Here's what InfoWars said:
In an epic standoff that Infowars reporter David Knight described as being like "something out of a movie," supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.
Here's the video:
Right off the top, let me say that this will only send the federal government into planning overtime. They will analyze everything and analyze it again and again. They will approach it as a war now. They'll plan well ahead for cutting off transportation routes, just the way they cut off communications. They'll train and drill for how to combat the tactics that were used against them here. The next "rancher" or "farmer" will first be completely isolated (cutoff) and a total perimeter around him will be sealed by various means including drones (armed when it comes to that). I don't mean little drones but the full-blown ones that fire hellfire missile from beyond handgun and typical rifle range. They have many options and a blank check. They could gas everybody. They have sound and microwave and other technologies.
They already cut off communications in this incident. That was done just in case they opened fire on the protesters.
Look, the constitutionality of the federal lands is certainly debatable. It's been debated down through many, many decades. The Enclave Clause and the Property Clause have their "strict constructionists" and "originalists" versus "penumbra" and "living document" adherents.
I think it is strange, and always have, that 80% of Nevada is federal land. At the same time, I like national parks and don't want them privatized at all. I'm a conservationist and environmentalist too, but I see the federal government allowing clear cutting and strip mining where such should never have occurred. It's not as if the federal government has done a great job managing the lands that way too often it puts off limits to the public, who ultimately own the land because the government is of them: the People.
I've read the criticisms of Harry Reid about the Chinese solar company, but I've not been convinced that that planned deal is the reason for this federal action against Cliven Bundy. I'd have to see a great deal more detail on it before reaching that conclusion.
We need more and better investigative journalism on the subject, not reporters making up their minds before they really have all the facts and have really researched the issues by going to the sources.
I'm not saying don't speculate out loud. I'm saying to call things "alleged" rather than certain criminal evidence.
InfoWars doesn't know what Harry Reid is thinking or doing behind the scenes on every bit of business (governmental or otherwise) that he conducts.
Some of the information about him doesn't look good. He seems to have been more than a bit careless about conflicts of interest, but InfoWars should learn to approach people such as Reid to let him tell his side and then InfoWars let the whole picture tell the story.
If Reid were to decline to comment, decline an interview, that would be his problem.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)