The BLM–Agenda 21’s Stooge In The West

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have written about the United Nations Agenda 21 program in the past. It is the United Nations thinly veiled attempt at land-grabbing trying to hide under the very dubious cover of “sustainability.” Supposedly there are way too many people in the world (there aren’t) and the UN has to keep all the land “sustainable” by taking people off of it and herding them together in mega-ghettos and leaving untold millions of acres unpopulated and unused for guess who? The political commissars who thought all this up, that’s who. Private property and single family homes will be a thing of the past. You won’t need your cars because there will be no place to go when you are not allowed out of the city limits. Those of you who follow this sort of thing already know the drill.

However, in this country it seems there are lots of folks, most particularly in the West and the South, who put some value on private property, particularly if it has been in their  families for generations. And the Agenda 21 spooks need someone to be able to deal with that sticky situation. It seems, at least in the West, they have found their stooge of choice to help them divest people of their property–and no one is supposed to connect the dots between Agenda 21 and the Bureau of Land Management–an organization that has managed to make itself almost universally despised west of the Mississippi–and not without reason.

I recently read an article by Tim Brown, published on https://sonsoflibertymedia.com back on October 15, 2016. It quotes a Nevada assemblywoman, Michele Fiori, and she labels the Bureau of Land Management a “Domestic Terrorist Agency.” The article observes: “On Thursday morning, Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiori stood on the Nevada Assembly floor to point out several things regarding the Oregon occupation, the Bundy Ranch siege and the sheriffs who were involved in both. She also pointed out at the center of both of them was the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and she referred to them as one of several ‘Domestic Terrorist Agencies.’ I stand in support of and know that Blue Lives Matter…But there have been Sheriffs that hand their elected positions over to the Federal Government and some of the outcomes have been fatal. Sheriff David Ward of Harney County did just that. Under his watch a man, Lavoy Finicum, was murdered.” And she noted: “The Bureau of Land Management has become quite aggressive across our Nation,  from continual harassment of our indigenous Native Americans to our Ranchers, who are just trying to protect their livelihoods.” But the ranchers believe in  private property rights and that is becoming a no-no more and more.

Another article, this one by Michael Snyder on April 23, 2014 on https://freedomoutpost.com/agenda-21-blm-land-grabbing-endgame pretty succinctly lays it all out. Mr. Snyder says “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 philosophoy. 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.” What do you think this will do to our ranchers and farmers in the West, or even here in Louisiana where I live?

And Snyder adds “So the conflict between 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.” There was the BLM’s attempted land grab along the Texas-Oklahoma border back a few years ago.

Snyder noted that  the feds claim to own 84% of the state. In Utah they claim 57% of the state and in Alaska they claim 69%, and 53% in Oregon, to mention a few.

The federal government flat out doesn’t need any more land. They’ve got way too much as it is. But there is this constant obsession to grab more and more–so the dictates and agenda of Agenda 21 can be fulfilled. In fact, let’s be honest–they want it all and ranchers, farmers, miners, or folks that just want a little retirement place down on the bayou or out in country will just have to go. End of conversation! And besides they will be dispensing with lots of people with independent ideas–and that just won’t float in a UN-dominated environment.

So just remember, when the BLM comes along to wrest your land from you, who they are really working for, and brother, no matter what they say, it ain’t you!

Hear Anything About the “Grass March”?

By Al Benson Jr.

The “Sagebrush Rebellion” continues in the Far West, but you are not hearing much about it around the rest of the country now. The BLM got a national black eye over the Cliven Bundy situation in April and so, almost as if by agreement, the “news” media seems to have backed off so they can do what they want with no media coverage, or as little as they can get by with. Should we expect anything else? The last thing the media is about is real news. They avoid it like the plague. The media is all about propaganda and spin. Real news doesn’t even enter into their equation.

A friend in Nevada sent me a clipping from the Las Vegas Review for May 18th. It was an article written by Sherman Frederick called A righteous protest of BLM. Mr. Frederick wrote about an event called the “Grass March” which was to take place on Memorial Day weekend in Nevada.

Mr. Frederick wrote: “Now comes the ‘Grass March’ from a group of Nevada ranchers looking to take their plight to the range of Northern Nevada in the form of a 70-mile horseback journey from Elko to Battle Mountain. The march will be a public protest highlighting the plight of ranchers under the yoke of federal oppression. It’s a smart move on the part of Westerners, especially in the aftermath of the confrontation between the BLM and Cliven Bundy in Bunkerville…But the cowboys in Elko, Ely, Eureka and Battle Mountain have a better idea. To draw attention to how the BLM has run roughshod over sane management of public lands, they will protest by riding horseback over public grasslands between Elko and Battle Mountain over Memorial Day weekend. Hopefully, Nevada’s newspapers and the nation’s large newspapers and television stations will come along and tell the story. Ranchers in 2014 are to the BLM what the people of India were to the British Empire in the 1930s—a subjugated people forced to live by the whims of a government that neither understands the people nor cares about the land.”

It was a good idea, but I don’t recall hearing much of anything about it over the Memorial Day weekend where I am in North Louisiana. Most of the papers that carried anything about it at all were small local papers in Nevada, although the Kansas City Star did carry an article and papers in Houston and Seattle had articles, but there was nothing of what I would call national coverage. Anything that would have made the BLM look bad or told the truth about how they bullied ranchers was to be avoided by the media. Now had a few militia members showed up to ride with the cowboys the “news” media would have crawled out from under their collectivist rocks and showed up in droves, and you can just imagine the headlines there would have been—“Extremist, Right-wing Militia Rides with Cowboys to Denigrate the BLM.” That’s how the “news” game is played in this country nowadays.

As you take a look at this whole game (and it is a game, the intent of which is to push ranchers and farmers off the land so the government can more effectively “manage” it) you find that there is a pattern to all of this BLM “concern” for the land.

There was an article in Imprimis, which is published by Hillsdale College, in April, 2014. It was written by William Perry Pendley, President of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Mr. Pendley’s article was quite straightforward. He wrote: “…the Obama administration has picked up where the Carter and Clinton administrations left off, adopting the no-use policies promoted by environmental groups who view all federal lands as off limits to productive human activity. A typical way these policies get implemented is for environmental interest groups to sue a government agency under either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and for the agency then to settle the lawsuit in the interest group’s favor.” So the radical environmental groups and the government agencies work hand in glove to get what they want—ordinary people off the land so it can be locked up. Mr. Pendly mentioned a group I have referred to before as being active in this landlocking game, Wild Earth Guardians. This group has attempted to restrict land use for agriculture, gas and oil drilling and wind farms in a five state area—Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas because of certain areas inhabited by the lesser prairie chicken. All of this restricts use of the land by ranchers, oil and gas drillers and others. If the use of this land will, in any way, help the economic outlook for ordinary folks then that use must be suppressed. What else would you expect from a government at war with its own people? This is one reason they will try to delay work on the Keystone Pipeline project. That project will help people in the South and West, the most independent parts of the country, the people that voted against Obama’s Marxist policies. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to proceed. It must be stopped, delayed, or, if possible, shut down so that’s what they will do.

An article on http://4thst8.wordpress.com pretty well spells out what’s going on. It states: “President Obama this past week announced the creation of a national monument in southern New Mexico—the 500,000 acre Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, which contains hiking trails, Native American ruins and Outlaw Rock, where Billy the Kid inscribed his name…Obama’s action looks suspiciously like an opening round in a bid to carry out a plan—first outlined in a secret Bureau of Land Management memo in 2010—that would lock up an area about the size of Colorado and Wyoming combined or about half of the BLM’s 264 million acres..The Congressional Western Caucus released a copy of the 2010 memo—which is headed ‘Internal Draft—NOT FOR RELEASE’ and labeled ‘Treasured Landscapes.’ The memo lists more than two dozen specific areas from which the BLM seeks to lock out most human activity. Three of those are in Nevada…The Western Caucus described the 2010 memo as a plan to grab millions of acres of Western land: ‘The President is going down the list, and sealing off vast swaths of the West on behalf of his special interest allies, who view our states as their personal playground.” That about says it all—their personal playground—and in order for them to enjoy it and to reap the financial benefits from it, ordinary folks, ranchers, farmers, and others, need to be removed.

Again, I have to ask, how much of this is tied into the United Nations Agenda 21 Program and Agenda 21’s “Rewilding Project” whereby most of the land is set aside for the animals and humans are reduced to living in sardine can-sized “apartments” and crowded together in huge megacities which they are not allowed to travel outside of? I’d be willing to bet there is, at least, an eventual connection to all of this with Agenda 21.

You can’t honestly tell me that Obama is concerned about all this natural habitat for animals. I doubt if he even knows where New Mexico or Oklahoma are situated. Although he does claim that he’s been in all 57 states!

Can anyone spell LAND GRAB?

About That Public Land In Nevada

by Al Benson Jr.

The day after I posted my last article on the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, a man in North Carolina sent me a link to a legal case, U.S. v. Gardner, NO. CV-N-95-328-DWH. which was posted on http://www.leagle.com dealing with a case similar to that of the Bundy family.

It contained some interesting information and I’d like to quote a couple things: “On March 21, 1864, the United States Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute which authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union.” Among the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, this act granted “certain tracts of United States public lands to the State when it entered the Union…In addition, the Nevada Statehood statute  required the convention to adopt an ordinance decreeing and declaring that the inhabitants of the Territory of Nevada ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…The Nevada Constitution provides  that this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent   of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada’.” There’s more, but we could get bogged down in all the legal jargon and that’s sure not my long suit.  What it boils down to is that the folks in Nevada supposedly disclaimed any title to “unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…”In other words, the feds, way back in 1864, got to keep most of the land in Nevada and the people of that “state” promised not to contest that sticky little fact. Sounds like a bum deal, doesn’t it? It was (and still is).

We have to bear in mind why the big push for Nevada to become a state in 1864. The rule used to be that, for a territory to become a state, it had to have a population of 60,000. Nevada had something like 40,000, but Nevada was pushed ahead of other candidates for statehood. If you’re like me, with a suspicious  mind, you might be tempted to wonder why. The site http://www.onlinenevada.org in an article on the 29th of October, 2009, observed: “As the 1864 presidential election approached there were certain perceived advantages in having an additional Republican state. For one thing, a Republican congressional delegation could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery, which earlier had narrowly failed to garner the necessary two thirds support of both houses of Congress.  More overriding, however, at least in the spring of 1864  was the real fear that there might be three major candidates running for President that year, and that no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Then, as required by the United States Constitution, the election would go into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote and where a Republican Nevada would have voting rights equal to those of populous New York or Pennsylvania.” To put it bluntly, getting statehood for Nevada was a political move to help Lincoln win the election.

And seeing that it was the Lincoln administration in office, with its collectivist, centralizing mindset, you can see why provisions allowing the federal government to hold onto most of the land in Nevada, with no recourse by the people of that state, were part of the deal. So the feds let Nevada in as a state to boost Lincoln’s election chances, while retaining control of 88% of the land in the state. Such a deal! Even Wikipedia noted that: “Statehood was rushed to help ensure three electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln’s re-election and add to the Republican congressional majorities.”

Interestingly enough, http://www.nevadaweb.com states that “Nevada Territory was a federal territory, a part of the Union, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Governor James Warren Nye, a former Police Commissioner in New York City, to ensure that it stayed that way. Governor Nye put down any demonstration in support of the Confederacy, and there were some.” So they weren’t all Yankee/Marxists in Nevada.

You can see by reading some of this, that the current land problems in Nevada go all the way back to the Lincoln administration. For those that follow history, at least accurate history, are you really surprised? I’ve said, over the years, that many of the problems we still deal with today are a result of the Lincoln administration and its War of Northern Aggression.  The current situation in Nevada is a prime example.

I recently read a very good article by Steve Miller on http://www.zianet.com entitled Nevada: The Permanent Colony which dealt with the Sagebrush Rebellion I mentioned in my last article. Mr. Miller made several observations worth noting. If you can find this article on the Internet I’d recommend reading it.  Mr. Miller noted that Nevada Territory had too few people to meet requirements for statehood. This made no difference whatever.  Union and pro-Lincoln activists set up constitutional conventions anyway to try to get Nevada into the Union in 1863.  That attempt failed, so they came back again in 1864–so typical of the socialist agenda–if you lose, keep coming back and back until you wear down the opposition. At this point, I’d ask–if they didn’t have enough population to qualify, are they really, technically a state? They weren’t admitted under the required conditions.

Mr. Miller stated: :”Also, Lincoln needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate, where the Thirteenth Amendment waited to be passed.  Nevada’s admission would give him the three-fourths majority needed for a measure largely designed to help break the South…So Nevada had become a state, but it was only in a negligible sense.  For all practical purposes, Nevada remained essentially a territory ruled by those who dominated the federal government.”

And now comes the bombshell!

According to Steve Miller: “As part of the enabling legislation, Congress imposed conditions on the state that the Supreme Court, 19 years before, had already declared illegal, citing the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that new states should have ‘equal footing’ with the original thirteen. Under Nevada’s 1864 enabling act conditions, the people of the territory had to ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory,’ and turn them over to the federal government.” A great deal–but for who? Certainly not the people of Nevada.

Miller’s narrative continued: “But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.” The Court said: “We think the proper examination of this subject will show that 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…As soon as new states were formed out of the territory, ‘the power of the United States over these lands and property was to cease’.”

I submit, this is something to think about in the case of Nevada and all the many public acres the federal government controls there whereby they are setting out to deny the inhabitants of Nevada the use of public land–which the feds shouldn’t even control.

Does what has gone on in Nevada and other Western states sound a little like a federal land grab? If all the states agreed to abide by this 1845 Supreme Court decision, you would hardly need something like the BLM there to harass citizens. This is an aspect of this situation that ought to be considered by someone with legal training.  Mr. Bundy may well have a point when he refuses to recognize federal control over much of his state.  And remember, this problem goes back to Lincoln and his Marxist hoard. Something to think about.

“Dirty Harry” Won’t Get Mad–He’ll Get Even!

by Al Benson Jr.

Anyone remember the Sagebrush Rebellion back in the 1970s and 80s? In thirteen Western states the federal government controlls between 30% and 75-80% of the land, depending on which state you are in.

Although I don’t always believe everything Wikipedia says, by any means, once in awhile they get it right, and awhile back http://en.wikipedia.org  said of the Sagebrush Rebellion that it was: “An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies.” As for the current regime in Washington, the last thing in the world they are concerned about is the growth of Western economies–unless that “growth” is administered by their friends who will make sweetheart deals with countries hostile to the US, so that both hostile countries and politicians can make big bucks selling off US sovereignty and helping to destroy the middle class. That’s what Marxism/corporate fascism is really all about, and our “public servants”  today abound in it!

Even Wikipedia sort of half-heartedly recognized the Sagebrush Rebellion as, basically a states rights issue. And what has been going on at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada is the same states rights issue. But the feds, as usual, don’t plan to taking NO for an answer. They didn’t at Waco and Ruby Ridge and they won’t here. They will exert their power in any way they have to in order to show that they run things, and if they end up having to kill a bunch of people off, so what? They believe in the Marxist principle  that the end justifies the means. When they incinerated those people at Waco, including the children, it was all for their own good, right? That’s the way those people think–whatever they do has to be good and right–because, after all, they are the go(d)vernment and they know best!

Comrade Reid (aka “Dirty Harry”) had an ominous message for Mr. Bundy and his family according to http://www.foxnews.com when he said: “Well, it’s not over, we can’t have, in America, people that violate the law and just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” What he really meant was that he was ticked off because all the controversy raised by the Bundy Ranch situaton exposed his and his son’s sweet deal with a Chinese solar farm company and made him look bad. He wasn’t all that happy about that. So he and our Marxist-in-Chief and probably his “Attorney General” will have to find some way to get back at those nasty ranchers and make them pay, in spades, for daring to defy “national authority.” Fox News noted Reid’s hesitancy to speak on this issue and said: “That’s perhaps due to Reid’s  reported lobbying of the (Bureau of Land Management) to change the desert tortoise’s mapped habitat, allowing Nevada real estate mogul Harvey Whittemore to build on land near the Bundy Ranch. Last year Whittemore was convicted of making illegal campaign  contributions to Reid, and the Majority Leader’s former senior adviser was confirmed as the new head of BLM just last week.” Is this a great kountry or what?

The site http://thecommonsenseshow.com carried an article by Dave Hodges on April 14th  that noted: “China, allied with Russia, is in the process of taking over the United States, or should I say that our public officials are giving away the country to them…In my previous article, it was clearly demonstrated  that the Chinese are preparing, among other things, to assume control of supplying America’s energy needs at a cost they deem appropriate. It is a simple business proposition. They own our debt, we have defaulted and they are here to be compensated.”

Mr. Hodges continued: “The Bundy affair affirmed the fact that  Chinese are being handed control of solar energy inside the United States and that this is being facilitated by Senator Harry Reid. The takeover of American energy is being manifested on many fronts, but in particular, it is being concentrated on the takeover of the solar energy industry in the new Agenda 21 designation with the so-called ‘Solar Energy Zones’.” So there is a lot more involved here than the habitat of the desert tortoise–the UN’s Agenda 21 project is their blueprint and that bodes no good for the American public.

As if to reassert what much of this is all about http://townhall.com stated in an article on 4/14 that “Outraged over the heavy-handed tactics, about 1,000 states rights activists traveled to Mesquite (Nevada) to support Bundy. Many gun owners showed up lawfully carrying firearms, and local cowboys came riding in on horses. They were afraid they could be the next targets of  a federal government overreach, and felt it was time to take a stand.” Men, as far as you all being the next federal targets–depend on it–the federal drones have recorded who was there, and after the feds get through getting even with the Bundys, they will come looking for you, especially if you own any land they want in the “national interest.”

Sadly, this isn’t over and those governmental Marxist mentalities don’t quit. Part of our problem in this country is that we do quit and they don’t–until they get what they want–and at that point we all begin to experience what the Communists refer to as “peaceful co-existence.”

The question hasn’t arisen much, but I think it should.  Why should the federal government own so much land in so many states? Once a state has been given statehood, the land in that state should belong to that state, not to the federal government. If you have a state, anywhere, where the feds control 75% of the land in that state, is that state really a sovereign state or is it, in effect, still mostly a federal territory with the feds calling all the shots? What states rights do the people in any state have if the feds still control 75% of the real estate in their state?

This should concern Southern folks as well as Western folks. Seems to me we are all fighting the same battle. Folks in the South fought it first, but we are all fighting it now–maybe on different levels depending how much land the feds control in different states–but it’s still the same battle.  Maybe the Cowboys and the Confederates ought to get together.  We have a lot of the same problems and the same people, in many cases, are causing the problems we both experience.  Maybe it’s time for a Cowboy/Confederate Alliance.

Federal Cattle Rustlers in Nevada?

By Al Benson Jr.
When is private property not really private property? When the federal government says it isn’t. When is public land not really public land? When the federal government says it isn’t and when they try to run you off for using it. Who does Clark County, Nevada really belong to? Well, that depends on who you ask. With the situation in Clark County right now the federal government seems to think it owns most of the county and that it can tell natives of the area what to do or not do on “their” land.

Back in September, 2006, I did an article for the old Sierra Times website (now defunct) called ‘There Is No Private Property in the American Empire.” I think there are one or two sites out there that might still have it up, but the current situation in Nevada strongly reminded me of that article.
A rancher in Clark County, Nevada (the only rancher left in the county) has had a run-in the the Bureau of Land Management. Ask most folks in the rural West about the BLM and you get answers that run the gamut from flat-out cusswords to worse. Ive talked to folks in Colorado when we’ve been out there on more than one occasion and let’s just say the BLM is not held in especially high esteem. They’ve been accused of land grabbing and other offenses, and in the situation in Clark County they have been accused of being cattle rustlers. Doesn’t surprise me in the least. The BLM thinks they are God out in the sagebrush and they pretty much do what they want.

The one remaining Clark County rancher, Cliven Bundy, has roots on the land he grazes his cattle on that go back to before the turn of the 20th century, back to the days when people actually owned their property and federal thugs like the BLM were only a fond dream in the mind of some corrupt bureaucrat. Much of the land Mr. Bundy grazes his cattle on is public land, which he contends should belong to the state of Nevada rather than the federal government. He is correct. The statistics I saw noted that the feds own over 70% of the land in Nevada. Why? Either it’s part of the state of Nevada and should be state land or when the State of Nevada became a state only around 30% of it really became Nevada.

At any rate, after Mr. Bundy’s family has used this public range for well over 100 years, along comes the BLM and assesses him for grazing fees and whatnot—and now they are telling him his cattle can’t graze there anymore because they are disturbing the habitat of the Desert Tortoise. Really? Cattle grazing in that area for the last century don’t seem to have bothered the tortoises all that much. Mr. Bundy refused to stop using the land and ignored the feds financial levies on his use of the land. Mr. Bundy has a “unique concept” in regard to public land. He actually believes it is for the public to use, not to be cordoned off into some sort of turtle paradise. Needless to say, he ideas are at variance with those of the federal bureaucrats who, in their heart of hearts, really believe it all belongs to the government. The bureaucrats have the mindset of a dictator. Mr. Bundy has the mindset of a free man. Never the twain shall meet!

Since Mr. Bundy ignored the BLM entreaties for plunder (grazing fees) they have decided to round up his cattle, (those they can’t kill) and “sell” them off. Wonder who gets to keep the money. Mr. Bundy stated: “Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights. Who is the trespasser here?…Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? The Bureau of Land Management has ‘overstepped its boundaries by not letting me access my rights, not recognizing the state’s sovereignty, and having over 200 armed officers watching our every move and stealing our cattle.”

The situation got worse last Sunday after Bundy’s son, Dave, was arrested for filming federal agents while he was not within the “designated” area for “First Amendment” activity. So now the feds can restrict First Amendment activity to certain areas and only in those areas can you exercise your First Amendment rights. Anywhere else you don’t have them. Is this a first step to removing them altogether? You be the judge.

Even Nevada’s governor has criticized the high-handed way the BLM is doing this, though he hasn’t done much else and the county sheriff, who is the county’s highest elected official, seem to have “gone fishin” rather than to exercise the authority he has to eject the feds from his county. Good luck in your next election, buddy, because most of the folks in Clark County seem to be in support of what Mr. Bundy is doing.

Now we have folks from other states coming in to stand with him in support, including, according to http://patdollard.com some militia groups.
The Pat Dollard article noted that: “On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property,…Mr. Bundy’s view is that he owns his property—that it’s been in his families hands for centuries…” However the BLM view is that the land belongs to them, I guess not only the “public” land, but all of it. After all, when you are the jack-booted thug in charge you can pretty much do what you want. And the BLM knows it will get the backing of the Marxist regime in Washington—compliments of Comrades Obama and Holder.

Let’s hope there can be a peaceful (and just) resolution to all this and that, somehow, Mr. Bundy doesn’t end up being “shot while resisting arrest.”