Friday, March 18, 2016

BLM activist advocates white genocide at Harvard

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 17, 2016


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Obama said that voting laws in Texas ,,IMPEACH HIS CRIMINAL ASS

Gosh, Obama LOVES voter ID!!! He even spent 53 million of your tax dollars for it! From the Obama Whitehouse website, VERBATIM:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 27, 2013
FACT SHEET: U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa
The United States strongly supports the great strides many African countries have made to ensure good governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights.  We commend the progress they have made to broaden political participation and improve governance, and will remain a steady partner as they continue to work to strengthen electoral processes, ensure transparency and accountability in government, and provide security while respecting and protecting universal rights and fundamental freedoms.
In addition to our ongoing diplomacy and our efforts in multilateral institutions, in 2012 the United States – through the U.S. Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) – provided more than $292 million in support for these efforts, including in the following priority areas:
Supporting Civil Society and Independent Media
Civil society and independent media play a critical role in any vibrant democracy.  Across sub-Saharan Africa, the United States supports efforts to ensure civil society organizations and independent media can organize, advocate, and raise awareness with governments and the private sector to improve political processes, transparency, and government performance.  Examples include:
In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities.  In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration"  WHAT THE FUCK ,BLOWS OUR MONEY ON THAT SHIT BUT DONT SUPPORT IT AT HOME,IMPEACH HIS CRIMINAL ASS

Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday that more Texans are voting than ever before and that Republican officials here are more concerned than Democrats like President Barack Obama about rooting out voter fraud.
Abbott was responding to comments that the president made during a Texas Tribune interview Friday during Austin’s South by Southwest Festival. Obama alleged that Texas officials “aren’t interested in having more people participate” in elections.
Obama said that voting laws in Texas like ones that require voters to provide photo ID at the polls are stifling turnout. He urged state governments to use technology to increase voter registration and engagement.
But Abbott said he wasn’t interested in methodologies that might increase the chances of voter fraud.
Texas has consistently turned in disappointing turnout numbers compared with other states. According to a recent Texas Tribune report, even with record turnout during the March 1 primary in Texas, only one state, Louisiana, reported more dismal voting numbers.
Abbott defended Texas leaders’ aggressive steps to prevent voting corruption. And turnout, he said, has increased despite Texas laws that require ID and prevent online voter registration.
“Leaders of the other party are against efforts to crack down on voter fraud,” Abbott said. “The fact is voter fraud is rampant.”
There have been more than 80 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Texas since 2002, a Politifact report found last year. Only a handful of those cases involved the kind of in-person voter fraud that Texas’ voter ID law aims to stop.
Lawmakers in 2011 passed a controversial law requiring voters in Texas to show photo ID before voting. Supporters say the measure ensures the integrity of the voting process. Critics contends it discriminates against low-income and minority voters who might not be able to easily access forms of photo ID.
Last year, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas’ voter ID law violated the federal Voting Rights Act. That court last week agreed to the state’s request for a new hearing on the law. The measure has been in effect while the courts weigh a final decision on the measure’s constitutionality.
“We will continue our effort to crack down and make sure there is no illegal voting in Texas,” Abbott said. “We don’t want to open the system up to methodologies or ways of voting that would promote or allow voter fraud.”
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Texas allowed in on Red River land grab lawsuit








NewsPolitics Trail Blazers Blog

Trail Blazers Blog


Texas allowed in on Red River land grab lawsuit

Follow bobbycblanchard Email rblanchard@dallasnews.com
Published:
A file photo of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. (File 2015/The Associated Press)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s motion to join the lawsuit was approved Monday. (File 2015/The Associated Press)
AUSTIN — A U.S. District Court approved a motion Monday for Texas to intervene and join a lawsuit involving 90,000 acres of land along the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Last year, a group of landowners sued the Bureau of Land Management in a land dispute along the border. The seven families behind the lawsuit were suing for thousands of acres of land that the Bureau of Land Management claims belongs to the government. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — and several other Texas politicians — praised the landowners for suing. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton even filed a motion to join the suit, which the court approved Monday.
“Washington, D.C., needs to hear, loud and clear, that Texas will not stand for the federal government’s infringement upon Texas land and the property rights of the people who live here,” Paxton said in a statement.
Land disputes in the area date back to the earlier parts of the 20th century, but they began anew when representatives from the Bureau of Land Management visited North Texas to discuss how the land would be used in the next 20 years.
The agency says the land is public, citing a 1923 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that assigned land in between the state boundary to the federal government. The families say they have deeds for the land and have paid taxes on it for many years now.
Previously, the agency has refused to comment on the lawsuit.

Editor Picks

New on the air
NBCDFW gets new reporter, Houston journalist Courtney Gilmore
Hometown hero
WWE announces Dallas-native Jacqueline as latest member of the 2016 Hall of Fame class
Jacquielynn Floyd
Spooky how a Stephen King novel seems to predict Donald Trump
Don't turn that dial
Heartbreak or happily ever after? 'Bachelor' finale reveals big plans for Dallas woman JoJo

The Weekend Around The World

Sponsored By Hot10.tv

Comments

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please use the "Give Feedback" button.
47 comments
Livefyre
35 people listening
Newest | Oldest | Hot Threads

StellaTucker

Texans want to do a Cliven Bundy to the precious citizen owned land.   Graze for free, ruin the environment, then sell it off for mining, etc.  Good Luck Earth.  

DoyleBodenhamer

@StellaTucker The families say they have deeds for the land and have paid taxes on it for many years now.

MirandaSmith

Many years ago scammers sold the Brooklyn bridge to multiple people ... they all had deeds too. That doesn't mean the sales were legal.
GeorgeMontgomery

The feds claims ownership.  Guess who owns the feds?  It's like 2 pit bulls locked unto each others tales.  If these owners can prove there were deeds on this land before any state could give them away.  Someone needs to pay them.
Louis

Most of the land in the West owned by the federal government was ceded to the government by the states themselves. The information is in both state and federal records.
KenCaron

you mean the big bad western states are going to grow a pair and demand the land that the constitution says is theirs,,i'm amazed!

SMB1128

@KenCaron Didn't you read the article? The land belongs to the Federal government, which the Supreme Court already ruled on. If it belonged to the Texas Constitutionally, then that's what the courts what have ruled. However, they did not. This was settled close to 100 years ago.
JamesNQ8

Can anyone explain to me how the federal government can "OWN" anything?
Have you folks never taken a civics class? Have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? The Bill of Rights?

There's a DARN GOOD reason the framers specifically "ENUMERATED the Fed's authority. The STATES will have jurisdiction over everything but those enumerated rolls.
GOD Bless Texas!

Louis

@JamesNQ8 Most of the land west of the Mississippi That is owned by the federal government was ceded to the government after the states were formed by the states themselves. You can find this information in both state and federal records.
JeanetteBarrett

@JamesNQ8 ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2:  This clause, commonly known as the Property or Territorial Clause, grants Congress the constitutional authority for the management and control of all territories or other property owned by United States. Additionally, the clause also proclaims that nothing contained within the Constitution may be interpreted to harm (prejudice) any claim of the United States, or of any particular State. The exact scope of this clause has long been a matter of debate.
The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.[11]
Pursuant to a parallel clause in Article One, Section Eight, the Supreme Court has held that states may not tax such federal property.[citation needed] In another case, Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court ruled that the Federal Wild Horse and Burro Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause – at least insofar as it was applied to a finding of trespass. The case prohibited the entering upon the public lands of the United States and removing wild burros under the New Mexico Estray Law.[12]
Robert

Maybe the Federal government forgot that the border was settled when George W. Bush was president.  It gave Oklahoma the entire river until you reached the green area on the Texas bank.  In addition, many of those (like my family) have deeds that were issued by the Republic of Texas, a free and independent nation and those are given the same weight as the old Spanish land grants from Spain.  When the U.S. government tries to step into Texas, it's not the same as just another state.  We in Texas won our land from a Mexican government trying to do the same thing the U.S. government tries today.  Just leave Texas alone.  By the way Oklahoma was suppose to be Indian territory for all the Indian nations located in it.  How did they loose it?
BudWilstead

" The agency says the land is public, citing a 1923 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that assigned land in between the state boundary to the federal government. The families say they have deeds for the land and have paid taxes on it for many years now. "

Let me see if I understand this right. The families have deeds for the land and paid taxes on the land for 83 years and the BLM is claiming it belongs to the government. Why does then government own the land now? Why didn't the government own the land in 1923? Why let the families have deeds and pay taxes on the land if the government owns the land? The BLM seems to be at fore front of aggression toward land owners. If the BLM wants the land then the owners better watch out ...... the BLM will take it.

DavidLong

@BudWilstead  I think you mis-understood what the article says. The Supreme Court said in 1923 that the land belonged to the federal government (public land). Chances are the deeds are confusing.
I do think however that there is too much public lands. Some of it should be sold off. They own about 60 billion acres. If they ever do plan to sell it however, they should make sure they profit from the sale and the proceeds used for something to benefit the public at large. Here's an idea: If the government sells 20 million acres (about .03 percent of the total) at $1 million an acre, they would receive $20 trillion. That's enough to pay off the national debt. By setting the price so high, it's like their "don't really want to sell it" price. if people or companies or states want to pay the price they can get some of the federal land and if they don't want to pay the price, the land stays as federal land. It's a win-win.

AlbertSutlick

@DavidLong @BudWilstead David, you must be smoking something.  Nothing the Government owns would bring $1 million per acre, in fact most probably isn't worth more than a few thousand per acre, so that brings in 60 billion.  Given that the cost of all the studies and the sale itself would likely cost half that, not much profit for the effort.  Here's a better idea from this long time Federal Employee:  Require that all Federal agencies in any one town relocate to a central location over a 10 or 20 year period.  Then sell all the remaining property/buildings.  This could reduce maintenance and security costs, centralize access for the public, and make communications and meetings between agencies more efficient.  In my small town in eastern Washington State, there are at least 10 agencies that could be consolidated in one location

DavidLong

@AlbertSutlick @DavidLong @BudWilstead  And the problem with my idea is???? The federal government wants to hang onto all it's land. The western states and local governments want to acquire it for drilling and development. If the states consider the land valuable they should be made to pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, to bad, so sad.
KevinBiegler

"The seven families behind the lawsuit " ... in other words they will make it 'their' land and not the public's ... this isn't about taking land back from the government it's about taking it away from the American people and locking them out ... permanently. A significant part of this 'take the land back' legislation is being written and introduced verbatim by ALEC and if you think their motivation is the welfare of the American people then I have beachfront property to sell you in Kansas.

LindaMcMurryRollins

@KevinBiegler That's not quite accurate, but given the way most things get misreported by the media, I can understand where you would get that idea.  The truth is that most of those families have owned the land LONG before the 1923 legislation, and in fact, some of the local BLM folks have encouraged these landowners to fight this land grab in court.  And should they lose, do you honestly think the Feds will refund all the property taxes, etc that these people have paid?  Or reimburse them for all the improvements made on the land--like homes, etc?  Not likely!  There is also a law called "right of adverse possession."  In other words, EVEN IF the land turned out to be mis-surveyed (it happens quite a bit more than one would imagine!) these landowners have IN GOOD FAITH (that's an important criteria) managed the land, improved it, and paid taxes on it, thereby giving them a legal claim to it.  Such things are generally over a matter of a few feet, but I can see that being used as a valid precedent.
HarryHaff

A friend of mine just got back from Norway. He was there a couple of weeks and was constantly asked questions about US politics. During some of the discussions people would say things like He's acting texan. When my friend asked about it he was told this is new street slang for crazy behavior or attitudes. Fits pretty well, huh?



Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)