The Land and the Law in Conflict–2

Last week the BLM finally decided to take down yet another Nevada rancher. A rancher, who was by most media accounts, simply defying the law, thereby, unlawfully allowing his cattle to graze on the public lands in question, and to many people it seemed to be just another case of not paying the price, for the privilege, as established. The rules and regulations concerning grazing seem to change as easily as the direction of the wind:

—“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year’s fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) “Public rangelands” has the same meaning as in the *Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 – 514);

[*Rangelands or public rangelands: lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management or the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service in the 16 contiguous western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) on which there is domestic livestock grazing or which the appropriate Secretary determines may be suitable for domestic livestock grazing. Secretary: Secretary of the Interior unless otherwise designated. § 1902.] {The lack of any administered lands in the eastern States is quite noteworthy.}

(b) “Forage Value Index” means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

(c) “Beef Cattle Price Index” means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) “Prices Paid Index” means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service’s Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).

Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect.

Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

Ronald Reagan— The White House, February 14, 1986.

After reviewing the deeper questions surrounding the Bundy claim, especially in regard to his stating ‘he owned’ the “water rights” (aided by his sense of the proper context for which rules are applicable) his Rights to graze his cattle are superior to any other claim as judged by the prior appropiation doctrine. What was not made clear, to those not familiar with the laws in question, are the differences between these two distinctions of said water Rights:

—–“The United States recognizes two types of water rights. Although use and overlap varies over time and by state, the western arid states generally follow the doctrine of prior appropriation, while water rights for the eastern states follow riparian law.”—–

“Riparian:  The doctrine of riparian rights in the United States has its basis in case law which first involved Tyler v. Wilkinson in 1827. This case arose out of a dispute between mill owners over the right to use the flow of a river for mill power. The opinion in the case stated that all riparians had equal rights to the water in the river and that an upper proprietor could not diminish the quantity that would naturally flow to the lower proprietor. However, the case opinion also recognized that such an absolute right would not be practical and held that an upper proprietor could make “reasonable use” of the water, including consumptive withdrawals. 

–“In western states, there are few restrictions on who can hold an appropriative water right. Therefore, both private and public entities hold rights. An appropriative right does not depend on land ownership, but some states do require that the water is appurtenant to the land on which it is used. In general, appropriative water rights are transferable property. There are, however, three major requirements which inhibit the transfer of an appropriative water right:

  1. Rules prohibiting the severance of water right from the land on which the water is appurtenant to;
  2. Showing that there will be no injury to other appropriators; and
  3. Establishing the extent of the water right for transfer.

The traditional means of losing appropriative water rights are non-use or abandonment. Loss through abandonment is a consequence of the essential role that “use” plays in the definition of the right. The right does not come into existence without application of water to beneficial use and cannot continue to exist without the continuance of beneficial use. Non-use in itself, however, does not always constitute abandonment. A finding of abandonment often requires a determination of an intent to relinquish the water right. A statutorily specified period of non-use can, in most states, serve as proof of intent to abandon. In other words, an appropriative right can be lost through non-use when intent to abandon can be demonstrated, or when the water right has not been used for a specified number of years.“—http://web.archive.org/web/20060205055742/http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/pdf/WaterApprSystems.pdf

Common sense allows for several deductions concerning the motives of keeping the “permits” in a micro-managed state thereby allowing the federal claims to control what otherwise would be private property rights, subject to State law, in the superior sense. If Mr. Bundy owns the water rights in the split estate arrangement, as established prior to the various Acts or Orders— he is not bound by the riparian doctrine— ownership of the land controls the water rights as established in the eastern States. Upon this difference is the whole of the conflict such ranchers must deal with when simply trying to manage their rights in accordance with their business concerns.

—–“If Mr. Bundy owns the water, and assuming grazing rights as well, He apparently needs to be compensated by the federal government.

“interests in lands controlled by the United States (such as outstanding oil, gas, and other mineral, grazing, timber and water rights) will be extinguished, and easements for rights–of–way for highways,railroads, powerlines, communication lines. waterlines, and sewerlines will be obtained… Payments for extinguishment of grazing rights or licenses on public domain or other real property owned by or under the control of the United States is made per the Act of 9 July 1942, 56 Stat. 654 as amended by the Act of 28 May 1948, 62 Stat. 277 and the Act of 29 October 1949, 63 Stat. 996; 43 U.S.C. 315q–r”—-

What also needs to be clarified, in regards to his principles as asserted, but perhaps in conflict with this section:

Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

{The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada’s first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South. In early 1864, Abraham Lincoln—who wanted more pro-Union states in Congress so as to pass the amendment to abolish slavery, and a few more electoral votes to guarantee his reelection that fall—signed a bill authorizing Nevada to convene an official constitutional convention for statehood. The state constitution’s framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionistretained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864.}—http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

In Nevada, taking a stand against the federal authorities, for any reason, is not the same deal as found in other States, and that is the problem. A citizen of Nevada has far less protection of those property Rights, as secured by the Constitution and is not on equal footing, when compared to any other “Eastern” State citizen. Glossing over this minor detail is easy for those who will never be facing the same critical business issues in tandem with private land property ownership. The contention that the Fed’s took the best route, best method, top scholar approach to solving the land issues of the West is where the real argument has been avoided. As usual, the federal way is more often than not, the absolute worst possible way, the most destructive way, the way which kills the most people unable to defend themselves, and with the farthest-reaching, notorious results guaranteed.

Prior to the Bundy saga another rancher,  Wayne Hage, had also been targeted by the bureaucrats, in a ruthless game of policy extortion:

—–“A startling decision on government wrongdoing by a federal court in U.S. v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage gives credence to those who say that the federal government is engaging in a “war on the West” that is hurting rural communities. It is a stark reminder of how powerful our federal government is today and how it can ruin the lives and businesses of American citizens.

–“The 104-page opinion U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones on May 23 in Nevada tells a sordid and infuriating tale of a two-decades-long conspiracy among federal employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the Department of the Interior to deny the grazing rights of a Nevada ranching family, interfere with their water rights, and destroy their cattle business by scaring away their customers. [–the Court awarded a total amount of $14,243,542. See Hage v. United States (Hage VII), 93 Fed. Cl.709, 709 (2010)]

–“Judge Jones did not mince words: “[T]he Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court.” The judge concluded that the government denied the renewal of the Hages’ grazing permit for a “nonsensical” reason that was “arbitrary” and “vindictive.” The employees of the BLM “entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.” Some of the Hages’ “vested stock watering rights” on local streams and wells dated back as far as 1866 and 1874; most of them had been established by late 1800s and early 1900s.”—-http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/11/court-rebuffs-government-overreach-in-nevada/

—–“Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

–“In fact, 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 Hage family has waged a heroic decades-long legal battle against these abusive agencies, in a David vs. Goliath contest against the combined might of the U.S. Department of Justice and the BLM/USFS legal teams. Precious few individual citizens are willing to undertake such a seemingly hopeless and costly effort as to challenge the formidable power and bottomless resources of the federal government. Wayne Hage and his wife Jean did so repeatedly, winning judgements only to have them endlessly appealed by the taxpayer-funded agencies. Jean Hage died in 1996. Wayne Hage and his second wife, former U.S. Congresswoman of Idaho Helen Chenoweth Hage, both died in 2006.”— http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds

I watched the Wayne Hage interviews found here: http://vimeo.com/8520897#at=0 part one http://vimeo.com/9776367 part two — where he summarized the ordeal as basically a ruthless water grab, thinly disguised as grazing violations, or any other petty offense the government goons could stick to his proverbial hide.  Basically, Las Vegas needed more water and so it was decided to run him off his ranch, by whatever means so necessary.

Mr. Hage said in his own words,”The federal government dominates the 11 states west of the 100th meridian, with agencies like the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management controlling vast expanses of “federal” lands. However, the federal government does not possess complete ownership of these public lands. Ownership is divided in what is known as the “split estate”: Various entities, both governmental and private, own water rights, grazing rights, mineral rights, and timber rights. I paid for and own the surface water, ground water, and grazing rights on my allotments. In the arid expanses of the West, it takes a lot of acres to feed a cow and water is as precious as gold. Without those water and grazing rights, my family’s ranch and all others like it will cease to exist. For many years now, federal agencies and their environmentalist allies have been pretending that these genuine property rights are nonexistent, that our grazing and water rights are mere “privileges,” completely subject to bureaucratic whim and regulation. This represents a major assault on the very concept of property rights, which is absolutely essential to liberty.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/12962-rancher-wins-fight-for-rights

In order to set up that chain of federal authority, still being used today, required yet another seemingly innocent act:

—–“The Antiquities Act of 1906, (Pub.L. 59–209, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. § 431–433), is an act passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt on June 8, 1906. This law gives the President of the United States the authority to, by executive order, restrict the use of particular public land owned by the federal government. The Act has been used over a hundred times since its passage. Its use occasionally creates significant controversy.

–“The Act was intended to allow the President to set aside certain valuable public natural areas as park and conservation land. The 1906 act stated that it was intended for: “… the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest.” These areas are given the title of “National Monuments.” It also allows the President to reserve or accept private lands for that purpose. The aim is to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities. With this act, this can be done much more quickly than going through the Congressional process of creating a National Park. The Act states that areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act, ruling each time that the Act gives the president nearly-unfettered discretion as to the nature of the object to be protected and the size of the area reserved.“–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_Act

In addition, to these “presidential proclamations” the feds needed still more power to exercise over the public:

Theodore Roosevelt02/23/1903: The Supreme Court hands down a decision …
The Supreme Court hands down a decision in Champion v. Ames, making federal police power superior to that of the states. The ruling became the basis for the future federal regulation of food, drugs, and narcotics. February 23, 1903

Theodore Roosevelt02/01/1905: Roosevelt establishes the National Forest Service.…
Roosevelt establishes the National Forest Service. February 01, 1905

Theodore Roosevelt03/02/1907: To get around restrictive language in an appropria…
To get around restrictive language in an appropriation bill inhibiting the creation of new forest reserves in six Western states, TR issues proclamations establishing forest reserves in affected states before the law goes into effect. In doing so, TR faced down Westerners who disdained interference from Washington. March 02, 1907

Theodore Roosevelt06/08/1908: Roosevelt establishes the National Commission for …
Roosevelt establishes the National Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources, headed by Gifford Pinchot. June 08, 1908 http://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/key-events

The feds were not the only ones misleading the Public, in order to secure land, and water rights:

—–“In 1904 Eaton, with the help of his friend J.B. Lippincott, began buying up land in the Owens Valley under the pretense that the land would be used for the reclamation project. By July 1905, Eaton had bought up enough land to secure the land and water rights to build the aqueduct.[25] In 1906, the Los Angeles Board of Water Commissioners voted to undertake the aqueduct project on the recommendation of Mulholland, and decided to use the Department’s own resources to purchase Fred Eaton’s land and water rights options. In the same year, a bond issue was approved by city voters to proceed with a feasibility study for the construction of a new aqueduct. Water Commissioners created the Bureau of Los Angeles Aqueduct and appointed Mulholland as Chief Engineer.[5] On June 25 President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law a Congressional bill which gave Los Angeles the water rights to Owens River water. The next year voters approved the bond issue for the aqueduct’s construction.[5]

–“By the 1920s, the aggressive pursuit of the water rights along with the diversion of the Owens River precipitated the outbreak of violence known as the California Water Wars. Farmers in Owens Valley attacked infrastructure, dynamiting the aqueduct at Jawbone Canyon, and opening sluice gates to divert the flow of water. Eventually, the city administration was forced to negotiate. Mulholland was quoted as saying he “half-regretted the demise of so many of the valley’s orchard trees, because now there were no longer enough trees to hang all the troublemakers who live there”.

–“By 1928 the water diversions had completely drained the 100 mi² (300 km²) Owens Lake.

–“In March 1928, his career ended when the St. Francis Dam failed just over 12 hours after he and his assistant gave it a safety inspection.”–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland

Another take on this specific bit of history:

—–“It was that great Rough Rider, President Theodore Roosevelt, who signed the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906. This Act effectively allowed the then-relative backwater burgh of Los Angeles to bring water south from approximately 250 miles away, up in the Sierras.

–“Even if the Act didn’t apply to the, um, not quite full disclosure purchases of about 98% of the region’s then-privately held parcels — sweet, innocent Eaton and Sherman and his crew took care of that key bit — without this federal law in place, acquiring all those Owens properties wouldn’t have much mattered. The federal law allowed the liquid pipeline to pass through great expanses of federal lands inconveniently located between Owens and L.A.

–“Specifically, according to Appendix C (p. 90) of the 1907 Annual Report of the Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct to the Board of the Public Works, the Act of Congress was:

“An Act authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to sell to the City of Los Angeles, California, certain public lands in California; and granting rights in, over and through the Sierra Forest Reserve, the Santa Barbara Forest Reserve, and the San Gabriel Timber Land Reserve, California, to the City of Los Angeles, California.”

–“The text goes on to say that L.A. is hereby granted “all necessary rights of way, not to exceed two hundred and fifty feet in width, over and through the public lands of the United States in the Counties of Inyo, Kern and Los Angeles.”

–“So: There it is. Take it: The federal law that allowed a city that was then about 400,000 people to grow to about four million today.”— http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/columns/laws-that-shaped-la/teddy-roosevelts-signature-meant-los-angeles-would-grow.html

And this entry tells us about the current condition of said lake:

—“Owens Lake is a mostly dry lake in the Owens Valley on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada in Inyo County, California. It is located about 5 miles (8.0 km) south of Lone Pine, California. Unlike most dry lakes in the Basin and Range Province that have been dry for thousands of years, Owens held significant water until 1924. Much of the Owens River was diverted into the Los Angeles Aqueduct, causing Owens Lake to desiccate. Today, some of the flow of the river has been restored, and the lake now contains some water. Nevertheless, in 2013, it is the largest single source of dust pollution in the United States.”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_Lake

The federal motivations behind the Bundy saga are not that different from those experienced by ranchers like Mr. Hage, who was sitting on Rights to substantial amounts of water. Another interview provided some additional insight into what the BLM is actually after, or acting on the behalf of, in their pursuit to deprive Mr. Bundy from his traditional use of the water Rights and not just the land.

—–“Now meet BLM Whistleblower Rusty Hill who uncovered the corporations and shady land deals connected to Reid Bunkerville LLC, Zion Bank Corp, and BLM lands surrounding the Bundy properties.”—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGJXDuLkdI —–http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/assessor/Pages/PropertyRecords.aspx?H=redrock&P=assrrealprop/ownr.aspx——

This whistleblower has some unique first hand observations concerning the actions of the BLM and the land grabbing of Mr. Reid. There are five pages of records involving the “Reid” name, but only a single page with “Harry Reid” with very similar information:

Capture-1CC Bunkerville Reid Capture-1CC Bunkerville Reid-2 Capture-1CC Bunkerville Reid-3Now due to the fact there is no record under Cliven Bundy? I could not specifically determine if there is any shared boundaries between any properties to confirm or refute any claim, so made, that Mr. Bundy’s private property [ranch land for his melons] is being targeted. The gold Butte area as seen here in these maps:

Bundy-Nevada-Bureau-of-Mines-Petroleum-589 GoldButte_map gold-butte-map

This is obviously a very large area and considering the rugged factor not exactly easy to access. That was one of the points stated by Rusty Hill, that would make this entire area quite favorable to transferring these lands to exclusive military use. Is the military the champion of keeping lands pristine and safe for the species who might live therein? In other parts of the world the damage by the U.S. military is rather extensive:

—–“The military misuse of the land is part of its dominance over local communities. In many places, military training has caused fires, left the land littered with unexploded bullets and bombs, and pulverized bombing training targets.

–“In Hawai’i, Guam, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, the U.S. military has taken no responsibility for cleaning up contamination caused by its operations. This includes heavy metals (mercury and lead), pesticides (dieldrin and malathion), solvents (including benzene and tuolene), PCBs, pesticides, and JP–4 jet fuel. The resulting toxic health effects on local communities are compounded as the years go on without remediation of contaminated land and water.”—http://fpif.org/gender_and_us_bases_in_asia-pacific/

Another article detailing the U. S. military plans on the Island of Guam:

—–“In November 2009—one month after “Guam Residents Organize Against US Plans for $15B Military Buildup on Pacific Island” aired—the US Department of Defense released an unprecedented 11,000-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), detailing for the first time the true enormity of the contemplated militarization of Guam. At its peak, the military buildup will bring more than 80,000 new residents to Guam, which includes more than 8,600 US Marines and their 9,000 dependents; 7,000 so-called transient US Navy personnel; 600 to 1,000 US Army personnel; and 20,000 foreign workers on military construction contracts. This “human tsunami,” as it is being called, represents a roughly 47 percent increase in Guam’s total population in a four-to-six-year window. Today, the total population of Guam is roughly 178,000 people, the indigenous Chamoru people making up only 37 percent of that number. We are looking at a volatile and virtually overnight demographic change in the makeup of the island that even the US military admits will result in the political dispossession of the Chamoru people. To put the pace of this ethnocide in context, just prior to World War II, Chamorus comprised more than 90 percent of Guam’s population.

–“At the center of the buildup are three major proposed actions: 1) the construction of permanent facilities and infrastructure to support the full spectrum of warfare training for the thousands of relocated Marines; 2) the construction of a new deep-draft wharf in the island’s only harbor to provide for the passage of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers; and 3) the construction of an Army Missile Defense Task Force modeled on the Marshall Islands–based Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, for the practice of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles.

–“In terms of adverse impact, these developments will mean, among other things, the clearing of whole limestone forests and the desecration of burial sites some 3,500 years old; the restricting of access to areas rich in plants necessary for indigenous medicinal practice; the denying of access to places of worship and traditional fishing grounds; the destroying of seventy acres of thriving coral reef, which currently serve as critical habitat for several endangered species; and the over-tapping of Guam’s water system to include the drilling of twenty-two additional wells. In addition, the likelihood of military-related accidents will greatly increase. Seven crashes occurred during military training from August 2007 to July 2008, the most recent of which involved a crash of a B-52 bomber that killed the entire crew. The increased presence of US military forces in Guam also increases the island’s visibility as a target for enemies of the United States.

–“Finally, an issue that has sparked some of the sharpest debate in Guam has been the Department of Defense’s announcement that it will, if needed, forcibly condemn an additional 2,200 acres of land in Guam to support the construction of new military facilities. This potential new land grab has been met with mounting protest by island residents, mainly due to the fact that the US military already owns close to one-third of the small island, the majority of which was illegally taken after World War II.

–“In February 2010, upon review of the DEIS, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rated it “insufficient” and “environmentally unsatisfactory,” giving it the lowest possible rating for a DEIS. Among other things, the EPA’s findings suggest that Guam’s water infrastructure cannot handle the population boom and that the island’s fresh water resources will be at high risk for contamination. The EPA predicts that without infrastructural upgrades to the water system, the population outside the bases will experience a 13.1 million gallons of water shortage per day in 2014. The agency stated that the Pentagon’s massive buildup plans for Guam “should not proceed as proposed.” The people of Guam were given a mere ninety days to read through the voluminous 11,000-page document and make comments about its contents. The ninety-day comment period ended on February 17, 2010. The final EIS is scheduled for release in August 2010, with the record of decision to follow immediately thereafter.”—- http://www.projectcensored.org/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/

Closer to home, the Pentagon, just does whatever it wants pollution wise:

—–“In 2001 the EPA estimated that the total liability for the cleanup of toxic military sites would exceed $350 billion, or five times the Superfund Act liability of private industry. But the federal government has been complacent and allowed perchlorate to run rampant throughout our water supplies. This negligence and lack of regulatory oversight has left the Pentagon, NASA and defense contractors free to set their own levels, trimming the high, but necessary costs of restoring groundwater quality.

–“These military sites, which total more than 50 million acres, are among the most insidious and dangerous legacies left by the Pentagon. They are strewn with toxic bomb fragments, unexploded munitions, buried hazardous waste, fuel dumps, open pits filled with debris, burn piles and yes, rocket fuel. An internal EPA memo from 1998 warned of the looming problem: “As measured by acres, and probably as measured by number of sites, ranges and buried munitions represent the largest cleanup program in the United States.”

–“When a site gets too polluted, the Pentagon has chosen simply to close it down and turn it over to another federal agency. Over the past three decades, the Pentagon has transferred more than 16 million acres, often with little or no remediation. The former bombing areas have been turned into wildlife refuges, city and state parks, golf courses, landfills, airports and shopping malls.

–“Serious contamination of streams, soil and groundwater is a problem at nearly every military training ground. The sites are often saturated with heavy metals and other pollutants as well as unexploded weapons. The Government Accountability Office’s list of the kinds of unexploded munitions left behind on many training sites reads like a catalogue for a Middle East arms bonanza: “hand grenades, rockets, guided missiles, projectiles, mortars, rifle grenades, and bombs.”— http://www.alternet.org/story/85186/the_pentagon_is_america%27s_biggest_polluter/

Any whistleblower tempted to tell the public about any misdeeds, or conflicts of interests may also want to keep in mind that the current administration is no friend to truth:

—–“Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Obama administration is targeting government whistleblowers, having invoked the otherwise dormant Espionage Act of 1917 seven times. The Obama justice department has also used the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to obtain a conviction against Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) whistleblower John Kiriakou for exposing the waterboarding of prisoners, ironically making Kiriakou the first CIA official to be sentenced to prison in connection with the torture program. The justice department charged former National Security Agency senior executive Thomas Drake with espionage for exposing hundreds of millions of dollars of waste.”—

Anyone looking for a common sense solution, to the myriad problems affecting land and water Rights is going to be sorely disappointed if all one looks at is the written law itself. The authorities riding the backsides of the people, like demented fools hell bent on their own personal fantasies of power, will waive that piece of paper in one-hand, while ordering thier morally deficient side-kicks to carry out the dirty business of forcing capitulation to the desired ends. What some senator like Reid says in the flashing of media lights, has little to do with what he has been doing all these many years, out of sight, while in the shadows of those very same rules and regulations these tyrants utilize to get what they want— that would be the money they make on insider knowledge, deals etc which they play close to their chests to curry valuable influence where it affords them great advantages over the commoners they despise. No deal is too crooked when it enhances their private pocket-books, especially when it involves complex, contractual arrangements which require services, which of course, generate those nice, fat, politically-enhanced fees. The Art is in the playing… one set of rules for the common man, trying to make a living, and a whole other set of special rules, which those federal servants can twist anyway they please, until those manipulations “shock” the conscience of a Court Justice still capable of knowing where those boundaries are still written to be observed. The grotesque deformations of the law to accomplish the hidden goals of the elite ruling class is quite visible when one knows how to look at the results… not just the media posturings on the latest 30 second news bite.

The media has been silent on so many issues of greater national interest one can almost visualize a map of the deafening silence on the general public. As the issue of land and water Rights starts to impact more than just cattle and sheep ranchers, or general farming, only then will people come to the sudden shocking resolution they were had a long time ago. So long in fact, most people today have no idea just how rotten many of those “Acts and Orders” actually are when considering the actual intent was to deprive people of any consideration of value, long term wealth accumulations and  having first Rights to the fruits of their own labors. Which is why Mr. Hage pointed out the connections of the land to the banking interests, is still the key fact driving the whole of the system, so rigged.

Another article to drive home that observation:

—–“In the 2012 edition of Occupy Money released last week, Professor Margrit Kennedy writes that a stunning 35% to 40% of everything we buy goes to interest. This interest goes to bankers, financiers, and bondholders, who take a 35% to 40% cut of our GDP. That helps explain how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get progressively richer at the expense of the poor, not just because of “Wall Street greed” but because of the inexorable mathematics of our private banking system.

income-1–“By 2010, 1% of the population owned 42% of financial wealth, while 80% of the population owned only 5% percent of financial wealth.  Dr. Kennedy observes that the bottom 80% pay the hidden interest charges that the top 10% collect, making interest a strongly regressive tax that the poor pay to the rich.”–http://ellenbrown.com/2012/11/08/its-the-interest-stupid-why-bankers-rule-the-world/ [The global 1 percent hold twenty-one to thirty-two trillion dollars in offshore havens in order to evade taxes, according to James S. Henry, the former chief economist at the global management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company. ]

So the next time you hear someone grumbling about the increasing price of that “worm-filler-meat burger”  just keep in mind that those very same policies, which have been grinding down into the dirt, all of those independent ranchers or farmers, were no doubt written by some agency wonk, employed by one those mega-sized, international corporations, touting their latest food product, also long since divorced from nature. As for Reid, he is just another sleazy, grease-ball, oiling that big wheel of commerce.

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: