Homestead Act

Enacted during the Lincoln Administration ( and the Civil War ), the idea seems revolutionary even today.  Actually, especially today.  Why?

To answer that question, I'll mention that my mother grew up during the Depression.  She lived on a farm.  She said she didn't even know that there was a Depression.  The reason?  The farm provided the family everything they needed.  Mom grew up in a big family, which wasn't uncommon in those days, too.

Fast forward to modern times.  You can't raise a big family on the kind of income from the jobs that are available.  I mean, you could certainly try, but you'll live in poverty.

So, what explains this situation?  Shouldn't all of this wealth that supposedly exists have gone to make it possible to have as many children as you want?  There has to be an explanation in there somewhere.  I think the explanation is that the powers-that-be have herded us into big cities because that's the way they want us.  They want to think of us as herd animals that they can pen up in their little houses ( if they are fortunate enough to have a house ).  But that house cannot sustain them if the system fails.  Not like a farm could.

So, the powers-that-be just don't want independent people.  They want dependent people.  That has been the trend since the Great Depression.  It's been towards greater and greater dependency upon government.  This enhances the power of the state at the expense of the individual.  All the while, the individual thinks they are better off, but how can that be?  How can it be if the land upon which your dwelling sits cannot sustain you and becomes a burden if you lose your job?  In the meantime, the jobs are dwindling away.  What's going to sustain you when there aren't many jobs out there anymore?  Why the government of course.  Then you are dependent upon food stamps and unemployment checks.  Is that freedom?  I say no.

That's why the Homestead Act was revolutionary.  It gave away land and produced independent people.  Why did the government do away with that?  They didn't run out of land.  Nope.  They are doing the opposite.  They are taking more and more land away from the people and forcing them back into the cities.  That's the significance of the Bundy situation.  Bundy says they were using the range fees in order to run him out of business.

The government is running a lot of enterprises out of business.  Why wouldn't they want to run a rancher out of business if that means that fewer people will be independent of them?  More dependency means more power for them.

They don't serve us, they serve themselves.  People have to wrap their minds around that one.  If they don't, they cannot free themselves from the new slavemasters in DC.