Harry Reid’s Crony Capitalism Behind Showdown With Nevada Rancher?

Townhall.com ^ | April 14, 2014 | Rachel Alexander

[Jim Robinson]

These lands should be state lands, homesteaded off or sold off. Constitutionally. The fascist federal government is acting tyrannically when they use corrupt, bankrupting policies to try to force these families off the land they homesteaded, settled and worked for over 100 years. End of story.

And, as I posted before, it’s definitely a plan. They did the same thing to miners, loggers, oilmen, farmers, water users, and even recreational users. The Marxist/fascists, progressives, environmentalists, etc, are trying to lock up all public land and waters for their own greedy devices. And it’s not just federal “public” land. They’re now controlling how you use state public land and private property, even to the point of confiscating it.

[Scooter100]

Thanks! That may or may not be the article I read. Never-the-less, we still should be more aware of how the Left twist the meaning of words to their own benefit. In this case, Cronyism is giving Capitalism a bad name, by their own design.

Your suggested article compares the difference between "Fascism, Communism and Crony-Capitalism", but maybe it should also look at "Crony-Fascism, Crony-Communism, etc. If you know what I mean. You NEVER see "Crony-" being added to "Communism", just like you never see "Left-wing" or "Socialist" or "Progressive" being added to a Dem Congressman's name in an MSM/TV interview.

Of course, we've had a few successes in the terminology department too....."ObamaCare", which stuck like glue, is particularly heart-warming!!

[BuckeyeTexan]

These lands should be state lands, homesteaded off or sold off. Constitutionally.

So, 10th Amendment rights? Is that what we are asserting? The states formed the federal government not the other way around (channeling Judge Napolitano.) Therefore, states have equal footing when admitted to statehood and cannot be forced to agree to conditions that were not applied equally to every state when it joined the Union.

Because I can support that Constitutionally, legally, and morally.

Full disclosure - I have preciously asserted that this is not a States' Rights issue. (Note: That was before I found support for Grimmy's argument.)

[Jim Robinson]

It’s definitely a states rights, 10th amendment issue.

[P-Marlowe]

And for anyone who thinks the Feds have an ownership right based on the property clause or the treaty clause please not that the Bill of Rights superceeds both of those clauses.

The instances in which the federal government can own real property within the borders of a sovereign stare are enumerated in the constitution. They are not permitted to own property within a state in order to prevent access by cattle or to sell it off to China for a joint venture with the relatives of the Senate Majority Leader.