions to have — but so, too, is the question of whether we really want to cede that privilege of regulating ourselves — so bravely entrusted to us by the Founders — to the government. We betray the trust of the Founders when we act in such a way as to trample the rights of others and to invite increased government intervention in our lives. But we uphold it when we do discipline ourselves to respect others’ equal rights.
Azerrad reminds us that today is an anniversary of another important moment in American rhetoric. Nearly 50 years ago (47, to be exact), Ronald Reagan delivered his “A Time for Choosing” speech. The question he posed then must be answered by every generation, for, as Reagan once put it, “Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction.”
This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.