Bunkerville, Bundy, Alex Jones, and Bull

Alex Jones ran with the idea that Harry Reid was behind the recent standoff of Cliven Bundy versus the federal BLM in Nevada.

Here's Jones' InfoWars News video on it:

Here's the comment I left on YouTube under that video:

You need to superimpose the planned solar ranch on Bundy's ranch. You want to be sure "the solar farm is going right on his ranch." Otherwise, you're leaving yourselves open to being refuted on that point, making you look careless. The "About" section for video on YouTube should have a link to the documents and the post on InfoWars.com. You should also double check whether the plans are still in play and have been. If they were canceled some time ago and not for reasons of ranchers not giving up the land, that will also make you look unprofessional.

Now here's Thom Hartmann's video on the subject. Note that Hartmann points out that the solar project was not "on" Bundy's ranch/land and that it "fell through."

I think Thom's points are interesting up to where he tries to lead everyone into strong speculation that the Koch brothers are behind the video. They may be, but Thom's drama was a bit much for my tastes.

Alex Jones is still making it sound as if the solar project was planned for Bundy's land.

I'm waiting to see extremely clear land maps on the subject.

There are only so many hours in a day for someone who's not a professional journalist. I must say that were I a pro and on this story, I would have had it all nailed down long ago.

What most people do is spend time working on spinning it rather than on getting the facts. That's why I mentioned professionalism to Alex Jones.

Jones' team and Jones simply wing it too much. They say things are done deals, proof, etc., way too often when they are simply preliminary potential leads (often turning out to be dead ends, which never get mentioned again). It's all so, so cursory — no hard investigative digging for the real details so we'll know the real truth rather than half-truths.


Tom Usher

See also:

Bunkerville "Lawlessness"? What Law? - YouTube

Tom Usher on Thom Hartmann's Anti-Cliven Bundy Statements - YouTube

Tom's Take: "Historic! Feds Forced to Surrender to American Citizens" - YouTube


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.