Skip to content

Nine Western states convene in an attempt to take back Federal land

April 19, 2014

 Here is a map of land owned by the Federal government:

federal land

  As you can clearly see, most of the Western land is actually owned by the Federal government and not by the states or the people. (Agenda 21, anybody?) 

  Therein lies the problem for while the Federal government has claimed this land in the interest of preserving it, this opens up the door for ulterior motives and nefarious dealings–as has come to light with the case of Cliven Bundy and Harry Reid. Let me state here that I am not defending Cliven Bundy for if he refused to pay mandatory fees he was asking for trouble, however the Federal government’s response was more than excessive and leads one to think there is more to this story than we are being told.

   Now that the standoff in Bunkerville is over–for the moment–Harry Reid has been very vocal, going so far as to call those who oppose the Federal government’s excessive reaction to Cliven Bundy domestic terrorists, and for good reason (at least for he and his family); his son just happens to have a deal with the Chinese to build solar panels in Clark County, and he also received a sweetheart land deal under the stimulus package. I would argue that by surrounding the Bundy ranch with snipers when they could have walked up to the door and issued him a warrant for his arrest that the Federal government was acting more like terrorists than the people who came to Bundy’s defense, but that is just my opinion.

  Is it any wonder Harry Reid is just a little perturbed that the situation in Nevada did not play out the way he hoped it would? (And by the way, how exactly did Harry Reid, and many others for that matter, become a millionaire on a Senator’s salary?)

  While this story has not yet been fully played out, and while this is not going to end well for Cliven Bundy or his family, perhaps just a little bit of good can come from this because it has highlighted the aforementioned problem–the Federal government owns too much of the Western land.

  It is now being reported in this story that nine Western states are convening to discuss ways to return Federal land back to the states where it belongs. This meeting was scheduled before the now infamous standoff in Nevada, but that crisis has only served to heighten the importance of this conference.

  Here is more:

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

“It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as “just a person who lives in the woods,” said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

“We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

  Will anything come from this? Will this be successful? Probably not, but at least it has brought this issue to the forefront and opened up debate about why the Federal government owns so much of the west in the first place.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. April 19, 2014 7:44 pm

    Reblogged this on


  2. April 19, 2014 8:10 pm

    Two thoughts. Why is this story being reblogged all over the place? Isn’t a hundred sites enough? Also, if anyone is upset that there’s too much federal land, why not just buy some parcels?


    • April 19, 2014 8:17 pm

      It is being reblogged all over the place because people think that it is an important story and if that is the case there can never be too much coverage–especially when the MSM is going to ignore it. The more people that read about it the better!


      • April 19, 2014 10:33 pm

        The more people know of the truth behind it the better, since so much propaganda material and belittling is going on (against those who aren’t blinded by the lies). Isn’t that ALINSKY’S RULES play book? Humm maybe RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.) Check Bunkerville’s blog for a copy.


      • April 20, 2014 7:31 am

        Exactly! Things like this can never get enough coverage, especially with the MSM unwilling to cover it. You know, I have never read Alinsky’s Rules other than parts of it, I do have to read the whole thing one of these days.


      • April 20, 2014 10:55 am

        That’s the Regime’s ‘mindset’ – they train their minions ‘that’ and sociopath thinking. ‘Know thy enemy’ comes to mind – about reading their playbook ‘rules’. Another thing to go w/ this are the NWO 10 Commandments (The Georgia Guidestones).
        It’s like the ‘mire pit’, sticky and ensnaring reminding me of story of ‘Brer Rabiit’ “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.” A lesson in what not to fight, and how to get out of the trap. So, before more ‘laws’ are changed it’s best to get the land back now!


      • April 20, 2014 11:26 am

        While I agree that the controversy last week seems to have been overblown, I’m not sure we ought just to blame the feds. Remember that the point of the federal involvement was to remove Bundy’s cattle from the federal land where they’d been trespassing for something like 20 years. I suspect the firearms carried by the feds may have been a prudent response to Bundy’s call for a range war and the participation of scores of well-armed citizens eager to challenge the government’s exercise of private property rights.

        The problem with the post is the use of the phrase “. . . nine Western states are convening to discuss ways to return Federal land back to the states where it belongs.” This phrase begs the question “To whom does the land belong?” by assuming that the federal government somehow usurped title to the land from the western states.

        Title to most of the land east of the Mississippi can be traced to grants from various European nations, whose title was vested in the right of conquest. From there it transferred, by and large, to private ownership or the ownership of the various colonies, later states. Land west of the Mississippi, by contrast, was claimed by the US, again by right of conquest of because it was ceded or sold by other powers. Thus, the federal title to the land predates the existence of any of the western states.

        It would be fiscally irresponsible for the national government simply to give up title to those lands simply because Mr. Bundy and others don’t care to pay rents for the use of the land. If the issue is one of management, that might reasonably be a topic of discussion, but any thought that the national government should turn title over to the states or to individuals is naive and economically imprudent.

        Happy Easter! Take good care, and may God bless us all!



      • April 20, 2014 6:06 pm

        It is funny you mentioned the Georgia Guidestones Zip because I just heard about these last week while watching a show about America’s secrets on H2.


      • April 20, 2014 6:11 pm

        TGY, that is an interesting point you made about how and why the Feds own so much of the west. But I think you are off slightly in regards to why the feds went in the way they did. They did not go in this way because of the armed citizens who were helping Bundy, for as I understand it they did not show up until after the Feds moved in. I also think you are downplaying the possible role Rory Reid might have in all this and I also find it interesting how vocal Harry Reid has been. It almost sounds like he is trying to goad the people into doing something foolish.


  3. pat permalink
    April 21, 2014 10:11 pm

    commenters speak with no knowledge of the facts or the law. Bundy was not illegally grazing-his grazing rights go way back before the BLM and usa,inc. existed…and the federal government, aka USA,INC. has no lawful or legal jurisdiction outside of the district of criminals–aka Washington, DC…and he owed nothing because his rights prededed these interlopers. With all that said, the feds don’t hold owership, they are supposedly the stewards of those lands…and they have been unlawfully seizing not just state property but also with guns running people off their own private land…and cutting deals with corporations and foreign governments out the whazzooo-like Reid and his China deal–which is also a cannard. I suspect it is even deeper. These corporate alien psychpaths want southeastern Nevada and Utah for their alien bases—area 51 and 71 want to either move or expand and they want Bundy Ranch as part of that…he is the last holdout in that area. I just really believe this is so much more than what these commenters have a clue about, Let us find out the truth before we blow smoke.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: