Saturday, April 12, 2014

Bombshell: Harry Reid behind Bundy cattle ranch scandal, according to purged documents!

Biz Pac Review ^ | 4/12/14 | Joe Saunders
Amid the growing standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, reports are growing that Senate Majority Harry Reid’s little-known ties to a Chinese solar energy giant could be playing a major role in the confrontation. Reid, D-Nev., and his oldest son, Rory, a former chairman of the Clark County, Nev., County Commission, are both deeply involved in a plan by ENN Energy Group to build a huge solar farm in southern Nevada, according to a Reuters report from August 2012. Land the Bundy family has been using for cattle ranching is getting in the way of that project, according to documents formerly posted on the Bureau of Land Management’s government website but since removed. The acting director of the Bureau of Land Management is Neil Kornze, a former senior policy advisor for Reid. Here is a screenshot of one crucial document from Google’s cache. The most interesting line might be: “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 federal government’s story so far is that the whole showdown is necessary for the protection of gopher tortoises.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds

abc ^ | April 12, 2014 | Liz Field
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters. Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally. Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle. "I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay." The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so." However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area. "Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument ^ | April 12, 2014 | Steve Deace
“Premise” is a word many Americans are not familiar with, and neither do they use it in their everyday speech. However, the premise is one of the most powerful weapons in political warfare. Master the art of the premise, and you will master your opponent. A premise is the assumption of an argument that is meant to justify the conclusion the one making the argument is hoping you’ll come to. If one fails to establish the premise to his argument, one almost always fails to convince others of his conclusion. On the other hand, if one establishes a premise one will more than likely get others to agree with his conclusion. For example, if the premise of the argument is over “reproductive choice” and not “the sanctity of human life,” then the conclusion will come down on the side of the premise accepted. For too long we have argued with the Left over the conclusion (e.g. big government vs. small government) when we should be arguing the premise (e.g. what’s legal for the government to do vs. what’s illegal for the government to do). All too often we accept the premise of the Left’s argument on virtually every issue, which allows them to frame the political battlefield. Any good general will attempt to shape the battlefield in a manner that gives his soldiers the best chance at victory, and we should do the same in the culture war as well. Could you imagine the possibilities if we made the Left defend the Constitutionality (see that as legality) of all their statist schemes, and if our Republican politicians asked questions that rejected their premise from the outset?I get asked questions all the time from the Left’s perspective, and I never accept their premise. For example, in 2011 I did an interview on Dutch National Television. One of the questions was whether those who practice homosexuality should be allowed to serve openly in the military. “I believe all men and women that are physically qualified and able to conform to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ought to be able to serve their country,” I replied. “But what about gays and lesbians,” the Dutch host asked. “I’m sorry, maybe you didn’t hear me,” I replied. “I believe all men and women that are physically qualified and able to conform to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ought to be able to serve their country.”Now he looked confused. “So, is that a yes or a no?”“There are only two types of people,” I told him. “Men and women.”He had nowhere to go after that because I totally shut his premise down by rejecting it from the outset. From there I was on offense throughout the rest of the interview. Recently I was asked by a newspaper reporter to comment on a story he was working on regarding the perception conservatives have a monopoly on the American flag and patriotism. The story centered on a liberal activist who was sewing into an American flag an anti-marriage/pro-immorality speech by Hillary Clinton as a protest against this perceived bias. “Do you think the American flag is seen as a conservative symbol,” he asked. The American flag is a symbol of the virtues and values the generation that devised it and died for it intended it to be, which they enshrined for future generations in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution,” I replied. “Those virtues and values should defy labels except American. Unfortunately, as we cascade over the post-modern cliff, all such absolutes are now considered negotiable.”“Do you think it’s appropriate to incorporate the flag into progressive/liberal messages like a pro-gay marriage art project,” he followed up. “I think our society is better off when we conform our beliefs to the virtues and value that define the American flag, rather than conforming what the flag stands for to suit our own personal whims, desires, and agendas,” I answered. “What’s your response to the claim that conservatives have an unfair monopoly on the flag,” he asked for his final question. “It’s clear from their own writings and actions what values and virtues our Founders intended the flag to stand for: there is a God, our rights come from Him, and the purpose of government is to protect those God-given rights,” I responded. “That vision should transcend our current petty political labeling, and if your particular agenda doesn’t reconcile with that uniquely American vision the problem is you, not the vision.”Nowhere in this dialogue did I accept the premise of the questioning, which was that the country is so divided that we even have multiple interpretations of traditional Americana. Nothing could be further from the truth, for we do not get to interpret the meanings of such things when the authors themselves left such a clear record of what they meant. That is common Leftist/Marxist tactic known as Social Reconstructionism, and if I accept the premise of these questions I am accepting the validity of that pagan and un-American philosophy, which means we never arrive at the truth and just keep arguing our own perspectives. If the Leftists want to make the case what they believe is in line with the founding vision of these United States, then by all means go back into the historical record and make that case. Except they won’t and they can’t. There’s a simple reason why the Left doesn’t pay as much homage to the founding of this country as we do, and it’s because most of what they believe is contrary to it, which is why they’ve had to take over the schools and scrub that history from the textbooks. Even one of the Left’s favorite Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, was so opposed to what most Leftists believe they’d peg him with their favorite word for conservatives—“extreme.” Proving those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, not once but twice during the 2012 presidential debates Mitt Romney failed to confront President Obama on his version of the events that led to four dead Americans at the Benghazi terror attacks. Romney allowed Obama’s false premise to be asserted on the biggest stage of the campaign, thus allowing what should’ve been an issue that toppled the Obama presidency to become a strength prior to voters heading to the polls. It wasn’t until after the election in Congressional hearings featuring several Benghazi whistle-blowers -- all of whom who worked for Obama -- that the president’s account proved to be false. By then it was too late, and those four dead Americans and their families still haven’t received justice. One of the reasons we see so many Republicans accepting the premise of the Left’s argument is because they don’t possess a solid worldview. Thus, most Republicans end up being defined by what they’re against and not what they’re for. Without a premise they’re just playing defense. Most Republicans don’t know what they’re for beyond they’re for beating Democrats. The Left is always advancing their premise, and too many Republicans don’t have one, which means unless “we the people” step in we end up allowing Leftists to frame the argument. We can step in when it comes to voting, but at some point we need to actually elect politicians who can advance our premise in the arena of public policy. Otherwise we’ll continue going “forward” over the cliff the Left has us headed towards. The only debate will be how fast over that cliff we go.

The Renewable Fuel Standard: Not as "Green" As You Think

The Hill ^ | April 4, 2014
By incentivizing the production and mandating the consumption of first-generation biofuels — predominantly corn-based ethanol — lawmakers hoped to create a transportation fuel revolution. Instead, they've created a legislative monstrosity that has ravaged our land, polluted our air, diverted our water, driven up food prices at home and abroad, put engines at risk and cost U.S. taxpayers billions. In order to meet the excessive ethanol mandates in the RFS, more and more land has been converted to grow corn for fuel — not food. In the 16 years prior to RFS implementation, corn acreage in the U.S. rose by just 6 percent. By contrast, in the seven years since the mandate was enacted, corn acreage has spiked by 22 percent — quadruple the growth in half the time. The Environmental Working Group estimates that more than 23 million acres of America's wetlands and grasslands — an area the size of Indiana — have been converted to industrial cropland since 2008, encroaching on our wildlife habitats and gobbling up enough conservation land to cover Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks — combined. By 2030, nearly one of every 10 gallons of water consumed in the U.S. will be used for biofuels production. That's more than is cumulatively used by every household in the country. Let that sink in. Making matters worse, fertilizer runoff resulting from the increase in corn production to make ethanol has contributed to an alarming growth of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, leaving marine life asphyxiated and surrounding industries suffering in its wake. And what about our air? Studies have found that corn ethanol nearly doubles emissions over a 30-year period. According to the EPA, the lifecycle emissions of corn ethanol are higher than that of gasoline. So much for being a cleaner fuel.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What Do White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Soviet-Era Propaganda Have in Common? ^ | 4/12/14 | Jason Howerton
What Do White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Soviet-Era Propaganda Have in Common? They Both Live in the Same House. Washingtonian MOM magazine’s new profile on White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s wife is getting a lot of media coverage — just not for the actual profile. It’s the pictures found within the piece that are stealing all the attention. In one of the accompanying photos, two framed Soviet-era propaganda posters are clearly visible.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

True the Vote President: Cummings Emails 'Tip of an Ugly Iceberg'

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 11 Apr 2014
The ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee actively conspired to inappropriately target and silence tea party-affiliated groups, says Catherine Engelbrecht, president of True the Vote. House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa released emails this week that suggest Rep. Elijah Cummings, Maryland Democrat, prompted the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the conservative organization as it was applying for nonprofit status, according to The Washington Examiner. Engelbrecht told John Bachman and J.D. Hayward of "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV that these emails will undermine claims by Cummings and the IRS that no conservative groups were targeted for political reasons. "I'm thrilled to see that these documents are seeing the light of day and my current hope is that we continue on in this discovery process because we're only beginning to see what I believe is the tip of a very ugly iceberg," she said. Video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

33 People That Had One Job and Failed

Bored Panda ^ | 04-10-14 | " Skirmantė "
Mass-produced products like toys, food and clothing are usually made in factories by huge machines that work with cold, mechanical precision. However, whether a product is made by a machine or a human, there’s always plenty of room for (hilarious) error, which is why I’ve collected this list of 33 “you had one job” fails. Although most of the pictures below present manufacturer fails, some of them show how inattentive or tired workers fail to perform their duties right. Such oversights occasionally have the potential to be dangerous, but other times they just wind up looking funny!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Shocking Allegations Show Harry Reid, Chinese Company Behind Nevada Ranch Standoff!

Western Journalism ^ | 4/11/2014 | Christopher Agee
As a family in Clark County, Nev. continues to face an onslaught of heavily armed federal agents determined to kick them off of their ranch, reports have surfaced that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might be behind the entire ordeal. The ranch, which has been in Cliven Bundy’s family for more than a century, is ground zero for a growing showdown between federal authorities and individual rights activists. Despite attempting to silence protesters by limiting them to so-called “First Amendment areas,” law enforcement personnel, legislators, and militia members are heading to the site in droves to express their outrage over the Bureau of Land Management’s show of force.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...