Mr. Bundy’s “Racism” Isn’t Quite Convincing (when you see the whole video)

By Al Benson Jr.
After all the lapdog media attention about “Bundy the racist” and that 3 minute video that the excuse for a “news” media cherry picked to pull out what they felt were “racist” comments, things seem to have quieted down—for now. Rest assured it’s not all over. I just have one question for the media. Seeing that the video they pulled comments from was only a little over 3 minutes long, if they really wanted to give us the full news, why couldn’t they just have aired the entire video so people would really have known what Mr. Bundy said and the context in which he said it. You all know the answer to that one as well as I do. There would have been no “racist” angle for them to play off if they did that, and, after all, I guess they were just doing what they are paid to do—make the establishment’s opponents look bad. I just wish people would quit calling them the “news” media because they aren’t anymore about real news than the Easter Bunny.

After the neo-patriotic Republican politicians all hunted their holes (one wonders how much of the video they saw) the truth slowly started to come out. There was an article on http://www.infowars.com with a video included in which a black militia member, Jason Bullock was interviewed. The Infowars article stated: “When asked if he found Mr. Bundy’s comments offensive, six-year Army veteran Jason Bullock replied: ‘Mr. Bundy is not a racist. Ever since I’ve been here, he’s treated me with nothing but hospitality. He’s pretty much treating me just like his own family. I would take a bullet for that man if need be. I look up to him just like I do my own grandfather. I believe in his cause and after having met Mr. Bundy a few times, I have a really good feel about him and I’m a pretty good judge of character.”

Mr. Bundy’s comments about whether the slavery before the War of Northern Aggression (which had also existed in the North) had just been traded for a new form of federal slavery, were taken out of context. He asked it as a question and, I have to admit, the same thought has crossed my mind also. I have asked the question—were the slaves ever really freed in the truest sense, or were they made to exchange being privately owned for being federally owned? I think it’s a legitimate question and with the welfare mentality the feds have created in this country, maybe it ought to be addressed.

The Infowars article also stated: “In another video we pointed to yesterday, the IJReview’s Kira Davis (a black activist) also sided with Mr. Bundy, agreeing that essentially one form of slavery has given way to another, where people are enslaved to the government and dependent on their subsidies.”

The web site http://patdollard.com dealt with the same question, and aired the whole video in question. They commented on it and said: “Watch Bundy explain how we need to keep things from going backwards for blacks, and how the Federal government has created a neo-slave class via entitlement dependency that is so bad it is arguably worse than plantation slavery was.”

And on http://www.mediaite.com radio talk show host Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman, stated, quite plainly, that “”Bundy is not a racist simply for just asking a question about the current state of black America.” The article noted: “Walsh called out Democrats for perpetuating the real racism in America and ‘gutless, cowardly politicians’ for backing away as far as they could from Bundy.” Walsh said: “If you want to cavalierly throw the charge of racism around, point it at Democrats and liberals who have caused this! Cliven Bundy didn’t do this to black America!…You know who did this to black America? Democrats, liberals, and black civil rights leaders.”

And, in an article on http://www.lewrockwell.com writer William Norman Grigg (who is also black) made a congent comment. He said: “Several months into his first term, Barack Obama signed into law a ‘hate crimes’ measure that enriched the federal government’s power to investigate and punish improper thinking. That measure likewise diverted plundered funds to fill the troughs of left-wing pressure groups that gather intelligence on ‘thought criminals’ on behalf of the feds.” So, at this point, the whole “hate crimes/civil rights ploy is nothing more than a tactic of the feds to keep black voters on the federal plantation so they will vote the right way and perpetuate the ruling elite. That’s the real name of the game. And it’s no different today than it was with the infamous “Union Leagues” during “Reconstuction.”

And so anyone that dares to raise legitimate questions about what is going on must be branded as a horrible “racist.” Do you see now why they did this to Mr. Bundy? He asked a question the feds would rather not have asked and, to avoid more from asking the same question, the “news” media had to step in and turn his honest question into a “racist” statement so others would think twice about asking it. All part of the federal game, folks, nothing to see here—just move along.

Advertisements

Cliven Bundy’s “Racism” Is A Diversonary Tactic

by Al Benson Jr.

Just after I had posted yesterday’s article about the War of Northern Aggression being thrust upon the Western States, the Internet almost started glowing with new reports that rancher Cliven Bundy had been identified, by comments he made, as a flaming “racist.” As slow as the prostitute press was to pick up on his stand against federal tyranny the previous week, they literally jumped on the “racist” story before the teletype machines has stopped spitting it out. Their stories lit up the Internet and most “news” programs like a theater marquee.

This is the kind of stuff our “news” media literally drools over. They get a chance to make someone conservative, that they don’t much like, look bad. That makes their day. They get a chance to put their spin on something that was said by throwing around that politically correct “R” word–the one that’s supposed to scare everyone off and silence any legitimate dissent against their agenda and that of their Washington puppet masters.

I read some of Mr. Bundy’s comments and listened to the doctored video the media put out about his alleged “racist” comments. And I came away with a distinct impression, and it was this–this whole “racist’ situation was manufactured as a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the federal government for what they have been trying to do to Mr. Bundy and his family and, as it develops, a lot of other ranchers and landowners in the West, and to make Mr. Bundy look bad. It’s an old Marxist trick–condemn others and elevate yourself.

All of a sudden no one is concerned anymore about federal tyranny in Nevada Texas, or anywhere else. All they are concerned about is the Cliven Bundy is a “racist.” Nothing else matters anymore.  And if he is a “racist” (I use that term in quotes because it’s a term of Trotskyite origin, and therefore, a propaganda word) he probably deserves what the feds are doing to him because, after all, everyone knows that “racism” is the one unforgivable sin in the leftist litany of sins for propaganda use. Abortion is just fine with them. Murder might be okay.  Sodomy will always get a free pass, but “racism” cannot be countenanced under any circumstances–anything is forgivable to the left but “racism.” And even that might be forgivable, depending on who’s practicing it. Black racism is okay. White racism is totally beyond the pale. This is Cultural Marxism to the fullest degree and guaranteed to shut down most debate. And it usually works.

Look at how these “neo-patriot” conservative politicians lined up to protest what the feds were doing to Mr. Bundy–until the “racist” angle was put forth. To a man they all tucked tail and ran, loudly disavowing their support for Bundy as they headed for the woodwork. Even Rand Paul, who I would have thought better of, played the game and withdrew his support.  I was talking with someone about this just today and they said to me “Rand is not his father.” He sure ain’t! I’m beginning to wonder if he’s even a pale imitation.

I don’t pretend to be privy to all Mr. Bundy’s views on the race question, but one thing is for certain sure, the problem with federal tyranny in the West is still there. It still remains, but now, it will probably be pushed aside and forgotten in favor of the race card being played.

Someone sent me this article today, which I thought was worth quoting from because it is so typical of what the “news” media does. It was on http://benswann.com and it stated: “As media are blasting Bundy for the remarks and politicians are running away from Bundy as quickly as they can, the full context of what Cliven Bundy said has not been reported on. Here is the full 3:19 of his statement. It is worth listening to the comments about Hispanics which were conveniently removed from the videos being played by mainstream media.” I can’t reproduce the video on this blog spot, but go to the source and watch it and listen.

And then, Mr. Swann asks “Why were the comments about ‘Spanish’ people not included in media coverage? The answer is simple. What Cliven Bundy says there does not fit the narrative of a racist. In fact, some people could call him a ‘liberal’ when he says that even if illegal immigrants have ‘violated our Constitution, they are here and they are people’ when he says that Hispanics ‘have a stronger family structure than many of us white people’, and when he says ‘don’t tell me they don’t work and they don’t pay taxes.’ Those comments would strike many ‘conservatives’ as being too sympathetic toward Hispanic immigrants.” And of course, such comments, if aired, would blow the phoney race card out of the water, so the media just leaves them out. The public doesn’t need to be aware of all that–doctored videos for a bemused audience. So typical of the Ministry of Propaganda we still refer to as the “news media.”

I remember, back in 1999, my wife and I went to a Confederate Alliance Conference in Charleston, South Carolina, and, being the kind of conference it was, we had Confederate flags of different kinds on the walls of the meeting hall. The “news” media came in during the late afternoon and interviewed the man responsible for the conference.  All the media wanted to talk about was Nazi’s and white supremacists. The man they interviewed took great pains to explain to them that Nazi’s, skinheads, and the white supremacy people were not what we were all about, and they were not welcome at our meeting. It had nothing to do with any of that. The “news” media people didn’t want to hear that. Every single question they asked the man they interviewed eventually worked its way back to the white supremacy angle. That’s the only thing the “news” people were there to deal with–and if that wasn’t what we were all about, they were darn well going to make sure everybody thought that’s what we were about.

The exact same game is being played with Mr. Bundy–to make him look bad and to discourage support for him so the feds would look much better than they really are and Mr. Bundy and the ranchers would look worse than they really are. It’s all a clever diversion, folks. Don’t buy it!

It’s 1860 In Nevada–the War of Northern Aggression Moves To the Far West

by Al Benson Jr.

It has probably been around two decades now since I first made the observation that the War of Northern Aggression solved nothing, (it was never intended to) except to demonstrate who had the most money, men, and guns. All the problems attendant to that War remain with us today–and some of the folks in the Western states are now beginning to realize that.

Just today (4/24) I saw a short article on http://libertycrier.com that plainly stated: “While the debate continues over Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s dispute with federal land managers, supporters in nearby Southern Utah say the much publicized quarrel has brought the issue of states’ rights to the forefront. ‘I think the Bundy issue is just a symptom of the many issues that are out there,’ said Washington Country Commissioner Alan Gardner. Gardner said the dispute raised awareness for states’ rights issues and energized those who feel the federal government has too much control over the public lands in Western States.”

States’ rights! Anyone ever heard that before? I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center will condemn all those in the West that harbor states’ rights sentiments as “racists” because they dare to think in those terms.  After all, “Honest” Harry RE(i)D has gone out of his way to label the ranchers as “domestic terrorists” so that now gives the lapdog media two different horrific titles to throw at the Western folks. Westerners may soon begin to realize how we in the South feel, because they are about to become victims of the same brand of Cultural Marxism that has been shoved down the throats of Southerners for decades now.

I still think it would be a great idea if the “Cowboys and the Confederates” could sit down at the same table and begin to discuss what has gone on and what is going on in this country. For the most part we should all be on the same page. Someone with the ability of an organizer should work on this idea, provided we can keep the agent provocateurs out. The Northern Aggressors have shafted and are shafting both groups and they should seek out ways to help one another out.  Real states’ rights would be good for both the South and the West because, let’s face it, none of us has them, nor have we had them in my lifetime–in fact, as the Nevada State Constitution of 1864 plainly shows, Nevada never had them to begin with as a state, with the feds owning over 80% of the states’ land.

I noted only this past weekend that representatives from nine Western state, more than 50 of them, according to http://www.foxnews.com “…made their proclamations  at the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands, in Utah, which was scheduled before this month’s standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management…Whether the federal government will use the court system or other methods to try to resolve such disputes remains unclear.” It’s those “other methods” that concern people, not only in the West, but in other areas where this situation is being observed. And thanks to the alternate media, it is being observed. It was only their observation and commentary that caused the lapdog media to finally deign to comment on the situation.

Honest Harry said earlier this week that he had talked with what passes for an Attorney General these days and “that a task force might be formed.” Law enforcement people said Saturday that there are no plans for this.  (Translation: they may well try it so the militia folks on the ground there had best be prepared.)

The folks in the Western States feel that they are better qualified to manage the land in their respective states rather than leaving it up to some one-size-fits-all bureaucrat in Sodom on the Potomac. Can’t argue with that assessment.

It seems that the BLM (Bureau of Licensed Marauders) have plans for a lot more Western land than Mr. Bundy’s ranch. In an article on http://www.breitbart.com someone sent me yesterday, someone said: “The Eyes of the BLM are on Texas, on the Bureau of Land Management’s intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.” Gen Abbott said: “I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” He has already sent a strong letter to the BLM director, Harry Reid’s old buddy, Neil Kornze, strongly expressing his concernes about this attempt at Texas land usurpation.

General Abbott stated: “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country…And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.” Let’s hope General Abbott sticks to his guns.

He is right on the money about one thing–the Obama administration couldn’t care less about the rule of law–that’s for us “petty bourgeois” not for our exalted Marxist rulers. They are above all that. They do what they please and if they do manage to do something that’s really over the edge and Congress calls them on it, they just get “Attorney General” Holder to stonewall Congress so nothing ever happens. He’s good at that.

One thing all of us, Southern folks, Western folks, all sincere folks, had best get firmly implanted into our “thinking caps” is that this administration is at war with the American people. They have orders to tear this country down and they are not about to let a ragtag group of Cowboys or Confederates or whoever, deter them from that agenda. They will remove their opposition any way they have to, lawful, illegal, or otherwise. This is what we are dealing with folks. We’d better get used to it.

About Those “Domestic Terrorists”

by Al Benson Jr.

On Friday, the 18th of April I believe it was, two politicians appeared on a show called What’s Your Point? on KSNV, which is a TV news station in Las Vegas, Nevada.  One of them was that bastion of honesty and integrity, “Honest” Harry Reid ( I exaggerate slightly here) and the other was a Republican State Senator named Dean Heller.

You’ll recall that “Honest Harry” Reid (about as honest as Honest Abe was) said that the folks out at the Bundy Ranch were nothing but a bunch of “Domestic Terrorists.” Reid may have gotten a bit of flack from the blanket statement because he went on to note that he didn’t mean Mr. Bundy and his family were domestic terrorists–just those folks that showed up to help Mr. Bundy protect his life and property from what many consider the REAL domestic terrorists, the ones operating under cover of law.

Dean Heller said he considered those that showed up to help the Bundy’s patriots, not terrorists.  However, you are forced to look at Harry Reid’s worldview.  In his twisted thinking, anyone that dares to oppose beneficent  totalitarian government in order to maintain his liberties is, automatically, a domestic terrorist. In today’s skewed political situation all who dare to even think of opposing the Obama Regime’s program for the systematic dismantling of American liberty are “domestic terrorists.” Today, in order not to be labeled as a domestic terrorist you must be willing to become a good little Marxist wannabe, carrying a sign with a big hammer and sickle on it, and loudly proclaiming that those that refused to vote for Obama are all blatant “racists.” To be opposed to Obamacare is not yet treason, but it may well be in the future, depending on what Executive Orders get signed.

So it seems that Honest Harry had a big problem with the folks that showed up to help the Bundy’s resist government aggression (oh, excuse me, I meant “assistance”). Reid said: “600 people came armed, they had practiced, they had maneuvered,…they set up snipers in strategic locations…they had automatic weapons.” Is any of this against the law–yet? The thought that such people had the ability to resist government aggression seems to have scared the daylights out of Honest Harry. That armed citizens might just resist government aggression is one reason Honest Harry and Comrade Obama want your guns.  They want no resistance to their plans to merge this country into the New World Order, and armed citizens (patriots, not terrorists) just might be tempted to resist.  As far as snipers go, well, the BLM had them out there before the militia folks did. Several folks attested to that, but, of course, Honest Harry “forgot” to mention that–besides, under cover of law, they were “legal” snipers. The militia snipers didn’t do anything illegal, but we won’t mention that.

I’ve read that about 100 or so of the militia folks remain at the Bundy Ranch because they don’t quite trust the feds to leave Mr. Bundy alone–and why should they? Situations like the one in Waco several years ago show what the feds are capable of if left to their own devices. Many people feel that all we have at this point is a breather, that the feds will return, because, like Honest Harry, they don’t get mad, they get even–and then some.

David Hathaway, writing on http://www.lewrockwell.com on April 21st has said: “The federal response will definitely come. It will likely be in three areas; two of which don’t involve the Bundy’s specifically. First, a multi-faceted attack will be made on the Bundys; second, a broad-front regulatory response against other land users will be made for the purpose of retaliation against the whole group and as a deterrent; and third, new provocateur deployments will probably be made across the West into similar situations.”

This time they’ll probably send so many people against the Bundys that it will be harder to combat them. The federal leviathan has to prevail, no matter how many people it takes. If they can be resisted then their aggressive power will be gone. And, unfortunately, most of the militia people can’t stay at the Bundy Ranch forever, so unless those that have to leave can be replaced by others, they have a problem.

Second, the feds will now engage in an open display of the class struggle technique against the ranchers in the West.  The ranchers will, in essence, become the new “Kulaks” of the American Empire–to be starved out or driven off their land. After all, Honest Harry and his buddies in Red China need the acreage for new solar farms.

And third, the feds will probably set up more situations around the West like that of the Bundy Ranch, while at the same time, pushing a PR campaign, with the aid of the compliant lapdog media, that paints all ranchers and farmers as horrid, selfish people, who want only to protect their lives and property–something that is fast becoming a “class crime” in our new leftist-oriented society.

Mr. Hathaway estimates that it will probably be in the neighborhood of around three weeks before we are treated to a federal response, as the feds work all these factors into their agenda in a way most beneficial to them and most detrimental to ordinary citizens, who, in case you haven’t yet realized it, have now become the new “enemies of the state.”

The public will be conditioned, as they were after Oklahoma City, to be afraid of the militias, to view them with fear and loathing. So get ready, folks, for the next big anti-militia campaign. It’s all coming soon, brought to you by the same folks that gave us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City.

About That Public Land In Nevada

by Al Benson Jr.

The day after I posted my last article on the situation at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, a man in North Carolina sent me a link to a legal case, U.S. v. Gardner, NO. CV-N-95-328-DWH. which was posted on http://www.leagle.com dealing with a case similar to that of the Bundy family.

It contained some interesting information and I’d like to quote a couple things: “On March 21, 1864, the United States Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute which authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union.” Among the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, this act granted “certain tracts of United States public lands to the State when it entered the Union…In addition, the Nevada Statehood statute  required the convention to adopt an ordinance decreeing and declaring that the inhabitants of the Territory of Nevada ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…The Nevada Constitution provides  that this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent   of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada’.” There’s more, but we could get bogged down in all the legal jargon and that’s sure not my long suit.  What it boils down to is that the folks in Nevada supposedly disclaimed any title to “unappropriated public lands lying within said territory…”In other words, the feds, way back in 1864, got to keep most of the land in Nevada and the people of that “state” promised not to contest that sticky little fact. Sounds like a bum deal, doesn’t it? It was (and still is).

We have to bear in mind why the big push for Nevada to become a state in 1864. The rule used to be that, for a territory to become a state, it had to have a population of 60,000. Nevada had something like 40,000, but Nevada was pushed ahead of other candidates for statehood. If you’re like me, with a suspicious  mind, you might be tempted to wonder why. The site http://www.onlinenevada.org in an article on the 29th of October, 2009, observed: “As the 1864 presidential election approached there were certain perceived advantages in having an additional Republican state. For one thing, a Republican congressional delegation could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery, which earlier had narrowly failed to garner the necessary two thirds support of both houses of Congress.  More overriding, however, at least in the spring of 1864  was the real fear that there might be three major candidates running for President that year, and that no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Then, as required by the United States Constitution, the election would go into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote and where a Republican Nevada would have voting rights equal to those of populous New York or Pennsylvania.” To put it bluntly, getting statehood for Nevada was a political move to help Lincoln win the election.

And seeing that it was the Lincoln administration in office, with its collectivist, centralizing mindset, you can see why provisions allowing the federal government to hold onto most of the land in Nevada, with no recourse by the people of that state, were part of the deal. So the feds let Nevada in as a state to boost Lincoln’s election chances, while retaining control of 88% of the land in the state. Such a deal! Even Wikipedia noted that: “Statehood was rushed to help ensure three electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln’s re-election and add to the Republican congressional majorities.”

Interestingly enough, http://www.nevadaweb.com states that “Nevada Territory was a federal territory, a part of the Union, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Governor James Warren Nye, a former Police Commissioner in New York City, to ensure that it stayed that way. Governor Nye put down any demonstration in support of the Confederacy, and there were some.” So they weren’t all Yankee/Marxists in Nevada.

You can see by reading some of this, that the current land problems in Nevada go all the way back to the Lincoln administration. For those that follow history, at least accurate history, are you really surprised? I’ve said, over the years, that many of the problems we still deal with today are a result of the Lincoln administration and its War of Northern Aggression.  The current situation in Nevada is a prime example.

I recently read a very good article by Steve Miller on http://www.zianet.com entitled Nevada: The Permanent Colony which dealt with the Sagebrush Rebellion I mentioned in my last article. Mr. Miller made several observations worth noting. If you can find this article on the Internet I’d recommend reading it.  Mr. Miller noted that Nevada Territory had too few people to meet requirements for statehood. This made no difference whatever.  Union and pro-Lincoln activists set up constitutional conventions anyway to try to get Nevada into the Union in 1863.  That attempt failed, so they came back again in 1864–so typical of the socialist agenda–if you lose, keep coming back and back until you wear down the opposition. At this point, I’d ask–if they didn’t have enough population to qualify, are they really, technically a state? They weren’t admitted under the required conditions.

Mr. Miller stated: :”Also, Lincoln needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate, where the Thirteenth Amendment waited to be passed.  Nevada’s admission would give him the three-fourths majority needed for a measure largely designed to help break the South…So Nevada had become a state, but it was only in a negligible sense.  For all practical purposes, Nevada remained essentially a territory ruled by those who dominated the federal government.”

And now comes the bombshell!

According to Steve Miller: “As part of the enabling legislation, Congress imposed conditions on the state that the Supreme Court, 19 years before, had already declared illegal, citing the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that new states should have ‘equal footing’ with the original thirteen. Under Nevada’s 1864 enabling act conditions, the people of the territory had to ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory,’ and turn them over to the federal government.” A great deal–but for who? Certainly not the people of Nevada.

Miller’s narrative continued: “But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.” The Court said: “We think the proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed; except for temporary purposes…As soon as new states were formed out of the territory, ‘the power of the United States over these lands and property was to cease’.”

I submit, this is something to think about in the case of Nevada and all the many public acres the federal government controls there whereby they are setting out to deny the inhabitants of Nevada the use of public land–which the feds shouldn’t even control.

Does what has gone on in Nevada and other Western states sound a little like a federal land grab? If all the states agreed to abide by this 1845 Supreme Court decision, you would hardly need something like the BLM there to harass citizens. This is an aspect of this situation that ought to be considered by someone with legal training.  Mr. Bundy may well have a point when he refuses to recognize federal control over much of his state.  And remember, this problem goes back to Lincoln and his Marxist hoard. Something to think about.

“Dirty Harry” Won’t Get Mad–He’ll Get Even!

by Al Benson Jr.

Anyone remember the Sagebrush Rebellion back in the 1970s and 80s? In thirteen Western states the federal government controlls between 30% and 75-80% of the land, depending on which state you are in.

Although I don’t always believe everything Wikipedia says, by any means, once in awhile they get it right, and awhile back http://en.wikipedia.org  said of the Sagebrush Rebellion that it was: “An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies.” As for the current regime in Washington, the last thing in the world they are concerned about is the growth of Western economies–unless that “growth” is administered by their friends who will make sweetheart deals with countries hostile to the US, so that both hostile countries and politicians can make big bucks selling off US sovereignty and helping to destroy the middle class. That’s what Marxism/corporate fascism is really all about, and our “public servants”  today abound in it!

Even Wikipedia sort of half-heartedly recognized the Sagebrush Rebellion as, basically a states rights issue. And what has been going on at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada is the same states rights issue. But the feds, as usual, don’t plan to taking NO for an answer. They didn’t at Waco and Ruby Ridge and they won’t here. They will exert their power in any way they have to in order to show that they run things, and if they end up having to kill a bunch of people off, so what? They believe in the Marxist principle  that the end justifies the means. When they incinerated those people at Waco, including the children, it was all for their own good, right? That’s the way those people think–whatever they do has to be good and right–because, after all, they are the go(d)vernment and they know best!

Comrade Reid (aka “Dirty Harry”) had an ominous message for Mr. Bundy and his family according to http://www.foxnews.com when he said: “Well, it’s not over, we can’t have, in America, people that violate the law and just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” What he really meant was that he was ticked off because all the controversy raised by the Bundy Ranch situaton exposed his and his son’s sweet deal with a Chinese solar farm company and made him look bad. He wasn’t all that happy about that. So he and our Marxist-in-Chief and probably his “Attorney General” will have to find some way to get back at those nasty ranchers and make them pay, in spades, for daring to defy “national authority.” Fox News noted Reid’s hesitancy to speak on this issue and said: “That’s perhaps due to Reid’s  reported lobbying of the (Bureau of Land Management) to change the desert tortoise’s mapped habitat, allowing Nevada real estate mogul Harvey Whittemore to build on land near the Bundy Ranch. Last year Whittemore was convicted of making illegal campaign  contributions to Reid, and the Majority Leader’s former senior adviser was confirmed as the new head of BLM just last week.” Is this a great kountry or what?

The site http://thecommonsenseshow.com carried an article by Dave Hodges on April 14th  that noted: “China, allied with Russia, is in the process of taking over the United States, or should I say that our public officials are giving away the country to them…In my previous article, it was clearly demonstrated  that the Chinese are preparing, among other things, to assume control of supplying America’s energy needs at a cost they deem appropriate. It is a simple business proposition. They own our debt, we have defaulted and they are here to be compensated.”

Mr. Hodges continued: “The Bundy affair affirmed the fact that  Chinese are being handed control of solar energy inside the United States and that this is being facilitated by Senator Harry Reid. The takeover of American energy is being manifested on many fronts, but in particular, it is being concentrated on the takeover of the solar energy industry in the new Agenda 21 designation with the so-called ‘Solar Energy Zones’.” So there is a lot more involved here than the habitat of the desert tortoise–the UN’s Agenda 21 project is their blueprint and that bodes no good for the American public.

As if to reassert what much of this is all about http://townhall.com stated in an article on 4/14 that “Outraged over the heavy-handed tactics, about 1,000 states rights activists traveled to Mesquite (Nevada) to support Bundy. Many gun owners showed up lawfully carrying firearms, and local cowboys came riding in on horses. They were afraid they could be the next targets of  a federal government overreach, and felt it was time to take a stand.” Men, as far as you all being the next federal targets–depend on it–the federal drones have recorded who was there, and after the feds get through getting even with the Bundys, they will come looking for you, especially if you own any land they want in the “national interest.”

Sadly, this isn’t over and those governmental Marxist mentalities don’t quit. Part of our problem in this country is that we do quit and they don’t–until they get what they want–and at that point we all begin to experience what the Communists refer to as “peaceful co-existence.”

The question hasn’t arisen much, but I think it should.  Why should the federal government own so much land in so many states? Once a state has been given statehood, the land in that state should belong to that state, not to the federal government. If you have a state, anywhere, where the feds control 75% of the land in that state, is that state really a sovereign state or is it, in effect, still mostly a federal territory with the feds calling all the shots? What states rights do the people in any state have if the feds still control 75% of the real estate in their state?

This should concern Southern folks as well as Western folks. Seems to me we are all fighting the same battle. Folks in the South fought it first, but we are all fighting it now–maybe on different levels depending how much land the feds control in different states–but it’s still the same battle.  Maybe the Cowboys and the Confederates ought to get together.  We have a lot of the same problems and the same people, in many cases, are causing the problems we both experience.  Maybe it’s time for a Cowboy/Confederate Alliance.

Chinese Solar Farm in Nevada Could Kill Birds—Environmentalists Beware!!!

By Al Benson Jr.
It’s a known fact that many types of environmentalists around the country are very concerned about any project anywhere that might contribute to the killing off of wildlife. Some environmentalists have been so concerned for the lives of various frogs, toads, insects, and other creeping wildlife that they have actually worked to get laws passed that prohibited people from working their own land and making a living because to do so might disrupt the existence of the 16-legged whatchamacallit.

That being the case, the environmental types should be concerned about an article that appeared on http://www.washingtontimes.com for April 11, 2014 that was written by Douglas Ernst. The title of the article was Death by solar farms: 71 species of birds killed, ‘entire food chains’ disrupted. The article noted that: “A new report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that solar facilities in California are acting like ‘mega traps’ that kill and injure birds. As a result, ‘entire food chains’ are being disrupted.” The study found that over a two year period over 320 dead birds were found at three different solar farms, representing birds from 71 different species, and it went on to list the three primary causes, which I will not get into here because that’s a different story.

The point I want to make here is that Chinese solar farms in the Southern Nevada desert country have been listed in several articles as the real reason that the BLM was attempting to harass rancher Clivan Bundy off his grazing land. And that bastion of Senate honesty, Harry Reid, christened “Dirty Harry” by some is up to his neck in a deal with the Chinese Commnists in which they get to start solar farms, guess where,–on the land where Mr. Bundy has been grazing his cattle.

We were told the desert tortoise was the reason Bundy and his cattle needed to go, because their being there was detrimental to the tortoise habitat. I won’t even dignify that drivel with a comment, other than to say it just ain’t so. Joseph Farah, writing on http://www.wnd.com made the astute comment: “…I don’t think it was about tortoises…This was about something else. It’s always about something else. Maybe—just maybe—it had to do with another Nevadan by the name of Harry Reid. It seems that the Senate majority leader has been doing favors for a Chinese energy giant ENN, which has plans to build massive solar facilities in that area—tortoises or no tortoises. It seems the director of BLM is Reid’s former senior advisor, Neil Kornze. BLM has posted on its website documents stating the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations. The agency removed it when the standoff became national news…They were getting a mega-deal. On Alpril 3, 2012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of ENN, had teamed up with Harry Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value. But the story gets better. Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5 billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.” So, what it amounts to is that if this land is sold to this Chinese outfit, than China controls this land in the US. They will own it. US real estate will be under the control and ownership of a Chinese “company” but who will really own it an independent company or the Chinese government?

World Net Daily had reported, back in January of 2013 that the Obama administration “…had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.” In other words, Obama is in the process of allowing Red China to have a major interest in our natural resources. What if their “interest” gets to the point where they control some of our natural resources? Oh, no, Washington would never let that happen! Yeah, right! Remember, this president is a Marxist and the Chinese government is also Marxist, to one extent or another. Oh, they may have allowed a bit of controlled “free enterprise” into China because, like the Soviets, they finally learned that pure Marxism, or communism, is financially untenable.

So much in this game really smells. There are some questions about the people that the BLM had out a Mr. Bundy’s ranch. One report I read on http://beforeitsnews.com for April 11th mentioned “…reports that have come out placing heavy Russian accents on the voices of members of the sniper teams deployed by the FEDS; could these be Russian Spetsnaz agents we’ve been warned about the past few years…With China now buying out what remains of America, as Clivan Bundy is now finding out, how long will it be until the rest of their plans will be put into place?”

An Oathkeeper who was at the Bundy ranch said that: “…the FEDS at Bundy Ranch are actually Russians and speak with heavy accents.” And as far as the BLM finally giving up and leaving, an article on http://www.infowars.com for April 12th said: “The Infowars exclusive yesterday exposing U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s involvement in the Bureau of Land Management’s land grab, which was meant to push out American ranchers such as Clivan Bundy in order to make way for Chinese solar farms, was the #1 news story in the entire world over the past 24 hours thanks to the Drudge Report and others, forcing the BLM to retreat from the standoff.”

I’m just wondering, at this point, given the info I read about solar farms such as Harry Reid and his son are trying to pave the way for in this country, being responsible for killing birds in more than one place in California, if Reid manages, somehow, to finagle a deal to get them into Nevada, how will the environmentalists, who are so concerned about animal life, respond? Surely they will be forced to protest Harry Reid’s plan to allow Chinese solar farms in, won’t they? Let’s wait and see. I could well be wrong, but I’d be willing to bet that the environmentalist movement in this country won’t say “boo” about what Comrade Reid and his son want to do, or how much money they will make off of it, or how many birds it will kill.
Why? Because over the years I have found much of the environmentalist movement to be like a watermelon—green on the outside, but RED on the inside.

What happened at the Bundy Ranch woke some folks up. Let’s hope they will stay awake—and active because, as I said in the last article—this administration is at war with its own people. They want to transform us either into a total Marxist state or pattern us after the socialist countries in Europe. Either way, we lose. Let’s let them know we ain’t goin’ easy!

Before I even finished this article I got an article sent to me from http://bobpowell.blogspot.com that stated that the situation at the Bundy Ranch was a test. The article read: “The entire standoff was…a real world exercise designed to determine what kind of resistance the federal government will face should gun confiscation begin.” I can’t verify the total accuracy of this, but it is food for thought. Eternal vigilance must still be the price of liberty.