Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Reasons The Feds Want To Seize Our Property

Friends,

Why is the Federal Government so Hell bound to take possession and obtain total control of so much land both public and private?

Since the Federal Government decided to surround the Bundy Ranch with snipers and all sorts of military type weaponry, there as been an awakening of the American people to take a closer look at an issue that has been lurking in the shadows for many years now.

That issue is the Federal Government's land grab, the seizure of private property, the wrongful eviction of property owners, the confiscation of property including cattle and other livestock, and the destruction of homes, equipment and livestock by armed Federal Agents sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Right now, as you read this, throughout the West there are probably thousands of ranching families who are being thrown off their land because of legal troubles with some agency of the Federal Government.

Whether it's the Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service, the National Parks Service, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Internal Revenue Service, there are Americans right at this moment in legal struggles to hold on to their property.

Why is the Federal Government on a mission to wipe-out small farmers and ranchers, and confiscate their lands?

Depending on who you talk to, the answers change:

1) Some say this is all part of the Socialist Agenda of the Obama Administration;

2) Some say it is all a part of the Obama Administration's plan to make us more dependant on Foreign food sources;

3) Some say it's simply part of a growing Police State here in the United States;

4) Some say it's part of an agreement between big money Environmentalists and the Democrat Party;

5) There are those who say it's all about mandates in the contractual agreement that the Federal government signed with the UN under Agenda 21;

6) Some say it is a combination of both Agenda 21 and how it fits the needs and ultimate purposes of an administration with a Communist agenda of controlling every aspect of our lives;

7) And yes, there are those who simply see the Federal Government as out of control and out of hand hungry with power.

What is Agenda 21?

First thing, Agenda 21 is real. It is not made up by nutcases afraid of the government.

Agenda 21 is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.

Agenda 21 is a contractual plan of action with the United Nations with regard to the "sustainable development" within sovereign nations. 

For Environmentalist, the term "sustainable development" is an organizing principle for human life on planet Earth.

It's their desires for a future state in which human societies, our living conditions and our resource-use, meet their vision of what we humans need.

I agree with those who say that is in line with the Communism manifesto of totalitarianism.

After all, it is a plan of action, an Environmentalist agenda for the UN and individual governments around the world to execute at the Federal, State, and local levels in the United States and other nations all over the globe.

This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth.

If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.

The U.N. and its Agenda 21 reaches into all aspects of our lives by becoming part of policies at the Federal, State, and local governments - including that of Community Groups.

Agenda 21, Chapter 28, specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21 implementation program:

"Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate 'a Local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies." - Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3

In April 1991, key international environmental figures including Al Gore, along with senior officials from the United Nations, and the World Bank, gathered at what was called an "Earth Summit."

At the summit, representatives of 179 nations officially signed the Agenda 21 contract and many more have followed since. Nearly 12,000 local and federal authorities have legally committed themselves to the Agenda.

In practice, this means that all of their plans and policies must begin with an assessment of how the plan or policy meets the requirements of Agenda 21 -- and no plans or policies are allowed to contradict any part of Agenda 21.

Local authorities are audited by UN inspectors and the results of the audits are placed on the UN website.

The people who are in favor of Agenda 21, such as the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party, believe that individual rights have to take a back seat to "the collective" while they implement their agenda.

Yes, under Agenda 21:

1) Individual rights give way to the "needs" of communities

2) The needs of the community will be determined by a committee acting as a governing body.

3) Government takes control of all land use.

4) Private property is eliminated, primarily through Environmental Programs such as the Wildland Project and Smart Growth/Sustainable Development.

5) Agenda 21's Wildland Project will dictate how most "Public Lands" will be set aside for non-humans.

6) People are packed into congested settlements which are labeled as "islands of human habitation" close to mandatory employment centers and mass transportation as personal vehicles will be banned.

Does it sound like Communism?

Well, is should simply because most involved with creating this are fervent leftists and Communist sympathizers who believe in the concept that says, "For communism to work, we all have to be Communist."

Want proof of the Communist Doctrine which says the state, the government, should be the only landowner?

Take a look at this as stated in the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements:

"Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

Yes, this is happening today. And yes, if we allow this to take place -- we can erase all of our Western culture in the United States.

Our freedoms, liberties, and rights to ownership will be lost if we do not fight this.

Take a look at this video explanation of what's taking place:

We Must Stop The Land Grab!

While there are cases taking place right now, we need to build a legal barrier to stop further expansion of the ongoing Federal land takeovers in the West.

While there are many case, there are a few that both ranchers and Federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.

One of course is the Bundy Ranch situation, and another is now going on in Texas. And yes, there is another of importance as well because of what the courts have ruled so far.

The Diamond Bar Ranch

On February 11th, 2014, Kit Laney was met with law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service who handed him a piece of paper telling him that his family's Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down -- and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed.

While this was going on, other Forest Service law enforcement officers nailed similar notices on fence posts along the highway to inform neighbors that after Feb. 11th, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.

Laney knew there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. On February 11th, that day arrived.

The Laney family insists the land in question belongs to them but the Forest Service says it belongs to the Federal Government.

Not a surprise to most Americans, so far the Federal Court has sided with the Forest Service.

But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.

Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.

All Help Is Appreciated

County Sheriff Cliff Snyder notified the Forest Service and other State and Federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, "legally" they "cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute."

His memo also says "I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county."

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 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.

Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government.

In 1899, the Federal Government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights.

Seizing Legal Precedent

Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered "public land."

Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. specifically states:

"It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land."

Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain.

When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas.

The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes -- acting as an outside mediator.

The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to help by having them measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water.

The designated area was called an “allotment.”

The idea was that ranchers "voluntarily" paid the Forest Service a fee for their "adjudication service", a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access.

The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment.

Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state.

The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act.

This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a "voluntary" process agreed to by the ranchers, into a mandatory "license" required by the federal government.

Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.

The Problem

Kit Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985.

The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner.

The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch.

The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified.

Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement.

When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle.

By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head.

When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.

Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s.

They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government.

They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land.

Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle.

And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.

For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states.

Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s.

By the mid 1980s, the Federal Government began a concerted and coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers.

In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus.

The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans.

Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people.

The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor.

Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government.

Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project.

Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives.

Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the UN and the Wildlands Project.

The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however.

It Has To Do With The Wayne Hage Decision

On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage "submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands" which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.

Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a "takings" has occurred, for which the government must pay "just compensation."

The Wayne Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the "chain of title," to the land, grazing and water rights.

Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the "exhaustive chain of title" in each of the county courthouses where his land lies.

He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff.

But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.

He says he will fight as long as he has breath.

The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next.

The Wayne Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s pressure and have actually begun to push back.

Where Are We Now?

The Federal Government, the BLM surrounding the Bundy Ranch with snipers and agents in a tactical military equipped situation was seen as un-American by many of us.

They spent over 3 Million Taxpayer Dollars to gather cattle they say was "trespassing" on high desert lands that have been used by his family for 140 years.

Yes, this has woke up a lot of Americans.

Now Americans are coming together from all over the United States, saying, "Enough is enough" as we all get behind Americans who are being unfairly targeted by the Feds.

Now angry, I believe the Americans are in the process of pushing the Federal Government all the way back to Washington DC  -- and out of our lives.


This article is compiled using many sources.

Tom Correa


No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.