Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved
________________________________
Reports are coming in from across the country, mostly from the 14 Western States where cattle ranching is a way of life, of water being diverted to other areas or regions and natural waterways being altered to allow the collection of water to be sold on the commodities markets depriving cattle ranchers of the much needed water for their herds.
While many a cattleman (not all) in the west are cheering the unlawful herding and slaughter of wild horses and burros believing that ending the existence of these animals would somehow increase their access to below fair market value grazing permits, a wholly separate plan was being put in place by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Now, don’t get too excited. You’ll probably still get some really, really cheap grazing permits….you just won’t be able to afford the water necessary for your herds without selling off a couple of your kids or grandkids. And no guarantees are made as to the quality of water you will have access to.
BLM, in collusion with municipalities, multi-national corporations and other stakeholders have been systematically laying claim to any and all water supplies: even what is contained in underground aquifers. What this means to you is this: Even if water appears on your land naturally, having come from a river, stream or aquifer now owned by these corporate stakeholders, you are committing theft. They own the water and all rights to it. The fact that it shows up on your land and always has is now a moot point.
If the corporations who now claim to own the water can prove that it originated from a spring or stream, river or aquifer they have title to, can stop the flow of that water to your land so you can’t steal it from them. This would be cheating them out of their profits under NAFTA/CAFTA regulations which put the rights of the investor above that of the individual or nation/state.
While many of us have kept a careful eye on the multiple attempts to pass such odious pieces of legislation such as Jim Oberstar’s (D)MN,
”Water Restoration Act” which would have given the corporate federal government title and control over all water, from any source whatsoever, including dried up lake beds and the rain off your roof, across the entire country, the behind the scenes activities of private multi-national corporations engaging with federal corporations has been operating non-stop. After all, although the marketing plan for the restoration act was premised on “national security” and the phony threats of possible water poisoning by some foreign terrorist operating from a cave along side a poppy field in Afghanistan was waved in front of the public continually, the truth of the matter was and is that the UN declared water a commodity in 2007…not a human right, and surely not a right for your cattle herds.
All over the US water rights are being sold off to private corporations, which was the intent of the restoration act. Privatizer’s were lined up and already negotiating with corporate federal agencies to seize control and sale of water; the various pieces of legislation were meant only to keep the public diverted while business went on as usual in the District of Criminals.
And don’t even think about trying to label this as a left vs, right, a liberal vs. conservative, or a Democrat vs, Republican issue. There is not one on either side of the isle who has lodged one complaint, filed one objection or spoken out publicly against this theft of our water for corporate profit.
Now then, lest you think that somehow your state government is going to come to your rescue, or that your local law enforcement is going to ride in like the cavalry to save the day and protect your rights to use of the water; think again. They will however, show up to defend whatever corporate enterprise has gotten its sticky greedy fingers into what was previously a given right.
And just as an aside: Did it not occur to any of you who have supported the eradication of these wild herds that a national and state asset was being destroyed, or that you might possibly be next in line for eradication?
The water rights being sold to foreign corporations and investors was perpetrated by your trusted public officials, both state and local. Your local municipality had to sign off on these sales in exchange for as little as 5% of the initial profits. BLM will be taking upwards of 80% of the profits (after all they are a corporation operating for profit) and foisting the costs of upkeep and construction of waterline diversions, onto the public.
To learn how much of your local water has been sold off without your knowledge, look to your local and state corporate agencies such as Land Management, Environmental Protection Agencies, State Asset Management agencies, and your local Department of Natural Resources or Land Development commissions. These are just for starters. Find out who is colluding with the Bureau of Land Management to deprive you of your water rights.
NAFTA’s Investor “Rights”A Corporate Dream,A Citizen Nightmare
Chapter 11-NAFTA
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01april/corp1.html
Investor Rights Over Citizen Rights
Chapter 7-CAFTA
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/Investment.html
“Perhaps most alarming are the provisions in CAFTA that mirror those in the disastrous Chapter 11 of NAFTA. Under these rules, foreign corporations are given the power to legally challenge national and local laws which adversely affect the business of foreign investors, regardless of the role that such legislation has in meeting national social and development goals. These suits are filed in closed trade tribunals presided over by un-elected trade bureaucrats – bypassing domestic court systems. If the corporation wins, the accused government must then compensate the corporation in the amount of profits they claim to have lost – including hypothetical profits that they claim they would have made twenty years into the future! These expansive investor protections confer new rights on MNCs that neither domestic companies nor citizens — who have to obey national laws — enjoy, creating a class of “supercitizenship” for foreign corporations at the expense of citizen sovereignty.”
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b65b35fd-477f-4956-98f4-c17a46fe3e26&k=40211
UN rejects water as basic human right
The Harper government can declare victory after a United Nations meeting rejected calls for water to be recognized as a basic human right.
[...] How to destroy a nation and create serfs. Water theft and the beginning of the end of independent and family cattle ranching The PPJ Gazette [...]
[...] by Marti Oakley, PPJ [...]
Ms. Oakley…….It seems Mr. McP is trying to wordsmith you….and it seems he is having a difficult time doing so. I believe he is THE best example of why trained journalists are held in such low regard these days. He seems not so much concerned with truthful reporting as he is with his great big giant sized ego. And he has all those big letters behind his name too! Went to his site and saw the trash piece he did on Webster. The guy came off sounding jealous and petty and talks out of both sides of his mouth. While he promoted the new sign put up about the restrictions on 3400 acres of Arizona land as being too dangerous for Americans….I couldn’t help but wonder if he realized the new sign that replaced the old sign said virutally the same thing. I guess since it was new and big thats all that mattered. Beside that….he copied the PR spinner as “evidence” there was no problem. Puts “trained journalists” where they belong doesn’t it? Maybe he should have actually read the sign????
[...] by Marti Oakley, PPJ [...]
“how is that you conceivably came to the conclusion that I had a conservative bias?”
I didn’t. I was making that assumption about your editor or publisher, who was making things difficult when you were writing articles critical of Bush.
“I don’t care about political affiliations, candidates, or ideologies. None of it matters and all of it is nothing more than a diversion”
Really? Political affiliations seem to matter a lot in Congress and many state legislatures, where party-line votes have become the norm.
Or did you just mean for you personally? If that’s the case, I’d agree with you about party affiliation, though I don’t believe any of us are free of ideology.
Having been a registered Democrat for most of my adult life (not now) and considering that my work was centered on highlighting the egregious activities of the neo-cons and their agenda…..how is that you conceivably came to the conclusion that I had a conservative bias? For or against?
I don’t belong to or subscribe to any political ideologies these days. I take the issue at hand….tear it apart, go through all the revisions to codes, redefinitions of terms, effects on civil liberties, assualts on the constitution and thread through all the twisted up legalese, the tortured attempts to make it appear “constitutional”, the ceding of congressional authority or power and then take a look at who the Stakeholders are. Who has a vested interest in seeing this law passed…..and why? Where ever my conclusions fall on the political scale is of no consequence to me.
I don’t care about political affiliations, candidates, or ideologies. None of it matters and all of it is nothing more than a diversion.
Thanks for the added info on your writing, which (unless I’m misunderstanding) seems to again indicate a bias that was more conservative than liberal.
“I’m not at liberty to pass out other peoples names from a private conversation where I was an invited guest. But I believe you already know that.”
I have no way of knowing what ground rules, if any, were set, and “a conference call with several national writers and reporters” didn’t strike me as a private conversation. Sorry if I missed that.
“Why would you even suggest that I do such a thing?”
Simply because I perceived it as a way, through evidence and example, that you could provide a service to your readers.
“Especially when you must know that doing so would preclude me from any further calls.”
Alas, your experience brings up another common problem for reporters, one I’ve definitely shared: the need/desire to protect future access by deciding (formally or informally) to self-censor.
Those public lands are now claimed as “owned” by the fed under either BLM, Forestry or a host of other corporate agencies.
The recent Scenic America or some such nonsense was a land grab. The Lands Preservation Act was another. The Water Resoration Act that Oberstar has been pushing is a land grab also as it claims the land under the water as owned by the fed. If that piece of crap passes…we are all sunk.
As for my writing…….I was “advised” that I could no longer write about the Bush Admin. and the corruption within in it. I had to provide pages and pages of documentation for what I did write showing page, paragraph and line number. This resourcing was never published with my articles which of course left me wide open to the “you just hate Bush” crowd…which I did. I detested the man, his policies, and what he represented. That aside, my work focused on what was happening, what he was doing or allowing to be done.
As for my conference call and who was participating in it……I’m not at liberty to pass out other peoples names from a private conversation where I was an invited guest. But I believe you already know that. Why would you even suggest that I do such a thing? Especially when you must know that doing so would preclude me from any further calls.
Marti
Go to the front page of PPJ. On the right side…..click on the Paragon Foundation (its in its own window). Everything you need is there.
what is an ascent to land patent? How do we go about this ?
“Your land?”
I was talking, of course, about public lands such as those managed by the BLM & the Forest Service, where corporate ranches, farms and timber & mining interests have long been subsidized by the rest of us. I’ve always found it interesting that so many farmers and ranchers, who tend benefit heavily from government subsidies, claim they oppose “welfare.”
“I know of very few who even tune into any of the news shows on TV.”
Most Americans over the age of 25 still get most of their news from television, unfortunately. I agree with you on its worth, however.
“without exception, they are told what they can or cannot write about and to what degree”
Told by whom? As someone who worked in journalism for years, I had that experience only once, as a first-year reporter dealing with a heavy advertiser & friend of the publisher. And in the rare other cases that I know it has occurred (again, talking about print journalism rather than the pseudo-journalism that is local TV news), it was always a conservative corporate stance dictating the policy (a main reason it’s such a joke for conservatives to complain about the “liberal media”).
I’d be interested in knowing what was being censored in your own case. And I think it would be enlightening and useful for you to reveal specifically who these national writers and reporters were in your conference call, and who they work for. Thanks.
Your land? Have you read the deed to your property? It states somewhere on there that the IRS has first rights to your “property” in perpetuity. You own nothing. Unless you have filed for ascent to land patent, you are no more than a tenant on the land and listed as such.
As for trusting trained “jouranlists”…..that occupation has long since revealed itself to be a less than reliable source for relevant information. Had it been, bloggers like me and thousands of others would never have taken to the net in an effort to figure things out. We may not always get it right…..but at least we ask the relevant questions.
I know of very few who even tune into any of the news shows on TV. On the right is the lunacy of the Beck’s and O’Reilly’s……and on the left is Ed Shultz and Keith Olberman who spend much of their time attacking those on the right. This isn’t news, it isn’t relevant and it isn’t even entertaining.
I had the opportunity recently to be part of a conference call with several national writers and reporters. I was simply a guest…and was allowed to listen in and ask a few questions along with a few others. The end result was that without exception, they are told what they can or cannot write about and to what degree. This didn’t surprise me. I ran into the same thing some years back when writing for a local paper owned by Gannett. I was sent an email saying that after two years of writing for them….I would have to begin submitting my topic two weeks before hand for “approval” and was given a list of topics I could not write about.
On the conference call……these same nationally known reporters and journalists said they were having to do the same thing, or, that their “topic” was handed to them with talking points attached in many instances.
I have found most professional journalists to be much like attorneys……most are only as successful as the researchers who do the work for them. I don’t know of any these days who actually do any research for themselves. Like congress……they just don’t have the time to actually do their jobs.
Marti
“Even if water appears on your land naturally…”
While I agree with much of this, the sad fact is that in much of the West ranchers aren’t grazing on their own land. They’ve long been subsidized through cheap grazing leases and other programs.
In short, I have no real problem with them using water on their land, if they’ll keep their cows off of mine.
It seems that as the symbols of our heritage and freedom are taken away, so are our freedoms.