Posted on 04/13/2014 7:37:27 AM PDT by yoe
The ranch, which has been in Cliven Bundy’s family for more than a century, is ground zero for a growing showdown between federal authorities and individual rights activists.
Video
As a family in Clark County, Nev. continues to face an onslaught of heavily armed federal agents determined to kick them off of their ranch, reports have surfaced that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might be behind the entire ordeal.
The ranch, which has been in Cliven Bundy’s family for more than a century, is ground zero for a growing showdown between federal authorities and individual rights activists. Despite attempting to silence protesters by limiting them to so-called “First Amendment areas,” law enforcement personnel, legislators, and militia members are heading to the site in droves to express their outrage over the Bureau of Land Management’s show of force.
Send a message directly to the BLM by adding your name to our important petition!
Sign the Petition
In an apparent effort to cover its tracks, the BLM has reportedly removed documents from its website showing that the move to kick the Bundys and their cattle off of the land was at least in part due to the fact that their presence impeded development of solar energy on the land.
!
But you are on point because going to Vegas strengthens Reid and his Union goons. While the GOP is there, maybe a few can find time from gambling, booze, and hookers to visit the Bundy ranch.
You could be right, Reid does seem to have a Teflon backside.
Of course, we might not yet know the whole story....
From the Mesquite Local News:
"United States District Judge Lloyd D. George on July 9 ordered Bundy to remove his cattle by Aug. 23 or face having them seized and impounded by the Bureau of Land Management."
Thanks.
But you are on point because going to Vegas strengthens Reid and his Union goons.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
As an ‘after thought’ I was going to throw in an example of where ‘they’ could go (HELL not being acceptable <:) nothing ‘big enough’ to hold it came to mind WITHOUT benefiting a LIB stronghold.
Am sure there is something out there, just not at my ‘fingertips’.
“Six cities are in the running for the convention: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, and Las Vegas.”
Interesting that all these cities are Democrat bastions.
“I do not support the RNC, so I have little say or care about what they do.”
Agree.
Right, that story needs to be reposted everyday.
The underlying problem is that federal policy or congressional policy regarding disbursement of the federal lands to settlers didn't vary from state to state. What worked along the 96th or 98th meridian didn't work along the 120th meridian.
The original policy of 360 or 180 acres worked very well to the east in the wetter zone. I didn't work in the west dry zone. Congress was aware of this all along but they stuck with it. Solutions such as grazing commons didn't work and the lease system was the least bad.
Some people will say that Congress stuck with a bad system for egalitarian reasons. Others say Congress stuck with a bad system because they wanted to limit the political power of the western US(relative to the north and south).
As for the dramatic shift in federal policy and behavior regarding the public lands, that would date to 1976 when congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA)
It's as if we've been taken over by a hostile country - I don't feel Obozo and his ilk are even real Americans.
All cities are Democrat bastions, you’d have to hold the convention on the Bundy ranch to get away from Democrat and probably union control of the venue.
When will the Congress demand an investigation followed by criminal charges??
Well said. A glance at an election map serves as a predictor. When the Democrats control things, policy will favor those little blue urban dots. When Republicans control things, the policy act in favor of those big red areas. Except, of course, when our Republican representatives cave to the Democrats.
It’s all about turtle soup and noodles.
This is all very interesting to me in the abstract. I believed that the BLM policy was uniform. It seems that is not the case.
In my mind the western land grants were 160 acres, one fourth of a 640 acre section or one square mile. The Bundy’s claim ownership from way way back. It would seem reasonable that the original actual ownership occurred as a homestead grant of 160 acres or the purchase of the land from a previous homesteader.
And yet, the few words dedicated to the land they apparently have a deed, their ranch, is said to be only 150 acres. It would seem that somewhere along the way 10 acres was some how sold off or otherwise lost.
Of course that really doesn’t matter except as a loose end.
https://www.facebook.com/CongressmanDan
A friend of mine. The list of the natural resource committee is on here, BUT, you/me and everyone else has to FLOOD these pages with information, as well as his office. I have talked to his office and am waiting to hear from him, himself.
Did a court order BLM to seize the cattle, or was that a threat issued by the court pending further action?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.