Blogazine Subject Areas Pull Down Menu


 
 

These playlists are  constantly updated and videos may be reordered as I see a better placement

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Thunderview News - thunderview.blogspot.com
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BizPacReview - By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

Amid the standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, reports are growing that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s little-known ties to a Chinese solar energy giant could have played a role.

Reid, D-Nev., and his oldest son, Rory, a former chairman of the Clark County, Nev., County Commission, were both deeply involved in a plan by ENN Energy Group to build a huge solar farm in southern Nevada, according to a Reuters report from August 2012.

Land the Bundy family has been using for cattle ranching was getting in the way of that project, according to documents formerly posted on the Bureau of Land Management’s government website but since removed, according to Infowars.

It has also been reported that this particular deal is no longer on the table, but was part of the story in 2012.

The acting director of the Bureau of Land Management is Neil Kornze, a former senior policy advisor for Reid.

The most interesting line might be:   “Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.”

The federal government’s story so far is that the whole showdown was necessary for the protection of gopher tortoises.

BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.

3 comments:

  1. Pro the American WayApril 13, 2014 at 2:11 PM

    Some capitalist you are. That land belongs to the people of the United States. I've paid grazing fees to the BLM and U.S. Forest Service for years. (35 years) It is a very good deal. In fact it is a better deal than owning it, because I don't pay property taxes on that land. I pay the fees. This deadbeat would not even pay the fees for the use of public land....your land. You think parks, highways, safe food and water, etc. don't cost any money to maintain. You losers all think alike. You are owed everything without cost to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So nice of you to take time to respond.

      Apparently the facts are not as cut and dry as you suggest since there is NO EVIDENCE that the Federal Government OWNS THAT LAND to begin with! The whole point is that this family has been on that land for 140 years and that would really make any FEDERAL claim on the land to be null and void. Furthermore, there is a greater likelihood of the state owning the land, not the Federal Government.

      You furthermore totally punt the involvement of Democrat Senator Harry Reid and his family which have been up to their ears in dirty land deals for decades. And then there is the potential involvement with the Chinese. The intervention here was based solely on him and his lobbyists and relatives advocating for the land to be used for something other than grazing – interestingly which would have caused more environmental damage than the cattle pointed to here.

      As a Libertarian, I see no need for FEDERAL PARKS and fail to see the authority for the Federal Government to be involved in managing land across the country – that is clearly a state issue and if states want to have set asides for parks, that is great and I fully support STATE TAXES to go toward that. But there is no authority for the Federal Government to own land for anything other than defense purposes for bases.

      You then launch into an non-sequitur argument about highways, safe food and water – all arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Highways are likely the only thing you list that might have Constitutional authority granted to the Federal Government, but there is nothing that gives the Federal Government the power to police food or water or air – and the only likelihood of Constitutionality would be to set recommended standards that States could use to impose standards within their jurisdictions. There is certainly no police authority granted to the Federal Government anywhere other than to defend the US so enforcement authorities fail the Constitutional test.

      As to whether ranchers should pay fees to graze on land, I’ll grant that, but since I don’t recognize the Federal authority to own land that is not a base for national defense, those fees should be paid to the States who should be in total control of the land.

      As a Libertarian I loathe expansive Federalism – and the only great Federal Government is one that is narrowly pigeon-holed into limited roles ONLY following what the Constitution says it should be involved in. And then the rest of the power should go to the states where we are a collection of 50 entities who govern their people without fear of Federal meddling telling them what to do; of course the Bill of Rights would govern and contain State and Federal abuses.

      Delete
  2. UPDATE: I have been looking into this further and there is a dispute as to what the Federal Government's stake in this issue really is about. Some sources say that the Federal Government Owns the land and that this is part of the State Constitution while other sources note that this is only a Federally protected "public" land and that the land is the State's.

    Additional information can be found here: http://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/real-truth-behind-bundy-ranch-land-grab-nevada/

    ReplyDelete