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!

Federal Agencies Work To Fulfill Karl Marx’s Vision

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I have an old copy of The Communist Manifesto published by International Publishers back in 1969. It’s dog-eared, with lots of stuff underlined, and with my comments in the margins, because I have made lots of use of it in refuting what its author and those Illuminists that financed him promote in it.

On page 23, Marx stated: “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.” He then goes on to explain what he means by that and says that the concept of property is based on class antagonism.

Whether they even realize it or not, (and I think at the leadership levels they do) many of the federal agencies at work in the Western states are actively promoting what Marx has advocated, and their agenda is to eventually absorb all private property in this  country.

Range Magazine for the Fall of 2014 carried an article by Julian Stone which noted: “The feds will not be satisfied until they have control of all private property–and not only in the America West.” Think about what you just read.

Mr. Stone noted in his article several areas I have referred to in other articles. One was on the Texas-Oklahoma border, the Red River. He noted: “Private landowners in Texas and Oklahoma have wrangled since 1919 over lands bordering the river. Now the Oklahoma BLM is formulating new land management plans for 116 miles of the Red River borderlands for which private landowners in Texas have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (to pay for property or in taxes?) and the BLM says it belongs to the government. “The land in question belongs neither to Texas or Oklahoma, even if locals have bought it from one another and continue to pay taxes on it.” Thus spake the BLM in its infinite wisdom (or was that greed?). I understand that since Trump got into office some of this has changed, but you can bet your boots, spurs and all, that the next time you get another Democratic administration in Washington it will change back again and legalized theft will again be the order of the day. All the BLM has done is to back off–for now.

Further along in his article Mr. Stone has observed: “BLM recommends establishing new national monuments by using the Antiquities Act ‘which allows the president to act quickly.” In other words, steal it before the local rubes know what’s going on and can squawk! The Western Congressional Caucus noted awhile back that: “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 playgrounds.” The president referred to here was Comrade Obama. But do you think if they get a Democrat, or even a liberal (socialist) RINO in the White House these plans will cease? Right now they may be on hold. Don’t let Trump’s being in the White House lull you back to sleep. These federal agencies, the BLM, the Forest Service and the whole bevy of federal agents are only waiting, with bated breath, for their next chance at a federal land grab to begin anew. Administrations may change–the leopard’s spots don’t!

Mr. Stone listed a whole batch of areas the BLM would dearly love to grab control of, literally millions of acres all across the West–The Organ Mountains Desert Peaks, nearly 500,000 acres; Gold Butte in Nevada; the Dolores River Basin in Colorado–another 500,000 acres;  Hidden Gems in Colorado, another 400,000 acres; Montana’s Northern Prairie, about 2.5 million acres; the Sonoran Desert in Arizona, 500,000 acres, and the list continues. I can’t list all of them. One thing you have to say about the BLM–they don’t think small. They really want it all. This is only a wish list for the first installment. They’ll take it a few hundred thousand acres at a time, but they and their sister “agencies” mean to control it all.

What do you think all this does to the ranching, farming, mining and logging culture of the Western states? It destroys it–and that’s the whole idea. They are making the same stupid (or deliberate) mistake the African dictatorship of Zimbabwe  made when it displaced all the white farmers and the country’s leader gave all that farmland to his good buddies–who didn’t bother to farm it–and now the country is starving where it used to export surpluses.

The cattle industry in this country and the independent way of life that ranching has produced are slated for destruction. We don’t need cattlemen or sheepmen or farmers. We can always buy our meat from overseas–at inflated prices. The feds seem to think that sure beats having our own ranchers produce what we use and it make us dependent on other “cultures.” It destroys our own  unique Western culture in the process–and for the feds, that is just as important as making sure we get millions of illegal immigrants, preferably from Muslim countries, in here to “enhance” our native culture. There are lots of different agendas involved here at different levels. However–the destruction of American Western culture is one big part of it.

And for you folks here in the South, lots of you farm and raise cattle also. You may not lease public land for grazing, but ask yourselves this–how many federal agencies tell you how much cotton or tobacco you are allowed to grow–on your own land? How big a step would it be from that to the feds telling you how many sheep cattle, or goats you can raise–on your own land???

So let us not kid ourselves. Whether Trump is in office or not (and I am not questioning his honest intent) the federal agencies  really do mean to fulfill Marx’s vision for a new Communist world and a new Communist man. They are raising particular hell in the West right now. When they think they have accomplished their plans there they will start to come for the rest of us. You all had better be aware of that and get ready to do whatever you can legitimately do to resist–because it will happen, as sure as the turning of the earth!

Has it ever occurred to our  good Southern folks that the destruction of our monuments, our history and heritage, is the first step in this campaign in our part of the country. Then they will work on the Midwest. They don’t have to worry too much about the Northeast or the Left Coast–those already belong to them, but they want the rest of us under their heel asap!

Federal Fertilizer Thrown at Bundys–Part two

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

The judge was forced to admit that the federal prosecutor had really screwed up in regard to the evidence they had “forgotten” to turn over, which just happened to violate the due process of the Bundys. You might be tempted to wonder what was in that evidence. Well, it included–records about the federal surveillance at the Bundy Ranch; records about the presence of government snipers (can anyone say Vicki  Weaver?) and internal affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents, among other things. There was evidence in six areas they didn’t bother passing along. I just listed three of them here.

According to an article in the Arizona Republic for January 8th “Former acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, who led the prosecution had urged the judge in a December 29 motion to allow his office to retry the case. Prosecutors said Bundy conspired with militia groups and anti-government protesters to block a lawful round-up of his cattle from public lands…”This is nothing more than yet another full serving of thinly veiled Federal Fertilizer (and a poor grade of it at that) to allow them to keep their jackboot on the Bundys neck.

Recently, a BLM whistleblower, Larry Wooten, I think his name is, blew the whistle on a ton of stuff the BLM had been engaged in that they shouldn’t have been, and as you can see,  concealing evidence that would help the case of those on trial seems to be a problem they have–along with other federal agencies. It might almost lead some folks to question whether they could trust their government or not! And heaven forbid that such a thought would ever occur to the public!

In light of this, the judge was forced to turn the Bundys loose. It  had become quite apparent that the plan was to railroad them.

The judge, Gloria Navarro, (no friend of the Bundys on any count) noted that “One undated BLM report described the Bundys as non-violent,”  And she noted  also, that “since the October 1 discovery deadline, when prosecutors were required to turn over all material evidence to the defense, the prosecutors turned over 3300 pages of additional documents.” So, after their deadline was past, they ended up forking over an additional 3300 pages of evidence, most of which would help the defendants. Sounds like they have been taking lessons from Hillary!

So, while the Feds didn’t win at Bunkerville back in 2014, Cliven Bundy got his cattle back. However, gentle souls that they are, the cultural Marxist Feds never forget a loss and those that handed it to them–and they came back with a vengeance.  What else is new??? But this time, although it took them awhile, it didn’t quite work–and now even more people are beginning to wake up to what the BLM and other rogue federal agencies are doing and more and more people a getting fed up and ticked off with an out-of-control federal government peopled with Deep State Swamp Creatures. And so the War goes on–and make no mistake about it–this IS a spiritual battle.  Politics really has very little to do with it.

If a few more Christians would only wake up and realize that, we might get a little more help.

What Is The West?

by Al Benson Jr.

Folks who have followed my writing for awhile will recognize that what I write below will be a little different than much of what I usually do. I have written about the South for decades now and I love the South. I love the palmetto and palm trees, the Spanish moss, the abundant  wildlife, the bayous, and the wonderful hospitality of Southern people who, even though we were from the North originally, once they found out we understood their history and were willing to defend that history and heritage, opened their arms to us and literally made us “one of them.” So now we live in North Louisiana and we have never regretted the move south. This is home and we are content with it. No complaints!

But along with that, both my wife and I also love the West. We have traveled much there and before I was married I spent parts of several years in the West, including one year that I lived in Oklahoma for part of the year. Oklahoma is still a favorite spot. I was trying to eke out a living painting western scenery. I wasn’t good enough to make a go of that but I still enjoyed it.

When I went “back east” I worked near a bunch of young guys who enjoyed my paintings and when once they got an art show up they wanted me to put some of my stuff in it, which I did. They also wanted me, as someone who had spent time in the West, to submit something written about my impressions of the West. Most of them had never been there except for the big cities and they all look alike to me no matter where they are. I never spent any time in or near cities I didn’t have to, had no interest in them, except for Santa Fe, New Mexico, and it was different.

At any rate, what is below was what I gave them to print up, with some minor modifications. Some of you all that live in the West may be able to identify with some of what I say here.

The West is many things to many people. To those who have never experienced it,  I can only say that they have missed something that will not long remain even as it is now.

The West, to me, is more than a geographical location (like the South).  It is more than the beautiful state of Texas, which most easterners seem to think all westerners come from. It is more than the dry, burned out desert most who have never seen it think it is. They have not learned that there is beauty even in the desert if you know how to look for it.

The West is a place, but it is more (like the South). It is an atmosphere, an enigma, a way of life, and a people. As a way of life, it is something that can be carried far beyond its geographical boundaries.

The West is dark thunderheads far off over the canyon, it is the Prairie Dog Fork of the Red River at flood, it’s Monument Valley at night and the Painted Desert at noon. It’s the flat (but sometimes rolling)  country of the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles and it’s the majestic peace of the high plains country on the Platte River in Wyoming. It is a land so big that when you stand in it you feel small, and you have to realize within your deepest being that God created it and that man,  mighty though he would like to think he is, is only one small finite part of it.

The West is also people. It’s the old cowboy at the Pawhuska (Oklahoma) rodeo, who upon hearing the announcer reveal the name of the next contestant  in the saddle bronc riding, shouted “That’s my cousin Homer. He cain’t ride nothin’, He’ll get throwed first jump out the gate.” And he did! It’s the man in the store in Guymon, Oklahoma who, when asked if it was always this windy around here, replied “Hell no. Sometimes it gets windier.” It’s the ancient Indian at Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, who, when the smart-alec tourist tried to talk him into letting him into the pueblo for nothing, proceeded to charge him three times as much as he’d charged me to get in. The irate tourist tried to explain to him how, forty years ago, he’d gotten into the pueblo for nothing. After his ten minute (but ineffectual) tirade, the old Indian simply answered “Times change.”

For me the west did not really end each time I recrossed the Mississippi River. Thankfully, living in North Louisiana, we don’t have to recross the Mississippi to go east anymore.

For me, the West is a great deal of all I have seen, felt, lived and experienced during my numerous times in it. The deepness of its experience (like that of the South) is not something that leaves you upon the crossing of a boundary line. You, like many easterners, hate it and never go back (it’s not “green” enough for you) or you love it and continue to go back. There is no middle ground, the same as there is no middle ground with Confederate and Southern heritage. You either live it wherever you go, or you’ve never truly experienced it at all.

“Sovereign” States or Federal Satrapies?

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

There was an article on the Zero Hedge website back on last June 27th, written by Michael Snyder, which had originally appeared on the Economic Collapse blog. It was about how much land the federal government “owns” in our Western states. From the looks of the map that appeared with the article they “own” almost half ot it. The article noted that: “Today, the feds control approximately  640 million acres of land, and after decades of very poor management, many are calling on the states to take a larger role. This is particularly true in the 11 western states where the federal government collectively  owns 47 percent of all the land.”

Yep, you read that figure right–47 percent of it all. For instance, in Nevada, the feds “own” 84% of all the land in the state.  That leaves 16% of the state for ordinary folks. The feds “own” 64% of Utah, 61% of both Idaho and Alaska and 52% of Oregon. By the time you get to Wyoming the feds only “own” a measly 48% of the state. What a comedown from Nevada that must be for them!

I have to ask the question–does the public, ordinary folks, only owning 16% of the state they live in really constitute it being a “sovereign” state, or is it still really a federal territory that has been labeled a state for the sake of convenience (and electoral votes)?

Another pertinent question might be, which is more important–who “owns” it or who controls it? If the general public “owns” it  but can’t do much with it, then the federal government that controls  it is the actual de facto owner, isn’t it? It’s somewhat akin to the situation with the property tax that I have written about before on several occasions. You “own” your house and possess a deed with your name on it saying you own it. Yet, if you fail to pay the yearly governmental rent then some unit of government can come and take “your” property and do what they will with it. So, in the long run, who is the real owner–the man with his name on the deed–or the governmental agency that can take it away from him if he doesn’t pay their yearly “rent?” Mostly, we don’t want to think about this kind of thing. We should.

There was an article in the New York Times for August 25th of this year about Trump’a new Secretary of the Interior proposing shrinking of four national monuments in the West–so designated by King Barack the First (and hopefully the last). One of these was the Bears Ears, over west of Blanding, Utah. You can find it on your road atlas. Obama created a national monument there that was 1.35 million acres in size–land locked up so the public could do nothing with it.  Mr. Zinke, Trump’s Secretary of the Interior wants to reduce the Bears Ears monument to 160,000 acres. I hope he makes it, but even 160,000 acres is a lot for a monument with the Bears Ears as its centerpiece.  It’s pretty country there. We’ve been through some of it several times over the years, but it doesn’t rate another 160,000 closed-down acres for a national monument. Cutting it in half and designating half of it for a monument at the Bears Ears would be plenty, but then that wouldn’t give the feds control over all the 1.35 million acres–and control is what they really want. Control in the name of creating new “public’ monuments and “recreation areas” where you can only go if you follow their rules.

The owner of Land & Livestock international (look it up on the internet) has observed that “Transferring these lands to the States would be a great improvement, but would not necessarily be the best ultimate end…These lands need to be returned to their rightful owners (and/or their heirs and assigns)–the families who have 4 or 5 generations of sweat equity in the lands (or those who have rightfully purchased those property rights through  voluntary exchange). I am hopeful but I doubt seriously that we will ever see it happen.”

In the case of some of that “public” land near the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, one might be led to question just how much of this “public” land has been of use to Harry Reid and his son, or to Hillary with her Uranium One deal. Lots of big bucks being made there off some of that land that, we the public, supposedly own.

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.