Harry Reed, and now the villification and spin begins

[Cebu_4_2]

Is Harry Reid Involved? Seven Answers to Seven Questions You’re Probably Asking Right Now About the Nevada Rancher SituationWay too much to post, comments are interesting too:


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/

[Shami-Amourae]

The Blaze is doing damage control.

Hmmm....
http://endtimessigns.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/israel.jpg

Support Glenn Beck by buying one of these:
http://glennbeck.shop.musictoday.com/Product.aspx?pc=BXAM124
http://static.musictoday.com/store/bands/2497/product_medium/BXAM124.JPG

[monty]

Coming from a Nevada family with roots back to the late 1800's I have some knowledge of this situation. I read the Blaze article and it is basically true. The US did gain possesion, (ownership) of the territory under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Nevada was admited to the Unión October 31, 1864 with less than the required number of people to qualify for statehood. The Abrahm Lincoln govermment wanted Nevada's silver from Virginia City to help finance the civil war. The US brokered a deal with the the territorial government alowing Nevada statehood with out the required number of people in exchange for continued control of its unpopulated federal land.

The court in Hage vs US did rule the feds own the rocks and minerals in Nevada. They court also ruled Hage owned the forage rights. There has never been a Supreme Court decisión.

Is Harry Reid involved? That is hard to say, but it does smell bad since his former aid is now Director of the BLM. Also a year ago he introduced a bill to establish a National Conservation Area at Gold Butte.

Getting back to who really owns the land in Nevada, the Constitutuion forbids the federal government to own land, Pollards Lessee vs Hagan says: "that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State,"
conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.
And it leaves as much right in the State of Alabama over them as the original States possess over navigable waters within their respective limits.



The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States."

This last sentence leads me to believe the court in Pollards Lessee held that the Constutution did not grant ANY of the soils including the shores and submerged soils it reserved them for the States respectively.

And there is the Doctrine of Equality of the States. So the question remains to be answered by the Supreme Court, do treaties trump the Constitution? Was Nevadas transfer of control of her unpopulated land to the federal government a Constitutional act? Did this violate the Doctrine of Equqlity of the States.

Of course this is just my dos centavos and I am highly opinionated.

Back to the OP

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Cebu_4_2]

the blaze is doing damage control.

Hmmm....
http://endtimessigns.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/israel.jpg

support glenn beck by buying one of these:
http://glennbeck.shop.musictoday.com/product.aspx?pc=bxam124
http://static.musictoday.com/store/bands/2497/product_medium/bxam124.jpg

what a fucking tool...

[Bigjon]

When it comes to the what the law says, it's hard to know who to believe. I ran across evidence that the archives of West publishing were being changed with some know documents going lost and new ones replacing them. These people are not above changing the law to suit their objectives. I can't remember the specifics only remember mentioning it to a local friend.

[Cebu_4_2]

When it comes to the what the law says, it's hard to know who to believe. I ran across evidence that the archives of West publishing were being changed with some know documents going lost and new ones replacing them. These people are not above changing the law to suit their objectives. I can't remember the specifics only remember mentioning it to a local friend.

Would you put anything past corruption?

[Tumbleweed]

I went over to the Blaze and read the article and some of the comments. I learned that the reason the Feds backed down was because they didn't think it would look good for their government snipers to be shooting cowboys riding horses and carrying american flags.

I also learned that our government has been protecting the desert tortoises for many years by exploding atomic bombs in Nevada too.

[Dachsie]

I just watched this short video by Gary Frachi.

He says the stand-down in Nevada was actually "a strategic de-escalation to fool the people."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zw9GAh658_k

Bundy Ranch: Fed Retreat was Psyop Next Wave Soon


__________
This whole thing in Nevada is some kind of planned staged event to play with the minds of the people.

One thing for certain, they want everybody to think everything is OK now and we the patriots won and it is all over.

If we think about that a couple of seconds we know that it cannot be that simple.

I know Alex Jones' group discovered Harry Reid's involvment and it does not look good for Reid at all. But it is unlikely anything will happen to Reid.

__________

One thing that bothers me is that Bundy apparently was not paying his grazing fees like everybody else around there was doing. So the Feds had the perfect situation provided by Bundy for them to do their operation.

I just do not think we want to be all praising of Bundy if he has not been paying his grazing fees for a very long time. If that is true Bundy was asking for the Feds to come in and confront him.

I do not know but I suspect we are all seeing more political theater and we the people seem to always take it face value and seem very gullible.

Its like the old cowboys and indians games and now everybody things the cowboys won. That is such a simplistic reaction.

There is more of the play to come, according to Franchi, and that rings true to me.

*
Here is what Ann Barnhardt wrote about this Bundy - Nevada matter several days ago.

http://www.barnhardt.biz/

"2. Regarding the cattleman in Nevada: I would strongly discourage you all from hitching your cart to this particular horse. While I have all manner of criticisms of the BLM and certainly of thuggish FEDGOV tactics, it is essential that one pick one’s battles very carefully, and this is NOT a good battle to pick. The guy in question has been grazing his cattle at essentially zero feed cost for upwards of twenty years (well, THAT makes the cattle business easier, doesn’t it!) because he stopped paying the BLM any lease charges. Again, we can debate all manner of things including the ridiculous rules about closing land to grazing in order to “protect” lizards or prairie chickens or whatever the fake “endangered species” du jour is, and certainly we can debate the existence of the BLM itself, but there is no free lunch; everyone else pays to graze. This guy is claiming, as I understand it, some grandfathered right to the land through the Mormon cult (again, BIG red flag), but I don’t buy it. This situation stinks all around to my refined sniffer, and I would NOT die on this hill. Since so many have asked, that is my read. Just be careful with this one. "

[Tumbleweed]

Dachsie keep reading and an open mind. I've been reading and this is a constitutional fight. From what I read our government is forbidden from owning land except for certain very specific purposes.

Bundy doesn't own the land, doesn't claim to but he does own water and grazing rights. There are no other ranchers in Clark county because the BLM put them out of business by lowering the number of cattle they can graze and the time when they can graze. The BlM used the grazing fees paid to them by ranchers against them to put them out of business. Bundy stopped paying them his fees when he saw what they had done to other ranchers and were trying to do to him.
The BLM cancelled his grazing permit with them so he stopped being billed by them and I don't think they'd take it if offered. They want him off the land. He tried to pay the fees to the county but they wouldn't take the money so he used it to maintain the water and infrastructure his family had developed over generations. My understanding is if he didn't use the water rights for a certain period of time he would lose them.

Ann Barnhardt is full of shit on this issue. She's pretty good on trading commodities but that's it in my opinion.

[monty]

@Daschie, I just wish to add my support to what Tumbleweed just told you. His analysis is 100% correct. Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Dachsie]

Yes, I agree with your further explanation about his not paying the fees. It really is about a land grab. But I agree with Franchi in that this scam is not going to let up. There may be a temporary victory now but it will start again soon.

[Cebu_4_2]

Yes, I agree with your further explanation about his not paying the fees. It really is about a land grab. But I agree with Franchi in that this scam is not going to let up. There may be a temporary victory now but it will start again soon.

The Cowboys are working on it as we speak. Did you listen to the BLM spokesman addressing the Cowboy spokesman? These guys are not stupid and the demands did not change one word. BLM wanted to bargain, no bargaining allowed.