Is Harry Reid Involved? Seven Answers to Seven Questions About the Nevada Rancher Situation

The Blaze ^ | 04/14/2014 | Becket Adams

[Georgia Girl 2]

I’m conflicted about Beck. I cannot ever shake this feeling that he has some hidden agenda. For some reason I just don’t trust him. Maybe I’m just paranoid.

[tophat9000]

The article does in fact mentions the offset but seem to be oblivion to connecting a very obvious dot
The concept is simple..
I can do this on this piece of land A if I can offset its impact on it by reserving piece of land B..your just trading two pieces of land for different uses they do not need to be continuous.
The second point its all federal land because they bought is from Mexico..well they also bought the Louisiana Purchase. And also bought Florida.so does the federal government 80 % of the in those area?

Also note lower in the story that Clark County, not the Fed, was the one buying back grazing right on the other rancher..so if it fed land why is the county buying and selling the grazing rights?

[ctdonath2]

Kill the tortoises to save them? Like “destroy the village to save it”? WTF?

[Madame Dufarge]

I'm in agreement with you.

Something gnaws at the back of my mind, he seems to bob and weave too much.

[tophat9000]

You right about distance. .the story takes the driving distance and if you look at the map that is very convoluted and is that the drive distances from the center of plot a to the the center of plot b? and not edge to edge

The truth distance between two plots of land would be as the crow flies and from border of plot a border to plot b.

So first question: what is the the direct distance “as the crow fly” from the closest border point of plot A to border point of plot B?.. Given the size of these to plots they might even touch at some point. And given it for environmental offset they don't even need to touch..

Sorry but the reporter in this story seem to be trying to be deliberately dense to not find a connection

[Vendome]

“[T]he public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States,” the ruling states, confirming the federal government’s longstanding claim that it lawfully acquired ownership of the land under the Treaty of the Guadalupe Hidalgo.

 

Total BS.  If that is so then All of Mexifornia belongs to the KKKUSA.

 

The cities of Nevada couldn't incorporate under this retarh-Et reasoning.

 

“My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the [Bureau of Land Management] until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these [sic] money’s against the ranchers,” she wrote in a blog post dated April 11, 2014. “They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re [sic] own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence [sic] he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.”

 

That's Right!!!

 

If the Gubmint isn't using the funds for the intended and promised purpose, they should be denied those funds until they agree to honor their commitment.

 

Were all the other ranchers in the area of Clark County really “chased off” and, as Cox (Bundy’s daughter) put it, forced into bankruptcy by the federal government?

It’s not clear.

 

Ohhhh Reeeelllleeee????

 

Lye-Uh!!!

That's exactly what they did.  They bought out the other ranchers at less than market value and under eminent domain action.

They are wrong!  They don't have the right to destroy another man's chosen life or work and to invent some lame excuse for doing it.

They've essentially done the same to the San Jauqin Valley, denying them water rights, to kill off the farming, all in the name of saving bait fish called smelt.

Well, something smelt...

Did the Feds Overreact?

Uhm....Hell Yeah!!!

 

The man has a right to protect his property and way of life.  That means he within his God given right to defend himself and anyone else against tyranny and outright theft.

 

Oh, and Beck is a Plick.

 

This articel attempts, pathetically, to paint an honest picture, which somehow ends up favoring the feds and purposely misleads through literary device of open ended questions favoring Fedzilla.

 

FUGB.

 

 

[opentalk]

Too bad Beck isn't using resources for a broader investigation into over all agenda, seems more to the China land energy deals, agenda21...

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/#mXBosxO63AJbUwjh.99

[ozzymandus]

Harry is a known criminal from way back. Apparently that’s no obstacle to political power in NV.

[Osage Orange]

Is Beckett Adams a mormon?

[Osage Orange]

Beck is what he is....and there are forces that guide him.

Totally without getting into religion......

[Clump]

Georgia Girl, you are right not to trust Beck.
I stopped listening to him when he developed his Messiah complex about 4 years ago.
It’s all about him.

[Ron H.]

.... “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

And the "tyrannical government” is growing at an alarming rate.

[Ron H.]

Beck is interviewing Bundy on his radio show now, twisting some of his words..Beck and his side kick seem out of touch on this with their own narrative.

Just one of several reasons I do not consider Beck to be relevant. I quit listening to him years ago. Just a big blowhard without a whole lot of substance IMO.

[norwaypinesavage]

"You have a link to these offset documents?"

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

[norwaypinesavage]

The land wasn't really bought from Mexico, it was taken from Mexico as a result of the US winning the Mexican-American War. Granted, there were reparations paid to Mexico, but the basis for these payments was forced on Mexico by loosing the war.

The whole concept of "offsets" is rife with bureaucratic cronyism. It is left to mindless bureaucrats (BLM comes to mind) to make up the terms of the offsets. My experience with this concept proves that corruption is easily involved.

[tophat9000]

Look if this was land OWNED it the true sense of the word by the Federal government it could be sold to another country and all person could be ejected by that country when it became the new owner with no rights ...that doesn’t really happen that often even in war...

The government sold / granted a lease of grazing rights on public ( I.e held in common by the public..it is not government owned land)..a contract was made between the government as public agent and this rancher..

Was the understanding of that contract at the time is was made?...it can not be rewritten at will by the government....it a contract by many party and so ALL PARTYS have rights and restrictions based on the original contract of when the 1880?..

What was the federal, state, local, and private individual understood rights to this common public land use at that time?..

In fact the federal government is a creation of the states, and the states are a creation of the people as individuals.

I have contended for some time..that because the States wrote the Constitution and voted its enactment to create the Federal and the States control to amending or even, dissolve the Constitution and therefore the Federal..

..that states are the owners..the 50 States could have a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the Federal Government and Union at there will..

So who owns the directly owned federal property let alone the public property the Federal manages as a public agent?

The Constitution is the original contract that allows the Federal to act as a public agent of any kind. ...

What was the understanding at that time of that contacts writing?