Some States are 'Fighting the Feds' ...

[Woody]

Did you know that the Federal Government owns more of some states than the State or private individuals do.

For instance ... 60% of Utah is owned by the Feds.

But the States are starting to fight Obama about this.

I hope they have success.

[karl]

Did you know that the Federal Government owns more of some states than the State or private individuals do.

For instance ... 60% of Utah is owned by the Feds.

But the States are starting to fight Obama about this.

I hope they have success.

It's not Obama's fault, but don't expect him to give the property back. Alaska is almost entirely owned by the feds.

[Woody]

Because presidents such as Clinton declared that it was necessary. The FEDS can take over any property that they deem necessary. The same can be said for the State. They take over private property all the time.

From what I understand. Clinton had the record for taking over land. But any Democrat is happy to do so.

[karl]

Because presidents such as Clinton declared that it was necessary. The FEDS can take over any property that they deem necessary. The same can be said for the State. They take over private property all the time.

From what I understand. Clinton had the record for taking over land. But any Democrat is happy to do so.

Woody,

Would you be willing to start a new thread on the relevance of private property to freedom? I haven't figured out how to start a new thread.

We started discussing freedom (conservative principles of:) on the Pastor Carpenter thread and then it disappeared.

It seems to me that there are a bunch of people on CA who have been so conditioned by modern culture that they have forgotten (or never were taught) even the most basic concepts of freedom.

If what's yours is mine, you are not free. You belong to me.

[Woody]

Hi Karl. I think it is quite on topic to discuss it here. But if you want to start a new topic just click on "topic options" and then "new topic". :)

[karl]

The word "federal" has come to mean "giant central government with tentacles in every person's life."

That is not what it is supposed to mean. "Federal" is related to the word "federation." It means that a group of independent entities have joined together to accomplish a common objective.

In the US, the entities are being taken over by the federation.

[Woody]

less is more

[phkrause]

Come on guys, this has been going on for over 50 years now. I remember when I bought my first house. The lawyer filled out a form called "the homestead act" or something to that effect and told me that if you don't have that the state, the feds or whoever could just take your land. So please lets not say this is just happening. It just amaze's me the way we can spin things to make them fit what we want. Sorry the feds have done this for more years than anyone of us can count. That's why they own so much land, or didn't we know that either. Well I'm not going to teach a class so you will have to check it out yourselves.

pk

[phkrause]

As a matter of fact I might even still have this paper work somewhere. I know when I refinanced this was no longer an option.

pk

[karl]

Come on guys, this has been going on for over 50 years now. I remember when I bought my first house. The lawyer filled out a form called "the homestead act" or something to that effect and told me that if you don't have that the state, the feds or whoever could just take your land. So please lets not say this is just happening. It just amaze's me the way we can spin things to make them fit what we want. Sorry the feds have done this for more years than anyone of us can count. That's why they own so much land, or didn't we know that either. Well I'm not going to teach a class so you will have to check it out yourselves.

pk

Are you pointing out the longevity of the evil in hopes that it will somehow make us feel better?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say above, Krause.

It seems similar to the argument that is always made in support of socialism. "We already have elements of socialism in our culture."

Yes, and...?

We already have elements of organized crime. Can noting that fact be construed in anyone's mind as an argument in favor of it?

[phkrause]

No not saying that at all, but like I mentioned, the spin that is being pointed to is that this is happening as of today and this adminstration is the cause of it. This country has been going down hill long before Obama enter the picture. This is what I'm saying. Republican, Democrat makes no difference to me, they are all the same, will continue to take us further and further from all our freedoms. Everyone should be able to see this.

pk

[karl]

No not saying that at all, but like I mentioned, the spin that is being pointed to is that this is happening as of today and this adminstration is the cause of it. This country has been going down hill long before Obama enter the picture. This is what I'm saying. Republican, Democrat makes no difference to me, they are all the same, will continue to take us further and further from all our freedoms. Everyone should be able to see this.

pk

Yes, I agree that the trend seems continuously toward less freedom, bigger government.

Consumption be done about it?

[karl]

Frank Antenori's idea is as bright as a 100-watt lightbulb.

by Mary Jo Pitzl - Feb. 21, 2010 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

In proposing that Arizona become the national epicenter of incandescent-lightbulb manufacturing, the Tucson Republican hopes to provoke a fight with Washington, D.C., over states' rights and interstate trade.

He's picked what he believes is an inoffensive field of battle: A glass bulb with a tungsten filament.

It's a new twist on a national trend that involves a Montana gun law that 23 other states, including Arizona, are mimicking this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The premise is that by providing that guns manufactured in a given state are not sent over state boundaries, the federal government has no right to impose regulations, such as gun registration.

Knowing the firestorm that gun regulation can inspire, the freshman lawmaker decided to dial down the emotion and use lightbulbs as his weapon of choice in a states'-rights push.

"It's kind of like the Montana gun bill, but not as angry," Antenori said of House Bill 2337.

"You can't get too (angry) with lightbulbs. You don't shoot people with lightbulbs."

But he hopes perhaps you can sue if the federal government insists that a phase-out of incandescent-bulb sales applies to Arizona.

The federal Energy Independence and Security Act, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, imposes new efficiency standards beginning in 2012. It bans the sale of the most widely used incandescent bulbs, those ranging from 40 watts to 100 watts. The idea is to move the country toward compact-fluorescent lightbulbs and LEDs, which consume less energy.

The federal law is "touchy-feely legislation," Antenori told a House panel earlier this month. He said it will expose consumers to the mercury in CFLs, as well as kill jobs, because no one makes them in the United States.

But those are side arguments. As with the gun bills being introduced from Arizona to New Hampshire, Antenori's lightbulb bill aims to assert a state's rights.

"The real intent of this legislation is to challenge the federal mandate in court," he told the House Commerce Committee. "We could make history by having the (U.S.) Supreme Court rule that the federal government overstepped its bounds."