Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Harry Reid and Bundy Ranch

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760

    Harry Reid and Bundy Ranch

    So apparently the former chief of staff for Harry Reid is the head of the BLM district that operated the attempted take over and seizure.

    Apparently he has lots of connects to various private corporations who have been attempting various projects in the area.

    Reid also has supported these projects.

    Is the government evil ? I think so.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I know folks love their little conspiracy theories of the day, but that one has been debunked.

    "The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government (the former was near Laughlin; the latter is in the Golden Butte area, about 180 miles away), and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013: "

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I know folks love their little conspiracy theories of the day, but that one has been debunked.

    "The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government (the former was near Laughlin; the latter is in the Golden Butte area, about 180 miles away), and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013: "

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp
    Plans can change right? Really, the idea that Reid wants this for the Chinese to use as a solar farm is still alive in my eyes. Look over there ! Psych !

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I know folks love their little conspiracy theories of the day, but that one has been debunked.
    Harry Reids former top staff member is in FACT working for the BLM right now in the district where the Bundy ranch is.

    That's a FACT

  5. #5
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Harry Reids former top staff member is in FACT working for the BLM right now in the district where the Bundy ranch is.

    That's a FACT
    Cite?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Cite?
    Do your own scut work!

    By Valerie Richardson: "Mr. Kornze, 35, served for eight years on the Senate leader’s staff before joining the BLM in 2011. He was the Mr. Reid’s pick to head the agency, and his final confirmation was April 8 as the roundup at the Bundy ranch was underway." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tation-not-ov/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Bundy Ranch - What You're Not Being Told All source material you can check on your own. Watch all they way through, not a tin foil hat video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ








    Funny how this was pulled from the BLM sites so quickly after the connection was done to Senator Reid, feel free to read the part where a Non government organization has a problem with his cows grazing, that his cows are causing issue with solar development that is planned. Huh Also Reid is photographed breaking ground at a new solar power sight 35 miles from the Bundy ranch. Also BLM's new director was a worker for Senator Reid and was voted to the position by Reid himself. Seem to me more Corrupt politicians pushing development that has done very well for Senator Reid. Sounds odd they waited 20 years to go after him and Reid has been pushing these projects that directly benefit his family.
    http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...23.U0wAHcfqJFQ

    Last edited by zack991; 04-16-2014 at 02:07 AM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    So the G now sends out armed officials to enforce a " civil litigation issue"?

    The question at hand should be, Who gave the order? Who authorized trained killers to descend upon a homeowners land to possibly kill woman and children. And also who bankrolled the whole operation? Did the tax payers of Nevada and or the tax payers of this country sanction such a vile act upon another citizen and the citizens family simply for financial reasons, IE, taxes, fees, etc... Did Mr. Bundy murder or rape or kidnap another human being? Or did he simply not satisfy some financial obligation? Do we still have debtors prison in this country?

    Did the court of common law and or constitutional law sign off on such a vile, murderess, act, against a citizen?

    Who will be the next victim?

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Lets all keep in mind that the BLM has millions of acres of land on the southern border. These areas are flooded with illegal aliens, human traffickers, drug cartels and all kinds of other illegal activity. However, the BLM flat our refuses to patrol those areas.

    The BLM does NOT participate in any enforcement of drug or human smuggling.

    The BLM never sends armed agents to confront foreign illegal aliens or drug smugglers but when an American citizen has a few cows the BLM will send in hundreds of armed goons.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Lets all keep in mind that the BLM has millions of acres of land on the southern border. These areas are flooded with illegal aliens, human traffickers, drug cartels and all kinds of other illegal activity. However, the BLM flat our refuses to patrol those areas.

    The BLM does NOT participate in any enforcement of drug or human smuggling.

    The BLM never sends armed agents to confront foreign illegal aliens or drug smugglers but when an American citizen has a few cows the BLM will send in hundreds of armed goons.

    Hi All

    So again we need to ascertain. Where do the BLM/ IRS/ DMV/ get their authority? What Constitutional court authorized their authority?
    It's all about authority and legal standing. So I ask, where do the alphabet agency's derive their authority?
    Regards
    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 04-16-2014 at 03:19 AM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Apparently the feds killed two tortisous and smashed in a burrow in their operation.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I will acquire cows - cows that I can't support and let them live off public resources - then I'll demand my Gov't subsidies because I'm entitled as a rancher!
    So yes! I will have my cows even though I can't support them and I'll probably get more cows despite not being able to support them because I know I can use public resources to feed them and I am entitled to Gov't services.
    -Welfare Cowboy.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I will acquire cows - cows that I can't support and let them live off public resources - then I'll demand my Gov't subsidies because I'm entitled as a rancher!
    So yes! I will have my cows even though I can't support them and I'll probably get more cows despite not being able to support them because I know I can use public resources to feed them and I am entitled to Gov't services.
    -Welfare Cowboy.
    Lol I hadn't looked at it that way till you posted this. Good call.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I hate subsidies but someone has got it a little wrong.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155

    War on the West: Why More Bundy Standoffs Are Coming | The New American.com

    Here are the ugly facts of the federal government’s ownership of the lands in the Western states:

    Nevada: 84.5 percent
    Alaska: 69.1 percent
    Utah: 57.4 percent
    Oregon: 53.1 percent
    Idaho: 50.2 percent
    Arizona: 48.1 percent
    California: 45.3 percent
    Wyoming: 42.4 percent
    New Mexico: 41.8 percent
    Colorado: 36.6 percent
    Washington: 30.3 percent
    Montana: 29.9 percent

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/images...deral_land.png

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ffs-are-coming
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I will acquire cows - cows that I can't support and let them live off public resources - then I'll demand my Gov't subsidies because I'm entitled as a rancher!
    So yes! I will have my cows even though I can't support them and I'll probably get more cows despite not being able to support them because I know I can use public resources to feed them and I am entitled to Gov't services.
    -Welfare Cowboy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Lol I hadn't looked at it that way till you posted this. Good call.
    Except it's not, because it ignores all the history.

    Clearly you both are utterly ignorant of the history Federal land ownership, and of free grazing, in the west.

    The government may have a claim (at least by its own reckoning), but even the government hasn't bothered arguing it to be of the sort which beebobby imagines.

    My own conclusion is that these ranchers are, to some degree, reaping what they (their ancestors?) sowed by requesting Federal stewardship in the first place. But that doesn't change how obviously ignorant of the history beebobby's remarks show him to be.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-16-2014 at 04:41 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Except it's not, because it ignores all the history.

    Clearly you both are utterly ignorant of the history Federal land ownership, and of free grazing, in the west.

    The government may have a claim (at least by its own reckoning), but even the government hasn't bothered arguing it to be of the sort which beebobby imagines.

    My own conclusion is that these ranchers are, to some degree, reaping what they (their ancestors?) sowed by requesting Federal stewardship in the first place. But that doesn't change how obviously ignorant of the history beebobby's remarks show him to be.
    +1 And those who think he made a "good call".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    The fact remains that he has more cows than his legally owned ranch can support, so he used public land for which he is expected to pay grazing fees (like the othe ranchers do). He paid this up until 20 years ago. Mr. Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees (initially instituted under Ronald Reagan) for two decades and has twice lost in court. He is a dead beat cowboy. It seems some folks are are only opposed to perceived freeloading when it's done by someone who isn't a white male with a gun.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    The fact remains that he has more cows than his legally owned ranch can support, so he used public land for which he is expected to pay grazing fees (like the othe ranchers do). He paid this up until 20 years ago. Mr. Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees (initially instituted under Ronald Reagan) for two decades and has twice lost in court. He is a dead beat cowboy. It seems some folks are are only opposed to perceived freeloading when it's done by someone who isn't a white male with a gun.
    According to the Bundy camp, he has no qualms about paying the grazing rights. His problem is the paying of grazing rights to an inept federal agency. He firmly believes that the federal gov't doesn't- or shouldn't- own the land.

    Whether or not you believe the Reid conspiracy, there's something definitely strange afoot when the BLM is spending almost a million dollars to punish a rancher for unpaid grazing rights on sh**ty land.

    Now, if he has a cash account for the 20 years of unpaid grazing rights available, it'll show that he was serious about paying the rights. If he doesn't, well, then he's just being argumentative and subborn.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I will acquire cows - cows that I can't support and let them live off public resources - then I'll demand my Gov't subsidies because I'm entitled as a rancher!
    So yes! I will have my cows even though I can't support them and I'll probably get more cows despite not being able to support them because I know I can use public resources to feed them and I am entitled to Gov't services.
    -Welfare Cowboy.
    You don't understand the business he is in ... and you want cheap beef, right?

    Just land that sits and does nothing ....

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    The fact remains that he has more cows than his legally owned ranch can support, so he used public land for which he is expected to pay grazing fees (like the othe ranchers do). He paid this up until 20 years ago. Mr. Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees (initially instituted under Ronald Reagan) for two decades and has twice lost in court. He is a dead beat cowboy. It seems some folks are are only opposed to perceived freeloading when it's done by someone who isn't a white male with a gun.
    The fact is the moral hazard to graze more cows than his land would permit was created by government.

    So why did he stop paying? This was covered earlier.

    Who cares what president the fees were insituted under unless you are trying to make it a partisan issue.

    Your last sentence is pure shite.

    First he wasn't "free loading". Any more than anyone else who pulls a fish out of the ocean. Second to impute bigotry as the only reason for support.....idiocy.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 04-16-2014 at 11:12 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    The fact remains that he has more cows than his legally owned ranch can support, so he used public land for which he is expected to pay grazing fees (like the othe ranchers do). He paid this up until 20 years ago. Mr. Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees (initially instituted under Ronald Reagan) for two decades and has twice lost in court. He is a dead beat cowboy. It seems some folks are are only opposed to perceived freeloading when it's done by someone who isn't a white male with a gun.
    OK smart guy; WHY did he stop paying 20 years ago!!!!!!!!!

  23. #23
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    This is about conflict of interests (Reid/BLM director), Constitutional rights and Federal/LE over-reach / over-reaction. Not grazing fees IMHO. Bundy is no saint, this said - he clearly is on land that the government dearly wants and is willing to weasel and con their way onto in hopes of holding it .
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    This is about conflict of interests (Reid/BLM director), Constitutional rights and Federal/LE over-reach / over-reaction. Not grazing fees IMHO. Bundy is no saint, this said - he clearly is on land that the government dearly wants and is willing to weasel and con their way onto in hopes of holding it .

    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Except it's not, because it ignores all the history.

    Clearly you both are utterly ignorant of the history Federal land ownership, and of free grazing, in the west.

    The government may have a claim (at least by its own reckoning), but even the government hasn't bothered arguing it to be of the sort which beebobby imagines.

    My own conclusion is that these ranchers are, to some degree, reaping what they (their ancestors?) sowed by requesting Federal stewardship in the first place. But that doesn't change how obviously ignorant of the history beebobby's remarks show him to be.

    THIS AND ALSO BELOW
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-3...l#NRS321Sec596
    The Nevada statute that is on the Bundy family side
    http://misguidedchildren.com/politic...y-side/19117/3
    NRS 321.596  Legislative findings.  The Legislature finds that:

    1.  The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

    (a) On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries;

    (b) From 1850 to 1894, newly admitted states received 2 sections of each township for the benefit of common schools, which in Nevada amounted to 3.9 million acres;

    (c) In 1880 Nevada agreed to exchange its 3.9-million-acre school grant for 2 million acres of its own selection from public land in Nevada held by the Federal Government;

    (d) At the time the exchange was deemed necessary because of an immediate need for public school revenues and because the majority of the original federal land grant for common schools remained unsurveyed and unsold;

    (e) Unlike certain other states, such as New Mexico, Nevada received no land grants from the Federal Government when Nevada was a territory;

    (f) Nevada received no land grants for insane asylums, schools of mines, schools for the blind and deaf and dumb, normal schools, miners’ hospitals or a governor’s residence as did states such as New Mexico; and

    (g) Nevada thus received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, namely Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants.

    2.  The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

    (a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be “void and inoperative” because it denied to Alabama “an equal footing with the original states” in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

    (b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later “on an equal footing”; and

    (c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the “equal footing” doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is “the supreme law of the land” by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.

    3.  The exercise of broader control by the State of Nevada over the public lands within its borders would be of great public benefit because:

    (a) Federal holdings in the State of Nevada constitute 86.7 percent of the area of the State, and in Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye and White Pine counties the Federal Government controls from 97 to 99 percent of the land;

    (b) Federal jurisdiction over the public domain is shared among 17 federal agencies or departments which adds to problems of proper management of land and disrupts the normal relationship between a state, its residents and its property;

    (c) None of the federal lands in Nevada are taxable and Federal Government activities are extensive and create a tax burden for the private property owners of Nevada who must meet the needs of children of Federal Government employees, as well as provide other public services;

    (d) Under general land laws only 2.1 percent of federal lands in Nevada have moved from federal control to private ownership;

    (e) Federal administration of the retained public lands, which are vital to the livestock and mining industries of the State and essential to meet the recreational and other various uses of its citizens, has been of uneven quality and sometimes arbitrary and capricious; and

    (f) Federal administration of the retained public lands has not been consistent with the public interest of the people of Nevada because the Federal Government has used those lands for armament and nuclear testing thereby rendering many parts of the land unusable and unsuited for other uses and endangering the public health and welfare.

    4.  The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states.

    5.  The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada “disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,” as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

    6.  The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

    7.  The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.

    (Added to NRS by 1979, 1362)
    Last edited by zack991; 04-16-2014 at 11:28 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •