BUNDY RANCH: Meet the Coalition
Meet the Coalition of Western States Legislators formed in response to the Bundy Ranch Standoff.
Meet the Coalition of Western States Legislators formed in response to the Bundy Ranch Standoff.
By: as Dawn sees it
In order to understand the rational behind what has taken place at the Bundy Ranch in Clark County, Nevada, it is vital to understand some of the mindset behind it. The United Nations now has a great deal of control over what happens in United States’ land, largely but not only federal ownership and/or control. What we are seeing is an international body now governing over many parts of the U.S.
It then becomes a question of whether international treaties and other agreements, especially UN Agenda 21 in this case, trump the United States Constitution. Do the people enforcing these “laws” recognize or even know the codes they are enforcing? Is there a reason the constitution is no longer truly taught? These are just two of the questions in a very complex set of issues, which have combined to become a slow, methodical subversion of the primary documents that once seemed to govern our country. There are many layers to this and when digging into them, a clearer picture emerges.
By the recently deceased researcher, author, and expert on UN Agenda 21, Henry Lamb, an article was written in 2003 dealing with the very issue people are taking note of today. It is entitled “Why the Government is Grabbing our Land” (excerpt):
By 1976, the United Nations was ready to articulate a general policy on land use. This policy is stated in the final report of the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), held in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976.
The preamble to the section on Land, says:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
The land use philosophy of the non-American world was fully incorporated into international law and norms, with the support of the United States government.
For a detailed explanation on the Wildlands Project here is a short video, again from Henry Lamb. This project is justified by proclaiming it is all about protecting and restoring core wilderness areas. In reality this is a land grab designed to move people off the land and place them into “sustainable communities,” in less than twenty-five percent of our own American land.
In 1994 the map below was presented by Michael Coffman to the U.S. Senate, which stopped the ratification of the biodiversity treaty. Despite such efforts we find that it is being implemented through various government agencies, executive orders, trade associations, etc. Generally, it is funded by our tax dollars, or central bank cartel funds, or those of foundations formed by corporations and tycoons which in our history have become borrowers of the worlds’ major banking institutions.
A program for National Heritage sites is just one example of how this plan has still continued. Its efforts to control land have increased at an alarming speed. As more people wake up to the reality of what is taking place, we are naturally going to push back, as seen at the Bundy Ranch. Then again, the efforts to implement this agenda will only become bolder. That will create a very tense situation to say the least.
From another stalwart activist for sovereign Americans’ foundationally agreed natural rights of life, liberty, and property, Tom DeWeese, in a 2012 article:
I mentioned H.R. 4099, a bill now before Congress to “Authorize a National Heritage Area Program, and for other purposes…” The bill describes the need for Heritage Areas this way: “Certain areas of the United States tell nationally significant stories; they illustrate significant aspects of our heritage; possess exceptional natural, cultural, scenic, and historic resources; and represent the diversity of our national character.”
So, name a section of our nation that doesn’t contain “significant stories.” Or locate a place where people from the past didn’t walk, live or carry out their lives. That definition is simply too broad to be practical – if the real purpose is to honor our heritage.
But the bill goes on to explain: “In these areas, the interaction of natural processes, geography, history, cultural traditions, and economic and social forces form distinctive landscapes that should be recognized, conserved, enhanced, and interpreted to improve the quality of life in the regions and to provide opportunities for public appreciation, education, enjoyment, and economic sustainability.”
Where have we heard these very words before – economic and social forces; conserve; improve the quality of life?
Well, let’s try this quote from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development which said, “Sustainable Communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.”
The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, by the way, was organized by Bill Clinton in the 1990’s to create policy to reduce or eliminate “unsustainable” activities by controlling such things as consumerism, high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, roadways, automobiles, dams, pastures, golf courses, and much more.
In keeping with the theme of earth’s resources being confiscated for the sake of its most wealthy and powerful elitists, and informed by the Biodiversity map, let us look at what the “Wilderness Act” prohibits. A common and unsettling theme here is its disdain for humans and the impact they have on the environment.
Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, landing of aircraft, and all other forms of mechanical transport. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act provides two narrow exceptions that allow motorized or mechanized uses in wilderness for administrative purposes: 1) in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area; and 2) when a motorized or mechanized action is necessary as the minimum requirement for proper protection and administration of the area as wilderness.
Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines Wilderness, in part, “as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man…” Remaining untrammeled is a key quality that differentiates designated Wilderness from other undeveloped lands. To be untrammeled means that natural processes in Wilderness are left free to function without intentional human interference and manipulation. Protecting Wilderness as untrammeled landscape is a key statutory intent of the Wilderness Act.
The Act further defines wilderness “as an area to be “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable…” The Act envisioned the Wilderness system to be governed by natural processes, retaining its “primeval character and influence…” The hands-off approach directed by the Act provides that management decisions and activities must strive to minimize the level of human interference in the Wilderness ecosystem.
Despite the statutory intent that Wilderness be self-willed or self-shaping landscape, a variety of intentional human manipulations do take place in Wilderness, many of them unrelated to protecting Wilderness character. Examples of common manipulations include fish stocking, fire management, wildlife transplants, endangered species management, management of game populations, predator control, and invasive weeds and insect infestations.
The National Wilderness Preservation System is made up of four federal agencies.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In 1993 the Carhart Center was created, interestingly enough the same year Clinton signed an Executive Order titled “The President’s Council on Sustainable Development“. The center’s mission is as follows:
The mission of the Carhart Center is “to foster interagency excellence in wilderness stewardship by cultivating knowledgeable, skilled and capable wilderness managers and by improving public understanding of wilderness philosophy, values and processes.” The Carhart Center’s vision is to be a “national and international leader in the development and implementation of wilderness information, training and education programs.
In order for something to be implemented by future generations it has to be taught, which is another mission of the Carhart Center.
Hand-in-hand with the Carhart Center’s mission of training wilderness managers is the goal of improving public understanding of wilderness philosophy, values, and processes. This has been approached through development of classroom curricula and other outreach products. The Carhart Center has developed and distributed two different, comprehensive Wilderness and Land Ethic curricula— one targeting kindergarten through eighth grade students, and one designed for ninth through twelfth grade students. The curricula integrate wilderness concepts and values into an array of subject-matter topics, making it attractive and convenient for teachers to include wilderness in their lesson plans. The Carhart Center also offers courses that provide wilderness managers with the skills needed to present teachers’ workshops locally to facilitate use of the curricula.
For the final phase, enforcing all that one has been taught. A future career in “Wilderness Management“:
NRSM 405 and NRSM 561 study ecosystem characteristics and basic principles of wilderness management. Separate chapters discuss management of specific wilderness resources such as fire, wildlife, cultural and historical sites, etc.; managing non-conforming uses such as grazing, mining, and motorized vehicles and equipment and mechanical transport. Discusses the use of primitive means to achieve management objectives, use of the minimum tool, and no-trace camping methods.
One may readily see how this ties into Agenda 21, from the UN Agenda 21 publication.
10.5. The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account. In more specific terms, the objectives are as follows:
(a) To review and develop policies to support the best possible use of land and the sustainable management of land resources, by not later than 1996;
(b) To improve and strengthen planning, management and evaluation systems for land and land resources, by not later than 2000;
(c) To strengthen institutions and coordinating mechanisms for land and land resources, by not later than 1998;
(d) To create mechanisms to facilitate the active involvement and participation of all concerned, particularly communities and people at the local level, in decision-making on land use and management, by not later than 1996.
Today, we have at least two generations that have been indoctrinated well beyond four years (that is key to Agenda 21 implementation) and trained to be good “global citizens” — that it is their duty to be good stewards to the earth, as global power-hoarders define what that is to mean.
As time passes and the collectivist indoctrinated youth grow up, they are to become managers of these wilderness areas. Then, they must make sure the people who are still stuck in their old ways of thinking will see the new ways for them, or be made to comply. As of yet, they have no reliable way of knowing that in today’s world, this repackaged socialism is just a vehicle for the ever increasing tyrannies of a new style of totalitarian control, aided by technology generating the ability to monitor virtually everything about our lives — a system of which Lenin could have only have dreamed. And if these plans are allowed to fully come to fruition, there will be no more free ranchers, farmers, or citizens.
Hat Tip: CJ
We wish all of you a blessed and joyous Easter! He is risen…
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
If anything proved beyond doubt that the Pulitzer Prizes are a self-congratulatory display whereby the media pat each other on the back and share in the congratulations, it was the coverage of the 2014 Pulitzer Prize announcements. There was nothing from inside the Columbia University journalism building where Pulitzer Prize administrator Sig Gissler tried to justify the honors, known as Gold Medals, for the anti-NSA stories based on the espionage activities of Edward Snowden. My give-and-take with Gissler is the main topic of this column. I saw this process from the inside and am reporting on it here, for the first time. It was a sad and disgraceful day for the journalism profession.
These prizes are usually called “prestigious,” but few people know that they involve a process whereby some people in the media nominate other media for awards, to be decided upon by still other media. It’s a racket.
Ironically, the awards for stories about secret government programs were decided by juries which conducted their discussions in secret. New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, a four-time Pulitzer juror and a former member of the Pulitzer board, notes that “…jurors and board members pretty much have to swear an oath, signed in the printer’s ink that still flows through the veins of some, to live in a cone of silence about how business gets done.”
You might conclude that the Pulitzer selection process is more secretive than the NSA programs designed to monitor anti-American terrorism and espionage.
Typically, the entries are accompanied by praise, with no hint that they may have been tainted by questions about their legitimacy.
Even worse, 82 years after the fact, the Pulitzer board has still not revoked the award given to Walter Duranty of The New York Times for covering up Stalin’s mass murder of seven to 10 million Ukrainians during the period of 1932 to 1933.
Meanwhile, thanks to Snowden and his Russian patrons, the Ukrainians are once again suffering.
When awards are given for “journalism” that damages U.S. national security and facilitates foreign aggression, as the Snowden disclosures have done in the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we are looking at something unprecedented in history for American journalism.
The Guardian US and The Washington Post got awards for the Edward Snowden stories, hyped in advance by outlets such as POLITICO, whose executive editor Richard Berke was a member of the “jury,” in the field of “public service” journalism, that made the nominations.
You can search in vain in POLITICO’s stories for any mention that its own executive editor was a member of the jury making the nominations. The publication had a conflict of interest in covering the awards and never disclosed this conflict to its readers.
Sig Gissler is to be congratulated for taking questions. But all of the critical questions came from me. I counted at least 10 camera crews at the event, one of them from Fox News, and not one other reporter even attempted to ask for the justification of the first-ever Pulitzer Prizes for espionage.
At the end of our final exchange, Gissler looked at the people in the room, wondering if members of the press had been able to ask all of their questions and were happy with the answers. “You don’t look happy,” he said, as he stared at me. I responded, “I bet Snowden’s happy.” He replied, “I don’t know.”
Of course, Snowden is happy. He has claimed vindication.
Technically, the awards went to the publications themselves—the Guardian US, where Glenn Greenwald worked at the time on behalf of Snowden, and The Washington Post, which also published some Snowden stories. But Greenwald, Laura Poitras and their ilk will claim personal credit.
Gissler thanked everyone for coming and noted that this was his last year as administrator of the prizes, and that he was retiring. I applauded his service. He was in a tough spot this year.
As the reporters in the room dispersed, a camera crew from Japanese television channel Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK) came up and interviewed me about my criticism of the prizes to Snowden’s co-conspirators. Several journalism students in the room also wanted to talk with me. It was exhilarating. We had a debate going on.
But the debate did not extend to the American media.
The Fox News senior producer, Kathy Ardleigh, didn’t want to include any criticism of the prizes and left with her cameraman. This was all too typical of the major media coverage of the announcements. Sadly, as we have reported in the past, Fox News personality Eric Bolling has been one of Glenn Greenwald’s cheerleaders in the media, pleading with the anti-American “journalist” to give Fox News one of Snowden’s leaks.
Gissler tried to soften the blow, in terms of the impact of the awards based on espionage activity, by saying that the stories “went beyond leaked documents” supplied by Snowden, had stirred public discussion, and that Joseph Pulitzer believed in the “watchdog” function of the press. That was a perfect set-up for my first question:
“You said Joseph Pulitzer would approve of these NSA stories because he wanted the press to be a watchdog. He also said he wanted the press to be a moral force that would promote public virtue. What about the argument that these NSA stories are based on espionage activity by somebody who stole documents who is in the custody of a foreign government committing aggression abroad. Do you think Joseph Pulitzer would approve of that?”
Gissler replied: “I don’t know whether he would or not. But the focus of these stories was really on the information that was made available to the public. It really wasn’t focused on Mr. Snowden.”
I countered: “But he was the source of the documents for the stories, correct?”
Gissler: “And that’s acknowledged in the stories. But what is important here I think is not only the provision of the information but also the fuller understanding and context that allow people to have the important discussion of where you draw the line on this very important activity. That’s the democratic process.”
This exchange then ensued:
Kincaid: “Is this the first time in history—Pulitzer history—that prizes have gone, in the case of these NSA stories, based on a source that fled to a foreign country, a hostile country?
Gissler: “Possibly. I don’t know. We did give the Pulitzer Prizes to the Pentagon Papers that involved Daniel Ellsberg.”
Kincaid: “But he never fled. He always stayed in the United States.
Gissler: “Yeah. It’s probably true. I think so. But I’m not positive.”
I later asked if anyone had resigned from the Pulitzer Board in protest over any of this year’s awards, and he said, “Not to my knowledge.”
What has happened to the patriotic press? Why is there no debate, even on Fox News, over this dangerous trend in American journalism? Where is the rest of the conservative media on this?
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace.
This week has been a celebration of hope and freedom, with Passover starting last Monday night and continuing through the weekend until next Tuesday. Which of course also coincides with Holy Week, which culminates this weekend with Easter Sunday. This linkage is entirely appropriate, since Jesus had come to Jerusalem for the Passover ceremonies and the famous Last Supper was a Passover Seder… the ritual meal where Jews all over the world retell the story of the Exodus, celebrate their G-d-given freedom and eat the unleavened bread, matzoh, to commemorate their ancestor’s journey and deliverance from bondage and slavery.
The story of the Resurrection is a story of freedom too… freedom of the soul and a promise of eternal life to believing Christians who understand what the rolling away of the stones means for them.
Both holidays change their dates on our calender from year to year, Passover or Pessah in Hebrew, because it is based on the centuries old Hebrew calender and Easter because the early Church fathers determined that Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal Full Moon date of the year, which always occurs after Passover.
However, it’s rare that the two holidays occur this close together and in this momentous year, when Judeo-Christian values seem to be under siege, I likewise see in that a sign of hope for the future.
I and my friends on the Watcher’s Council wish you and yours Chag Pessach Sameach and a blessed Easter.
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” – George Orwell
Allah’s Apostle said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” – Hadith Bukhari (84:57)
“People ask me if I have some kind of death wish, to keep saying the things I do. The answer is no: I would like to keep living. However, some things must be said, and there are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
This Week’s winner, Joshuapundit’s – An Honor Killing On Campus, is my reaction to the decision of Brandeis University to withdraw an honorary degree and a chance to address commencement ceremonies from writer, thinker and women’s rights activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, under pressure from Muslim Brotherhood fronts and a few scared and clueless lefties. Here’s a slice:
Regular members of Joshua’s Army may recall the name Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
She was raised as a Muslima in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, survived female genital mutilation, beatings, abuse and various aspects of Somalia’s internecine clan warfare and became a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood, after which her questions about Islam and the life she was leading led her to escape being ‘given’ in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met.and flee to Holland. There, she was granted Dutch citizenship and eventually became a member of the Dutch parliament where she became a voice alerting the people of her adopted country to the menace of radical Islam, and against the abuse of Muslim women and children in the Netherland’s Islamic ghettos.
She later collaborated with the late filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on a film called ‘Submission’, which chronicled the plight of many Muslim women victimized as she was by the traditional tribal culture.The film caused a firestorm of protest among Muslims. Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight by a fanatic Muslim while cycling to work one morning in 2004 and then had his corpse ritually mutilated. A note was pinned to Van Gogh’s corpse promising Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she was the next target, with explicit Qu’rannic details of her `crimes against Islam’ as an ‘apostate’, a death sentence in Islam. Other death threats followed, and Ayaan has lived under 24 hour security protection ever since.
She went through the experience of being forced to move out of her apartment because her Dutch neighbors were annoyed that the security protection ‘inconvenienced them’ and because they were afraid that the violence directed towards Ayaan Hirshi Ali might involve them. And the Dutch government, which was obligated to pay for her security as a member of Parliament also disliked the cost, the inconvenience and the political stigma of protecting an ‘enemy of Islam’ in a country that’s over 25% Muslim, so they found a trumped up reason to take away her citizenship and force her to step down from her seat in parliament. Whereupon, she came here to America and became a noted author and speaker. You can read her story in her books ‘Infidel’, ‘Nomad’,and ‘The Caged Virgin.’
So Brandeis decided to honor Ayaan Hirshi Ali. She was to be their commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree.
But when the local chapters of Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR and the Muslim Student’s Association heard about this, they went absolutely ballistic and were able to rope in enough guilty and frightened non-Muslim Lefties to go along with the mob to get Ayaan’s honorary degree ‘rescinded’ and her invitation to speak revoked.
“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.
“But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.”
Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor “such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women’s rights, who has put her life at risk for those values.”
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said, “It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”
The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.
“This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, an American convert to Islam and the chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.”
The university said that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that ‘discussion’ consisted of a phone call made simply to inform her after the decision had already be made.
Much more at the link.
In our non-Council category, the winner was Mark Steyn with a superb piece on the Nevada standoff between the Bundy family and the Bureau of Land Management, The First Amendment is Not an Area, submitted by The Noisy Room. Mark Steyn is absolutely on fire in this one… A must-read.
Here are this week’s full results. Only The Colossus of Rhodey was unable to vote this week, but was not affected by the 2/3 vote penalty:
See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!
By: Trevor Loudon
Two groups have been most actively supporting “there is no such thing as an ex-Chekist,” Vladimir Putin’s naked aggression in the Ukraine.
They are Western communists, who hate the West and still see Russia as a force for socialism and anti-Americanism, and some naive Western “conservatives” like commentator Pat Buchanan and actor Steven Segal, who seem to believe that Comrade Putin is a closet Christian bent on defending Western values and saving Europe from the Islamic hordes. These naifs seem to have no idea that Mr. Putin’s KGB/FSB comrades have long manipulated those Islamic hordes against the West and have attacked our values at every opportunity for more than 90 years.
The communists must be laughing up their sleeves as they dupe self deluding “conservatives” like Buchanan and Segal into cheerleading their own destruction.
Here’s one such Western communist — Brian Becker of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Interviewed on Kremlin propaganda channel RT (formerly Russia Today), Comrade Becker does a splendid job of obscuring the truth and spreading lies and disinformation on Moscow’s behalf.