Koch-backed lobbying group is spreading Ammon Bundy’s lies — misspellings and all

a reply to: Echo3Foxtrot

OK, here is Article 1 Section 8 of the United states Constitution. You have to interpret to your own satisfaction. OK?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

www.archives.gov...

a reply to: greencmp

I have lived in Id/Wa states since 1972. I don't understand what the problem is with public lands. Because of public lands we get to enjoy the beautiful scenery and outdoor activities, that would be impossible otherwise. I moved here from the east as a young woman and was amazed at the lack of no trespassing signs and open country.

Private investors want land for the natural resources. The Federal government cleaned up the lead from the mines in the 70's in N Idaho, so time to give it a go again.

I read in local paper that two of the anarchists are from Riggins, Id, famous area for gold mining. Grangeville, Riggins, all that area has been taken over by rich conservative outsiders. Most of the original locals, including native tribes who don't live on res, have seen much land cut off for outdoor activities. These people don't know when they had it good, now they are destroyed for an obsession.

a reply to: MOMof3

The problem is that our federal government isn't supposed to possess over 50% of the land.

a reply to: greencmp

But we are the federal government and I get to use that land. So you people want to take it away and give it to the rich.

a reply to: MOMof3

"We" most certainly are not the federal government.

I think you are confusing national parks with federally administered land.

with the Koch Bros. record so far, it's just business as usual for them.

a reply to: greencmp

I guess I just imagine that we hunt game 20 miles down the road on BLM land for 20 years. If it were private land, it would be inaccessible with gates. No thanks give the rich your stuff.

a reply to: CharlesT

I put this in another thread but I thought it belonged here as well, plus I wanted to make sure that you saw it, and to hear your thoughts.

I have been a fairly ardent supporter of Mr. Finicum, posthumously, as I didn't care for the way the man's reputation was trashed. I sympathize with the Bundys' cause of objecting to the unjust, overly harsh punishment given to the Hammonds. I am also upset by the feds' heavy handed tactics in dealing with men and women who were, essentially, peaceful protesters. I am also against the corruption and dirty tactics that have been used by the BLM for decades.

That being said, I think you're absolutely right about the hidden agenda you referenced in your earlier post, that has been mentioned in the thread you referenced. A few articles in the BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms thread broached the topic.

That being said, I still think the federal government makes a crappy steward, and the constitutionalists are right in that there is nothing in the letter of the constitiution that authorizes the federal government to hold vast tracts of land that reside within the states. Anyhow, though turning the land over to the states alone doesn't solve the problem that that land will then most likely wind up in the hands of wealthy individuals or big businesses, the same will happen if it's left under federal control. They'll squeeze the little guys out, but megacorps will still be able to buy access. Neither solution alone serves the interests of the people. Something else needs to happen here.

I think if the land is reopened for settlement, that that should be protected for use by individuals, and prohibited from exploitation by big business. If not reopened for settlement, and we're only talking about allowing the land to be used for ranching, recreation, mining, and logging, well then I still think this is an issue where individuals should be empowered, and big business interests should be restrained.

If the MNWR were never occupied and we never heard about all of this BLM corruption, big business would win. If the land is returned to the states as is constitutionally required, with no restrictions on how the state may use it, big business will still win. I would like to see a sensible solution brought forward where the people may benefit from this, and not just large companies. Some mining operations require a large effort, I get it; so do some logging operations. Neither the solution nor preserving the status quo really benefits the people in any way I can see, however.

a reply to: aethertek

Important thread!

The source for this is an excellent read. The below is just the end of the article. Note, LDS refers to Mormon church

Private corporate interests – the LDS and Koch financial empires – have enabled these dangerous conditions through their support of the ideological American Lands Council, John Birch Society, American Legislative Exchange Council, and Americans For Prosperity. They want to control how federal lands are managed to benefit their corporations, have created organizations to do so, and have consistently shown a willingness to mobilize their supporters.

In my view, there is a constitutional crisis in the United States and it is not the kind the “sovereigns” like to promote.

The crisis consists of a Federal government that, through its lack of conviction or outright inaction, has consistently emboldened seditionists who have a dangerous persecution complex by refusing to enforce the law of the land. In the case of today’s “sovereigns”, the Federal government is now refusing to protect public land rights, refusing to enforce the environmental laws that dictate their management, and refusing to hold accountable those who threatened them while performing their constitutional duties.

However, at its core and like the circumstances that lead to the Great Recession, it remains a constitutional crisis brought about by the greed of people and their organizations, how they manipulate people, and how a Federal government is beholden to those interests.

Constitutional Crisis in the Heart of Dixie...note, "the Heart of Dixie refers not to the South but to the area of the Southwest home to the Bundys etal

originally posted by: aethertek
Whats the deal with their little pocket Articles, I've heard they're not standard but some reprinted interpretation?

If you mean their pocket Constitution, then here is what it is...

This Mormon pseudo-historian is why the Oregon militants are so confused about the Constitution

Any time the Oregon militants record a video testimonial — and they do that a lot — they’re conspicuously displaying a pocket Constitution.
....
The militants do read those pocket Constitutions, but they’re also reading fraudulent interpretations scribbled in the margins, so to speak, by a communist-hating conspiracy theorist promoted by Glenn Beck,..

Those annotations were written decades ago by W. Cleon Skousen, an ultra-conservative Mormon and former FBI agent who believed the Founding Fathers had established a Christian theocracy and never intended for the federal government to have any authority.

The Constitution In Cliven Bundy’s Pocket

Skousen believed we have a choice between Christ or Chaos and that Mormons are important in all of this in that the future depends on accepting God’s government. He believed that Mormons were destined to lead in the effort to dictate morality. Most importantly, he believed that our alleged Constitutional decline began when the Federal Government started enforcing equality under the law, thereby ignoring the wishes of the individual states.

These are the beliefs espoused in the Bundy- held copy of the Constitution, which is also the abridged copy distributed and endorsed by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) organization founded by “Sheriff” Richard Mack, who is a fellow Mormon that started following Skousen at BYU. “Sheriff Mack” is the one who infamously participated in the “Bundy Standoff” last April and publicly stated that they planned to put the women and children in front so that the Federal Agents would have to shoot them first! Perhaps the beliefs espoused by Skousen influenced Cliven Bundy to join the American Independence Party, a political party founded by George Wallace. That Cliven Bundy carries a copy of the interpreted Constitution in the front pocket of his shirt tells us a lot about who this man really is. “Sheriff Mack” also has been the guest speaker at meetings of White Supremacist organizations.

a reply to: desert

The militants do read those pocket Constitutions, but they’re also reading fraudulent interpretations scribbled in the margins, so to speak, by a communist-hating conspiracy theorist promoted by Glenn Beck,.. Those annotations were written decades ago by W. Cleon Skousen, an ultra-conservative Mormon and former FBI agent who believed the Founding Fathers had established a Christian theocracy and never intended for the federal government to have any authority.

Thanks for that info, that certainly explains some of their stupidity.

K~