Tag Archives: ranchers

Howling For Wolves condemns three wildlife killing contests to be held this weekend in Minnesota as cruel, ineffective, and disastrous for wildlife

by Rev. Austin Miles
This came to me as an urgent Press Release which I gladly have posted on my website: http://www.revaustinmiles.com and on the news wire. People, please put a stop to this march to cruelty contest.
Animals have the same feelings we do including pain, fear, anxiety, distress, grief and yes, even love. So these targeted animals will experience the same pain you would experience if you were the hunted in this barbaric “sport.”  Below is the contact numbers for Howling for Wolves that protects animals.
PRESS RELEASE FROM HOWLING FOR WOLVES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 18, 2019
CONTACT: Dr. Maureen Hackett, Howling For Wolves, 612.250.5915, or Leslie Rosedahl at 651.353.1818, respond@howlingforwolves.org
(St. Paul) – Three wildlife killing contests will be hosted this weekend in Minnesota. These contests target coyotes and foxes.
The sponsors of this atrocity and their phone numbers are listed below. With courtesy, urge them to pull their sponsorship;
West Metro Coyote Hunting Tournament (Watertown, Minnesota): Host-  Hollywood Sports Complex: (952) 955-2424
Buffalo Ridge Coyote Hunting Tournament (Marshall, Minnesota): Host-  Brau Brothers Brewing: (507) 929-2337
Minndak Coyote Tournament (Randolph, Minnesota): Host- Roscoe’s Roadhouse: (507) 263-5157
“Wildlife killing contests are cruel, ineffective, and do not reflect Minnesota’s tradition of sportsmanship and respect for the outdoors,” said Joe Wolf, board member of Howling For Wolves.
Hunts like this are unregulated – with no rules, and no limits.
“Killing contests are wrong for many reasons; First, there is no place in a civil society for wildlife killing contests. These types of tournaments are disastrous to wildlife and the balance of ecosystems, and simply glorify violent behavior by encouraging killing simply for the sake of killing.
Second, organizers of these events often claim that they are helping to control predator populations. The fact is, this is not about controlling wildlife populations. This is about thrill-killing, a nonsensical, savage contest to see who can kill the most. Finally, we need the fox to control infectious diseases, including Lyme disease,” said Wolf.
The phone number of the sponsors of this horrendous killing party are shown above. Please contact them with courtesy and urge them to call off his dastardly deed which makes all of us look like savages
###
Howling For Wolves educates the public about the wild wolf to foster tolerance and to ensure the wolf’s long-term survival. Howling For Wolves opposes recreational wolf hunting and trapping and all wildlife snaring. We advocate for nonlethal prevention methods that reduce wolf-livestock conflicts and support current federal protections for the wolf. http://www.HowlingForWolves.org
####
Rev. Austin Miles is the author of the just published book, God and Animals-What the Bible Says About Animals and Heaven. Here is a link with information of this book that celebrates all animals: https://www.capitolhilloutsider.com/new-animal-book-answers-the-question/
The book is available on Amazon.
EMM commentary:  Every little outside feral cat we had has been eaten by coyotes, every rabbit, every skunk has been killed. I have no problem destroying coyotes who destroy people’s pets.  They are a menace and a predator that needs to be eliminated.  Wolves attack and kill ranch animals…there’s a limit to everything.  I’m sorry but wolves have become a menace to ranchers  and it’s all because of releasing them where they don’t belong.
 


WHY DID ROBERT ‘LAVOY’ FINICUM HAVE TO DIE? THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MALHEUR, PUTIN, THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, AND BIG MONEY

BY HERSCHEL SMITH

For those who have tracked this with at least a modicum of interest, this has all been puzzling. WeaponsMan has this to say about the death of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum.

This whole mess began because a Federal prosecutor (like all of them an effete urbanite with many years in Eastern elite colleges) thought it would be amusing to make a felony out of some careless brush burnoffs by a couple of ranchers, and send the hayseeds to prison.

Amusing, you say?  This all happened because someone wanted to be amused?  Digging a little deeper, the original case was so weak that if something like this had happened around these parts, those responsible might have faced community service, a small to moderate fine and a stern talking-to by the judge.  To explain just how bizarre this whole thing was to start out, and just how head-scratching the drama surrounding this was, I turn to none other than Western Livestock Journal, well before any of this ever happened.

BLM filed charges against the Hammonds back in 2012. The federal prosecutor chose to prosecute them under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Anti-terrorism Act).
The trial court’s 2012 findings can be summarized as follows: Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.

Those are the facts of the case.  They aren’t any more complicated than that.  This all has to do with some controlled burns that weren’t exactly controlled, and an agreement the Hammonds say they had with BLM that apparently they didn’t have in writing (big mistake).  Continuing with the report.

The trial court sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, to a combined three months, one year and one day in prison. They served their time in 2013 and are now under three years’ “supervised release.” The court additionally revoked their firearms and Dwight lost his pilot’s license.
The Hammonds are also paying $400,000 as part of a separate settlement agreement with BLM.
They may be forced to sell part of their ranch to BLM to make the payment. BLM has additionally refused to renew the family’s federal grazing permits for two years running. This means Hammonds can use neither their BLM allotments nor thousands of their private acres, which are intermingled with BLM land. It should be noted that the civil settlement and the BLM’s refusal of Hammonds’ grazing permits are, technically, unrelated to the criminal case.

So this begins to get interesting, yes?  A harsh settlement with the court, loss of weapons rights, huge fine, time in prison, and now (this is the interesting part) loss of grazing permits and possibly having to sell the ranch because of the huge fine.  Remember, this is all stuff that was known well before anything with the so-called occupation ever occurred.  Let’s continue.

… the federal government was unsatisfied with the less-than-five-year sentence handed down by the trial court, and decided to appeal.
In the first instance, why did the federal government choose to prosecute under an anti-terrorism statute? A reading of the court documents does not provide a clear answer. The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted following the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings in the 1990s. Legislative history shows the law’s purpose is to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” More specific purposes include authorizing federal courts to hear claims against “terrorist governments for acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens…” and revising criminal laws regarding “unlawful possession, use, transfer, and trafficking in nuclear materials and biological and chemical weapons.”
The government originally attempted to prosecute the father and son for nine violations of the Anti-terrorism Act. The trial court found Hammonds guilty on only two counts: for having started the 2001 prescribed burn and the 2006 back-burn. The guilty charges came under section 844(f) of the Act, which calls for a minimum of five years in prison for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property [of] the United States…” However, the judge and jury appeared to be conflicted over applying the Anti-terrorism Act’s full force. As noted by Judge Michael Hogan of the District Court, Hammonds’ fires likely rejuvenated and improved the federal range. Indeed, it would defy logic to expect Hammonds to purposefully and “maliciously” damage their own BLM allotments.
Of importance, too, was the trial court’s finding that no lives were endangered or harmed by the fires—which, under the Anti-terrorism Act, would have meant a minimum prison sentence of seven years.

You can read the rest for yourself.  Now, to be sure, we can combine this ridiculous legal situation with problems of our own with the Bundy’s visit to Malheur.  To begin with, if they had surrounded the Hammond’s home at their request and refused to allow him to be taken to prison, this might have ended differently, and would probably have had the support of most of the patriot community.  Instead, they occupied an unrelated building in the middle of nowhere, without the Hammonds having requested it.
Furthermore, this was tactically and logistically unsustainable, and lacked means of egress, evasion and escape.  For me, there is also the problem that the occupation is intermingled with eschatological complexities of the LDS.  Ammon Bundy claimed to be told by God to do this, and one occupier said “I’m Captain Moroni, from Utah.”  This is important.  If you do not understand the significance of this, then study it.
As for me and my theological views (give me a brief minute here, as this is related to the article), God doesn’t reveal Himself today (contra LDS, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic with the pope speaking “ex cathedra”).  He has revealed Himself, past tense.  It’s closed – finished.  See the Westminster Confession of Faith.  I am to follow His laws for my life, and honor His guidelines and wisdom in my interactions.  I don’t listen for “voices,” wait for visions or expect God to favor me with knowledge other men don’t have.
So if you tell me God said for you to do something or other, I’m more than likely going to say, “Thank you sir,” shake your hand and be on my way.  The situation was a bad case for patriots, poorly planned, poorly thought out, and badly executed.  But it is what it is, not perfect.  Perhaps I couldn’t have done better.
And into the gap stepped Bundy, his friends and Mr. Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum.  They may not have known what they were stumbling into, but it is dark, deep, and a sad commentary on the state of this pitiful nation.  Let’s take a step further into the darkness, thanks to Jon Rappoport.

Is uranium at the heart of the Oregon Malheur federal-protestor standoff? That’s the question I’m asking. It isn’t a flippant question.
I realize there are many other issues swirling around this event. The Hammonds, the Bundys, militias, the feds, cattle grazing on federal lands, federal land grabs, and so on. This article isn’t meant to take apart those matters.
It’s meant to follow up on my previous article, in which I present a circumstantial case for the Clintons’ heavy involvement in a scheme that’s transferred 20% of US uranium production to Putin and Russia. And the key company in that piece is Uranium One. Remember the name. It’s apparently a major clue in what I’m about to discuss.
I also want to say, at the outset, that I don’t know how many independent news outlets and websites are covering the uranium question, or which outlet initiated this line of investigation. I’m relying on one provocative January 23 article at intellihub, by Shepard Ambellas:
“Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians, along with one-fifth of our uranium ore.”
Down in the body of that article, the author provides a link to a page at the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior.
On that BLM page (“National BLM > OR/WA > Energy > Uranium Energy”), in a section titled,“Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA,” [(image of webpage forthcoming)] is the following statement:
“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the ‘New U’ uranium claims.
“On May 7, 2012, Oregon Energy LLC made a presentation to the BLM outlining its plans for development for the mine.
“The Vale District has agreed to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation for the ‘New U’ uranium claims, which are located in core sage grouse habitat. Although the lands encompassing the claims have been designated core, the area is frequented by rockhounds and hunters, and has a crisscrossing of off-highway vehicle (OHV) roads and other significant land disturbance from the defunct Bretz Mercury Mine, abandoned in the 1960s.
“However, by the fall of 2012 the company said that it was putting its plans for the mine on hold until the uncertainty surrounding sage grouse issues was resolved.”
The first sentence in that BLM section ties together several key elements of the story: Uranium One; a uranium mine; southern Malheur County. Southern Malheur is the general area of the federal-protestor standoff. Let me give you that first sentence again:
“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon.”
What does this have to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton? I’ll reprint my previous article so you can read the details, but the short version is: there’s a case to be made that they, through Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation, facilitated the sale of Uranium One to Putin and the Russians. And if so, and if this area of Oregon is projected to be part of that uranium mining deal, then we are looking at a stunning “coincidence”: the US federal government is coming down hard on a group of protestors who are occupying, for their own reasons, a very valuable piece of territory that goes far beyond the issue of private cattle grazing on government land.
It comes under the heading of those old familiar lines: you have no idea what you’re involved in; you have no idea who you’re messing with; this is way over your head; you just stepped into the middle of something that’s bigger than you can imagine.

Not only is an awful lot of Uranium at stake, but the company to which he refers is very interested in Gold as wellAnd right in the area of the fields of weeds in Malheur.  This observation isn’t limited to a blogger, however good he has proven to be.  Bloomberg has noted that since 2013, “the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.”  And USA Today notes that this all comes back to a huge donation to the Clinton Foundation.
This is a good summary of the situation.

This is an update to my previous article Constitutional Shake Down in Burns Oregon.
I stated in my previous article that the Chinese wanted the uranium under Harney county but it turns out it was the Russians that wanted the uranium. David Ward the sheriff it turns out, used to work for BLM and testified against the Hammonds. It has also been revealed that the Clintons under their reign made a deal with Russia to let them mine uranium under Harney County. The Clinton money laundering Foundation received approximately 2.5 million dollars in four payments from the Russian mining company now known as Uranium One that was bought from a Canadian firm.
This would explain why state officials were nervously trying to end this and why the sheriff gave his permission for the FBI to come into the county at the behest of the governor now as 200 fed vehicles come to Harney County. This governor Kate Brown is a Clinton brown nose supporter
This corruption goes all the way to the top of the Clinton white house, the justice dept, BLM, the forestry dept. and includes the sheriff playing his role in the theft of the Hammonds freedom and land by lying on the stand to convict the Hammonds as a BLM thug. The conflict of interest alone should free the Hammonds on the basis of a mistrial.

Just like the Bundy experience, which was all related to a corrupt deal by Harry Reid to enrich the Chinese communists and his own son with the Bundy land, this is related to land, how valuable it is, and the value of its minerals.  If you think that this land is for you, if you think that you can just do anything you wish with government owned land, if you like to sing “this land is your land, this land is my land, from …,” then you’re a moron and you belong at a Bernie Sanders rally.  No one except other rubes believes that anything about federal lands is yours.  Federal land is capital.  It is power.  It is largesse.  It allows gifts to those in power.  It catalyzes corruption.  It is quid pro quo, the stuff of powerful men and women who want to rule the world, the currency of graft.
The video the FBI released was purported to show, in the words of FBI special agent Greg Bretzing, “On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket.”  First of all, without the wife or daughters producing a proof of sales for a 9 mm pocket pistol, I don’t believe them.  Furthermore, it looks to me like he stumbled.
Additionally, even if he had a pocket pistol, no one with two brain cells (and I believe that Mr. Finicum had >> two brain cells) would present or produce a 9mm pocket pistol to engage in combat with multiple operators equipped with rifles, optics and body armor.  I don’t believe it.  If this video is the best they can do, they failed.  It proves nothing.  Whoever decided to release this video as evidence of Mr. Finicum’s decision to engage in combat is a moron.  It’s a video of a mad, but pitiful old man stumbling in the snow.  And you can’t prove that it’s anything but that.
Here we are with Mr. Finicum dead, a good man by all accounts, especially those who knew him best, his friends and family, and yet the evil goes much deeper.  The divisions are becoming more pronounced, and they will not be healed.  As for the shooters, Oregon police, or *.gov federal agents, whomever you are, this is what we know.  You knew that this mess needed to be closed out quickly.  Thus you did what you did.  Congratulations.  You killed Mr. Finicum so that Hillary Clinton could become enriched by selling the rights to American Uranium and Gold to a Russian communist.
 

California Fish and Wildlife Persecutes Ranchers Over Water Rights

By Stephen Frank for CAPITOL REVIEW.COM

Government, by definition is corrupt and mismanaged. We have a Governor, in the middle fo a water crisis, without a water policy. He believes by NOT spending money meant for water relief, giving water to fish bait instead of farmers, refusing to waiver environmental laws so desalination plants could be build, by allowing millions of acre feet each day flow into the ocean instead of being sold—and then fining us for lengthy showers, watering lawns and growing food.
“On June 10th, 2015, a dozen or more neighbors, in a small valley, located in far northern California, helped some ranchers gain access to their water rights, which dates back to 1863. We went into the river and moved rocks. Rocks displaced by a spring flood event, in order to get the water to flow toward the fish screen, at the mouth of a one hundred year old irrigation ditch. Our neighbors needed help. They had applied for a permit some six months earlier. They watched the river levels dropping, wondering why it would take more than half a year to get permission to do such a small job. Finally, out of desperation, in order to put some water on the crops which provide for their families, more than a dozen of us answered the call for help.
Some Californians still believe in freedom and sane environmental policy. We need water, we have water, but we have government trying to control our lives and lifestyle—instead of standing out of the way and allowing freedom to help all of us.
Photo courtesy of Aquafornia, flickr

California Fish and Wildlife Persecutes Ranchers Over Water Rights
Mark Baird, Daily Surge, 7/3/15
On June 10th, 2015, a dozen or more neighbors, in a small valley, located in far northern California, helped some ranchers gain access to their water rights, which dates back to 1863. We went into the river and moved rocks. Rocks displaced by a spring flood event, in order to get the water to flow toward the fish screen, at the mouth of a one hundred year old irrigation ditch. Our neighbors needed help. They had applied for a permit some six months earlier. They watched the river levels dropping, wondering why it would take more than half a year to get permission to do such a small job. Finally, out of desperation, in order to put some water on the crops which provide for their families, more than a dozen of us answered the call for help.
We acted collectively knowing the state would have to make a decision to prosecute all of us.
California Fish and Wildlife is deciding whether to go forward with that prosecution. Cal Fish and Wildlife contends that every surface water user must ask permission prior to turning water onto their crops.
Fish and Wildlife has an agenda. California, using this agency, intends to gain control over all surface water rights in California. Water rights are real property rights in California. There is a priority system to ensure the rights are used under the “first in time, first in right doctrine”. California’s executive agencies have been locked in a battle with farmers and ranchers for decades trying to gain control over all surface and subsurface water rights in our state.
To give an idea of the ridiculous nature of this persecution, one of the potential charges contemplated against us, is the act of “unlawfully entering a wet area.” I never knew it to be a crime to step in the water. There are State Senators, County Supervisors, State Assembly people and at least one Congressman now involved in our heinous act of making a leaky ten foot long rock dam. Oh, and unlawfully entering a wet area. The reason so many of us entered the wet area to help our neighbors get their water? Because we know the Department of Fish and Wildlife is looking for someone to prosecute for failing to ask Big Brother’s permission to use adjudicated water rights. Our community is not willing to allow our friends and neighbor go this alone. Fish and Wildlife will either take all of us, or take none of us!
The open question for the people of California, as well as the rest of the United States is as follows; when is a right, not a right? A property right is not a right when it requires permission or a permit. I am reminded of Ben Franklin when he said, “Property must be secure or Liberty cannot exist.” When permission is required, permission can be denied. Fees are always involved. The State is in a position to price people out of their property rights. When does the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights in our State Constitution enter the process?
Article one; Section one, of the California Constitution declares that all people are free and independent by nature with certain inalienable rights. Among them, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. Why bother to have Constitution when the agencies of the executive can ignore the Charter of Rights, or the Bill of Rights? Why are we forced to ask government every time we want to water our crops, provide drinking water to our animals, in order to provide decent lives for our children? If we are not to be denied Life, Liberty or Property, without due process, how is the executive branch of government allowed to dictate to the people they are supposed to serve, when, where and how, property can or cannot be used and how much it will cost you to use the property you own.
The people of our watershed are waiting for the other shoe to drop. We wait to see if the government of, for, and by, the people will choose to persecute us for using water we have the inalienable right to use. We will not submit. We will not abdicate our property rights to executive branch of the State of California or to any agency of that branch. To do otherwise would be to admit that we have become subjects of the Monarchy called California. Tyranny rarely fixes itself. We must all ask ourselves whether our creation, (yes, people created government, not the other way around), has become our master? This is the primary reason eight counties of California have signed Declarations and Petitions to withdraw from the State of California under Article 4, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, to form the 51st State. The State of Jefferson. Rural Northern California has no representation. We must act to restore the inalienable rights to Liberty, and Property for ourselves and for generations to come.

Feds Push For Total Control of Property Rights: “Government is Named as the Owner of ALL the Water”

My comments:  This is happening all over our country.  Water is the new gold, and when we lose it to the ownership of the federal government or state governments rather than by the citizens, they will control our entire livelihoods.  This has already happened in CA, and it is spreading.  Please be aware and check your own states.  We are in grave and serious danger.

Jeremiah Johnson  April 16th, 2015 SHTFplan.com

Editor’s Note: The following research and commentary shows just how far the federal government is willing to go. With the help of the EPA and State legislators they are aggressively chipping away at private property rights in America and as you’ll see from Jeremiah Johnson’s report below, they are starting with our most precious resource – water. That includes the creek in your backyard, the well under your house and even the rain that falls on your roof. Once they have control of the water, it will be they and they alone who decide whether or not you can shower daily, or water your crops, or how much drinking water will be allotted for your family – even if you have an aquifer sitting below your property . But that’s just the beginning. The dangerous precedent about to be set in Montana means they’ll have given themselves the pretext to seize anything they want. The aim, as evidenced by these and other recent actions by local, state and federal government, is to supplant all private ownership in America.

waterrights

Water Rights on the Ropes: The Last Round for Free Montanans vs. the Federal Government
By Jeremiah Johnson

This is a “rush” article submitted at the 11th hour of the battle Montanans are fighting to keep their water rights intact. The average citizen is trying to defend against the onslaughts of the Agenda 21-funded, oligarch-driven EPA (pushing the CSKT water compact) and the Federal Government. The battle is almost over and it doesn’t look good about one minute to midnight. This battle is Montana’s “Alamo” of water rights and it is very important for all of us: a loss for Montanans and a win for the Federal Government will set a nationwide precedent.

If the Federal Government and its lackeys win, the Iron Bell of tyranny will ring, and those reverberations will be felt throughout the U.S. The feds will have established through state legislation an EPA measure as a means that can be turned around and employed nationally. Taking the communist “social justice” platform and using Native Americans as the tools in the “downtrodden and protected class” role, the feds will inculcate a foothold into private property rights. With a win, the federal government will have a new technique to leverage citizens away from their individual and family private property rights.

My previous article on this subject was posted on 3/18/15, entitled FedGov Moves to Seize Water Rights from 100,000 Montanans: All Surface Water and Wells. I recommend that you read it for the background history on the Hellgate Treaty and similar actions being taken in other states by the feds. SB 262 is the bill that will, if passed, ratify the CSKT (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe) water compact. There was a piece penned by Montana House Majority Leader Keith Regier, MT HD-4 Representative on 4/11/15 that explained the main concern: many Montanans will lose access to private property, and that access will be given to the Tribal members (who already have access), their heirs, and their “assigns.”

Guess who these “assigns” are? They are private companies, outdoor groups (Sierra Club, for example), and tour companies. They are the Federal Government, and the U.S. Forest Service, and Montana Fish and Game. These latter two, by the way, have supported the CSKT water compact and throughout the compact these two groups wrote language into it that exempt themselves from future legal conflicts. If this bill passes, the Unitary Management Ordinance will be created; this is a water court made up of a group of members of the tribes and others to serve as the water court of the reservation.

The aforementioned court will have one main function: to rule on issues that pertain to non-tribal members. Bottom line: it is a court that is of the tribes that will rule on Montanans by taking all Montanan’s water rights out of the hands of Montanans and placing it in the hands of the Indian Tribes. Almost 90% of all lands for agricultural use are off-reservation and the landowners have been paying property taxes for many years; however, they will now be under the jurisdiction of the tribes.

That jurisdiction (as outlined in the first article) will be regulated by the EPA and enforced by the Department of Homeland Security, with authorization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

The Federal Government is named as the owner of all the water defined in the compact. This is stipulated in writing.

As of this writing, there are procedural hurdles that are going to be voted upon and the bill is just one step away from being signed by Gov. Steve Bullock (D, MT), the same governor that just vetoed a bill that prevented Montana’s Sheriffs from being obligated to aid Federal law enforcement from any kind of gun grabs or gun bans (pertaining to semi-auto rifles, erroneously and intentionally termed “assault rifles”). A whole slew of commies are supporting and pushing for this; they’re swaged in “harmonious-sounding” names that falsely bespeak of serving the community: The Ruby Valley Conservation District, and Farmers and Ranchers for Montana, to cite a few.

There are armies of lobbyists, purchased-puppet-politicians, and advertising campaigns in the millions pushing this communist-statist agenda. Every day on the radio, their honeyed voices proclaim the “justice, economic benefits, and overall goodness” of a compact that will completely abrogate and nullify water rights and all but end private property. Every piece of land in Western Montana with a well will now have a regulator coming to tax and control it.

There will be another vote at the time this writing hits the site. I would appreciate any and all comments and useful information that you guys and gals can find out there pertaining to this and other power grabs of this nature. When does it end? Well, how it will end is not a question for some. Anyone who sets foot on private land to try and regulate water, perhaps AC/DC’s song, “Have a Drink on Me,” will be cranked up to the max. Bet you can guess what type of “instrument” will be “playing” in accompaniment to the tune! Hope you guys and gals are well, and I look forward to hearing from you. Keep us in your prayers, readers: we’ll need it.


Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne). Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape). He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.


Quote of the Day: “What Civilized Society Destroys Its Own Food Source for a Three-Inch Fish?”

Reposted from Moonbattery

Although leftists will try to spin the California drought as proof of global warming, there is far more to this crisis than the climate — which in the Southwest has been dry since long before Americans lived here. Californians are paying the price for succumbing to liberal rule:

Republican Assemblywoman Shannon Grove — who represents part of Kern County, the second largest agricultural sector in the country — has been trying to get the word out about how Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations apparently are literally draining water into the sea all for the sake of a three-inch fish.

“I put together this short video to explain the real cause of California’s water shortage problems, which everyone is paying attention to now that the Governor has imposed water restrictions on the entire state,” Grove wrote on her Facebook page on April 3, the day she reposted the video she first published back in September.

“Share it with your friends who need to know the truth,” Grove wrote.

Here you go, friends:
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A48jl-S9Hhc

Here’s why the water problems caused by ecofascists in California are everybody’s problem:

“All in all, California farmers fallowed about 500,000 acres of land this year,” the Wall Street Journal reported in June 2014. “But here’s the thing: much of this land could have been productive had the state stored up more water from wet years and not flushed 800,000 acre-feet into the San Francisco Bay last winter and an additional 445,000 acre-feet this spring to safeguard the endangered delta smelt.”

That drives up the price of food for everybody. Eventually, if real resistance does not emerge to our leftist ruling class, there will be food shortages.

Grove asks,

“What civilized society destroys its own food source for a three-inch fish?”

The answer: the same civilized society that puts an anti-American radical in the White House. A society that has lost its will to live. We had better get it back quickly or our future will be short — and hungry.