While we were all distracted by the election, Clinton does this!!!

W

Wallew

Moderator
From the Self Preseveration threads at 'NRA Joes Second Amendment' website.
http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/12204

Whenever something so totally dominates the news as the election stalemate in Florida has since last week, I always get suspicious about the stories and news developments that are being obscured by the national media magnifying glass.

Have you ever watched a shell game conducted by a real pro? Let's face it. While all eyes are focused on the recounts, the appeals, the litigation and the question of whether or not the presidency will be stolen, the whole country could be stolen from under our noses.

And much of the country was stolen this week by executive branch fiat without so much as a notice by the U.S. press establishment.

On Wednesday, for example, WorldNetDaily's Sarah Foster reported on President Clinton's action placing nearly 1 million acres of federal land in Arizona and Idaho off limits to mere taxpayers.

Using questionable authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906, Clinton followed the recommendations of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and signed proclamations designating Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, a 293,000-acre parcel of land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management near the Arizona-Utah border, and adding 661,287 acres of BLM land in central Idaho to the Craters of the Moon National Monument.

This brings Clinton's monument-making total to 4.5 million acres -- not counting some 6 million acres of federally claimed islands and ocean stretching 840 miles along the California coast.

But who cares? All this land-grabbing is occurring in the lightly populated flyover part of the country won fair and square by George W. Bush last week. Not even so much as a peep of protest from Bush, Dick Cheney or the Republican political establishment. In other words, the fix is in. This is a bipartisan land swindle. This is theft by political consensus.

Then there was the Clinton administration's decision to sweep the Tongass National Forest into a new "forest protection policy" earlier this week. Jack Phelps, executive director of the Alaska Forest Association, called this move "the last bullet in the head" of the state's logging industry.

How big was this land grab? Try 58.5 million acres. No more logging. No more roads. No more access by Americans who supposedly own it.

Think about this. A forest protection plan? The federal government has destroyed more pristine forestland through mismanagement and other policies that keep out fire fighters as well as loggers than Bruce Babbitt has ever seen. This isn't a forest protection plan. It's a forest destruction plan.

Even less attention was attracted by Babbitt's latest heist this week. The government just locked up somewhere between 600,000 and 1.5 million acres of land just south of Lander, Wyo.

Here's a personal note I got on this: "I have a friend who has a new house on the land that was stolen today (Wednesday). He and his family planned on living there for the rest of their lives. Our government will now force him out. He asked that I write a nice obituary for him. Is there anybody out there who gives a damn?"

I think we know the answer to that question -- especially as long as the electoral hypnosis lasts. But our reader continues ominously: "The Clinton-Gore people don't know it just yet but they are going to have a revolution on their hands soon. I hope they're happy."

There's been one other interesting development taking place under the radar screen in the last few days -- this one not quite a land grab. Members of a Baptist church in Indianapolis have been holding a vigil waiting for federal marshals to come seize their house of worship and a school. Pastor Greg A. Dixon rightly questions the authority of the
Internal Revenue Service in conducting the business of the church.

According to the Indianapolis Star, which has reported this sensational story rather matter-of-factly: "Experts believe the church could become the first seized by the U.S. government in a quarrel over taxes."

I think that qualifier "first" should be noted with alarm by every pastor in the country.

Folks, I know you're all wrapped up in this exciting constitutional crisis in the making -- and I understand why. But, you know what? The deafening silence surrounding these draconian and unconstitutional actions by Washington in recent days deserves some attention, and protest, too.
 
The Baptist Temple in Indy is an interesting story. The members won't leave. The clergy won't leave. And the law is a bit concerned that the bullets might fly if they try and seize the place. The government says the church owes taxes, the church says they don't. Interesting the Church is not a "tax exempt" orginazation. As they didn't ever file the paperwork. If you are a 501c3 in America, You are limited as to what you can preach. I think everyone should get up to speed on this one.

Regards,
MP
 
"No access" to that land is a little strong.
How about - no access in your truck? I'm not saying I agree with what Clinton did - I don't even know what he did - but I seriously doubt they've banned all taxpayers from the land. They've probably designated it as a roadless area or a wilderness area.
Overstating the case leads to a lack of credibility.
I also would like to know just why the IRS denies this church tax-exempt status. Most churches don't file for this status - they have it by tradition and practice.
 
I agree with your assessment that the federal land grab is a bi-partisan swindle. But it's not new. Over ten years ago, I owned land in the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon/Washington. Was converted to "National Scenic Area". This wasn't pristine wilderness - 75,000 people live within its boundaries. Now the regulations have basically "taken" most people's property rights without compensation. This law was pushed by Rep. Senators Hatfield and Packwood, and signed by Reagan!

Ever heard the phrase "FOLLOW THE MONEY"? Well, the big untold story is how these land grabs are really money machines for supposed "environmental" groups like Trust for Public Lands, other local "Land Trust" groups. Works like this: Owners can't develop/use land due to regulations. Sell out at a loss to Land Trust. Trust repackages land plats, and thru inside connection to Forest Service rigged appraisals, sells it back to federal govt. at tremendous profits! Move on to next purchase. Years later, well connected developer gets exclusive franchise to build exclusive resort/conference center on the govt. land!

All parties, meanwhile, have made large and continuous campaign contributions to the key federal legislators who are pushing this legislation. Pretty wilderness! Most people gone! Jobs for forest rangers and land use planners!

Biggest eye-opener on govt. corruption I ever had in my life! Socialism, Amerika-style.

People far from the scene of the crime, like RHC, love it because they get miles of mountainbiking trails to use when they stay at the trendy resort. What could be better than that? The tragedy of lost rights leaves no trace.

[Edited by hammer4nc on 12-15-2000 at 01:25 AM]
 
You know something, Wallew?

Not to open a can of worms, but, I'm inclined to think that churches should lose their tax exempt status. That would put them outside the control of the power mongers who can threaten them with revoking their status. Jesus indeed said "A man cannot serve two masters" and any church is subject to coercion by the pr!cks in DC.

The downside to that of course is to limit their political clout, but I don't see that as a problem. Think about a world with no "Rev" rabble rousers to get out the dem vote. They would be too busy working to picket. :)

Similarly, the moral majority, christian coalition or whatever it calls itself would have to shut its mouth and do the work of the Lord instead of mammon...

What do y'all think?
 
The problem with taxing churches is that they would then start clamoring for public funds for their schools and other activites, which would open them up to regulation by the government which would also cause them to have to adhere to practices that many religions have a problem with. A large majority of people would have a problem if their church had to start passing out condoms and teaching evolution and the like. It would be better to leave that Pandora's box unopened.
 
No, I mean

Let those who want to practice religion do it free of government intervention and funding.

No public funds for churches. With tax exempt status, you are in essence accepting public funds anyway.
 
Not what I was expecting!

Ok, folks, there seems to be some confusion about where this all orginated from. All the land grabs have nothing to do with environmental groups. Although, that's how a lot of it is explained to us, as TPTB feel that's all we will understand. It's actually about controlling the populace via the UN MAB program (Man and Biodiversity). This came up in another thread. Here is the link I posted there.

http://www.mabnet.org/home2.html

This has been ongoing since before President Kennedy, who signed off on all the UN wanted to do. The interesting part is the socialist are very patient and are willing to wait decades, even a century or two while they swallow the US whole, which is what they are in the process of doing. The retired Russian president who is now in this country (I have a current mental block on his name) said "Tthe US will raise the communist flag over their country themselves. And will do so gladly."

I fear this is going to happen in my lifetime and I'm only 47!

Regarding the churches tax exempt status. EVERY CHURCH has the 501-3c tax exempt status. What that means is the IRS agents go into every church about once every two - three years and 'audits' their books. If they don't like what they see, then they remove them from tax exempt status. The problem with the church in Indy is that they never applied for that tax exempt status AND are refusing to recognize the IRS at all. Of course, the IRS can't let that stand, or other churches might actually stand up to them also. So expect this to be nipped in the bud, so to speak, with IRS agents descending on this congregation just like the BATF did on Waco. Violence WILL occur, unless the church 'see's the error of their ways' and accepts the IRS yoke around their necks.
 
I strongly concur with RHC's statements.

I'm not convinced this is all a UN plot to take over the USA. I'm not convinced that Clinton has the intelligence to do anything other than strengthen the Federal hold on public lands. As long as people are willing to accept the OPINIONS of others without questioning their validity and source, we are headed toward a greater loss of individual freedoms.
 
Wallew:

I agree that the basic, long-term motivation is centralized control of the population, facilitated by urbanization. In the Columbia Gorge example I gave, I personally witnessed Washington State Attys. arguing in court the concept that although the programs violated federal AND state law, that was OK because it really came under REGIONAL LAW (i.e., superseded those statutory & constitutional restraints)! You probably know that on the United Nations level, political boundaries are replaced by world regions, national soveriegnty is minimized. Biosphere reserves included here.

Still, the long term goals you mention are only helped along by a situation in which Land Trust lawyers and directors are cutting themselves a pretty sweet deal, eliminating private "inholders" on these newly designated monuments, greasing politicians, and all at taxpayers expense.
 
Seems to me...that the more the Feds own..the less access the private citizen has to these so called public lands. It also lends legitimacy for Land grabs to all the sheeple. Face it...it is easier to control the masses in a few densely populated urban centers...then they can secretly build the camps out in that pristine mountain paradise....for those who will not do what they say...:(
 
Do you LEO's KNOW what the american flag on your uniform stands for?

Oleg,
What you say is very true. The best example I can give is the american flag most officers wear on their uniform arm. What that flag means is that their upper command structure has agreed to 'national authority' (ie fed gov) in any case of emergency. OR, if fed gov turns over authority to UN, as will be the case in the long run (hey, the fed gov has turned over half of what it used to do to the UN already), all you LEO's will be required to do as the UN sets forth. Don't want to do that? Fine, you're fired and they will hire anyone who will do as they are told.

Dave McM,
No offense, but you need to do your own research on what the UN has said it wishes to accomplish. The MAB is a good example. The UN has had this specific program in place and functioning slowly since 1976. This program went under several different names before the UN finally came up with MAB (probably some politicians idea). You should also research 'Dialectical Materialism', which is thesis vs. antithesis which leads to synthesis. What all this means is the the socialists find a problem (thesis) stir up trouble over the problem (antithesis) which leads to their providing a solution (synthesis). If you would like an article that explains it, email me and I'll send you a several page article written back in 1996 by Eric Curlee, published in American Survival Guide. There are so many stories and 'clues' that we used to have to dig up, it was difficult. Now, the UN are publishing their future plans on their website, all you need are your reading glasses (at least for me) and a lot of time to wade through all the BS. And make no mistake, the UN is in the process of swallowing us whole. Dave, this is not meant as a flame, we just happen to disagree. I can back mine up with hard facts. Can you?

[Edited by Wallew on 12-17-2000 at 12:04 PM]
 
As I see it, the UN is only as powerful as the USA allows. I don't see the Federal government taking action ONLY because of a UN treaty. The action is only "justified" on the basis of the treaty, but that's just a liberal rationalization. The liberals want a more centralized and more powerful Federal Agovernment. The UN treaties are just external excuses toward that goal.

So whether it's MAB or something else, it's still the US government that makes it happen in the USA. So like I said, I don't think this is a UN plot to take over the USA. It's the Federal government that's trying to "take over" this country.

Again, the UN can "wish" anything it wants, the Fed still has to concur for it to happen in the USA. So who's the real problem here? As ammoeater noted: it's our congresscritters.

So if we buy off on the UN being the problem, aren't we missing the REAL issue?
 
Dave,
Our congresscritters have been funding the UN since the day it was born. We currently give them 6 or 8 BILLION dollars a year to put forth all this trash.

TO all:
Our government has said that they can control 85%+ of this countries population by controlling the populace of 120 our our major cities. Those cities are listed here:

http://www.apgea.army.mil/ops/dp/fs/fs_120c.html

Euphemistically this list is so that the Army can train for terrorist in those cities. And if you believe that, then I have some beachfront property to sell you in Western Colorado. You'll love the ocean sounds. DUH!

And the Democrats have already admitted to 'giving up' on rural America. Do any of you really think that the Republicans think any different, even though that's where their base is (rural America). Don't you think they would give their 'eye-teeth' to get the support of 85% of the population located in those cities?? And if they had support of 85% of the population, they could tell the 15% of us that we 'had' to be relocated for the good of the nation?

Won't happen? I suggest that for those of you that think this would never happen here, that you go have a long talk with some really old German Jews that survived Dachau, etc. And we aren't that far from the "One World Order" that Adolf talked about during all his Nazi heyday speeches.
 
The whole thing is a catch 22. So much federal land is used for the benefit of large logging, ranching or oil operations. These people make a fortune off this and then complain if the feds tell them they can no longer use it for these purposes or want to increase the fees for using the land. If the gov seeks to protect federal land the environmentalists cheer but the ranchers etc. get ticked off, but if the gov. allows businesses to use these resources the environmentalists are unhappy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top