Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Harry Reid Involved? Seven Answers to Seven Questions About the Nevada Rancher Situation
The Blaze ^ | 04/14/2014 | Becket Adams

Posted on 04/14/2014 7:27:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Government officials retreated Saturday from federal property in Gold Butte, Nev., leaving behind some 389 “trespass cattle” that had been impounded as the result of a decades-long dispute between a local rancher and the U.S. government.

But while the story has managed to capture the attention of thousands of Americans, it has also managed to confuse thousands more. Indeed, from questions regarding property rights to whether a Democratic senator was involved in the cattle roundup, many have been left wondering what it’s all about and searching for the facts.

So in an effort to provide some clarity on the ongoing developments in Gold Butte, here are some answers to the seven main questions people have asked about the decades-long fight between 67-year-old rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government:

7. Does Sen. Harry Reid have a connection to the Bureau of Land Management?

In a way, yes.

The new head of the Bureau of Land Management recently served as senior policy adviser to Nevada’s Democratic Sen. Harry Reid.

Neil Kornze, 35, left Reid’s office (where he managed public land issues) in 2011 to join the Bureau of Land Management as senior adviser to the director. He later became the deputy director for policy and programs in 2013.

The U.S. Senate then voted 71-28 on April 8, 2014, to confirm Kornze as the new director of the agency.

6. Is Harry Reid working with the Chinese to force the Bundys out?

The facts don’t support it.

Reid and his son, Rory, were both deeply involved in a deal with the Chinese-owned ENN Energy Group to build a $5 billion solar farm in Laughlin, Nevada. But that is roughly 177 miles away from Bundy’s 150-acre ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., and 213 miles from the federally owned Gold Butte area where Bundy ‘s cattle graze, according to Google Maps.

Image source: Google Maps

Image source: Google Maps

It’s worth noting that Rory Reid is the former chair of the Clark County commission (Clark County is located near the Gold Butte area). He left in 2011 to work for a Las Vega law firm representing ENN.

But despite the Reids’ best attempts to secure the land for ENN, and despite the Bureau of Land Management expressing concerns that “trespass cattle” could complicate plans to use land in the Gold Butte area for “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development,” it was all in vain: The Chinese company eventually shelved the project in June 2013 when it failed to find a customer. The deal is over and the proposed construction will not happen.

5. So Who Owns the Land in Question?

The federal government owns the disputed land and has claimed ownership since before Nevada even joined the union, according to a 2013 U.S. District Court ruling.

“[T]he public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States,” the ruling states, confirming the federal government’s longstanding claim that it lawfully acquired ownership of the land under the Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The court rejected Bundy’s repeated claim to having an intergenerational right to use the land as invalid and said his arguments against federal ownership carry no legal weight.

“Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada,” the decision reads.

Federal law enforcement officers block a road at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area near Overton, Nev. Thursday, April 10, 2014. In the foreground are the shadows of protestors. Two people were detained while protesting the roundup of cattle owned by Cliven Bundy on the road. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher) AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher

Federal law enforcement officers block a road at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area near Overton, Nev. Thursday, April 10, 2014 (AP)

It’s important to note that like most states, in its constitution Nevada recognizes federal authority over public lands:

That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States. [Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

In 1934, Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act, giving the federal government the authority to regulate grazing on the public lands in an effort to improve rangeland conditions.

Twelve years later, the General Land Office and Grazing Service were combined to form the Bureau of Land Management, which has been given the authority to regulate public lands, including nearly 600,000 acres in Gold Butte.

Lastly, it’s worth remembering Nevada joined the union in 1864. Bundy’s family didn’t start working the Clark Country area until the late 1880s.

Here’s the 2013 court ruling against Bundy:

This section has been updated.

4. Did Mr. Bundy ever recognize federal authority and pay grazing fees?

According to his daughter, yes.

Mr. Bundy has stated repeatedly in the past that he does not recognize federal authority in Gold Butte, arguing instead that the state owns the land.

However, he hasn’t always taken such a strong stance against federal ownership of land located inside Nevada’s border. In fact, Bundy used to pay the Bureau of Land Management’s grazing fees “for years,” according to his daughter, Shiree Bundy Cox, but stopped in 1993 when he decided it wasn’t in his best interest.

“My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the [Bureau of Land Management] until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these [sic] money’s against the ranchers,” she wrote in a blog post dated April 11, 2014. “They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re [sic] own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence [sic] he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.”

By “fired,” Cox means her father stopped paying the federal grazing fees.

Her post continues, claiming Cliven Bundy tried at one point to send grazing fee payments to the county instead of the Washington, D.C., but was turned down by local officials.

“So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes,” she wrote.

An interesting note: When federal agents first deployed last week to shut down Gold Butte, Bundy did several interviews with well-known media outlets, including ABC News, Fox News and the L.A. Times.

TheBlaze also spoke with him for nearly an hour.

He never mentioned trying to make grazing fee payments to the county or being turned away by local officials. His explanations for using the land focused almost entirely on his so-called “pre-emptive rights,” which include the right to forage.

It wasn’t until Friday, more than a week after federal agents started impounding his “trespass cattle,” that Bundy started talking about trying to pay the county.

TheBlaze has not yet contacted the Clark County clerk’s office to confirm whether Bundy tried to make payment. We will include that information in this story when we receive it.

3. Is the Bundy cattle fight really all about a desert tortoise?

Several observers have suggested that the fight between Bundy and the federal government revolves around an endangered tortoise. Although there’s some truth to this claim, it lacks important context.

Here’s a timeline of events:

Gold Butte being turned into a cattle-free zone wasn’t exactly sudden. It was a few years in the making, which brings us to our next question.

This section has been updated.

2. Were the ranchers really chased off and forced into bankruptcy?

Were all the other ranchers in the area of Clark County really “chased off” and, as Cox (Bundy’s daughter) put it, forced into bankruptcy by the federal government?

It’s not clear.

After the federal government agreed to designate the area for the endangered animal, Clark County purchased all “valid existing grazing permits for Gold Butte, paying $375,000 to retire them for the benefit of the tortoise.”

MESQUITE, NV - APRIL 11: Armed security guards guard the entrance to Rancher Cliven Bundy ranch house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada. Bureau of Land Management officials are rounding up Cliven Bundy's cattle, he has been locked in a dispute with the BLM for a couple of decades over grazing rights. George Frey/Getty Images

MESQUITE, NV – APRIL 11: Armed security guards guard the entrance to Rancher Cliven Bundy ranch house on April 11, 2014 west of Mesquite, Nevada (AP)

Ordinarily, this would be considered a simple buyout, which is obviously different from being “forced into bankruptcy” or being priced out entirely. However, as Cox wrote, the ranchers were bought off with their “own grazing fees,” suggesting they made no net gain from turning over their permits.

TheBlaze will request clarification from the Clark County clerk’s office as soon as possible to help explain this question.

1. Did the Feds Overreact?

Contract cowboys and hundreds of armed federal agents descended on the publicly held property last week, bringing with them dozens of retrofitted SUVs, helicopters and heavy duty hauling equipment (the Bundy family claims the government also deployed snipers and “heavy artillery,” but these claims have not been confirmed by secondary sources).

This prompted the obvious question: How did this go from a property dispute to something featuring plenty of armed agents and even a Bundy relative being tased?

Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville, Nev. Monday, April 7, 2014. The Bureau of Land Management has begun to round up what they call "trespass cattle" that rancher Cliven Bundy has been grazing in the Gold Butte area 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher) AP Photo/Las Vegas Review-Journal, John Locher

Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville, Nev. Monday, April 7, 2014 Vegas. (AP)

Consider that there has been a lot of saber-rattling rhetoric being used.

For instance, Bundy once casually told reporters in an interview that he keeps several firearms at his ranch, adding that he would do “whatever it takes” to protect his cattle.

“I’ve got to protect my property … If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws,” he said in reference to what he repeatedly calls a “range war.”

Bundy has also regularly invoked Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, claiming often and loudly that he’s the “last cowboy standing.”

Even his wife, Carol, said in an interview: “I’ve got a shotgun … It’s loaded and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do, but we’d rather win this in the court of public opinion.”

And then there are the militias that showed up to support Bundy.

“This is what we do, we provide armed response,” Jim Lordy with Operation Mutual Aid told a local station. “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

Still, the militia members and protesters insist it’s the government that became violent first with the tasing incident, as well as the mere presence of the armed federal agents. And Ammon Bundy, Cliven’s son who was tased, did restrict rifles within camp last week:

8 News NOW

Either way, it appears the language being used has put at least a few federal officials on edge.

“I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence,” a former National Park Services official said in an op-ed.

In the end, the feds say they pulled back out of fear of escalating tensions, with each side likely pointing the finger at the other as the instigator.

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” Neil Kornze, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, said Saturday in a statement. “We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.”

Initial estimates put the cost of the federal government’s failed attempt to remove Bundy’s “trespass cattle” at around $3 million.

TheBlaze will continue to follow the story and bring you any updates.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: blm; bundy; bundyranch; bundyranchquestions; china; harryreid; kornze; nevada; reid; theblaze

1 posted on 04/14/2014 7:27:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

> “This is what we do, we provide armed response,” Jim Lordy with Operation Mutual Aid told a local station. “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

Needs to be repeated.


2 posted on 04/14/2014 7:28:57 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Apparently “The Blaze” hasn’t seen documents on this site and others from the BLM web site (now removed) indicating that the Bundy land was to be used as an “offset” to allow the ChiCom purchase. Meanwhile, even though the ChiCom purchase is off, the Reid desire to make a killing by utilizing this offset might still find a buyer.


3 posted on 04/14/2014 7:31:26 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Is Harry Reid working with the Chinese to force the Bundys out?

The facts don’t support it.

OK, so who's taking bets?

I say there's a solar-powered bird-cooker on that land in five years.

Any takers?

4 posted on 04/14/2014 7:34:47 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This article needs to be rewritten based on information apparently not available to the writer.

In addition there is a shorter way to go to get to Laughlin from Las Vegas than shown on the map.

5 posted on 04/14/2014 7:43:53 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t delegate my analyses very often. I would damn sure never delegate them to The Blaze, its personalities, its ownership or staff.

This situation is tangled and has some unspoken points in common between The Blaze, Harry Reid, and the ranchers. The ranchers aren’t perfect, but they are light years closer to it than the other players.


6 posted on 04/14/2014 7:45:57 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

#8 - Did the FEDs leave the scene only hours after the Harry Reid story was exposed?

Yes.


7 posted on 04/14/2014 7:51:39 AM PDT by ryan71 (The Partisans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Yeh the Blaze needs to keep up. There are docs that specifically name Bundy as having to go.


8 posted on 04/14/2014 7:52:43 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Given the mud and blood already on Harry Reid ‘s hands from other Nevada real estate transactions this blm operation fits his mo to a T.


9 posted on 04/14/2014 7:55:46 AM PDT by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

You have a link to these offset documents? Yes I know you said removed, but someone normally saves them.


10 posted on 04/14/2014 7:58:17 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage? (Held my nose to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Given the beginning of the housing collapse in China, the trashing of thousands of Chinese application for residency by Canada and other signs that wealthy Chinese and their money are headed anywhere but China, I’d say you are correct.

We’re headed for a period of lower than normal electrical reserves due to the EPA. I have to agree with you that the project will be reactivated when the time is right. Bundy’s range will be used for the mitigation set aside sooner or later.


11 posted on 04/14/2014 8:04:08 AM PDT by meatloaf (Impeach Obama. That's my New Year's resolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The feds have plans to euthanize the tortoises. That should clear the path for Reid’s cronies to arrange a trade of lands with the BLM. That’s my take on it. Anything corrupt that can be done to enrich Reid, will be done, if he can get away with it, and so far he has gotten away with everything.


12 posted on 04/14/2014 8:19:58 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

And leftists freak the crap out when they hear anyone express an intent to resist government authority. And they don’t even fathom the concept that said authority being resisted might not be legitimate.


13 posted on 04/14/2014 8:22:34 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

And leftists freak the crap out when they hear anyone express an intent to resist government authority. And they don’t even fathom the concept that said authority being resisted might not be legitimate.


14 posted on 04/14/2014 8:22:54 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Beck is interviewing Bundy on his radio show now, twisting some of his words..Beck and his side kick seem out of touch on this with their own narrative.

Bundy needs to keep correcting their statements.

15 posted on 04/14/2014 8:32:26 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Apparently “The Blaze” hasn’t seen documents on this site and others from the BLM web site (now removed) indicating that the Bundy land was to be used as an “offset” to allow the ChiCom purchase.

Bump that. I don't get the Blaze 'doubling down' on this either. Each of their seven Q&A's indict their 'intentional ignorance' further .....

7. Does Sen. Harry Reid have a connection to the Bureau of Land Management?

His former senior policy adviser is head of the BLM. It doesn’t get any more direct than that. Duh!

6. Is Harry Reid working with the Chinese to force the Bundys out?

Intentionally stupid question. The Chinese will be not be visible in this even if it is the offset for the shelved Laughlin deal. Previously, the Blaze completely ignored the difference between Gold Butte and Laughlin, now they’re pretending that since the Laughlin deal is “over” so is any other potential offset deal? FAIL.

5. So Who Owns the Land in Question?

Again, an irrelevant question. Yes, the government owns the land, but Bundy (and his family for >100 years), supported by the Governor of the state of Nevada [told us] that Bundy had paid every ounce of state tax, met the state requirements, and their family had been improving the property more than 100 years previous.

4. Did Mr. Bundy ever recognize federal authority and pay grazing fees?

As noted above, yes.

3. Is the Bundy cattle fight really all about a desert tortoise?

They did so--or so we were told--for the reason of protecting the desert tortoise. But then it was revealed that the Bureau of Land Management had shot far more desert tortoises than the Bundy cattle had even possibly destroyed.

2. Were the ranchers really chased off and forced into bankruptcy?

The dispute began in 1993, when the BLM interfered with Bundy’s grazing rights, citing protection of the Mojave Desert tortoise. It is not clear how cattle are a threat to the tortoise. As Dave Barry would say, “I am not making this up.” They capped his herd to 150 animals on a 250-square-mile rangeland allotment. When Bundy saw his grazing fees were no longer being used to help ranchers, but to thwart them, he stopped paying monthly federal land fees of $1.35 per cow-calf pair, insisting that local government, not the BLM, should be in control of the lands. Bundy claims that other ranchers were bought out by the federal government. He is now the last remaining rancher left on a 600,000-acre portion of land known as Gold Butte, managed by the BLM.

1. Did the Feds Overreact?

There must be a reason the Blaze is so myopic in its stupidity. And it must be a very disturbing reason to conservatives.

16 posted on 04/14/2014 8:35:54 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I’m listening—Beck and Stu are very annoying in this interview.


17 posted on 04/14/2014 8:43:01 AM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheelbarrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Beck radio interview is condescending, imo. The rancher seems exhausted. Beck doesn't seem to have his facts right, yet because he owns cattle is comparing his farm to Bundy’s
18 posted on 04/14/2014 8:49:44 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“The Blaze will continue to follow the story and bring you any updates.”

That’s okay Beck...don’t bother.

I stopped listening to your “opinion” a long time ago.

Didn’t know you were so fond of dingy Reid. Looks like you are going to be on the wrong side of history here.


19 posted on 04/14/2014 8:52:51 AM PDT by BlessingsofLiberty (Remember Brian Terry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t know if”His Dingyness”is involved;I DO Know That The Koch Bros. Aren’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!


20 posted on 04/14/2014 8:53:31 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I’m conflicted about Beck. I cannot ever shake this feeling that he has some hidden agenda. For some reason I just don’t trust him. Maybe I’m just paranoid.


21 posted on 04/14/2014 8:55:31 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
The article does in fact mentions the offset but seem to be oblivion to connecting a very obvious dot
The concept is simple..
I can do this on this piece of land A if I can offset its impact on it by reserving piece of land B..your just trading two pieces of land for different uses they do not need to be continuous.
The second point its all federal land because they bought is from Mexico..well they also bought the Louisiana Purchase. And also bought Florida.so does the federal government 80 % of the in those area?

Also note lower in the story that Clark County, not the Fed, was the one buying back grazing right on the other rancher..so if it fed land why is the county buying and selling the grazing rights?

22 posted on 04/14/2014 8:58:54 AM PDT by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Kill the tortoises to save them? Like “destroy the village to save it”? WTF?


23 posted on 04/14/2014 9:02:01 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
I'm in agreement with you.

Something gnaws at the back of my mind, he seems to bob and weave too much.

24 posted on 04/14/2014 9:04:15 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
You right about distance. .the story takes the driving distance and if you look at the map that is very convoluted and is that the drive distances from the center of plot a to the the center of plot b? and not edge to edge

The truth distance between two plots of land would be as the crow flies and from border of plot a border to plot b.

So first question: what is the the direct distance “as the crow fly” from the closest border point of plot A to border point of plot B?.. Given the size of these to plots they might even touch at some point. And given it for environmental offset they don't even need to touch..

Sorry but the reporter in this story seem to be trying to be deliberately dense to not find a connection

25 posted on 04/14/2014 9:23:20 AM PDT by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“[T]he public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States,” the ruling states, confirming the federal government’s longstanding claim that it lawfully acquired ownership of the land under the Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo.
 
Total BS.  If that is so then All of Mexifornia belongs to the KKKUSA.
 
The cities of Nevada couldn't incorporate under this retarh-Et reasoning.
 
“My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the [Bureau of Land Management] until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these [sic] money’s against the ranchers,” she wrote in a blog post dated April 11, 2014. “They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re [sic] own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence [sic] he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.”
 
That's Right!!!
 
If the Gubmint isn't using the funds for the intended and promised purpose, they should be denied those funds until they agree to honor their commitment.
 

Were all the other ranchers in the area of Clark County really “chased off” and, as Cox (Bundy’s daughter) put it, forced into bankruptcy by the federal government?

It’s not clear.

 

Ohhhh Reeeelllleeee????

 

Lye-Uh!!!

That's exactly what they did.  They bought out the other ranchers at less than market value and under eminent domain action.

They are wrong!  They don't have the right to destroy another man's chosen life or work and to invent some lame excuse for doing it.

They've essentially done the same to the San Jauqin Valley, denying them water rights, to kill off the farming, all in the name of saving bait fish called smelt.

Well, something smelt...

Did the Feds Overreact?

Uhm....Hell Yeah!!!
 
The man has a right to protect his property and way of life.  That means he within his God given right to defend himself and anyone else against tyranny and outright theft.
 
Oh, and Beck is a Plick.
 
This articel attempts, pathetically, to paint an honest picture, which somehow ends up favoring the feds and purposely misleads through literary device of open ended questions favoring Fedzilla.
 
FUGB.

 

 


26 posted on 04/14/2014 9:59:04 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Too bad Beck isn't using resources for a broader investigation into over all agenda, seems more to the China land energy deals, agenda21...

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/#mXBosxO63AJbUwjh.99

27 posted on 04/14/2014 10:07:31 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Harry is a known criminal from way back. Apparently that’s no obstacle to political power in NV.


28 posted on 04/14/2014 11:21:42 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Is Beckett Adams a mormon?


29 posted on 04/14/2014 11:26:44 AM PDT by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Beck is what he is....and there are forces that guide him.

Totally without getting into religion......

30 posted on 04/14/2014 11:29:38 AM PDT by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Georgia Girl, you are right not to trust Beck.
I stopped listening to him when he developed his Messiah complex about 4 years ago.
It’s all about him.


31 posted on 04/14/2014 11:41:26 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
.... “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

And the "tyrannical government” is growing at an alarming rate.

32 posted on 04/14/2014 11:42:55 AM PDT by Ron H. (Impeach, Indict & Imprison the criminal Barak Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Beck is interviewing Bundy on his radio show now, twisting some of his words..Beck and his side kick seem out of touch on this with their own narrative.

Just one of several reasons I do not consider Beck to be relevant. I quit listening to him years ago. Just a big blowhard without a whole lot of substance IMO.

33 posted on 04/14/2014 11:49:07 AM PDT by Ron H. (Impeach, Indict & Imprison the criminal Barak Hussein Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?
"You have a link to these offset documents?"

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

34 posted on 04/14/2014 5:57:40 PM PDT by norwaypinesavage (for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
The land wasn't really bought from Mexico, it was taken from Mexico as a result of the US winning the Mexican-American War. Granted, there were reparations paid to Mexico, but the basis for these payments was forced on Mexico by loosing the war.

The whole concept of "offsets" is rife with bureaucratic cronyism. It is left to mindless bureaucrats (BLM comes to mind) to make up the terms of the offsets. My experience with this concept proves that corruption is easily involved.

35 posted on 04/15/2014 5:19:55 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Look if this was land OWNED it the true sense of the word by the Federal government it could be sold to another country and all person could be ejected by that country when it became the new owner with no rights ...that doesn’t really happen that often even in war...

The government sold / granted a lease of grazing rights on public ( I.e held in common by the public..it is not government owned land)..a contract was made between the government as public agent and this rancher..

Was the understanding of that contract at the time is was made?...it can not be rewritten at will by the government....it a contract by many party and so ALL PARTYS have rights and restrictions based on the original contract of when the 1880?..

What was the federal, state, local, and private individual understood rights to this common public land use at that time?..

In fact the federal government is a creation of the states, and the states are a creation of the people as individuals.

I have contended for some time..that because the States wrote the Constitution and voted its enactment to create the Federal and the States control to amending or even, dissolve the Constitution and therefore the Federal..

..that states are the owners..the 50 States could have a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the Federal Government and Union at there will..

So who owns the directly owned federal property let alone the public property the Federal manages as a public agent?

The Constitution is the original contract that allows the Federal to act as a public agent of any kind. ...

What was the understanding at that time of that contacts writing?


36 posted on 04/15/2014 12:47:14 PM PDT by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson