Sidebar

Harry Reid's Connection To The Nevada Ranch Incident

ValuJet

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
http://appalachianareanews.com/bust...about-harry-reid-backed-solar-power-stations/

http://beforeitsnews.com/agenda-21/2014/04/busted-bundy-ranch-showdown-real-reason-544.html

The real reason for the Bundy Ranch showdown has been exposed as a Bureau of Land Management attempt to cover-up Sen. Reid and his Chinese government partner’s takeover of the ranch for a solar farm, a coverup that even involves the government deleting evidence on its websites.

What had not been released until this afternoon, however, is that 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 the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land, that his family has worked for over 140 years, for solar panel power stations.

"Cattle Impact Statements" from the BLM website which have been removed:





In 2012, the New American reported Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firmplanning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada. 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.”

2012 Reuters article on Sen. Reid's involvement in the solar panel development deal:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831

Now, questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He 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.

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.

Two months after Harry Reid's China trip, Lionel Sawyer registered ENN Mohave Energy LLC as an American subsidiary of the Chinese company. The firm negotiated with the county to buy the land rather than lease it, as the county's staff had recommended.

In December, Clark County commissioners voted unanimously to sell up to 9,000 acres of public land to the subsidiary at pennies on the dollar.

The deal spurred local controversy. Separate appraisals valued the land at $29.6 million and $38.6 million. The commission agreed to sell it to ENN for $4.5 million.

However, Harry Reid stepped up again.

The Democrat recently used an online discussion related to his annual energy summit for an as-yet unsuccessful effort to pressure Nevada's largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as ENN's first customer.

In the July 30 discussion, Reid said the project "would start tomorrow if NV Energy would purchase the power." The utility controls "95 percent of all of the electricity that is produced in Nevada and they should go along with this." Reid's online comments were first reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal.

The power company responded by saying it had exceeded its minimum renewable energy requirements both last year and this year, though it would consider buying power from ENN in the future. A spokesman for NV Energy declined to discuss the matter further.

Harry, Harry, Harry.

It's been since 2012 and no solar panels have been constructed yet, and now we have these damn cows in the way. There's $5 Billion sitting out there for the Reid Family.

I'm guessing Harry is mad now that this has been exposed, and I'd also guess the Koch brothers will catch hell again in the coming days from the Senate floor.

 
seebell

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
Good info there Boss. It should also be noted that the first court ruling against the rancher was in 1998(?)
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,625
39,853
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
seebell said:
Good info there Boss. It should also be noted that the first court ruling against the rancher was in 1998(?)
Click to expand...
It should be noted that this is from Glenn Beck's site. In case anyone leaning towards sympathy should doubt (both the Nevada Republican Party and the Libertarians have distanced themselves), here is a portion of an interview with him"

His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.​
Click to expand...


​
 
ValuJet

ValuJet

Moderator
Sep 28, 2000
22,626
19
0
As Harry Reid said today "It's not over."

The Bundy group claims this is more about federal overreach as it is cows and turtles.
 
PacadermaTideUs

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
The people of Nevada are entitled to establish, maintain, and adhere to whatever state constitutional principles they wish. But I've got to say that the verbiage cited below is, in my opinion, a gross abomination and an affront to the guiding principles established in our nation's very founding.

Blind, blanket, unconditional and irrevocable submission.

TIDE-HSV said:
It should be noted that this is from Glenn Beck's site. In case anyone leaning towards sympathy should doubt (both the Nevada Republican Party and the Libertarians have distanced themselves), here is a portion of an interview with him"

His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,625
39,853
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
PacadermaTideUs said:
The people of Nevada are entitled to establish, maintain, and adhere to whatever state constitutional principles they wish. But I've got to say that the verbiage cited below is, in my opinion, a gross abomination and an affront to the guiding principles established in our nation's very founding.

Blind, blanket, unconditional and irrevocable submission.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may - there it is. IMO, this particular guy is the worst possible example of a way to contest the issue of sovereignty. He's been inconsistent - paid and then quit. He is grazing land far, far beyond what he ever paid to graze, on the grounds that it all belongs to the state (which didn't even exist when the US acquired the lands). The state won't accept his money. He's lost multiple cases, without even appealing some. He's done real harm to the cause of states' rights and he's using other peoples' passions to do it, when he's interested mainly in his own pocketbook. Think! Instead of just knee-jerk reacting. The US acquired the lands in the Hidalgo Treaty of 1848. Nevada came into existence in 1863 because Lincoln needed the electoral votes for the next election. So, did Nevada magically acquire title to all these lands the US already owned, when Nevada wasn't even a fuzzy idea in politicians' minds when it was admitted to the Union? Hell! The Indians have a much better claim to title than the state of Nevada would over the US. It's really absurd. If the US doesn't own the lands, let's let it go back to the aboriginal owners and hope they're as kind to the whites as the South Africans have been...
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
TIDE-HSV said:
Be that as it may - there it is. IMO, this particular guy is the worst possible example of a way to contest the issue of sovereignty. He's been inconsistent - paid and then quit. He is grazing land far, far beyond what he ever paid to graze, on the grounds that it all belongs to the state (which didn't even exist when the US acquired the lands). The state won't accept his money. He's lost multiple cases, without even appealing some. He's done real harm to the cause of states' rights and he's using other peoples' passions to do it, when he's interested mainly in his own pocketbook. Think! Instead of just knee-jerk reacting. The US acquired the lands in the Hidalgo Treaty of 1848. Nevada came into existence in 1863 because Lincoln needed the electoral votes for the next election. So, did Nevada magically acquire title to all these lands the US already owned, when Nevada wasn't even a fuzzy idea in politicians' minds when it was admitted to the Union? Hell! The Indians have a much better claim to title than the state of Nevada would over the US. It's really absurd. If the US doesn't own the lands, let's let it go back to the aboriginal owners and hope they're as kind to the whites as the South Africans have been...
Click to expand...
Interesting line of reasoning. So states containing land originally purchased by the federal government (e.g. Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, etc.) are inferior to those states not originating from a federal purchase?
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
TIDE-HSV said:
Be that as it may - there it is. IMO, this particular guy is the worst possible example of a way to contest the issue of sovereignty. He's been inconsistent - paid and then quit. He is grazing land far, far beyond what he ever paid to graze, on the grounds that it all belongs to the state (which didn't even exist when the US acquired the lands). The state won't accept his money. He's lost multiple cases, without even appealing some. He's done real harm to the cause of states' rights and he's using other peoples' passions to do it, when he's interested mainly in his own pocketbook. Think! Instead of just knee-jerk reacting. The US acquired the lands in the Hidalgo Treaty of 1848. Nevada came into existence in 1863 because Lincoln needed the electoral votes for the next election. So, did Nevada magically acquire title to all these lands the US already owned, when Nevada wasn't even a fuzzy idea in politicians' minds when it was admitted to the Union? Hell! The Indians have a much better claim to title than the state of Nevada would over the US. It's really absurd. If the US doesn't own the lands, let's let it go back to the aboriginal owners and hope they're as kind to the whites as the South Africans have been...
Click to expand...
Well said.

I have plenty of problems with the federal government butting in, overreaching and overreacting. That especially applies to BLM. However, this is not the person or case that I would chose to stand my ground. For arguments sake if the federal government is correct in the law (I think they are). I am not sure how they could have handled the case differently. In fact a lot of patience appears to have been shown.

That said, BLM by pursuing this is really adding to the reputation that the federal government cares more about spotted owls, turtles, tortoises and even insects than the people.

Tide1986 said:
Interesting line of reasoning. So states containing land originally purchased by the federal government (e.g. Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, etc.) are inferior to those states not originating from a federal purchase?
Click to expand...
It is the opposite case. What it boils down to is whether the U.S. government can be a land owner, and whether or not the ownership of that land was retained after statehood. Is the U.S. government's claim to this land purchase before statehood inferior to those purchased after statehood?
 
Last edited:
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
mittman said:
It is the opposite case. What it boils down to is whether the U.S. government can be a land owner, and whether or not the ownership of that land was retained after statehood. Is the U.S. government's claim to this land purchase before statehood inferior to those purchased after statehood?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on the details of how Nevada was admitted as a state. If Nevada became a state without certain areas being exempted from statehood (e.g. the Gold Butte area), then I would think that the federal government's claim to the land is now inferior to that of the state. If not, then my original question and its implications stand.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Tide1986 said:
I guess it depends on the details of how Nevada was admitted as a state. If Nevada became a state without certain areas being exempted from statehood (e.g. the Gold Butte area), then I would think that the federal government's claim to the land is now inferior to that of the state. If not, then my original question and its implications stand.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that federal ownership of land means that they are exempted from statehood, but they are obviously treated differently. Do you think this guy should be able to do this on a military base too?
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
mittman said:
I am not sure that federal ownership of land means that they are exempted from statehood, but they are obviously treated differently. Do you think this guy should be able to do this on a military base too?
Click to expand...
I have not formed an opinion about the rancher/BLM situation, and I don't recall stating an opinion about it in this thread. Nevertheless, I do smile at times when federal desires/actions are thwarted.

Regarding your follow-up question, if a state and the federal government have a legal agreement for the placement of a military base within the borders of the state, then it's possible that the rancher could be prohibited from grazing cattle on the military base.
 
RammerJammer14

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,666
6,685
187
UA
Personally, I am not exactly sure what the rancher is protesting. The land IS federal land, and recognized as such by the state of Nevada. I suppose they can charge grazing fees if they want, however specious the reasons are for doing so. So as far as I can tell, he is actually in violation of the law. Any interview I have heard with the man or his family or supporters simply says "this is about our rights", although no specific rights are ever brought up as being violated.

On the other hand, it seems the federal government/BLM are running ranchers out of business due to the high grazing fees. I don't know a thing about ranching, but it seems this land had always been used as a kind of common grazing area? Which the feds never charged for until relatively recently. So while the BLM may be adhering to the law, they are either incompetent at land management, or they are deliberately running ranchers off the land. I do think it is a valid complaint that he should be able to earn a living without meddling from federal authority in the name of some tortoise.

Either way, I do like seeing the feds get rebuffed sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom