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:


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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial