Claims are made continually by the self-styled “environmentalist” movement that to “protect” the environment and the air, bigger and more centralized government must continue to attack free markets and the productive sector of the economy. Now, however, a new study by the Fraser Institute, a non-partisan Canadian think-tank, revealed that the opposite is actually true.
In the wake of the now-infamous federal abuse unleashed on the Bundy ranching family and its supporters in Nevada, defenders of the heavy-handed terror tactics employed by the Obama administration’s Bureau of Land Management are finding themselves increasingly marginalized as potentially violent extremists. That is especially true for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who after launching a series of bizarre tirades against the ranchers and their friends, is being widely criticized and ridiculed — especially for his dangerous attempt to equate American citizens who protest government with “domestic terrorists.”
With the now-infamous federal abuses against the Bundy ranching family and its supporters in Nevada helping to awaken a sleeping giant, liberty-minded elected officials from Western states are coming together with citizens to take action in defense of the Constitution and the West. Their mission: to wrest control over the vast expanses of land and wealth in the region that are unconstitutionally claimed by the Washington, D.C.-based political and bureaucratic classes. Now, a new alliance of lawmakers and citizens known as COWS has a concrete plan to make those goals a reality.
Elected officials from across the American West, from top lawmakers to county commissioners, held a historic gathering in Utah in recent days to discuss how Western states could wrest control of the almost 50 percent of land in the region currently claimed by the federal government. Aside from constitutional concerns — with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. — the Western leaders and legislators cited economic harm, environmental degradation, loss of tax revenue, and numerous other reasons for the effort.
The self-styled “civil rights” organization Southern Poverty Law Center, which despite mounting controversy maintains some links to government agencies, released a bizarre and factually challenged screed attacking critics and opponents of the deeply controversial United Nations plot known as Agenda 21. Apparently unfamiliar with the definition of basic words such as “conspiracy” and “theory,” or with the UN plan itself, the SPLC also lashed out at “activist groups,” “mainstream politicians,” voters, “extremists,” and others who question or oppose the UN agenda for what it calls “sustainable development” in the United States.
Facing a growing avalanche of grassroots opposition from teachers, parents, and voters across the political spectrum, pro-Common Core forces — Big Business, Big Media, the Obama administration, and more — are striking back at their critics, oftentimes with outright deception and utterly ridiculous claims. However, under even a modicum of scrutiny, the absurd allegations and unsubstantiated statements made by proponents of the Obama administration-funded nationalization of education standards promptly fall apart. It appears, then, that while Common Core supporters have the big bucks — much of it from U.S. taxpayers, most of the rest from Big Business and the Gates Foundation — advocates for local control and proper education have the truth on their side.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this week on the recent nullification of federal marijuana prohibition in Colorado and Washington State, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder found himself stuck in a tough spot. On one hand, Holder and the Obama administration have been brazenly threatening governors of states that have nullified unconstitutional federal usurpations on everything from gun rights to ObamaCare. On the other, however, Holder admitted to U.S. lawmakers this week the fact that federal law does not always trump state law.
As outrage grows among European Union bosses over Swiss voters’ February decision to curb mass immigration into Switzerland, German President Joachim Gauck warned that self-government by the people is “dangerous.” Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but that has not stopped officials in Germany and across the European Union from going into meltdown mode against their independent neighbor and brazenly terrorizing the Swiss with increasingly outrageous threats over their decision to limit immigration. Gauck’s attack on Switzerland’s system of constitutional self-government, though, is among the most extreme thus far, and it has infuriated citizens all across the political spectrum.
Faced with the implosion of discredited United Nations theories on “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming,” climate alarmists in the United Kingdom, including some in Parliament, are now pushing for a major crackdown on skeptics — or “realists,” depending on one’s point of view — in government, media, and more. As more and more scientists defect from the crumbling alarmist bandwagon, however, critics say the hysterical shrieking and dangerous rhetoric from politicians only serves to further illustrate the accelerating collapse of what many climate experts refer to as the “global-warming hoax.”
Following the Obama administration’s deeply controversial decision to cede U.S. control over key elements of the Internet’s architecture, experts and former officials are warning that the United Nations and its largely autocratic member regimes are already plotting to tax and censor the World Wide Web. According to analysts, the UN would almost certainly start small — perhaps levying tiny “fees” on certain Web-based activities, or regulating content that virtually everybody would find objectionable — before quickly expanding the global Internet regime to raise vast sums of taxpayer cash while censoring free speech. The battle, however, is likely to be fierce.