Author Archives: Admin

Death and Taxes Agenda 21/2030’s New Weapon

Benjamin Franklin, wrote in a 1789 letter that “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

Indeed, this is what the federal government seems to be using as its weapon against property owners in order to follow through on its commitment to Agenda21/2030 — death and taxes.

In Oregon, a man was murdered in cold blood for “trespassing” on “public” lands.
In Wyoming, a man is being fined $16M for creating a pond on his own property.

The idea that a person does not own the water or mineral rights on his own property is ludicrous and against every principle that this country was built upon.

The current Obama administration is going after land owners in a most aggressive way, using executive orders to bypass Congress.

“We’ll Do Audacious Executive Action”

On January 13, 2016, Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, bluntly forecast the “audacious” actions to come. Speaking to reporters, McDonough announced: “We’ll do audacious executive action over the course of the rest of the year. I’m confident of that…. We do want to make sure that the executive actions we undertake are not left hanging out there, subject to Congress undoing them.”

President Obama has repeatedly stated his intention to legislate by executive order from the Oval Office, if Congress doesn’t rubber-stamp his every whim as law. And he has proceeded to make good on that threat, issuing unconstitutional orders on illegal alien amnesty, temporary worker visas, gun control, draconian environmental regulations, and much more. Designating national monuments is a very important component of his plan for “audacious” executive action. “In his seven years in office, Obama has established 22 national monuments and expanded others to set aside more than 265 million acres of land and water,” noted the UPI news service on February 13.

Read more…

As for the taxes part, the EPA has fined a man $16M for building a pond on his own property.
Andy Johnson is being fined $37,500 a day and faces criminal penalties for building a pond on his property despite his having received a letter from the Wyoming State Engineeer’s Office which proves he followed state rules.

The EPA claims they have the final say and they won’t back down.

Johnson felt hopeless when he received the EPA order, but he now has Republican lawmakers helping him, including Wyoming Senators John Barrasso, Mike Enzi, and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

Farmers and ranchers call the EPA’s new water rule the biggest land grab in the history of the world. It is a massive land grab, especially in a country that has been built on the right to own property. The administration is changing all that.

A new oppressive water rule gives the EPA jurisdiction over all public and private streams in the United States that are “intermittent, seasonal and rain-dependent.” It will regulate what are normal daily ranching and farming practices and take control of their land.

According to congressional budget testimony, waters of the United States would give the EPA authority over streams on private property even when the water beds have been dry, in some cases, for hundreds of years.


Read more…

Republicans Selling Us Out to Globalism

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States has paid $500 million into the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, the first tranche of the $3 billion it pledged as part of the commitments it made in the December Paris Climate Agreement, the State Department confirmed Monday.

But the ability of the United States to deliver the funds had been in doubt because Republican members of Congress had threatened to block federal funds for climate aid as part of their efforts to undermine U.S. participation in the Paris agreement. They said Congress first needs to scrutinize details of the accord before it releases funds.

But lawmakers did not block the funds in December after they wrapped up a sprawling budget deal to keep the U.S. government operating through next September.

Read more…

Unelected Bureaucrats and Rural Cleansing

Budd-Falen Law Offices cites an example of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) overreach from 2006.
http://prfamerica.org/speeches/10th/RICO-ActionBLM.html

On October 29, 2013, Karen Budd-Falen testified for U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resource Committee. Specifically, Karen Budd-Falen testified at the oversight hearing in the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation concerning, “Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies.”

Watch the video below of Karen Budd-Falen’s testimony; Karen’s oral testimony begins at 34:48.

http://buddfalen.com/video-karen-budd-falen-testifies-at-house-natural-resources-committee/

Look for more from Karen Budd-Falen and Budd-Falen Law Offices as they continue their efforts to protect landowners from the unreasonable actions of some federal employees.

You can read her testimony here:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/falentestimony10-29-13.pdf

Additionally here is an article on “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BULLYING AND RURAL CLEANSING”
http://pienpolitics.com/?cat=88

I looked up the definition of “bully” in the dictionary. It read, “a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually cruel to others who are weaker.” While I certainly would not characterize every child in a school-yard as a bully, nor every person working for the federal government as abusive, there are some individuals who fit that description. They may be the exception, but the label still fits.

The problem is that while there are actions you can take to stop a school-yard bully, there are NO actions you can take to stop a bureaucratic bully. We must get Congress to change that paradigm. I am asking for your help.

On October 29, 2013, a group of ranchers are going to testify before a Congressional Committee, telling their stories of being targeted and bullied by federal government employees simply based upon their ownership and use of private property and private property rights. The result is not only harm to the individual, but a “cleansing” of rural America as the free-market system fails. Their stories are compelling, and on October 29, will be told to Congress and the Nation. But we want to tell your stories too. At the end of this request, I will let you know how to help.

In 1871, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. The Act allows private citizens to bring litigation against individual state and local government employees who, “under the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage” cause that citizen the loss of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws. The Civil Rights Act did not create any new rights. Rather, the Act permits individuals to sue state and local public officials in the federal district court for alleged Constitutional and statutory bullying.

Yet this same remedy is not available against federal government officers who, “under the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,” cause a citizen the loss of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws. This gaping omission was highlighted in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 577 (2007). In that case, although the Supreme Court recognized that certain federal employees may have harmed and harassed landowner Frank Robbins because Robbins would not voluntarily surrender his property rights to the federal government, the Court refused to allow Robbins access to the federal courts to even plead his case. However, the Justices also noted that the Congress could (and should) create a legal “cause of action” in the federal courts for those cases where federal employees use and abuse the “color of their office” to harass or bully someone for standing up for their Constitutionally protected rights.

The purpose of the October 29, 2013 hearing is to tell these stories to Congress and the American people and urge Congress to allow access to the courts for America’s citizens who are suffering long-continued harassment and harm at the hands of individual federal employees. That is not to say that all adverse government decisions are always politically or personally motivated, nor does it guarantee that private citizens will always win, but as it is now, the courthouse door is shut and locked and access is completely denied. That is the problem that has to be fixed–private citizens should have the right to access the courts, so that judges and juries can decide those claims with merit.

Based upon the Robbins Supreme Court opinion, other private property owners who are being harassed and intimidated because they refuse to turn over their private property outside the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution have no forum in which they can vindicate their claims. The Robbins decision is a complete bar to the judicial branch of the government, regardless of the extreme nature of the federal officials’ actions.

The second aspect of this story is the destruction of free-markets and rural economies and communities because there is a void in the protection of private property ownership, use and rights. Secure use of private property rights is the cornerstone of a free-market economic system, but that security is threatened by government official interference under “color of law.” Voluntary exchange and free markets depend on private property ownership and use, since every participant in a free-market system is a property owner who must be responsible for himself and his possessions. This holds true whether the private property is land, other property rights and interests, tangible goods, ideas, or the person himself. Yet, with no access to the courts against federal employees who use their office to hamper private property use and ownership, the free-market system and economic fabric of rural communities are being destroyed. Private property ownership encourages the development and use resources in a way that is advantageous and can be traded or sold to others. Private ownership makes people accountable for their actions.

But in many cases, that is not the way it works now. Because there is no method to require personal accountability of federal employees who use the power of their federal agency to violate our Constitutional guarantees, property owners are being forced to severely limit their businesses, and in some cases, lose their property and livelihoods altogether. These losses, particularly in rural communities and economies, translate to lost economic revenue, lost jobs and lost opportunities, which, in turn, translates to lost community services such as fire protection, deteriorating roads and vacant schools. Rural cleansing is occurring in America as those who rely on the use of their property are forced to relinquish their rights and move to more urban settings in search of jobs.

It is time for Congress to act to provide a legal cause of action when federal bureaucrats use the power of their offices to violate our U.S. Constitutional guarantees. That process will start with the hearing on October 29, 2013. If you have a story involving federal bullying and harm, I encourage you to send your information to buddfalenlaw@gmail.com. With your permission, we will take these stories to Washington D.C. and present them with the stories of those attending the hearing. This is a chance for you to tell Congress if you have been the subject of selective and continued harassment and pressure to give up your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Not all federal employees are bullies and some counties and communities are still clinging to the rural way of life. But for the victims of the bullies and the communities who suffer, Congress must provide access to the judicial system for a chance for relief. Please help us get the message to Congress; send your stories of bullying or letters and e-mails of support to buddfalenlaw@gmail.com

Thank you.

Caren Cowan
Executive Director
New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association

Finally, the BLM is a corporation with an agenda… which does not include private property ownership.

https://archive.org/stream/blmscorporateage9779unit/blmscorporateage9779unit_djvu.txt

The BLM speaks on its commitment to Agenda 21/2030 which is fundamentally, “rural cleansing”.

https://archive.org/details/sustainabledevelunit

AFFH Act in Under Six Minutes

Watch this excellent 6-minute video from John Anthony for a quick explanation of what the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act means for YOUR Town or City.

If the above video does not appear on your device, use this direct link:
https://youtu.be/qvnDoK-j_UA

Straight Talk About Planning

If the above video does not appear on your device, use this direct link:
https://youtu.be/Rm-XusgA_CA

Question: “Since our community does not directly receive HUD grant money, are we still subject to meet the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligations?”

Short version is, yes.

A subrecipient is any jurisdiction that receives grant money from a direct grantee. If a county or state receives a HUD Community Development Block Grant and disburses part of the funds to a city or county, that jurisdiction is a subrecipient.

According to The Department of Housing and Urban Development Fact Sheet, in referencing HUD CDBG funds, “Recipients must ensure full compliance with these federal laws and must also ensure compliance by all sub-recipients to whom funds are distributed.”

The civil rights law firm of Allen Relman Dane and Colfax states it succinctly: “You (the grantee) can’t fund jurisdictions whose policies and practices are AFFH non-compliant.”

If your community received HUD funds from your state, it is their responsibility to assure that your jurisdiction meets its AFFH obligations. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, “States must assure that units of local government receiving CDBG or HOME funds comply. States and local governments must certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing in their Consolidated Plans (ConPlans) and Public Housing Agency Plans (PHA Plans).”

Here is another critical point. Your community’s AFFH obligation does not end with the HUD funds you receive.

As stated in HUD’s regulation (p14), AFFH governs…
– Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
– Home Investment Partnerships (HOME)
– Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
– Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA)

However, this is only the beginning of the recipients’ obligations to AFFH. According to HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, your planning goals “will be accomplished primarily by making investments with federal and other resources.”

For example, if your community accepted CDBG funds to improve water and sewer lines that effect protected classes, fair housing or urban development, your AFFH obligations extend beyond the grant money.

Again, Allen, Relman, Dane and Colfax clarifies…
“Although the grantee’s AFFH obligation arises in connection with the receipt of Federal funding, its AFFH obligation is not restricted to the design and operation of HUD-funded programs at the State or local level. The AFFH obligation extends to all housing and housing-related activities in the grantee’s jurisdictional area whether publicly or privately funded.”

Question: “Our local Public Housing Authority (PHA) received HUD grants and our town appointed the PHA’s board members. Is our community required to collaborate with the PHA and meet the AFFH obligations under their grant?”

Short answer, not exactly.
HUD agrees that collaboration between the local jurisdiction and the PHA would be helpful and “encourages the creation of MOU’s (memorandum of understanding) to govern the joint participation process when completing the Assessment of Fair Housing.”

However, in the Federal Register, (p 42322 Sec. 18) HUD “declines to require such entities to execute a letter or agreement affirming cooperation…”

The Paris Climate Agreement Is a Treaty

The Paris Climate Agreement Is a Treaty Requiring Senate Review
Why and How Congress Should Fight President Obama’s Power Grab

To safeguard America’s economic future and capacity for self-government, congressional leaders must expose Obama’s climate diplomacy as an attempted end-run around the Constitution’s treaty-making process. They should do so before the President signs the Agreement on Earth Day, April 22, at a United Nations ceremony in New York.

Read more…

Obama’s Land Grabs by Executive Order

In a move that has environmental militants exulting and western farmers, ranchers, and property owners fuming, President Obama has locked up 1.8 million acres by executive fiat, with the stroke of a pen. Millions more acres are planned to follow, part of the Obama administration’s boast to use “audacious executive actions” — read unconstitutional usurpations — to advance his radical “transformative” agenda during his last months in office.

While in California on a fundraising expedition, President Obama took time on February 12 to sign an executive order proclaiming three new national monuments, imposing the strictest of federal restrictions on 1.8 million acres of the Golden State. The three new illegally created monuments are Mojave Trails National Monument (1.6 million acres), the Sand to Snow National Monument (154,000 acres), and the Castle Mountains National Monument (21,000 acres).

Read more…