Direct Link to Latest News


Who Benefits from Federal Monopoly over Western Land?

February 16, 2016

People in California, Oregon and Nevada are so outraged with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) they are ready to join an armed insurrection. As I explain below, there is a legal remedy, a US Constitutional Convention to halt not only the dictatorial policies of BLM, but also to BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET and a host of other constitutional problems. Let's step back and THINK BIG!

Anyone flying to California, Oregon or Washington will look down at vast wastelands in our western states. Wonder why? It's because the Federal Government monopolizes western land title. This has been going on for over 100 years. AND IT'S another glaring example of HOW EVERYTHING'S HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. 

(The federal government now owns almost one-third of the land in the United States and you can bet it is collateral on the fictitious national debt. The Fed, local branch of the "Crown", produces the medium of exchange, currency/credit, as a debt to them. The government could do this without incurring a debt or paying interest- Makow)

by Andrew Smith

(1) Who can best manage the vast wastelands out west? People who live on the lands like farmers and ranchers with an investment in the land or bureaucrats in Washington DC?

(2) If the Founding Fathers who wrote the US Constitution thought the Federal Government should own vast tracks of land, why didn't they withhold them from settlement in the eastern states where they lived? 

"The federal government owns 28 percent of the land in the United States," according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. 'Federal land ownership is concentrated in the West,' explains the service. "Specifically, 62% of Alaska is federally owned, as is 47% of the 11 coterminous western states. By contrast, the federal government owns only 4% of lands in the other states.' There has been a growing movement to transfer land from the federal government to states. According to a report from Newsmax, 36 bills have been introduced in state legislatures to move this effort forward."

Until you consider the percentage of Federal land title, the beauty of America's West seems as far as you can get from Washington DC'S corrupt bureaucracies and polished corridors of power. But the map above shows the federal government owns entirely too much of the western states: from a low of 29.9% in Montana, already more than the national average, up to 84.5% in Nevada. 

If you are interested in a more detailed explanation of why Western states have not been settled or developed, you can read Anton Chaitkin's Treason in America and particularly his Chapter 18, entitled How Environmentalism Killed The American Frontier.

In order to understand why Americans should take action now, we need to begin by asking the right question. IS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERLY MANAGING OUR WESTERN LANDS? A studying published in May 1999 documents how miserable the current system has failed. 

Conserving America's land resources has been a federal concern ever since President Theodore Roosevelt made it a national priority more than 100 years ago. Today, however, federal land management policy has strayed far from Roosevelt's vision of conserving natural resources by making Americans better stewards of the environment. Instead, Washington has implemented a command-and-control approach that wastes valuable financial resources and at times is environmentally harmful.

According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the federal government now owns [almost] one-third of the land in the United States. Four federal agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service, with combined annual budgets of $8.1 billion in fiscal year 1999--manage most of this land. Recent reports by the federal government's own watchdogs, however, point out that these agencies are not doing a good job. The GAO has reported that they now have a backlog of maintenance problems on public lands that exceeds $12 billion. 


In April, the Congressional Budget Office recommended that, because the federal land management agencies find it difficult to maintain operations on their existing land holdings, Congress should place a ten-year moratorium on future appropriations for land acquisitions by these agencies.

As far back as 1818, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Bevans that a state's right to control property within its borders was an essential part of its sovereignty,,," THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POOR MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA'S LAND RESOURCES by Alexander F. Annett

Once we realize Americans need to take action in order to return power and property back to the states and to the people, WE MUST ASK HOW TO FIX IT?

Sage Brush landscape.jpg
One point that even our current unpopular US President got right was that we cannot fix Washington DC from within. This reformation calls for state action. Fortunately Texas Governor Greg Abbott proposed such a plan of states action via Article V US Constitution for New Constitutional Convention. During his keynote address to the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Annual Policy Orientation, the governor outlined his "Texas Plan" that will reign in the federal government to restore the balance of power between the states and the United States.

"The increasingly frequent departures from constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built," Abbott said of the "refusal" of federal government to follow the Constitution. "The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way."

Abbott also released a 70-page document entitled, "Restoring the Rule of the Law with the States Leading the Way" where he outlined his nine steps to "reign in the federal government":

-Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.

-Require congress to balance its budget.

-Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law and preempting state law.

-Allow a two-thirds majority of states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

-Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

-Limit the federal government to powers expressly delegated in the Constitution.

-Allow a two-thirds majority of states to override a federal law or regulation.

If Americans must trouble themselves with a Second US Constitutional Convention (last convention was about 230 years ago) to remedy the staggering Federal Land ownership problem, we might as well fix a whole host of other problems by getting behind Governor Abbott's initiative. 
Andrew Smith is retired attorney, businessman and philanthropist. He's a regular contributor here under various pen names.
Related-   Lou Dobbs- Obama Admin has usurped 265 million acres

First Comment by Glen:

"I explain below, there is a legal remedy, a US Constitutional Convention to halt not only the dictatorial policies of BLM, but also to BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET and a host of other constitutional problems. Let's step back and THINK BIG!"

  Are you freaking kidding me. What insane fool believes a con-con to be a good thing. In the words of the National Association for Gun Rights "The moment a Constitutional Convention convenes, you and I might as well kiss our Second Amendment rights goodbye."

  Who among us is not smart enough to see this con-con would do nothing more than open "Pandora's Box"? All the rights we hold most sacred will more than likely be swept away as special interest, people like Soros and Bloomturd will have bought and paid for all of the "selected" delegates.

  A few words from Jackie Patru of Sweet Liberty

A BRIEF HISTORY: The proponents of a con-con have been at it for nearly fifty years now: In 1964 the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations funded and orchestrated - via the CSDI (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions) - the drafting of a new constitution for America. This model constitution, drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was published in a book titled "The Emerging Constitution", by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). The project produced the proposed "Constitution for the NewStates of America".
"In the event you would be inclined to dismiss the relevance of the proposed new constitution, bear in mind that it is the product of a tax-exempt think-tank which took ten years, $25,000,000.00 and the collaboration of over one-hundred like-minded individuals. . . It would be folly to believe this investment is intended to be merely an exercise in political theory. The frightening reality is, the planners are serious in their efforts to impose a new constitution upon the people of America as we enter the 21st Century."   -- Col. Arch Roberts, Committee to Restore the Constitution

Please read the entire article at:

Please also view this short video by Luke O'Dell, vice president of National Association of Gun Rights.

In closing, I would just like to point out we ALREADY have a perfectly good constitution that no one follows, what makes you think they would follow a new one. This con-con is a scam my friends, and if you believe you have nothing to lose with it and everything to gain, you could not be more wrong. 
Andrew replies:

My answer to Steve (see Comments) is that banker & corporate elite have already destroyed the US Constitutional separation of powers and shifted virtual dictatorial authority to Washington, DC where they dominate political discourse, run up colossal NATIONAL DEBT and monopolize Western Land Title. 

So how can Americans re-empower themselves and restore the 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' envisioned by our Founding Fathers? In effect, how do we restore THE RULE OF LAW?

We can follow Texas Governor Greg Abbott's plan.

Will Abbott's plan destroy the banker & corporate elite's grip on power? Of course it will. THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA! So "out of control" only means OUT OF BIG BANKER AND BUSINESS CONTROL.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Who Benefits from Federal Monopoly over Western Land?"

Doug P said (February 18, 2016):

For anyone interested in this topic, I would recommend Dr. Michael Shaw and his work on the web - extensive educational resources on Agenda 21. Shaw owns and manages a large tract of private land and is an attorney and an accountant. He was my go-to source when I ran in politics and his stuff is as detailed or broad as you want it. I'm surprised this article doesn't reference him, perhaps Andrew Smith just found the same things out independently. Shaw's views fall right in line, I believe.

Tony B said (February 18, 2016):

Andrew Smith should KNOW that the NWO bunch have been working for many years to destroy the safeguards against government written into the constitution. I don't like the constitution as it is a masonic document designed to do just what has been done. It was made to APPEAR to give the citizens natural rights but in such a way as it could gradually be subverted by its very words.

However, they had to write the Bill of Rights in pretty plain English to get the people to accept it and that is where the tyranny is, by law, stopped. Even though it has been long ignored they know the people are realizing they have no freedom anymore but they know the law says they must have. So their major thrust is to CHANGE THE LAW, just exactly what this guy and other "patriots" are advocating. He likely has a controller and doesn't know it. Which comes under the heading of ignorance.

Smith has NOT done his homework. His "answer" to the other writer was no answer at all. It was just a restatement of the ignorant things he had already said.

Al Thompson said (February 16, 2016):

I remember being involved with helping some of the farmers during the Klamath Falls, Oregon "stand-off" back in 2001. The feds shut off their water supply by closing the "head gates." The farmers could no longer use the water to grow their crops. The farmers actually brought in pipes to bypass the head gates. It was quite a scene.

I had personally advised the sheriff of his "constitutional" duty to make the feds back off from seizing the land that was paid off by the farmers around 1954. The sheriff told me he would have to consult his attorney and he did absolutely nothing. I had personally gone over to the other side of the river to speak with the head federal thug. I very pointedly asked him by what authority he was taking the action. He just stonewalled me and gave me no legal or lawful answer.

Two farmers had committed suicide because the water was cut off from the lake and the people were very angry. There were as many as 10,000 people who showed up in support of the farmers.

One of the researchers had a catalogue from the World Bank who was probably trying to gain the water rights to the area. I can't say for sure but the man showed it to me. The whole thing was very strange.

Everyone thought that the sheriff was going to throw them off the property as the feds did not have constitutional jurisdiction and the farmers paid off the loan for the construction of the head gates. The sheriff came in making it look as if he was going to throw out the feds which would have been a historical event and fun to watch. But he got up on a big platform and caved into the feds. The whole thing was pathetic.

This was the first time I experienced false opposition. A friend of mine got so aggravated that he stood in the middle of the crowd and told them to stop wasting out time if you actually enjoy getting screwed by the feds. The farmers wanted us to help them but the group was infiltrated by govtards from the beginning.

The constitution means nothing to the govtards and if you don't believe me just try using the Bill of Rights. These communist governments are a bad joke on everyone and they have no morals.

George said (February 16, 2016):

The remark BELOW opposing a constitutional convention is, IMHO, absolutely correct. All major political documents, including treaties, follow reshuffling of the deck in the aftermath of a war. To allow the currently existing Illuminist power structure to draft a new constitution would be suicide for freedom. We need to break the back of their system and then have a revised constitution that reflects the lessons we have learned, while retaining the humane Bill of Rights that incorporates the best of the Anglo Saxon traditions of freedom incorporated in Magna Carta.

Steve said (February 16, 2016):

Never ever should there be a Constitutional convention. It would allow our constitution to be destroyed by today's zionist bought off politicians.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at