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 āAgenda 21ā³, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy. 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 āsustainable developmentā. 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.
So the conflict between Nevada 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.
For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma borderā¦
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLMās focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
āIn Texas,ā Miller says, āthe BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didnāt pay him one cent.ā
Needless to say, officials down in Texas are not pleased about this. In fact, just check out what the attorney general of Texas is sayingā¦
Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
āI am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,ā General Abbott wrote. āThe BLMās newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principlesāincluding the rule of lawāthat form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.ā
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, āThis is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ā¦And now theyāve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.ā
Does the federal government actually need more land?
As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. statesā¦
Nevada: 84.5 percent Alaska: 69.1 percent Utah: 57.4 percent Oregon: 53.1 percent Idaho: 50.2 percent
The federal government does not need more land. But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented.
The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like. If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in greenā¦
If you do not go along with the āsustainable developmentā agenda, you risk being labeled a āthreatā to be dealt with.
For example, Senator Harry Reid has used the label ādomestic terroristsā to describe those that showed up to support Cliven Bundy at his ranch.
Reid could have used lots of other labels. But he specifically chose to call them terrorists. And considering what the law allows the feds to do to āterroristsā, that is quite chilling.
And donāt think that if you just stay quiet that you wonāt get labeled as a āterroristā. In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist. Just check out the list below. It comes from my previous article entitled ā72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered āPotential Terroristsā In Official Government Documentsāā¦
1.Ā Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2.Ā Those that advocate for states’ rights
3.Ā Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4.Ā “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5.Ā Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
8.Ā Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward otherĀ religions”
9.Ā Those that “take action to fight against theĀ exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10.Ā “Anti-Homosexual”
11.Ā “Anti-Immigrant”
“Opposition to equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians”
Members of the Family Research Council
Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
34.Ā Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
Do any of those criteria apply to you?
If so, then you are a āpotential terroristā according to the U.S. government.
We live at a time when the federal government is becoming increasingly oppressive. Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by John W. Whiteheadā¦
Itās not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nationās best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass.
In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on usālisten in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databasesābut those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes.
This was not what our founders intended.
Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day, and most Americans donāt even seem to care.
In the end, we will pay a great price for our apathy.
