The Greater “Agenda” Behind Federal Land Grabs

While the mainstream media is asleep at the wheel, there have been major developments in the fight against the Feds in the Southwest. Firstly, William F. Jasper of the John Birch Society recently posted a research piece in the New American about a similar case involving a cattle rancher in Nevada. This case involved a family by the name of Hage; and surprisingly enough, the federal judge ruled in their favor and issued a harsh opinion about the actions of the BLM. He stated:

“The government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

The Hages were friends with the Bundy family and were also the victims of the BLM’s drive to push them off of the land that their family had occupied since the 1800s. In this case, the judge ruled that the government’s actions “shocked the conscience of the court” and he granted an injunction against the federal agents, referring them to the Department of Justice for prosecution. I’m sure you can guess Attorney General Eric Holder’s response… None, of course! Read the New American link s below for more info about that case.

It was never the intention of lawmakers to allow the Federal government to permanently own land and restrict the public’s use. What land they did control was supposed to be turned over to the states upon statehood and then appropriated to the people for development. This was stated plainly in a U.S. Supreme Court Case, Pollard’s Lesse v. Hagan 44 U.S. 212 (1845), concerning Alabama’s statehood. The ruling stated, “The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes…” Martin Armstrong asserts, “The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the feds must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.”

At this point, what makes anyone think that the federal government even cares about the Constitution anymore! This is just one example among many in which the government has usurped sections of the Constitution that it deems inconvenient to the matter at hand. Can anyone say “Free Speech Zones?”

Returning to the Hage case, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada made an interesting comment in his ruling. He said that the BLM entered into a conspiracy to deprive the Hages of their grazing rights “for whatever reason.” This is precisely the reason why many are having a difficult time coming to terms with the fact that the federal government may have more sinister motives in this situation. Why would the feds have any reason to deny We the People of our rights to public lands? The simple answer is to follow the money. I’ve already written about the link between public officials, namely Harry Reid, and a billion dollar solar and wind farm deal with the Chinese that was to be installed in the area that was formerly occupied by the 50 other Nevada ranchers and currently, only Cliven Bundy. However, the conspiracy goes deeper than that, and the endgame is about much more than simple crony capitalism. It is about total control.

In fact, much of our public land is already being turned over to foreign powers, and this has been going on for decades. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has designated large swaths of land across America as UN Biosphere Reserves, and they are set aside for conservation and scientific study. This doesn’t sound bad right? UNESCO would have you believe that their authority over the “conservation” of these lands doesn’t impede upon our sovereignty. On the other hand, the late Henry Lamb, executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International, asserted that UNESCO’s operational guidelines are enforced by U.S. agencies locally. He said:

“Neither Congress, nor any state legislature, has ever voted to approve any of the 47 UN Biosphere Reserves in the United States. The management policy for millions of acres covered by these reserves is crafted by international committees of bureaucrats, none of whom are elected. To comply with ‘international obligations,’ the United States conforms its management policy and, in some cases, its law to accommodate the wishes of bureaucrats that are completely unknown to the people who are governed by the policies. This reality is but a hint of what is in store for those governed by the rule of international law. Massive documents, such as the 1140-page ‘Global Biodiversity Assessment,’ the 300-page ‘Agenda 21,’ and the 410-page ‘Our Global Neighborhood,’ all paint a picture of the international law that is being devised to govern the world in the 21st century.”

In other words, the U.N. sets the standards for how our land is to be managed, and Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service are the stewards of this international policy without being subject to local accountability. We often hear the phrase, “You are a public servant. You work for us!” However in reality, these enforcers answer to a bigger boss who doesn’t care much about what you think.

U.N. Agenda 21 is a very controversial subject that has received much attention over the years (unless you have only been watching cable news). I implore you to research all of the aforementioned U.N. plans, but especially U.N. Agenda 21 because it will likely affect you directly in your hometown soon, if it hasn’t already. Rosa Koire of Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, has written an excellent book on the subject called “Behind the Green Mask.” You can read about Agenda 21 on her web-site or watch an excellent presentation of her’s about Agenda 21 here:
Behind the Green Mask – Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire
(it’s lengthy, so if you’re budgeting your time, skip to 14:00 to get into the meat of it)






    Federal Judge Robert “Clive” Jones is certainly NO property rights “hero” as suggested in Bundy Ranch/BLM case.

    The State of Nevada has allowed homeowners associations (HOAs) to NONJUDICIALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY foreclose on homeowners even if there is homestead, even if the mortgage is current, and worse – even if the HOA has committed embezzlement, election fraud, extortion, kickbacks, tax evasion and title fraud/mortgage fraud. Judge Jones could not agree more.

    Don’t believe? PLEASE LOOK AT JUDGE JONES’ LONG HISTORY OF FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE (HOME THEFT) RULINGS before commending Jones as a so-called “property rights advocate”.

    Judge Robert C. Jones needs to be formally investigated! He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and the “criminal conspiracy” may be found in Jones’ own courtroom!


    • Logan Bayless

      Thanks for the information. Jones was mentioned in the New American article, but I suppose that it isn’t surprising that he is a slime ball too. Do you have a page for raising awareness about the plight of homeowners in Nevada?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s