Posted on 04/10/2014 11:32:07 AM PDT by xzins
Wholeheartedly agree! A major problem is, being who we are usually means that we have a lot of material/financial things to lose, in contrast with the “other side” who generally has everything to gain. That “other side” is getting stuff for free right now. We need to prepare/protect as much as we have right now in order to survive as best we can once we “cross the line”. Once crossed, all sorts of bad things can happen. It really only should occur as a collective—a large number (e.g., 1000’s, 10,000’s, etc.) of us who band together and live as a defensible unit post line crossing. Individually or even small numbers, it cannot work. The “collective” is not yet organized to handle physical confrontation.
Why would you pay a grazing fee if the government was taking that right away from you?
We do that by charging usage fees which are applied to facilitate maintenance and organization of appropriate use. That’s what The Bundys agreed to.
Problem is, BLM increased fees substantially, and did NOT route those fees back to caretaking. As other ranchers learned, the new fees are designed to discourage ALL use, and to drive ranchers off the land entirely.
Maintenance & facilitation fees are fair, and a proper role of government.
Abusing the fee process for private gain (a la Reid’s solar farm involvement) is intolerable, and Bundy is laudable for standing up to such bureaucratic abuse.
Shame on those who were willing to be bought off along the way......
GAFreedom is a misnomer. I thought it meant Georgia Freedom, but perhaps it’s Government Accountability Freedom...iow, no freedom at all. In any case, I don’t think he/she realizes that freedom is not based on the judiciary’s decisions on Free Republic.There are two types of freedom. One is the type of the freedom we enjoy here in the United States, under the aegis of the Constitution and the laws that safeguard our liberty. The other type of freedom is that without laws, where nothing governs no one and anarchy reigns. I'm for the former. I'm against the latter.
After all, the judges say that killing babies is OK.And that is bad law and we must work to have it overturned. And as God is on our side, that victory is inevitable. But let's not be deceived that it will not take hard work.
Which amounts to a regulatory taking without just compensation. If they don't want ranchers, then they should just buy the ranches. Instead they use regulatory powers to drive them out of business, in this case a family business that has been running for over 100 years.
The federal government controlling 80 some odd percent of Nevada’s land is bad law.
Federal judges do the dirty work for their federal bosses.
Yup, the entire rotten barrel of unconstitutional “federal law” needs to be thrown out.
You do realize that the federal government aimed over 100 military grade weapons on hundreds of innocent Americans Saturday and had so much as a passing car backfired during those tense moments or some hot head on either side or even a saboteur got an itchy finger, hundreds of people could have been slaughtered?
And this over tortoises? Or even unpaid grazing fees?
Why do you defend this heavy handed fascism?
The whole barrel is filled with rotten apples.
Obviously to a statist like yourself, rotten apples are just peachy.
Zot!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.