Daily News

THE MILITARIZATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN

There's been another disturbing trend coming out of the swamp, and for want of a better expression, I call it the "militarization of eminent domain." This article was shared by Ms. C., and I have to be honest, I was fully planning to blog about something else when this popped into my inbox. I read it, and immediately nixed what I was originally going to blog about today, in order to pass along this story, because the implications are both deep and wide.

The story? The state of Washington is considering a bill which would make the federal military an "equal partner" in planning land use. That, anyway, is a rather euphemistic way of putting it, but the actual story goes much deeper:

The Military Wants to Dictate Private Land Use -- and Washington State Might Let It

Here's the core of the issue:

"The alarming piece is the assumption inherent in the bill that the military base commanders can dictate or require [that] the planning for zoning and land use must accommodate their mission, whatever their mission is," he said. "So, their mission is assumed to be suitable for our state no matter what it is."

Washington State's HB 2341 allows the military to dictate what uses shall be allowed, and whether any development shall be allowed on any land in the State of Washington.

This could mean an expansion of military training exercises into private lands, forcing people to move. It could also result in the military flying increasing numbers of warplanes over state and national parks, which is already a major problem across much of Washington State.

Ron Richards, an attorney, engineer, commercial fisherman and former Clallam County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, told Truthout that the bill, HB 2341, which is now in committee, "allows the military to dictate what uses shall be allowed, and whether any development shall be allowed on any land in the State of Washington."

Richards called the bill "atrocious."

Some critics of the Washington State legislation worry it could be part of a larger strategy the Department of Defense is using across the country.

Washington State's HB 2341 essentially cedes control of land use to the commanders of military bases by way of granting the Department of Defense (DOD) the status of equal partner in planning, under Washington State's Growth Management Act. This creates a structure that solidifies the status of the DOD as an equal partner in any planning for land use, transportation planning and spending priorities.(Boldface emphasis in the original, italicized emphasis added)

And as if all of that were not bad enough, then there's this:

Furthermore, Richards pointed out several examples of how the bill violates the constitutions of both Washington and the United States. According to Richards, the legislation prohibits local governments from allowing "incompatible development" in the vicinity of a military installation. He explains that the bill would give any commander of any military installation operated by the United States armed services within or adjacent to Washington State sole authority to determine whether incompatibility exists.

By handing United States military commanders control of the state's land use powers, the bill violates Article 1, Section 18, of the Washington State Constitution, according to Richards. That provision unambiguously states: "The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

Or, if I may put all this "country simple" and somewhat differently, what one is looking at is the "militarization" of eminent domain; the bill essentially allows land to be bought up on the cheap if it is "condemned" for the purposes of determining that the military needs to use it for... for whatever. There's some precedent for this, of course, with the interstate highway system, which, lest we forget, was an Eisenhower era project, and the highways themselves are, officially, national defense highways.

But now consider the most disturbing paragraphs of them all:

The vehicle by which the military is influencing land use across Washington is called the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS).

JLUSs are, according to the US DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment, tools that "assist installation commanders and local community leaders" in collaborating "in an effort to ensure local civilian development is compatible with ongoing military activities," according to Patrick O'Brien, director of the Office of Economic Adjustment, as per the November 2006 Joint Land Use Study Program Guidance Manual.

...

If HB 2341 becomes law, it would force local governments to incorporate the military's plans into their own regulations.

Again, to put it country simple: this "militarization of eminent domain" means, in effect, a short end-run around local governments, which must plan in accordance with the diktats of the Empire. My high octane speculation here is that may be a response to the Bundy ranch affair, and that the "simple solution" was simply to militarize the process of eminent domain and land confiscation. This means, in effect, that a major blow has been struck against private property. Add a corrupt government, asset forfeiture laws, the "national security" excuse, mix, stir, knead, allow to rise, and voila, one has a perfect vehicle for all sorts of mischief.And as more and more land is grabbed by the Empire, less and less is available for actual productivity. Oh, and let's add one last "incentive":

Milner is also concerned about the fact that the military wants counties and cities to incorporate the military's JLUSs into their growth management, but require counties and cities to adopt their JLUSs in order to be eligible to submit requests for government funding for projects.

"So, if their highway needs repairs, or the municipality needs help or funding, if they don't adopt the JLUS, they won't get any funds," Milner said. "So, if you don't do what the military wants, you don't get any funding for your needs."

It seems to me that I remember a contretemps a couple of centuries ago having to do with something about quartering of troops...

See you on the flip side...

 

24 thoughts on “THE MILITARIZATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN”

  1. WA might take the cue from TX and set up a precious metals depository. Though in itself initially only symbolic, the Empire would consider this an act of unheard-of defiance. And for them, the ACT and SYMBOL (sym-bolon) coincide…

  2. As a resident of the Great Northwest, I see Washington State as being stuck between a rock and a hard place. WA has been negatively effected (financially) by restrictions on raping the land (logging, mining, etc.). On the other hand, there is a sizable ‘income’ from multiple military bases, including the big Bremerton navy base. (There is an EW airbase on Whidby Island in Puget Sound.) Throw-in Boeing, Micro$oft, and Intel, and there is a large MIC presence to be reckoned-with.

    I see WA as a vulnerable ‘test state’ for these type of laws. Like all laws, they can be useful or abused. Given what we have seen in later decades from the MIC, I suspect more the latter…

  3. “Bundy ranch affair”, what’s that?

    Cliven Bundy was refusing to pay grazing fees he legally owed for grazing his cattle on public land.

    No part of the government was gonna take his ranch. He was going to be prosecuted under established law–nothing to do with the military.

    1. What, according the C-note Benjamin, was the primary reason for the American Revolution? The Blue Blood American Elite issuing their own currency. The hell w/the king’s gold.
      What was the War of 1812? The same. England wanted to control the issuance of American currency.
      Is it what you studied? Your history books said? Hell No!

    2. BLM arrived armed and acted as a military. They proceeded to steal his cattle causing some to perish. This affair is absolutely an action of a government intoxicated with power. BLM failed to realize that there are still people who are not so dumbed down ,cowardly and medicated that they will push back against government corruption. BLM acted in an unlawful disgraceful and dangerous manner. BLM didn’t give up. They jailed three of the Bundys on charges without merit and assassinated an innocent man. However, in this case BLM didn’t prevail even with a judge with leftist leanings. I couldn’t believe your post. Perhaps it’s just to be contrary. Perhaps you support mandatory vaccination for all?

      1. Zephyr,

        You are absolutely right. I just posted a reply to Lost which is in moderation. But here is the link to the article from which I excerpted my reply: http://iapn.org/

        If you scroll down on the page you will find it under the heading “Chairman’s Corner February 2018.” It is quite a lengthy article but explains the whole thing in very clear language. I hope our friend Lost will go and read it. Quite informative.

    3. Lost,
      You are sadly misinformed about what was really going on with the “Bundy Ranch affair.” There was far more to it than what the globalist controlled media was putting out. And btw, the whole case got thrown out of court this year and was dismissed with prejudice because of government corruption and lies.

      Following is an excerpt from an article which explains it in some detail. To read the whole article go here: http://iapn.org/ (Scroll down to see article.)

      THE BLM’S BUNDY BLUNDER-PATRIOTS VS. FASCISTS

      By Joel F. Hansen, Chairman, Independent American Party of Nevada

      Cliven Bundy’s ancestors on his mother’s side came, as pioneers, to the Gold Butte area of the southern Nevada desert in 1877 and began ranching from scratch. In doing this they established grazing rights and water rights—preemptive legal rights under Nevada law which gave them permanent rights to graze cattle on that land. Those legal rights were passed down through the years to Cliven Bundy and his family. In 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act was passed by Congress, an act designed to assist ranchers, especially in the arid American West, to raise cattle for the benefit Americans—by putting delicious and nutritious beef on their tables. The Bundy ranch is located about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near the town of Bunkerville.

      These pioneers conquered this hostile, arid land and made it into a productive ranch by making water and feed available to their cattle and learning how to manage the cows so that they could survive in such an arid place, an area mostly covered by sagebrush and creosote bushes. Because of the water and increased food made available by the ranchers’ efforts, wildlife flourished. The most numerous animal wildlife in the area is the desert tortoise. The tortoises flourished because the cows eat woody bushes which are above the level the tortoises can reach, and then they leave a delicacy for the tortoises on the ground where they can reach it. The tortoises’ main course and dessert is cow pies, which contain all of the nutrients and moisture the tortoises need for survival.

      In 1946, the Bureau of Land Management was created by Congress with the mission of helping ranchers to succeed by helping them construct watering facilities, fences, and other things needed by cattle and by ranchers. The partnership was a good one, and Cliven Bundy paid the grazing fees required by the BLM for many years. The people who ran the BLM in the beginning were rancher friendly, having degrees in solid scientific areas like geology, range management, animal husbandry, and the like. But beginning in the 1970’s and growing in numbers at an ever increasing rate each year was a new generation of BLM-ocrats, those with degrees in the “environmental sciences.” This new generation saw ranchers not as fellow citizens cooperating in the effort to make the land productive, but as enemies who were destroying the environment. They had signs on their walls—“no more moo by 92” and “cattle free by 93.” As a result, in an effort to eliminate ranching in Nevada, the BLM began raising the annual fee for each cow on the range (AUM’s) and shortening the grazing season. Thus, out of over 50 ranchers in Clark County, only Cliven Bundy survived, as one by one all of his fellow ranchers gave up and went out of business because they couldn’t make a profit under the BLM’s oppressive rules.

      But Cliven knew that the BLM was supposed to be his servant, not his master, and so, since his servant was trying to destroy him, he famously “fired” the BLM and told them he did not need their services anymore and to stay off his ranch. The BLM didn’t take too kindly to that, and so it obtained two federal court orders that rancher Bundy had to pay the grazing fees or clear out. Cliven responded that he would do “whatever it takes” to preserve his family’s ancestral rights in the land, rights which had existed for many years before the BLM was created. He took the position that neither the BLM nor the federal court had any jurisdiction over that land, because it belongs to the State of Nevada.

      To understand this claim, one must understand that when the Territory of Nevada came into the Union, all of the unappropriated land in the Territory had belonged to the federal government under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico. Under the Northwest Ordinance, passed before the US Constitution was adopted, and continued by later Congresses, as new states came into the Union, all of the federally owned land in each state was to be turned over to the State, or to the people by sale. The philosophy was that each state should enter the union on an “equal footing” with all of the older states, none of which had federal land of any appreciable amount within their boundaries. And so it is that East of the Rocky Mountains there is almost no federally owned land in any of the states. But the philosophy changed out West. As the new states of Colorado, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and 8 other western states came into the Union, Congress required the Territorial Legislatures to renounce any claim they had to the unappropriated lands within their borders. And so it is that on average, 50% of the land in these 13 Western states is claimed by the federal government, Nevada having the greatest percentage of federally claimed land, almost 90%.

      But then in the 1970’s and 80’s there arose the “Sagebrush Rebellion” among the western people, vociferously arguing that they wanted no more to be treated as territories of the federal government, but as full-fledged states. Westerners had long complained that Federal control had weakened these states’ economies and stifled economic growth long enough. The spark that turned these complaints into a “rebellion” was the enactment in 1976 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that ended homesteading, which meant that the federal government would forever retain control of western public lands.

      Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally “owned” western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of western economies. Republican Ronald Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel in an August 1980 campaign speech in Salt Lake City, telling the crowd, “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.” Nevada led the way. The “Sagebrush Rebellion” burst onto the Western scene in 1979, when the Nevada legislature enacted a law claiming ownership of the “unappropriated” public lands in the state.

      And so when Cliven Bundy says he doesn’t recognize federal jurisdiction over his ranch, he points to the State of Nevada laws which say that Nevada owns the land under his ranch and he owns the grazing and water rights. After he fired the BLM, Cliven paid his next bill for grazing fees to Clark County, which accepted his payment, in fact he paid several times, but then, not knowing what to do with the money, the county refunded it. And so Cliven began putting these fees into a trust account.

      To read the rest of this article go here: http://iapn.org/

  4. Corporations & the military are now the de facto governance. Like the Federal Reserve merely formalized in writing[1913] what was already occurring.
    As Ben Franklin allegedly told that old lady
    A Republic if you can keep it.

    He knew the score before
    the curtain even rose to: ACT 1 Scene1.

    1. Private banks controlled the US money supply well before 1913. And have you looked at the robber barons behavior, with the help of the government, in the 1880s?

      Things started to get better in the 20th century, then came Ronny Reagan.

  5. I suspect this is a way for the DoD to avoid having to pay to clean up around the Hanford nuclear waste dump and cess pit by taking over the land around it.

    Though the Pentagram loses trillions a year into thin air, it will lose those trillions as it sees fit.

    1. Basta:

      Handdford is Department of Energy. (Originally called The Manhattan Engineer District–you know it as the Manhattan Project.)

      1. Lost, it’s spelled Hanford.

        And yes it’s now DoE, which is one letter away from DoD and was specifically created as a dumpster and a beard for shirking the DoD’s nuclear responsibilities.

        All the DoD’s plutonium and uranium processing was done there for decades and there are about 115 spent US Navy nuclear reactor cores stored there.

        So yes, DoD.

  6. This has the distinct odor of an end run around those areas which are not embracing Agenda 2030 and a military approach to herding the sheeple into those “Human Habitation Zones”.

      1. Sure looks like the earth is a mining operation of some sort, doesn’t it. Can’t help but think of the movie Battlefield Earth. I guess the question is, WHO are the entities doing the mining and just WHO is running this operation?

      2. Oops! Forgot to address this comment to Rachel, :-/

        Sure looks like the earth is a mining operation of some sort, doesn’t it. Can’t help but think of the movie Battlefield Earth. I guess the question is, WHO are the entities doing the mining and just WHO is running this operation?

  7. Brilliant strategy (tactic). The history of land grabbing militaries is as long as the army. Who is in control, is the one with most steel. West Point discussion at Gettysburg was defined by honour, and honour itself was defined in Old Europe. In natural state there is NO honour, since honour is defined by truce, that is achieved on the edge of battle axe.

    Rune system, being “source code” of society, defines Man & Nation, and transition from individual to society in social contract. Premises to contract must be defined, before entering into renegotiation of contract. At military academy, the Rune system ought to be taught, because it provides logical transition between natural state and civilization.

    Odin is warlord and Runes are logic. Rune system is basic survival tool. 4x2x4=32.

    1. By the way. It is my conclusion, that Odin and Yahweh are one and the same, deriving from the fourfold principle of the topological metaphor out of Mesopotamia.

      Mesopotamians were “navigating” astronomers, and essentially their world view is Euclidean geometry. Cartesian origin deified, is what Yahweh is.

      Of course, I am NOT suggesting triviality of deity, mere sanctity of geometry.

      1. Original Rune poem is multi-layered. It contains images, that sequentially provide a rebus, from where information can be retrieved. On the surface, the rune poem appears to be proverbial nursery rhymes. Underneath the surface, there is a highly coded message out of high antiquity.

        Basically, it is Druidry seeded into jigsaw puzzle, that – when solved – provides an image of a world view. It is a twenty years Druid study to solve the riddle. Julius Caesar confirms, that Druidry was taught this way. Children are verbatim tape recorders, who learn by heart, what they later may understand.

        Equally, the aim of Haiku poetry is awareness itself. In contrast, Rune verses also explain the matrix of incarnation, bringing awareness to subconscious processes in lifespan – from Alpha to Omega. Everything the Runes teach is trivial knowledge. It is the altered “framework” that is the purpose.

        One sees things differently from an altered perspective – through the survey of a bird’s eye view – in an angelic outlook. The ideological structure behind Christianity is explained in the Runes. That is why attempts were made to tamper with the rebus, by reducing the Rune system – through the cultural war of the Middle Ages.

        Runes are ancient Britain reawakening.

Comments are closed.