*Follow The Money* Searchlight, Nevada Home Of "Dirty Harry" Reid! The Bundy Stand Off: U.S. TRAIT

a reply to: govmule

Do you dispute that the 'Grass Roots' movements often spotlighted on FOX are actually, for the most part, privately funded specialt interest groups run by Koch brother-like individuals? People who for one reason or another have an ax to grind with a federal agancy, or a particular law that that funder doesn't like/agree with?

This NV rancher IS allowing his cattle to graze on federal land, correct? Can we agree on that much? The rancher, and you, may not appreciate that fact, that the land is federally owned, which of course is within your rights. However, can we agree that simply not agreeing with a law is not grounds for ignoring that law?

In this particular instance, the shadow powers behind the majority of 'Grass Roots' movements see this ranchers refusal to abide by the law, as an opportunity to exploit the situatiation, to try to stir the pot, to try to encourage confrontation, to try to put law enforcement in a bad light.

Regarding the FEDs showing up at the disputed land area armed, law enforcement always carries firearms. When you get pulled over by a traffic cop, and he/she walks up to your car door for your license/registration, that officer is wearing a gun on thier hip. It's part of the uniform. When the feds showed up to move this ranchers cattle, they saw the armed civilians, and wihdrew. Do you think that was becuase law enforcement felt over powered? I don't. Reinforcements are just a radio call away. No, in my opinini, the feds saw this circus as what it really is, a show sponsored by right-wing money to get on the news, and potentiall embarrass Obama.

This rancher i trying to get something for nothing, just like he's been doing for 20 years. Now that he's potentially going to be held responsible for his refusal to abide by the law, he's willing to cling onto anything available to potantially get out of it again.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: govmule

Do you dispute that the 'Grass Roots' movements often spotlighted on FOX are actually, for the most part, privately funded specialt interest groups run by Koch brother-like individuals? People who for one reason or another have an ax to grind with a federal agancy, or a particular law that that funder doesn't like/agree with?

This NV rancher IS allowing his cattle to graze on federal land, correct? Can we agree on that much? The rancher, and you, may not appreciate that fact, that the land is federally owned, which of course is within your rights. However, can we agree that simply not agreeing with a law is not grounds for ignoring that law?

In this particular instance, the shadow powers behind the majority of 'Grass Roots' movements see this ranchers refusal to abide by the law, as an opportunity to exploit the situatiation, to try to stir the pot, to try to encourage confrontation, to try to put law enforcement in a bad light.

Regarding the FEDs showing up at the disputed land area armed, law enforcement always carries firearms. When you get pulled over by a traffic cop, and he/she walks up to your car door for your license/registration, that officer is wearing a gun on thier hip. It's part of the uniform. When the feds showed up to move this ranchers cattle, they saw the armed civilians, and wihdrew. Do you think that was becuase law enforcement felt over powered? I don't. Reinforcements are just a radio call away. No, in my opinini, the feds saw this circus as what it really is, a show sponsored by right-wing money to get on the news, and potentiall embarrass Obama.

This rancher i trying to get something for nothing, just like he's been doing for 20 years. Now that he's potentially going to be held responsible for his refusal to abide by the law, he's willing to cling onto anything available to potantially get out of it again.

It is obvious by your comments you do not know the facts of why this happened and all of the truth. What you are trying to do is spew a political agenda by mentioning Koch Bros and grass roots which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. On the other hand, Reid is mentioned because HE IS directly involved in this scandal.

I will partially agree with you on one thing, Bundy does not own the land the cattle grazed on, we the people do, not the BLM . The function of the BLM is to manage public land NOT TO BECOME A MILITARIZED FORCE.

When I get pulled over for speeding by a traffic cop, they do not approach with a drawn weapon, they do not have an M4 rifle in their hand, and, there are not 200 of them waiting to taze, release dogs, or push me to the ground. Your analogy is like saying a drop of rain is a hurricane.

The ONLY reason the BLM backed down was not because of citizens being armed, its because the politicians didn't want the news to show the government shooting and killing unarmed women and children.

You have a twisted view of how our government should respond to cattle, save the cattle kill the people???

a reply to: govmule

I don't think that gov't is trying to save the cattle. I don't think the gov't cares about the cattle at all. I think the gov't wants this rancher to pay up for using public land, or get his cattle off that public land. They've been trying to get the rancher to do one of those things for 20 years now. How much restraint should law ebforcement show?

Public land does not mean land that's at the disposal of one individual. Public land is land that's set aside for all of us to use, in ways that don't damage the the land. I can't go to the Grand Canyon, for instance and decide to build a house on the rim because I like the view.

I don't agree that shadowy right-wing money people are not behind this. FOX 'News' is trying as hard as posible to fire poeple up about the jack-booted gov't troops trying to strong-arm this god-fearing, flag-loving American rancher. C.mon, now... In reality, fedarl agents showed up, armed - as one would expect, (perhaps the rhetoric from the rancher and his buddies proclaiming their intentions to stand their ground and use their own automatic weapons if necessary prompted the feds to load up on fire-power), to move the uncooperative rancher's cattle off of public land.

That what this whole thing is about. A rancher allowing his cattle to graze on publc land, even after repaetedly being notified that he was violating the law. After 20 years of asking for the ranchers cooperation, the feds decided to do the job themselves. not a gov't over-reach. Not an infringment on the rancher's right. Just the consequence of not conforming to the law. Do you think a person should be able to dump their trash at Yellowstone Park? This is basically the same thing.

You best consider an electic car start and don't go anywhere alone.

Dam nice work!

I knew there was more to this clown being all involved in the Bundy issues.

TRAITOR REID.

Time for TAR and FEATHERS!!!! For his little "mini-me" son too!

There's some more evidence that connects Harry Reid to at least 2 judges in the 9th Circuit Court that were directly involved in two cases from 2013 involving the orders against Bundy.

The July 2013 case order found in favor of the BLM was signed by U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George

Judge George has obvious ties to Harry Reid.


Then, we have U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks, who signed the October 2013 order against Bundy

Judge Hicks also has obvious ties to Harry Reid.

Specifically obvious is a case where a man was convicted of illegally bundling campaign money for Harry Reid and was sentenced by Judge Hicks who blatantly ignored sentencing guidelines.

Hicks said he was deviating from the sentencing guidelines that suggested a minimum of 41 months in prison partly because of Whittemore’s history of extraordinary charitable giving — an estimated $12 million over the past 20 years, much of it to promote medical research, athletics and education at the University of Nevada, Reno. But the judge the crimes were too serious to justify probation without prison time.

Developer Gets 2 Years In Nev. Campaign Cash Case

Hmmm.

And....

It looks like those two guys representing the Chinese firm ENN Energy have been contributing to Democrat candidates.

Possibly illegal contributions as they aren't U.S. Citizens.

Hmmm.

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Meng and Zhou each gave $5,000 to Harry Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC in August 2011, and Meng has also contributed $4,000 to the Democratic Party of Nevada for this campaign cycle. Meng gave $1,000 to President Obama, and both gave $2,500 each to Democrat Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). Meng also gave $1,000 to the Democratic senator, Debbie Stabenow, who represents the state where he resides, Michigan. Nelson, Whitehouse and Stabenow are all up for re-election in 2012.

Meng and Zhou appear to be ENN’s “boots on the ground” in the U.S. to get the company’s solar projects launched. Whether or not they are legal contributors (something worth finding out) to American candidates, clearly their campaign support has a purpose. Prior to July 2011 the only donation either made was a single $250 check by Meng to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008.


Chinese Solar Company Learns Cronyism with Harry Reid

more Kronie Kohorts.

originally posted by: xuenchen
And....

It looks like those two guys representing the Chinese firm ENN Energy have been contributing to Democrat candidates.

Possibly illegal contributions as they aren't U.S. Citizens.

Hmmm.

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Meng and Zhou each gave $5,000 to Harry Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC in August 2011, and Meng has also contributed $4,000 to the Democratic Party of Nevada for this campaign cycle. Meng gave $1,000 to President Obama, and both gave $2,500 each to Democrat Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). Meng also gave $1,000 to the Democratic senator, Debbie Stabenow, who represents the state where he resides, Michigan. Nelson, Whitehouse and Stabenow are all up for re-election in 2012.

Meng and Zhou appear to be ENN’s “boots on the ground” in the U.S. to get the company’s solar projects launched. Whether or not they are legal contributors (something worth finding out) to American candidates, clearly their campaign support has a purpose. Prior to July 2011 the only donation either made was a single $250 check by Meng to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008.


Chinese Solar Company Learns Cronyism with Harry Reid

more Kronie Kohorts.

You are getting some good finds! I would love to find out just exactly what Dirty Harry said to that judge, I am sure he had contact somehow in that case. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind Harry Greed has his dirty fingers in that BLM cow pie, its just a matter of time before it all comes to fruition. Keep up the good work.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: govmule

I don't think that gov't is trying to save the cattle. I don't think the gov't cares about the cattle at all. I think the gov't wants this rancher to pay up for using public land, or get his cattle off that public land. They've been trying to get the rancher to do one of those things for 20 years now. How much restraint should law ebforcement show?

Public land does not mean land that's at the disposal of one individual. Public land is land that's set aside for all of us to use, in ways that don't damage the the land. I can't go to the Grand Canyon, for instance and decide to build a house on the rim because I like the view.

I don't agree that shadowy right-wing money people are not behind this. FOX 'News' is trying as hard as posible to fire poeple up about the jack-booted gov't troops trying to strong-arm this god-fearing, flag-loving American rancher. C.mon, now... In reality, fedarl agents showed up, armed - as one would expect, (perhaps the rhetoric from the rancher and his buddies proclaiming their intentions to stand their ground and use their own automatic weapons if necessary prompted the feds to load up on fire-power), to move the uncooperative rancher's cattle off of public land.

That what this whole thing is about. A rancher allowing his cattle to graze on publc land, even after repaetedly being notified that he was violating the law. After 20 years of asking for the ranchers cooperation, the feds decided to do the job themselves. not a gov't over-reach. Not an infringment on the rancher's right. Just the consequence of not conforming to the law. Do you think a person should be able to dump their trash at Yellowstone Park? This is basically the same thing.

The facts are, the BLM has run out 52 other ranchers in that area. Bundy is the only rancher left in the entire county, only because he refuses to be run out of business due to dirty BLM tactics. Bundy has sent money for fees to the county, who in turn will not accept them. The BLM is supposed to manage the land, and that includes grazing rights, which they have not done. I don't blame Bundy one bit for telling them to shove it.

Now lets look at the county where this is, Dirty Harry owns property there and his son used to sit on the county board, the same board that bought the grazing rights from the BLM and closed it for a tortoise, the same desert tortoise the BLM exterminates. Now lets bring in Reids son who represents a Chinese company that wants to bring solar power to the area. The area is also known for good water needed for large corporations to operate, there are also military grade minerals in the area. Lets not forget the director of the BLM used to work for Dirty Harry, eight years worth, the guy had zero BLM experience and yet managed to become the director in a couple scant years, that position is normally reserved for people within the BLM that have 20-30 years of experience.

So, Bundy tries to survive and operate on land that has been used by his family for 140 years. Dirty harry doesn't like that, everyone else has been run off except Bundy. Reid has connections with the federal judge that declared Bundy's cattle were trespassing. What happens? 200 heavily armed BLM goons show up aka military style to once and for all get what Dirty Harry wants.

Patriotic Americans show up to help Bundy in a non violent manner. They get tazed, a 57 year old cancer ridden woman gets thrown to the ground, dogs threaten to attack a pregnant woman, Bundys son gets arrested for taking pictures of BLM snipers because he was outside the 25 square yard "First Amendment" area (which by the way is unconstitutional). Then what happens? Americans get pissed at the actions by the government and show up in large numbers to fend off the BLM. The BLM shot some his cattle and destroyed water tanks etc, run over desert tortoise dens and then leave with their guns between their legs. What does Dirty Harry do? He calls patriotic Americans domestic terrorists.

Now, what part in all this do you approve of? The 200 armed BLM agents including snipers? The violence used by the BLM? The way they tried to round up cattle and spending millions of tax payer dollars doing it? The fact that no other state would allow the BLM to bring the cattle there? The fact that Dirty Harry has direct links to that land and surrounding areas? The fact that Bundy wasn't shot? The fact that no Americans were shot?

Need I continue?

a reply to: xuenchen

Can foreign nationals or companies give campaign contributions? If they can, we have serious problems in this country.

originally posted by: govmule
a reply to: xuenchen

Can foreign nationals or companies give campaign contributions? If they can, we have serious problems in this country.

It's a gray area, but clear at the same time.

Can non-US citizens contribute?

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure.

Federal Election Commission


and Obama himself was caught.... www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: govmule
Now, what part in all this do you approve of?

All of it.

The only thing that I disapprove of is the fact that neither side opened fire.

Both sides love calling each other terrorists and/or traitors that deserve to be locked up and/or strung up, but in the end both sides are just playing politics and playing the public for fools.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: govmule
Now, what part in all this do you approve of?

All of it.

The only thing that I disapprove of is the fact that neither side opened fire.

Since I do not know you I need to ask you a few questions.

Are you a war vet? Have you ever shot and killed another human being? Have you heard the screams of people that are mortally wounded? Have you seen what it looks like up close when someone's head is blown off? Have you smelled the blood and open intestines of the wounded and the dead? Have you ever been shot? Have you watched another human being take their last breath on this earth?

I think before you want an American vs American gunfight, you should experience it first hand. You appear to be a non experienced war monger. I suggest if you want to hear and see a gun battle you point a gun at yourself and play Russian roulette, that is, if you have the balls. On second thought, I prefer you never go anywhere near a gun.

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks for the info. It would be interesting to follow up on Dirty Harry and son incorporated to see if they have been using illegal funds. Hmmm, yes, like Sgt Shultz said, very interesting.

a reply to: govmule
Very good questions but none of them have anything to do with my point that both sides are playing the public for fools.

You ask a bunch of questions and then just assume anyway.

a reply to: xuenchen

An interesting article from a right wing website. I have not verified the article yet, it could potentially be a satire site etc.

gopthedailydose.com...

Seems Reid has corruption associated regularly with his name. Maybe its because he is such a great leader that wants all American domestic terrorists shot.

a reply to: daskakik

Your comment offended me due to experience. Violence should be a last option at all costs. There is a proper time and place and the Bundy ranch is not it.

originally posted by: govmule
a reply to: xuenchen

An interesting article from a right wing website. I have not verified the article yet, it could potentially be a satire site etc.

gopthedailydose.com...

Seems Reid has corruption associated regularly with his name. Maybe its because he is such a great leader that wants all American domestic terrorists shot.

Yup.

The story is real.

Reid has been under investigation for some similar deeds recently.

Good find.

You want to start a thread? Or should I ?

a reply to: xuenchen

Here is the Salt Lake Tribune article. Oh Oh Dirty Harry!

www.sltrib.com...

originally posted by: govmule
Your comment offended me due to experience. Violence should be a last option at all costs. There is a proper time and place and the Bundy ranch is not it.

Maybe an option before violence would have been Bundy accepting the court order?

But he didn't and instead people gathered and talked of fighting.

That does not even include the tough talk from behind keyboards.

Now you are here talking about the actions taken by the feds as if it was some kind of surprise.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: govmule
Your comment offended me due to experience. Violence should be a last option at all costs. There is a proper time and place and the Bundy ranch is not it.

Maybe an option before violance would have been Bundy accepting the court order?

But he didn't and instead people gathered and talked of fighting.

That does not even include the tough talk from behind keyboards.

Now you are here talking about the actions taken by the feds as if it was some kind of surprise.

Haha, I am not at all surprised by the actions of the Feds. I am surprised they didn't kill anyone. I am simply against their militarized tactics whether its rounding up cattle or suppressing any political opposition. They are out of control.