Let the strong-arming begin.
The Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and seven other terror-tied groups have announced the formation of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), which they describe as an umbrella group that will serve as a “representative voice for Muslims as that faith community seeks to enhance its positive impact on society.”
What kind of presence is the USCMO going to have on the American political scene? Investor’s Business Dailynoted that “USCMO also aims to elect Islamists in Washington, with the ultimate objective of ‘institutionalizing policies’ favorable to Islamists — that is, Shariah law.”
The coalition is made up, by and large, of the same groups that were named as Muslim Brotherhood proxies and unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history. They are well-funded, and could very well upend the political landscape, much as they have the corrupted academia.
Muslim Brotherhood groups forming this new “coalition” include the Muslim American Society (MAS), American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North American (ICNA), the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) and the Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA).
The idea of the USCMO is to “allow the larger Muslim community to better participate in our nation’s political process.” The rhetoric is slick and deceptive. These groups work towards norming jihad and sharia in America. Many of the Muslim groups in this newly formed organization, including MAS and ICNA, as well as the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was the parent group of CAIR, were identified as allied organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood in a captured internal Brotherhood document that came to light during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), an Islamic charity that was shut down for funding Hamas.
In 2008, the U.S. government filed a memorandum in opposition to the request from two of the groups linked to the HLF, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), that the “unindicted co-conspirator” designation they received during the HLF trial be removed (it wasn’t). The memorandum is a useful and illuminating summary of what some of the most prominent Islamic groups in the U.S., including the key members of the USCMO coalition, have been involved with.
These Muslim groups, said the memorandum, “operated in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement… The object of the conspiracy was to support Hamas. The support will be shown to have take several forms, including raising money, propaganda, proselytizing, recruiting, as well as many other types of actions intended to continue to promote and move forward Hamas’s agenda of the destruction of the State of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state in its place.”
The government memorandum explains that “shortly after Hamas was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support Hamas with ‘media, money and men.’” To accomplish this, the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which CAIR later joined. “The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas, and the HLF’s particular role was to raise money to support Hamas’s organizations inside the Palestinian territories.”
The USCMO is the stealth jihad on steroids. MAS and ICNA, as well as the IAP, were listed as among those organizations dedicated to the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal of “eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over other religions.”
Counter-terror researcher Ryan Mauro reports that “the Secretary-General of USCMO is Oussama Jamal. Press reports have alternatively titled him as the President and Vice President of the Mosque Foundation that has extensive links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. Jamal accuses the U.S. government of following the ‘Zionist agenda’ in its counter-terrorism investigations and has questioned whether Arabs were actually involved in the 9/11 attacks.”
It is clear that the USCMO will vehemently oppose Israel and every measure that may ever be proposed or implemented to increase our national security. They will demonize and vilify everyone who speaks the truth about jihad terrorism and calls for genuine reform and honest counter-terror action from Muslim leaders. They will work to stifle and destroy the freedom of speech and to criminalize all criticism of Islam, including counter-terror analysis.
And the left, when they’re not aiding and abetting this sinister agenda, will stand by and applaud. Whether clueless or complicit, these useful idiots are sharpening the blades of their executioners.
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
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.
Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.
In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.
The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”
Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.
The Texas Farm Bureau asserts the State of Oklahoma believes that whenever the river shifts south, the state line moves south. But when the river moves north, the line remains in place. Now, the BLM seems to want to settle the matter by simply confiscating the land.
According to a BLM document provided to Breitbart Texas courtesy Rep. Thornberry’s staff, the BLM is going through a scoping period where they are gathering facts on land whose ownership they believe to be in question in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The BLM is in the process of developing a Resource Management Plan. The plan will cover a total of 411,585 square miles, or 263 million acres of land. The BLM describes its “decision area as about 104,000 acres of BLM administered surface lands, 593,000 acres of split-estate land (private land with federal mineral interests) and 5,270,000 acres of federal mineral interests on land managed by other federal agencies.”
President Obama wants to expand the executive pardon system, according to a new report from Liz Goodwin of Yahoo News.
A senior administration official told Goodwin that the President could grant clemency to “hundreds, perhaps thousands” of non-violent drug criminals.
Additionally, Goodwin wrote that Obama has spent time during his second term examining the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice, working with Eric Holder to devise a system more capable of handling large numbers of pardon requests. Holder has already composed a memo describing a “more robust use of the pardon power” as part of Obama’s effort to reform the criminal justice system.
In the United States of America, our U.S. Constitution creates a Constitutional Representative Republic, as opposed to the myth that we are a pure democracy. That Constitution lays out the specific enumerated powers of each of three branches of the Federal government, and the authorities to carry out those assigned duties.
The U.S. Bill of Rights is an additional statement of restrictions upon Federal authority, not the least of which is the Tenth Amendment, protecting the Rights of a sovereign state and the people who reside within each state.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – Amendment X
How does Amendment X line up with the Federal Supremacy clause found in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the federal constitution and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions?
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution
Is a balance of powers between the states and the federal government an “unconstitutional” concept? Or is this a highly “constitutional” concept? Is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution in conflict with Amendment X of the Bill of Rights? Does the Supremacy Clause take precedence over Amendment X, or does Amendment X take precedence over the Supremacy Clause?
Only in recent years has this issue become bastardized by “legal experts,” including a number of legal beagles at so-called “conservative think tanks” like Heritage Foundation, Wall Builders and ALEC, all of which mysteriously find themselves doing the bidding of the tyrannical Fed on far too many occasions.
As is always the case with legal text, the devil is in the details… In this case, the details of the Supremacy Clause itself…
The first key phrase is “made in pursuance thereof…” – Before any federal law can enjoy federal legal supremacy, it must meet the stated standards of this section, which states that all federal laws must be made first and foremost in pursuance (or furtherance) of the Constitution itself, to include the Bill of Rights, which became an equal part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.
“…that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;” – Resolved in the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights
Next, federal laws “shall be made, under the authority of the United States” in order to enjoy federal supremacy. The authority referred to in this section of the Supremacy clause is the authorities granted the Federal government by the people and the states under the enumerated powers of each branch of the Federal government.
To enjoy supremacy, a federal law must first be “made in pursuance thereof” (all other constitutional text) and be “made under the authority of the United States,” as defined in the enumerated powers of the Federal government according to the U.S. Constitution.
To put a fine point on the matter, the Constitution of the United States assigns all “law-making” authority to Congress alone, the legislative branch. This means that policies set by either the Executive branch or the Judicial branch cannot possibly be “laws,” according to the Constitution.
Further, only when Congress enacts laws which are “in pursuance thereof” – within the purview of, or under the authority granted via the Constitution, and not in conflict with the Bill of Rights, can those laws enjoy Supremacy.
Policies set by the Executive or Judicial branch are not laws at all. Therefore, they cannot enjoy supremacy in a Constitutional Representative Republic. Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Constitutional Laws do indeed enjoy Federal Supremacy. However, what about unconstitutional acts of the Federal government? Do unconstitutional intrusions into states or individual rights also enjoy Federal Supremacy?
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the answer is an unambiguous NO! As all governmental powers are derived by the consent of the people… the people have the final say.
But it is the U.S. Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction on any dispute over constitutional authority arising between a state, the people and the Federal government.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” – Article III – Section II – Clause II
The Article VI Supremacy Clause protects “constitutional” laws passed by the law-making branch of the Federal government, so long as they are passed by constitutional means and do not violate any constitutionally protected rights.
However, Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution protects the states and the people from the “unconstitutional” acts of the Federal government. Acts which are beyond the authority granted each branch, or are in conflict with constitutionally protected rights, are themselves, “unconstitutional.” As such, they enjoy no force of law at all, much less any form of supremacy.
Although many state legislators remain entirely misguided on the subject, millions of American citizens are awakening to the reality that their government has been functioning in a tyrannical “unconstitutional” manner for decades now.
As long as state legislators keep listening to federal “experts” on the subject, they will remain misguided and unable to represent the interests of their increasingly angry and desperate constituents.
But if the people will take the time to read and understand the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they can properly educate their state legislators and only then can they begin to work together to reinstate the proper balance of powers assured every state and every citizen in our Founding documents.
In a Constitutional Representative Republic, the Constitution has Supremacy, not the federal authority. The federal authority is limited to enumerated powers and constitutional processes. The people, not an unelected oligarchy of lifetime political appointees, are the final arbiters of what is or isn’t constitutional.
A controversial government-backed cervical cancer vaccine is ineffective, has deadly side effects and serves no other purpose than to generate profit for its manufacturer, according to a physician who worked at the major pharmaceutical company that’s made huge profits selling it to girls and young women.
It marks the most disturbing inside information exposed about the vaccine, Gardasil, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Merck. The vaccine was scandalously fast-tracked by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been ardently promoted by the Obama administration as a miracle shot that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV).
Instead it’s been linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government’s own daunting statistics. Since 2007 Judicial Watch has been investigating the Gardasil scandal and exposed droves of government records documenting thousands of adverse reactions associated with the vaccine, including paralysis, convulsions, blindness and dozens of deaths. Based on the records JW published a special report in 2008 detailing Gardasil’s approval process, side effects, safety concerns and marketing practices. Undoubtedly, it illustrates a large-scale public health experiment.
Now a one-time pharmaceutical industry physician, Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, who worked with Merck has come forth with shocking inside information that confirms what JW has exposed about Gardasil in its ongoing investigation. Dr. Dalbergue delivered the details in a French health magazine and a U.S. counterpart called Health Impact News Daily translated excerpts of the interview.
The physician confirms that Gardasil is useless, costs a fortune and that decision-makers at all levels are aware of it. “I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers,” Dr. Dalbergue says. He adds that there is far too much financial interest or the vaccine to be withdrawn.
The story also links to a press release issued this month by a member of the French Parliament blasting Gardasil’s safety record in Europe. “Today in Europe, many young women, aged 18-24 years without medical history are affected with very debilitating diseases that could be attributed directly to vaccination,” the announcement says. It goes on to tell the story of a 15-year-old healthy girl who was hospitalized with multiple sclerosis within months of receiving Gardasil. The girl temporarily lost her sight and the use of her legs, according to the French government announcement, which lists other victims.
The document goes on to chastise an “indecent campaign” of lobbying and aggressive advertising to promote Gardasil in Europe by playing on the fears of guilt among mothers. “Protect your daughter, this is what is more natural for a mother,” the French announcement says, revealing that one of the commercials has been banned by a medical agency for “lack of objectivity.”
In the United States the government has heavily pushed the vaccine while covering up its debilitating side effects. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends it for girls starting at age 9 and just a few months ago distributed a 13-minute DVD claiming the side effects are limited to a “little pain and discomfort” and “dizziness and stomach aches.” The video was designed to reach “underserved areas” and “minority populations.”
The Obama administration has also given dozens of state and municipal health agencies tens of millions of dollars to boost the number of adolescents that get Gardasil. This includes targeting low-income and ethnic minority populations that receive “culturally sensitive” intervention in a variety of languages, including Spanish, Mandarin, Armenian and Korean. U.S. law forbids lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, but JW has obtained records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealing that its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded nearly $6 million to dozens of victims in claims made against the very HPV vaccine it is pushing on children.
QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
Thank you so much
REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.
The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.
The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.
The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.
The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “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.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “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.”
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.
You might say Harry Reid is a family man. He likes to use public office to benefit his family at the expense of yours.
Reuters reporter Marcus Stern discovered Harry Reid’s family connections when investigating an odd set of circumstances that tie Reid to the Bureau of Land Management and to Cliven Bundy, the 67 year old rancher, whose property near Bunkerville, Nevada, is in the way of Reid family plans for the Gold Butte region.
Harry Reid says that the fight between the BLM and Bundy is not over. Reid should know. The Director of BLM is none other than Senator Reid’s former senior policy adviser on land-use issues (2003 to 2011), Neil Kornze. Kornze has no prior experience in federal land management, but Reid has often described him as “perfect for the job.” Indeed, perfect for Harry Reid. Kornze’s decision to call off the cattle seizure and to stand down rather than complete the confiscation conveniently saved Reid from an enormous political embarrassment. There is nothing like an enormous blood bath in Nevada precipitated by a Reid family land grab to stoke political flames enough to consume Reid’s weak popularity in short order. Reid knows that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and so now BLM turns to litigation as its way of obtaining judgments against Bundy that BLM hopes will force Bundy to turn over his ranch as payment.
Truth be told, Harry Reid has a long history of involvement with the BLM, peddling his influence there to achieve benefits for his family and friends. Reid worked with BLM to change the boundaries of the desert tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the planned development of a top financial donor, Harvey Whittemore. You see, the desert tortoise is only a justification against development of those who are not politically connected to Reid. Whittemore gave Reid and Reid’s Political Action Committee $45,000. If Cliven Bundy were a Reid financial backer, his fate might well be different, but he is not. Bundy opposes Reid.
Among the reasons posited by BLM in justification for its decision to seize Bundy’s cattle were two: protection of the desert tortoise’s habitat and the need for a cattle free desert to permit creation of a solar panel project for clean energy generation. The desert tortoise excuse is laughable to those resident in the Gold Butte region because they know that the few remaining ranches form oases in an otherwise barren desert and actually help keep the tortoises alive. BLM efforts to turn the ranches back to desert would likely reduce tortoise populations by depriving them of ready access to irrigated and green areas in and around the ranches. Moreover, the tortoise thrives in Las Vegas (is considered a nuisance by many there), and it was BLM, not Bundy, that euthanized hundreds of the tortoises when BLM closed the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center. BLM elected not to dedicate funds to the project and, rather than free the tortoises into the surrounding environment, BLM killed them. Quite obviously, those with political clout not only get to push the desert tortoise around, they get to kill the tortoise, but those who have no beef with the tortoise but also no ins with the Reid family, like Bundy, can be accused of harming the desert tortoise (without proof) and lose their property as a consequence.
As Marcus Stern reports for Reuters, BLM’s second justification for seizing Bundy’s cattle and driving him out of business comes straight out of Harry Reid’s play book: “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. 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.”
Chinese magnate Wang Yusuo, with an estimated net worth of $2.2 billion, owns ENN Group. In 2011 Reid ventured to ENN’s headquarters in Langfang, China, to tour the company and then worked to get this enormous company favored by the Chinese Communist government to take on development of a massive solar energy project in southern Nevada that would endeavor to supply California with 30% of its energy needs. Wang spoke at Reid’s Fourth Annual National Clean Energy Summit last year.
Reid’s lawyer son, Rory Reid, has been instrumental in his father’s efforts. Rory helped put together the ENN deal, while Harry pushed a clean energy agenda in Nevada that included promotion of solar power, laying the foundation for allowing the Chinese energy company with ties to the Communist government in China to acquire thousands of acres of Nevada public land and build a massive solar farm on it. The ENN Group boasts that its Nevada solar farm will be the largest in North America. Do you think a solar farm less disruptive to the desert tortoise habitat than a few hundred cows? How happy do you think the Communist leadership of the Peoples Republic are in knowing that none other than the Majority Leader of the United States Senate has through family connections enabled one of that government’s favorite sons, Wang Yusuo, to acquire 9,000 acres of American soil for an enterprise that will funnel funds that might otherwise go to American business back to Communist China.
Rory Reid served as chairman of the Clark County Commission, which controls the public lands needed by ENN. With Rory’s firm pulling the strings, Clark County’s commissioners over ruled County staff and voted to sell ENN 9,000 acres of public land for a fraction of the market value. Reuter’s Marcus Stern reports that appraisals of the 9,000 acres put the value at between $29.6 million and $38.6 million, but Reid influence secured it for just $4.5 million. Not only does it pay to be on Harry Reid’s good side, and that of his son’s, it really does not pay to be in Harry Reid’s way.Cliven Bundy’s ranch is in Harry Reid’s way. Reid wants Bundy out of southern Nevada. He wants BLM to do the dirty work, to use Bundy’s failure to pay some $1 million in ridiculously exorbitant grazing fees and penalties as justification for confiscating Bundy’s cattle and shutting down Bundy’s ranch. Then, unencumbered by 900 head of cattle roaming over territory to be industrialized, in will step ENN and transform the desert wilderness into a massive solar energy farm with solar panels cooking the already hot desert into an electrical zone capable of satisfying 30% of California’s energy needs.
Marcus Stern reports: “To advance the Nevada project, ENN retained the state’s largest and most prestigious law firm—Lionel Sawyer & Collins, where Rory Reid works.” Since January 2011, Rory Reid’s firm has been the primary advocate of ENN’s interests before Clark County government. Although the County authorized the fire sale of the 9,000 acres to ENN, it did condition the sale on ENN coming up with customers. That proved difficult, so in stepped Harry Reid. In an online chat, Reid vocalized his desires. He wants Nevada’s number one source of power, NV Energy, to become ENN’s customer.
Harry Reid epitomizes the worst in politics today. He uses his public office for private gain. He is willing to destroy the lives of others to advance his interests and to use the clout of his office to influence the conduct and actions of BLM, where he has stationed a trusted source, his former long-time aide, Neil Kornze, available to do his bidding. To quote Thomas Jefferson (from his April 21, 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush): “. . . law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.”
The following offensive text was considered by someone at Facebook to be inappropriate. It was posted by Todd Starnes of Fox News:
“Rancher Bundy should’ve told the feds that those were Mexican cows – who came across the border illegally to seek better grazing opportunities. It was an act of love.”
Any late-night comedian would have delivered this line and got lots of laughs. It satirized all the liberal clichés about immigration and liberal double standards.
Apparently it was too much for the folks at Facebook. Starnes was told, “We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.” Of course, he was never told what “standard” he had violated. This is classic liberalism.
Starnes went on to write, identifying the real sin against Facebook: getting out the message to a broader audience.
“Thousands of you posted comments and many more shared that message. It’s now gone — blotted out by anonymous redactors.
“I reached out to Facebook to find out which part of the message violated their standards. Never heard back. I suspect I should’ve used the term ‘illegal alien cows.’”
The king can’t be reproached in any way.
None of this should surprise us since that the BLM/Bundy standoff, the government put up “Free Speech Zones.” These were the only places where the First Amendment applied.
Liberals can’t stand contrary thought. They are all about it when they are not in control of the process and means of expression. They use the First Amendment as a wedge to get in the door, and then once in the building they close it to shut out all competitive speech. It’s a common tactic. The Berkley “Free Speech Movement” is a classic example.
“In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speech and academic freedom.”
It was a scam. They were using the free speech argument so they could sometime later block competitive speech, and they have been wildly successful.
Many colleges and universities have speech codes. Writing in Forbes, Greg Lukianoff, identifies the appalling course our nation’s schools have taken when it comes to free speech:
“We found that an appalling 62 percent of institutions surveyed maintain policies that restrict a substantial amount of speech protected under the First Amendment — what we call ‘red light’ speech codes. Such schools include Harvard, Columbia, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
“Speech codes come in many forms. The University of North Dakota bans student speech that ‘feels offensive’ or ‘demeaning.’ The University of Missouri at St. Louis boasts a policy restricting speech that will ‘discredit the student body.’ Texas’ Sam Houston State University broadly prohibits ‘abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language.’”
So what has been a mainstay of liberal bullying on college campuses is now affecting major social media companies. Much of this has to do with the fact that there has been almost a god-like allegiance to Barack Obama. His candidacy was viewed as messianic. The liberal utopia was about to dawn, and they had found their leader.
As a result liberals have done everything to protect him and his policies, and free speech, logic, and facts be damned.