New EPA Land Grab, Complete Control Over All Private Land in America! (Part 3)-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On April 22, 2014:
EPA Proposed rules will ‘result in the financial demise’ of ranchers!-Posted on Liberty Unyielding-By Renee Nal-On April 26, 2014:
It is impossible to address an issue if it’s existence is unknown. I suspect many people are unaware of proposed rules that the Nevada Cattleman’s Association (NCA) said would “most likely result in the financial demise of a significant percentage of family ranch operations.”
Are those words strong enough for us to pay attention? It is not too late to stop this.
The proposed rules are surrounding the plight of the Sage Grouse, which environmental groups want to be listed under the Endangered Species Act as “threatened.” Yet, as I wrote about in detail at Tavern Keepers, the rules will likely not protect the Sage Grouse, just as rules to protect the Desert Tortoise have been ineffective.
As an aside, the best place I have found for regulations is here, where you can access all open regulatory documents. There are a depressing amount on the Sage Grouse alone. Many are likely unaware of upcoming
legislation rules and regulations written by unelected bureaucrats from the EPA, IRS, FDA and many, many others that can potentially impact your life and your business.
Just today, 103 new regulatory documents have been added. Today alone, comments are closing for 26 documents.
It is reminiscent of a quote by James Madison in The Federalist No. 62.
“The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”
The Desert Tortoise has not fared better under the “protection” of the Endangered Species Act. This is documented. Yet, activist groups continue to use “strategic litigation” to pressure the government for more protections for the Desert Tortoise, and for many, many other plants and animals.
“We realized that we can bypass the officials and sue, and that we can get things done in court,” said the Center for Biodiversity’s Kierán Suckling.
Many of these activist groups openly bash livestock grazing on their websites. So, instead of advocating for something, they seem to be advocating against something.
Studies have found that grazing reduces wildfires, which is cited as one of the main threats to the Sage Grouse. In fact, research shows that “since the 1970s, the frequency of wildfires has increased at least four-fold.” Is there a connection?
As I wrote at the Brenner Brief,
“For example, an academic study by Kirk Davies, et al., suggests cattle grazing minimizes fire damage. Fire is a major factor in the destruction of the Sage Grouse habitat. Wildfires have also increased in severity in Nevada and California as grazing has declined. “
Many others have also observed the correlation between severe wildfires and declining grazing activities. Yet, completely legitimate academic studies that find any benefit to grazing are left out of the supporting evidence used to justify listing the Sage Grouse as threatened.
Consider the following excerpt taken from meeting minutes of NDOW’s “Sagebrush Ecosystem Council” from October:
“…much of Dr. Davies’s research, especially that related to the benefits of moderate livestock grazing, has been largely ignored in recent agency literature review documents on Greater Sage-grouse….The omissions, whether intentional or accidental, are glaring….”
During a House Hearing from 2004 titled, “Wildfires in the West: Is the Bush Administration’s response adequate?” representatives from the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission submitted a statement saying in part,
“Vegetation and fuel management, habitat preservation, and environmental protection have often conflicted with sound fire safe planning in the development of wild land areas. When adverse weather and fuel conditions combine, our fire fighters have been given the impossible task of protecting life and property in the face of these policy conflicts.”
In 2007, John Berlau of the American Thinker observed that although “climate change” was being blamed for the increased intensity of the wildfires, “…environmentalists have hamstrung Californians in their efforts to clear the dry brush [to protect certain species] that is providing the fuel for this massive fire.”
The seeming goal of many of these radical environmental organizations is to designate the most land possible under the the highest protection of “wilderness,” (i.e., roadless, no grazing, no ATVs, etc). Some have made the connection that wilderness designations really has nothing to do with protecting the environment, and is more likely a part of a United Nations initiative referred to as Agenda 21.
As the standard of living continues to fall and as prices rise, it should be noted that designating wilderness areas is often devastating to local economies. It is not a stretch to think that further destruction of the beef industry would not fare well for consumers.
While climate change is the preferred scapegoat for the increasing intensity of wildfires in the West, it seems that the policies imposed by radical environmentalists are more likely to blame. In the meantime, all relevant studies should be included in background documentation for the Sage Grouse.
EXPERT’S TAKE: LAND SEIZURE AND THE CONSTITUTION!-Posted on Human Events-By Teresa Mull-On April 24, 2014:
A number of complexities surround the government vs. Cliven Bundy standoff case in Nevada. Some say the feds acted legally, others that they are infringing upon private property and Constitutional rights. Either way, the situation stimulated a national discussion: What are the limits of the federal government and its agencies?
Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute, sets us straight:
In reference to the Bundy case and the new report that the Bureau of Land Management is looking to seize about 90,000 acres of land to be made public in Texas, what exactly is the purpose of the BLM, and what are its limits? How much power does the BLM have, and what can they do with it?
The Bureau of Land Management is the federal government’s property manager. As such, it asserts the federal government’s ownership rights. The BLM can do anything with federal land that any private landowner can do with his or her own land, including keeping other people off of that land. The problem is that the land the BLM owns is “everybody’s” since it is “publicly owned.” This means we end up fighting over the best way to use the land and the losers in the hurly-burly of political infighting have lately been past winners, so they feel particularly wronged. The political process, which is very frustrating, sometimes corrupt, and which always produces exultant winners and embittered losers who feel their rights have been ignored or confiscated, does not necessarily lead to unity and good feelings.
In the Bundy situation, political wrangling by environmentalists has led the BLM to end longstanding leases with people like cattle ranchers. Like any landlord, the federal government has the right not to renew leases when they expire, to collect agreed lease payments, and to evict someone who refuses to pay rent. Most landlords, though, rent to those who best take care of the property and who pay the highest rents. The federal government can afford not to behave so rationally if a majority or a vocal majority wishes it so. This is the problem so many are having with current BLM policy. The BLM is arguably not making best use of federal lands because of the political machinations of environmentalists.
The Texas situation is more insidious. The BLM has always had the right to assert federal ownership and works to determine property boundaries. However, in the Texas case, the BLM essentially ignored the federal government’s potential claims for a very long time. Private land use and ownership boundaries have long since been established. For the BLM to come back now and confiscate land would be immoral. Instead, the property rights of those who put property to good use should be recognized. The government and even George Washington lost land to “squatters” who, finding no identifiable boundary markers, appropriated land for themselves. Courts then determined that ownership went to those who did something with the property, not to those who did nothing with it, even if their claim was legitimate on paper.
What rights do citizens have against the BLM? We have all heard stories of the government seizing property from private citizens, paying them a fair price for it, but basically saying, ‘we want to build a highway through your farm, you have 90 days to vacate,’ or something to that effect. Is this Constitutional? What would the Founders say?
The BLM is essentially the owner of federal property. Americans have no individual rights against it. If the landlord’s mind is made up to keep us off his property, we cannot and should not override him. Our only option is to attempt to peacefully change his mind. In the case of the BLM, the mind we have to change is the collective mind of Congress, which then has to change the laws that serve as the basis to change how federal lands have been historically administered.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution specifically addresses eminent domain by saying that private property cannot be taken by the government unless owners are justly compensated. The Founders therefore recognized government’s right to take land, if necessary, for public use. The key is that private owners whose land is taken must be justly compensated. If the BLM decides to confiscate private land in Texas, claiming the land as historically the federal government’s, it should compensate the recognized private owners since the government effectively fooled people into thinking the land was available when the government failed to make its claims years ago. Mr. Bundy was never a private land owner over the lands in question so eminent domain isn’t relevant in his case.
Short of armed militias and Cliven Bundy-style standoffs, how can Americans defend themselves against the BLM and other powerful government institutions?
The power of the vote and making an investment in educating people about the importance of private property are all we have short of violence. We MUST vote for government representatives at every level of government who truly understand the importance of the sanctity of private property. They must understand the advantages and incentives involved in having property owned by private individuals and how advantageous this is over so-called public ownership. There is really no such thing as public ownership because there will always be someone whose taxes help to support public lands but whose wishes for how it should be used will not be honored.
In other words, they are coerced into supporting others’ preferences. This is the height of tyranny. If the same people lose in our political system over and over again, then we do risk violence as the only way for them to believe their wishes will ever be honored. So-called democratic allocation of resources where the majority, or a very powerful and vocal minority, lord over everyone else, will lead to the disintegration of a civil society.
The bulk of so-called public property should be liquidated as soon as possible through sale by the government. This is exactly what happened prior to the Progressive Era and before the western states were admitted to the union. If policies followed since 1910 had been followed beginning in 1790, over half of the United States would be federally owned.
States should immediately be given the right to manage all lands within their borders since they are best able to make the local decisions necessary. States should be given the right to sell the lands as they deem appropriate with the states getting a nominal share of the proceeds, probably no higher than 10 percent, and the rest going to the federal government. Only in this way will the property currently owned by the federal government be put to its highest and best use.
FEDERAL PROPERTY!-Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By Mary E. Webster-On April 26, 2014:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings;” Article One, Section 8, United States Constitution
Once again, the Constitution is written so clearly that it takes a liar to say that it authorizes the federal government to take and/or manage property within the United States for reasons other than “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings”. Of course, “other needful Buildings” is not specific. However, any sane person will understand that the Constitution is talking about either military uses, e.g., bases, or the buildings necessary to fulfill the other federal duties, e.g., post offices.
Neither the United State Constitutionnor The Federalist Papers mention national parks, national monuments, Bureau of Land Management, national forests, “protected land” or national land regulations. However, we can infer from the Papers and the ratification debate that the States would not have ratified the Constitution if it gave the federal government the power to come into a State and take control of land.
“The size of this federal district is limited. The State ceding the land for this use must consent. The State will make a compact with the federal government, assuring the rights of the citizens of the district. The inhabitants will have enough inducements to become willing parties to the cession. An elected municipal legislature will exercise authority over them. The legislature of the State and the people who live in the ceded part will agree to the cession and ratify the Constitution. Therefore, this seems to cover every objection.
“The federal government must have authority over forts, military depots, arsenals, dockyards, etc. Public money will be spent on such places.The property and equipment stored there should not be under State authority. These are important to the security of the entire Union and shouldn’t depend on one State. However, each State where they are located must agree.” Federalist Paper # 43 [paragraphs 5-6]
Except for the small amount of land listed in the Constitution, it is clear that the federal government is not supposed to own property within the United States. The Constitution cannot be faulted for the federal land grab that has been detrimental to the economy and well-being of the States. The States have allowed this invasion of unconstitutional federal power.
To further highlight how out of kilter the federal government’s role has become, it is doing a better job keeping United States citizens off federally owned land than protecting our borders from illegal entry.
The importance of private property to the Founding Fathers and the people who ratified the Constitution cannot be overstated.
“Property rights originate from the people. But men’s abilities are diverse, creating an insurmountable obstacle to equality of acquisitions. Protection of these abilities is government’s primary function. Because government protects different and unequal abilities to acquire property, the people end up owning properties of varying value and kind. This diversity of property ownership divides society into groups with different interests and concerns.” # 10 
Government’s “primary function” is protection of the people’s unequal acquisition of property. Primary function! That is strong language.
Obama Proposes Government Takeover of All Federal Properties!-Posted on National Report-On April 22, 2014:
FEDERAL SUPREMACY vs. STATES’ RIGHTS!-Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By J.B. Williams-On April 23, 2014:
Lawmakers Unveil Plan to Liberate Western Lands and Evict Feds!-Posted on The New American-By Alex Newman-On April 23, 2014:
BLM ON TEXAS LAND: NOT A LAND GRAB, IT’S ALREADY OURS!-Posted on TeaParty.org-By Breitbart.com-On April 25, 2014:
Video: TED CRUZ CHALLENGES BLM ON TEXAS LAND GRAB!-Posted on Breitbart.com-By BOB PRICE-On April 25, 2014:
The Cowboys vs. Lyin’ Harry and the BLMdians!-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On April 27, 2014:
The New Totalitarianism and the Logic of Civil War!-Posted on American Thinker-By Adam Yoshida-On April 27, 2014:
Militia to BLM: ‘We Are Prepared to Use Deadly Force In Self-Defense In Nevada or Texas’!-Posted on Breitbart.com-By BOB PRICE-On April 24, 2014:
HARRY REID, ROBERT REICH, AND THE POLITICS OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!-Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By Attorney Jonathan Emord Author of “The Rise of Tyranny” and ”Global Censorship of Health Information” and ”Restore The Republic”-On April 21, 2014:
Video: Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Dirty Harry (Harry Reid) & BLM Land Grab!-Posted on YouTube.com-By Mass Tea Party-On April 26, 2014:
Sheriff Mack at the Bundy Ranch!-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On April 28, 2014:
Cliven Bundy 2016? GOP Poll Shows Strong Support!-Posted on National Report-On April 28, 2014:
Obama looses Bundy Ranch to Tea Party Loyalists!-Posted on TeaParty.org-By Dr. Jerome Corsi Exclusive-On April 27, 2014:
Agenda 21, the New World Order & the War on Humans!-Posted on Freedom Outpost-By Chris Carrington-On April 29, 2014:
Jurisdiction vs. Land Transfer pb!-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On April 28, 2014:
Senators call proposed EPA rule a ‘terrifying power grab’!-Posted on Liberty Unyielding By Renee Nal-On April 29, 2014:
Is the U.S. Being Colonized By Red China?-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On April 29, 2014:
New EPA Land Grab, Complete Control Over All Private Land in America! (Part 5)-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On May 4, 2014:
Letter to our NM Governor Martinez regarding a “Petition for Return of Government to Our Constitutional Principles”!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On April 19, 2014:
New World Order By Executive Order!
What is the true intent of the UN Small Arms Treaty?
How “climate change” is supposedly impacting New Mexico and other southwestern states because of ensuing drought and devastating wildfires!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-ByJake Martinez-On February 10, 2014:
President and DOJ have contributed to the racial mess in our country!
Do Alinsky’s Rules Define This Administration’s Governing Style?
Obamanites Get Violent in Support of the Agenda!
Nearly 80 percent don’t trust the government!
Letter to our NM U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (re: Petition for Return of Government to Our Constitutional Principles)!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On March 29, 2014:
Letter to our NM Governor Martinez regarding a “Petition for Return of Government to Our Constitutional Principles”!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On March 29, 2014:
Where Is America Today?
A Republic, If You Can Keep It!
The Fightin Side of Me!
When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty!
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser. Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide:
“Food For Thought”
Hello: When Are Americans Going To Wake Up?-God Bless America!