Reinforcements for Rancher Clive Bundy, Reid Makes More Threats

American citizens are sick of the federal bullies.  Clive Bundy, the Nevada rancher who is standing up to the government’s land grab, is getting more support from citizen militias, GOP/Libertarian politicians, and people across the U.S.

Corrupt authoritarian Harry Reid is lobbing more threats:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says “something is going to happen” to get Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to stop letting his cattle graze on federal land.

“It’s obvious that you can’t just walk away from this. And we can speculate all we want to speculate to what’s going to happen next,” Reid told KSNV-TV. “But I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen. We are a nation of laws, not of men and women.”

Hopefully ‘something’ will happen to stop Harry Reid.

In the meantime,  Texas, another western state dominated by the federal control of public land, has  raised its own red flag about possible BLM land grabs:

Texas officials are raising alarm that the Bureau of Land Management, on the heels of its dust-up with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, might be eyeing a massive land grab in northern Texas.

The under-the-radar issue has caught the attention of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who fired off a letter on Tuesday to BLM Director Neil Kornze saying the agency “appears to be threatening” the private property rights of “hard-working Texans.”

……At issue are thousands of acres of land on the Texas side of the Red River, along the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Officials recently have raised concern that the BLM might be looking at claiming 90,000 acres of land as part of the public domain.

The agency, though, argues that any land in question was long ago determined to be public property.

……According to background materials put out by Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry’s office, the BLM is revisiting its management plan for lands including those along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. His office said the possibility has been discussed of opening that land up for “hunting, recreation and management.”



Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.


Adding insult to injury, the BLM thugs killed the cattle it rustled from Bundy’s ranch.

An article at, points out that the battle between the western states and the federal government over land is about more than just Bundy’s rights:

The recent face-off between the Bundy family and its supporters on the one hand, and the Bureau of Land Management and its enablers on the other, is hardly the first word in the tussle between westerners and the federal government over control of land. The battle has probably been inevitable since western settlers ceded control of the lion’s share of the open spaces around them to distant Washington, D.C. in return for admission to the union. Now, those spaces aren’t quite so open, and their inhabitants are more assertive—and see themselves (often with good reason) as better stewards of their turf than distant officials who seem to pride themselves on inefficiency and lousy accounting practices.

……Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory (R-West Jordan) told Reason Foundation’s Leonard Gilroy:

“In the 2011 session—when we realized that over $5 billion of our state revenue comes from a federal government that’s broke—that’s when we started to flesh out how serious those numbers were. Something on the order of 40% of our state revenue comes from an unsustainable source in our federal governing partner. We looked at the magnitude of this risk and started to think about how we could broaden our revenue base and get to a point of economic self-reliance.”

Controlling the land and resources is a big step in that direction.

The “Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands,” gathering representatives from nine western states in Salt Lake City, was organized by Ivory and borrows its terminology from that Utah move, showing that concerns about reducing financial reliance on the feds and gaining local control are spreading. Planning for the conference predates the Bundy standoff and the gathering addresses broader issues—but it certainly got a nudge from headlines and tense video of federal agents facing off with locals over land use.

So, what started as a simmering problem over the control of land and resources has only been fueled by the growing prosperity and sophistication of westerners. They see little reason to leave their fate in the hands of a stumbling federal government that can’t balance its books.

It boils down to States’ rights versus an out-of-control, incompetent, criminally negligent federal government that seized control of vast amounts of land, for reasons that had little to do with the public good.

More observations from Dr. Ben Carson:

It is quite interesting to see, though, that the same bureaucrats refuse to enforce some of our federal border-protection laws and other domestic policies with which they disagree. Perhaps Mr. Reid’s time could be better spent explaining why it is acceptable for the federal government to pick and choose which laws it wishes to enforce.

The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?

The massive show of federal force in the Bundy case is frightening because it gives us a brief glimpse of the totalitarian regime that awaits a sleeping populace that does not take seriously its voting responsibilities, and places in public office (and returns them to office) who do not represent traditional American values.

The fact that the ranchers were well armed and willing to literally fight for their rights probably tempered the enthusiasm of the federal forces to engage in further aggression. It was clear from the body language and some of the reported verbal responses of the government forces that they were not prepared to engage in lethal combat with fellow Americans.

Those Americans who are concerned about the possible future imposition of martial law after a financial collapse or some other event should take solace in knowing that many military and law enforcement personnel would likely refuse to obey commands inconsistent with freedom and American values. Such commands could emanate from any political party in the future, but it is likely that such a party would be one controlling an administration that selectively enforces laws and ignores or excuses corruption.

Another important lesson from this incident is the value of a well-armed citizenry. The Second Amendment was crafted by wise citizens who recognized how quickly an enemy invasion could occur or how our own government could be deceived into thinking it had the right to dominate the people.

Dr. Carson has more faith than I do when he asserts, “law enforcement personnel would likely refuse to obey commands inconsistent with freedom and American values.”  Law enforcement in this country is becoming increasingly militarized, and with the likes of Reid in office, I would not put it past him to issue an order to attack Bundy’s ranch as if it were Waco or Ruby Ridge.


Related post:










Picture of the Day: Note to Foreigners


Paging the DHS: Muslim Terrorist Groups Forming Political Party in U.S.

What. The. Fuck.?


From Before It’s News.

Islamic terrorist poster


The First Islamist voting bloc? Muslim Brotherhood Launches Own U.S. Political Party. (Investors).

With an eye toward the 2016 election, the radical Muslim Brotherhood has built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc.

‘Muslim voters have the potential to be swing voters in 2016,” said Nihad Awad in launching the benign-sounding U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, whose membership reads like a Who’s Who of Brotherhood front groups.“We are aiming to bring more participation from the Muslim community.”

USCMO also aims to elect Islamists in Washington, with the ultimate objective of “institutionalizing policies” favorable to Islamists — that is, Shariah law.

Well, they already have at least two; a Dhimmi in the White House and a radical muzzie congressman from Minnesota.

This development bears careful monitoring in light of the U.S. Brotherhood’s recently exposed goal to wage a “civilization jihad” against America that explicitly calls for infiltrating the U.S. political system and “destroying (it) from within.”

The subversive plan was spelled out in hundreds of pages of founding archives that the FBI confiscated from a Brotherhood leader’s home in the Washington suburbs after 9/11.

Translated from Arabic, the secret documents listed a number of Brotherhood front organizations — some of which just happen to make up the newly formed USCMO.

Front and center is the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, the catalyst behind this Trojan horse jihadist political party.

CAIR is linked in federal criminal court documents to the terrorist group Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. CAIR’s chief Awad, who announced the USCMO at the National Press Club, is so radioactive, the FBI refuses to do outreach with him and his so-called Muslim-rights group until it can “resolve whether there continues to be a connection between its executives and Hamas.”

Equally troubling is the Muslim American Society, another founding member of the USCMO. MAS was formed as “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States,” a 2007 Justice Department court filing states. A 2011 MAS press release praised Osama bin Laden as “a visionary who believed in an Islamic state in Afghanistan.”

The list of bad actors doesn’t end there. The chairman of America’s new Islamist party is none other than Oussama Jammal, who once headed the notorious Bridgeview Mosque in Chicago.

One of that mosque’s leaders was arrested and jailed for funneling millions to Hamas. And one of its most honored guests was bin Laden’s spiritual mentor, the late Palestinian cleric Abdullah Azzam. Some of Azzam’s relatives are Bridgeview members.

“The walls were covered with Hamas posters and recruiting literature showing masked gunmen brandishing automatic weapons. . . . You could see daggers plunged into Jewish hearts wrapped up in American flags,” said Steve Emerson, describing the mosque in his book “American Jihad.”

“They even had a library filled with terrorist videos.”

In 2009, it was reported that CAIR planted interns in D.C. offices. CAIR is a terrorist facilitator that engages in the promotion and funding of terrorist atrocities.   Why is it allowed to operate in this country?

The Muslim Brotherhood has a lengthy history of terrorism and is a serious threat to Western civilization.  Why are they in this country?

Their goals are well documented. It’s a matter of public record.  But Obama continues to shamefully pander to some of the worst muslim thugs on the planet. When Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano was head of the DHS, she made it a policy.

Since the USCMO has announced its theocracy-based entry into the political arena, the Dems will probably offer to make them part of their platform.  Matter of fact, during the 2012 Democratic convention, the scheduled homage to Islamic shitbags was removed only after public uproar. 

Muslims are diametrically opposed to everything America stands for, especially the Constitution. They want Sharia Law and Islam to dominate the West; America in particular:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

——CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad to a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998

Every three-letter acronym security agency in the U.S. should be all over these hadjis like stink on shit.  Instead they’re targeting patriots  and outspoken Obama critics.

They’re not worried about an enemy that wants us all dead, they’re frightened of people who want them stopped. With assholes like this in charge who the hell needs Al Qaeda?

But remember, opponents of Islam are “Islamophobes”.




 Related articles:


Western Lawmakers Discuss Taking Back Their Lands From the Feds

Good for them.

From the Salt Lake Trib.

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

“It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as “just a person who lives in the woods,” said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

“We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

It certainly is part of a larger problem; an out-of-control federal government that has gotten away with unconstitutional overreach for years. The encroachment of Clive Bundy’s rights is just one of the more publicized incidents.  They’ve also got a criminally malfeasant Senator who would love to grab some of that land for a Chinese-funded solar energy farm.

‘A much larger problem’ is an understatement.

Harry Reid on Rancher’s Rights: ‘You Know Why? Domestic Terrorist, That’s Why!’

Anyone who refuses to goosestep to the big government dictatorship is a domestic terrorist.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he believes the supporters who rallied around Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy in his fight against the federal government are “domestic terrorists” and Bundy does not respect his country.

The Las Vegas Journal-Review reported that Reid, D-Nev., made the comments at an event Thursday hosted by the paper called “Hashtags & Headlines.”

Federal land managers backed down in a weekend standoff with Bundy after hundreds of states’ rights protesters, including armed militia members, showed up to protest federal officials seizing his cattle. Some protesters had their guns drawn and pointed toward law enforcement, some of whom were also armed. But ultimately, no shots were fired and the Bureau of Land Management reported that officials left over safety concerns.

Reid had harsh words for these supporters, saying the government cannot stop pursuing the issue.

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said, according to the paper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

You mean like the Chenchen muslim terrorists Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?  Nidal Hasan?  The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Jamaat Al Fuqura, and the Arab-American Action Network,  that operate carte blanche within our borders?  How about those domestic terrorists, Harry?

Reid said he has been told a federal task force is being set up to deal with the Bundy situation, adding Bundy does not respect the U.S. or its laws.

“Clive Bundy does not recognize the United States,” Reid said. “The United States, he says, is a foreign government. He doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his fees. And he doesn’t follow the law. He continues to thumb his nose at authority.”

Harry, you need to practice what you preach.  You’re one of the biggest lawbreakers in the Democratic party, and that’s saying a lot.

Reid also suggested the supporters were dangerous to the community.

“They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?” he said.

The Feds descended on Bundy’s ranch with with helicopters, SWAT teams, APCs, armed federal agents, and probably some lethal chemical weapons before the supporters showed up,  but Bundy was a danger to the community.

Fuck you, Harry.

By the way, the Feds are trying to grab land that rightfully belongs to Nevada. Harry needs to read the statutes of his own state.

From the Nevada statutes:

NRS 321.596  Legislative findings.  The Legislature finds that:

      1.  The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

      (a) On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries;

      (b) From 1850 to 1894, newly admitted states received 2 sections of each township for the benefit of common schools, which in Nevada amounted to 3.9 million acres;

      (c) In 1880 Nevada agreed to exchange its 3.9-million-acre school grant for 2 million acres of its own selection from public land in Nevada held by the Federal Government;

      (d) At the time the exchange was deemed necessary because of an immediate need for public school revenues and because the majority of the original federal land grant for common schools remained unsurveyed and unsold;

      (e) Unlike certain other states, such as New Mexico, Nevada received no land grants from the Federal Government when Nevada was a territory;

      (f) Nevada received no land grants for insane asylums, schools of mines, schools for the blind and deaf and dumb, normal schools, miners’ hospitals or a governor’s residence as did states such as New Mexico; and

      (g) Nevada thus received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, namely Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants.

      2.  The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because:

      (a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be “void and inoperative” because it denied to Alabama “an equal footing with the original states” in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

      (b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later “on an equal footing”; and

      (c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the “equal footing” doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is “the supreme law of the land” by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.

      3.  The exercise of broader control by the State of Nevada over the public lands within its borders would be of great public benefit because:

      (a) Federal holdings in the State of Nevada constitute 86.7 percent of the area of the State, and in Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye and White Pine counties the Federal Government controls from 97 to 99 percent of the land;

      (b) Federal jurisdiction over the public domain is shared among 17 federal agencies or departments which adds to problems of proper management of land and disrupts the normal relationship between a state, its residents and its property;

      (c) None of the federal lands in Nevada are taxable and Federal Government activities are extensive and create a tax burden for the private property owners of Nevada who must meet the needs of children of Federal Government employees, as well as provide other public services;

      (d) Under general land laws only 2.1 percent of federal lands in Nevada have moved from federal control to private ownership;

      (e) Federal administration of the retained public lands, which are vital to the livestock and mining industries of the State and essential to meet the recreational and other various uses of its citizens, has been of uneven quality and sometimes arbitrary and capricious; and

      (f) Federal administration of the retained public lands has not been consistent with the public interest of the people of Nevada because the Federal Government has used those lands for armament and nuclear testing thereby rendering many parts of the land unusable and unsuited for other uses and endangering the public health and welfare.

      4.  The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states.

      5.  The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada “disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,” as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

      6.  The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

      7.  The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.

      (Added to NRS by 1979, 1362)

His motive has to do with his  plans to take some of that land for a Chinese solar energy farm.   The law is immaterial to scumbags like Reid.

Related post:


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 303 other followers