FBI Just Created and Foiled their Own Terrorist Plot to Demonize Those Who Question Government

 

By William N. Grigg
The FBI once again appears to have averted a terrorist plot of its own manufacture by arresting 57-year-old William Keebler, a man from Stockton, Utah described in press accounts as a militia organizer exhibiting an “extreme hatred” for the federal government. A vociferous critic of the federal Bureau of Land Management who was present during the April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada, Keebler was a close friend of the late LaVoy Finicum. FBI agents arrested  Keebler in Nephi, Utah Wednesday morning after he allegedly attempted to bomb a vacant cabin owned by the BLM.
According to a federal charging document, for the past several months FBI undercover operatives have been members of Keebler’s militia, the Patriots Defense Force, which met at his home in Stockton, Utah. On many occasions, he expressed the entirely reasonable view that “the BLM was overreaching their authority to implement grazing restrictions on ranchers” and insisted that state and local governments, rather than Washington, should be in charge of public lands in the western States.
Predicting that future confrontations with the Feds might make violent resistance necessary, Keebler reportedly conducted training exercises and “talked about gathering intelligence on potential targets,” such as the BLM office in Salt Lake City. He made it clear, however, that “he didn’t plan on blowing people up for now”; the federal probable cause affidavit characterizes Keebler’s attitude as wanting his group “to be prepared to escalate things, and take people out if necessary.”
Last April, a federal informant “tasked with building Keebler an explosive device” — the charging document, significantly, doesn’t specify by whom the informant had been “tasked” — showed the subject a video of “a 6-inch pipe bomb blowing up some abandoned furniture in the mountains of southern Utah.” That overt act, which was carried out by a federal asset without (as far as the available evidence shows) Keebler’s approval, advance knowledge, or involvement, is described as an act in which he “maliciously damage[d]” and “destroy[ed] … personal or real property.
A few weeks later, Keebler allegedly selected the abandoned BLM cabin in Arizona as a target. The FBI-controlled informant produced what he described as two pipe bombs — one to be placed at the target and detonated via remote control, the other “was to be used against law enforcement” in the event this was necessary. Late Tuesday night (June 21), someone — the document doesn’t specify who it was — placed “an inert explosive device … against the door of one of the BLM cabins in Mount Turnbull. After the device was placed against the door, Keebler was handed a remote detonation device. Keebler then pushed the detonator button multiple times in order to remotely detonate the inert explosive.” He then departed for Utah, where FBI agents arrested him several hours later.
Keebler spent 13 days in Bunkerville and spent time in the company of the late LaVoy Finicum, whose funeral he attended in Kanab, Utah last February. Significantly, Keebler and several members of his militia were in attendance at an April 1 event in Orem, Utah featuring speeches by Finicum’s widow and Shawna Cox, who was an eyewitness to Finicum’s killing. That event was attended by hundreds of people whom the Feds would characterize as “anti-government extremists.”
“Some people who were with [Keebler] were videotaping all of the speakers with very expensive, professional-grade equipment,” a Utah broadcaster who attended the event told The Free Thought Project. “They were walking the room taking note of everybody who was there.”
According to the timeline described sketchily in the federal probable cause affidavit, it was at about this time that the FBI’s Homeland Security Theater Troupe was finishing its scheme to snare Keebler in a bogus bombing plot.
One likely purpose of this FBI-scripted operation is to depict the late LaVoy Finicum — who has emerged as a folk hero for many residents of the rural West — as a would-be terrorist bomber. The arrest affidavit takes great care to accuse Finicum of scouting out the location eventually used in the FBI-controlled false flag attack. That allegation, which Finicum is no longer alive to dispute, is already being retailed by some progressive media outlets.
One’s personal feelings on the unfoldings in Oregon earlier this year are irrelevant when considering the reality of the situation. This attempted ‘bombing,’ like the overwhelming majority of FBI-foiled terror plots, was little more than a staged scene with easily manipulated actors — being entirely scripted, directed, and produced by the federal government. Though this was theater on a virtually fictional scale, the fruits of the federal government’s success in thwarting their own scheme will be the loss of liberty for all — in spite of the current target only being ‘preppers’ and ‘anti-government constitutionalists.’
William N. Grigg writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

What’s The Beef, Part Two: How Lawsuits Shape Land Management Policies

Range management is more a result of lawsuit than science…Special interest groups sue the land management agencies and they agree to settle on terms that do not benefit the general public and are almost never disclosed…
Victor Iverson in Deseret News, January 22, 2016

Sue and Settle

Back in the heyday of clear-cutting, over-grazing, strip-mining, etc, when a generation of passionate environmentalists were inspired by Hayduke and his Monkey Wrench Gang, it seemed that the only way to bring attention to the problems of over-use and degradation of lands was with aggressive, sometimes dangerous, protest actions.  From removing survey stakes and tree spiking to bombings and arson labeled as eco-terrorism, considered one of the greatest threats of terrorism in the United States, environmentalists wanted to be heard.  In desperation to save what they loved, they demanded change in the only ways they felt were left to them.  But then another way was found to effect change in land use policies.

We decided, let’s just sue instead.  It got settled with the Service agreeing to do a wolf study, which led to reintroduction.

That was the moment when we looked at it and said, ‘Wow.’  The environmental movement spent a decade going to meetings and demanding action and getting nothing done.  They were asking powerful people for something from a position of no power.  We realized that we can bypass the officials and sue, and that we can get things done in court.

Kieran Suckling of the Center For Biological Diversity in an interview with High Country News

The use of lawsuits to force the agency overseeing the land or wildlife in question to act has proven to be effective.  And it has been steadily increasing.  When the agency agrees to reach a settlement in these lawsuits, the terms are negotiated behind closed doors, outside of the public’s view, away from the public’s input.  It is referred to as ‘sue and settle.’  Here is a short definition from a report from the US Chamber of Commerce:

 Read the whole thing,including embedded links here

What’s The Beef? Part One: The Anger Over Federal Land Management

 

The land out here is vast, in some places stretching as far as the eye can see in between homes, towns, any signs of humanity.  It is rugged and dry, and holds a sense of emptiness, of loneliness.  But to the observant wanderer, it is in fact a place full of life, from the twisted juniper trees to the strange-colored lichens spreading over the ground.  One can find traces of the animals that have passed through, coyote scat, rabbit tracks, the remnants of a cougar kill up in a tree, huge bird nests up in the craggy cliff bands.  And, of course, the evidence of people, shotgun shells, broken glass, old appliances, and cows.
People seem to have a habit of taking what they have for granted until threatened with its loss.  It is certainly true when it comes to land use.  We have a long history of over-use, it is evident in any industry that involves using or extracting natural resources.  It begins with discovery, then fortunes are made, and more and more people jump on board, and then, the resource begins to run out.  That is the point at which people either destroy the resource altogether, or take steps to protect and manage it.
It is undeniable that humans impact the environment, our proliferation around the world has clearly changed the land.  It is also undeniable that natural resources are required for our survival.  We need food, water, shelter, just like every species.  And this need, and all the times we’ve allowed it to devolve into excessive over-use of resources, along with the desire to protect what we don’t want to lose, has left us with a decades-old, emotional, sometimes violent debate.
Once again, this debate has exploded out of its usual confines of rural America and into the national spotlight with the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife refuge in Harney County.  Ignoring the very basic fact that nature seeks balance, the media is frantically fueling the polarizing rhetoric.  Either you are an angry, spoiled white guy with lots of guns attempting to grab all of the public land, or you are against the occupation and want the spoiled white guys arrested, maybe even bombed with drones.  Few seem willing to pause long enough in the argument to really listen to each other.  Just what is the beef with Federal land management?
The situation in Harney County presents a good starting place to look at this question because there is a long history of problems there.  Anyone who has paid any attention to the story of the refuge occupation knows that it began with a protest rally in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were sentenced for arson under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for starting two fires on their land that spread to BLM land, burning a total of 140 acres.  The group occupying the refuge want the Hammonds freed from prison, among other things.  The Hammonds’ battle with the BLM has been going on for decades, long before they lit the two fires that got them branded as terrorist arsons.  And they aren’t alone.

Read the whole thing,including embedded links  here

Western States Move Forward with Potential Yellowstone-area Grizzly Hunts

Via Field & Stream

After 40 years of federal protection, grizzly bears may become fair game for hunters, as a handful of Western states push for the responsibility of managing the animals.
The Associated Press reports that a plan drafted by wildlife officials from the greater Yellowstone states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana estimates how many grizzly bears could be harvested while still maintaining viable populations if the species were no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. 
Though the proposal doesn’t specify the number of bears each state would permit to be harvested, it does specify a 19,300-square-mile management zone that includes the wilderness and national forests near the Yellowstone National Park. Further, the proposal allocates a 58-percent share of the permitted harvests to Wyoming—likely because it’s home to most of the region’s grizzlies—while Montana would get 34 percent and Idaho 8 percent.
Officials estimate that there are more than 700 grizzlies in the defined management zone, though biologists say that there are likely more living outside the borders, as the bears have expanded their range as their populations have grown.
In a December 4, 2015, joint letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, the states’ wildlife directors urged the federal government to retract the bear’s threatened status. “It is critically important that we capitalize on our tremendous progress and momentum. . . by proceeding with a long overdue delisting,” the letter stated.

The last legal grizzly hunt in the Lower 48 was in the early 1970s, and a total of 58 bears were harvested in the five years leading to the species’ being listed as threatened, in 1975, as the AP notes. Since that time, the bear's numbers have rebounded. Opponents to the proposal, however, argue that it’s too soon to consider hunting as a management tool because grizzly populations are still too low.
Quentin Kujala, chief of wildlife management for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, says that the harvest quotas will likely be modest and on a sliding scale to help maintain viable bear populations and to avoid any chance of the species reverting back to federal protection. Hunting will be allowed if there were more than 675 bears, and it will be barred if the number drops to fewer than 600, Kujala said. Likewise, Wyoming Game and Fish spokesman Renny MacKay told the AP: “We’re definitely not talking about a large number. We’re not talking hundreds or anywhere near that.” 
The Christian Science Monitor points out that tourism is a $1-billion industry in the greater Yellowstone area, and that, according to research, the park could lose $10 million without the potential of spotting bear near the roadside.
If the FWS removes grizzlies from federal protection and the states proceed with the plan, the proposition will need to undergo a public-comment period. The FWS is expected to make a decision on whether to release grizzlies from federal protection early this year, but barring any court
challenges, it could take up to a year for any rule changes to go into effect.

Science, policy, and the fate of the greater sage-grouse

Few species are currently receiving more attention from scientists, managers, legislators, and reporters than the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Once numbering in the millions and spanning 13 US states and three Canadian provinces, sage-grouse are now extirpated in two states and one province and have lost 44% of their original range.

 In the mid-1990s, biologists became increasingly concerned about declining populations and the loss and deteriorating conditions of remaining sagebrush (Artemisia spp) ecosystems. At that time, however, it was determined that the species did not meet requirements for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Years later, in 2010 – after litigation, a “not warranted” decision in 2005, and more litigation – the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that the sage-grouse did warrant ESA protection. The USFWS is under court order to finalize a decision by 30 September 2015.
What has followed is an unprecedented effort among federal and state agencies, private landowners,
and numerous other stakeholders to conserve sage-grouse across more than 480 000 km2 of sagebrush habitat. However, the looming deadline has not been without controversy. As predictable as the Sun rising in the east, lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants hired by industry and others began questioning the science underlying the threats to sage-grouse, conservation objectives, and management recommendations that the USFWS will use in making their final decision. A few unpublished reports have emerged, attacking studies, peer-review processes, and scientists, questioning their objectivity and calling researchers an “insular group of scientist–advocates who deviate from providing credible, accurate scientific data to advancing policies they personally support”. This characterization is a case of the proverbial “pot calling the kettle black”.
These unpublished, non-peer-reviewed reports serve as the foundation for a lawsuit, filed in March 2015, by numerous western counties and industry-oriented plaintiffs claiming violation of the Data Quality Act of 2001. The fate of that lawsuit has yet to be determined, but the stage is set for another round of court battles that will decide whose science is most defensible.
 At the heart of the scientific argument lies uncertainty and discord on how many sage-grouse there
actually are, causal factors affecting their decline, and what is needed to offset extirpation and habitat
loss and degradation. Annual counts of males at breeding sites (leks) are used as an index to determine population trends.
  Imperfect methodology and sampling effort, questionable extrapolation of male-driven indices to derive population estimates, and difficulty in attributing these data to any one threat (eg energy development) have fueled the criticism. Without exception, all field studies on sage-grouse include assumptions and limitations, and some even have flaws, but the weight of evidence regarding threats to sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystems cannot be denied. One need look no further than current and projected habitat changes from development as well as losses associated with invasive plant species and fire to realize what that evidence shows.
Debate among scientists is fundamental for the advancement of science and policies derived from its
findings. But the current debate over sage-grouse seems anything but scientific. Opponents of change
seem more interested in casting doubt and discrediting the facts than they are in healthy scientific
debate. History is replete with examples where professionals attempt to demonstrate that science is clear on an issue and immediate action is needed to avoid potentially dire consequences – only to be confronted by other “science” or “scientists” trying to show that the existing information is incomplete or unclear.
 As with our justice system, it only takes “reasonable doubt” to convince many that  the science does not justify needed change and action. Indeed, what is the land manager or decision maker to do when everyone comes to the table with their own scientists, to contend that their particular way of doing business is not a threat?
As the court-ordered September 2015 deadline approaches, one thing is certain: the courts will decide
the fate of sage-grouse, regardless of what the USFWS decides. Existing science will continue to be questioned,
perhaps with valid criticism but probably not with credible, published data supporting counter
positions. This has become the “state of play” for contentious ecological issues and especially those
requiring some stakeholders to change their practices. Science has been lost in the political and legal vortex that now plays out in social media and does not translate to a general public increasingly losing interest in the natural world. This scenario demonstrates why scientists must ensure that their work will pass both peer and legal scrutiny and can be messaged in a way that captures the public’s attention when the “next sage-grouse” comes along – and it surely will.