Thread: Bundy Ranch Standoff is “Becoming the Last Straw” With This Admin & Big Government

Michigan Bans Animals On Small Farms

Written by: Daniel Jennings Current Events May 2, 2014 32 Comments
Image source: absorbine.com

Many Michigan residents will lose their right to keep livestock on their own property due to a new ruling from the state’s Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development.
The Commission ruled April 28 that local governments have the right to ban livestock from any area zoned residential in the state.
The action will “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals,” Gail Philbin of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live. The Right to Farm Act is a state law designed to protect farmers from nuisance lawsuits and zoning regulations. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm (RTF) Act does not apply to homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.
“It’s all ‘Big Farm,” and it’s ‘Big Farm” deciding against the little farm,” Kim White, who raises chickens and rabbits, said of the Commission’s vote. “They don’t want us little guys feeding ourselves. They want us to go all to the big farms. They want to do away with small farms and I believe that is what’s motivating it.”
“The Commission is essentially taking sides in the marketplace,” Philbin said.

Bees, Chickens and Goats Now Illegal?
Governments could ban goats, chickens and even bee hives on properties where there are 13 homes within an eighth of a mile of a livestock property or another home within 250 feet of the property, under the Commission’s ruling, Michigan Public Radio reported.
Discover The Only Way Back To True Freedom And Liberty In America…
“I believe we have over 100 communities in Michigan who have ordinances on the books against chickens and bees and other things, and they will be able to continue to move forward with those,” Jamie Clover Adams, the director of Michigan’s Department and Rural Development, told Michigan Radio.
The rationale for the Commission’s action is that officials are afraid there would be political pressure to repeal the Right to Farm to Act in order to stop backyard farming, Michigan Radio reported.
Opponents of the rule change have not laid out a course of action yet, although some backyard farmers are considering a legal challenge. Other possible courses of action include legislation in the state legislature and a ballot initiative.

Regulatory Limbo
Some homesteaders in Michigan could find themselves in a complete regulatory limbo because of the Commission’s action. Blogger, writer and organic farmer Michelle Regalado Deatrick does not know if she’ll be able to keep her livestock, because about half of her 80-acre farm may not be zoned for farm animals.



“We’re building up a mixed production farm, planning to farm during retirement, and we have a permit in hand for a livestock facility,” Deatrick said, “but have waited with building until we were sure of what the GAAMP changes would be. Now we’re having to reconsider our business plans and may sell the farm and buy a farm in a more rural area with definite [Right To Farm] protection, or move to another state that’s more welcoming and protective of small farm rights.”
GAAMP refers to the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices, a set of guidelines put out by the state of Michigan. The current GAAMP designates many small farms as Category 3 lands where livestock might not be allowed.
“Category 3 sites may be zoned for agriculture, but are generally not suitable for livestock production facilities,” the GAAMP states. “They may be suitable for livestock facilities with less than 50 animal units.”
Another problem is that local governments in Michigan are under no obligation to follow the GAAMP. It is simply a set of guidelines.
Michigan is one of several areas where property owners have had to fight for the right to raise food on their own land. Off the Grid News has reported that property owners in Florida and Quebec have been barred from planting vegetable gardens.
What do you think about the new Michigan rule? Let us know in the comments section below.
Sign up for Off The Grid News’ weekly email and stay informed about the issues important to you

Harry Reid Owns 93 Acres Next to the Bundy Ranch – BUSTED!

Posted by Rodney Lee Conover on May 3, 2014 in Breaking Stories

Is it possible that Cliven Bundy and Senate Leader Harry Reid are neighbors? Possible – how about BUSTED!!

According to newly unearthed Nevada State parcel records – you betcha’! Think maybe Reid had something to gain by sicking government goons after his constituents?
Duh.
Hat tip Before It’s News:

Public land records obtained by Before It’s News show a corporate entity partially owned by Senator Harry Reid is the owner of over 93 acres of undeveloped land within several miles of the Clliven Bundy ranch.

Reid Bunkerville, LLC is listed as the current owner of four parcels of land on the west side of Bunkerville are within several miles of the Bundy ranch.

This area appears to be slated for development in the future.

While this will be explained, parcels numbers provided along with ownership proof, it is encouraged for everyone reading to go through the information, the documents provided, visit the links and come to their own conclusions, because this is just the data from public records.

It tells a story of a man, Cliven Bundy, seemingly in the way of some lucrative business deals…

Where there’s a will there’s a way and where there’s a buck to be made, there’s Harry and the government agents, doing his bidding..

READ ALL THE DETAILS HERE:

(T)

http://joeforamerica.com/2014/05/harry-reid-owns-93-acres-next-bundy-ranch-busted/

License to Steal – BLM Mission Has Changed, Officially Politicized Agents of Regime

Posted on 5 May, 2014 by Rick Wells



As was recently demonstrated by the armed standoff with BLM at Bundy Ranch, there is a considerable lack of accountability at what many see to be a thuggishly operated agency. That is a characteristic shared by other often-abusive arms of the federal government, including the likeminded bureaucrats at the EPA.
The BLM Mission Statement reads: “It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”
Their mission certainly sounds admirable on the surface. Nobody reasonable person would be opposed to healthy, diverse and productive landscapes, for us and future generations.
But what happens if they choose to define the criteria in manner which is skewed towards abusing their public trust? They’ve already demonstrated that they don’t think much of the public to begin with.
BLM also employs the general terms “use and enjoyment,” which will naturally vary based upon the health, diversity and productivity criteria as well as other considerations they determine. It is that subjectivity which leaves the BLM an agency with tremendous holdings and authority as well as an equal potential for misconduct and abuse.
The BLM website identifies 7 major responsibilities of the agency as well as many additional, more specific functions. The major responsibilities are stated as Energy, Fire, Grazing, Planning, Recreation, National Conservation Lands and Wild Horses & Burros.
In the area of Energy, BLM states that due to the vast stretches of public land, BLM has a role to play and can make significant contributions to America’s renewable energy portfolio and “a leading role in fulfilling the Administration’s goals for a new energy economy based on a rapid and responsible move to large-scale production of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy.”
Why are they fulfilling acting on behalf of the executive branch for a rapid conversion to a new energy economy? Just as the EPA is enforcing imperial directives in a dictatorial fashion under the guise of combating the highly dubious “climate change,” the BLM has become a personal extension of our imperial leadership.
In the category of Land Use Planning, “BLM’s Resource Management Plans (RMPs) form the basis for every action and approved use on the public lands. The current focus of land use planning is on obtaining large areas of land through forced sales, cancelled grazing permits, eminent domain, as well as conservation and endangered species claims.
BLM describes their National Conservation Lands as some of the West’s most spectacular landscapes. BLM states their mission, as it relates to NCLS “is to conserve, protect, and restore these nationally significant landscapes that are recognized for their outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values.”
What that broad definition breaks down to is a self-granted green light to pursue their land acquisition and use-restriction programs while simultaneously using some of those restricted lands for the generation of revenue, enabling more acquisitions and expanding their “portfolio.”
BLM calls itself a management agency but they also have the ability, through FLTFA, to purchase land and a policy of forcing a sale to them at condemned land prices. They have a variety of weapons to use against the American public, including conservation, endangered species and permit refusal. BLM can and does turn valuable land into worthless wilderness through their bureaucratic extortion.
Rep Rob Bishop of Utah recently obtained a copy of the BLM secret planning document which exposes BLM as a rogue agency, with a hidden agenda.
Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...nts-of-regime/

MILLIONS OF ACRES BEING STOLEN RIGHT NOW!!
We are in big trouble folks. There are unreported federal land grabs going on all over the country right now. Spread the word. It's time to stop sharing private and go public. STOP HIDING! You fail your country if you do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110300333.html

The U.S. Army wants 418,000 acres of private ranch land to triple the size of its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, a training area considered suitable -- some would say essential -- for preparing American warriors to do battle in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The 1,000-square-mile facility would be 15 times the size of the District.

Several dozen ranchers and members of 15 county commissions that voted to oppose the project find themselves pitted against the Pentagon and Colorado business interests in a struggle over property rights, personal heritage and the contested priorities of national security.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...b-2678204.html

Don’t let anyone tell you that this White River Watershed National Blueway isn’t a Federal land grab. The whole purpose of this Blueway is to take over ALL land and Surface Water. You need be be familiar with Agenda 21 and the Wildland project to understand the goals are to rewild over 50% of the United States.
Here is some information on the Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm
__________________________________________________ ________

http://cofarmbureaublog.wordpress.co...ion-land-grab/

Senator Jim DeMint took to the pages of the Washington Post this morning to raise the alarm about a planned, 10 million acre Western land grab by the Obama administration.
A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.
__________________________________________________ ________

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ent-land-grab/

Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States.

Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.

The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?...eView&state=nm”>Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas.

Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water.
__________________________________________________ ________

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/grea...-security-poor


The Great Land Grab: Rush for World’s Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor
The Oakland Institute sounds the alarm on the threat that land grabbing poses to food security and livelihoods. Land grabs--the purchase of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors--have become a widespread phenomenon, with foreign interests seeking or securing between 37 million and 49 million acres of farmland between 2006 and the middle of 2009.




Veronica Cawelti's photos

Congressional Move Underway to Defund Armed Federal Goons
May 2, 2014 By 21wire 13 Comments
21st Century Wire says…

Despite attempts by US media to divert attention away from the Bureau of Land Management’s domestic military debacle in Bunkerville, Nevada, one of the core issues regarding federal jurisdiction and aggression refuses to die.

The public outrage is now beginning to gain some traction with elected representatives, as Utah Congressman Chris Stewart (image, left), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has begun as motion to defund and disarm federal paramilitary units currently operating within the color of law and and under various layers shadowy federal policies and statutes.

Ward Damon Hubbard comments, “It was the BLM who had sniper trained on civilians, it was the BLM who had K-9 units and tazered and unarmed man, aren’t those actions of a terrorist? It was the BLM who rounded up cattle illegally, it was the BLM who chased down cattle and shot them from the air. It was the BLM who took cattle that didn’t belong to them to auction and it was the BLM who destroyed property, aren’t those acts of terrorist?”

It’s certain that the White House is working overtime to try and buy-off other western state reps with promises of pork and federal jobsworth positions in those states, but as the opposition to Washington’s land grab exploits continues to grow, it will become increasingly difficult for the the BLM and the federal government to operate in the shadows in their self-appointed role as corporate property agent.

Congressman Mulls Legislation To Defund Armed Federal Bureaucrats


Sam Rolley
Personal Liberty Digest

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s unfortunate racially-charged remarks have overshadowed the Federal show of force that descended upon his cattle operation last month. But as many lawmakers have scrambled to distance themselves from the rancher, one Republican Congressman from Utah remains focused on the bigger picture: too much Federal power.

Representative Chris Stewart, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, is considering a measure that would cut funding for “paramilitary units” operating under the control of the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Land Management and a number of other bureaucratic Federal agencies.

Speaking on the House floor this week, Stewart reminded lawmakers of the concerns at the forefront of the land dispute before Bundy’s inartful observations about race in America were reported by a New York Times reporter.

“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, noting that there are dozens of other government agencies with similarly armed units. “They’re regulatory agencies; they’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

For more than two decades Bundy has failed to pay fees required to graze his cattle on Federal land. After he lost in two separate attempts to have the nearly $1 million in fines and fees dismissed, a court ordered Bundy’s cattle rounded up and removed from the land.

Officials subsequently blocked road access to Bundy’s ranch and a small army of armed Federal agents surrounded his property. As the ordeal continued, some of the rancher’s cattle were shot and his son was tasered by BLM agents.

Furthermore, much of the land the agency claimed it was protecting was trampled by the army of Feds.

The BLM only called back its armed agents when confronted by armed members of civilian militias who showed up in support of Bundy.

Despite Senator Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) ridiculous claim that Bundy’s supporters are “domestic terrorists,” the BLM was taking action against an insubordinate rancher— not a homicidal maniac. Many small government advocates were justifiably appalled about the government’s heavy-handed response to what essentially amounted to failure to pay a bill.

Stewart told The Salt Lake Tribune that the situation would likely have turned out differently if BLM had relied on local law enforcement for protection while dealing with Bundy.
“They should do what anyone else would do,” Stewart said. “Call the local sheriff, who has the capability to intervene in situations like that.”
Stewart isn’t the first lawmaker to question why so many Federal bureaucracies boast units of heavily-armed agents.
Responding to Reid’s “domestic terrorist” claim last month, Republican Senator Rand Paul told a radio station in his home State of Kentucky, “
“I think there’s an opposite thing to what Harry Reid said, and that’s the federal government shouldn’t violate the law, nor should we have 48

Federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams,” Paul said.


The Senator’s father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, gave a passionate speech all the way back in 1997 decrying the growing army of armed Federal bureaucrats.

The Senator’s father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, gave a passionate speech all the way back in 1997 decrying the growing army of armed Federal bureaucrats.



“Under the Constitution, it was never meant to be a Federal police force,” Paul said on the House floor at the time. “Even and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), limited only to investigations, was not accepted until this century. Yet, today, fueled by the Federal government’s misdirected ‘war on drugs,’ radical environmentalism and the aggressive behavior of the ‘Nanny State,’ we have witnessed a massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the States where they have no authority. The sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local government by majority of American citizens has permitted the army of bureaucrats to thrive.”

Later in the speech, Paul remarked, “It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the bureaucrats is pushed by the anti-gun fanatics who hate the second amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen. Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that much, let them seek work with the NRA.”

Today, estimates suggest that there are more than 25,000 armed personnel working under bureaucratic Federal agencies.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/05/0...federal-goons/

Carey Wedler

Leave it to government to target an individual for a contested "offense" while facilitating the criminality of grossly powerful corporations they created.