Government Land Grabs: The Truth Exposed – Part 1, 2, 3 and 4
Posted on May 11, 2014 by Craig Andresen Government Land Grabs: The Truth Exposed – Part 1
By Craig Andresen on May 3, 2014 at 4:54 am
Here is a stunning statistic. The BLM currently controls more than 260 million acres in the western United States and most of that is, for the time being, listed as mixed use land but now, this regime wants to transfer up to 140 million acres of it to “treasured lands” status meaning series 4NO use whatsoever by private landholders and whatever they have out there from livestock to houses would have to go.
How much land IS 140 million acres? Well…it’s the size of Colorado…and Wyoming…combined.
That’s correct…the BLM via Obama’s regime intends to render a portion of the western United States…the size of Wyoming and Colorado COMBINED… completely OFF LIMITS to any and all individual Americans to be solely controlled by the federal government.
National Parks – An Unconstitutional Federal Land Grab
by SCL, 30 Dec 2016
National parks or monuments are an unconstitutional federal land-grab from the states, regardless of how benign or benevolent such act may seem at the time. The only valid federal ownership of state land is described in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution which says:
“[Congress shall have Power…] 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–”
National parks were not purchased upon consent by state legislatures for the use of “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”, so national parks are unconstitutional federal acts. The states can make state parks according to the consent of the people and legislature of that state.
Because national parks constitute unconstitutional federal commandeering of state land, the relevant state should exercise its constitutional sovereignty and reject and nullify such an act. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny – these are just acts of federal tyranny that start with a happy face. Tyranny almost always starts with a happy face but always ends in oppression and misery. States have the constitutional right and the moral duty to stand against such acts by, in this case, repossessing and taking command of its land from the feds...
Texas landowners fight federal government over Red River 'land grab'
By Cristina Corbin Published January 31, 2017 FoxNews.com
In 1941, Ken Aderholt's grandfather built a single-story brick house along the banks of the Red River – a shallow and serene waterway serving as the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma – where the Aderholts have farmed wheat and raised cattle for generations.
The federal government is now claiming the land the house sits on is public. It declared hundreds of thousands of acres of private land along the 116-mile stretch of river that Oklahoma and Texas share as government property.
The sandy river has eroded and shifted – up to two miles in some places – over the last 100 years, and dry land where the river once flowed belongs to the government, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
Justices to Hear Property Rights Dispute Over Family's Land
Monday, 20 Mar 2017 09:04 AM
The Supreme Court could make it tougher for state and local governments to limit development in coastal areas.
Justices hear arguments Monday in a property rights case that involves a family's effort to sell part of its riverfront land in Wisconsin. The family says conservation rules forbidding the sale stripped the land of its value and the government owes them compensation.
County officials nixed the sale because regulations treat the family's two lots as a single property that can't be split up. Government officials say it's fair to view the property as a whole.
More than 100 cities and counties across the U.S. have similar "merger" restrictions that treat two adjacent properties as one if they have the same owner.
The case has drawn interest from property rights and business groups that say such rules let the government avoid paying landowners for restricting land use. The Constitution requires compensation if government regulations take away a property's economic value.
The Federal Government Owns 61 Percent Of Idaho, 64 Percent Of Utah And 84 Percent Of Nevada
By Michael Snyder, on June 26th, 2017
Did you know that the federal government owns 28 percent of all land in the United States? 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 land. East of the Mississippi River, the feds only own 4 percent of all land, and there is no reason for such a disparity to exist. In Connecticut and Iowa, the federal government only owns 0.3 percent of all land. Such an arrangement seems to work very well for those states, and so why can’t we dramatically reduce federal land ownership in the western states as well?
Of course the federal government will always need a very small amount of land for certain national purposes, and nobody is disputing that. According to the Heritage Foundation, the following are the primary purposes that federal land is being used for…
California to feds: Pay $18M fire debt or we'll watch it burn
Published July 08, 2017, Fox News
The head of California’s emergency services on Monday penned a letter to the U.S. Forest Service that raised to prospects that the state may stop protecting national forests during fires.
Emergency Services Director Mark Ghilarducci said the agency has stiffed local governments $18 million for fighting wildfires on federal lands last year.
"I cannot continue to support the deployment of resources to protect federal land that ultimately may bankrupt our local governments," Ghilarducci said in the letter sent Monday to Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell.
Rich Webb, chief of the Linda Fire Protection District, said the federal government's failure to meet the deadlines was particularly hard on smaller communities that had to push budget shortfalls to the current fiscal year.
Some communities were just recently reimbursed for last summer's Cedar Fire in Sequoia National Forest and several Northern California counties are still awaiting payments for other fires.
Reining in federal land ownership—a drop in the bucket
By A. Dru Kristenev, December 6, 2017
Reining in federal land ownership--a drop in the bucket When the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was designated under President Clinton’s purview in 1996, it created real hardship for regional ranchers. New management rules locked up more than one and a half million acres, discontinuing grazing leases that were imperative to sustain cattle growers who’d been using the land responsibly for more than a century.
Part of the impetus for closing off natural resource development at the time was to halt access to one of the best sources of low sulfur coal, including from tribal populations, putting a stranglehold on arid land limited economies. Instituting the monument spelled financial disaster to Four Corners ranch industry as well as the Navajo that has tried to expand their coal industry. One of the reasons Clinton closed off the coal was a backroom deal made to bump up the price of the commodity being mined in Indonesia. It removed U.S. competition at the expense of Native America that, on the other hand, has been tagged to protest pro-growth projects like Dakota Access Pipeline and, now, truncating Bears Ears National Monument.
Related plans for state-of-the-art Desert Rock clean coal-fired power plant was later deep-sixed by environmental groups battling the Diné and partner, Sithe Global, invoking specious climate change arguments that the environmental impact statement finally rejected. Extreme environmentalists continue to use the Indians to further their agenda when convenient, but dump them if their goals diverge, such as improving the First People’s living standards. Fair weather friends at best. Enemies of self-determination at worst.
The Forest Service pulled a bait-and-switch on a decades-old land deal. Here’s how the owners are fighting back.
By Jeffrey W. McCoy, November 15, 2018
When the government negotiates for a limited-access easement across your property, it cannot turn around later and decide it has an unlimited right to cross your property. Wil Wilkins and Jane Stanton, two Montana landowners, have had to sue the U.S. Forest Service to prevent it from pulling exactly that kind of bait-and-switch.
This week, PLF took up their fight as their lead attorneys. At issue is who is allowed to use a Forest Service road across their land. Wil and Jane live next to the Bitterroot National Forest, and, in the past few years, excessive use of the road has led to serious traffic hazards, road damage, fire threats, noise, trespassing, illegal hunting, speeding, and other dangerous activities.
The general public was never supposed to be using this road. In 1962, the previous property owners granted the federal government an easement for limited use by the Forest Service. The road was supposed to be used only by the Forest Service, its employees, and those with Forest Service permits, such as loggers and ranchers.
The easement’s terms were clear, and a letter from the Forest Service confirmed the purpose. Yet the Forest Service recently began to advertise that the road is open to the public. In doing so, the Forest Service is attempting to gain a better easement than it paid for, at the cost of Wil and Jane’s property rights.
House Democrats seek to conserve 30 percent of US lands, oceans by 2030
By Rebecca Beitsch, 02/07/20 04:01 PM EST
House Democrats introduced legislation Friday that would commit the U.S. to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s land and oceans by 2030, the latest push after the effort was introduced in the Senate in October.
“Globally, the loss of nature – accelerated by climate change – is putting up to one million species on the path to extinction. Conserving our lands and waters is essential to protecting humans and wildlife and stabilizing our climate,” Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), who is spearheading the effort in the House, said in a release.
iprazhm: I live in Fl and Rubio used to be the Florida Speaker of the House. As Speaker, he refused to allow bills on the floor for a vote, that hindered illegal aliens. On CNN, he said that he's willing to take the right to own a gun from Florida citizens. Traitor
May 16, 2019 18:55:29 GMT -5
iprazhm: “I absolutely believe that in this country if you are 18 years of age, you should not be able to buy a rifle, and I will support a law that takes that right away,” U.S Senator Marco Rubio Fl qz.com/1213296/parkland-florida-shooting-fou
May 16, 2019 18:56:09 GMT -5
avordvet: If a citizen is old enough to carry a rifle in the military service, then they are old enough to buy/own a weapon and exercise their god-given natural right to self-defense.
May 21, 2019 4:37:28 GMT -5
iprazhm: I have come to believe that God placed Trump in office to help Israel, and nothing else. He is clearly not there to secure the republic or promote decency. Only when the people return to serving Christ, will our country return to being great again.
Jun 1, 2019 18:15:16 GMT -5
avordvet: Welcome thomas
Aug 12, 2019 14:49:27 GMT -5
avordvet: Welcome cloudbound1
Aug 16, 2019 4:01:08 GMT -5
walfred: Threat level-HIGH....Level of Readiness-MAXIMUM
Oct 7, 2019 1:54:10 GMT -5
iprazhm: Invaluable information.
Mar 23, 2020 14:40:22 GMT -5
avordvet: Welcome phatday3
May 19, 2020 4:12:22 GMT -5