The Arizona Sentinel

April 24, 2014

The Constitution makes no provisions for the federal government to own land in the states!!!

Filed under: My Posts — thearizonasentinel @ 11:39 am

Judge Napolitano was on “Hannity” tonight to discuss the Nevada ranch standoff, eminent domain, and the percentage of land owned by the federal government.

the complete segment:

Napolitano said that the government should file a judgment against Cliven Bundy, and when he passes away or sells his property, the government will get the judgment plus interest.

So why won’t they do that?

“The government, instead of using the least force necessary, which is what the rule of law is, is using the most force possible because they want to intimidate the Bundys – I’m convinced he cannot be intimidated – they want to intimidate others, and they’re probably a little unsure of themselves, Sean, and so they’re compensating for that lack of surety, of certainty, with this massive, Stalinistic-like use of force.”

Hannity and Napolitano also discussed recent cases in which the government is seizing private property under eminent domain.

“Unfortunately, the law has changed and it has changed in a totalitarian direction,” Napolitano said.

The Bureau of Land Management is now reportedly eyeing property along the Red River, which Napolitano said is a big mistake. He said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is a “tenacious defender of personal liberty and property rights.” Napolitano believes that we will see a vastly different reaction in Texas than in Nevada. He said the state government will probably take legal action and maybe even use force.

Hannity and Napolitano touched on the latest figures on percentages of land owned by the federal government, many of which are very high. In 2010, the U.S. government owned 81 percent of land in Nevada, for example.

      “The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states whose borders it exists, period,” Napolitano said.


April 22, 2014

American Lands Council/ Western States must demand that the federal government get out!!!

The federal government made a promise…

…to transfer title to the public lands – it honored the promise with all states east of Colorado even though many of those states were as much as 90% controlled by the federal government for decades. They were successful in compelling congress to transfer their lands.

Key Points:

Resource Link:

Sign the Petition to remove the federal government from our lands:

Thank You Harry Reid, you and your federal goons have woke up a sleeping giant, the WEST.

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: , , , , , — thearizonasentinel @ 10:13 am

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy performed a remarkable public service for America over the last couple weeks.

He exposed the utter ruthlessness, brutishness and Gestapo tactics of the federal government in dealing with honest, hard-working Americans who live off the land – our land.

Claiming Bundy’s cattle ranching operation was endangering desert tortoises, the Bureau of Land Management treated him like he was Ted Bundy. I take that back. The serial rapist, mass murderer and necrophile got due process.

When Cliven Bundy’s neighbors turned out to support him, as good American neighbors should, the BLM sent in helicopters, four-wheel-drive vehicles and an estimated 200 armed officers to deal with the cowboy and his family, threatening another Ruby Ridge or Waco-style slaughter.

But I don’t think it was about tortoises. No, sir. In fact, with all the gear and manpower the BLM brought to Clark County to round up the cowboy and his cattle, they did more environmental damage to the area than Cliven Bundy ever could have dreamed of doing.

This was about something else.

It’s always about something else.

Maybe – just maybe – it had to do with another Nevadan by the name of Harry Reid.

It seems the Senate majority leader has been doing favors for a Chinese energy giant ENN, which has plans to build massive solar facilities in that area – tortoises or no tortoises.

It seems the director of BLM is Reid’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze. BLM had posted on its website documents stating the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations. The agency removed it when the standoff became national news.

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

That would be the Chinese solar plant – the Management, or BLM.

They were getting a mega-deal. On April 3, 3012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of ENN, had teamed up with Harry Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value.

But the story gets better. Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nev.

A Reuters report stated: “[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert. Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

And there’s an even bigger story of scandal and corruption still beneath this show of force by the BLM, orchestrated by Harry Reid.

On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.

The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.

The first major intrusion of China in the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to the Obama administration decision in October 2009 to allow state-owned Chinese energy giant China Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, to purchase a multi-million-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.

By allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. oil and natural gas production, the Obama administration reversed a policy of the Bush administration that in 2005 blocked China on grounds of national security concerns from an $18.4-billion deal in which China planned to purchase California-based Unocal Corp.

China’s two, giant, state-owned oil companies acquiring oil and natural gas interests in the USA are CNOOC, 100 percent owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, and Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, an investment company owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, incorporated in China in 1998, largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide.

On March 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal compiled a state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010.

Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal.
Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.
Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal.

On March 6, 2012, in a separate story, the Wall Street Journal described that China’s strategy implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sinopec, involved the following components: “Seek minority states, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.”

But back to Cliven Bundy and Harry Reid.

Remember Solyndra?

ENN intended to create solar energy farms on the Nevada land, despite the nearly 50 percent plunge in solar panel prices globally in the previous 15 months that led to the bankruptcy of solar equipment maker Solyndra LLC, which had received approximately $535 million in U.S. government loan guarantees.
And, yes, money exchanged hands between ENN and Reid. The Chinese energy company contributed $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Sen. Reid over the previous three election cycles.

Reid was recruited by ENN during a 2011 trip he took to China with nine other U.S. senators, supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States. The Senate group accompanying Reid on his 2011 trip to China included six other Democrats and three Republicans: Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

Thank you, Cliven Bundy for bringing all of this to the public’s attention.
· America is with you.
· I am with you.
· Enough is enough.
· Thank you for exposing how crony capitalism works hand in hand with phony environmentalism.
· Indeed, as Kris Kristofferson once wrote, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact


Joseph Farah About | Email | Archive

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, “The Tea Party Manifesto,” and his classic, “Taking America Back,” now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

April 18, 2014

The Bundy Ranch and its history , by Carol Bundy. An American Family

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: , , , — thearizonasentinel @ 11:54 am

April 17, 2014

The Canning of Americans , The Government Fed, State, County, want your property

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: , , — thearizonasentinel @ 6:56 pm

Please watch both of these videos and share with everyone you know.

Better wake up America before its to late:

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of “underprivileged” drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools of a “home”.

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while some slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones.

You know you live in a Country run by Marxists if…
The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iPhones, TV’s and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you “safe”.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

You know you live in a Country run by Communists if…
Using the “N” word is considered “hate speech” but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered “art”.

April 16, 2014

Summary of Legislative Jurisdiction on Public Lands in Colorado!

In 2007 I organized the Right a Way bill in Arizona SB 1264. Others tried to take credit, but many knew better, that’s history. Here is a document that a team has prepared for Colorado, but can be applied in all 50 states. It also sheds light on the current issue that the Bundys are dealing with in Nevada. Read these two documents then send them to everyone you know. Its time we reclaim our lands and manage them within the Sovereign framework of our States and Counties.



For More vital information check out

Comment received on recent post nails it:

Yours is one of the very few reports of the determinations in the Hage case. I wonder why isn’t there more done to uncover the full extent and punish the criminal BLM conduct.

We know the BLM has been dealing with many ranchers similarly over the last several decades (Bundy, Hage, Laney in NM, 49 of the 52 in Bundy’s area, etc.). By virtue that many went under, we also know that these tactics were brutally effective. Since we know the BLM engaged in conspiracy, fraud, racketeering and other nefarious methods to deprive at least one of their rights, we are reasonably assured they deprived them all of their rights with these same illegal methods.

“In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption
Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

The BLM’s use of illegal tactics to strip rights is the core, underlying issue that needs to be investigated and prosecuted, and amends made to all of the people they have trampled.

The Following is must be understood by all Americans west of the 100 Meridian!

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land.

Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development.

The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state.

The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and 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” – (Emphasis added).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states.

Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.”

However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.”

This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations.

This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government.

Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

By Michael Lotfi, Daily Sheeple;

About author: Michael Lotfi is a Persian, American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and Twitter.

This Land is My Land and we will fight to protect and preserve!

April 15, 2014

No Govenor or County Sheriff should ever allow any outside agency federal or otherwise to engage in any agressive action toward State /County Citizens….

Filed under: My Posts — thearizonasentinel @ 7:26 pm

Note: Also included with the email I am forwarding are “papers addressing the issue of the Supremacy Clause and federal law enforcement authority.” Here are excerpts from the attached 4/9/14 correspondence written by Ramona Morrison (Member, Board of Agriculture) that was addressed to Mr. Jim Barbee (Board of Agriculture, Nevada Department of Agriculture) — that provides background on the Bundy Ranch (highlights added):

In the early 1990′s, Clark County ranchers became victims of the threatened listing of the desert tortoise under the ESA. The BLM proceeded to manage for tortoise without an official listing adding economically devastating and physically impossible terms and conditions to the grazing permit to drive those ranchers out of business and off their Constitutionally protected grazing preferences. Mr. Bundy chose a different course, refused to sign another grazing permit that was designed to break him, and didn’t pay grazing permit fees.

A few short years after the ranchers were gone the BLM began selling the same land to developers. The BLM insisted cattle couldn’t possibly cohabitate with tortoises, as they had for over 100 years, because they may step on tortoise eggs. However, the BLM was apparently unconcerned about the effect excavators and paving equipment would have on tortoise “habitat.” In other words, the tortoise under the ESA was merely a political weapon to forcibly clear title on federally managed lands without compensation.

Fast Forward to today with the looming sage grouse listing under the ESA. A lot of other ranchers are about to get to walk a thousand miles in Mr. Bundy’s shoes. If the BLM and USFS continues on their current path, it is likely there will be future impoundments. Therefore, the Department and Board needs to be very clear on who has what authority.

Mr. Bundy owns a ranch which has vested right to water and forage, as well as improvements dating back to the late 1880′s. Those rights are recognized and protected by every land law passed by Congress including the Taylor Grazing Act. Mr. Bundy has attempted to assert those rights, albeit in a manner that was ill-advised and in my opinion would not survive in the courts. However, his underlying case is very similar factually to Hage v. U.S. and U.S. V. Hage. . . .

[For more on Hage v. U.S., go here: ]


On Apr 14, 2014, at 8:32 AM, [deleted for privacy] wrote:

Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Email from Ramona Hage Morrison commenting on the Bundy situation – Wayne Hage Jr is at the Bundy Ranch

Government vehicles and personnel outside of the Bundy ranch / Cliven and Carol Bundy

My brother Wayne Hage drove to the Bundy Ranch last night with a friend to provide emotional support to Cliven during this federal raid on his ranch and encourage them to keep a cool head. However, I am very concerned about the safety of Wayne and the Bundy family.

Here is the problem. The BLM and BLM attorney out of Sacramento, Nancy Zahedi, are running this entire law enforcement action. The Sheriff has told Mr. Bundy he is staying “neutral”. As you are aware, every land law passed by Congress has reserved civil and criminal jurisdiction to the states unless they have a specific session of exclusive jurisdiction by the State legislature under Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. The lands at issue here are held in “proprietorial interest only” jurisdiction, wherein the federal government has the same status as “any other land owner.”

I spoke with the Bundy’s and my brother this morning. Here is what is happening on the ground according to them. They said over 40 government vehicles including BLM, Park Service, Homeland Security and FBI passed by their property this morning, not counting rent-a-cowboys, and other bureaucrats that are elsewhere on the ranch. They understand from a Mesquite city police officer and their personal friend (whose department has been ordered by Clark Co. Sheriff Gillespie to stand down) that the Bundy’s should not be deceived; that the BLM has hired special forces wearing BLM gear to run this operation. Also, at a private airport near the Bundy ranch, photos were taken of a military helicopter landing and military men in full military gear disembarking. This possibly invokes the Treaty of Posse Comitatus. The Bundy’s say their ranch is completely surrounded by federal forces on the hills around the ranch.

Clearly the Clark Co. Sheriff has committed malfeasance of office by allowing federal employees impersonating law enforcement officers to breach the peace in his county and not running this impoundment himself under state law. I sit on the Board of Agriculture and we have brand inspectors situated in the middle of this fracas for whom I am concerned. However, as far is Congress is concerned, I believe the time has come to open investigative hearings into these land management agencies and their widespread unlawful law enforcement activities.

My questions are these: Under what authority are these bureaucrats receiving appropriations for law enforcement guns, equipment and manpower? Under what authority are they conducting these activities? These same questions apply to the USFWS raid on Gibson Guitar. As you are well aware, Congress has only granted federal law enforcement authority in very limited instances.

On the local level we obviously need Sheriffs like Sheriff DeMeo in the neighboring county of Nye to stand up to these thugs. But the reality is in the west that the lowest level federal employee can waltz into practically any office from Nevada’s Governor on down and claim they have supremacy under the Supremacy Clause and Territorial Clause and our local officials will most often submit, including the Governor. We for all practical purposes have a territorial governor, a sheriff who instead of serving at the pleasure of the folks who elected him, serves at the orders of the BLM. It goes downhill from there. These federal agencies need to be disarmed. Unless the United States and individual states intend to continue down this slippery slope of acquiescing to an unelected, armed, federal police force operating under an unlawful assertion of power, then I believe we had better get control of this situation soon. We need everyone to follow the law INCLUDING federal employees. These out-of-control federal land management bureaucrats are an obvious place to start.

I have attached several papers addressing the issue of the Supremacy Clause and federal law enforcement authority. I have additional information on this subject which I am happy to provide.

Ramona Hage Morrison




Americans have had enough of this tyrannical government. Go argue with Putin leave the states alone!

When elected law enforcement fails their oath of office. Including Governors tyranny is the result. Federal agencies must be removed from all 50 states.

April 14, 2014

BLM is an Agent of Foreign Principle? What a screwed up Government!

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: , — thearizonasentinel @ 12:14 am

Received this today, Kinda sheds a whole new light on things!

Subject: BLM is Agent of Foreign Principle?

This was just posted on Facebook by an active participant on the Charlotte Iserbyt Fan page:


I just got this from another astute friend, I am an education today.

Carol Ray Ray Eder BLM, is actually classified as an: “Agent of Foreign Principle”, under the…
intergovernmental Personnel Act.
Irish: THEY ARE NOT US GOVERNMENT THEY ARE FOREIGN AGENTS IN DISGUISE, THEY LACK AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, CONSENT and they are causing Millions in damages not only the Rancher Bundy, But to every man woman and child of the US..

The BLM is under the Intergovernmental Personnel Program
42 U.S. Code § 4702 – Administration of authorities
The authorities provided by this chapter shall be administered in such manner as
(1) to recognize fully the rights, powers, and responsibilities of State and local governments, and
(2) to encourage innovation and allow for diversity on the part of State and local governments in the design, execution, and management of their own systems of personnel administration.
Operating Outside of Their Scope
42 U.S. Code § 4721 – Declaration of purpose
The purpose of this subchapter is to assist State and local governments to strengthen their staffs by improving their personnel administration.

* Notice Land Grabbing,Theft and Terrorism is not in their Job description

April 12, 2014

Government Corruption , Remove all federal agencies from our states.

This is lengthy but there is some really valuable information in it.

Jim Stone’s web site had been previously hacked so rather than send people to his site, I copied the article, with his permission and I’m including it here.

If you are concerned about losing access to our forest land, or concerned about your water, this is important.

BLOCKBUSTER: Straight from a rancher’s mouth


Immediate family friend of the Bundy’s tells it all in a mail sent to

This is the jackpot of details you have never seen anywhere else, and if you did, they originated here, spread it around, ARCHIVE AND POST! (please link back to here when posting elsewhere)

A Rancher TELLS ALL:

B Hunt wrote:

I live in SW Utah. I grew up on a ranch less than 100 miles from the Bundy’s ranch. My father knows Cliven Bundy. I know Cliven’s son Ryan. This is not a hoax, it is an action of force by the BLM.

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy’s signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale (‘R’ Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy’s signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute). Because Bundy claims ownership over maybe 350-500 head of branded cattle, the other 500-700 estimated head of cattle would all be considered feral. BLM officially backed off, but we suspect they are still secretly shipping them through Utah without any permission to do so, to “private” buyers in Colorado. The contract cowboys that the BLM hired to do the roundup are from Sampson Livestock in Meadow, Utah (traitors one and all).

From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water–through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers–from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).

Now, for Cliven Bundy, he’s not fighting this for his cattle or his own livelihood. He recognizes that he will probably die before this fight is over. He has said multiple times that he is fighting this to wake people up about the tyranny of the Federal Government and also to help wake up the western states about getting the rights to their own land back from the federal government, which has repeatedly shut down ranchers and closed off land. (MO = 1st, get all the ranchers, farmers, Native Americans, and foresters that use the land for positive, sustainable production off of the land; 2nd, grab up all the resources; 3rd, close off the lands to public access including camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, boating, shooting, etc; 4th, sell off the resources to the highest bidder regardless of what that will do to the land, the local environment, or the economy; 5th, collect royalties on the resources in perpetuity; 6th, reduce and eliminate all SLS and PILT payments to the states, impoverishing them beyond belief.)

Anyway, thanks for posting about this. It is important for us to be able to raise the appropriate resistance.

My Response:

Thank you for sending your valuable insight. This contained the details we were all missing.

From this we can now firmly conclude:

1. The BLM’s actions are not only flatly illegal, they are unlawful, and not only unlawful, they are so unlawful that it took bribing someone with a $300,000 payoff to get them to accept stolen cattle from a Government agency. I do not think that could be topped ANYWHERE else in the world, other than with something like a Mexican drug cartel.

So we have a clear cut case of unlawful and prosecutable actions by the BLM in this case.

2. The real goal is to shut down public access to these lands. Obviously Cliven Bundy was not a jerk, and he let people go back there to explore. I myself have done a LOT of back country exploring, and noticed in the early 2000′s that they closed down all the back roads about a half mile before the destination they used to go to to discourage people from exploring the wilderness. Rather than drive the whole way, you had to get out and walk a considerable distance to scenes such as Swazy’s leap, Paul Bunyans Wood Pile, and practically anywhere else you would want to go while out 4 Wheeling. And in the desert sun, that long of a walk was usually tough to do. This resulted in these types of locations no longer being visited, which effectively equaled a shut down.

3. The motives are for profit. Rather than manage the lands responsibly, the BLM is stealing it from it’s rightful holders via corrupt actions and legal loop holes, and selling it off to corporate interests. This is cold hard proof that America is not a democracy, or more importantly a Republic, it is in fact a facist dictatorship where corruption rules and rights, freedom and honor are irrelevant

The BLM killed hundreds of desert tortoises on purpose

They say they had to kill them because they did not have the funds to care for them. Here are two really good solutions to that “problem.” 1. Just take them out in the desert and turn them loose. -OR- 2. They could have taken the three million dollars they said the Bundy raid will cost them, CALLED OFF THE RAID, and SAVED THE TURTLES with that three million. If they had three million to destroy Bundy, they had it for the turtles as well but did not use it for that because tyranny comes first.

Steeped in arrogance and incompetence, once again a Federal agency fails to see the obvious. Or perhaps they do see it but they could care less about nature and instead operate as the enforcement arm of a band of high ranking thugs.

The truth, in the words of a Bundy


I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money’s against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,”how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

Bundy Ranch is REAL

UPDATE: The Nevada Militia has shown up at the Bundy ranch to kick the BLM out. The governor of Nevada celebrated the arrival of the militia and spoke in support of the Bundys, issuing the statement “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans”.

As I suspected, the Bundy’s ranch is on land that the Fed wants to mine for minerals and they need the water that is reserved for the cattle to conduct mining operations. The land has been assesed to have high grade deposits of minerals that are good for military applications and the Fed wants the Bundys out of the way. Adding to the problem is that much of the land is prime real estate, and the Fed wants it to sell it off. EVEN MORE DAMNING is that the best and most prime real estate is actually owned by the Bundy’s which means the BLM is trespassing on much of it anyway. It is neither state nor federal land. There have been numerous attempts to kick the Bundy’s off their property so a tycoon can come in and put a residential development in. So as is the norm, a turtle or fly or slug or whatever has been used as an excuse for an eviction, when multibillion dollar corporations wanting the land for mining operations and real estate tycoons wanting the most prime areas are the real reason, and the muscle of the government most likely bought by campain contributions is being used to get the Bundy’s off the land after the Bundy’s refused really good offers for it from potential buyers.

The BLM is getting so anxious to get the cows off the land that they are running many of them to death, and that is why the backhoes are there to bury them. The BLM has hired blackwater mercenaries to snipe anyone who “does not belong” there.

Bundy Ranch comments:

“Feds say it will cost 3 million dollars to round up the cattle and dispose of them” My response:

I have the solution to the problem. Hire a bunch of cattle rustlers to go in there and steal all the cattle. They will GLADLY do it for FREE. Then just give the Bundy’s the “three million” for their grief.

“Feds say this is being done to save the desert tortoise” My response: I don’t think cows eat turtles. If the cows were devastating competition for them, they would have been gone in the 1800′s

About the “free speech” zone: Has tyranny gone so far that it even has to control where people shout to the desert wind? Obviously so, which is why that same tyranny thinks cows threaten turtles now. Or is it that the land those cows graze on is in fact being sold to China? Maybe Warren Buffet wants it. Who knows. But turtles rule. And they will taste good in China.

UPDATE: The cattle are not being killed and buried, they are in fact being taken by BLM supported cattle rustlers, as I said would be common sense. These rustlers have been given brand new trucks and trailers to do it, and they are selling the cattle at auction FOR PROFIT. THEY ARE SELLING THEM AT AUCTION, THE SAME WAY THE BUNDY FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING. So HOW DO YOU GET A $3 MILLION LOSS OUT OF STEALING A FORTUNE IN CATTLE AND SELLING IT? GOOD QUESTION, THE ONLY ANSWER TO WHICH IS OBVIOUS OUT OF CONTROL CORRUPTION.

The area is 600,000 acres. That is HUGE. And if you get out of your car on any of the roads you are immediately arrested and taken to federal prison, for committing a federal crime. Infrared sensors are in place all throughout the desert now, and there are numerous private corporate “blackwater” snipers on the hills. No one has been shot yet, but the state is certainly set for that.

Rising up peacefully is NOT the answer. You cannot peacefully remove any tyranny, tyranny laughs at people who think “peace” can bring about change in a system enforced by state sponsored violence. They brought the guns to the party FIRST.

-Original post- After looking over some of the videos and seeing what is going on out in Nevada, I firmly believe this is no hoax.

Citing illegal land usage, the BLM moved in on a ranch which has been in place since the wild west days, and had paid cattle rustlers go in and steal the cattle. Some of the cattle were also killed and buried with backhoes. The only difference between this and Waco is that at Waco people were actually targeted and killed, and with the Bundy ranch, a family legacy was destroyed. Both were grave rights violations.

I believe that what happened with the Bundy ranch was the result of continuous encroaching regulations and arrogance of the government, and that the Bundy family actually still had a truthful right to continue using the land under the law. Most likely the BLM was given unlawful orders to destroy the ranch and it’s cattle and they followed through on them. I am still looking into this story and will post updates. I have been to many protests, and know the CIA ones from the real ones. The video Farganne posted was of a real one, I have no idea why he doubts it.

This is a mirror image of the destruction of the hog farmers in Michigan, where a totally out of control government rolls around in arrogance like the pigs they killed will roll in _____

In God we trust

Older Posts »

The WordPress Classic Theme. Create a free website or blog at

Scanned Retina Resource

Border and National Security, Private Property rights, Removing Federal agencies from the states,American Energy Policy, Constitutional Conservative


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers