Here's the latest, via Infowars,on a the likely Harry Reid connection to the Bureau Land Management move at the Bundy ranch:
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Regarding the use of the terms "swat raid" or "swat team": I think we should go back to calling them "death squads". When Darryl Gates renamed them "swat teams" for the domestic market, surely it was to humiliate Boobus even beyond what they'd done to Central American peasants and the like. And if they didn't name them "swat" teams they couldn't extend the metaphor and refer to what's left of us as "bug-splat" which they've taken to doing recently
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111278839153400.html
I wonder what would have happened if government was currently under a republican majority? More or less violent? Or the same outcome? I think more, because liberals always tend toward violence, and the conservatives would have then supported "their" government's action as well.
ReplyDeleteI bring this up because we might see more republican control going forward as the people, once again, turn to the minority party for freedom's sake - only to be reminded of the reality of the situation: the minority party always talks of freedom until they have the power to squash it.
The Department of the Interior needs to go, and with it, federal control of all state lands. Control of all federal lands needs to be ceded back to the States. And it' d be nice if a bird of prey were to pick up a desert tortoise, drop it from a few hundred feet up in the air to break its shell, and that tortoise were to land on Harry Reid and render him no longer living.
ReplyDelete