Below is an email exchange I had with a wilderness advocate. It is very telling at the
lengths they'll go to further their agenda and Ideology. Read it and be educated.
"If you think that I was as offensive as I thought you were than lets both of us take this to the level where we don't attact each other anymore but rather stick to issues. OK?"
All I said was ilk, to describe those that think like you and support wilderness, I didn't' call any names or assume your political beliefs and insult you like you did to me in your initial email below
"Who wrote this stuff, are you a serious group or just a spin-off of some wacko right-wing fascist organization? It sounds like a combination of frustrated fourth graders who have trouble riding without training wheels and The Montana Militia who sit around wanking about black helicopters."
You further state:
"However those who are pushing for Wilderness designation will ask for as much as they can, or what they feel is appropriate, almost a wish list. The compromises will be made in Congress, with input from people like you and through other political processes."
So, like in my case, if the land managers and Forest Service officials oppose it, if it does not qualify or would not qualify under the wilderness act, this means nothing to you if the end justifies the means. The wilderness activists know better or are wiser than the land managers.
You will abuse your political power to ram rod these wilderness areas through, even if they do not meet the criteria for wilderness, and unless we have the political power to stop you that is what you intend to do.
"As we know, money speaks loudly and the multi-national corporations push hard for no Wilderness."
No multi-national organizations had a stake in the wilderness designations they tried to push through here locally, only the cabin, owners, residents, trail runners, equestrians, and mountain bikers opposed it, as well as the Forest Service officials. I've seen letters received by the Freedom Of Information Act in which it isn't multi-national corporations opposing it, but the Forest Service itself. But you know better than the land managers right? Is the wisdom of wilderness advocate equal to God?
"And the money didn't come from Global Crossing but from investing in their stock when everything was going sky-hi. Global Crossing failed because they couldn't make their business model work not because sleazy people invested in them. That they gave a mil or so to the Clinton library is far removed from my interest. What were they buying? Face time with an ex president".
So just like Hillary's investments in futures, McAullife's stock buys don't matter. So any Republican who invests in stocks in companies they regulate or have political influence over their fate have every right to do so, right? Because, what good did it do Enron, they couldn't make their business model work and what good did their meetings with Cheney do, he didn't save them right?
Why is it ok for Global Crossing to buy face time with Clinton, but not ok for Enron to meet with the president, it's only face time right? Just like Clinton, it doesn't have any effect on the outcome of regulations that influence them right?
I asked you in my last email: Are you saying corruption is ok as long as it does not affect the environment, that it is somehow more moral to be corrupt as long as the corruption follows an ideology and you answered:
"No, I don't say that. corruption is wrong is wrong is wrong. I think the Repubs are more corrupt though as they do crimes against people and the environment. And when is the last time that they gave a damn about you and I people. I can't remember it."
So, like I said, the Democrats corruption is not so bad because their corruption doesn't affect people or the environment. I reiterate, what your telling me is that Democratic corruption is somehow better, you give them a free pass and allow them to exploit their position as long as it doesn't' effect people or the environment. Boy I understand now why the Democratic Party supports you guys, what a deal. I still don't understand how any form of corruption is a good thing for the citizens of the U.S. and not have an effect on them.
"I think Hillarys' brother gave his cnotes back. And was publically humiliated. All sorts of hangers on try to cash in on their closeness to presidents. It's unfortunate. But not illegal. Ford pardoned Nixon. Reagan pardoned most of his security staff who had tried to undermine the Constitution. Convicted felons all. Presidental pardons are allowed by the constitution. Some are bought and paid for, some are appropriate and many are not. Check out the elderberry Bushs' list of pardons. See if it is squeaky clean. I wank when I don't like them but only for a few minutes cause Presidents have a constitutional right to issue sleazy pardons."
No, Hillary's Brother didn't give the notes back; it was in the paper two days ago. So what your saying is Clinton is as sleazy as the other presidents because he uses pardons for his advantage, or are you saying, like before, He personally profits from them, but doesn't effect the environment or other people so he can be as corrupt as he wants, of course there's a big difference with felons like Rich, who profited by a war we were in. You didn't even address Rich's pardon buying, something even democrats criticized. Clinton's obstruction and lying under oath, which also undermines the constitution, is ok because under your standard he is given a pass.
So you do have two standards, like I said, if the ends justify the means. Corruption and influence peddling is wrong only if corporations do it or Republicans, not Green advocates. As long as your ideology is advanced, all rules are off.
You further state:
"I thought that the discussion was going to be freedoms, Wilderness, the inappropriatness of the Sierra Club pushing a Wilderness agenda in your area while we are "at war", and looking to the Republican Party when you need someone to protect you. I find those interesting topics for discussion. But I will answer your new issues as well."
Freedom, yes that is important to me and I find your justifications of the corruption of those pushing for wilderness, and their political supporters a real threat to that freedom, because to you, the ends justify the means, even if Freedom and the political process is hijacked by corruption - as long as it furthers your agenda.
And you ask me why I look to the Republicans to protect me? Your world scares me because in your world it is ok to corrupt our political process to achieve your ideology. That scares the hell out of me, you really think yourself above the law.
Recent falsified studies in the news used to support closures and citizens freedom to use the forest are also given a pass by you I assume, because the end justifies the means.
I asked you how much time you spend actually working in the forest and you answered:
"spend, probably 20 hours a month to insure appropriate stewardship of public lands. That includes on the ground monitoring, physical work, meeting with land managers, serving on agency committees and doing environmental education promoting appropriate stewardship."
20 hours a month to insure "appropriate stewardship" of the land. Do you mean "advocate wilderness" and does your "doing environmental education promoting 'appropriate stewardship'" mean spend time lobbying for wilderness? You said you had face time with Clinton and never stated what environmental group you work for. What organizations are you affiliated with and in what capacity?
As far as physical work, since you believe deceit and corruption is ok as long as it furthers your agenda, you wouldn't mind telling me, and providing information I can verify, your claims about how much work you actually do brushing trails, repairing erosion damage, installing facilities, or patrolling the forest?
Jamie everything you expressed to me, every justification you gave me for the actions of the wilderness advocates tells me you will use any means to further your agenda. No moral law governs your actions - you think yourself the immoral equivalent to God.
Like I said, you and those you represent scare the hell out of me. I plan on posting this on the IMBA list server as an education to those on the list. I will not post your email address but in further exchanges, with your permission I will, so people can respond and you can respond back. They know you as Jennifer, not Jamie, because that is the name on the email address when you first emailed me.
I mailed you an event T-shirt from our mountain bike Pow Wow yesterday. I give you this gift and ask that you examine the abuse of power and corruption you support. I never said I supported any Republican corruption and I don't. Any corruption undermines our constitution and everything they that have defended our country died for.
I am not angry with you, just somewhat disillusioned. You need to take a look at what you've become.
Click here for a list of all the wilderness alerts
Copyright© The Warrior's Society®