The Attack on Truth

Last week radio and television show host Glenn Beck blasted Southern Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy after a video aired showing the cattleman making ‘bigoted’ and ‘racial’ statements about ‘the Negro.’ It was later learned the video was six-days old and released in time to deflect attention from a complaint filed against Senator Harry Reid by the Louisiana Republican Party.

“If he really thinks that slaves had a family life, just that (sic) shows you how unhinged from reality this guy is,” Beck claimed. “You’ve got to distance yourself, you must know who you are standing next to at all times.”

He was going by what he’d read in the New York Times and the accompanying video provided by the newspaper on their website. That video was so heavily edited, that the mention of ‘Mexicans’ and ‘Spanish people,’ was left out.

However, not once has Beck backed away from his criticism of Bundy, and though his comments aimed to warn Patriots and Minute Men about Bundy’s ‘wonderings,’ they had very little effect on supporters. And because of Beck’s vocal assassination of Bundy’s character, Conservative and Libertarian pundits around the country felt exceptionally free to pile on board with their criticism.

Then Tuesday morning, during his radio show, Beck told his audience, “This President is a slave…”

Now, this story could end here, and you could be lead down the same path Beck and other’s tried to get you to take with Bundy’s comments, but the truth always wills out in the end. There is more to this than what is pointed out in the above quote.

Beck and his sidekicks, Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere were discussing the speech Senator Ted Cruz made calling for Secretary of State John Kerry’s resignation after Kerry likened Israel to ‘Apartheid’ and of all the time to do so, on the eve of ‘Holocaust Remembrance.’ The conversation between the trio moved into a discussion about Ronald Reagan and the story behind how the iconic sentence, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” came to be spoken in June 1987.

It was during this part of the conversation, Beck stated our current president “is a slave…”

“(Reagan) was not a guy who was slave to the teleprompter,” Beck stated. “This President is a slave to the teleprompter. That’s all he knows. If it’s not on the teleprompter, he goes off. If he was off the teleprompter, we’d know at least who Barack Obama really is.”

There is no difference between what Bundy said last week and what Beck said this week, other than how its context is being presented. And this is where the disagreement with Beck and his comments about the stand-off between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management can be found.

Beck and others fell directly in line with the Progressive primer “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky. In the book, under ‘Tactics,’ Alinsky outlines a series of directives for disrupting an opponent.

In the case against Bundy, both the fourth and fifth rules were applied.

“The fourth rule is: ‘Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.’ You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity,” writes Alinsky. “The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: ‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

To put it in more practical circumstances, Monday evening, both ABC and NBC’s nightly news broadcasts trumpeted how Congressman Michael Grimm is under indictment for embezzlement and ‘kissing Congressman’ Vance McAllister isn’t going to seek reelection. But neither news agency mentioned the ethic’s complaint filed against Reid.

So we can either be divided because of such lopsided reporting by the national media, or we can do our own homework and seek out the truth behind stories presented to us.


Yurok Tribe to Reintroduce Sacred Condor


Yurok Tribal Elders signed a memorandum of understanding last month with state and federal agencies and a condor conservation group, allowing for test releases to if the Redwood Coast can support the birds.

Seven sites are under consideration on Redwood National and State Parks and private land within about 50 miles of each other, primarily south of the Klamath River. The first releases could come in the next one to three years.

Over the last five years, the Yurok Tribe Wildlife Program has performed studies to decide whether the endangered bird could be reintroduced back to the North Coast. Officials say Yurok land in Del Norte and Humboldt counties offers an “excellent” area for release because of lower contaminant levels in the region’s marine mammals, among other reasons.

To provide the greatest genetic diversity possible, birds would come from breeding programs in Oregon, Idaho and California, with the first releases coming in the next one to three years.

The large bird is sacred to the Yurok Tribe, whose history includes is stories of “Prey-go-neesh,” a condor that carries prayers to the sun. Regalia for the Jump Dance and White Deerskin Dance also rely on condor feathers, which are taken as “gifts” from living birds.

The condor once flew the entire length of the Pacific Coast from Mexico to Canada. Today there are 407 condors, including 128 in California.

The Unsustainability of Agenda 21


“Think Globally, Act Locally” isn’t just a slogan. It is a one-line manifesto for environmental purists, pushing Agenda 21 and it’s one of the greatest threats to U.S. freedom.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a mixture of socialism extreme environmentalism and anti-capitalism. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently complained Agenda 21 is losing public support because of several grassroots movements to end the program.

The report entitled, “Agenda 21: The U.N., Sustainability and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory” points to a number of states planning to block some or all of Agenda 21.

“At least three states — Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma — have considered laws, each of which passed one chamber of their legislatures, to halt the purportedly noxious effects of Agenda 21; Alabama went all the way, passing a 2012 law that was signed by Governor Robert Bentley. Major political battles have broken out over it in Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Ohio and Texas.”

“Even the Republican National Committee, in January 2012,” the report adds, “denounced Agenda 21 as a destructive and insidious scheme to impose a socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.”

The United Nations program is voluntary and reportedly focused only on sustainable development, meaning in theory, it would abolish poverty and protect “fragile environments” by “properly” managing cities. And because the U.S. is only a signatory country, Congressional approval isn’t required, leaving the plan non-binding.

To overcome this, the U.N. created the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to push their plan on the U.S. Now more than 1,100 large and moderate-sized U.S. cities support Agenda 21.

Because a majority of the unsuspecting American public is still-undereducated about Agenda 21, the ICLEI’s language, which on the surface sound innocuous, must be recognized.

Some of those words and phrases include: action, affordable housing, balanced, benefit of all, best management practices, collaborative, collective, common good, consensus, down-zoning, endangered species, environment, economy, equity, facilitator, friends of…, government-sponsored, historic preservation, hub city, in-fill, inter-disciplinary, international baccalaureate, invasive specie, multi-family, off-conveyances, old growth, open space, outcome based, protect, preserve, public/private partnership, quality of life, regional, renewable, restoration, sanctuary, school-to-work, single-family, smart, social, stakeholder, social justice, sustainable, traffic calming, up-zoning, vision, and watershed.

Along with Agenda 21s language, local officials, often at the urging of state government, revise laws to fit a “smart code” zoning template. These include things like: rezoning agricultural farmland and protecting residential conservation land by creating office parks; rezoning agricultural lands to prevent future subdivision by farmers; rezoning residential land to permit construction of affordable, multi-family housing units; and government funding to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods.

The over-all effect of these plans will create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, which are considered a waste of land. Furthermore, federal and state agencies can deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.

By do this, Agenda 21, in essence, forces zoning changes for lowering property values without compensation to the property owner. It also lets both federal and local governments to curtail the use of gas-powered engines, by restricting off-road vehicles and creation of bicycling and walking lanes.

For instance, the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update, “Mobility 2035, approved in December 2012, calls for a reduction in motorized transportation, creation of walkable communities, and alternatives to driving around the historic, tourist attraction.It also has a target date of 2035 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using a $1.6 billion grant from California’s Strategic Growth Council

The SGC’s blueprint includes creating more biking and walking opportunities to help reduce of obesity and asthma, lower road infrastructure costs and greenhouse gas emissions as well as improve neighborhood safety.

“Implementing shared parking strategies can reduce the cost of infrastructure and maintenance for both local government and private developers while potentially increasing the profitability of a development project by allowing for more square footage of housing, retail, or commercial space,” reads the 2010 Governor’s Office of Planning & Research report. “Both of these examples have numerous economic, social, and environmental benefits.”

Also included in Agenda 21 is the outcome-based education system known as Common Core, which seeks to teach sustainable development, zero-population philosophies and the dangers of humans impacting the environment. It is designed to teach your child what kind of action should be taken globally, nationally and locally by the U.N., governments, and other approved groups.

To halt this planning, you must educate yourself, learning not only the language of Agenda 21, but also by understanding how it directly assaults the U.S. Constitution and your civil liberties, then speak out at your local planning meetings.

Linking the Bundy Tape to Another Reid Ethics Violation

It took six-days for the national press to release the video showing Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy ‘testifying’ about whether ‘the Negro’ or ‘Mexican people’ are any happier because of government subsidies. There is a reason the complicit media held that tape as long as it did.

They are protecting the Democratic Party – which should have received another black-eye, but didn’t. Instead the progressive media tried to discredit Libertarians and Conservatives by painting them as ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ for supporting what amount to a fight over federal overreach.

The video hit the airways the same day the Republican Party of Louisiana filed a formal complaint with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Senator Harry Reid. The subject of the complaint was “Senator Harry Reid’s Use of Tax Payer Resources for Campaign Purposes” and deals with the use of Senate staff and facilities for support of political candidates and for campaign programs aimed against the Koch brothers with false and misleading attack ads in the last election cycle.

Chairman Roger Villere, of the LAGOP, sent a letter to the heads of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics — Senator Barbara Boxer, and Johnny Isakson — calling on the lawmakers to investigate whether Reid has engaged in “campaign activities using staff, equipment and facilities paid for with public funds.”

“Specifically, Senator Reid has violated Senate rules that prohibit Members of the Senate from using websites located on the host-domain for partisan political campaign purposes as well as the prohibitions regarding using official resources for political purposes,” Villere wrote. “Therefore, we respectful request that the Committee investigate Senator Reid’s misuse of taxpayer resources and sanction him appropriately.”

Reid is accused of using his official Senate website and Twitter account to attack the Koch’s, who are helping to finance TV ads against Senate Democratic candidates, including Mary Landrieu, and Louisiana GOP Executive Director Jason Dore says people have had enough of Reid.

“Americans are fed up with the type of hyper-partisan campaigning, and it is appalling that Harry Reid would use taxpayer resources to breach Senate ethics rules and pursue this kind of activity in his official capacity as Senate Majority Leader,” Dore said. “The Senate Ethics Committee needs to make clear this type of behavior has no place in the United States Senate and no one is above the rules, even the Senate Majority leader. It’s time Harry Reid is held accountable for his actions.”

Reid has criticized the Koch brothers on the Senate floor several times over the last few months, calling them “un-American” for spending millions of dollars on ads attacking vulnerable Senate Democrats for their support of the Affordable Care Act.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said the GOP’s latest tactics show that Republicans have a “blind obedience to the shadowy, billionaire Koch brothers.”

“Republicans rushing to defend the billionaire Koch brothers is just further evidence that when the Koch brothers say, ‘Jump,’ Republicans ask, ‘How high?'” Jentleson said.

These new charges fall on top of allegations about the senior Nevada Senator funneling $31,000 in campaign money to Ryan Elisabeth for holiday gifts. It was ultimately revealed Ryan Elisabeth is actually Ryan Elisabeth Reid, the Senator’s granddaughter.

Reid decided after the allegations surfaced to reimburse the campaign.

“I thought it would be nice to give supporters and staff thank-you gifts that had a personal connection and a Searchlight (Nevada) connection, but I have decided to reimburse the campaign for the amount of the expenditures.”

Reid has also been in the news recently after stating that the ongoing struggle between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management wasn’t ‘over,’ then calling Patriots and Minute Men who came to ranch to support the embattled cow herder “domestic terrorists.”

Federal Overreach from Sea to Shining Sea


The recent uproar over armed Bureau of Land Management agents descending on small ranch operation in Southern Nevada is shedding light on the fact that 40 agencies, including some not typically associated with law enforcement, have armed divisions. Agencies like the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board now employ armed officers.

Flashback to 2008, when then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama announced his plan to build a massive “civilian national security force,” claiming it would be just as well-funded as our military forces. Today, there are over 120,000 armed federal agents who work for those 40 same agencies.

Following the Bundy Ranch stand-off in Nevada, Texans are becoming concerned about the Bureau of Land Management’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover of privately held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, is making the matter a campaign issue.

“In Texas, the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit,” Miller says, “The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller is talking about the 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations and is now looking at using the case to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and it would fall under federal control. Since 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase was completed, there has been a controversy over the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.

The boundary is supposed to be the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River. But the river has moved over time. And the BLM is trying to exploit this natural fact to seize the land.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river.

In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution.

The Texas Farm Bureau produced a video explaining the problems left open by the current border definition from Texas’ perspective. The TFB claims Oklahoma believes when the river shifts south, the state line moves south.

But when the river moves north, the line remains in place. Meanwhile, as the two states squabble over the definition, the BLM is positioning itself to move in and confiscated all the land in question.

This federal overreach is not isolated to the lower 48 states.

Take the tiny mining town of Chicken, Alaska, home to 17 residents, which was raided by armed officers from the Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force in late August 2013. The two agencies claim they were looking for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.

The task force’s methods are being questioned by Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski

“Their explanation — that there are concerns within the area of rampant drug trafficking and human trafficking going on — sounds wholly concocted to me,” said Murkowski.

“This seems to have been a heavy-handed and heavy-armor approach,” she added. “Why was it so confrontational? The EPA really didn’t have any good answers for this.”

The EPA continues to refuse explain why it used armed officers as part of what it called a “multi-jurisdictional” investigation of possible Clean Water Act violations.  The task force was made up of members of the EPA, FBI, Coast Guard, Department of Defense, the Alaska Department of Public Safety and Department of Environmental Conservation.

Meanwhile the EPA is in the process of seizing control over all private land in the U.S., following the United Nations blueprint, Agenda 21. Last Tuesday, the agency unveiled proposed changes to the Clean Water Act that will extend their regulatory control to temporary wetlands and waterways.

The new definition consists of any water, including seasonal ponds, streams, runoff and collection areas and irrigation water. It will also include runoff from watering your lawn, or puddles on your own property.

They are expanding the same kind of California fish-based drought or Nevada tortoise land restrictions or Oregon spotted owl ‘protection’ to every square inch of this nation. The EPA’s proposal extends their authority to include “pollution regulations” to “intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands” — which are created temporarily during wet seasons or following rainfall.

Their position is in direct violation of the Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006, restricting the EPA to flowing and sizeable, “relatively” permanent bodies of water such as “oceans, rivers, streams and lakes.”  The proposed rule change is now in a 90 day comment period during which they will assess just how much they can get away with, based upon public outcry and pushback.

If this goes through, they will control your right to the water and your actions about water upon your own land, leaving them open unlimited abuse.

No Trust in a Half a Story

When I first read about this, I was sorely disappointed — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy making offensive comments about Black people to the New York Times. But Progressives, Libertarians and Conservatives have been far to quick to jump on the statement, either blasting him publicly or back-off their support for the embattled cattleman.

Lawmakers who have in the past voiced their support for the rancher, including Senators Dean Heller and Rand Paul, have quickly distanced themselves from the comments.

“Senator Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way,” Heller’s spokesman wrote in an email.

Paul’s spokesman said in a statement, “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”

Even die-hard supporter, Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore got ahead of herself, posting on her Facebook campaign page:

“I strongly disagree with Cliven Bundy’s comments about slavery,” she wrote. “Mr. Bundy has said things I don’t agree with; however, we cannot let this divert our attention from the true issue of the atrocities BLM committed by harming our public land and the animals living on it.”

But there is one thing to consider before jumping ship – the article printed in the NYT and used as ‘race-bait’ by pundits and politicos, is out of context. Bundy said much more and not all of it is about Black people.

Bundy spoke at what appears to me to be an outdoor church gathering last Saturday, after all he had on what my Grandpa called ‘Sunday-go-to meeting,’ clothes.  Finally, after watching the three-minute, 13 second grainy video several times, I did what the rest of the media should have done and transcribed it in its entirety:

“… and so what I’ve testified to you — I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the Negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy — so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom — they got less family life, and their happiness — you could see it in their faces — they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips — so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.”

Then yesterday, Bundy spoke to radio talk show host Peter Schiff, setting the record straight about what the NYT’s had published.

“That’s exactly what I said,” Bundy stated. “I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do?”

“And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies,” he added. “I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”

It’s sad to think that so many intelligent people tend to believe the first thing they hear or read and never  look any further than what has been spoon-fed to them by a lazy press and political system that operates on half-truths. Only with ALL the facts can you really begin to know the truth.

Remembering the Dann Sisters

Dann Sisters

In order to know where we are heading, we have to remember where we’ve been. Thus, the importance of history.

The Bundy Ranch stand-off in Southern Nevada isn’t the first public fight over property rights in Nevada. A battle between the Bureau of Land Management and the Western Shoshone tribe in Northeast Nevada ended with far different results.

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in 1863 between the federal government and the Western Shoshone tribe included the use of 43,000 square miles of territory extending north from the deserts of Southern California, across much of Nevada, and into South central Idaho, and East into Utah. The treaty gave Shoshone permanent use of land in exchange for “peace,” so that the “Union of the United States” in the midst of Civil War, could guarantee the flow of gold out of California to points East.

Shoshones agreed to end warfare with settlers and the U.S., and to allow transportation and telegraph wires through its territory. Shoshone say the 1863 treaty did not sell their land to a government, but instead secured their rights to own and occupy.

However in 1934, the federal government passed the Indian Reorganization Act, saying that federal recognition and support would depend on the creation of ‘tribal’ governments based on a model devised by the Secretary of the Interior. Unfamiliar forms of governance were then superimposed on traditional Shoshone decision-making, creating artificial divisions and aggravating existing disputes.

In 1946 an act of Congress created the Indian Claims Commission, to investigate suits by Native Americans against the US for illegitimate taking of their land. In 1962, the Commission ruled against a Shoshone suit, stating:

“The Indian title to the Western Shoshone land was extinguished by the gradual encroachment of settlers and others and by the acquisition, disposition or taking of said lands by the US for its own use and benefit or that of its citizens.”

In 1966, without the participation of the Western Shoshone people, the federal government arbitrarily set July 1, 1872, as the date of valuation for Western Shoshone land, and determined that compensation should be paid for 24 million acres.

The federal government paid the tribe $26 million in 1983 through a trust, or $1.08 per acre. Today the amount is $250 to $1,000 per acre.

Furthermore, the tribe has yet to draw on any of the money.

About an hour southwest of Elko, in Nevada’s Crescent Valley, the Dann sisters lived peaceably on a plot of land, raising horses and cattle. Unfortunately, their ranch butts-up against a large gold deposit.

The federal government permitted gold mining at Cortez in 1969. In 2010, the latest available figures, 1,140,000 ounces of gold had been removed from the land.

In September 2002, BLM agents swooped in and seized 227 cattle from their ranch, where the pair were raising cattle and horses on land purchased by their father Dewey Dann in the 1930s. In December 2002, the Danns were ordered to remove remaining livestock, 250 additional cattle and 1,000 horses, and they were charged with trespassing on public land.

They were served with $3 million in fines for past due grazing fees.

Carrie Dann says, “I was indigenous and in one single evening they made me indigent. If you think the Indian wars are over, then think again”.

The Dann sisters did not transfer grazing permits into their name from their late father, Dewey Dann. Instead, they argued that their land was within the boundaries of the Western Shoshone and therefore live under territory rule.

The federal government however claimed the land was public and purchased from the Western Shoshone in 1979.  The BLM, then served the Danns warrants, and followed through with their warning to auction off their remaining livestock in January 2003.

The sisters sued the BLM to prove rightful ownership of land, but watched as agents removed their cattle and horses on January 18th. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since the Danns received no money for their land, it was still theirs, but the ruling was overturned in the Supreme Court, using a “bar clause” stating that Indian Claims legislation denotes; when money is paid for land, its use and rights to use are forever barred.

According to the Supreme Court, the Shoshone land had been gradually encroached upon and it no longer belonged to the Dann Ranch.  Furthermore, the BLM claimed that the Dann livestock caused irreparable damage to the countryside due to over grazing.

“Grass grows back, but mining causes irreparable damage to the earth,” commented Carrie Dann.

Their struggle was the cause for a handful of protesters to fight along with the grandmothers, but their case also acted as a smoke screen for the what the government was planning. On September 24th, 2003, HR 884 made its way to the Resources Committee, which aimed to pay out Western Shoshone land for expansion of the Cortez and development at Yucca Mountain.

Shoshone tribe elders met in Washington DC one month earlier to at least place “hold” on the Bill, but their request was ignored.

Mary and Carrie Dann sued the United States government for violating their rights. The Nevada sisters said the U.S. used illegal means to gain control of Native American ancestral lands by slowly encroachment by industry and private landowners.

The U.S. government says it paid the Western Shoshone Nation for its use of their land in 1979, and has since privatized millions of additional acreage. The Western Shoshone Distribution Bill, HR 884, signed into law by President George Bush in July 2004, relaxes the territorial rules held by Shoshones for 150 years.

About 26 million acres transferred to the federal government and is ear-marked by the BLM for mining minerals, storing nuclear waste, and for geothermal energy production. This includes Yucca Mountain, a historical and spiritual area for Shoshones.

In the late 1970s the U.S. government started using Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste, but it since has maxed-out capacity with 77,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. All except 2 percent of U.S. nuclear waste was earmarked for Yucca Mountain with HR Bill 884, beginning in 2010.

The Obama Administration has since placed a hold on operations at Yucca Mountain, albeit for far different reasons.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found the U.S. government violated the Dann sisters’ rights, although did not state that the Dann sisters owned land. The Commission suggested an “effective remedy” should make sure respect for the Danns claim to their ranch of 70 years.

The Organization of American States human-rights commission reaffirmed land-rights use of the Western Shoshone Indian tribe, rejecting the federal government’s claim the Danns’ live on public land. It was the first time both councils charged the U.S. government with violating human rights.

Carrie Dann says she wouldn’t have sued the BLM had she known the court would favor the government.

The Dann sisters fought the federal government without the help from Human Rights Watch, or the American Civil Liberties Union. The two women committed themselves to preserving their ancestral land.

Mary died following an ATV accident on her ranch in central Nevada while repairing a fence-line on April 22, 2005. She was 82 years old. Mary’s niece, Patricia Paul, said her aunt had “died as she would have wanted — with her boots on and hay in her pocket.”

Two years later, Carrie was arrested with 38 others for trespassing at the Nevada Test Site at a Nevada Desert Experience event protesting governmental programs at the site. She continues with activities to try to end nuclear testing and programs at the site.

Carrie, along with Western Shoshone Defense Project and four other tribal and public interest groups, in November 2008, sued the federal government and Canadian Barrick Gold, seeking an injunction to stop the Cortez Hills Expansion Project on Mt. Tenabo, which the Western Shoshone also consider sacred land.

The case is pending.