150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[mick silver]

Cliven Bundy Says Oregon Occupiers Should Stand Their Ground

https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/G...6e299e2bda.png By Simon Lewis 18 hours ago

https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Gz...dbdb2641540c55
. View photo

“If we don’t retain it, then we’ve lost everything that we’ve done in the last two months"

The father of detained Oregon militia leader Ammon Bundy has called on supporters to continue their occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, despite his son previously telling them to go home.

In a letter to the sheriff of Harney Country — copying the Oregon state governor and President Obama — Cliven Bundy announced that the group would "retain possession" of the federal building, the Guardian reports. The elder Bundy, who led a standoff with the federal government in 2014, lives in Bunkerville, Nevada.

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/694306727223627776

Ammon Bundy — who was among 11 people arrested last week following an incident in which the group's spokesman Robert Finicum was shot dead by a law enforcement officer — has issued a statement calling on his supporters to stand down.
But Cliven Bundy told the Guardian he did not believe that statement reflected his son's true intentions.
“What this is saying is that Cliven Bundy is taking control of things,” he was quoted saying Monday. “If we don’t retain it, then we’ve lost everything that we’ve done in the last two months. We’re not gonna give up.”
[Guardian]

[mick silver]

Cliven Bundy defies son Ammon in call for Oregon militia to stand their ground After Ammon Bundy called on final occupiers to leave refuge, his father sent a letter to government officials declaring armed militia would not back down

‘What this is saying is that Cliven Bundy is taking control of things,’ he said of the Oregon standoff in an interview from his ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada. Photograph: Sam Levin for the Guardian Sam Levin in Bunkerville, Nevada

@SamTLevin

Monday 1 February 2016 18.35 EST Last modified on Tuesday 2 February 2016 03.57 EST

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who led a standoff with the federal government in 2014, wants the protesters in Oregon to stand their ground – directly defying the message of his son, Ammon.

Days after militia leader Ammon Bundy, now in jail in Portland, Oregon, called on the final four occupiers at the Malheur national wildlife refuge to surrender and go home, the elder Bundy sent a letter to government officials declaring that the armed militia would not be backing down.
“This is notice that We the People of Harney County and also We the People of the citizens of the United States DO GIVE NOTICE THAT WE WILL RETAIN POSSESSION OF THE HARNEY COUNTY RESOURCE CENTER,” Cliven wrote in the letter, which he sent on Monday to the local sheriff, Oregon governor Kate Brown, and the White House.

The armed militia in Oregon renamed the federally protected refuge the “Harney County Resource Center” and for weeks since the occupation began said their goal was to return the public lands to the control of local people.

But since 11 people associated with the militia were arrested – and occupation spokesman LaVoy Finicum was shot and killed by state troopers – leader Ammon Bundy has called on the holdouts to end the protest.

Cliven Bundy, however, declared today that he wants the opposite to occur.

“What this is saying is that Cliven Bundy is taking control of things,” Cliven said in an interview from his ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada, on Monday afternoon. “If we don’t retain it, then we’ve lost everything that we’ve done in the last two months. We’re not gonna give up.”
He added: “This is not Ammon’s message. This is my message ... We’ve made a decision to retain it ... The feds are going to get out of there.”

The letter demands further: “Remove all federal and state policing agents out of Harney County.”

Cliven Bundy sent the letter to the local sheriff, Oregon governor Kate Brown, and the White House. Photograph: Sam Levin for the Guardian Cliven said he suspected that his imprisoned son felt pressured to urge the remaining occupiers to go home. “That’s what he said, but I never believed it. I don’t think that’s what’s in his heart. He probably got his arm twisted.”

Cliven said he has not talked to his son since he was arrested last Tuesday. Ammon, his brother Ryan, and a group of activists are facing federal felony charges for their roles in the occupation of government buildings, which began on 2 January to protest the imprisonment of two local ranchers.

Carol Bundy, Cliven’s wife, said in an interview that it was crucial the occupation persevere. “Ammon does not want bloodshed. But he wants the message to continue,” said Carol. “We’ve made a statement. We’ve made a stand. And we’d like to hold out.”

The four remaining occupiers have posted videos online saying they refused to leave unless they had assurances that they would not face charges. The four left are David Fry, a 27-year-old Ohio resident, Jeff Banta of Elko, Nevada, and husband and wife Sean and Sandy Anderson of Riggins, Idaho.

Speaking through his lawyer after his first court appearance last week, Ammon issued a statement that said: “To those who remain at the refuge, I love you. Let us take this fight from here ... Please stand down. Go home and hug your families. This fight is ours for now, in the courts.”

[monty]

According to some in the chatroom on the Santilli youtube channel that was not Ammon who asked the others to stand down, it was his attorney. Others also said the wife verified that those were not Ammon's words. But later reports say Ammon and his wife both asked the protesters to stand down. I haven't tried to verify this.

[monty]

Dallas Aherns explains about the mixup of the two Ryans in the Dave Hodges show. He says both Ryan Payne and Ryan Bundy were in La Voy's truck at the ambush. About 7 minutes in

[Tumbleweed]

^Good video with a lot of truth in it. He said something I've thought myself that the people the Bundys were facing were souless demons. When I've watched videos when they confronted the deputies and FBI that very thought came to my mind too "souless demons".

[mick silver]

Oregon Standoff, Public Land, Federal Land and Demonizing MilitiaOregonUSA

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : The standoff between ranchers and authorities at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge continues to escalate as armed unorganized militia members have come to support the protesting ranchers. The initiative to occupy a public building in the wildlife refuge on January 2 was led by Ammon Bundy, known from the standoff between the Bundy family and law-enforcement over the use of public land in 2014. The situation is, not surprisingly, grossly misrepresented in US media. The initiative was launched after two ranchers who burned off grasslands used for ranching to prevent wildfires and yield better grass for cattle were sentenced for arson. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...SA-300x155.jpgBack to the 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff. In 2014 US and Nevada authorities violently seized cattle from Cliven Bundy, a private rancher who, as many other ranchers, used public land for grazing cattle. The seizure of Bundy’s cattle had direct links to Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama administration. The seizure of the cattle and what local ranchers describes as “land-grab” was according to several analysts directly linked to projects under the umbrella of Agenda 21 initiatives.The situation that led to the standoff also involved factors such as the fact that Reid applied “pressure [to] Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as [ENN Energy Group’s] first customer.” This deal with ENN and Reid is worth $5 billion for a “solar farm and panel manufacturing plant [to be constructed] in the southern Nevada desert.” In conjunction with this accord, Reid’s son Rory Reid, who is a “prominent Las Vegas [lawyer] that is representing ENN”, and focused on making clean energy projects a specialty at their firm, is assisting the Chinese solar energy corporation in acquiring “a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site . . . well below appraised value from Clark County.”http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...OC-300x168.jpgBundy Ranch Courtesy Occupy Corporatism)

In her article entitled “The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada”, Susanne Posel would notice other facts. For instance that Neil Kornze, “former senior adviser” to Reid was named the director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The article details the background of the standoff between the family that had used the disputed land for two decades and authorities. The article explains why Ammon Bundy would lead the initiative at the current standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.Bundy, other ranchers as well as supportive militia members stress that “What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land”, while they consider de facto land grabs from ranchers and the sentencing of ranchers who burn off grass to avoid wildfires and to yield better grass for cattle grazing as arbitrary and as an infringement on rights by the federal government.The Malheur Wildlife Refuge is a 187,757-acre wildlife refuge. It is among others a refuge for greater sandhill cranes and other native birds in eastern Oregon. Critics of the ranchers would denounce the grazing of cattle on public lands and the occupation of the public building in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge as “an attempt to destroy the national system of public lands, forests, parks and refuges”. Underhanded deals with corporations to develop solar industry on the land that was previously used by the Bundy family does, however, cast serious doubts on the integrity and honesty of such accusations.Native Americans in Legal Limbo.One factor that is largely being omitted is that these land disputes tend to leave first nations Americans in a legal limbo. The first people to live on the land that now is designated as Malheur Wildlife Refuge were the Paiute. The tribe lived of the land as hunter-gatherers and fishers, maintaining an ecological balance between themselves and the land that sustained them. Colonizing “settlers” considered the Paiute as uncivilized savages without fixed habitation, culture, etc.. They were largely considered as “sub-human” and forced into signing a treaty in 1887. A brief uprising was violently crushed. The Paiute were forcibly marched through winter-weather and snow to the Yakama reservation. in southeastern Washington State. Countless died during the ethnic cleansing operation. Ironically, their relocation would later put them at risk from radioactive contamination from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Understandably, first nations tribes don’t necessarily sympathize of feel solidarity with ranchers who feel oppressed by the federal government, the Bureau of Land management and environmental agencies. They do, however, have one issue that could bridge the gap between these communities.http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...O-300x199.jpegThe Right to Organize the Unorganized Militia and to Resist Tyranny.The standoff between the disgruntled ranchers, militia and the government brings to mind the heavy-handed, violent crackdowns against natives who organized armed resistance against infringements on their rights. Many of them who were not shot and killed ended up in federal prisons. This as well as the current standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge bring to mind the words of two of the so-called Founding Fathers; James Madison and John Adams.

James Madison:“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, a right which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”.John Adams:“Arms in the hands of the citizen may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, and for self-defense”.

While almost all US media as well as most Democrats and Republicans alike misrepresent the militia members that have arrived at the Malheur Wildlife refuge as everything from “radical right-wingers” over “fundamentalist Christians” to “criminals and terrorists”, it is worth to have a close look at how the right to form militia is regulated.In the United States “the militia” consists of all able-bodied men with personal firearms. That is, it does not consist of conscripts or professional soldiers. The militia has the purpose to guarantee a free State by repelling foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and Federal Government Tyranny. The US Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 – 15-16 stipulates:

The Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union (not to be confused with the Federal Administration in the District of Colombia) to suppress insurrection and repel invasions. It is the duty of the militia to execute the laws of the Union. … To provide for organizing army and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States of America, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

It is important to notice that the “National Guard” is not “The Militia” but that the militia is the people. More specifically, the militia is regulated in Section 57 in the Officer’s Guide of the National Defense Act. The Act stipulates that:

The Militia of the United States consists of all male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are more than 18 years of age and not more than 45 years of age, and the Militia shall be divided into three classes. The National Guard which our forefathers described as the Select Militia, separate from the term “The Militia”, the Naval Militia, and the Unorganized Militia.

The Unorganized Militia – Not Unregulated or Irregular.It is especially the latter, the “Unorganized Militia” that Madison, Adams and others were referring to when they stressed that “the people” have the right and ability to resist against tyranny. The Constitutions of the constituent States of the USA vary with regard to the age and gender, some specify military age between 17 – 45 years of age, others specify the military age up to 64 years, others again do not implicitly exclude women.Citizens in all States of the United States have the constitutional right to form registered units of the Unorganized Militia, to possess and bear military-grade weapons provided that these militia units are well-regulated.This implies that members of militia units are well-trained and well-educated. This includes military training as well as it does education about the rights, obligations and duties of the Unorganized Militia. Of special importance is that militia units have to be educated about and adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that it trains and operates overtly instead of covertly. Regardless what position one has with regard to wildlife conservation, the debate about the standoff must be brought on the right track unless the United States and its citizens want to risk descending further into tyranny, imposed on them by their federal government.CH/L – nsnbc – 10.01.2015Share:

• Share

[monty]

Oregon Standoff, Public Land, Federal Land and Demonizing MilitiaOregonUSA

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : The standoff between ranchers and authorities at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge continues to escalate as armed unorganized militia members have come to support the protesting ranchers. The initiative to occupy a public building in the wildlife refuge on January 2 was led by Ammon Bundy, known from the standoff between the Bundy family and law-enforcement over the use of public land in 2014. The situation is, not surprisingly, grossly misrepresented in US media. The initiative was launched after two ranchers who burned off grasslands used for ranching to prevent wildfires and yield better grass for cattle were sentenced for arson.

Back to the 2014 Bundy Ranch Standoff.
In 2014 US and Nevada authorities violently seized cattle from Cliven Bundy, a private rancher who, as many other ranchers, used public land for grazing cattle. The seizure of Bundy’s cattle had direct links to Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama administration. The seizure of the cattle and what local ranchers describes as “land-grab” was according to several analysts directly linked to projects under the umbrella of Agenda 21 initiatives.

The situation that led to the standoff also involved factors such as the fact that Reid applied “pressure [to] Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as [ENN Energy Group’s] first customer.” This deal with ENN and Reid is worth $5 billion for a “solar farm and panel manufacturing plant [to be constructed] in the southern Nevada desert.” In conjunction with this accord, Reid’s son Rory Reid, who is a “prominent Las Vegas [lawyer] that is representing ENN”, and focused on making clean energy projects a specialty at their firm, is assisting the Chinese solar energy corporation in acquiring “a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site . . . well below appraised value from Clark County.”

http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...OC-300x168.jpgBundy Ranch Courtesy Occupy Corporatism
)

In her article entitled “The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada”, Susanne Posel would notice other facts. For instance that Neil Kornze, “former senior adviser” to Reid was named the director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The article details the background of the standoff between the family that had used the disputed land for two decades and authorities. The article explains why Ammon Bundy would lead the initiative at the current standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Bundy, other ranchers as well as supportive militia members stress that “What we’re doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land”, while they consider de facto land grabs from ranchers and the sentencing of ranchers who burn off grass to avoid wildfires and to yield better grass for cattle grazing as arbitrary and as an infringement on rights by the federal government.

The Malheur Wildlife Refuge is a 187,757-acre wildlife refuge. It is among others a refuge for greater sandhill cranes and other native birds in eastern Oregon. Critics of the ranchers would denounce the grazing of cattle on public lands and the occupation of the public building in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge as “an attempt to destroy the national system of public lands, forests, parks and refuges”. Underhanded deals with corporations to develop solar industry on the land that was previously used by the Bundy family does, however, cast serious doubts on the integrity and honesty of such accusations.

Native Americans in Legal Limbo.
One factor that is largely being omitted is that these land disputes tend to leave first nations Americans in a legal limbo. The first people to live on the land that now is designated as Malheur Wildlife Refuge were the Paiute. The tribe lived of the land as hunter-gatherers and fishers, maintaining an ecological balance between themselves and the land that sustained them. Colonizing “settlers” considered the Paiute as uncivilized savages without fixed habitation, culture, etc.. They were largely considered as “sub-human” and forced into signing a treaty in 1887. A brief uprising was violently crushed. The Paiute were forcibly marched through winter-weather and snow to the Yakama reservation. in southeastern Washington State. Countless died during the ethnic cleansing operation. Ironically, their relocation would later put them at risk from radioactive contamination from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Understandably, first nations tribes don’t necessarily sympathize of feel solidarity with ranchers who feel oppressed by the federal government, the Bureau of Land management and environmental agencies. They do, however, have one issue that could bridge the gap between these communities.

.http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...O-300x199.jpeg

The Right to Organize the Unorganized Militia and to Resist Tyranny.
The standoff between the disgruntled ranchers, militia and the government brings to mind the heavy-handed, violent crackdowns against natives who organized armed resistance against infringements on their rights. Many of them who were not shot and killed ended up in federal prisons. This as well as the current standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge bring to mind the words of two of the so-called Founding Fathers; James Madison and John Adams.

James Madison:“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, a right which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”.

John Adams:“Arms in the hands of the citizen may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, and for self-defense”.

While almost all US media as well as most Democrats and Republicans alike misrepresent the militia members that have arrived at the Malheur Wildlife refuge as everything from “radical right-wingers” over “fundamentalist Christians” to “criminals and terrorists”, it is worth to have a close look at how the right to form militia is regulated.In the United States “the militia” consists of all able-bodied men with personal firearms. That is, it does not consist of conscripts or professional soldiers. The militia has the purpose to guarantee a free State by repelling foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and Federal Government Tyranny. The US Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 – 15-16 stipulates:

The Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union (not to be confused with the Federal Administration in the District of Colombia) to suppress insurrection and repel invasions. It is the duty of the militia to execute the laws of the Union. … To provide for organizing army and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States of America, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

It is important to notice that the “National Guard” is not “The Militia” but that the militia is the people. More specifically, the militia is regulated in Section 57 in the Officer’s Guide of the National Defense Act. The Act stipulates that:

The Militia of the United States consists of all male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are more than 18 years of age and not more than 45 years of age, and the Militia shall be divided into three classes. The National Guard which our forefathers described as the Select Militia, separate from the term “The Militia”, the Naval Militia, and the Unorganized Militia.

The Unorganized Militia – Not Unregulated or Irregular.
It is especially the latter, the “Unorganized Militia” that Madison, Adams and others were referring to when they stressed that “the people” have the right and ability to resist against tyranny. The Constitutions of the constituent States of the USA vary with regard to the age and gender, some specify military age between 17 – 45 years of age, others specify the military age up to 64 years, others again do not implicitly exclude women.Citizens in all States of the United States have the constitutional right to form registered units of the Unorganized Militia, to possess and bear military-grade weapons provided that these militia units are well-regulated.

This implies that members of militia units are well-trained and well-educated. This includes military training as well as it does education about the rights, obligations and duties of the Unorganized Militia. Of special importance is that militia units have to be educated about and adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that it trains and operates overtly instead of covertly. Regardless what position one has with regard to wildlife conservation, the debate about the standoff must be brought on the right track unless the United States and its citizens want to risk descending further into tyranny, imposed on them by their federal government.

CH/L – nsnbc – 10.01.2015

Share: Share

Good find Mick Silver!
This is the first truthful article I've seen that actually explains what is happening to our country.

You can infer from from this that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has "aquired" an additional 106,000 acres from the original 81,786 acres the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Oregon (1935) belonged to the United States submerged under non navigable waterways of Malheur Lake, MudLake and 3 other shallow lakes.

The only way the US Fish and Wildlife Service can claim any kind of jurisdiction or ownership is the migratory bird treaty with Mexico. The non migratory birds, fiish, and wildlife are property of the states.

[mick silver]

The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada

NevadaUSA

Susanne Posel (OC) : Connections behind the tense situation in Clark County, Nevada, regarding the aggressive seizure of cattle from Cliven Bundy, a private rancher who used public land for grazing purposes, appears to have a direct pathway beyond Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid; involving the Obama administration and international projects directed under Agenda 21 initiatives.http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...OC-300x168.jpgMedia reports state that in March, Reid applied “pressure [to] Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as [ENN Energy Group’s] first customer.”This deal with ENN and Reid is worth $5 billion for a “solar farm and panel manufacturing plant [to be constructed] in the southern Nevada desert.”In conjunction with this accord, Reid’s son Rory Reid, who is a “prominent Las Vegas [lawyer] that is representing ENN”, and focused on making clean energy projects a specialty at their firm, is assisting the Chinese solar energy corporation in acquiring “a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site . . . well below appraised value from Clark County.”Interestingly, Neil Kornze, “former senior adviser” to Reid was named the director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).For the last 2 decades, the Bundy family in Clark County, Nevada has been involved in judicial battles with the BLM over their grazing rights on public land. The BLM obtained a court order to begin removing Bundy’s cattle from public land under trespassing laws and even was instrumental in the revocation of permits previously held by the Bundy family for multiple generations.Four years ago, the Obama administration reversed a policy enacted by the former George W. Bush administration, which released millions of under-developed acres of land to be allocated to federal wilderness protection. Then secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar commented that this reversal was righting a policy that “frankly never should have happened.”With the assistance of environmental groups lobbying for the restoration of wilderness areas for protection, the Obama administration began reviewing an estimated 220 million acres for the BLM to assert oversight for under nomination as a “Wild Lands” protected area.The non-governmental organization (NGO) The Wildlands Project (WP) is focusing on American landscape preservation for “future generations to inherit a continent rich in wildlife, with plenty of room for all species to roam.” The WP is purposed with bringing American lands back to “rewilding” which translates to massive areas of land being placed under restrictions called “conservation easements”, “scenic byways”, “protected areas”, “biosphere reserves”, and “wildlife refuges”.The science-based agenda of WP has developed the solution to their problems by dividing up North America into “four Continental Wildways [of] large protected corridors of land running coast to coast . . . throughout Canada, the US and Mexico.”

• The Eastern Wildway extending northward from the Everglades along the Appalachians to the Arctic
• The Western Wildway spanning the continent from Mexico, through the Rockies, to Alaska
• The Pacific Wildway running from Baja to Alaska
• The Boreal Wildway running west-east from Alaska to the Canadian Maritimes across the forest roof of North America

The wildways are “constructed by protecting core areas connected to one another by corridors or linkages. They are essentially mosaics of connected public and private lands that provide habitat and safe passageways for wildlife to travel freely from place to place.”Armed with detailed measures for land use under a new plan, the BLM began designating wild land areas with the assistance of the public planning process (PPP). This set off warning bells to ranchers who believed this scheme was intending to destroy rural communities.Those fears were confirmed with the release of leaked documents outlining how the Obama administration had chosen 14 sites in 9 states “for possible presidential monument declarations.” Areas in states that were given this special designation include, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington State, and Nevada.One purpose behind this land-grab initiative appears to be for the undisturbed agenda of oil corporations with the deal struck in 2003 that allowed the removal of “protections for 2.6 million acres” in Utah in order that “drilling, mining and other commercial uses” on this protected land could go on.In addition to the wild land designation initiative, the Obama administration is also behind the secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell’s announcement that “two solar energy projects located near the Nevada-California border that are expected to supply 550 megawatts of renewable energy, enough to power about 170,000 homes, and support more than 700 jobs through construction and operations.” Jewell explained:

“When President Obama first took office in 2009, there were no solar projects approved on public lands, and no process in place to move forward the hundreds of applications pending from businesses that wanted to harness renewable energy to help power our nation. With today’s milestone of 50 utility-scale renewable energy projects approved on public lands since our standing start in 2009, and with a number of those already producing energy for the nation’s electric grid, our clean energy future is bright.”

This scheme reallocates 2,400 acres of public land in Nevada for the use of Stateline Solar Farm Project (SSFP) and the Silver State South Solar Project (SSSP) to build corporate infrastructure within the state. The role of the BLM is to secure this land for corporate interests and ultimately Agenda 21 initiatives in conjunction with “other federal, state and local agencies.” Komze commented on Jewell’s announcement:

“These solar projects reflect exemplary cooperation between the Bureau of Land Management and other federal, state and local agencies, enabling a thorough environmental review and robust mitigation provisions. Secretary Jewell’s commitment to a landscape-level approach represents a responsible balance between the need for renewable energy and our mandate to protect the public’s natural resources.”

Susanne Posel, Occupy Corporatsism http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/13/the-real-...rab-in-nevada/

[monty]

The REAL Truth Behind Bundy Ranch Land-Grab in Nevada

NevadaUSA

Susanne Posel (OC):

Connections behind the tense situation in Clark County, Nevada, regarding the aggressive seizure of cattle from Cliven Bundy, a private rancher who used public land for grazing purposes, appears to have a direct pathway beyond Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid; involving the Obama administration and international
projects directed under Agenda 21 initiatives.

.http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2...OC-300x168.jpg

Media reports state that in March, Reid applied “pressure [to] Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as [ENN Energy Group’s] first customer.”

This deal with ENN and Reid is worth $5 billion for a “solar farm and panel manufacturing plant [to be constructed] in the southern Nevada desert.”In conjunction with this accord, Reid’s son Rory Reid, who is a “prominent Las Vegas [lawyer] that is representing ENN”, and focused on making clean energy projects a specialty at their firm, is assisting the Chinese solar energy corporation in acquiring “a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site . . . well below appraised value from Clark County.”

Interestingly, Neil Kornze, “former senior adviser” to Reid was named the director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).For the last 2 decades, the Bundy family in Clark County, Nevada has been involved in judicial battles with the BLM over their grazing rights on public land. The BLM obtained a court order to begin removing Bundy’s cattle from public land under trespassing laws and even was instrumental in the revocation of permits previously held by the Bundy family for multiple generations.

Four years ago, the Obama administration reversed a policy enacted by the former George W. Bush administration, which released millions of under-developed acres of land to be allocated to federal wilderness protection. Then secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar commented that this reversal was righting a policy that “frankly never should have happened.”With the assistance of environmental groups lobbying for the restoration of wilderness areas for protection, the Obama administration began reviewing an estimated 220 million acres for the BLM to assert oversight for under nomination as a “Wild Lands” protected area.

The non-governmental organization (NGO) The Wildlands Project (WP) is focusing on American landscape preservation for “future generations to inherit a continent rich in wildlife, with plenty of room for all species to roam.” The WP is purposed with bringing American lands back to “rewilding” which translates to massive areas of land being placed under restrictions called “conservation easements”, “scenic byways”, “protected areas”, “biosphere reserves”, and “wildlife refuges”.

The science-based agenda of WP has developed the solution to their problems by dividing up North America into “four Continental Wildways [of] large protected corridors of land running coast to coast . . . throughout Canada, the US and Mexico.”

• The Eastern Wildway extending northward from the Everglades along the Appalachians to the Arctic
• The Western Wildway spanning the continent from Mexico, through the Rockies, to Alaska
• The Pacific Wildway running from Baja to Alaska
• The Boreal Wildway running west-east from Alaska to the Canadian Maritimes across the forest roof of North America

The wildways are “constructed by protecting core areas connected to one another by corridors or linkages. They are essentially mosaics of connected public and private lands that provide habitat and safe passageways for wildlife to travel freely from place to place.”

Armed with detailed measures for land use under a new plan, the BLM began designating wild land areas with the assistance of the public planning process (PPP). This set off warning bells to ranchers who believed this scheme was intending to destroy rural communities.

Those fears were confirmed with the release of leaked documents outlining how the Obama administration had chosen 14 sites in 9 states “for possible presidential monument declarations.” Areas in states that were given this special designation include, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington State, and Nevada.

One purpose behind this land-grab initiative appears to be for the undisturbed agenda of oil corporations with the deal struck in 2003 that allowed the removal of “protections for 2.6 million acres” in Utah in order that “drilling, mining and other commercial uses” on this protected land could go on.

In addition to the wild land designation initiative, the Obama administration is also behind the secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell’s announcement that “two solar energy projects located near the Nevada-California border that are expected to supply 550 megawatts of renewable energy, enough to power about 170,000 homes, and support more than 700 jobs through construction and operations.” Jewell explained:

“When President Obama first took office in 2009, there were no solar projects approved on public lands, and no process in place to move forward the hundreds of applications pending from businesses that wanted to harness renewable energy to help power our nation. With today’s milestone of 50 utility-scale renewable energy projects approved on public lands since our standing start in 2009, and with a number of those already producing energy for the nation’s electric grid, our clean energy future is bright.”

This scheme reallocates 2,400 acres of public land in Nevada for the use of Stateline Solar Farm Project (SSFP) and the Silver State South Solar Project (SSSP) to build corporate infrastructure within the state. The role of the BLM is to secure this land for corporate interests and ultimately Agenda 21 initiatives in conjunction with “other federal, state and local agencies.” Komze commented on Jewell’s announcement:

“These solar projects reflect exemplary cooperation between the Bureau of Land Management and other federal, state and local agencies, enabling a thorough environmental review and robust mitigation provisions. Secretary Jewell’s commitment to a landscape-level approach represents a responsible balance between the need for renewable energy and our mandate to protect the public’s natural resources.”

Susanne Posel,

Occupy Corporatsism http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/13/the-real-...rab-in-nevada/

[mick silver]

Playing the Government’s Game: When It Comes to Violence, We All Lose

322 9 41
By John W. Whitehead
January 04, 2016

“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”—John Lennon

Yes, the government is corrupt.
Yes, the system is broken. By broken, I mean it’s “dysfunctional, gridlocked, and, in general, incapable of doing what needs to be done.”
Yes, the government is out of control and overreaching on almost every front.
Yes, the government’s excesses—pork barrel spending, endless wars, etc.—are pushing the nation to a breaking point.
Yes, many Americans are afraid. Who wouldn’t be afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government?
Yes, the citizenry has little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), invasive surveillance, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands.
Yes, in the eyes of the American surveillance state, “we the people” are little more than suspects and criminals to be monitored, policed, prosecuted and imprisoned. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime.”
Yes, the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy ruled by a wealthy corporate elite.
Yes, politics is a sham. Average Americans have largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, no way to be heard, and no assurance that their concerns are truly being represented.
Yes, the Obama administration’s efforts to identify, target and punish “domestic extremists” through the use of surveillance, corporate spies, global police and the Strong Cities network sends a troubling message to all Americans that any opposition to the government—no matter how benign—will be viewed with suspicion and will likely be treated with hostility.
Yes, we have reached a tipping point. The freedoms we once enjoyed are increasingly being eroded: speech, assembly, association, privacy, etc.
Yes, something needs to be done about the government’s long train of abuses, power grabs, erosion of private property, and overt acts of tyranny.
Yes, many Americans, increasingly dissatisfied with the government and its heavy-handed tactics, are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.”
No, violence is not the answer.
A handful of armed protesters are not going to fix what’s broken in the government by forcing a showdown with government agents. In fact, this kind of scenario plays right into the government’s hands by provoking a violent confrontation that allows government officials to sanctimoniously justify their use of surveillance, military weaponry and tactics, and laws criminalizing guns and hate speech in order to target anyone who even vaguely resembles an “anti-government extremist.”
Take the latest spectacle in Oregon, for example.
Armed activists led by brothers Ryan and Ammon Bundy have occupied a federal wildlife refuge. The Bundys (infamous for their 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights on federal land in Nevada) are protesting the government’s prosecution of two ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who have been sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly setting back fires on government-owned land in Oregon. (Mind you, the government owns more than half the land in Oregon.)
Few conflicts are ever black and white, and this situation involving the Bundys, the Hammonds and the BLM is no exception. Yet the issue is not whether the Hammonds are arsonists as the government claims, or whether the Bundys are anti-government extremists as the government claims, or even whether ranchers should have their access to government-owned lands regulated as the BLM claims.
No, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the larger question at play here is who owns—or controls—the government: is it “we the people” or private corporations?
Are American citizens shareholders of the government’s vast repositories, or are we merely serfs and tenant farmers in bondage to corporate overlords? Do we have a say in how the government is run, or are we merely on the receiving end of the government’s dictates? What recourse do we have if we don’t approve of the government’s actions?
Almost every struggle between the citizenry and the government is, at its core, about whether we are masters or slaves in this constantly evolving relationship with the government.

• Do parents have a right to allow their children to play outside alone, or must they abide by the government’s dictates about how to raise their families?

• Do homeowners have a right to manage their private property as they see fit, whether it’s with solar panels, vegetable gardens or rain barrels, or must they first seek the permission of the government?

• Do activists have a right to freely associate with one another, assemble in public, and voice their opinions publicly or privately, or must they be constrained by what the government and its corporate partners deem to be appropriate?

• Do residents of a community have to obey whatever a police officer says, lawful or not, or do Americans have a right to resist an unlawful order without getting shot or arrested?

It doesn’t matter what the issue is—whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens—these are the building blocks of a political powder keg.
Much like the heated protests that arose after the police shootings in Ferguson and Baltimore, there’s a subtext to the Oregon incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow.
This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent.
As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Civil Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.”
Let me say it again: an armed occupation of a government property only plays right into the government’s hands and increases its power over the citizenry. Yet it speaks to a growing tension over how to bring about meaningful change when dealing with a government that refuses to listen to its citizens.
This is what happens when people get desperate, when citizens lose hope, and when lawful, nonviolent alternatives appear pointless.
Whether the parties involved are blameless or not, whether they’re using the wrong tactics or not, whether their agendas are selfless or not, this is the face of a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown on all fronts.
Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame.
The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an explosion for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray. Consequently, predicted the report, the “widespread civil violence would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.
That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist. Under such a definition, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of whom protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed—would be prime targets.
Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist. Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremist.”
All that we have been subjected to in recent years—living under the shadow of NSA spying; motorists strip searched and anally probed on the side of the road; innocent Americans spied upon while going about their daily business in schools and stores; homeowners having their doors kicked in by militarized SWAT teams serving routine warrants—illustrates how the government deals with people it views as potential “extremists”: with heavy-handed tactics designed to intimidate the populace into submission and discourage anyone from stepping out of line or challenging the status quo.
What we’re grappling with is a double standard in what the government metes out to the citizenry, and how the citizenry is supposed to treat the government.
SWAT teams can crash through our doors without impunity, but if we dare to defend ourselves against unknown government assailants, we’ll be shot or jailed.
Government agents can confiscate our homes, impound our cars and seize our bank accounts on the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing, but we’ll face jail time and fines for refusing to pay taxes in support of government programs with which we might disagree.
Government spies can listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, and even enter our biometric information into DNA databases, but those who dare to film potential police misconduct will likely get roughed up by the police, arrested, and charged with violating various and sundry crimes.
This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s battalion of laws and law enforcers: its police officers, technicians, bureaucrats, spies, snitches, inspectors, accountants, etc.
This is exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared: that laws and law enforcers would be used as tools by a despotic government to wage war against the citizenry.
That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry.
Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist?
WC: 2078

• Newsroom