It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: muse7
Why stop at just the BLM? Why not return the entire US to the natives? We stole the land from them.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why does the federal government own so much land to begin with?
As some of you may or may not know, the “United Nations” thru a mandated program called “Agenda 21”, have been very active in accumulating various properties under the guise of the “World Heritage Foundation”. What the foundations have proposed under U.N. directive and the Agenda 21 outline is to protect various national, state, local and residential areas from further human access. They have over the past decade introduced this program in order to “Protect” lands, animals and water ways from any adverse effects of man.
These protected lands are taken from the control of the Bureau of Land Management and placed into the hands of private and some times nefarious groups or companies to protect. What has been transpiring from many of these allocations is the land is in fact no longer protected (as it was through state and local control) and is being used for corporate gains to individuals we know not who they are. Propaganda has been rampant to obtain by way of consent through locals area un-educated officials. These officials are either blind to the agenda or ignorant to our future. They are however allowing this national take over of our inherent parks and national lands.
Feds Use The BLM to Gain Control of Local Resources – U.N. AGENDA 21
The federal government is not authorized to own land. The Constitution restricts the feds to establishing “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other Needful Buildings” and reserves for the States the right to own land. “Our Founding Fathers specifically restricted what land the Federal government could own,” explains the Constitutional Concepts Foundation. “Even then, the Federal government had to purchase the land from the State, with the approval of the State Legislature.
Oregon Occupation About Unconstitutional Federal Land Grab
Here’s the story the corporate media will not tell you. Dwight Hammond, 73 and son Steven Hamond, 46, were prosecuted and convicted as part of an effort to remove the Hammond family from their ranch land. The feds want to drive ranchers and private property owners off the land because on patented land (an exclusive private property land grant), which has passed into private ownership, a mining interest does not need to lease land or file a plan or notice with the federal government.
In regard to oil, the BLM “does not tell you that its share of total oil production has dropped dramatically due to substantial increases in oil production on private and state lands that are not subject to the onerous regulations and permitting delays of the federal government,” notes the Institute for Energy Research. The Hammonds and other private property owners stand in the way of total federal monopolization of natural resources and that is why in part we are witnessing an unprecedented land grab in the West.
Hammonds Targeted Because Government Wants to Steal Their Land
“Why should this be a problem for me?”, you might be asking yourself. Because this is the template being used by the Bureau of Land Mismanagement under orders from BAR members in black robes doing the bidding of the Crown/Vatican. It fulfills the directives of Agenda 21.
Source
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: introvert
Because unless it is privately-owned and privately-maintained, someone has to come in to take care of the land.
If the US government did not maintain many areas of land not privately-owned, wildfires would be a much bigger issue, animal populations would be unchecked and we potentially would have to deal with much bigger issues.
How did the Native American's manage to get along for thousands of years without the BLM, it's miraculous!
They lived with Nature, we exploit it. They managed the forests mostly letting them be. Only in their natural state can they remain healthy. Europeans came along and killed off the herds of Buffalo, cut down the forests, paved the landscape, built dams, roads, railways, cities, all choking the landscape and contributing to destruction of the environment, animal and fish habitat.
Mountain top removal to mine coal, mining for minerals, oil drilling, and today Fracking, a hideous portrait of whats called 'progress'.
But I digress…
The Natives of this land lived side by side with Nature, taking what they needed and never more than what they needed. They could never understand why the white man took more than he needed.
Thats crazy.
The Natives of this land lived side by side with Nature, taking what they needed and never more than what they needed. They could never understand why the white man took more than he needed.
The Natives of this land lived side by side with Nature, taking what they needed and never more than what they needed. They could never understand why the white man took more than he needed.
Thats crazy.
They would have advanced and raped the land like everyone else.
originally posted by: Punisher75
I love when people who have benefited from technology complain about technology on technological devices, as if one can have internet without mining copper for wire.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Punisher75
Its not a bogus claim. Chief Redcloud ( i think) decided to go over to the white man, to adopt his ways, wear his clothes, move into their cities, get an education. Eventually he quit and went back to his people and told them, the white manis crazy, they charge each other for everything, rich men live in castles while people starve outside their front door with nothing to eat. They amass great fortunes, more than they could ever use, live inside boxes of wood, and lie, cheat and steal from each other with regular abandon.
Before this time period Native Americans had not been exposed to the concept of money, strong drink, or firearms, that made settling conflict impersonal.
Their battles (called counting coup) were mostly for show because killing, robbing and raping within their own community was frowned upon. Nobody went hungry or destitute in their tribal community.
I wish I had a link for all that, there were threads here once upon a time…
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: Punisher75
I love when people who have benefited from technology complain about technology on technological devices, as if one can have internet without mining copper for wire.
They use light cable nowadays, Copper is needed for FMJ ammunition. Mining is destructive to the environment, so are bullets.
originally posted by: machineintelligence
Problem solved in a righteous manner. It is all land that by rights belongs to the native tribes it was taken from am I right? The best way to resolve this issue is to return to the American native tribes all land currently under the so called Bureau of Land Management or BLM. It is the best most right solution in my view. The native tribes can once again be the ones to decide what is the best use of their ancestral lands.
Corporatism now is in control of the land under the management of the BLM. They work to advance corporatism not to care for the land. I think the native tribes could manage it far better if given the chance and the budget of the BLM for a transition period. What say you ATS members?