Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing EndgameMichael Snyder Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing. It is commonly known as Agenda 21, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy. Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of sustainable development. In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors. The rest of the planet will be left to nature. To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary. So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes. For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border Does the federal government actually need more land? As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states The federal government does not need more land. But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented. The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like. If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in green For example, Senator Harry Reid has used the label domestic terrorists to describe those that showed up to support Cliven Bundy at his ranch. Reid could have used lots of other labels. But he specifically chose to call them terrorists. And considering what the law allows the feds to do to terrorists, that is quite chilling. And dont think that if you just stay quiet that you wont get labeled as a terrorist. In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist. Just check out the list below. It comes from my previous article entitled 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered Potential Terrorists In Official Government Documents 1. Those that talk about individual liberties 2. Those that advocate for states rights 3. Those that want to make the world a better place 4. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule 5. Those that are interested in defeating the Communists 6. Those that believe that the interests of ones own nation areseparate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations 7. Anyone that holds a political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable 8. Anyone that possesses an intolerance toward other religions 9. Those that take action to fight against the exploitation of theenvironment and/or animals 10. Anti-Gay 11. Anti-Immigrant 12. Anti-Muslim 13. The Patriot Movement 14. Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians 15. Members of the Family Research Council 16. Members of the American Family Association 17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the North American Union 18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol 19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition 21. Members of the Christian Action Network 22. Anyone that is opposed to the New World Order 23. Anyone that is engaged in conspiracy theorizing 24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21 25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps 26. Anyone that fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations 27. The militia movement 28. The sovereign citizen movement 29. Those that dont think they should have to pay taxes 30. Anyone that complains about bias 31. Anyone that believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia 32. Anyone that is frustrated with mainstream ideologies 33. Anyone that visits extremist websites/blogs 34. Anyone that establishes website/blog to display extremist views 35. Anyone that attends rallies for extremist causes 36. Anyone that exhibits extreme religious intolerance 37. Anyone that is personally connected with a grievance 38. Anyone that suddenly acquires weapons 39. Anyone that organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology 40. Militia or unorganized militia 41. General right-wing extremist 42. Citizens that have bumper stickers that are patriotic or anti-U.N. 43. Those that refer to an Army of God 44. Those that are fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation) 45. Those that are anti-global 46. Those that are suspicious of centralized federal authority 47. Those that are reverent of individual liberty 48. Those that believe in conspiracy theories 49. Those that have a belief that ones personal and/or national way of life is under attack 50. Those that possess a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism 51. Those that would impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists) 52. Those that would insert religion into the political sphere 53. Anyone that would seek to politicize religion 54. Those that have supported political movements for autonomy 55. Anyone that is anti-abortion 56. Anyone that is anti-Catholic 57. Anyone that is anti-nuclear 58. Rightwing extremists 59. Returning veterans 60. Those concerned about illegal immigration 61. Those that believe in the right to bear arms 62. Anyone that is engaged in ammunition stockpiling 63. Anyone that exhibits fear of Communist regimes 64. Anti-abortion activists 65. Those that are against illegal immigration 66. Those that talk about the New World Order in a derogatory manner 67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations 68. Those that are opposed to the collection of federal income taxes 69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr 70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (Dont Tread On Me) 71. Those that believe in end times prophecies 72. Evangelical Christians Do any of those criteria apply to you? If so, then you are a potential terrorist according to the U.S. government. We live at a time when the federal government is becoming increasingly oppressive. Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by John W. Whitehead This was not what our founders intended. Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day, and most Americans dont even seem to care. In the end, we will pay a great price for our apathy. About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled The Beginning Of The End is now available on Amazon.com. So, by your logic, its ok for the US government to target these people as terrorists because of events that happened centuries ago? DERP. Many of the US founding fathers were Christian. That is known throughout all history books. Also, the first documented slave owner in the US was a black man named Anthony Johnson. There were hundreds of thousands of white slaves in the US (Im sure that breaks your heart. And, there is still slavery in Africa. Another thing, native americans arent native to America. They are native to Asia. They werent an intelligent people. They spent their time getting drunk on alcohol and high on peyote walking around the land sleeping in tents. They didnt even have the wheel or guns. Of course they lost their land. Christ never advocated killing people or stealing land. So your fantasy is just that.a fantasy. People have the right to have faith in whatever religion they choose. And you can cry about it. Sorry, but you are dead wrong. The only thing that the founders said was that there would be no government sanctioned religion. They never said, nor intimated, that religion should not, or could not, be involved in the government and its decisions., 