Thread: Why is Senator $Harry Reid$ so concerned with a local Nevada rancher?

Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame

Michael Snyder 5 hours ago
3 Comments

Why is the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land? After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states. Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more? Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing. It is commonly known as “Agenda 21″, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy. Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”. In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors. The rest of the planet will be left to nature. To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.

So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.

For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border…

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Needless to say, officials down in Texas are not pleased about this. In fact, just check out what the attorney general of Texas is saying…

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Does the federal government actually need more land?

As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states…

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent

The federal government does not need more land. But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented.

The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like. If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in green…



If you do not go along with the “sustainable development” agenda, you risk being labeled a “threat” to be dealt with.
For example, Senator Harry Reid has used the label “domestic terrorists” to describe those that showed up to support Cliven Bundy at his ranch.
Reid could have used lots of other labels. But he specifically chose to call them terrorists. And considering what the law allows the feds to do to “terrorists”, that is quite chilling.
And don’t think that if you just stay quiet that you won’t get labeled as a “terrorist”. In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist. Just check out the list below.

It comes from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“…

1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
2. Those that advocate for states' rights
3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"
4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"
5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"
6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"
7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable"
8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"
9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"
10. "Anti-Homosexual"
11. "Anti-Immigrant"
12. "Anti-Muslim"
13. "The Patriot Movement"
14. "Opposition to equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians"
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the 'North American Union'"
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"
23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"
30. Anyone that "complains about bias"
31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"
32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"
33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"
34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"
35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"
36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"
37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"
38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"
39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"
40. "Militia or unorganized militia"
41. "General right-wing extremist"
42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"
44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"
45. Those that are "anti-global"
46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"
47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"
48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"
49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national 'way of life' is under attack"
50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"
51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"
52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"
53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"
54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"
55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"
56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"
57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"
58. "Rightwing extremists"
59. "Returning veterans"
60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"
61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"
62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"
63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"
64. "Anti-abortion activists"
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")
71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

Do any of those criteria apply to you?
If so, then you are a “potential terrorist” according to the U.S. government.
We live at a time when the federal government is becoming increasingly oppressive. Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by John W. Whitehead…

It’s not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nation’s best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass.
In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on us—listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databases—but those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes.

This was not what our founders intended.
Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day, and most Americans don’t even seem to care.
In the end, we will pay a great price for our apathy.

Source
Take a look at the future of America: The Beginning of the End.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/ag...bbing-endgame/

All New England Could Fit on BLM Land in Nevada; BLM Owns 0 Acres in New England

April 23, 2014 - 5:47 PM

---

By Terence P. Jeffrey
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey RSS


President Barack Obama in a field of solar panels in Nevada in 2012. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobsen)

(CNSNews.com) - The acreage the federal Bureau of Land Management currently owns in the state of Nevada is more than all the land in all of the states of New England combined, according to data published by the Congressional Research Service.

By contrast, the BLM does not own a single acre of land in any New England state.
New England, according to the Census Bureau consists of six states: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Together, these states encompass 40,400,640 acres.

Together these states contain 0 acres of BLM land.



Nevada contains a total of 70,264,320 acres. Of these, the federal government owns 56,961,778 acres, or 81.1 percent of the state. That leaves only 13,302,542, or 18.9 percent of the state for owners other than the federal government.
The federal government, in other words, owns more than four times as much land in Nevada as all other land owners combined.

Of the 56,961,778 acres of Nevada owned by the federal government, the BLM controls 47,805,923 acres. That is about 84 percent of the federally land in the state and 68 percent of all the land in the state.

The 47,805,923 acres that BLM owns in Nevada is 7,405,283 acres more—or 18.3 percent more--than all of New England.



“Today, the federal government owns and manages roughly 635-640 million acres of land in the United States—about 28% of the total land base of 2.27 billion acres,” says CRS. “Federal land ownership is concentrated in the West.”

“The BLM was formed in 1946 by combining two existing agencies,” says CRS. “One was the Grazing Service (first known as the DOI Grazing Division), established in 1934 to administer grazing on public rangelands. The other was the General Land Office, which had been created in 1812 to oversee disposal of the federal lands. The BLM currently administers more federal lands than any other agency—247.9 million acres. BLM lands are heavily concentrated (99.8%) in the 11 western states.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tere...ns-0-acres-new

Bunkerville Was Not The BLM’s First Rustler’s Roundup

April 24, 2014 by William N. Grigg

THINKSTOCK

The raiders arrived at dawn. Contract cowboys backed by Bureau of Land Management rangers and other heavily armed law enforcement personnel fanned out across the desolate, but alluring, Nevada countryside to confiscate livestock owned by a family that — under a controversial claim of sovereignty — had grazed on public lands without paying fees to the Federal government.
“They have been overgrazing and damaging the land for years,” asserted BLM spokesman Mike Brown, who also pointed out that the family — the last holdouts in the region — had been fined millions of dollars for trespassing on public land. In defiance of Federal judicial rulings and the “consensus” of their representatives, the family persisted in claiming that they had a right to graze cattle on land their ancestors had settled many decades ago. The dispute had been going on for decades, and the institutional patience of the Federal government had been exhausted.
A previous roundup nearly resulted in tragedy when a member of the family doused himself in gasoline and threatened to set himself on fire. The 59-year-old man, who had no previous criminal record, was tackled, beaten by law enforcement officers, arrested and prosecuted on terrorism-related charges.
After spending several years in prison, that supposed terrorist, Clifford Dann, was allowed to return to the tiny, ramshackle homestead he shares with his 82-year-old sister, Carrie, who is the same age their elder sister Mary was when she died in an accident while repairing a fence in 2005.
Like the Cliven Bundy family, their distant Nevada neighbors, the Dann family, spent two decades fighting in Federal courts to defend their property against the depredations of the Federal government. As members of the Western Shoshone nation, the Dann family had inherited land that was protected by the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley and the U.S. Constitution — parchment barricades against aggression that were quickly reduced to ashes by the flame of elite ambitions.
When the United States assimilated northern Mexico following the aggressive war of 1846-1848, it exacerbated the regional tensions that would lead to the War Between the States. Nevada’s continuing status as a quasi-colony, rather than fully realized State, is a lingering echo of that conflict.
Such statehood as Nevada enjoys resulted from partisan machinations by Republicans who wanted additional Congressional seats in the event that the election of 1864 was thrown into the House of Representatives.
Statehood was rushed along with the help of an enabling act promising that Washington would sell off surplus lands beyond what would be necessary for the construction of military bases and similar facilities.
The promises made to statehood advocates proved to be as ephemeral as assurances of marriage and strict fidelity offered to a reluctant young woman confronted by an irrepressibly libidinous suitor. Washington’s treatment of the Western Shoshone was immeasurably worse.
Although the territory that would become Nevada was included in the cession made through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico never had a permanent presence there; and the Shoshone, quite understandably, never considered themselves to be Mexican subjects. The territory acquired huge strategic significance after the war began, owing to its abundance of silver and its location astride transportation and communication routes from California to the East. This is why Article 2 of the Ruby Valley Treaty specified that in exchange for leaving travel routes “forever free, and unobstructed” and for allowing stage and telegraph routes to continue “without hindrance, molestation, or injury,” the U.S. government promised that the then-extant boundaries of the Shoshone bands would remain inviolate.
The Ruby Valley Treaty, like all such measures, acknowledged the supposed authority of the U.S. President to consign the Indians to reservations when he considered it “expedient for them to abandon the roaming life, which they now lead, and become herdsmen or agriculturalists…” Those reservations were to exist within the boundaries of their ancestral lands, which once again were promised to them in perpetuity. The Shoshone were likewise promised annuities from the United States, and “compensation and equivalent for the loss of game and the rights and privileges hereby conceded.”
Those promises, like all others extended to American Indians, may as well have been written on the wind in disappearing ink.
“The Shoshone kept their end of the bargain,” recalled Western Shoshone National Council Chairman Raymond Yowell. “The United States did not. As more and more emigrants settled on our lands, the promise of peace wasn’t enough for the United States. Instead of dealing with us as a sovereign nation, the United States implemented a scheme to acquire title unlawfully.”
In 1946, the regime in Washington created a pseudo-judicial body called the Indian Claims Commission (ICC), the purpose of which was to dispose of outstanding land claims. The 1946 act permitted that Commission (it is axiomatic that any body called a “Commission” was created to facilitate fraud) to recognize as authoritative tribal spokesman any “identifiable group” within a given tribe, no matter how unrepresentative it might be.
In 1951, one tiny Shoshone band, the Te-Moaks (descended from a signatory of the 1863 treaty) filed an ICC claim on behalf of the entire nation. Eleven years later, the ICC settled that claim by ruling that the Shoshone claims had been extinguished through “gradual encroachment” of American settlers. Furthermore, the Commission ruled that the “taking” had occurred on July 1, 1872 — a date used to establish the value of the land, long before discovery of gold and other valuable minerals had occurred. In 1979, the Commission offered the Shoshone a $26 million settlement — an amount equivalent to about 15 cents an acre for the same land commanding $2.50 an acre when purchased by gold mining interests.
When the Shoshones refused to accept the settlement (which had been reached ex parte), the Department of the Interior paid that money to itself, absorbing it into an Indian trusteeship bureaucracy that was riddle with corruption and fraud.
About a decade ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sponsored a measure that would have “settled” the long-standing dispute with a one-time payment of $26,000 to each member of the Shoshone tribe. That bill was never enacted, and the money remained unpaid — which suited the Dann family just fine. They had never agreed to surrender their land, had never signed any documents and insisted on exercising their right to raise livestock on land that had been peacefully and productively used by their family for generations.
In 1974, the U.S. government sued the Dann family, claiming that they had committed “trespassing” by grazing their horses and cattle on land that legally belonged to them. Successive rulings by Federal judges upheld the government’s claims.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the Dann family’s appeal, insisting that the matter was closed when the Federal government paid itself $26 million to consummate the theft of the Shoshone lands. The Feds would eventually claim that the impoverished Indian family owed nearly $5 million in grazing fees and interest.
The BLM staged its first cattle rustling raid against the Danns in April 1992. At about 4:30 a.m., the ranch lands were invaded by a column of vehicles that decanted a platoon of BLM Brownshirts. Not intimidated by the bullying display, Carrie Dann plowed through the picket line and cast herself into a cattle chute to prevent hireling cowboys from loading her stolen cattle onto a truck.
“My land has never been for sale,” she told Eureka County Sheriff Ken Jones, who rather than defending his constituent’s rights was aligned with the invaders. “It’s not for sale now, it’s not for sale tomorrow, either. And that’s the way it is, Mr. Jones.”
As would happen more than 20 years later at Bunkerville, the BLM backed down and withdrew, restoring the stolen cattle to their rightful owners. But this gesture was purely a public relations ploy.
When the raiders returned the following November, Clifford Dann used a vehicle to block a road, cutting off a convoy of BLM trucks carrying the family’s livestock. Sitting down in the bed of his pickup, Clifford Dann immersed himself with gasoline and threatened to set himself on fire unless the federally licensed rustlers relinquished the stolen animals.
Feigning sympathy with the Dann family’s plight, Sheriff Jones told Clifford Dann that the cattle weren’t being confiscated and invited him to see for himself. When Clifford Dann stepped down from his truck, he was surrounded by a thugscrum of BLM Brownshirts, some of them sprayed him with fire extinguishers, others surrounding the 59-year-old man and assaulting him.
“Get him down! Get him down!” exclaimed Jones. “Break his f**king arm if you have to!”
Carrie Dann ran to help her brother, only to be seized from behind by a BLM agent.
“You’re hurting me — I’ve got a bad shoulder!” cried Carrie Dann.
“Then be a good old lady and quit struggling,” sneered BLM special agent Terry Somers, his voice dripping scornful condescension.
The stolen livestock escaped, but Clifford did not. Beaten and bloodied, he was taken into custody. Four months later, he was sentenced to nine years in prison for “assaulting an officer with gasoline” — that is, for being seized and beaten by BLM agents after he had poured gasoline on his own body. As he pronounced sentence, Federal Judge John McKibben pointedly said that the severity of his ruling was intended “to send a message to journalists, activists, and the Western Shoshone.”
With their brother behind bars, and their supporters understandably intimidated, the Dann sisters weren’t able to resist as several subsequent Federal raids systematically deprived them of their stock, much of which was left to die of neglect by the BLM.
For decades, the BLM had accused the Danns of damaging the delicate Crescent Valley ecosystem by “overgrazing” their herds — even though BLM commissar Somers admitted in 1994 that there was no evidence to sustain that charge. Once their grazing lands had been denuded of cattle and horses, the BLM leased it to a Canadian conglomerate that gouged huge open-pit mines out of the landscape and left the countryside contaminated with lead, mercury and cyanide.
It should be recalled that the Department of the Interior placed the value of the Shoshone lands at 15 cents an acre. It charged gold mining companies up to $2.50 an acre for leasing the lands that had been stolen from the Dann family. Gold mining is a worthy undertaking — when it is carried out through honest, mutually beneficial commerce, rather than government-abetted theft.
The Dann family and the Western Shoshone, acting out of desperation, made a futile effort at redress by filing a grievance with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination at the United Nations, an organization that is utterly worthless when it isn’t being aggressively harmful. In the meantime, the BLM directed its malevolent attention at non-Indian ranchers in Nevada.
In 2001, BLM hired contractors to steal the cattle of Nevada ranchers Ben Colvin and Jack Vogt, whose argument against paying grazing feeds was similar to that made by the Danns, to wit: The U.S. government had no legal and Constitutional authority to claim ownership of the range land.
The BLM and Forest Service likewise pilfered cows belonging to rancher Wayne Hage, who like the Danns spent decades fighting the Feds in court. Last year, in what must be regarded as little short of an epoch-shattering miracle, a Federal judge ruled that those agencies had conducted a criminal conspiracy against Hage and recommended that their administrators face criminal prosecution.
Unlike the Bundys, who are materially comfortable but not opulently wealthy, the Danns — like many American Indians — are desperately poor. Their ancestral claim to the land is stronger than that of the Bundy family, but this didn’t prevent the Feds from stealing their livestock and leaving them destitute.
Despite the significant differences separating the Bundys from the Danns, both families are involved in what can accurately be described — without the unfortunate ideological baggage — as an anti-colonialist struggle. The U.S. government had no legal right to ratify the theft of Western Shoshone lands, nor does it have the Constitutional authority to occupy and claim to own more than 80 percent of Nevada’s territory.
Bundy and his family were hardly the first Nevada ranchers to confront federally licensed cattle rustlers who operated under the protection of militarized law enforcement agents. They were, however, the first to fight back.
–William N. Grigg

http://personalliberty.com/bunkervil...tlers-roundup/

Is Confronting Federal Power an Act of Domestic Terrorism?

April 24, 2014


Published on Apr 23, 2014
Senator Harry Reid calls Bundy protestors domestic terrorists. But what act of terrorism did they commit? Meanwhile, the President's adviser on Homeland Security says that families and communities can recognize homegrown terrorism by looking out for a "confrontational child". Is that the definition of domestic terrorism, confrontation? Turns out, if you look at what happened in Nevada, the answer may be, yes.






Read more at http://libertycrier.com/confronting-federal-power-act-domestic-terrorism/#TeXkmTEreQS81lTC.99



Hmmm Yes we do need to come together and protect our kids. Because some day in the future they will likely be facing jerks like Harry Reid, calling them domestic terrorists, for standing up for thier rights...This is beyond the pale!! Hey Harry why do you want Bundy's land we are still waiting on your answer on that one? Why do you and your family own land you didn't pay for, still waiting on that one too!! Talk about a domostic terrorist, sending in your illegal troops to harrass, steal threaten and kill a mans property, terroize him and his family and destroy some of his personall property on his land with 200 of your paid illegal troops, sorry made a mistake it really isn't troops, it is thugs...

michael powers

Shared publicly - 10:26 AM

I have an idea that will make everyone happy!!!
What do you think??






michael powers

Shared publicly - 10:03 AM

I hope those turtles are alright.......................Did they save them all?