CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive – How to Ensure Your Immune System is Working



How to Ensure Your Immune System is Working
by Art Smith

Considering the recent headlines, it seems like there is no better time than now to make sure your immune system is working properly. It appears we have reached a high potential for disease outbreaks and epidemics from the constant flow of illegal immigrants, to scientists recreating deadly viruses from the past in labs with lacking security, to the spread of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. We also rely on our immune system daily to keep us healthy from the more mundane germs lurking around us. Most people’s immune systems today are not functioning at their optimal level due to poor diets, processed foods, widespread nutrient deficiencies, and genetically modified organisms in our foods. Due to soil depletion, even with a good, healthy diet, we still cannot get all the nutrients we need for our body to function properly.  In this article we will look at some ways to support the immune system so it can better cope with the threat of disease.

Almost everyone knows vitamin C is needed for the immune system and to ward off infections. The question is how much and how well is that vitamin C pill absorbed and what else is in that pill. Many supplements and vitamins are now made in China and may be contaminated with toxic substances and thus more harmful than helpful. According to The Seattle Times, 90% of the vitamin C sold in the United States comes from China. There is no rule requiring to label the country of origin so there is no way for consumers to know this just by looking at the bottle.  The main areas where Chinese vitamins are manufactured are also the most polluted in the world, and taking them will not improve health but may even cause harm. (1)  In general concerning supplements and multivitamins, most of the cheaper versions available at drug stores are synthetic and may not be absorbed well by the body but end up stressing the kidneys. Whole food vitamins and supplements, marketed as the healthier option, may contain yeast, bacteria, and genetically modified organisms, which also ends up being more harmful than helpful. When choosing supplements, one has to be careful about where they come from, what they contain, and research different brands and options. Obtaining vitamins from healthy food sources is the best and safest option. (2)

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a highly respected researcher and author on various health topics. He gave an interesting lecture on surviving a pandemic or bioterrorism that is available on YouTube. According to him, the seriousness of any potential infection depends a lot on the person’s nutrition and general health with nutrition status being the most important factor. Those who have pre-existing conditions, the very young, elderly, and pregnant women are at highest risk for suffering from a serious infection in an epidemic. He expressed strong doubt that vaccines would help curb an epidemic, but rather claims they will be destructive. He is also pessimistic on the ability of medical personnel to cope with a widespread pandemic or disaster scenario. Dr. Blaylock states that hospitals usually work at a 95% capacity and in the case of an epidemic or influx of a large number of patients it would be impossible to admit everyone who needs help.  In order to cope with the potential of an epidemic or bioterrorism, Dr. Blaylock recommends improving nutrition and strengthening the immune system. He recommends supplementing with garlic extract, zinc, and curcumin to improve immune function. He also speaks highly of beta 1,3 glucan for immune modulation and its ability to change the mortality rate in case of a pandemic or radiation exposure. However, he states most beta glucan supplements sold are not pure or of good quality except for a few rare exceptions. He also recommends vitamins C and E and magnesium for immune restoration. (3)

The late Dr. Christopher from The School of Natural Healing designed the Anti-Plague Formula to deal with plagues and epidemics like swine flu. It is still sold today under the name of Supper Garlic Immune Formula. He recommended taking 1 teaspoon 3 times a day to strengthen the immune system. If infected with the flu, he recommended taking 1 tablespoon every half hour.  It is in liquid form and will keep well for a long time. Reportedly, it does not taste good but if it prevents or fights off a serious infection, that is what matters. (4)

The health detectives at Health Wyze have also written several articles on nutrition, supplementation, and the importance of a healthy immune system. They recommend taking zinc daily due to its importance for immune function. Zinc boosts the immune system, helps fight infections, and shortens their severity and duration. They also recommend zinc as being vital for all pregnant women due to its ability to prevent birth defects. Zinc gluconate, zinc citrate, and zinc oroate are the best forms of zinc to take for proper absorption. They advise against taking zinc sulfate and zinc oxide due to poor absorption and also zinc oxide because it may cause or contribute to cancer. Zinc supplements should never be taken on an empty stomach because that can lead to nausea and stomach cramping, which can be severe. In order to absorb zinc properly the body also needs copper. (5) However, due to dangerous side effects from copper supplementation and the fact that it is very easy to overdose, the only form of copper supplementation they recommend is in the form of concentrated chlorophyll extract, which will also help oxygenate the body, work to prevent cancer, and improve immune system function. (6)

Selenium is also essential for immune function. Animal studies have shown that low levels of selenium in the diet lead to many diseases also associated with a deficiency of vitamin E. Selenium influences the immune system in several ways. One of them is the action on neutrophils, which kill invading pathogen cells. Selenium deficiency does not affect the number of neutrophils present, but it compromises their function and ability to kill the pathogen. Studies showed that this can be reversed with selenium supplementation. (7)  

In his book Fight for Your Health Byron Richards devotes a chapter to the dangers of genetically modified organisms used in our food. He states that GMO food is present in 70% of processed and packaged foods in supermarkets and it is not labeled. A viral infection may be exacerbated in a person who eats GMO food. The full extent of this is not fully known and there is potential for great harm and the creation of super viruses and super flus. The main GMO crops are soy, corn, cotton, and canola oil. (8) Corn and soy are commonly used to produce packaged foods. High-fructose corn syrup is used to sweeten many beverages and foods. It usually contains genetically modified organisms as do many fast foods. (9) We can take steps to at least limit the highly suspect foods and processed foods in order to reduce exposure to GMO foods.  This will avoid the exacerbation of any infection and other detrimental effects on health.

The ideas above are just a few factors to consider to build a healthier immune system. This will in turn improve our overall energy, health and resistance to diseases, from the common cold and flu, to more dangerous infections and epidemics. There are no true quick fixes, but we can take steps to improve our health and immune system as we get bombarded with more and more pathogens.



1)     Michelle Yu. “Most Vitamins are from China. It’s a Bigger Problem than You Realize.” Epoch Times. February 6, 2014.  http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/361599-5-facts-you-need-to-know-if-your-vitamins-are-from-china/

2)     Sarah C. Corriher. “The Supplementation Problem and Our Supplement Recommendations.” http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/151-the-supplementation-problem-and-our-supplement-recommendations.html

3)     Russell Blaylock. “Protection against Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Terrorism Agents Lecture.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gRM58l1Yg

4)     http://www.drchristophersherbs.com/collections/super-garlic-immune-formula-anti-plague

5)     Sarah C. Corriher. “Why Zinc Should be Taken Daily and How Not All Zinc Supplements are Created Equal.” http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/338-why-zinc-should-be-taken-daily-and-how-not-all-zinc-supplements-are-created-equal.html

6)     Sarah C. Corriher. “Why You Should Consider Chlorophyll Supplementation.”   http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/446-you-should-consider-chlorophyll-supplementation.html

7)     John R. Arthur, Roderick C. McKenzie, and Jeoffrey J. Beckett “Selenium in the Immune System.”  The Journal of Nutrition http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/5/1457S.full

8)     Byron Richards. “Fight For Your Health.”  Truth in Wellness, 2006. P. 125, 129

9)     Byron Richards. “Fight For Your Health.”  Truth in Wellness, 2006. P. 130

Independence Day 2014





When the action at Lexington on the morning of the 19th was known at Dan vers, the minute men there, under the lead of Captain Gideon Foster, made that memorable march — or run, rather — of sixteen miles in four hours, and struck Percy’s flying column at West Cambridge. Brave but incautious in flanking the red-coats, they were flanked themselves and badly pinched, leaving seven dead, two wounded, and one missing. Among those who escaped was Levi Preston, afterwards known as Captain Levi Preston.

When I was about twenty-one and Captain Preston about ninety-one, I “interviewed” him as to what he did and thought sixty-seven years before, on April 19, 1775; and now, fifty-two years later, I make my report — a little belated perhaps, but not too late I trust for the morning papers!

At that time, of course, I knew all about the American Revolution — far more than I do now! And if I now know anything truly, it is chiefly owing to what I have since forgotten of the histories of that event then popular.

With an assurance passing even that of the modern interviewer — if that were possible —

I began: “Captain Preston, why did you go to the Concord Fight, the 19th of April, 1775?”

The old man, bowed beneath the weight of years, raised himself upright, and turning to me said: “Why did I go?”

“Yes,” I replied; “my histories tell me that you men of the Revolution took up arms against ‘intolerable oppressions.'” “What were they? Oppressions? I did n’t feel them.” “What, were you not oppressed by the Stamp Act?”

“I never saw one of those stamps, and always understood that Governor Bernard put them all in Castle William. I am certain I never paid a penny for one of them.”

“Well, what then about the tea-tax?”

“Tea-tax! I never drank a drop of the stuff; the boys threw it all overboard.”

“Then I suppose you had been reading Harrington or Sidney and Locke about the eternal principles of liberty.”

“Never heard of ’em. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, Watts’s Psalms and Hymns, and the Almanack.”

“Well, then, what was the matter? and what did you mean in going to the fight?”

“Young man, what we meant in going for those red-coats was this: we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”

CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive – 19Jun14 – The Damaging Effects of Fluoride and How to Avoid Them

CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive

The Damaging Effects of Fluoride and How to Avoid Them
By Art Smith

“I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly twenty years research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine. Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically."
Charles Elliot Perkins

Fluoride is all around us: It is in our tap water, most toothpastes and mouth rinses, added to infant formula and the main ingredient of many psychotropic medications. While the government and the ADA assure us that it is safe in the amounts we consume, we need to look closer at the effects it has on us as it builds up in our bodies. Fluoride can cause many health problems from fluorosis, cancer and arthritis to decreased mental functioning, apathy, and lethargy. This article will examine some of these health effects and some ways to neutralize and avoid them.

How Fluoride Affects the Body

Fluorine is a common mineral, but it is highly toxic in most forms. Fluoride compounds are waste products in the mining, fertilizer production, and smelting industries . It is sold as rat poison and used in pesticides. Fluoride toothpastes come with a warning label that it is dangerous if swallowed. The United States is one of 22 countries that have signed treaties promising not to dump fluoride compounds into oceans, lakes, or rivers due to concerns for contamination yet it is supposed to be safe enough to drink in our tap water. The fluoride compounds found in tap water have been linked to higher incidence of birth defects, lower IQ in children, cancer, immunosuppression, dental and skeletal fluorosis, and neurological problems. Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland, which can lead to neurological problems. The fluorides can react with lead and pipe joints and also lead to higher concentration of lead in the water (1). Fluoride compounds originating from industrial wastes also contain other toxic elements like mercury, arsenic, lead, kerosene, and radioactive elements.
No human studies on the effects of fluoride consumption and exposure have been conducted in the US. However, fluoride exposure is increased in some parts of China and many studies on the effects of fluoride have been conducted there. In 2012 a meta-analysis study was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and China Medical University. It was published in Environmental Health Perspectives in the July 20, 2012 issue. The analysis showed that children in high-fluoride areas had lower IQ scores than children who lived in low-fluoride areas. Senior author and adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, Philippe Grandejan, has this to say (2):

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

Fluorides can also wreak havoc on the thyroid gland, leading to hypothyroidism, especially when there is not enough iodine in the diet. Iodine deficiency is widespread so this applies for many. Prior to the 1970s doctors prescribed fluoride for hyperthyroidism in order to weaken the thyroid. It was effective even at 2 mg per day. Today most people consume between 2-10 mg per day from tap water, non-stick cookware, sodas, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include mood swings, cold sensitivity, weight gain, depression, heavy or irregular menstrual periods, constipation, fatigue, dry skin, brittle hair, skin, and fingernails, and hair loss. There are ways to treat and cure hypothyroidism naturally, but it is important to remember that ingesting iodine orally, even in small amounts and special formulas, is toxic to the body and leads to lasting health problems and can even turn deadly. (3) For more on hypothyroidism and the dangers of ingesting iodine, refer to the HealthWyze article on hypothyroidism: http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/211-how-to-cure-hypothyroidism-naturally.html

How Fluoride Affects the Mind

It is claimed that fluoride was used by the NAZIs to subdue their prisoners and make them apathetic. Charles Elliot Perkins was a researcher in chemistry, biochemistry, and physiology. He was in Germany after the end of World War II and put in charge of the Farben facilities. He was informed that the German General Staff had adopted the plan of using sodium fluoride to make their prisoners easier to control and weaken their will to resist. Perkins believed that fluoride affects the hippocampus to produce these effects. In 1987 Harley Rivers Dickinson, an Australian politician, talked about the dangers of fluoridation in "Address in Reply to the Governor's speech in Parliament." Here is an excerpt:
At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners-of-war to make them stupid and docile (4).

Sources of Fluoride

Fluoride is in the municipal water supply of most major cities in the United States; 67% of the water supply in the United States is fluoridated. One of three types of fluoride additives is added to the water: fluorosilicate acid, sodium fluoride, or sodium fluorosilicate (5). It is difficult to avoid fluoride in the water if living in a major city that uses fluoridation. Common water filters sold at stores such as Brita and Pur do not remove fluoride. The different brands of bottled water sold at stores vary in quality, but often use deceptive marketing and are often not much better than tap water. Boiling water does not remove the fluoride. To be able to remove the fluoride completely often requires purchasing an (often expensive) filtration system like reverse osmosis, activated alumina defluoridation or distillation system.

From the other beverages, tea is quite high in fluoride because tea leaves have an affinity for it. Other products high in fluoride include soda, baby food, coffee (especially decaf), canned fish, canned grains, and processed and fast food. Anything cooked or prepared in fluoridated water, like vegetables or baby formula, will take up even more fluoride. People living close to industrial plants producing industrial fluoride (such as coal-fired power plants, aluminum smelters, phosphate fertilizer plants, plastics factories) are at higher risk for fluoride exposure and toxicity. (6)

Bone broth and other products that require separating meat from bone (like chicken nuggets) are also high in fluoride because it concentrates in bones. The only way to have bone broth with low or no fluoride is if the animals were raised with fluoride-free water, which is not very likely. Of course, most toothpastes now contain fluoride as do many medications from antibiotics to depression and anxiety medications. Despite its dangers, fluoride is not required to be listed on the label of any products. (7)

How to Cope with the Effects of Fluoride

For anyone concerned with the effects of fluoride, it is wise to eliminate as many fluoride sources as possible starting with fluoridated toothpaste and processed foods and sodas. Obtaining fluoride-free water is important but may be difficult. However, one can do a lot of good to their overall health by switching to a more natural and healthy diet.
There are also a few supplements that have been shown to counteract the effects of fluoride, at least on the brain. Curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric has been found to attenuate neurotoxicity caused by fluoride. A study by Chhavi Sharma, Pooja Suhalka, Piyu Sukhwal, Neha Jaiswal, and Maheep Bhatnagar showed that neurotoxicity caused by fluoride in mice can be counteracted with curcumin (8). Curcumin is an Indian herb extracted from curry powder. It acts as a powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. Another study with rats focused on the effects of selenium on fluoride neurotoxicity. It was conducted by Qian, Miao, Li, and Zhang. The study showed that selenium supplementation can antagonize the toxic effects of fluoride on the rat hippocampus (9).
As mentioned before, iodine can counteract the damaging effects of fluoride on the thyroid gland, but it has to be applied on the skin to avoid overdose and dangerous side effects. In that case iodine as sold in most pharmacies and used in first aid kits is used to paint a small patch somewhere on the body. There is an “iodine patch test” to determine if a person is deficient in iodine and the same method can be continued to supplement topically until the deficiency is corrected. For more on fluoride and iodine and the patch test, refer to the HealthWyze article on the subject quoted above (10).

We are told that fluoride is good for our teeth, even though there are many studies putting that into question. We don’t hear often about the damaging effects of fluoride on our body and mind, and definitely not from our dentists, doctors, or associations in charge of our health. It is up to people interested in maintaining their health and intelligence and those of their children to look for different sources of information and decide on the best course of action for their well-being.

(1) “Water Fluoridation” by Dr. Lawrence Nelson http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/fluoridation.htm
(2) “Impact of Fluoride on Neurological Development in Children,” Harvard School of Public Health
(3) Corriher, Sarah. “How to Cure Hypothyroidism Naturally.” The HealthWyze Report http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/211-how-to-cure-hypothyroidism-naturally.html
(4) “Charles Elliot Perkins: The ‘Perkins’ story: myth or reality?”
(5) Michael Mannina, Margaret Morgan, Neil Murphy, Brian Trinh. “Effects of Water Fluoridation in the United States: Positive and Negative Impact of Water Fluoridation Policy.” March 18, 2013.
(6) Byron, Richards. Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA’s Betrayal of America. Truth in Wellness, LLC, 2006, p. 138.
(7) “Fluoride in Soup Broth and Gelatin.” Fluoride Detective. http://fluoridedetective.com/fluoride-soup-broth-and-gelatin/
(8) “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969660/
(9) Qian W, Miao K, Li T, Zhang Z. “Effect of Selenium on Fluoride-Induced Changes in Synaptic Plasticity in Rat Hippocampus.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23959921
(10) Corriher, Sarah. “How to Cure Hypothyroidism Naturally.” The HealthWyze Report

May 6th

CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive – The Endgame Coming Soon to Your School?


The Endgame Coming Soon to Your School
Chuck Frank

Microsoft, is one of the leading video game makers and the creator of the Xbox. Presently, Bill Gates’ goal is to bring into the public school classroom “educational” versions of new video games that make them “perfect” companions for standardized testing, but one must ask the question, what truly is the ideal companion for testing? Is it a screen that you can be looking at for hours on end or an inspired and colorful teacher who captures the attention of the student in ways that go far beyond a video game? If Bill Gates and the rest of the entrepreneurs out there can make a buck off of a video game in a classroom they will absolutely do it even if it does not lead to higher intelligence and proven technology for a future career.

Though video games can be tolerable because they come with colorful visuals and seem to respond directly to inputs, they are not personalized teachers. Video games are provocative, but beautiful and transfixing, yet they are also isolating and can become boring. And even if a student does well in testing through this medium, it does not necessarily mean that the student is becoming smarter and can accomplish tasks more efficiently in real life.

Also, it has been noted again and again that increasing student scores rarely correlates to intelligence. In 2012 researchers from Western University published results from a survey of 100,000 people arguing that standardized intelligence tests were poor measures of cognitive ability.” Then, add this to the fact that test scores nationwide are in decline while
some schools in America are already gearing up to bring in educational games into the classroom. Will it benefit or will educational game theory add to an even further learning decline among other numerous problems that are already facing educators and students?

Let’s compare a flight simulator to flying an airplane. The software needed to realistically simulate flying a Boeing 777 is readily available. Microsoft Flight Simulator, a self-described “ideal complement to formal flight training and real-world flying,” lets people adjust complicated controls to fly a jetliner through different weather and landing conditions. Yet, jumping straight from software to successfully landing an airplane, would be extremely difficult because mastering the feel of a jetliner takes a lot of hands-on training, said NBC News aviation expert Bob Hager in a conversation with NBC News’ Lester Holt.

Now, put that into the context of bringing similar game learning concepts into a classroom that is already experiencing major problems. It could become a really hard landing.

In my opinion, what is missing most in the classroom are teachers who are sensitive, encouraging, inspirational, and who can impart the desire and the need to learn basic skills that will be extremely valuable later on in life. Still, the proper curriculum is also a huge part of the equation. This is something that still needs to be fine tuned. Not everybody is going to be an astronaut and go to college.

Finally, when looking at all of the variables that are present in education, introducing experimental learning skills via video games into an already new and untried, nationalized (Common Core) educational system, in my opinion, has all of the elements of being a very risky proposition and a total failure.

Back At The Ranch

Veritas News Service

Back At The Ranch
by Chuck Frank

Rancher Bundy stuck to his guns while the feds tried rounding up his
cattle on 600,000 BLM acres of Gold Butte, Nevada land which has been
worked by the family ever since the late 1800s, and then, the feds
took a back step and called off the Helicopter roundup. Some of the
eco-state-congressmen were worried about not getting reelected so
Obama dialed 911. Liberty, freedom, and land rights just had a
reprieve while victory crossed the Nevada desert, and for now, it’s
no longer Midnight at the Oasis.

Here’s the rest of the story. Many factors enter into the standoff
whether it be taxation without representation, water rights, solar
zones, grazing, sue happy eco-terrorists, “endangered species”, false
flags, bribes, billion dollar back room solar deals, or the feds war
on property rights and ranchers. Is it still the government’s job to
eliminate cattle in the plains just as they did the buffalo and then
relocate ranchers just as they did the native Americans? Clevin
Bundy is the last man standing who finally drew the line with the BLM
cattle rustlers who’s policies are over the top and meant to put
ranchers out of business. So where’s the beef?

Apart from the many factors present with BLM, let us not forget those
not so friendly, band of guerrilla insurgents from the Center For
Biological Diversity. They recently threatened to sue the government
if they didn’t protect the desert tortoise from Bundy’s cattle that
roamed the West. Is this why the BLM took action? These types of
lawsuits, once again, are used to force the Bureau of Land Management
to reduce grazing allotments throughout the Southwest, curtailing the
number of cattle in many areas by 80 percent or more. With the
exception of Bundy, 51 ranchers in Clark County Nevada were put out
of business. There is a giant communistic-tyrannical pattern in the
country which seeks to destroy ranching, logging, and property rights
utilizing armed federal agents, SWAT teams and snipers to accomplish
these outrageous un-American goals. The Bundy standoff was much like
Waco being revisited. But for now, all that
is left is for the feds to hire a PR agency and hope that their
terrorizing-range war image is laid to rest.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other facts come to the surface. BLM
information was reposted by the Free Republic titled, “Cattle
Trespass Impacts” which directly stated that Bundy’s trespassing
cattle would “impact” construction of “utility-scale solar power
generation facilities on public lands.” The BLM director Neil
Kornze, Harry Reid’s former senior adviser, had temporally purged
these documents from BLM’s website which stated that the agency
wanted Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land which his
family had worked for over 140 years in order to make room for a 9000
acre, 5 billion dollar Chinese solar plant in Laughlin, Nevada which
has since been shelved. But then there is the sideshow. The person
who represented the Chinese solar company in 2011 was none other than
Nevada Senator, Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid. Every day this is
becoming more and more like a movie script.

But here’s the very latest, straight out of another BLM play book
entitled Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy
Zone (BLM Technical Note 444) which reveals that Bundy’s land in
question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding
area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for
“Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land
“managed” by BLM.

But then, on March 21, 2014 signaled the first day of construction of
the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project on tribal land, where Sen.
Reid joined representatives from the Moapa Band of Paiutes,
executives from First Solar, Inc. and the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power for a groundbreaking ceremony northeast of Las Vegas.
“ Coincidentally”, the location is about 35 miles from the Bundy
homestead in Bunkerville, Nevada, who’s cattle just might be roaming
around within the parameters of the 600,000 acre BLM site which is
the point of contention. What’s the worry? Would there not be
constructed a fence that would surround any amount of solar panels or
mirrors located inside of any such facility that will generate power
in the first place?

So all of the evidence is in and the recent actions taken against
Cliven Bundy and his family was under the guise of saving a “poor
desert tortoise” while a solar plant was being pieced together in the
back room.

This is just one more day in the life of a Nevada cowhand while one
more green, political fiasco takes place where roughly 84.5% of the
land is still in the hands of the feds. It’s time to take our lands
back before we the people lose them all. Clevin Bundy thank you for
standing your ground, and just as early Americans stood in the gap
while standing up to King George III during the American Revolution,
Bundy too is a true hero sounding the alarm and taking a just cause
to the streets of America. The red coats are still coming but this
time it’s not the British. It is a rogue group of traitors from our
own government along with other internal communist forces and foreign
factions who are intent on land grabs of monumental proportions.

Asshat Tom Collins

Being in the field means not always having continuous internet access available. But, this came in from a multiple-time attendee of seminars and partner…

Darin Bushman – Piute County Commissioner

I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of “inbred bastards” and if we are coming to Clark Cointy NV to support Cliven Bundy we all “better have funeral plans”. We should “turn our asses around on mind our own f-ing business”. Now there’s some classy leadership for you.

One of the advantage of being proactively engaged versus most who just post events and happenings is you see the seminar and workshop principles applied and utilized in action.

Putting County’s Last Cattle Rancher Out of Business

Note the last paragraph

April 22, 2012 – 2:06am

The federal Bureau of Land Management has suspended plans to seize the 500 to 750 head of cattle run by Clark County rancher Cliven Bundy south of Mesquite – and 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas – for now.

But Bundy, 65, realizes this is just a truce in an ongoing battle. Both the Mesquite City Council and the Clark County Commission have expressed support for a plan to turn the entire Gold Butte region into a federal conservation area. Mark Andrews, a local photographer who’s frequented the area for 35 years, writes in that the “BLM and the Friends of Gold Butte group have removed countless miles of road and open land access from free use. Places I used to go for decades are now blockaded. These are roads that are nearly 100 years old and in steady use. And this activity has become very aggressive and pronounced in the last 24 months.”

The area south of Mesquite “is really the only public area Clark County has left that’s not designated for some conservation area, or preserve, or monument, or whatever,” Bundy says. “I’m really the only resource user who’s still got any interest in the land,” he adds, referring to the grazing rights which have come down through his family for more than 100 years, a property right he insists was not granted by and therefore cannot be suspended by the bureaucrats of Washington.

Arguments that Bundy – the last active cattle rancher in Clark County – is damaging the range by overgrazing as many as 750 head or somehow cheating the public by not paying management fees to the BLM sound somewhat curious when we look at what’s happened to the 51 other allotments on which ranchers were grazing cattle in Clark County, within living memory.

Attempting to cooperate with their federal overseers, “year-by-year their operations were crippled by rising fees and reductions in AUM (animal units monthly),” wrote investigative reporter Tim Findley in the summer 1999 edition of Range magazine. “The numbers of actively used allotments were rapidly diminishing. The cattlemen took their cases to court, and won, but the BLM simply imposed new ‘force and effect’ regulations. More ranchers gave up.”

Zero grazing fees are now being collected on those other 51 allotments, which are going to waste. Nor would the BLM be likely to lease out the Mesquite allotment to anyone else, were Bundy finally evicted.

The right amount of grazing, in the minds of Mr. Bundy’s adversaries, is no grazing. The real plan here is to turn hundreds of square miles into another federal conservation area, if not an outright wilderness. Where’s the economic benefit in that?

The Review-Journal regularly receives letters to the editor which are essentially form letters, though they bear different signatures. Typical was one received this month above the signature of Terri Rylander, a member of Friends of Gold Butte, in which she identifies herself as “a business owner living in Mesquite.” (Her business is marketing and web page design.) She further asserts: “People may visit special places like Red Rock Canyon and Gold Butte for different reasons – camping, hunting, hiking, bird watching – but all visitors spend money in our communities at restaurants, hotels, gas stations, and retail stores. Protecting Gold Butte as a national conservation area with wilderness will put this unique area on the map, drawing visitors … and ensure a steady stream of revenue to local communities like Mesquite.”

‘Not good for local economies’

A June 2011 study conducted by researchers at the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, holds otherwise.

“We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions,” wrote USU researchers Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk and Randy Simmons. “Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income.”


“Wilderness … is the most restrictive of all federal land-use designations,” the Utah researchers point out. “To preserve wild characteristics, the Wilderness designation prohibits roads, road construction, mechanized travel, and the use of mechanized equipment. Wilderness also impacts extractive industries such as mining, logging, and grazing.”

In a footnote, the researchers explain: “Grazing is expressly allowed in Wilderness Areas, but administrators may make ‘reasonable regulations’ including the reduction of grazing to improve range conditions.”

Ask Cliven Bundy about those “reasonable regulations.”

“Environmentalists claim that Wilderness contributes to a healthy tourism industry,” the Utah researchers continue. But that argument “is simply not supported by the data.”

Nor is it clear that cattle damage the range. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence that ranchers, with their drip lines and water tanks – supporting quail and deer and other populations as well as cattle – and the ungulates themselves, cropping the graze close enough to the ground to allow new green shoots accessible to the tortoise while reducing the fuel buildup that fosters wildfires, are a net benefit to the country, before we even consider the benefits of local, organic beef.

A ‘state’ in name only

Citizens of any state east of the Rockies would likely riot at a proposal that the federal government take over 86 percent of their state’s land area. How did Nevada get into precisely that bind?

In his 1999 profile of Bundy for Reno-based Range magazine, Findley reported Bundy in the 1970s was willing to embrace the “multiple use” of the rangelands then being promoted. “He was patient and tried to cooperate with advice from those he considered his friends in the BLM,” Findley wrote.

“But everything we tried to do – every time we tried some compromise – they wanted more,” Bundy told Findley. “It was like talking to a greedy landlord. Everything became lockout or lockup.”

Findley introduces former Nevada District Court judge and rancher Clel Georgetta, author of the 1972 book “Golden Fleece in Nevada.” He presented the then “almost subversive” legal doctrine that claims by the federal government to more than 86 percent of the land of Nevada “amounted not only to a violation of the intention of Lincoln’s administration in promoting Nevada’s statehood in 1864, but of previous constitutional findings on the ‘equal footing’ of states admitted to the union.”

Thus was born the Sagebrush Rebellion. Legislation introduced in 1979 by then-state Sen. Dean Rhoads, directing the state attorney general to sue the federal government for control of all federal lands not specifically set aside for federal forts, post offices or Indian reservations, “is still a part of Nevada law,” Findley reported, “backed even more by a statewide referendum in 1996 in which voters overwhelmingly supported the idea of state control of public lands.”

So why hasn’t it happened?

“The Nevada attorney general has never taken the argument to federal courts,” Findley explained.

‘Public lands are a myth’

In his 1989 book “Storm Over Rangelands,” the late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage detailed how ranchers, miners, and others possess split title to the Western lands. Here in the arid West, no rancher could likely make a living off a mere 160 acres of deeded land.

So it’s not unusual for different parties to own, say, the grazing and water rights versus the mineral rights to overlapping parcels, while neither claims to “own” all that land, outright. Federal attempts to regulate those long-established rights out of existence violate basic constitutional rights, Hage successfully argued.

The BLM confiscated Hage’s cattle, up Tonopah way. He fought them through the courts for years – and won. But he died soon after. His children continue the struggle.

The federal government controls at least 86 percent of Nevada’s land area. But the federal government can show no bills of sale for these lands, approved by the legislature of the “state” in which they lie – the only method provided by the Constitution for the central government to gain title to, or wield plenary authority over, any lands within the several states.

Ironically enough, Nevada ranchers themselves have resisted reform in the past. Findley’s piece for Range magazine has President Ronald Reagan asking his interior secretary, James Watt, why the federal government couldn’t end its dominion over nearly one-third of the nation’s lands by selling them off or transferring them back to the states.

Watt had to explain to the president that wasn’t really what the ranchers wanted.

Years later, addressing a 1994 cattleman’s meeting, “Watt said Nevada sabotaged the Sagebrush Rebellion,” related Demar Dahl, former head of the state cattleman’s association. “When it came down to it, a lot of the big ranchers were afraid of losing their (federal) allotments.”

Local politicians, as well, find it “hard to turn down that $5 million or whatever,” that Uncle Sam routinely showers on local municipalities, Bundy acknowledges. “My side don’t have much cash. But the other side has put us, what is it, $60 trillion in debt.”



Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel “The Black Arrow” and “Send in the Waco Killers.” See www.vinsuprynowicz.com.

The Core Facts

The core fact is this:

The BLM has Public Domain in Nevada, as annotated in the federal records, of 44,828,279 acres held in Category 4 Jurisdiction, Proprietorial Interest Only. The State and it’s political subdivisions, the counties, retain all Legislative Jurisdiction. From the official documents offered en gratis for the broadcasts here at HOTT concerning Statehood, Limits of Federal Jurisdiction, State Sovereignty, etc.

“Proprietorial Interest Only: This term is applied to those instances wherein the Federal Government has acquired some right or title to an area in a state, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the area”

Real Americans Are Ready To Snap

Despite popular belief, every culture of every nation draws a line in the sand against government tyranny. The problem is, many draw this line so close to total defeat that it rarely matters. For the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, for instance, it wasn’t until the Germans had already herded millions onto railroad cars destined for death camps and cornered the rest into dilapidated central housing that the ZOB resistance was formed, only to be wiped out a month later. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but clearly too many freedom movements throughout history waited too long to respond to the trespasses of oligarchs.

The Founding Fathers frequently struggled with the proper measure of resistance. Many colonials wanted vengeance on the British after the Boston Massacre in March of 1770, but patriots knew that the timing was not right. The battle to rally citizens to the cause and to educate the masses as much as possible on the facts took precedence over the desire to enter conflict. The Founders endured five more years of British government criminality until nearly 80 farmers and militiamen stood outnumbered on Lexington Green on April 19th, 1775 to confront an army of 700 British regulars on a mission to capture rebel leaders and destroy weapons caches. No one knew at the time that the war would be sparked that day, but everyone knew that a fight was inevitable and near.

I believe the same feeling hangs in the air of modern America for REAL Americans, and by “real”, I mean those who actually support and defend the constitutional values and principles that lay at the foundation of our society. We sense that something is coming; a great change, or an unstoppable reckoning.
The question of when to strike back is pivotal to any resistance movement. Turn to violence too soon or without proper cause in the eyes of the public, and the rebellion may lose the moral high ground and the support of the populace. Wait too long, and the totalitarian hordes may be too far entrenched, forcing the rebellion to fight from a position of strategic weakness.

There are those who might argue that America crossed the “red line” long ago and now our society is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while arguing over futile semantics. In certain respects, I can see their point. The U.S. political system is utterly lost. Anyone who still has faith in the Left/Right paradigm after two terms of George W. Bush and nearly two terms of Barack Obama is either insane, or mentally challenged. It should be obvious to Republicans and Democrats alike that our government does NOT represent the average man, and our election process is a sham. Democrats in particular should be equally furious and ashamed as the candidate they blindly worshiped to the point of cultism has now forsaken every value they thought he represented.

The legal apparatus of the U.S. is also beyond repair. Those in the mainstream who argue that grievances with government should be addressed by the courts instead of independent action obviously have not considered that the courts continuously uphold and defend legislation like that contained within the NDAA, which allows for rendition, torture, and even assassination of American citizens without trial or due process. And where are the prosecutions of Constitutional violations by the NSA? Why aren’t men like James Clapper in prison for lying directly to Congress. Why hasn’t Eric Holder been slapped in irons for his involvement with “Fast and Furious”? And what about the international financiers who back these politicians? How many of them have been prosecuted for their involvement in the toxic derivatives scandals that are destroying our economy to this day?

No, we lost the courts a long time ago. They will do nothing to save this country. But is the fight already over? I think not.

Nihilism is tempting for those people who are lazy and frightened and looking for a philosophical excuse to run away from making a stand. Claiming the fight is lost before it has truly begun is a longstanding tradition amongst millions upon millions of cowards through history. Every freedom fighter in every great revolution for liberty has heard the same arguments that we hear today – “It’s too late to change things. The enemy is too powerful and you will be crushed. The nail that sticks up will eventually be hammered down. Your movement is a minority on the fringe and no one will support you. None of you have the guts to really follow through…”

While there is certainly much to despair in the state of our nation, I find the notion that Americans will do nothing in response misplaced and ignorant. From what I have observed, it is not a question of “if” citizens snap, but when.

With objective eyes one could easily see it during the last attempts by the federal government to pass anti-gun legislation that would have led to confiscation. Pro-2nd Amendment protests erupted all over the country (though the MSM mostly ignored them) with participants far outnumbering the miniscule groups in support of gun control. The sentiment amongst millions of gun owners and millions of Liberty Movement proponents was that we were not going to allow government enforcement of new gun laws. Period. If that meant we had to start using those same guns to put an end to government, then that was exactly what we would do. The feds, of course, buckled.

Rather than take the more dangerous and unifying direct route of federal legislation, gun grabbers have shifted strategies, isolating and targeting specific states they believe will be more pliable and easier to conquer. Connecticut and parts of New York, however, have shown that even people in the most socialist of states have no intention of complying with gun registration or confiscation. In Connecticut, only 38,000 high capacity magazines were registered according to the new gun laws, while approximately 2.4 million purchased through retail remain unaccounted for. Only 50,000 “assault weapons” were registered, while at least 300,000 remain unaccounted for. A sizable number of police are also refusing to enforce registration measures (some out of constitutional loyalty, and some out of a desire for self preservation), causing the state of Connecticut to back off of its hard line rhetoric.

I can say with full confidence that the conditions within Connecticut alone would lead to an open shooting war if officials actually attempt to enforce registration and confiscation. If Safe Act-style legislation or executive orders are ever enforced at a national level, I have no doubt revolution would follow.

The latest hotbed I have witnessed is the Bureau of Land Management attack on a cattle farm in Clark County, Nevada owned by Cliven Bundy. The BLM has so far stolen over 500 cattle from Bundy on the grounds that the federal government owns the land his family has been using for grazing pasture for generations. The confiscation was implemented under the auspices of “protection for endangered species”. The species in this instance being a desert tortoise.

The methods used by the BLM resemble a militant raid, with hundreds of agents, helicopters, and even snipers at their disposal. Adding insult to injury and making the issue a national concern, the feds have also staged “First Amendment Zones” miles away from their activities to keep protestors out.

This may seem like a minor event, a tiff over cattle grazing or possibly property rights, but there is much more going on here.

Tyranny leaves lasting scars, and each tyrannical act results in an accumulation of wounds on the public psyche that do not heal. In the end, a single event can become a trigger to unleash a torrent of rage pent up in a population for years or decades. The fight for Cliven Bundy’s farm has the potential to become such a trigger.

So far, federal abuses have been primarily toward Bundy’s cattle, with confiscation ongoing and suspicions that a number of the cows are being killed. Here, protestors try to stop a truck from leaving the area which they believed might be carrying dead animals. Agents respond with dogs and tasers.

However, I believe that if this situation escalates into a Waco or Ruby Ridge brand of event, not only Liberty Movement residents of Nevada, but Liberty Movement champions across the nation will indeed finally throw down the gauntlet. What does that mean? It means they are going to start shooting. Opposing groups can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the reality is that one way or another, it is going to happen.

Discussions within the movement are far from apathetic. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of eyes are watching every move of the BLM right now, and they should be taking this fact very seriously.

The naysayers will claim that we don’t have the will to take action. They are welcome to think whatever they like. But mark my words, Constitutionally minded Americans are not going to stand by and watch another massacre, nor a loss of gun rights, nor will we be entertaining violations of our freedoms for much longer. This society is on the edge of something. It’s kinetic, or electric. It is not yet quite visible but it is there, reverberating in the atmosphere. My suggestion to our federal bureaucracy would be to do what they did during the gun debate, and quickly back away.

Of course, we all know they won’t.

Do the elites want to stir up insurgency in order to give pretense for a larger crackdown? They very well might. But it is transparent in the way they try to mitigate dissent and offer placation that they do not want a rebellion larger than they can manage. I think it is far too late for that. I think they’ve pissed off too many people, instead of just enough people. I think that though most pretend-Americans will do nothing but watch in horror or hide in their hovels, the size of resistance to the tides of despotism is growing far beyond common realizations. And, when this resistance erupts, it will shock even those who fully expect it.



Report on the Telephone Records Program of the USA PATRIOT Act



Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Report on the bulk telephone record collections

under the USA PATRIOT Act

Happy Saturnalia!




EU Program for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data

European Union Program

for Mass Surveillance

of Personal Data


CAJI/IS and VNS Exclusive: How Federal Land Control is Detrimental to the States

VNS and CAJI/IS Exclusive


A Review of Public Land Policy:

How Federal Control is Detrimental to the States


Jefferson Tyler


            Currently, the United States of America is the third largest country in the world, following Russia then Canada, with over three million square miles that contain many natural resources. While much of this land is held by the respective states or by private entities, the federal government holds a vast portion as well. In fact, the federal government owns almost a third of the total landmass of the United States of America, over six hundred million acres (O’Toole, 1999). These holdings by the federal government are disproportionally located in the western states. According to Nelson (2012), the federal government’s holdings are about fifty-eight million acres in Nevada, (83% of the state), forty-five million in California, (45%), thirty-four million in Utah (65%), thirty-three million in Idaho (63%), and more than twenty-five percent in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming. These holdings by the federal government seem to place the western states in an inferior status compared to the eastern states, relative to the amount of control a state has over the land within its borders. With such a vast area of land, the federal government has come up with ways to manage the land by enacting land policies through Congress. Many of these policies predate the creation, or even territorial possession, of the states mentioned above, as land policies date to before the creation of the Constitution. These original policies were in practice for the early part of American history. However, beginning in the late nineteenth century and culminating in 1976 under the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, the United States Congress has slowly but drastically altered the land policies to the point where they would look foreign to the Founding Fathers who laid out the original land policies. This essay will show how the land policies of the federal government have undergone transformation over time and will explore the implications of such changes.

            At the time of the American Revolution, the British claims in North America extended beyond the western borders of the thirteen colonies all the way to the Mississippi River. Subsequently, an issue arose between the states in the Continental Congress regarding the claims of some of the original states to these western lands. Seven of the original states had land claims that extended westward, and many were overlapping. On the other hand, the six smaller states had no western claims and were fearful of domination by the larger states. Consequently, Maryland objected by refusing to sign the Articles of Confederation unless these western claims were abandoned. This issue threatened the cohesion of the Union. As a result, New York became the first state to agree to cede its western claims to the central government of the Untied States in March 1780, later to be accepted by Congress October 29, 1782. To facilitate this issue “a committee of the Continental Congress prepared a resolution which implored those States still asserting claims to western wastelands to follow New York’s lead and cede their claims to the United States as well” (Howell & Redd, 2005, p. 43). In response to New York’s cessions, Maryland signed the Articles of Confederation, and shortly thereafter, the Continental Congress adopted the Resolution of October 10, 1780, in which the United States laid out the beginnings of federal land policy.

Eventually, all the other states claiming western or crown lands ceded their claims to the United States central government at various times between 1782 and 1802, in benefit of the Union as a whole. “Thus the wide western domain became the common property of the states and a bond of union at a times when the life of the new nation depended upon a harmonious relation of its parts” (Hibbard, 1965, p. 9). This land made up the original public domain and was held as territories of the United States, not full members of the Union with all that entitles. That is not to say that these territories were to be held in such inferior status perpetually, as the territories were to organize then apply for statehood. The Continental Congress further passed a series of measure during the 1780’s regarding the public domain and qualifications for statehood. In particular, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set forth federal policy in respect to the territories of the United States.

            The Continental Congress enacted An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio, more widely known as the Northwest Ordinance, on July 13, 1787. While the title may be misleading in that it refers to the land northwest of the Ohio River, it nevertheless became the basis of territorial governance throughout the expansion of the United States.  The Northwest Ordinance laid out criteria on territorial governance and eventual statehood. First, the Northwest Ordinance called for temporary federal governance over the territory. In Sections 1, 7, & 12, the Ordinance stated that the territorial government of the public land was to be temporary. Second, the ordinance provided for admission of new states made from this territory into the Union of States on equal terms. “Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever…” (An Ordinance, Art. 5, 1787). This establishes the ground rule for admission of new states in the Union.

Furthermore, in Article 4, the Northwest Ordinance calls for the eventual disposition and extinguishment of federal title to the land. “The legislature of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers” (An Ordinance, Art. 4, 1787). Clearly, the Northwest Ordinance did not intend for the federal government to retain ownership of all the land that was ceded to the Union during those early days of the Republic. In fact, the Ordinance intends the exact opposite, it intends for the federal government to eventually turn over ownership in a variety of ways. Additionally, the Ordinance calls for all future states admitted into the Union to be equal with respect to their rights and sovereignty as the original thirteen states that claimed independence from Britain. Yet, as noted previously, the western states seem to be unequal to the eastern states when referring to the jurisdiction over the land within their borders because the federal government has not disposed of their holdings as was required. Moreover, as shall be shown, the federal government has come to declare that it will retain all public land in federal ownership indefinitely. However, before examining such changes, the United States Constitution should be examined.

            Just two months after the passage of the Northwest Ordinance, the States’ delegates held a convention to revise the Article of Confederation; instead the delegates ended up discarding the Articles of Confederation and drawing up a new constitution. So far, this essay has examined documents from before the adoption of the Constitution on September 17, 1787. The fact that these land ordinances predate the creation of the Constitution may call into question the legality of such ordinances under the new government and constitution. However, this is not the case as can be shown by examining the Constitution. First off, the Debts and Engagements clause provides that, “all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the Untied States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation” (US Const., art. VI § 1). Certainly, the resolutions passed regarding the public domain, like the Northwest Ordinance, are prior engagements the states entered into, therefore under Article VI of the Constitution they are still valid.

Furthermore, certain parts of the Constitution can be seen to reflect these pre-constitutional engagements. Regarding the creation of new states out of the territories, the Admissions clause says “new states may be admitted by the Congress into this union” (U.S. Const., art. IV § 3.1) and that “the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government” (U.S. Const., art. IV § 4), which was specified under the original agreement to cede the western claims to the federal government.

Additionally, that the federal government is to dispose of title can be seen in the Property Clause which states “the Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of other property belonging to the United States” (U.S. Const. art. IV § 3.2). Importantly, while the Property Clause grants the federal government the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories, that power must be in concordance with the disposal of the land from federal title, just as the earlier ordinances specified. Certainly, the original land policies adopted during the Confederation continue to hold true under the Constitution as well. Therefore, the land ordinances still applied to the land, with few exceptions, that was acquired throughout the expansion of the United States.

            Obviously, the landmass of the United States has greatly increased since Independence from Britain. Some land was bought, some gained by treaty, and right of conquest won other land. While the story of westward expansion is widely known to Americans a brief review is still merited, as most of this land became part of the public domain. The first acquisition of land by the federal government after the original ceded land from the States was the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory from France, almost doubling the size of the United States and gaining the valuable port of New Orleans. Eventually, all or parts of thirteen states were created from this purchase. Similarly, the United States purchased land from Spain, that sold what is today Florida in 1819. However, the next acquisition came about in a different way.

Texas was originally part of Mexico but revolted after much American settlement and became independent, and “wanted to join the Untied States at once, but arguments over slavery in the Congress held up acceptance of the treaty until 1845. In the meantime, Texas was an independent republic” (Clawson, 1968, p. 40). Since Texas was its own sovereign country, it was able to negotiate terms on entering the Union. One was that little of the land within the State was to be ceded to the federal government, but over ninety-eight percent would stay in the possession of Texas. Thus, Texas was never a public domain state, though Texas did sell some of its western and northwestern land upon statehood to the United States, which became part of the public domain. Eventually, the land sold by Texas became parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. While Texas was irregular, the next addition was more conventional.

The Pacific Northwest was sought after by the United States and Britain; however, in 1846 the two concerned parties signed a treaty giving control of the northwest to the United States. Eventually, the Pacific Northwest became the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming. Additionally, the United States gained the Southwest from Mexico after winning the Mexican-American War when the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed. Though the war was won, the United States still paid Mexico for the land that was gained. A few years later, the United States initiated the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico, which added a small strip of land on the southwest border. The land acquired from Mexico eventually became the States of California, Nevada, Utah, and large parts Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. The last large acquisition of land by the United States was Alaska, which was purchased from Russia in 1867. Interestingly, the last state, Hawaii, “was an independent nation which joined the United States at its own request” (Clawson, 1968, p. 43), similar to Texas. The above-mentioned land acquisitions account for the fifty States, however, the United States has acquired more land other than the States.

Other additions were made to the United States as well. Puerto Rico, Guam, and for a time the Philippines were all a result of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The Virgin Islands, islands in the Pacific were acquired as well. However, “these extra-continental possessions (including Hawaii) never had a public domain in the sense that the public land laws were applicable to them” (Clawson, 1968, p. 43). Clearly, over the course of American history the federal government expanded its territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean and beyond. However, as previously shown, the original intent was for the federal government to relinquish ownership of the land eventually.

            Undoubtedly, the obligation of the federal government is to transfer the public domain to private ownership or to the states as fast as possible. This is exactly what the federal government did for more than a century in a variety of ways. “In the disposition of the public domain, Congress has enacted land laws which may be roughly divided into five categories-land grants, cash policy, settlement policy, disposal to veterans, and general land laws” (The policy for disposing, 1961, p. 291). Initially, land grants were given to states made up from the public domain for various public purposes, namely, education and internal improvements. Educational grants were used by the states to fund their public school system by the ability to tax or to sell the land for profit to be used for education. In addition, grants were given for the creation of higher educational institutions; each State has a land-grant university. In Illinois the land grant college is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign designated in 1867. Furthermore, many states have agricultural and mechanical (A&M) colleges as a result of these land grants. Education was not the only reason land grants were made.

Additionally, grants were made for internal improvement projects such as wagon roads, canal construction, river improvements, reclamation of swamplands, and desert irrigation, among others (The policy for disposing, 1961). However, not all land grants were made to the states, for instance, grants made to build railroads across the country were given directly to the private railroad companies. Furthermore, cash policy was a way to gain revenue. After Independence, the new nation was heavily in debt but owned a lot of land, so the federal government went about selling land to add to the federal treasury. According to Clawson (1968), “by the middle of the 1830’s, land sales accounted for over 40 percent of the income of the national government” (p. 56). With such national debt today, this could very well help create a balanced budget, especially with all the resources in the west that could be capitalized upon by private companies or state governments that would be willing to purchase or develop such land. Regardless, cash policy was not the only was the land was disposed of.

Another form of land disposal was settlement policy. Most remembered of the settlement policies is the Homestead Act of 1862, which granted settlers 160 acres of land at no charge as long as they improved and resided on the land for at least five years. Later, the Homestead Act was changed to include 320 acres and required only three years of occupation instead of five years. Before long, other enactments were made to induce westward settlement, including The Timber Culture Act of 1873, the Desert Land Act of 1877, and the Carey Act of 1894 among others. Continuing with the disposal of the public domain, grants were also giving to veterans for their service and this practice actually pre-dates the Revolutionary War, as many colonies would grants land to induced enrollment in the State armies/militias. With this practice well established, when the War of Independence broke out the “Congress turned almost at once to the unoccupied land as a means of inducing enlistments in the army” (Hibbard, 1965, p. 117). Once again, the nation turns to land as payment as land was in abundance. Surprisingly, military land bounties continued for veterans up to the First World War. Lastly, let us not forget that land was set-aside for Native American Reservations, who are often forgotten about in the history of westward expansion. In the end, the federal government has been shown to fulfill their trust obligation of land disposal for about the first century of the nation's existence. However, that policy began to change during the end of the nineteenth century as society began to change.

            During the Progressive Era, new ideas were emerging regarding the role government was to play in American society and economy. The late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds was a time of the working class, labor unions, and the beginning of environmentalism. The National Forest system expanded under the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, as thirty-three million acres in 1905, then another thirty million in 1906 were added. The rise of socialist ideals diminished people’s faith in laissez-faire policies. Remember, socialism and communism call for the abolishment of private property. Regardless, the Progressive Era brought federal government expansion with the creation of bureaucracies and contrived responsibilities that reached into many facets of America. As for public land policy, “the Progressives are notable for their reversal of a long-standing federal policy of disposing of federal lands to the states, settlers, and other private landowners. Instead they reserved hundreds of millions of federally owned acres from sale or disposal to private properties” (O’Toole, 1999, p. 73). Clearly, the federal government succumbed to populist sentiment and terminated the disposal of the public domain. However, the federal government is under obligation to dispose of the public lands, yet has disregarded that mandate to the detriment of the States and the people. Apparently, this change in federal land policy all began in 1891. Coffman (2012) states that:

Congress…passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 that reversed a hundred years of U.S. policy and ignored the Constitution’s severe limitations to federal landownership. The Forest Reserve Act gave the president vast powers to “set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forest…as public reservations.” In addition to violating the constitutional limitations, it also trumped the Equal Footing Doctrine and effectively sacked the 10th Amendment (p. 43).


This reversal of long held policies was just beginning with the passage of the Forest Reserve Act. Soon other Congressional enactments created land bureaucracies and encroached upon Constitutional land policies. Briefly, the Transfer Act of 1905 created the Forest Service to manage the national forests. The Weeks Act of 1911 allowed the Forest Service to purchase and create national forests in Eastern States. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 created another bureaucracy, the U.S. Grazing service that was eventually rolled into the Bureau of Land Management along with the Forest Service, among others greatly expanding the control the Federal government has over the public lands within the States of the Union (Coffman, 2012). While these Acts are contrary to the obligations of laid forth in the original compacts, it was not until the 1970’s that the federal government stated it will not hold itself to the obligations of land relinquishment. Leading up to this breach of contract was the Supreme Court case named Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 1976. According to Howell & Redd (2005), “the Kleppe court utterly vanquished independent State sovereignty upon public lands within State borders leaving only an embarrassing, subordinate jurisdictional gratuity in its place” (p. 115). This case is significant because it laid the groundwork for the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, just four months after the Kleppe decision was made, almost as if it was planned.

The Federal Land Policy & Management Act, or FLPMA for short, was the figurative nail in the coffin on the obligations of Congress respecting the disposition of the public domain. For the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (1976) states, “the Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership” (Sec. 102(a) 1). This Act renders permanent the territorial governance of the remaining public lands, even though this stance is in direct violation of previous obligations. Consequently, the western states are most affected by this rendering, as the public lands are predominantly located in those western states. Therefore, they are not being held on an equal footing with the other states. The Equal Footing doctrine has been shown to be an essential condition to statehood, and can further be shown in certain United States Supreme Court cases. For instance, Bolln v. Nebraska (1900) states, “upon the admission of a state it becomes entitled to and possess all the rights of dominion and sovereignty which belonged to the original states” (173 U.S. 83). Yet, according to the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, these western states shall not have all the rights of dominion and sovereignty equal to the original thirteen states over their land.

Furthermore, Pollard v. Hagan (1845) says, “Whenever the United States shall have fully executed these trusts, the municipal sovereignty of the new states will be complete, throughout their respective borders, and they, and the original states, will be upon an equal footing, in all respects whatever” (44 U.S. 212). Clearly, the Constitution and the land ordinances meant for the states to be equal in all respects and the U.S. Supreme Court has said as much. Yet, it is evident by the amount of federal land in the western states that they are on an unequal footing with the eastern states. Furthermore, when territories became states, a contract was made between the state and the federal government. These contracts are the state Enabling Acts, which reiterate the Equal Footing Doctrine.

When a territory met the conditions of statehood, the people of said territory would apply to Congress for statehood. The people of the territory would contract with the United States in Congress assembled that authorized the territory to create a state constitution and their own state government. Under these state Enabling Acts, states were admitted in to the Union on an equal footing with the original thirteen states. Each state has an enabling act that admits the new state into the Union equally. Howell & Redd (2005) note, “each State enabling act compact required that the paternalism of federal territorial supervision be terminated and also that the laws of the United States within the new State, from that date forward, be the same as in the original States” (p. 63). Repeatedly it has been shown that the states are to be equal. By examining the early land ordinances, the Constitution, Supreme Court interpretations and state enabling acts makes clear the original intentions of a union made of equal members.

Furthermore, the states' enabling acts called for the disposition of public lands. For instance, Utah’s Enabling Act (1894) not only says that Utah will be admitted equally but also “that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States” (Sec. 3). Clearly, the obligations in the enabling acts reflect the principles evident in the early land ordinances and the Constitution. However, more than sixty-five percent of Utah is still held by the federal government. And, according to the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, that land in Utah will stay in the hands of the federal government, not to be turned over. Consequently, Utah is at a disadvantage and an unequal footing with the original states. That is not to say that there does not exist some necessary reasons for federal ownership.

Obviously, the federal government needs to look at the defense of the nation and perform other functions such as the postal service that would require the federal government to own land within a state. This is provided for in the Enclave Clause in Article I § 8, which states,

The United States shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten square miles) 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 purchase 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 building (US Const., art. I § 8.17).


Notice that the places ceded or sold to the federal government must be agreed upon by both Congress and the state legislature, just like the original thirteen states agreed to cede their western claims to the national government. Plus, there must be a good reason that the federal government would need to own such land like forts, dockyards, and other needful things. However, the reversal of long held land policies by the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 were not agreed upon by the state legislatures. Furthermore, The federal government does not need the millions of acres now in its possession to fulfill its enumerated powers. According to modern interpretations, the vast tracts of land in the West will stay in federal ownership to the impairment of the states without state consent. This seems to hold the western states in a somewhat colonial or inferior stature, further disregarding the principle of equal footing among all states in the Union. Not only are the western states unequal but they also bare other costs of federal land ownership.

The western states also bear economic costs of federal control. When Pennsylvania tried to tax the National Bank early in American history, the Supreme Court established that states could not tax federal land or institutions. While this may be of little significance in the east where the federal government owns little land, in the West where the federal government holds vast tracts of land the significance is great. The western states are at a disadvantage regarding tax receipts, even though they do receive payments in lieu of taxes from the Federal government. Additionally, the states cannot capitalize on all the resources contained within the public lands within their boundaries. Many of the western states contain natural resource that could create jobs and boost local economy if able to pursue yet they cannot because the federal government controls the land. An example is the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah where former President Clinton set aside some 1.6 million acres as a national monument. Coincidently, that area contained the worlds largest clean coal deposits that now are off limits. Interestingly, the second largest clean coal deposits are in Indonesia and are owned by the Lippo Group, which contributed millions to Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns through the family that owns the company (Coffman, 2012). Nevertheless, the example shows how the states are not able to reach their full potential in face of federal land control. Imagine the boost to the state economy and the jobs that would be created if Utah could access the vast resources located within the state. These burdens are not the only ones as further impacts are evident as well.

As noted previously, one reason the federal government disposed of the public domain was for education. States could either sell or tax land granted to them for the purpose of funding the public education system within the state. However, with the vast tracts of land in the west locked up in federal control, the western states are at a disadvantage when it comes to funding public education. “There was a almost direct correlation-the more land the national government controlled in a state, the less money for education that a state had. Education in the West is harmed by existing federal land holdings and policies” (Bishop, 2012, p.51). Not only do the modern land policies hold the western states unequal but also negatively affect the children in those states. “When Utah law makers and others did some research on these impacts, they found that 12 of the 15 states with the slowest growth in education funding were in the West” (Bishop, 2012, p. 51). Clearly, the impacts of federal land control are greater than first apparent. The western states have had to allocate more of their budget to education and had to tax their citizens at a higher rate to fund education. In a nation that promotes education such as the United States, the way the western states are less able to fund public education is surprising. This should upset all Americans as the nation’s future depends on our children. All children should have all the opportunities to receive a quality education, regardless of modern views on land policy. Nevertheless, besides the afore mentioned challenges facing the western states, the people of those states face physical dangers associated with the mismanagement of the public lands as well.

 In recent years, wildfires in the West have made headlines. Enormous fires swept across states destroying vast sections of forests and even towns. Evacuations took place as the fire raced towards communities, people leaving much of their belongings to the possibility of being consumed by fire. These fires also caused great damage to the ecology of the area and are a direct result of management practices. According to Nelson (2012), “past mismanagement has turned many national forests into flammable tinderboxes where intense crown fires reaching to the top of the trees-once a rarity-consume entire forests” (para. 6). The incompetency of the land agencies is another insult to add to the others inflicted upon the western states. New environmental policies that promote no human maintenance of the forests led to conditions that eventual destroyed the habit they were trying to protect. By failing to thin the forests and keep them back from towns led to disaster. Since the federal government holds most of the land, neither states nor communities have a say in the management of the land and forests they live near. Consequently, their livelihood is at risk because some bureaucrat hundreds of miles away knows what is best. Likewise, in usual governmental fashion, bureaucracies have emerged to management the public lands.

With the land holdings of the federal government reaching into the millions of acres, someone had to manage that land. Therefore, federal agencies were created to carry out the management of the public domain. The Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are responsible for managing the land controlled by Congress. In addition, like many governmental agencies have become incompetent money vacuums. While these agencies were once highly regarded and created profit, now they have become another expense of the federal government. These agencies have become more centralized since their inception and their mission changed to a more environmental mindset instead of land management. O’Toole (1999) notes, “one result was that, far from earning a profit on the national forests, the Forest Service began to lose $1 billion per year through the 1980’s and $2 billion per year in the 1990’s” (p. 2). Furthermore, “the Park Service loses well over $1 billion per year, the Bureau of Land Management close to $1 billion, and the Fish and Wildlife Service over $500 million managing their respective land bases” (O’Toole, 1999, p. 3). Clearly, the land agencies are no longer profitable and they continue to mismanage the land. With the federal government running towards a so-called fiscal cliff every option should remain open including reforming land policies and management practices. Even the federal government could benefit from reexamining land policies. Regardless, it is clear that the western states face many impacts from the continued federal control of the public lands. Therefore, something needs to be done to allow the West to reach their full potential.

 As noted, modern land policy is far removed from the policies that were enshrined during the beginning of the nation. Current policies hurt the states’ economy and children, hold those western states unequal, and create fire hazards to the communities nearby. Therefore, a real effort in reexamining the original intent of federal land policy is needed to fix the problems. Obviously, the Kleppe v. New Mexico decision could by reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court leading to the abolishment of the Federal Land Policy & Management Act and a reassertion of original intent on the disposition of the public domain. Of course, achieving such would be an enormous task that the federal government would doubtfully initiate itself.

On the other hand, western states (hopefully with their eastern brethren) could force the issue somehow. Howell & Redd (2005) suggest that the states could bring suit against the federal government for breaching the contracts that are the State Enabling Acts. The authors note that since the federal government has not fulfilled the terms of the Enabling Acts, “these States, therefore, have grounds for legal action on this and every other term of their respective enabling act compacts which remain faithlessly unfulfilled by the United States and their agent Congress” (p. 379-80). If the United States of America is a nation of law, and contracts being law than the federal government should respect their obligation. Since the federal government has not turned over the land, holding those states unequal, violate not only the enabling acts but also the original trust compacts created when the original states ceded their claims to the federal government. If even just the western states affected united in suit against the United States would be a monumental case that probably would go to the Supreme Court.

Likewise, the states could possibly file suit on grounds that the federal government is in violation of the Tenth Amendment in that current land management powers were not delegated to the United States, but are reserved to the States. Another argument could claim civil rights violations as “the people of that State are denied republican self-governance or, that is, political rights, equivalent to those of the original States” (Howell & Redd, 2005, P. 383). Nevertheless, any of these arguments would shake the current political foundation, but may be necessary to preserve federalism in face of growing national power. Regardless, other remedies exist to the states as well.

Besides filing suit against the federal government, the state could act on their own within their borders. The original thirteen states guarded their sovereignty jealously, which continued throughout American history. This tradition continues today in the West where the states are seeking to control all the land within their borders, aside from the properly ceded small tracts of land the federal government needs to fulfill basic functions. Several western states have initiated measures to solve the problem of federal land control. For instance, the Los Angles Times (2010) reported “the Utah House of Representatives… passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development” (Riccardi, p. 1). This will no doubt spark a long legal battle between Utah and the United States that may spread to other states. In fact, Arizona just recently voted on Proposition 120, which called for similar measures to gain control the public land within the state and reaffirm equal footing. Arizona made exemptions from the proposition for the Native American Reservations within the state and with land properly ceded to the United States. However, the proposition failed to pass in Arizona but doubtfully did the issue fade. Other states have also shown interest in such measures as a possible solution to the problems they are facing. Clearly, the public land policy is a big issue in the West but not so much elsewhere.

Many easterners know nothing about the issue facing the western states, much less grasp how land policies actually affect people in the West. But, the issue affects all states for if the federal government discriminates against one state what is to say that it cannot do the same to all the states. The situation is a real test for federalism. Are the states to be slowly subjugated to a centralized national government or are the states going to retain their rights? The Founding Fathers knew the dangers of centralized power and established a new nation in a way to best contain the ambitions of tyrants. Besides, most of the resources are located in the West so it would do well for the eastern states to support the western states if they continue to want goods that come from the West. Regardless, “the only real solution is giving states greater control over their destiny” (Bishop, 2012, p. 51). The current land policy creates a volatile situation that could be easily solved by looking back to the original principles of the Constitution. As has been discussed, the original intent was for the federal government to dispose of the land to newly created states or private entities. Some may say that the original land policies are outdated and no longer are applicable. However, looking at the mismanagement by the federal government and the disadvantage placed on the western states, following original intent cannot by any worse. In fact, many states already have their own land management agencies but little land to manage compared to that of the federal government in western states. The United States should follow the original obligations and dispose of the public domain to the states or to private entities.

Over the course of American history, the nation’s borders grew and the land policies changed right along with. From the original practice of disposal to the modern retention policy the view on property rights has altered. Today, the federal government owns close to a third of the land in the United States, mostly in the West. This essay has examined the implications of federal ownership. The western states are being held on an unequal footing with the eastern states contrary to original intent. They are not able to capitalize on resources within the state and are not able to tax the federal land within their borders. Educational impacts are present as well, as public school funding suffers. Moreover, under the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, the federal government said it would no longer dispose of the public domain. However, this essay has shown that this policy is against the original obligations of the United States. The Founding Fathers feared a tyrannical government, and held property rights in high regard. Is this federal breach on land policy an attempt to acquire more power? The Founding Fathers also knew that locals could better govern and manage themselves better than a distant authority. Likewise, they supported federalism as “Federalism is rooted in the core belief that local governments are better suited to address local issues than a distant, out-of-touch federal government” (Bishop, 2012, p. 51). Today, Washington is dictating land policies to locations far away with little success. A real review of public land policies is in order if these problems are to be solved. Ultimately, the federal government needs to fulfill its obligations and dispose of the public domain to the states or private entities, except the Native American Reservations and needful federal enclaves. Only then will all the states be able to reach their full potential as members of the this great Union of States.



Bishop, R. (2012). How the West was lost: Why federal land policy disrespects our Constitution and children. The Hinckley Journal of Politics. Retrieved November 13, 2012 from http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/HJP/article/viewFile/669/512

Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83, 1900.

Clawson, M. (1968). The land system of the United States: An introduction to the history and practice of land use and land tenure. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Coffman, M.S. (2012, Winter). Our Federal landlord. Range Magazine. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-wi12-our_federal_landlord.pdf

Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1701-1787 (2000).

Hibbard, B.H. (1965). A history of the public land policies. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Howell, B., & Redd, B. (2005). Statehood: A territorial imperative. Helper, UT: Bookcliff Publishing.

Nelson, R.H. (2012, March 7). Free the American West. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 13, 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/07/opinion/la-oe-nelson-public-lands-20120307

An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio. (July 13, 1787). New York, NY: Confederation Congress.

O’Toole, R. (1999). New directions for public lands. Forum for Applied Research & Public Policy, 12(2), 73-77

The policy for disposing of public lands. (1961). Congressional Digest, 40(12), 291, 293.

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 1845.

Riccardi, N. (2010, March 3). In Utah, a move to seize federal land. Los Angles Times. Retrieved November 24, 2012 from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-utah-domain3-2010mar03

State of Utah Enabling Act. (July 16, 1894). Salt Lake City, Utah: State Convention. Retrieved November 15, 2012 from http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/ 1894text.htm

U.S. Const., art. I § 8.17

U.S. Const., art. IV § 3

U.S. Const., art. VI § 1


The American Crisis


The American Crisis


Thomas Paine

Rare Photos



Surgeon in Parkland ER Insists Fatal JFK Head Shot Came From the Front

50 Years Ago, Secret Service Limo Driver William Greer Killed JFK with Explosive Head Shot