Freedom Lost, America’s death 2012

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase..

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Advertisements

10 Top reasons to vote like a Democrat

10. I’ll vote Democrat because I can’t wait for college football season to be delayed or cancelled because the student athletes are union employees.

9. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe oil company’s profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.



8. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.



7. I’ll vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.



6. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.



5. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.



4. I’ll vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.



3. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should NOT be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.



2. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.



And the Number One reason I’ll vote Democrat is:



1. I’ll vote Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, fish or frog.


Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/top-10-reasons-vote-democrat-2014%e2%80%a8%e2%80%a8/#Ai6A4jOrCq0w61lO.99

Exclusive–Texas AG Abbott to BLM: ‘Come and Take It’

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.
“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”
Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”
Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.”
As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”
In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:

  1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
  2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
  3. Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
  4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
  5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.

“The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.”
“What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.”
As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.”
Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.”
Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.”
At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.”
The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.”
Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.”
Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T…me-and-Take-It

Federal Judge Slams BLM: Criminal Conspiracy! Dirty Harry Reid needs to be in prison!

OPINION-

IN NEWS / BY BRANDON WALKER / ON APRIL 18, 2014 AT 4:27 PM /

041714blm

For over 20 years, the BLM has been engaging in criminal conspiracy according to federal courts. Now a federal judge has stepped up and slammed them for the true intent of the BLM.

Kit Daniels from Infowars discovered a case that over throws any idea that Clive Bundy was even close to wrong out of the water. In fact it has the federal judge’s opinion from a recent court case that throws this logic of back taxes to the BLM out the window. It reveals a 20 year old conspiracy by the BLM, that the judge calls “literal and intentional”, against Nevada ranchers to force them to sell their land at a loss and kill their business. The judge doesn’t mix words and uses an actual case to expose this vast land grab and undermining of the Constitution.

It is actually an insightful and wise case that everyone in America should pay attention. There is an old saying, “follow the money and you will find the truth.” In fact, this “battle” at the Bundy ranch was settled 20 years ago, While it seems that the liberal outlets are touting a court decision against Bundy for failure to pay fees, they are using the local courts. If they would have paid attention to the appeals courts, the Supreme Court, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones, they would have found that it wasn’t a valid case against Bundy. They are using the normal smoke and mirrors to distract, while the real reason for the fight is completely illegal and immoral. 

In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

“Based upon E. Wayne Hage’s declaration that he refused to waive his rights — a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights — the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,” Judge Jones wrote. “After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]”

And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.

“The entire chain of events is the result of the Government’s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal permit for 1993–2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,” he stated.

Judge Jones continued:

In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.

By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages. The Government also explicitly solicited and granted temporary grazing rights to parties who had no preferences under the TGA [Taylor Grazing Act of 1934], such as Mr. Snow, in areas where the Hages had preferences under the TGA.

It is necessary to note that under the TGA, according to Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes (1938), a rancher whose cattle had previously grazed in the area based upon adjacent land, water rights on the land, etc., has a right to a grazing permit over others who apply for a permit to graze the area without having previously grazed there.

So in this instance, Hage would have priority over Snow for a grazing permit, but the BLM willfully ignored this court ruling.

And after the agency filed for a public water reserve, according to Judge Jones, the BLM “sent trespass notices to people who leased or sold cattle to the Hages, notwithstanding the Hages’ admitted and known control over that cattle, in order to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.”

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” he wrote. “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

So in other words, the BLM willfully attempted to destroy the Hage family’s livelihood because Hage dared to assert his existing rights to the land which his family has held since the late 19th century.

And unfortunately the BLM is attempting to do the exact same thing to Cliven Bundy.

“Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No,” William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American, wrote on the subject. “Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”

“With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.” ~Kit Daniels

Texas is loosing land to it’s North! Will TEXANS Stand for this?

BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch

avatarPosted by Eric Barlow on April 17, 2014

www.inquisitr.com

redrvrtx

The BLM removed armed federal agents from Bunkeville and near the Bundy ranch, but another possible “land grab” or range war appears to be brewing in Texas. Fellow rancher Tommy Henderson has been fighting the BLM for 30 years, and appears to be losing yet another round in the battle.

Tommy Henderson is locked in a property rights fight with the BLM. Although many students are taught in geography class that the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River, the issue is far more complicated than that, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM used an ongoing debate over the border to nab 140 acres of land Henderson’s failed lawsuit against the agency three decades ago.

BLM is now using the Tommy Henderson lawsuit ruling as a precedent to seize even more of his land along a 116-mile stretch of the river which the agency claims never belonged to Texas in the first place. Henderson holds a deed to the 90,000 acres, but such a legal document did not prevent him from losing the 140-acre parcel he had labored over and paid property taxes on for years.

Henderson had this to say about the emerging Red River range war in Texas:

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us.”

If the BLM is successful in its bid to seize the 90,000 owned by the Texas rancher, it would substantially alter the boundaries between the two states. The fight boils down to the difference between avulsion and accretion. The river has moved over time and the boundary is supposed to be noted as the vegetation line along the south side of the waterway. Both states use different semantics to define the boundary, according to the Americas Freedom Fighters website. The BLM has allegedly been able to capitalize on the confusion in the bid to seize Henderson’s land. Oklahoma state statute defines avulsion in a different manner than both the United States government and Texas.

A statement from the BLM about the possible land seizure in Texas reads:

“BLM officials believe they have a responsibility to manage land they believe is federal which includes an estimated 90,000 acres along 116 miles of the Red River. If the land is found to be public, BLM officials say they have three options: leave the land open, closed, or open with limitations.”

The BLM also contends that in the Red River there is always accretion – the gradual accumulation of sediment, to the south. The federal agency also stated that avulsion, the rapid formation of a new river channel, occurs on the north side of the river. The Bureau of Land Management believes that since the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma only moves in one direction – and that direction has not favored the ranchers working the land along the Red River. If the agency is able to redraw the Red River boundary it will include Tommy Henderson’s 90,000 acre ranch. If the BLM seizes the land, claiming that is should never have been privately owned due to the boundary dispute, grazing of cattle could still be an option – but will come at a price.

Tommy Henderson also had this to say about the very real possibility of losing his ranch:

“How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours.’ Even though its patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours. Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north.”

A boundary change could land families who have be considered Texans for generations on the other side of the line and actually suddenly find themselves Oklahoma residents.

How do you feel about the ongoing actions by the BLM which could impact Texas ranch owned by Tommy Henderson?

Now the Feds are going after New Mexico Rancher! Time to call in the Calvary!

Posted by Faye Higbee / April 18, 2014
Diamond Bar Ranch in NM Seized by US Forest Service

Officials say that the Laney’s can redeem their 80 cattle for $40,950 !

Southwest New Mexico – The Diamond Bar Ranch was acquired by the Laney family in 1986, and its adjacent Laney Cattle Company was allowed to utilize grazing lands since 1883. According to the US Forest Service, however, they are no longer entitled to do so, and the USFS has posted notices along the fence line of their property advising people not to attempt to enter the ranch. Lands are being seized, and the cattle removed, “one way or the other.”
Now they say that the cattle may be redeemed if the Laney’s pay for the costs of rounding up the 80 head of cattle… a hefty $40,950.

Reductions in the herds, loss of appeals, a hard life all because of a fish!

Originally, the Laney property was just 115 acres surrounded by around 144,000 acres of public lands for which Mr. Laney paid grazing rights. But after a “study” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the lands could not sustain his 1,188 head of cattle, the Forest Service reduced his cattle herd to a meager 300 head.
Kit’s fight for the land and the ranching lifestyle cost him dearly over the years, even to the point of a divorce, as both Kit and Sherry grew exhausted from the battle. They were barred from improvements on the “wilderness” land for several years, which required them to ride out to livestock on horseback rather than hop in a truck. That and the continual stress of appeals, took a toll, though they eventually reconciled.
Oh, and this one is over an “endangered species” called the “Gila Trout,” in case you were wondering.

The continuation of a battle

On Saturday, April 12, Kit Laney was served with a notice that his ranch would be shut down on Wednesday and his 300 head of “trespass” cattle removed from the land. This situation comes just a week after Rancher Cliven Bundy had a similar situation in Nevada.
New Mexico’s “Brand Law” states that cattle cannot be transported across state lines without permission from the State Livestock Board. According to a Tea Party Tribune article, Catron County Sheriff Cliff Snyder notified the Forest Service that he will demand that law be enforced, and that cattle “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”

“I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Sheriff Cliff Snyder

Unfortunately,in the case of Mr. Bundy, the federal agents just killed some of the cattle that wouldn’t move without regard to the law or any vestige of conscience. In this case, federal agents say the cattle are being held at an undisclosed area out of the state. Apparently the feds slipped past the Sheriff.

Water Rights


Water rights
are a significant issue in the Laney Cattle Company/Diamond Bar controversy. The courts have been siding with the Forest Service, stating that just because someone has been there a long time, doesn’t necessarily mean they have rights to use public lands or water. Laney attorneys used the Mining Act to show private rights to the water and land, but the court rejected the argument. They are currently working hard to prepare their case for court yet again, this time with references to other cases, including the Wayne Hage decision from last year in Nevada.

Background: Arrested for Assaulting a federal employee

The Denver Post wrote in 2005,

“When the Forest Service slashed the number of cattle he could run, Laney refused to sign his permit and grazed his cattle in the wilderness anyway. When the Forest Service hired contractors to remove the animals, he confronted them, charging them on horseback and whipping one man with his reins, according to an indictment.”

Mr. Laney was subsequently arrested , convicted, and spent five months in federal prison. Today, he is still a rancher, who now is facing the loss of everything he once loved. Some people believe he is a law-breaking fool. Others see him as a hero. But a man who has always been a rancher, a man who loves his cattle and the land, has fought with all his might to stop the confiscation of land and property that has been his entire life.
“There are just so many cases where the federal government comes in, waves a hand, and puts you out of business.” Country Western Singer Michael Martin Murphey
http://misguidedchildren.com/domesti…-service/19270

BOMBSHELL: Is Sen. Harry Reid Behind the BLM Land Grab of the Bundy Ranch?

 

by Top Right News on April 11, 2014 in BREAKING, Liberty, Politics

REID-COMMIE

Best buddies: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid with Chinese Vice-Premier Wang Qishan
during what the Washington Post called a “secret, week-long trip to China” in 2011.

by Gina Cassini | Top Right News

Website FreeRepublic Exposes BLM “document dump” that suggests attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm.

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.

The first segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

The first segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

“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 document states.

The second segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

The second segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

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.”

Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area (Click to enlarge.)

Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area (Click to enlarge.)

“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.”

Back 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.”

Although these reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link.

The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.”

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

“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,” she added. “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.”