Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

11 April 2014

Is Dingy Harry Behind The Siege At The Bundy Ranch?

OK, it’s from (not all of the post nor links, just the 'breaking news' caution is advised until we get confirmation from other media), but they cite some credible sources in the MSM such as Reuters (Update: Breitbart, National Review, and the Washington Times are now reporting it, too)… 

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch  

BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm 

Another BLM report entitled Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

“In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

“The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States implemented a comprehensive solar energy program for public lands in those states and incorporated land use allocations and programmatic and SEZ-specific design features into land use plans in the six-state study area.”

In 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.

And journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well.

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.”

“His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

Now, here’s an added twist (not from infowars)… 

Such was the case with the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002—a piece of legislation introduced by Reid—which dealt with a variety of boundary shifts and land trades in Nevada. Reid assured his colleagues that the bill was a bipartisan measure that would benefit both the natural environment and the economy in Nevada. 

“What Reid did not explain,” the Los Angeles Times reported, “was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms.” 

For example, the Howard Hughes Corporation alone paid $300,000 to the small, Washington-based consulting firm of Reid’s son-in-law, Steven Barringer, to promote a provision allowing Hughes to acquire 998 acres of highly valuable federal land situated in the rapidly growing Las Vegas metropolitan area. In federal lobbyist reports, Barringer is listed as one of Hughes’s representatives on the measure that Reid introduced.

Other provisions of the 2002 bill were intended to benefit (to the tune of several million dollars) a real-estate development headed by Harvey Whittemore, a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employed all four of Reid’s sons. Specifically, Reid intervened to gain monumental government concessions on behalf of Whittemore, who wished to build thousands of homes and numerous golf courses on 43,000 acres of barren land in an area called Coyote Springs, an hour northeast of Las Vegas. 

This land had a number of federal restrictions on its use: Most notably, one-fourth of it was off-limits to developers because of federal protections for an “endangered” species of desert tortoise that dwelt there; another one-fourth (about 10,500 acres) was government-owned and was subject to a federal power-line right of way; and the Coyote Springs territory as a whole was rife with streams and washes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had designated as crucial to the health of the desert’s ecosystem, and was therefore generally off-limits to construction. 

Thanks to Senator Reid’s intercession, however, the Bureau of Land Management agreed to relocate the “endangered” tortoises to an adjacent federal preserve, thereby opening that portion of Coyote Springs to developers. 

That would be the very same Harvey ‘Very Close Friend of Harry’ Whittemore, who was recently sentenced to Federal prison for violating federal campaign cash laws by giving Dingy dirty, illegal money.  (But, but, but, the Koch Brothers!!!):

Reid Supporter Whittemore Gets 2 Years in Campaign Cash Case 

So that all of those, who still think – erroneously – that the government acted correctly in Ruby Ridge and Waco, both of which were later cited as part of the reason Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building, wrap your heads around this little tidbit: 

Remember how Dingy Harry got the ‘endangered’ desert tortoise removed from the land for his ‘very, very, very, very, very rich’, powerful and influential friend and donor? 

Guess what the Feds are using as the justification to remove the ranchers from state land that the BLM claims jurisdiction over? 

The very same ‘endangered’ desert tortoise that Dingy Harry had moved from Whittemore’s land to this area! 

America has 50 million people on food stamps and close to 100 million adults of working age out of the labour force. We are also watching meat prices soar. So, what is the Federal government doing? 

It is seizing the Bundy cattle and killing them to protect this ‘endangered’ desert tortoise that is, evidently, so populous that the BLM cannot contain them within the ‘resort’ it built for them. 

And, here, at last, is the mind-warp: 

While the Federal government is killing badly-needed cattle that is owned by a private citizen, allegedly, to protect an ‘endangered’ desert tortoise, it is also currently euthanising thousands of those same tortoises. 

Killing privately-owned cattle to protect a tortoise that it is killing by the thousands itself. Smart power, baby! 

Amerika, the ugly! 

200 agents, many of whom are snipers, helicopters, military vehicles, ‘First Amendment zones' (I thought ALL of America was a 'First Amendment zone’), and the assault and battery of several law-abiding Americans already. 

Apart from civil liberties and property rights, how much is this costing taxpayers? 


Riddle me this, ‘torture’ hysterics: 

Would you consider it to be ‘torture’ for the Federal government to taser innocent Americans, who are exercising their Constitutional rights?


BTW, guess who the newly-appointed BLM's acting deputy director for programmes and policy is?

Neil Kornze, who served as Dingy Reid's policy adviser for public lands for 8 years.

A thought...

Two years after the Magna Carta was signed in 1215, King Henry II signed the Charter of the Forest.  Whereas the Magna Carta extended legal protections to the nobles, the Charter granted rights to the common man.

Pardon me for quoting wiki, which I hate, but it is just easier in this case:

In contrast to Magna Carta, which dealt with the rights of barons, it provided some real rights, privileges and protections for the common man against the abuses of the encroaching aristocracy.

At a time when the royal forests were the most important potential source of fuel for cooking, heating and industries such as charcoal burning, and such hotly defended rights as pannage (pasture for their pigs), estover (collecting firewood), agistment (grazing), or turbary (cutting of turf for fuel), this charter was almost unique in providing a degree of economic protection for free men, who also used the forest to forage for food and to graze their animals.

The Charter provided a right of common access to (royal) private lands that would wait until the Union of England and Scotland in 1707 to be equaled within the realm. It also rolled back the area encompassed by the designation "forest" to that of Henry II's time, essentially freeing up lands that had become more and more restricted as King Richard and King John designated greater and greater areas of land to become royal forest. Since "forest" in this context didn't necessarily mean treed areas, but could include fields, moor or even farms and villages, it became an increasing hardship on the common people to try to farm, forage, and otherwise use the land they lived on. The Charter specifically states that "Henceforth every freeman, in his wood or on his land that he has in the forest, may with impunity make a mill, fish-preserve, pond, marl-pit, ditch, or arable in cultivated land outside coverts, provided that no injury is thereby given to any neighbour."

We are reverting back to the tyranny of King John where the King could fence off as much land as he liked.  It was 'his,' not property of the state.  As such, he could prevent his people from feeding their families, grazing their animals, fueling their homes, etc.  They were forced to pay tolls to use the roads and levies/taxes for other things as the King deigned.  Consequently, the common people became poorer, colder, and hungrier.  The nobles had protections, but not anyone else.

The modern-day interpretation of Robin Hood stealing from the Kochs to give to the poor, oppressed people is a product of the late 19th century (after Marx).  In reality, Robin 'robbed' the King, et al, by taking back the onerous taxes that the people had paid.  He returned the tax dollars to the taxpayers.  

Maybe, a Robin Hood will 'rob from the rich and give to the poor.'  Return our money and our lands (there is NO reason for the Federal government to own 28% of the land in the country) to 'We the People.'  

The Federal government is not the King.

Related Reading:

Bundy and the Rule of Law

When the Cows Came Home – A Rancher’s Story, Our Story

No comments: