Las Vegas Mom Shot, Killed From Road Rage Driver In Front Of Her Home
BY PHIL HELSEL
A Las Vegas woman who was killed in an apparent road rage shooting last week drove around with her armed son looking for the suspect who would later shoot her in front of her home, police said Tuesday.
Tammy Meyers, 44, was shot by someone in a gray or silver four-door sedan outside her home around 11:22 p.m. Thursday, and died two days later. The suspect or suspects remain unidentified, police said.
Police said Meyers and her armed 22-year-old son followed a car she believed had been involved in a road rage incident earlier that night, that they stopped following the vehicle and returned home, and when they got there a car matching the description of the one they’d followed pulled up and someone inside it began shooting. Meyers’ son returned fire, police said.
“I did what I had to do to protect my family. Everyone can think what they have to think; I did it for a reason. And I’d do it for anyone I love,” Meyers’ son, Brandon, said at a vigil Tuesday.
“My mother was a very strong woman … She was a kind woman,” he said. “She didn’t deserve this.”
Las Vegas police Lt. Ray Steiber said Tammy Meyers was behind the wheel and was returning home from teaching her 15-year-old daughter how to drive when a car sped up behind them, and that her daughter reached over and honked the horn.
“She was getting a driving lesson. So she figured that this person was speeding and they needed to be corrected,” Steiber said. The driver got out and confronted them before Meyers sped off.
After the incident Meyers “is scared, but she’s upset,” Steiber said. She and her son then went out looking for the driver and they found the car she believed was involved in the earlier incident — which police referred to as a “suspect vehicle” — and followed it before heading for home.
As they got out of their car, a gray or silver four-door sedan showed up at the cul-de-sac and “there was a volley of rounds fired from that vehicle,” Steiber said. Meyers’ son shot back, and after the gunfire was over he discovered Meyers, who was behind him, had been shot. Police believe she was struck by a gunman in the other car.
Meyers’ husband, Robert Meyers, told mourners at the vigil that his late wife was a beautiful woman who loved her kids, but also that “she hated bullies.”
Steiber said the gun Meyers’ son was armed with is properly registered.
“I would never say that anybody went looking for trouble and unfortunately I can’t ask Tammy what was in her mind at the time of her actions,” Steiber said. “What I can say is this: At this point in time Tammy is a victim. This family right now is in mourning. They are very distraught over what has occurred.”
“Regardless of what our personal opinions are on certain people’s actions, they weren’t criminal,” he said.
Police have described the suspect as a white male about 25 years old, about 6 feet tall and 180 pounds with “dirty blonde hair worn in a spiked style” and hazel or blue eyes.
Life on the ranch six miles downstream of this Virgin River hamlet has been peaceful in the six months since hundreds of gun-toting militia members from across the nation rallied in support of defiant rancher Cliven Bundy.
Without firing a shot that day, April 12, they persuaded federal agents to let them release more than 300 of Bundy’s “trespass” cattle that Bureau of Land Management agents and contractor cowboys had gathered in a corral.
They had spent a week rounding up Bundy’s herd from the rugged Gold Butte range, 75 miles northeast of Las Vegas. That’s where Bundy has refused to pay federal grazing fees for 21 years.
Bundy, 68, said he has been enjoying his “liberty and freedoms” since that day. Yet, while the spotlight of U.S. media attention has dimmed, he still gives interviews by telephone and Skype to foreign news outlets from such cities as London.
“One thing that’s happened is, since the standoff, we’ve really enjoyed some liberty and freedoms out here,” Bundy said in an Oct. 30 interview in the front yard of the house his father built in the early 1950s.
“We have got rid of … overreaching government policing agents here,” Bundy said as he sat in a wooden bench swing while birds chirped from shrubs and shade trees.
“Since the standoff, we haven’t seen one BLM vehicle on any of these country roads around this ranch. We haven’t seen one BLM ranger. We haven’t seen one (National) Park Service ranger. We haven’t really seen any undercover-type people. We haven’t seen snipers on top of our hills. We haven’t seen high-tech communication equipment. We haven’t seen any of those things.”
Two bodyguards, each with a holstered pistol, greet visitors to the ranch. But the armed throng of states’ rights and Second Amendment advocates who flocked to the dirt roads and pull-offs around the state Route 170 bridge have dissipated. Only one cab-over-camper on jacks remained at the makeshift outpost dubbed Bunker Hill.
The peaceful pause, however, on this mild fall day before the midterm election, might have been the calm before a storm looming on the horizon.
Clark County Sheriff-elect Joe Lombardo has said the FBI launched a criminal investigation after the standoff that could result in federal charges against Bundy. Lombardo ought to know. He was the tactical commander on that day for Metropolitan Police Department officers who responded to keep the peace. They were there, he said, to protect citizens as well as federal law enforcement personnel from the BLM and other agencies.
“I believe we could have been more forceful with the federal agencies, specifically the BLM, in our position and our thoughts or our intents in that whole operation,” Lombardo told the Review-Journal in a Sept. 4 interview when he was a candidate to replace Sheriff Doug Gillespie, who had tried to negotiate with Bundy.
“At one point we took the second fiddle to that operation when we tried to convince them that their movement or operation was probably not going to end well,” Lombardo said.
“We thought that due process still had a chance for both us and Mr. Bundy. But they chose to pull the trigger and move forward. I believe we could have been a little more influential in even the sheriff’s position through the governor and/or the Beltway.”
As it stands now, and if any charges are filed against Bundy for anything like his refusal to pay grazing fees or violating federal court orders, Lombardo said “we’re at the whim” of the FBI. He said the FBI “absorbed the criminal investigation” after the standoff.
Lombardo said it remains to be seen if charges will be filed and if the FBI will “seek our assistance in taking Mr. Bundy into custody. I don’t anticipate them seeking our assistance. I think we will do the best we can if they decide to make it a public event that we meet with Mr. Bundy and try to facilitate a surrender” or a due-process avenue for him.
“The last thing we need is a range war out there,” Lombardo said.
BLM officials declined to answer numerous questions but issued a statement: “Efforts to resolve the issue through the legal system are ongoing. Please contact DOJ (Department of Justice) for further information.”
POLICING A POWDER KEG
Bundy said the range war was “probably one breath away” from exploding in gunfire.
“One backfire of a vehicle, one firecracker, one somebody makes a crazy gunshot. It was that close, and it could have been either side’s fault,” he said. “It could have been We-The-People’s fault, or it could have been the government agency’s fault.
“If that would have happened, there would have probably been lots of people maybe killed,” the rancher said, his blue eyes focused in a serious stare beneath the brim of his 10-gallon hat.
“I never did handle this thing with guns,” he said. “If you go back over my record through the last 20-something years, you never see me pointing a gun at anybody. … We had plenty guns running up and down this hill. We had BLM and Park Service, and Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife and all of those people.”
While he might be looking over his shoulder when he ventures from his ranch on occasional trips he makes to Las Vegas, Bundy said he is not so worried about handcuffs or arrests. He does, however, have “two fears I should maybe be careful of.”
“One, the question is, ‘Will the government come back?’ The United States government. Will they come back with their army and basically try to take over control of Bundy’s ranch?
“And the other thing would be some lunatic-type guy, some environmental wacko, somebody like that. Would they come and basically try to take my life or something like that?” Bundy said.
“What are they going to charge me with? When you start talking about who the criminal is, if somebody is going to put handcuffs on me and take me to jail, what’s going to be the crime?
“As far as I’m concerned, I’ve paid my grazing fees to a proper government. So why should I pay my grazing fee to the United States government? They have no jurisdiction and authority, or own the land.
“If I owe so damn much money, like $1.2 million, why don’t they bill me?”
What about violating a court order to remove trespass cattle?
“What does that have to do with dollars? It don’t have nothin’ to do with dollars,” Bundy said.
“Unless they want to charge me for their efforts in gathering my cattle, and their efforts for counting my cattle, and their efforts for getting an army together to come sick down me, my family and my neighbors and we the people stole it?
“If they want to charge me for all of that, I could probably owe them maybe $5 million. But they haven’t billed me for none of those things.
“I question their jurisdiction and authority. Since when does the federal court have jurisdiction and authority over Nevada state land?” he asked.
“If I were grazing my cattle on the post office lawn down in Las Vegas, then they could send me a bill, and I guess I would probably pay it. But I don’t graze my cattle on the post office lawn. And I don’t graze my cattle on Nellis Air Force Base. I graze my cattle out here in Clark County in the sovereign state of Nevada.”
RECIPE FOR A STANDOFF
Lombardo said Bundy “was trying to push the interpretation of the Constitution to fit his needs.”
Bundy has routinely turned a deaf ear to federal authorities when they talk about harm they say his cattle have caused for grazing habitat vital to the federally protected desert tortoise.
The public lands, in his view, are state lands, not federal. With a U.S. Constitution pamphlet poking from his shirt pocket, his conversation always comes back to “We The People.”
He despises federal agency officials, especially those who wear badges and patrol the area around his 160-acre private holding. Sometimes he refers to the surrounding public range as “my ranch,” because he maintains water developments there, one of which he said dates back to 1906 and is considered to be grandfathered in by his pioneer ancestors.
Bundy and “the feds” simply don’t see eye to eye.
“Them are the kind of people that’s been patrolling this land. You never seen Bundys out there patrolling the land with any kind of weapons or telling the public that we’re on trespass or you weren’t welcome. You never seen Bundy doing any of those things.”
When he talks, he often refers to himself in the third person. He also has his own Bundy vocabulary. For example, when he blames wildlife officials for purposely killing desert tortoises, the method they use, he says, is “euthanate,” not “euthanize.”
Bundy said Clark County sheriff’s deputies should have responded to his defense and pointed their guns at federal agents instead of militia members.
“They only need to say one word, and they could have said this word months ago before the standoff. All they had to do is tell the federal government, ‘No. You’re not going to do that in this state,’ ” he said.
ROOTS AND TORTOISE SOUP
Despite critics who refer to Bundy as a “squatter” on public land, he said he has rights to graze cattle on the range because they make beneficial use of it.
That beneficial use began when his maternal great-great-grandfather, Dudley Leavitt, arrived in the area with Edward Bunker in January 1877. They had left Santa Clara, Utah territory, with “six wagons and 70 head of cattle,” according to diary entries compiled for a history book about Bunkerville.
“When they came here, they came in a wagon with a horse and team,” he said. “So they unbuckled the harness and took the horse over to a spring or a crick and gave that horse a drink of water. The moment that horse took a sip of water, he started to create a beneficial use of a renewable resource. And I have continued to use that resource from that time until today.”
Bundy said the BLM has never challenged his water rights.
“They have tried to destroy my water rights, destroy my structure, but never questioned whether I had the rights.”
Species affected by treaties and commerce could merit federal protection, but Bundy said threatened desert tortoises, unlike migratory birds, don’t fit those categories.
“The desert tortoise don’t fly, and it don’t go to Mexico and don’t go to Canada. So we can’t have treaties that don’t work,” he said.
Under a Clark County plan to protect species’ habitat, Bundy said wildlife officials “have captured that tortoise for 20 years, put him in a jail, controlled his custom and culture. (They) controlled his habitat and then ‘euthanated’ him. How many thousands have they ‘euthanated’ in the last 20 years?
“That’s 20,000 tortoises? And they’ve got 1,400 of them left. What happened to those 20,000 tortoises?” he said, referring to those that were captured on lands targeted for development, or had been kept as pets and taken to the BLM’s sanctuary.
“They couldn’t turn them loose because they said they’ve got respiratory diseases. And if they turned them out on the wild, they would infect the wild tortoise. They couldn’t do that. So what did they do with those tortoises? They killed them tortoises. So was those tortoises endangered? I guess they was. The federal government darn sure took care of them.”
A federal land grab being imposed under the guise of environmental protection in Southern Nevada has been labeled an act of “deliberate retaliation” by Cliven Bundy, the rancher who was at the center of a standoff between BLM agents and armed militia groups earlier this year.
On Sunday, the Bundy family posted a Facebook entry which asserted that, “the federal government is mounting retaliations against the Bundy family and the Southern Nevada people,” after it was announced that the feds intended to designate around 1.8 million acres of land around their Gold Butte range as critical to the environment.
The initial dispute between Bundy and the feds, which culminated in an armed standoff between BLM agents and Bundy supporters back in April, centered around more than $1 million in grazing fees which authorities claimed Bundy owed stretching back two decades.
The Bundy family asserts that the new draft Resource Management Plan made public by the Bureau of Land Management would place up to 3 million acres of land off limits to recreational use, agriculture or ranching.
“They’re trying to surround us by controlling all the land. People should know they’re doing this without the knowledge of the people who use it,” Carol Bundy told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Days after the standoff came to a head earlier this year, after which the feds were forced to release nearly 400 cattle belonging to Bundy, Nevada Senator Harry Reid labeled Bundy supporters “domestic terrorists” and indicated that the fight was not over.
“From near the beginning of history, tyrannical men have sought to oppress through the control of land and resources, “Control the land and resources, and you have the power to control the people”. There is a direct correlation to land and resources with power and wealth. All major powers in world history have gained their power & wealth by conquering the land and controlling the resources,” states the Bundy Facebook post, adding that Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) “have been a tool used by the federal government to gain further control of large masses of western lands and the resources.”
The BLM’s latest move to seize huge tracts of land surrounding Bundy’s property under the justification of environmental protection suggests that we could witness part two of the ‘Battle of Bunkerville’ sometime over the next few months.
Cliven Bundy leaves GOP, joins the Independent American Party
With the Republican embrace of Cliven Bundy softening as soon as he offered his controversial views on the state of African Americans in the US, the Nevada rancher has decided to switch his allegiances.
According to the Associated Press, Bundy officially left the Republican Party last Friday, when both he and his wife registered as voters with the Independent American Party. The switch took place at an event held by his new political group, which was organized to honor “his courage in standing up for state sovereignty.”
Asked why he was changing parties, the Elko Daily quoted Bundy saying, “Well, I haven’t got much good out of the Democrats and Republicans so I decided to try a new one.”
As RT has reported in the past, over the last two months Bundy has been involved in a growing dispute with the federal government over land rights. The Bureau of Land Management claims it’s been over 20 years since the rancher paid the fees associated with allowing his cattle to graze on public land, meaning he’s amassed an overdue bill of roughly $1 million.
Bundy, however, does not recognize federal authority over public land, and argues that he doesn’t owe the government anything for using what his family had operated on since the late 1800s.
The situation came to a head when BLM agents attempted to seize Bundy’s cattle, prompting the rancher’s supporters – which included armed militia members – to come to his defense and initiate an armed standoff with federal agents. The cattle were eventually returned in order avoid escalation.
Bundy was praised by some Republicans for standing up to what they saw as government overreach, but the goodwill faded quickly when the rancher wondered aloud to a reporter whether African Americans were better off as slaves.
His new affiliation with the Independent American Party is noteworthy considering the group’s mission, which in part calls on members to reverse laws, regulations, and treaties that are “unconstitutional or an offense to God and our Founding Fathers.” It also seeks to “return the control of government back to the people.”
As noted by Raw Story, the IAP has endorsed David Lory Van Der Beek in his race to be Nevada’s lieutenant governor. Van Der Beek believes “terrorist attacks and mass shootings are government-backed false flag organizations,” and staged a faux, videotaped debate with a cardboard cutout of Nevada’s Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, in which he defended Bundy’s claim that he’s not beholden to the federal government.
Meanwhile, Republican congressional candidate Niger Innis, son of civil rights leader Roy Innis, also defended Bundy at Friday’s event, saying, “I don’t consider Cliven racist at all.”
“[Critics] will try to distract, with the firestorm that Cliven started by using the R-word,” he added, according to Buzzfeed. “The racism word. I can only tell you my experience with the Bundys. Having eaten with them and broken bread with them, and I don’t consider Cliven or his wonderful family racist at all. Period, end of story.”
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision upholding the government’s roundup of more than 1,600 wild horses along the Nevada-California line in 2010. The ruling, by the three judge panel in San Francisco, rejected an appeal by horse advocates accusing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management of gathering too many Mustangs which violates the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
Judge Carlos Bea concluded in the majority opinion that the BLM completed the necessary environmental reviews for the Twin Peaks roundup not far from the Oregon line, and that the court must defer to the agency’s expertise.
“In sum, the BLM’s actions fell within the discretion which courts have recognized the BLM has to remove excess animals,” he wrote.
BLM maintains the term “remove” should be interpreted to refer to the permanent removal of animals, not the temporary gathering of animals to decide which ones should be euthanized and which should be made available for adoption. The agency claims that if left unchecked, the herds could exceed 6,000 to 8,000 animals within a decade.
‘In Defense of Animals,’ argued that the act prohibits the removal of any Mustangs from horse management areas on the range before the agency first identifies old, sick or lame animals to be destroyed humanely, to which Judge Johnnie Rawlinson agreed in her dissent.
“The act couldn’t be clearer,” she wrote. “It is only after old sick or lame animals are destroyed that the act provides for additional excess wild horses to be captured.”
Two days before the ruling, a group of Utah residents rode all-terrain vehicles onto federally managed public lands to protest the BLM’s closing off of the area in Blanding. The protesters and their supporters say the agency has unfairly closed off a prized area, cheating them of outdoor recreation.
However, federal officials say the region, known for its archaeological ruins, is in danger from overuse. BLM Utah State Director Juan Palma, in a statement, said the riders may have damaged artifacts and dwellings of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.
“The BLM was in Recapture Canyon…collecting evidence and will continue to investigate,” Palma said. “The BLM will pursue all available redress through the legal system to hold the lawbreakers accountable.”
Recapture Canyon is home to dwellings, artifacts and burials left some 2,000 years ago. The BLM closed the canyon to motor vehicles in 2007 after two men created “an illegal” seven-mile trail, while hikers and those on horseback are still allowed there.
Bureau of Land Management officers recorded and documented protesters who traveled into the closure area. About 30 deputies and a handful of BLM law enforcement officers watched as protesters drove past a closure sign and down the canyon some 300 miles southeast of Salt Lake City.
San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge said that between 40 and 50 people, many of them waving American flags, drove about a mile down the canyon, then turned around. Hundreds attended a rally at a nearby park before the protest.
“It was peaceful, and there were no problems whatsoever,” Eldredge told The Associated Press.
San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman organized the ride. The Commissioner and his supporters want the BLM to act more quickly on a years-old application for a public right-of-way through the area.
Earlier, BLM officials notified Lyman that any illegal travel in the area would bring consequences such as citations and arrest. The protest comes weeks after Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s successful standoff against the agency over grazing rights.
As for the Bundy stand-off, the FBI is investigating whether anyone broke federal laws during the April 12th standoff, including threats against law enforcement officers and the use of illegal weapons. Authorities say that while they don’t want to inflame the situation, reports of people pointing weapons at law enforcement need to be investigated.
Las Vegas’s KLAS TV reported that the FBI is looking at pictures and videos taken during the standoff and questioning law enforcement officers who were at Bunkerville. They are also concerned about the possible involvement of anti-government groups.
The FBI has yet to name those groups publicly.
An estimated 300 people joined Bundy when the BLM began to round-up his cattle after he refused to vacate federally owned land and pay more than $1 million in fees. The faceoff that began last month is part of a two-decade-long fight between Bundy and the BLM.
The BLM halted the cattle roundup and is considering what to do next, including arresting Bundy for failing to follow the law, seizing his assets through the Treasury Department or sending the case to the Department of Justice.
But the battle isn’t contained to just Western States, as the group Patriot for America marched on Washington. Organizers had planned to call for the removal of Barack Obama, John Boehner, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and anyone else who had ‘trampled on the constitution.”
“We are calling for (their) removal…as a start toward constitutional restoration,” said retired Army Colonel Harry Riley. “They have all abandoned the U.S. Constitution, are unworthy to be retained in a position that calls for servant status.”
The group expected between 10 million and 30 million people to meet them in the capital for a rally billed as “Operation American Spring”, however, only around 250 supporters showed up.
During his radio program the day of the march, commentator Glenn Beck warned against the dangers of “spring-like” movements.
“So anybody who wants the American Spring, no thank you. I see how it’s worked out oh so well for those people in Egypt. No thank you,” Beck said.
“Look…what the government did in the Great Depression, before World War II,” he added. “Look at what they did to all of the veterans who were protesting in Washington for benefits — don’t think that they won’t turn your guns on you because they will. We’ve done it before. We’ll do it again.”
For the past few decades the Communist regime of China has been driving toward world supremacy, both economically and militarily. The regime’s main target has been, and is, the United States of America. China’s plan to grab power has been clever and unprecedented, seeking victory without firing a shot, reducing its targets to mere frogs in a boiling pot.
Pundits and politicians alike, when excusing their strategic dealings with China, are quick to remind their audiences that today’s China is a “centuries old civilization” rich in tradition and ancient religious discipline. A Confucian civilization that is still upset over wrongdoings during the European colonization period.
Such a view is wrong. The China we are confronted with today is nothing like that pre-nineteenth century nation. Since the reign of Mao Tse-tung began in 1949, Communist China, much to the dismay, torture, and death of its own citizens, has been governed by tyrannical thugs, thirsty to expand their dictatorial regime and unrelenting in their hatred of Western Civilization and the United States.
At a recent public meeting in New York, a local citizen asked the China City spokesman if Americans will be allowed to live there. The vague answer was “well, you can visit our amusement park and stay in our hotels.”
Militarily, China has literally surrounded the US. Once there was a Monroe Doctrine to forbid any foreign power to exert influence in American’s back yard, meaning South, Central and North America. All nations respected that doctrine as America vigorously imposed it.
That is until China played on the growing weakness of American foreign policy, as when Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal and scuttled all American bases in one of the most the strategic locations of American defense. Since then, China has established relationships and bases in several South and Central American nations.
The Chinese are now building the world’s largest and most powerful navy, aggressively challenging US naval passage in international waters; it now claims the entire South China Sea as an internal Chinese lake; and it is building an aggressive space program that will give it the ability to counter US satellite supremacy, resulting in its ability to spy on every location on Earth and counter US military supremacy.
The difference between the Chinese threat today and what turned out to be a hollow challenge to the free world by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, is economics. The genius of the Chinese system is that they are using its growing industrial might to create wealth the Soviets could never have dreamed of possessing.
China is using its vast wealth (trillions of dollars) compiled from the glut of Chinese goods sold in American stores, to buy its power. It’s buying American debt and wielding heavy influence on the American economy.
Now, however, that Chinese economic power is taking a bizarre and exceptionally dangerous turn right in local American communities, America, it appears, is on the brink of being colonized, because China is fast becoming the largest land owner in America.
This fact is mostly a result of a program through the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service (USCIS), called Immigrant Investor Regional Centers. The program is known in Washington-Speak as EB-5 Centers, so called because they represent a fifth category of employment-based immigration.
In reality, it’s a foreign investment program pretending to be a jobs program. To qualify through the plan, applicants must invest $1,000,000 in a US business or at least $500,000 if the business is in an area of high unemployment or rural area. That investment must create or preserve 10 full-time American jobs. In exchange, the immigrant will initially gain legal residency and U.S. Green Cards for their entire family. If the enterprise continues and jobs are created, then the applicant can apply for permanent residence.
According to government reports, since it started in 1990, the EB-5 visa program has brought approximately $6.7 billion to the US and has created 95,000 jobs. Entrepreneurs across the nation have set up regional centers for foreign investment to market local EB-5 projects to investors.
There are now at least 480 EB-5 regional centers located in all 50 states. California alone has 116 of the centers. Many of these projects are focusing on building housing developments. Others are focusing on buying up dairy farms, cattle ranches, meat packing plants, and other sources of American food supplies. Still more are focused on getting a piece of American energy sources. Some of the centers are state run, others are private investment entities.
Beyond the Green Cards and residency, the immigrants running these projects can also expect government sponsored benefits such as federal and state grants (taxpayer dollars) tax breaks or perhaps no sales taxes on supplies and materials they purchase to put the projects in place. Along with federal agencies, the projects work directly with state and county development corporations for more cooperation and help getting through the regulatory mine fields that ordinary American companies must endure.
EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Centers are promoted as jobs programs and as a way to help financially strapped communities to bring in much needed money. As a result, the projects are growing across the nation with little concern expressed over the impact and end result of such foreign involvement in American communities.
Marriot and Hilton hotel chains have successfully worked EB-5 investment deals to build new hotels. Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Brothers have used EB-5 investments to fund film projects. Even the new home of the NBA’s Brooklyn Nets, Barclay Center, was funded through EB-5 investments.
While the program is open to immigrants from around world, the main interest appears to be from Communist China. According to a report by Michael Snyder (“Chinese Buying Land in US Communities all over America”), in 2012 – 2013, 6,900 visas were issued to Chinese nationals out of a total of 8,567 EB-5 visas issued. In 2014, the number of applicants is 50% higher – again driven by Chinese applicants.
When considering this large influx of Chinese – funded projects, it must be understood that there are no private companies in China that are free to act on their own. China is a Communist regime. Nothing happens there without the express permission and backing of the government. Individuals posing as Chinese corporate leaders are part of that government. They simply wouldn’t have that position if not approved by the government.
For the most part they are a front.
43% of all corporate profits in China are produced by companies that the Chinese government controls outright. And all the rest of their companies are subservient to the power of the government and are very careful not to stray. Individual Chinese citizens are not free to invest as they wish or to leave the country by their own decision. It takes a complicated process through the Chinese bureaucracy for that to happen.
And that’s why massive Chinese investments in the EB-5 program are cause for alarm. What are they up to?
In San Francisco, CA, China Vanke signed a deal for a $620 million luxury condo project.
In Oakland, CA, another Chinese company (Zarsion) signed a deal for $1.5 billion for a development deal.
In Irvine, CA a housing development will include some of the nation’s largest developers using Chinese money.
In New York City, Zhang Xin, CEO of Soho China joined with Banco Safra Bank of Brazil to buy a piece of the General Motors Building in Midtown.
A Chinese developer, Dalian Wanda Group, is planning to build a luxury hotel in Manhattan.
In Florida, Chinese investors have put $30 million into the state’s Charter Schools and are intending to invest even more in coming days.
12 Chinese investors have put $16 million into an aquaculture project on 100 acres in Fellsmere, FL.
More recent efforts show the Chinese making major investments in the Detroit auto industry.
In Thomasville, Alabama, the Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group is negotiating with city officials to build a new plant. The town is ready to give them a 40-acre site that includes a 50,000 square foot building built by the city – with tax payer money.
More such projects are in the works in Idaho, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and literally every state in the Union.
Nevada cattle rancher, Bunch and the Chinese connection
Meanwhile, Americans were recently shocked to witness a near massacre in the Nevada desert as rancher Cliven Bundy stood his ground against an army of government agents from the Bureau of Land Management. He was accused of letting his cattle graze on public lands, endangering the Desert Tortoise, even though cattle and the Desert Tortoise have coexisted on the range for 100 years. But for this excuse the federal government amassed an army? Not so fast. There is much more to the story. It seems a certain U.S. Senator has been involved with EB-5 real estate deals for some time. And that issue has close ties to the Bundy situation.
Who are the investors for ENN? The Chinese, using the EB-5 program. Who represents ENN in its negotiations? Rory Reid, Harry’s son.
This little band has already run 52 other ranchers in the area. Bundy is the last one left. So was the BLM there in force for turtles or as the private enforcement machine of a corrupt Senator seeking to fill his pockets with cash? Senator Reid is the one who said, “This isn’t over yet.” He’s apparently in a position to know.
However, Reid isn’t the only public figure involved in EB-5 schemes.
A little research will also reveal an EB-5 deal by Anthony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother and former son in law of Barbra Boxer.
Also in that deal was Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton advisor and now Governor of Virginia. These two gained EB-5 investments for their car company. And then there is Alejandro Mayorkas, who helped push through the deal for McAuliffe and Rodham and is under investigation for it. Mayorkas is now the number two man at the Department of Homeland Security, aided in getting that position though some questionable maneuvering during his confirmation hearings by none other Senator Harry Reid.
But perhaps the most aggressive Chinese project is moving forward in Sullivan County, New York in the Catskill Mountains. This project is called China City. It will eventually cover over 2,000 acres spread over the towns of Thompson and Mamakating. It will include a Chinese-themed gambling/entertainment complex, hotels, China-related businesses, a high school, a college and 1,000 residences. (See story)
According to the plan, every province of China will have an office there and the city will be full of symbols of Chinese culture. When finished it would be a $6 billion project, including a $65 million federal grant of tax payer money along with the other incentives such as tax breaks on building supplies and property taxes.
At a recent public meeting, a local citizen asked the China City spokesman if Americans will be allowed to live there. The vague answer was “well, you can visit our amusement park and stay in our hotels.”
Is this how Americans are to be treated in their country, in a project paid in part by taxpayer dollars? And exactly what American jobs will be created (as required) in a planned city where no Americans can live? Will the Chinese government send its own workers to do the construction of the city? And what security process will be used to assure such workers are not involved in espionage?
This is a legitimate concern when dealing with the Communist Chinese government. While brilliant in its strategy, it is single minded in its goal – supremacy. The United States has always stood in its way to achieve that supremacy. But the waning American economy and a US government that no longer sees communism as a threat, makes us vulnerable to a power that knows exactly what it seeks.
American communities are so hungry for money that they will ignore almost anything. Red flags should go up when locals are told they can’t live in China City. Why? Is this simply about an investment opportunity, or is China City, and other Chinese investments, actually to be Chinese colonies? Why will it house offices from every China province? Do we know what those offices are to do? Who will man them? Obviously that is not where the 10 permanent American jobs will come from.
It’s important to note that the Canadian government has decided recently to halt its immigrant investor program due to the large number of Chinese applications that were found to be fraught with fraud and corruption and to be of little economic benefit to the country.
Meanwhile, the US is expanding such programs to make it much easier for foreign investment and ultimately unfettered foreign espionage. We’re creating special foreign trade zones (FTZ) designed to give special US customs treatment to US companies that go along with the EB-5 projects. That means security will be lacking in the interest of “good relations.”
Yet, it was only a decade ago that US intelligence discovered the Chinese had taken control of both ends of the Panama Canal. Using a shill company called Hutchison Whampoa, which was wholly owned by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, it negotiated a 25 to 50 year lease for the Canal ports.
As the United States pulled out of our Panamanian bases and headed home, corrupt Panamanian officials were busy selling former US property to the highest bidders and Columbian drug lords, Russian Mafia and a horde of Chinese “immigrants” filled the void. It was like the bar scene in Star Wars.
Would the Chinese put in missile bases with weapons that could reach the US? As Bill Clinton assured us that everything was just fine, the Chinese were busy negotiating with the Cuban Communist regime and several other South American countries to create a Chinese presence in the entire region surrounding the Panama Canal. They now considered it their territory for the taking.
Is this now what faces American cities where EB-5 investment programs are being imposed with Chinese Communist money? As a new assault by hordes of Chinese “immigrants” legally invade our nation, filling housing developments and building their own cities, our culture will be affected.
Even our system of government could change in areas where Chinese populations begin to grow and perhaps even outnumber Americans. All from an enemy we let through the front door in a government program, based more on greed than American interests.
Like the invasion of the body snatchers, it appears the Chinese, aided by a compliant American government, have a well-devised strategic plan to literally colonize the once great United States of America – without ever firing a shot.
Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, has has numerous unethical activities during his stint as Senator and as the Senate Majority leader for the Democrats. (Who is Senator Reid?)
Its no secret that many powerful politicians use their position for personal financial gain, unethical issues, and sometimes illegal activities. Just a few years ago, John Edwards, a powerful Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate was charged with multiple felony violations of campaign contribution laws. The list of other politicians committing illegal and/or unethical violations would be a long one.
In John Edwards ‘s trial (the Presidential candidate), all charges were dropped even though there was irrefutable evidence he committed the crimes. He was a powerful Democrat with a powerful Senator’s support (Reid) along with a Democratic President and a Democratic Attorney General.
Now back to Reid.
Very little has been mentioned about Reid’s misdeeds in the main stream media in the past. For some reason most of his ethical violations have remained hidden from the public. Until now.
I think theconfrontation last month in Nevadabetween Cliven Bundy, a cattle ranchers, and the now infamous Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has put the spot light on Reid.
As you can see from this video and the ones below, more focus has now been placed on the activities of the Senator. He’s also been called a “school yard bully” for the way the he’s treated the American people, Republican Congressman, and the Tea Party.
Here are some of the issues and bullying that Reid has committed:
In 2006 in the same area where Bundy lives, Reid made changes to Federal EPA laws so a friend could develop land in an area called Coyote Springs. This land was protected and off limits to anyone. He also had the BLM remove endangered turtles from the area so his friend, Harvey Whittemore, could develop 10,000 acres in to homes and golf courses. (more details)
How does Reid continue to keep his job? He’s not going to be prosecuted by the Attorney General (i.e. the Dept of Justice) because of Obama and Eric Holder. The Republicans might eventual do an investigation but little will come of it.
I think most people aren’t aware of these issues. And its most important for voters in Nevada to be aware his behavior and vote him out of office…or even do a special election to remove him. I hope the great State of Nevada wakes up to his bad behavior, his bullying, and using his position for personal gain for himself, his family, and his close friends.
‘Bigger than Bundy’: Land agency’s battles go beyond rancher dispute
It’s the most powerful agency you’ve never heard of — at least, until recently.
The Bureau of Land Management, the nation’s biggest landlord, found itself in the spotlight after a high-profile brawl with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and another dispute with state officials over the Texas-Oklahoma borderlands.
But the seemingly obscure agency, which is in charge of millions of acres of public land, is no stranger to controversy. History shows the power struggle over property rights and land use is one that’s been fought — fiercely — ever since the bureau was created.
In the nearly seven decades of its existence, the BLM has struggled to find its footing and exert its power, pitted against a vocal states’ rights movement.
“The federal government already owns too much land,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the champions of that modern-day movement, recently told Fox News. He called for the federal government, and by extension the BLM, to “divest itself of a huge amount of this landholdings that it has across the country.”
The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946, consolidating two now-extinct agencies into one for the purpose of overseeing public land. In the beginning, the BLM mostly focused on livestock and mines. Its mission shifted, though, in the 1970s when it took on the role of mediator between commerce and conservation, and faced a second identity crisis in the 1980s.
That’s when the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion gained new momentum in its push to return control of federal lands to individual states.
That “rebellion” may be underway once again, as states renew concerns about the amount of land controlled by the BLM. Congress also recently weighed in, with House lawmakers passing a bill in February that would prevent the BLM from buying new land.
Currently, the agency, which falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Interior, oversees 247.3 million acres — or about one-eighth of the land in the country.
It also owns 700 million acres of on-shore federal mineral estates.
The BLM is responsible for managing a large spectrum of natural resources. The federal agency regulates logging, mining and fracking practices across the country. It also administers close to 18,000 permits and leases a year held by ranchers who graze their livestock on land managed by the federal government. The permits and leases they issue usually last a decade and can be renewed.
In 2009, regulation of public lands in Western states generated $6.2 billion.
By acreage, the agency’s largest stake is in Alaska where it owns 72.4 million acres. Nevada ranks second, with 48 million acres under the BLM, and then Utah, with 22.9 million acres.
In Nevada, rancher Cliven Bundy’s recent refusal to hand over his family’s cattle to the feds re-ignited the national debate over the BLM’s power.
On the heels of that controversy, more than 50 lawmakers from nine Western states came together to protest federal land expansion. The state leaders discussed ways to combine their joint goals of taking control of oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the federal government.
“It’s so much bigger than Bundy. There are issues … all across the West where the federal government is exerting control over things it was ever supposed to control,” Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory told Fox News. “The federal government was supposed to be a trustee. They do own the land. They do hold title to the land in trust … but they have a duty to dispose of the land with all states east of Colorado.”
Ivory says he wants the federal government to keep a promise it made in the 1894 Enabling Act that made Utah a state. He argues that public lands, except for congressionally designated national parks and wilderness areas, should be transferred back to the states.
So far, state lawmakers in Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington are looking for ways to transfer land management back to the states.
Utah, though, has been the most successful. Lawmakers there passed a measure demanding the federal government extinguish title to federal lands, aside from national parks. Ivory was also the primary backer of the 2012 Transfer of Public Lands Act which established a model for the transfer of certain federal lands to the state in the coming years.
The Bundy case has been largely viewed as the first leadership test for new BLM Director Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office in April. The local land-use dust-up fed into a growing apprehension over just how much authority the BLM has and how far it is willing to go to maintain control.
In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to Kornze looking into allegations the BLM was eyeing a massive land grab in northern Texas. “Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box,” wrote Abbott, a GOP gubernatorial candidate.
The agency indicated that the land in question was determined to be public property. “The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River,” a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement.
Attention on the Bundy-BLM battle has lately turned to racially insensitive remarks that Bundy made in several media interviews and appearances.
Conservative and libertarian lawmakers like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, initially came to Bundy’s defense, calling his situation the latest example of big government overreach. Both, though, have since scaled back their comments in light of Bundy’s remarks.
“Senator Paul spoke out against federal over-regulation and BLM handling of a situation,” Paul spokesman Doug Stafford said in a written statement. “He has never spoken to or met Mr. Bundy and is not responsible for the vile comments that come out of his mouth.”
Others say Bundy was at fault, failing to pay $1.1 million in fees for letting his cattle graze on government grass for more than two decades.
“I wish Mr. Bundy would mind his law requirements and not try to play to the television cameras about confronting the evil federal government,” former BLM director Patrick Shea told KSL TV. Shea has been on both sides of the land-use debate. He represented activist Tim DeChristopher who took on the BLM over the 2008 sale of controversial oil and gas leases in Utah.
The BLM has run into trouble elsewhere.
In March, BLM officials rounded up a horse herd in Wyoming after area ranchers and farmers complained that the herd grazed down pastures and damaged cattle rangeland. The horses were turned over to Wyoming officials. The state then quickly sold all 41 horses to a Canadian slaughterhouse. Animal rights groups protested the sale and slaughter.
A year earlier, BLM agents in Nevada announced they would be removing 50 wild horses from a herd that had grown too large to be sustained.
But the complaints go beyond horses. In 2011, several Utah counties filed a lawsuit against the agency over exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.
Back in the nation’s capital, House lawmakers passed a package in February that includes a collection of public land access and restoration provisions. They also adopted two amendments that extend the length of grazing permits on federal lands to 20 years from 10 years and also allow expired or transferred permits to remain effective until new ones can be issued.
BLM takes land from another Nevada rancher, Indian sisters
You think the USA’s war is over with the Native America Indians? Yeah, we did too.
“I was indigenous and in one single evening they [the BLM] made me indigent. If you think the Indian wars are over, then think again”.
About an hour southwest of Elko, in Nevada’s Crescent Valley, the Dann sisters, Mary and Carrie, had lived peaceably on a plot of land, raising horses and cattle for a generation. Their people had lived peaceably on that land for many, many generations.
But then the Federal government, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) steps in.
Unfortunately, their ranch butts-up against a large gold deposit. The federal government permitted gold mining at Cortez in 1969. In 2010, the latest available figures, 1,140,000 ounces of gold had been removed from the land.
The Dann’s generations lived peaceably for hundreds of years…until 1973.
In 1863 the United States government signed a treaty with the Shoshone (Sha’ Shoney) Indian nation. The Treaty of Ruby Valley gave title to 60 million acres of land belong to the Shoshone’s. This is very important a hundred years later when the Federal government began taking the land from these Indians. (See more on this treaty)
You think the USA’s war is over with the Native America Indians? Yeah, we did too.
In September 2002, BLM agents swooped in and seized 227 cattle from their ranch, where the pair were raising cattle and horses on land purchased by their father Dewey Dann in the 1930s.
See a great video documentary of the Dann sisters, Shoshone Indians, and their attack by the US Gov’t that continues today.
In December 2002, the Danns were ordered to remove remaining livestock, 250 additional cattle and 1,000 horses, and they were charged with trespassing on public land. They were served with $3 million in fines for past due grazing fees.
The BLM took some of these cattle and horse to other remote areas of Nevada and turned them loose…to die. Knowing they would starve to death! The sisters beg and pleaded with the BLM but it feel on deaf ears. Ears that are suppose to protect animals. (see “BLM intentionally killing endangered turtles“)
Carrie Dann says, “I was indigenous and in one single evening they [the BLM] made me indigent. If you think the Indian wars are over, then think again”.
The Dann sisters did not transfer grazing permits into their name from their late father, Dewey Dann. Instead, they argued that their land was within the boundaries of the Western Shoshone and therefore live under territory rule. The federal government however claimed the land was public and purchased from the Western Shoshone in 1979.
The BLM, then served the Danns warrants, and followed through with their warning to auction off their remaining livestock in January 2003. The sisters sued the BLM to prove rightful ownership of land, but watched as agents removed their cattle and horses on January 18th. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since the Danns received no money for their land, it was still theirs.
But the ruling was overturned in the Supreme Court, using a “bar clause” stating that Indian Claims legislation denotes; when money is paid for land, its use and rights to use are forever barred. According to the Supreme Court, the Shoshone land had been gradually encroached upon and it no longer belonged to the Dann Ranch.
Furthermore, the BLM claimed that the Dann livestock caused irreparable damage to the countryside due to over grazing. “Grass grows back, but mining causes irreparable damage to the earth,” commented Carrie Dann.
Their struggle was the cause for a handful of protesters to fight along with the grandmothers, but their case also acted as a smoke screen for the what the government was planning. On September 24th, 2003, HR 884 made its way to the Resources Committee, which aimed to pay out Western Shoshone land for expansion of the Cortez and development at Yucca Mountain.
Shoshone tribe elders met in Washington DC one month earlier to at least place “hold” on the Bill, but their request was ignored. Mary and Carrie Dann sued the United States government for violating their rights. The Nevada sisters said the U.S. used illegal means to gain control of Native American ancestral lands by slowly encroachment by industry and private landowners.
The U.S. government says it paid the Western Shoshone Nation for its use of their land in 1979, and has since privatized millions of additional acreage. The Western Shoshone Distribution Bill, HR 884, signed into law by President George Bush in July 2004, relaxes the territorial rules held by Shoshones for 150 years.
About 26 million acres transferred to the federal government and is ear-marked by the BLM for mining minerals, storing nuclear waste, and for geothermal energy production. This includes Yucca Mountain, a historical and spiritual area for Shoshones.
In the late 1970s the U.S. government started using Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste, but it since has maxed-out capacity with 77,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. All except 2 percent of U.S. nuclear waste was earmarked for Yucca Mountain with HR Bill 884, beginning in 2010.
The Obama Administration has since placed a hold on operations at Yucca Mountain, albeit for far different reasons. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found the U.S. government violated the Dann sisters’ rights, although did not state that the Dann sisters owned land.
The Commission suggested an “effective remedy” should make sure respect for the Danns claim to their ranch of 70 years. The Organization of American States human-rights commission reaffirmed land-rights use of the Western Shoshone Indian tribe, rejecting the federal government’s claim the Danns’ live on public land.
It was the first time both councils charged the U.S. government with violating human rights. Carrie Dann says she wouldn’t have sued the BLM had she known the court would favor the government. The Dann sisters fought the federal government without the help from Human Rights Watch, or the American Civil Liberties Union. The two women committed themselves to preserving their ancestral land.
Mary died following an ATV accident on her ranch in central Nevada while repairing a fence-line on April 22, 2005. She was 82 years old. Mary’s niece, Patricia Paul, said her aunt had “died as she would have wanted — with her boots on and hay in her pocket.”
Two years later, Carrie was arrested with 38 others for trespassing at the Nevada Test Site at a Nevada Desert Experience event protesting governmental programs at the site. She continues with activities to try to end nuclear testing and programs at the site.
Carrie, along with Western Shoshone Defense Project and four other tribal and public interest groups, in November 2008, sued the federal government and Canadian Barrick Gold, seeking an injunction to stop the Cortez Hills Expansion Project on Mt. Tenabo, which the Western Shoshone also consider sacred land. The case is pending.