Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

[theDoctorisIn]

» Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

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


April 11, 2014

The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

You really shouldn't believe a word Alex Jones says.

1. The Chinese Solar plant project was cancelled last year - and it would have been on the other side of Nevada, if it had been built.

2. The land Cliven Bundy has been letting his cows graze on illegally is also not in the "Dry Lake Solar Energy Region" or whatever it's called.

Do you have a link for your assertions?

You might want to check out the link I posted. There is HUGE information there and not just from the dubious Alex Jones.

That article has already been posted numerous times, including as the OP of this thread. I have read it, I did some research, and that's why I know it's so incredibly wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

why do rw'ers blindly believe whatever DrudgeFox tells them???

This non-story is a good case study illustrating the Repub voter, hive mind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What land grab???? The land in question has never belonged to the Bundy family. The feds are clearing his cattle off of public land.

Who grabbed any land?

The government grabbed the land which was being used ranchers to produce the meat that goes on your table.

Who did they "grab" the land from?

It wasn't public land until 1993, Doc. Remember that. They "grabbed" it from the American people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The government grabbed the land which was being used ranchers to produce the meat that goes on your table.

Who did they "grab" the land from?

It wasn't public land until 1993, Doc. Remember that. They "grabbed" it from the American people.

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still "public land" before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who did they "grab" the land from?

It wasn't public land until 1993, Doc. Remember that. They "grabbed" it from the American people.

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still public land before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

Actually, it was designated by the government as a habitat for a land tortoise. They made off with 850 of his cattle and told him to get off, he protested. This is their own doing. And while the BLM was formed in 1946, for 47 years they made no issue with Bundy or his parents over the land in which he used to graze his cattle.

But it is funny how the government never made an issue of it in all that time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You really shouldn't believe a word Alex Jones says.

1. The Chinese Solar plant project was cancelled last year - and it would have been on the other side of Nevada, if it had been built.

2. The land Cliven Bundy has been letting his cows graze on illegally is also not in the "Dry Lake Solar Energy Region" or whatever it's called.

Do you have a link for your assertions?

You might want to check out the link I posted. There is HUGE information there and not just from the dubious Alex Jones.

That article has already been posted numerous times, including as the OP of this thread. I have read it, I did some research, and that's why I know it's so incredibly wrong.

As you told me last night...

That's a cop out.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It wasn't public land until 1993, Doc. Remember that. They "grabbed" it from the American people.

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still public land before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

Actually, it was designated by the government as a habitat for a land tortoise. They made off with 850 of his cattle and told him to get off, he protested. This is their own doing. And while the BLM was formed in 1946, for 47 years they made no issue with Bundy or his parents over the land in which he used to graze his cattle.

But it is funny how the government never made an issue of it in all that time.

You've got a few things confused, but you're on the right track.

1. The government didn't "make off" with any of his cattle. They changed how many they would allow him a permit for. No cattle of his have ever been removed, until last weekend.

2. For those 47 years, Bundy and his family paid their grazing fees - which is why the BLM left him alone. When the BLM changed the rules, he got mad, and decided to both stop paying his grazing fees, and ignore the limits to the number of cattle he could graze.

You don't get to ignore laws that you don't like - or rather, you can but you've got to face the consequences when they come due.

 

[Flopper]

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch |

Doesn't surprise me one bit

Doesn't surprise me either. Kit Daniels also authored,
Nationwide Gun Confiscation,
Surrender Your Firearms,” Connecticut Tells Unregistered Gun Owners
Pentagon Agency Admits It Began Stockpiling Potassium Iodide
U.S. Postal Service Announces Giant Ammo Purchase
Breaking: Whistleblower Reveals U.S. State Dept. Shipping Arms to al-Qaeda

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you have a link for your assertions?

You might want to check out the link I posted. There is HUGE information there and not just from the dubious Alex Jones.

That article has already been posted numerous times, including as the OP of this thread. I have read it, I did some research, and that's why I know it's so incredibly wrong.

As you told me last night...

That's a cop out.

See the last page, I gave links.

 

[Geaux4it]

The Feds had best not pull a Waco or Ruby Ridge here.

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still public land before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

Actually, it was designated by the government as a habitat for a land tortoise. They made off with 850 of his cattle and told him to get off, he protested. This is their own doing. And while the BLM was formed in 1946, for 47 years they made no issue with Bundy or his parents over the land in which he used to graze his cattle.

But it is funny how the government never made an issue of it in all that time.

You've got a few things confused, but you're on the right track.

1. The government didn't "make off" with any of his cattle. They changed how many they would allow him a permit for. No cattle of his have ever been removed, until last weekend.

2. For those 47 years, Bundy and his family paid their grazing fees - which is why the BLM left him alone. When the BLM changed the rules, he got mad, and decided to both stop paying his grazing fees, and ignore the limits to the number of cattle he could graze.

You don't get to ignore laws that you don't like - or rather, you can but you've got to face the consequences when they come due.

1. That's what we call making off with his cattle. Unless he sold them off himself. Nobody says what happened to those cattle when they capped his herd. Can you tell me what happened to the 850 cattle that he had to give up?

2. Before the formation of the BLM though, what was the deal? Who did the land belong to? It was managed by the defunct Civilian Conservation Corps. Prior to the formation of the CCC in 1933, ranching was commonplace in that area. So, as I see it, history is on his side. His family did in fact settle there and did ranch there long before the government stepped in.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, it was designated by the government as a habitat for a land tortoise. They made off with 850 of his cattle and told him to get off, he protested. This is their own doing. And while the BLM was formed in 1946, for 47 years they made no issue with Bundy or his parents over the land in which he used to graze his cattle.

But it is funny how the government never made an issue of it in all that time.

You've got a few things confused, but you're on the right track.

1. The government didn't "make off" with any of his cattle. They changed how many they would allow him a permit for. No cattle of his have ever been removed, until last weekend.

2. For those 47 years, Bundy and his family paid their grazing fees - which is why the BLM left him alone. When the BLM changed the rules, he got mad, and decided to both stop paying his grazing fees, and ignore the limits to the number of cattle he could graze.

You don't get to ignore laws that you don't like - or rather, you can but you've got to face the consequences when they come due.

1. That's what we call making off with his cattle. Unless he sold them off himself. Nobody says what happened to those cattle when they capped his herd. Can you tell me what happened to the 850 cattle that he had to give up?

2. Before the formation of the BLM though, what was the deal? Who did the land belong to? It was managed by the defunct Civilian Conservation Corps. Prior to the formation of the CCC in 1933, ranching was commonplace in that area. So, as I see it, history is on his side. His family did in fact settle there and did ranch there long before the government stepped in.

1. He didn't give them up. That's the whole point - he ignored the rule entirely and continued to graze all 900 pairs of cattle there.

2. Ranching has always been commonplace it the area. Prior to the 70s, all of that land was open for homesteading. Anyone who wanted to could go stake a claim to 160 acres, and get it completely for free. No one wanted the vast majority of the land, though - since almost none of the land had any water rights at all. People snapped up the homesteads around water sources (like the Bundy family did), and grazed their cattle on nearby unclaimed land. The land was getting destroyed (Tragedy of the Commons), so the BLM was formed to manage the land, and imposed grazing fees in the 1940s - since none of the ranchers wanted the responsibility of owning the land, yet wanted to graze their cattle there.

 

[depotoo]

Who did they "grab" the land from?

It wasn't public land until 1993, Doc. Remember that. They "grabbed" it from the American people.

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still "public land" before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

Actually you are wrong. Go look and read my link s. They show over 145,000 acres were private lands.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It wasn't public land until 1993, Doc. Remember that. They "grabbed" it from the American people.

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still "public land" before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

Actually you are wrong. Go look and read my link s. They show over 145,000 acres were private lands.

100% of the land that Bundy's cattle were grazing on was BLM land. I don't know what you're referring to in terms of your links, which are almost entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You've got a few things confused, but you're on the right track.

1. The government didn't "make off" with any of his cattle. They changed how many they would allow him a permit for. No cattle of his have ever been removed, until last weekend.

2. For those 47 years, Bundy and his family paid their grazing fees - which is why the BLM left him alone. When the BLM changed the rules, he got mad, and decided to both stop paying his grazing fees, and ignore the limits to the number of cattle he could graze.

You don't get to ignore laws that you don't like - or rather, you can but you've got to face the consequences when they come due.

1. That's what we call making off with his cattle. Unless he sold them off himself. Nobody says what happened to those cattle when they capped his herd. Can you tell me what happened to the 850 cattle that he had to give up?

2. Before the formation of the BLM though, what was the deal? Who did the land belong to? It was managed by the defunct Civilian Conservation Corps. Prior to the formation of the CCC in 1933, ranching was commonplace in that area. So, as I see it, history is on his side. His family did in fact settle there and did ranch there long before the government stepped in.

1. He didn't give them up. That's the whole point - he ignored the rule entirely and continued to graze all 900 pairs of cattle there.

2. Ranching has always been commonplace it the area. Prior to the 70s, all of that land was open for homesteading. Anyone who wanted to could go stake a claim to 160 acres, and get it completely for free. No one wanted the vast majority of the land, though - since almost none of the land had any water rights at all. People snapped up the homesteads around water sources (like the Bundy family did), and grazed their cattle on nearby unclaimed land. The land was getting destroyed (Tragedy of the Commons), so the BLM was formed to manage the land, and imposed grazing fees in the 1940s - since none of the ranchers wanted the responsibility of owning the land, yet wanted to graze their cattle there.

1. Conceded.

2. And? These ranchers were there before anyone else. How is it right for the government to run these ranchers off of land they used to graze cattle and feed Americans? And by grazing their cattle on that unclaimed land, weren't they essentially claiming it? Also, shouldn't it have been the right of the ranchers to ranch on the land without having an undesirable choice forced on them? The right of preemption is Bundy's (well if you want to get technical, Native Americans had been living on that land for well over 3000 years, but that's another story entirely).

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. That's what we call making off with his cattle. Unless he sold them off himself. Nobody says what happened to those cattle when they capped his herd. Can you tell me what happened to the 850 cattle that he had to give up?

2. Before the formation of the BLM though, what was the deal? Who did the land belong to? It was managed by the defunct Civilian Conservation Corps. Prior to the formation of the CCC in 1933, ranching was commonplace in that area. So, as I see it, history is on his side. His family did in fact settle there and did ranch there long before the government stepped in.

1. He didn't give them up. That's the whole point - he ignored the rule entirely and continued to graze all 900 pairs of cattle there.

2. Ranching has always been commonplace it the area. Prior to the 70s, all of that land was open for homesteading. Anyone who wanted to could go stake a claim to 160 acres, and get it completely for free. No one wanted the vast majority of the land, though - since almost none of the land had any water rights at all. People snapped up the homesteads around water sources (like the Bundy family did), and grazed their cattle on nearby unclaimed land. The land was getting destroyed (Tragedy of the Commons), so the BLM was formed to manage the land, and imposed grazing fees in the 1940s - since none of the ranchers wanted the responsibility of owning the land, yet wanted to graze their cattle there.

1. Conceded.

2. And? These ranchers were there before anyone else. How is it right for the government to run these ranchers off of land they used to graze cattle and feed Americans? And by grazing their cattle on that unclaimed land, weren't they essentially claiming it? Also, shouldn't it have been the right of the ranchers to ranch on the land without having an undesirable choice forced on them? The right of preemption is Bundy's (well if you want to get technical, Native Americans had been living on that land for well over 3000 years, but that's another story entirely).

2. a.) The government hasn't "run" anyone off.

2. b.) They were not "claiming" it - because for the most part, all of those original ranchers had already used up their homestead claim, and because they didn't (and don't) want the responsibility to maintain or pay taxes on the land - all they want is to graze their cattle.

If the Bundy family had wanted to "claim" any more land, they were more than welcome to do so right up until the 1970s. Don't you think they would have, if they wanted to own more land?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. It's always been public land.

The BLM was created in the 40s, anyway. But it was still "public land" before that.

The only relevance of the year 1993 is that it's when Bundy decided to stop paying his grazing fees.

Actually you are wrong. Go look and read my links. They show over 145,000 acres were private lands.

100% of the land that Bundy's cattle were grazing on was BLM land. I don't know what you're referring to in terms of your links, which are almost entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You know, it would answer a lot of questions if we could actually see the boundaries in question. So far we've been working with stats. Before 1993, Bundy originally had grazing rights over 158,600 acres of land.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually you are wrong. Go look and read my links. They show over 145,000 acres were private lands.

100% of the land that Bundy's cattle were grazing on was BLM land. I don't know what you're referring to in terms of your links, which are almost entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You know, it would answer a lot of questions if we could actually see the boundaries in question. So far we've been working with stats. Before 1993, Bundy originally had grazing rights over 158,600 acres of land.

Actually, he technically had grazing rights over that land until 1998, when the courts finally ruled against him.

The problem with determining the "borders" is that there aren't any fences, and cows tend to be mobile. That's why his cattle are now spread out over an area more than twice that large.

 

[oreo]

What land grab???? The land in question has never belonged to the Bundy family. The feds are clearing his cattle off of public land.

Who grabbed any land?

This land is state land, not federal government land , so ask yourself what in the hell are the Feds doing there? Also that they have been there for 140 years as ranchers raises a lot of eyebrows, and now after 140 years they have a problem with it.

Hmm.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What land grab???? The land in question has never belonged to the Bundy family. The feds are clearing his cattle off of public land.

Who grabbed any land?

This land is state land, not federal government land , so ask yourself what in the hell is the Feds doing there? Also that they have been there for 140 years as ranchers raises a lot of eyebrows.

It's not state land, it's federal land.

BLM doesn't manage state land.