Will the Bundy Ranch become for Obama what Grenada was to the Soviets? In 1983 the Soviet Union and Marxism had imperialistically conquered the majority of the world, land wise and population wise, without ever losing any territory they had conquered. Their latest victim was a small island named Grenada. Then Ronald Reagan decided to push back and liberated Grenada. Within 7 years The Soviets lost every colony they had accumulated in 70 years.
For those not familiar with the Grenada tipping point, the Soviets and Fidel Castro were about 90% of the way towards setting up a military dictatorship in the Caribbean island of Grenada. That would make Grenada the second Soviet colony in the Caribbean. The Soviets had just completed a huge airport that Soviet heavy bombers could land at. Then the head of Grenada Communists, Maurice Bishop, was overthrown and assassinated by another faction in his party. Reagan decided the time was right for his solution to the 35 year old Cold War ,“We win they lose.” He ordered an invasion to rescue the American students there, although his overall strategy may likely have been the real reason. It was over relatively quickly even though many American news companies said it could last for years. More information can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada Contrary to what the Establishment Media said at the time, the Grenadians welcomed Reagan’s actions as a liberation from tyranny. And to this day I have been told by people who have visited Grenada, that Americans are popular there. The rest of the Cold War was won without American casualties.
Grenada proved for the first time in over 60 years the Soviets could lose territory. In the 1950s and 1960s a slogan of many pro-Statists in America was “Better Red Than Dead”, that we should give up our freedom because the Soviets were going to win anyway. We should surrender, so we could survive. This tiny victory turned the tide and the Soviet Union was gone (at least officially) in 7 years.
So is the Bundy Ranch Obama’s Reverse Grenada? Is it a tipping point in the battle between federal power and citizens rights? Just as the Soviet Union grew and grew and grew for decades the US federal government has greatly expanded its power for about 100 years at the expense of many rights of the people, including their property rights. It is a long shot, but it is possible. Here is why. The owner of the next ranch the BLM tries to take, or a similar case of a federal power grab, the target will know they will get a lot of support from the same people that stood up for Bundy, and they know they can win now. And for the few uncensored news companies that America has, they now know they can be a key factor in such matters, and what to do next time. It was a major morale booster for those that believe in liberty and do not want the federal government managing their lives, just as Grenada was a morale booster for those opposed to Soviet tyranny. It provided a blueprint of how to win these type of conflicts with the now massive federal government. There are many parallels. Just as Grenada proved, even if it was a small battle, victory is possible. So this is a great threat to Obama and Reid, the two most powerful people in American, officially. The danger has not been lost on them.
Before we get into Reid’s reaction some more info on the man that is the figurehead of the movement, Cliven Bundy. He basically risked his life to say the BLM was acting illegally and he would ignore their orders. His son was even arrested as events unfolded.
Cliven Bundy, Owner Bundy Ranch
Cliven Bundy gave a speech at a town meeting that indicates he is just not brave but also a knowledgeable and intelligent man. He ends the speech talking about how a lynching is a democracy and a court trial is a republic.
Harry Reid says to Young Democrats at UN-Reno attempt to take Bundy Ranch “Is not over yet”.
The RGJ reported Reid said: “There is no question that there were a lot of things going on down there with breaking the law,” Reid said. “And that is not over yet. We can’t let that continue. So I’m sure it is not the end of it.”
Kim Kollman, who later identified himself as a former teacher at Truckee Meadows Community College, confronted Reid during a question-and-answer session over the issue.
Citing Reuters News Service, the Drudge Report and another Web site, Kollman asked Reid if, possibly he was in collusion with his son and the “Communist Chinese” to forcibly remove Bundy from his property to help bring more solar energy to Southern Nevada. Kollman did not specify what son of Reid’s he was speaking about and said Reid was “papering over” the question of possible collusion.
Reid replied, “That is an easy question to paper over. Do you know what you just said? Please read something else. And that is how I’m going to respond to that question.” http://www.rgj.com/story/insidenevadapolitics/2014/04/14/its-not-over-harry-reid-says-of-bundy-vs-blm-standoff-in-southern-nevada/7718891/
So Harry Reid did not deny the story. His response was weaker than Democrat Presidential candidate John Edward’s denial of having a baby with a campaign aide and getting another aide to pretend it was his baby. Edwards said the Enquirer story was “made up” and received similar help from the censored Establishment Media companies that Reid is now getting help from. One example of the Establishment Media cover-up for Edwards was CBS News journalist, Bob Schieffer, who said after it was apparent the story was true, quote “I believe that’s a story that we will be avoiding, because it appears to me that there’s absolutely nothing to it … “ Later everyone including Edwards had to admit the story was 100% true, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair .
The son Kollman referred to was Rory Reid, the paid chief lobbyist for the massive Chinese Communist solar company ENN Energy Group that planned a $5 billion solar plant that BLM documents indicated might require the removal of the Bundy Ranch. Harry Reid did not specify what the illegal activity was, but the BLM today is under the control of Reid’s 35 year old former top staffer, Neil Kornze. The BLM says that Bundy owes them grazing fees. Many news reports indicate that the BLM activities in the area are a scam to take away ranches to increase federal power and to financially aid Harry and Rory Reid, illegally. The RGJ article however left out many key facts that would make Reid look bad in their report, including the fact that the BLM erased from their website documents that indicate the Bundy Ranch needs to be removed for the solar project. Here is a BLM document that clearly states the Gold Butte Area (Bundy Ranch area) is a target for a solar project “Regional Mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar energy Zone: Technical Note 444,” And now this story reports the BLM has gone to the extreme of erasing cached copies of documents linking Reid to the land grab: http://www.infowars.com/feds-desperate-to-hide-harry-reid-link-to-bundy-land-grab/
An article published by The New American in September 2012 noted that Rory Reid, the eldest son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is the chief representative for ENN Energy Group, a Chinese firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.
The plan generated a great deal of controversy because Clark County officials voted to sell ENN the public land for $4.5 million, a figure far below its $38.6-million appraised value. That means the citizens of Clark County are being ripped off over $30 million dollars to benefit Rory Reid’s company. All of these factors put together make this story a serious danger to Reid and Obama. This may be why Reid says “it is not over”, he may indeed realize this could be a “Reverse Grenada” for him and Obama.
So who is telling the truth between Bundy and Reid?
Bundy says the desert tortoise is not why the BLM is trying to take his land and cattle. Reid says it is. What about the other ranchers in Clark County, what do they say? Well this may be a clue, although there were about 45 ranches in Clark County, there is only one now, the Bundy Ranch. That combined with the $5 billion Communist Chinese project that Harry and Rory Reid are known to be involved with, are two clues as to who is telling the truth.
Further evidence as to who is telling the truth a former Clark County rancher was interviewed by David Knight of Infowars about how he lost his ranch 20 years ago. He said it was under a false pretense and that they told him unless he sold dirt cheap to the BLM (less than one years profits) that the BLM would run him out of business. Watch it yourself:
The bottom line on this story is that unlike stories the Establishment Media has poured millions of dollars into creating a 24/7 news media circus, such as the Peterson trial 10 years ago that is all but forgotten now, this story is important. There was no real value to Americans in the Peterson Trial, and that might be why they poured millions into it. I lived in Redwood City at the time and went to visit the Recorders office and walked into the Circus. I saw many famous news media people there in their tents with nothing to do, as obviously no news or evidence would ever happen in the Circus. So why were they there? AUN-TV will never participate in a Media Circus, except maybe to ask the people there why they are wasting their time there.
Those same people are pouring virtually no resources into this important story. They do not even want the American people to know this has happened. They have been pulled into it involuntarily by America’s emerging uncensored news media sector. They like Obama and Reid are threatened by the Bundy Ranch story.
Peterson Trial Media Circus 2004
Background on the Constitutional Issue that Bundy has Raised:
It is hard to find an article in the majority of the American Press that really gets to the facts, Constitutional wise. The truth is that the Constitution does say what Bundy claims and the Supreme Court ruled that way for years. Then with no change in the Constitution the Supreme Court started going against the Constitution and their own rulings because it wanted to, which is opposite of what their duty is. The below article on BenSwann.com gets into that history.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Read more: http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2z4EHw75n