The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

[5150]

I sure hope the Militia arrive and stand up to the Government thugs. Until the people revolt these thugs will continue to walk all over the people and abuse them and their rights.

I support Mr Bundy!

[aljhoa]

Go Wild!


Go Wild...for history,
for nature, for fun during
National Park Week, April 19-27!
No entrance fees April 19 & 20.






private property rights | UN Agenda 21


Al

[dutchdivco]

BLM 'mandate'

You might find it interesting to look at the legislation establishing the BLM. I believe it has something about how the land is being held and maintained in a kind of 'trust', for the AMERICAN PEOPLE; the way its worded, the property that is 'designated' as BLM land is to be maintained/managed, in such a way as to equitably make it available for use to US.
They DO have a complicated mandate; 'balancing' the sometimes conflicting 'needs' of ranchers, campers, etc. And then you get environmental regulations and protecting endangered species into it.
Point is, its not REALLY "BLM land", its OUR land, 'set aside' (i.e. not to be commercially developed) in perpetuity, for the USE of the American people.

This 'idea' of establishing 'free speech' zones was used during the 'occupy' movement, as I recall. Or perhaps it was during the last Presidential conventions. Needs to be taken to the SCOTUS. If $ is Free speech, and shouldn't be restricted, I should think the idea that "Oh, you have the right to free speech, and therefore to protest, but ONLY if you allow us to herd you (like cattle) into areas that we chose, and control access to" would be a no-brainer Unconstituitonal Act. In addition, during SCOTUS, local government officials tried to say "This isn't excercising free speech, its 'camping', as if free speech (Constitutionally) meant you can stand up (in the 'public square', say your 'piece', and then sit down and shut up, (or go home), but you can't repeatedly, over and over, 'excercise' your free speech.

Madison, Jefferson etc. must be rolling in their graves over that whole notion, huh? Unfortunately, Gov't. is exploiting 2 'loopholes', and has done so, before; 1) someone with 'standing' has to bring suit, in order for case tobe heard by SCOTUS, and 2) except in 'extraordinary circumstances' (rare) case has to go up through lower courts, first, before being 'heard' by SCOTUS, which can take years. So, Gov't. CAN, and has, do/done things which it KNOWS are Unconstitutional, and get away with it, either because there IS no one with 'standing', or no one with standing who wi;ll 'bring case', or that by time case gets to SCOTUS the deed will have been done. FDR used the 3rd, in several instances, while simultaneously trying to 'stack' the SCOTUS, and while was unsuccessful in the stacking, the programs he enacted, which were rued unconstitutional, were in place for several years, which was what he wanted. This idea of 'free speech zones', needs to be taken up by someone, 'with standing', so SCOTUS can say, once and for all(?) that its unconstitutional, as is the idea that there is a 'time limit' on free speech, any more than there is a 'place limit'. Jim

[aljhoa]

They DO have a complicated mandate; 'balancing' the sometimes conflicting 'needs' of ranchers, campers, etc. And then you get environmental regulations and protecting endangered species into it.
Point is, its not REALLY "BLM land", its OUR land, 'set aside' (i.e. not to be commercially developed) in perpetuity, for the USE of the American people.

Published on Apr 9, 2014



The government preaches "sustainability" and preservation of water and endangered species. But people who collect rainwater on their own property are fined and thrown into jail in Oregon. And in Florida, the government tries to evict a woman because she's off the grid using solar power and rainwater, citing violation of "international codes". And in Nevada, the same bureaucracy that is closing public lands to ranchers who have had grazing rights since 1877 in order to save a tortoise, is killing over a thousand of the same tortoises in their care.
If Feds Take Your Cattle & Property, YOU Become Cattle - YouTube

These 9 States Have Outlawed Agenda 21 to Protect Property Rights - Top US World News | Susanne Posel Daily Headlines and Research


Al

[rickoff]

Update on Bundy "cattle trespass" issue

For the time being, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has reversed its course or rounding up Clive Bundy's cattle and hauling them to auction. About 300 head of cattle have now been returned to Bundy by the BLM, and BLM says it will pursue other avenues in their attempt to force Bundy off the land and make him pay the $1.1 million in "grazing fees" they claim he owes. So what's going on here? Did the feds really back away from this because of some protesters, and threats that militia groups would intervene if they continued, or is something else involved? I believe that "something else" is the answer in this case, and here's what I believe it is:

You may remember in my previous post about this issue that I quoted what Nevada Democrat "Dirty Harry" Reid had stated (through his spokesperson) when a reporter asked for a statement. Harry didn't voice any concern whatsoever for Bundy's rights, or outrage over BLM attempts to herd protesters into penned-in "Free speech zones). Instead, his only stated concern was that he "hopes the trespassing cattle

[aljhoa]

As it turns out, there's a very good reason why "Dirty Harry" Reid hoped for that outcome, and it has absolutely nothing to to with the Desert Tortoise. It is all about greed.

Agenda 21

BREAKING! Sen Reid Chinese Gov't Takeover Of Ranch For Solar Farm - YouTube


Al

[rickoff]

The Bundy saga continues...

One might ask why the "government" is suddenly so concerned about "protecting" the desert tortoise, or any other species common to the Nevada desert, when in fact these same "protectors" have done far more to wreak havoc upon countless species, as a result of nuclear testing in Nevada, than all other causative factors combined.


What we saw unfold last week gave the appearance that the BLM has peacefully agreed to back off from their demands and pursue other actions which are less confrontational and aggressive. But don't be deceived - this was only round one of their plan. This first step was taken purely for observational reasons. They wanted to determine how much resistance there would be against such a land grab, determine exactly who the active resisters and defenders are, and determine what and who's weapons of defense they would be facing during a real takeover. So what played out last week was only a gathering of useful information for planning the next phase, and we can be certain that there will be a next phase. In fact, "Dirty Harry" Reid has already stated that, "It's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and just walk away from it, so it's not over."

Notice the smirk on Harry's face after he says this. He's smiling because he knows that it is not over, and has full confidence that his own interests will prevail over the interests of the People. How arrogant! Harry needs to be reminded that we, the American People, can not have "government" representatives and agencies that violate the Constitution - the supreme law of our Republic while acting to enforce "laws" which are repugnant to the Constitution, are fictions, and only exist under color of law. Harry is right about one thing, though - it's definitely not over.

It's not difficult to see where this is all heading. Those who believed they had won round one as a result of their resistance and courage in standing their ground against the BLM are sadly mistaken. The feds cannot let this be the end of the matter, and are determined to let the final outcome stand as an example to any and every individual or group that opposes their tyranny. The next phase will utilize whatever the feds deem necessary in bringing the situation under control. And, after all, total control is what this is really all about.

[rickoff]

While Clive Bundy's plight appears to be at the top of the list of current events issues, he is not the only rancher under attack by a tyrannical federal "government." What makes his story an important one is that he is the last rancher still standing his ground in Nevada. In other western states, though, the same story is playing out as federal agencies continue with their plan to force all ranchers off their lands and seize these lands as "government" property.

A case in point is that of Kit Laney, a New Mexico rancher who has been handed a notice by the US Forest Service stating that his ranch operations would be shut down and his cattle removed by whatever means necessary. There is a very interesting article about this that explains all the details about this dispute, and which also goes over the historic aspects that led to western land grabs by the "government" under the guise of "protection." You can read the article at this link.

[aljhoa]

And, after all, total control is what this is really all about.

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube

If Sheriff Mack was Cliven Bundy's Sheriff - YouTube


Al

[Danny B]

[aljhoa]

The government's failure to carry out their mission in a quick fashion is the main reason the alternative media was able to both rapidly get this story out and then for enough protestors to arrive. This made it difficult for a Waco/Ruby Ridge event to occur.

And don't doubt for a second that that's what would have happened.

Thus, it was NOT the threat of violence which made the State take a back step. It was the fear of loosing consent of the governed. It simply would not do for the tax cows to see a member of the herd being slaughtered by the plantation overseers. It spooks the human chattel and looses their consent.

Failure to understand this, and a persistence in believing that violence could over come the State is a good part of what the system is trying to instill in the sheeple as part of a salvage effort in the aftermath. But make no mistake, Mr. Bundy is nowhere near the end on this. With limitless resources, and institutional memory which will survive long after those responsible
have retired, the State is relentless."

JOHN LENNON The World Is RUN by INSANE PEOPLE! √ ((MIRROR)) - YouTube

Relentless - Hillsong UNITED (Live at Passion 2014) - YouTube


Al

[dutchdivco]

[rickoff]

I just got to thinking about whether or not Clive Bundy may actually be able to press a claim to ownership of the land which he has been using to graze his cattle. He may well have a legal right to claim this land under the law of Squatter's Rights, which appears to remain valid in nearly all the states. Here's a basic description of such rights:
-----------------------------------------------------------
squatter's right (noun, Law, Informal) "A claim to real property [real estate], especially public land, that may be granted to a person who has openly possessed and continuously occupied it without legal authority for a prescribed period of years."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sound familiar? Bundy has grazed his cattle on public Nevada land for a long time, and in open defiance of government orders to either pay grazing fees or shut down his cattle ranching operation. Remaining on land that one does not own without permission from the owner of that land is what legally defines a person as a "squatter." And if that squatter is known by the owner to be using the property, for any purpose, without the owner's consent, and uses the property for at least the required number of years stated in a state's law, then the squatter meets the requirements to lay claim to the land. The only recourse the owner can use to prevent such a claim from succeeding is to either have the squatter legally evicted from the property before such time as the squatter meets the required time interval to lay his claim, or (in some states such as here in Maine) the owner can have a sheriff post a legal notice at several places of high visibility on his property which forbids any such squatter's claim to be made. Such notice would have to be posted for a certain period of time (I think it is 30 days here in Maine) before the owner is protected against such a claim, and since the posting would immediately alert the squatter of the owner's intentions, the squatter could immediately file his claim if he has already met the requirements. Therefore, the owner would actually have no recourse unless such a posting, or eviction action, was carried out before the squatter met the requirements. You see, the reason why a squatter is afforded such rights is that he legally becomes what is called a "tenant at will" if he remains upon land, or in any building on that land, which is owned by someone else, without permission of the owner. And if the owner does not take legal steps to have that unwanted person evicted then the law says that the owner is tacitly in agreement that the squatter has a legal right to remain upon and later lay claim to the land when the required time period has passed.

Bundy has been using this property for many years, so would certainly meet the time requirement, whatever it may be in Nevada. And squatter's rights apply to public land as equally as they do to private property. Squatter's rights laws were first recognized and utilized in the United States around 1855, and have remained as viable law ever since.

[aljhoa]

-----------------------------------------------------------
squatter's right (noun, Law, Informal) "A claim to real property [real estate], especially public land, that may be granted to a person who has openly possessed and continuously occupied it without legal authority for a prescribed period of years."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse possession is a method of acquiring title to real property by possession for a statutory period under certain conditions, viz: proof of non-permissive use which is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period.
Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cliven Bundy's Daughter, Shiree Bundy Cox, Explains Why the BLM Came for Her Father |


Al