The standoff in Oregon between Ranchers (that came from all over the Western U.S.) and Federal and Oregon State government for all intents and purposes has ended with the arrest of its Nevada leader Ammon Bundy and the murder of fellow leader LaVoy Finicum. And recently Ammon’s father - Cliven Bundy - was arrested for leading a dispute protest of ranchers with the Federal government over what should be free-range grazing.
Sadly the Bundys and the Hammonds (thrown in jail for letting a back-burn started on their property to stop the BLM burn from destroying the ranch) dispute with the Federal government is being painted as domestic terrorism by the Mainstream Media and as lawbreaking by even many pro-gun enthusiasts. What the media fails to inform YOU is the reason these Western USA state Ranchers and Farmers are upset enough to take on the resource of the Federal government. Tony Newbill takes on the project of disseminating info you probably won’t see on TV or read in your newspapers. The central theme is: the Federal government has acquired HUGE amounts of land from the Western states as a condition for statehood and now the Federal bureaucracy is telling Ranchers and Farmers what they can and can’t do including charging fee usage of what should be considered public land at the least for grazing and water issues.
Tony Newbill on Federal Land Grab Conspiracy
Sent: 2/2/2016 2:04 PM
At this point I trust our State National Guard to enforce state Constitutional authority over the Federal takeover of state rights more than the State Legislative branch and here why. This is the consolidator of states rights if it gets activated. And a coup by the states’ National Guard to restore the states rights against this, would be the only way back. So we need to bring this to the attention of the people and make it clear that this will THREATEN FOOD SUPPLIES with the ideology that will be implementing this Waters Rule:
Key Issues Top Farm Bureau’s 2016 Strategic Plan
By JOHN DAVIS
FEBRUARY 1, 2016
Farm Bureau’s strategic action plan for 2016 includes several key issues for agriculture, including the government’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) action, protecting farmers’ rights to use biotechnology and trade issue. This news release from the group says the policy issues are a result of deliberations by delegates to the AFBF’s 97th Annual Convention in Orlando.
“We will continue to work hard to protect the business of American agriculture on all fronts. This plan is an important roadmap to key issue areas that AFBF and our grassroots members will address in 2016,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new Waters of the U.S. rule remains among the most pressing issues in agriculture. Although presented as a water issue, the measure in fact would unlawfully regulate land in violation of the Clean Water Act itself. The rule takes over local and state authority while threatening private property rights and normal farming activity nationwide.
“EPA’s blatant overreach is nothing short of a federal land grab,” Duvall said. “The administration has refused to listen to business owners, local governments and lawmakers. The courts have ordered this rule temporarily stopped. The Government Accountability Office found EPA’s actions illegal, and Congress–which originally gave EPA its authority under the Clean Water Act–called for an end to this rule. We won’t give up until it’s gone and farmers are free to care for their own land.”
AFBF’s action plan also supports agricultural biotechnology that promises great benefits for agriculture, consumers and the environment.
“Farmers and ranchers need better tools to be more productive and efficient. We will continue to defend farmers’ and ranchers’ access to biotechnology and protect their right to use other promising new technologies, from data services to drones,” Duvall said.
The AFBF board reaffirmed its commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
“TPP promises to open up markets around the Pacific Rim. These are some of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and America’s farmers and ranchers are ready to expand business there,” Duvall said. “We’re ready to work with Congress to move this agreement forward for the overall good of U.S. agriculture.”
This is good:
WOTUS Part 6: Sixth Circuit Issues a Potentially Permanent Stay Preventing Implementation
BY PETER MOHR
October 09, 2015
As recently discussed on this blog, last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard petitioners’ and respondents’ arguments from the four separate actions contesting implementation of the WOTUS rule. Collectively, petitioners represent a total of 18 states. In addition to the respondents, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, there are respondent-interveners consisting of environmental conservation groups and several states including, but not limited to, Oregon and Washington.
This morning, the Sixth Circuit granted petitioners’ motion for a stay preventing further implementation of the Rule. The court found that petitioners had demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of two claims: (1) that “the Rule’s treatment of tributaries, “adjacent waters,” and waters having a “significant nexus” to navigable waters is at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos,” and (2) that “the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted is facially suspect” under the federal Administrative Procedures Act. Further, the court showed great concern for “the burden – potentially visited nationwide on governmental bodies, state and federal, as well as private parties – and the impact on the public in general, implicated by the Rule’s effective redrawing of jurisdictional lines over certain of the nation’s waters[,]” and that “the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the Rule’s definitional changes counsels strongly in favor of maintaining the [prior version of the rule] for the time being.”
Finally, while the stay may assume the legal effect of a preliminary injunction, to be clear, the court’s order does not necessarily assume the weight of a preliminary injunction. While a preliminary injunction would remain in effect for the duration until such time that the court entered a final ruling on the merits of petitioners’ claims, this particular stay may possess a much more abbreviated shelf life. This is because, while the Sixth Circuit may have granted petitioners’ request for a stay, it did so pending the court’s future determination of whether it even possesses jurisdiction to hear the arguments before it. Should the Sixth Circuit determine it does not possess jurisdiction to hear these cases, it would appear the stay dissolves and it’s back to the drawing board for petitioners in federal district court.
But it’s temporary while the process unfolds in appeals, and while that is going on they are still picking off the resource users of states One by One.
[Blog Editor: The above are several info posts related to the “water of the United States” or WOTUS Rule formulated according bureaucratic interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The website source is CFACT or Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.]
Sent: 2/11/16 11:47
*************ATTENTION****** OREGON STILL UNDER ATTACK ********
We are still Under ATTACK in Oregon by the Bolshevik Environmental Marxists. This IS MY IRRIGATION DISTRICT! This is the Next Civil War!!!!! TELL ME they are Not trying to breed Violence!!!!!!!!!!
LAWSUITS THREATEN CENTRAL OREGON COMMUNITIES
February 9, 2016
Deschutes Basin Board of Control
Madras, Oregon – A preliminary injunction filed today in federal court by two environmental groups seeks to disrupt the water supplies of thousands of families throughout Oregon’s Deschutes Basin, including families in the communities of Bend, Madras, Redmond, and Tumalo. The two groups are asking the court to impose abrupt and severe restrictions on three reservoirs, which provide over 6,000 farms, ranches, and homes with water for crops, horses and other animals, gardens, schools, and parks. Collaborative, science-based efforts to improve fish and wildlife habitat in the Deschutes River involving local, state and federal agencies, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and conservation groups may also be affected by the litigation.
On January, 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Eugene Division) consolidated two separate lawsuits filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson, Arizona based group, and WaterWatch of Oregon, a Portland, Oregon based group. The consolidated lawsuit, and today’s preliminary injunction, claims the operations of three reservoirs (Crescent, Crane Prairie, and Wickiup) are harming the Oregon spotted frog, a species listed as “threatened” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2014. Crescent Lake reservoir is owned and operated by Tumalo Irrigation District, while Crane Prairie and Wickiup reservoirs are owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and operated by Central Oregon and North Unit irrigation districts. The environmental groups’ preliminary injunction demands that the court impose abrupt and severe restrictions on the use of the reservoirs, which may completely eliminate the ability to store water in them for irrigation purposes.
Mike Britton, President of the Deschutes Basin Board of Control, which represents eight irrigation districts (Districts), said in response to the environmental groups’ demands made to the court, “Collaboration is a better forum for helping the Oregon spotted frog than the courts.” Britton added, “The Districts, agencies, tribes and others continue to make real progress together, and I would encourage the environmental groups to work with us rather than against us.”
Craig Horrell, General Manager of Central Oregon Irrigation District, said today, “All of the Districts, including COID, have implemented dozens of water conservation projects that have helped to restore over 80,000 acre-feet of water for fish and wildlife in the Deschutes River and its tributaries.” Horrell added, “We’re capable of restoring even more water in the river, but people must work together.”
Ken Rieck, General Manager of Tumalo Irrigation District, said today, “Right now, Tumalo is piping a 3,400-foot section of canal that will increase instream flows in Tumalo Creek, Crescent Creek, and the Little Deschutes River.” Rieck added, “These higher instream flows will improve habitat for Oregon spotted frog, and other fish and wildlife.”
WE need HELP organizing a Town Hall meeting so all 6000 farmers plus all the affected business owners and resource managers can come and share the reasons why this will KILL OFF CENTRAL OREGON!!!!!!!!!!!! HELP ,,, HELP!!!!!
Sent: 2/12/16 7:24 AM
John they are running us all off the Lands because they want the resources all to themselves to share with their Internationalist Elitist buddies. This is like True Bolshevism, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 Style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is what it’s all about:
Knowledge & Courage: What the West Needs to Take Back Our Public Lands
DECEMBER 19, 2013
Cascade Business News
The federal government continues to control more than 50 percent of all lands in the western United States. Locked up in these federally controlled lands are more than $150 trillion in mineral values and more recoverable oil―in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming alone―than in the rest of the world combined. Failed federal forest policies prevent harvesting timber, which would improve forest conditions and wildfire resilience, provide useful consumer products and renewable energy feedstock, and revitalize rural schools and communities. FBI criminal activity alerts now warn that terrorists [Blog Editor: Islamic terrorists that is, not ranchers labeled as terrorists by the Federal government] are encouraging the use of wildfire in fuel-laden federal forests as weapons for jihad.
There is no good reason for the federal government to retain control over these lands and resources in states like Oregon. We in the West have, in good faith, simply tolerated the federal government’s delay in honoring its more than 200-year-old obligation to transfer title to these lands for so long that now most people assume there must be some valid reason the federal government controls our lands and resources.
But there is none. At a recent Continuing Legal Education seminar to several dozen lawyers, a law professor (who is frequently quoted as saying it is “clearly unconstitutional” for states to take action to secure the transfer of title to their public lands) displayed an annual average precipitation map indicating that the federal government retains control of western lands because they are “arid.”
The second reason he gave was that the founders of the western states simply gave up their lands as a sort of ransom for the privilege of statehood, citing half a sentence in the statehood enabling acts: “… forever disclaim all right and title….” The funny thing is, this same half sentence is word-for-word the same in the statehood enabling acts of almost all states east of Colorado, where the federal government did dispose of their public lands.
In fact, for decades, as much as 90% of the lands in Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida were kept under federal control. Then, one man had the knowledge and courage to rally citizens to compel Congress to transfer title to their public lands. His name was Thomas Hart Benton, a Democratic U.S. Senator from Missouri featured in President John F. Kennedy’s best-selling book Profiles in Courage.
The statehood enabling acts promising to transfer title to the public lands are the same for all states west and east of Colorado. It’s been done before―repeatedly and recently. And, returning these lands to state control is the only solution big enough to fund education; better care for our lands and forests; protect access; create jobs; and grow local, state, and national economies and tax base.
If we fail to stand up and take action to secure state and local control of our lands and abundant resources, it will not be because it is illegal, unconstitutional, or impossible. It will only be because we―and the local, state, and national leaders we “hire”―lack the knowledge and the courage to do what has been successfully done before.
Do your local, state, and national leaders know why there is a difference between the way the federal government has handled eastern and western lands? Have you inquired what specifically they are doing to compel Congress to honor the same statehood promise for our children and our future that Congress already kept with Hawaii and all states east of Colorado? Have you asked them what groups or influential individuals they will bring to the effort? Have you asked them what specifically you can do to help?
Now is the time to let our representatives know how transferring federally controlled lands back to the state can vastly benefit Oregon’s economy while preserving and using wisely our wealth of natural resources.
Federal Assets Above and Below Ground
January 17, 2013
Institute for Energy Research
The federal government owns a great deal of valuable assets both above and below ground. The above ground assets include buildings, lands, roads, railroad infrastructure, levees, dams, and hydroelectric generating facilities, to name just a few, many of which are underutilized. Below the ground, the federal government owns the rights to mineral and energy leases, from which they receive royalties, rents, and bonus payments.
Federal real property totals over 900,000 assets with a combined area of over 3 billion square feet and more than 41 million acres of land. Additionally, the federal government owns over 600 million acres of lands and minerals onshore, and owns or manages a total of approximately 755 million acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate. Offshore, the federal government owns some 1.76 billion acres of lands and mineral estate, extending out 200 nautical miles from our shores. The federal government’s total mineral estate holdings are therefore about 2.515 billion acres of lands. Thus, the federal government’s mineral estate land holdings surpass the total surface land area of the nation of Canada. These holdings, as we will see, are vastly underutilized.
In fiscal year 2009, federal agencies reported 45,190 underutilized buildings, an increase of 1,830 underutilized buildings from the previous fiscal year. In fiscal year 2009, these underutilized buildings accounted for $1.66 billion in annual operating costs, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The …REST THE REST
Let me ask you if you would have been told that the USA would accumulate 18 trillion in debt and 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities because of the last 30 years of unfair trade policies which allowed a trade partner to manipulate its currency in a fashion that created that SOUND ROSS PEROT said we would hear that only de-industrialized the USA that led to these loses in durable wealth creation and the conversion of any debt to an equity position, would you have agreed to that kind of trade policy?
THE PROMISES ARE THE SAME - IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE - IT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION BIG ENOUGH
The promise of the federal government to “extinguish title” (transfer title) to the public lands is the same to all newly created states – both east and West of Colorado. The U.S. Supreme Court refers to these statehood contracts (Enabling Acts) as “trusts,” “solemn compacts,” and “bi-lateral agreements” to be performed “in a timely fashion. You can see the western states’ enabling acts compared to those of states east of Colorado on the page “What’s Happening in My State.”
IF ALL OF THE STATES WERE EQUAL AT THEIR CREATION …
WHY THE DIFFERENCE?
- It’s clear that the difference didn’t stem from when the states were created (e.g. OK-1907 and CA-1850, or ND-1889 and ID-1890).
- The difference didn’t stem from the terms of transfer in their Enabling Acts because those are materially the same. Further evidence of this can be found here.
SO, WHY THE DIFFERENCE?
For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to dispose of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”
However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA. There should not be a difference.
One of the common myths that are thrown out in regards to the Transfer of Public Lands is that nothing like this has been done before in the history of our country. This is simply untrue.
As much as 90% of all lands in Illinois and Missouri (and AL, LA, AR, IN, FL, etc.) were federally controlled for decades! With so much land under federal control, these States persistently argued they could not:
- adequately fund education,
- grow their economies, or
- responsibly manage their abundant resources.
They banded together, refused to be silent or take “NO” for an answer, and compelled Congress to transfer title to their lands. In 1959, Congress granted directly to the State of Hawaii (the last and western-most State) “the United States’ title to all the public lands … within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.”
DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
Today, similar states with large amounts of federally controlled multiple-use lands are methodically loosing [sic] access to those lands, the health of those lands is deteriorating at an astounding pace, and we are struggling to be productive and grow our economies.
Now we need to band together once again as united states, refuse to be silent or take “NO” for an answer, and … READ THE REST
Is there a Plan to use Land out West to Pay our Debt to China?
By Jim White
May 22, 2014
… First, and foremost, is the fact that very little of what the government manages is done so in a judicious or fiscally responsible manner. Take a look at the chart below.
A second undeniable truth is that we are deeply steeped in un-manageable, and un-payable debt. As indicated by the link to the Debt Clock above, the United States has over 17 trillion in debt and over 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I doesn't take someone with a math degree to figure out that it is impossible to repay all of this debt, or fund the liabilities that have been promised to many. However, the criminals just keep printing; all the while driving us deeper and deeper into servitude. Are they seemingly unaffected by this because they have a plan to wrap all of this debt up in a land deal with our debtors? I say that there is a good possibility of this happening, and one can even see the "writing on the wall" if the evidence is examined critically.
… But, do those in power have a bigger plan to use western lands as a way to satisfy our debt obligation? Please indulge me while I explore that avenue.
One of the biggest creditors to the United States debt is China, which is no secret. However, a fact that may be less know is how much land China is buying in the United States. … READ ENTIRETY
Edited by John R. Houk
Most of Newbill’s links have an excerpt.
All text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor
© Tony Newbill