The Bundy Boondoggle - Nevada standoff: Yes, it’s solar-industry cronies (but NOT the Chinese)

reply to post by xuenchen


You know the irony to all of this?

Harry Reid is a Mormon... I guess he's making sure to crush the f@#k out of the "Mormon's are nice" stereotype!

WCmutant
reply to post by xuenchen

 

You know the irony to all of this?

Harry Reid is a Mormon... I guess he's making sure to crush the f@#k out of the "Mormon's are nice" stereotype!

He's Mormon Mafia.

There's a difference I think.

They work in $trange ways.

reply to post by xuenchen


Xuenchen,

While I have been happy to see American's (the militias) finally come together and help another fellow American when the fed. gov't starts utilizing it's perceived monopoly on violence, I have to say that you are incorrect about the solar areas.

1. Solar farms need easy access to power lines or a substation

I don't think Gold Butte out in BFE, BLM land qualifies for easy access to power lines or a substation. But I will admit that I don't know the area at all so I could be wrong.

I did a quick glance at Google Maps to see if there was anything that looked like a substation in the Gold Butte area and I found nothing in the proximity necessary to support a solar farm.

reply to post by WCmutant


You have to look at the near by towns and how they get power now.

And see the plans.

A lot of activity in the whole area.

After resisting most discussions in the past about the possibility of moving to solar energy sources, the Overton Power District #5 (OPD) Board of Trustees approved two measures at their Sept. 18 meeting that will investigate more uses of solar generated power in the District's system.


Let’s Talk About Out-Dated Overton Power


OPD Manager Hears Rate Hike Concerns From Mesquite Residents

well here's the answers to all of this confusion !!!!

from the most trusted & factual sources.

Cliven Bundy is part of a long tradition: corporate mooching

Every now and then, the American right demonstrates its patriotism by proposing (or exalting) secession from the country it professes to love – or denying its legitimacy altogether. A parallel oddity is that those regions of the U.S. most dependent on government-owned resources (Alaska, for instance, or much of the American West) are the most militant when it comes to the sanctity of private property. These two madcap streams converged this week in the case of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who for 21 years has refused to pay more than $1 million in fees and penalties incurred by grazing his cattle on federal land.

But they forgot to read the court order?

And here's something strange.

An old article from April 2012 says that Clark County bought the grazing rights in 1998 and that Clark County apparently owned some the BLM land at one time.

And the linked story inside the article describes how the BLM put the Gold Butte cattle roundup on hold. The description is amazingly similar to what happened this week. The story is two years old.

In December 1998, Clark County bought grazing rights to the Bunkerville allotment for $375,000 and retired them for benefit and protection of the threatened desert tortoise.


Clark County used to own the land before selling it to the BLM. Clearly, Bundy has a major problem with the U.S. government and refuses to listen to the pin heads in Washington D.C..

This article also links to the other important story.....
April 11, 2012 - BLM puts Gold Butte cattle roundup on hold

All the ignorant left leaning " Oh Bundy is breaking the law!"

Ya'll need to get a grip! For the record, I would much rather be a God fearing, gun toting, beer drinking, flag waving, moral loving, military cheering, Big Government hating, Constitution abiding freedom fighting American; than a left leaning, politically correct, Big government loving , "guns are bad", can't think for myself, tit for tat, skin my dog I'll skin your cat, constitution re writing, flag stomping, power abusing, Progressive, any day of the week!!

Here is what the a Judge said when a similar case came across his bench:

As we reported last November ("Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!") In June 2012, Judge Jones had issued a scorching preliminary bench ruling that charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with an ongoing series of illegal actions against Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage that the judge described as “abhorrent” and a literal, criminal conspiracy. Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.

” In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

"This decision is landmark for Western ranchers,” Hage commented from the family’s Pine Creek Ranch in Nevada. “I am pleased to announce for the ranchers of the Western states that it has been proven that a permit is not simply a revocable privilege, but rather there is a property interest in the permit for the purpose of the Due Process Clause, both procedural and substantive. This is important because it will safeguard rancher’s rights and historical grazing practices."

Hage added, “More importantly we proved a ‘forage right.’ Ranchers in the state of Nevada are protected from trespass within a half-mile from a water source.”

Notably, the court said, "The Government may not abuse its discretion in refusing to renew, or in revoking, a [grazing] privilege." Significantly, the family will be under permanent injunctive relief and the government shall not reduce the Hages' permits by more than 25 percent for any period of time without the courts' consent, and never permanently.

Specifically, the court found, "The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the [Hage] Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights." He explained, "Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty by government."

The court further explained, "The Government cannot withdraw them (grazing permits) or refuse to renew them vindictively or for reasons totally unrelated to the merits of the application as governed by published laws and regulations, lest the Government abuse its executive power in a way that shocks the conscience."

[url=http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds]thenewamerican.com[ /url]

Reid I'd like to introduce you to your cell mate.....Holder get over here!!

reply to post by paxnatus

All the ignorant left leaning " Oh Bundy is breaking the law!" Ya'll need to get a grip! For the record, I would much rather be a God fearing, gun toting, beer drinking, flag waving, moral loving, military cheering, Big Government hating, Constitution abiding freedom fighting American; than a left leaning, politically correct, Big government loving , "guns are bad", can't think for myself, tit for tat, skin my dog I'll skin your cat, constitution re writing, flag stomping, power abusing, Progressive, any day of the week!!

Time for a reality check. Bundy is breaking the law. I have a grip and if you Bundy supporters could keep your brains turned on long enough to get past "Bundy is breaking the law.", you might learn a thing or two. I'm a Leftist, far left... I'm an Anarchist, that would like to see this Nation and the world progress toward Anarchy (no bosses, no rulers, no officials with authority, no exploitation of people or the environment).

Reid, right or wrong... if the claims in the OP are true, has not broken any laws. Why? Because there's no laws keeping politicians from acting in their financial interest and using their office to do so. That's a problem. It's a problem that can't be solved by claiming (if true) what Reid did or is doing is scandalous. The Bundy situation similarly can't be solved by a bunch of people hopping up and down screaming tyranny when what the 'facts' they are using to back up the claim... turn out not to be true. The government is also acting within the law.

Personally I think for now, it is good for a lot of land to be kept out of private hands but not if the government is going to misuse the land and ruin it as easily as a private business would. Despite all the crying right-wingers do about environmentalism, it is important. It's important to be able to have pristine, healthy land and water and that means supporting all life on it. Government officials can be replaced when they mismanage land, private owners can't be... that's not to say no one but government should own land, I just mean that all land shouldn't be privately owned, not in this age of greed and not giving a damn how one can affect many. Many right-wingers do believe in conservation and many ranchers practice rest and rotation for grazing. Bundy wasn't doing any of these things and was also letting his cows get on private property and trample archaeological sites.

I believe the correct course of action here is to not support Bundy and to bring the governments management of federal lands under a microscope, get money out of politics and retake control of our government. Saying a law doesn't apply to 'me' isn't going to get you very far nor is it going to win sympathy beyond fringe groups.

reply to post by paxnatus

Really? Each case is judged on its own merit.

What you are doing here is dishonest.

reply to post by burntheships


I saw a blurb about it, Judge Napolitano said he can't do prescriptive rights on Federal Land. However, I was doing other research, and if he filed a Homestead exemption on his tax return, the Federal government can't touch his house and land or business. It is protected under the law, from what I was able to understand.

This was why I mention the Grandfather Clause.

I also found out he represented himself, which is likely why he lost all 3 cases. If he got an attorney, he could likely win through any number of avenues.

In some states, loan or mortgage companies automatically file homestead exemptions. For instance, I went to my county tax office last year, and discovered mine was filed by default when we bought our house. I didn't even know.
Of course, this was back in 1996, so no surprise I forgot, we signed a lot of papers, and it was a lot to remember.

www.bizfilings.com...

daskakik
reply to post by paxnatus

 

Really? Each case is judged on its own merit.

What you are doing here is dishonest.

Eapecially when the judge is bought, paid for, and bribed by Reid and Co., huh?

Funny how that works.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Libertygal

 

I am just curious why on earth anyone would post something that has nothing to do with the Bundy ranch ???

If you didn't realize, the area spoken about in your PDF is not near Bundy's ranch or his cattle and literally has nothing to do with the Bundy situation at all...

So why post it?

You read all 86 pages? You saw then, obviously, the part about Gold Butte, and the many, many references to "grazing cattle", right? Right?

Sure ya did.

reply to post by Libertygal

Yep, or when one of the the defendants in the other case was a former U.S. Congresswoman.

What was it that that case proves?

I'll tell you what I think happened. Bundy was part of the good old boy club and greased palms to let things slide for 15 years until someone with more grease came along.

There are no good guys in this situation.

Now it looks like one video has been taken down..

This video is down until we get to the bottom of this story.

UPDATE:
We took down our video on the Bundy Ranch scandal because it contains what we believe is a factual error and it would be irresponsible to leave it up in its current form. Especially in the current context. We are going to begin working on a replacement video only after completing a new investigation.

Why The Bundy Ranch - What You're Not Being Told Video Was Taken Down

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Libertygal

Perhaps it would be helpful to you to understand then what all that means.

Solar Power plants are somewhat harmful to wildlife, and when looking at putting in very large solar power plants like the one's being spoken of in the article (had you read all 86 pages yourself) you would have noticed they spoke of the need for wildlife mitigation.

The strategy consists of preliminary findings and recommendations for conducting each element of a process that identifies: (1) the unavoidable impacts of utility-scale solar development in the Dry Lake SEZ that may warrant regional mitigation; (2) mitigation actions that can be implemented in the region to compensate for those impacts; (3) how a regional mitigation fee could be calculated; and (4) how the impacts and mitigation actions could be monitored.

See the Abstract

What this means is there is an effort to lessen any kind of impact to the local wildlife by looking at other places for those wildlife to live, looking at water source etc.

It was this that was being discussed in your report when they were talking about Gold Butte - basically, they were saying that Gold Butte is not a good place for any of the wildlife and that other areas would be better for them.

The Wildlife News had this to say:

There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife. Some of it is near the sites of these bird-roasting solar mirrors. This is called “primary mitigation.” Some is makeup in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called “secondary mitigation.” Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass and forbs wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink

www.thewildlifenews.com...

This is bureaucratic language but all it means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don’t think the solar power damage elsewhere can be mitigated here at Gold Butte because the damn cattle will tromp all over it and # on it.

Yes, but, but, but are not then Bundy’s cattle stopping the solar projects that Harry Reid wants so much? Of course not. They are gleefully ripping up the desert anyway without wildlife mitigation near Gold Butte.

www.thewildlifenews.com...
www.snopes.com...

So, perhaps before jumping to conclusions, reading for comprehension is in order.

a reply to: Libertygal

The BLM has looked into it, they are concerned that
Cliven Bundy has de-facto rights.

At this point, it may be about occupation more than anything.

There is also a certain amount of land Cliven Bundy does
outright own, which lends support to the idea that the
BLM does not have the "law" in their favor concerning
a lien on the land he outright owns.

Placing a lien on his cattle would have proven
to be a far better "legal" choice. That might
have stuck, and rather than waste a million
dollars on a failed cattle gather, they
would have lad legal recourse. At this point
all they have is another liability.

But we already know this is not about what is legal,
it is about land grabs, and Cliven Bundy is thorn in their side.

Video for Dirty Harry and all involved!

Trespass Cattle are dangerous!

originally posted by: burntheships
Trespass Cattle are dangerous!

I guess those cows didn't get rounded up to attend Obama's new EO decree that mandates cows be re-trained to "Reid" better !!



BLM = "Bureau of Landless Mismanagement"

a reply to: xuenchen



Those cows were definitely out of line!
They should be shot and killed ...

Oh wait....they were!