Posted on 04/15/2014 7:20:44 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The controversy over a Nevada rancher’s decades-long use of public land without paying federal grazing fees has quickly become a national issue — one that Glenn Beck on Monday urged Americans to fully understand before taking a side on.
“We did some research online with PsyID today, and found that there’s about 10 or 15 percent of the people who are talking about this online that are truly frightening,” Beck said on his television program. “They don’t care what the facts are. They just want a fight.”
Beck said there are many “decent, small-government proponents from groups like the Tea Party” supporting Bundy, and they need to be aware that the controversy has drawn “violent, anti-government” individuals who are “the right’s version of Occupy Wall Street,” as well....
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Occupy Wall Street wasn’t frightening in the same way that a mob of flesh hungry zombies or a crazy person with a nuclear weapon is frightening. They were frightening in the way that any display of the erosion of the culture is. Disturbing, concerning or unsettling might be better words.
I think that this is a very real possibility. We have to be aware that people who aren’t what they claim to be, and traps and hoaxes can occur anywhere, the Internet too. It used to be that phonies at tea party gatherings, for example, were easy to spot, but now these people are more sophisticated.
About Savage you may be right. But that’s a subject for another thread.
I am Montanan. The way Ive always seen it is that the cattleman has always seen him or herself as more self-sufficient and not as government-involved as the grain farmer. But this cheap grazing land has always been a less obvious subsidy. At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason they need so dang many acres is because it takes a lot of that kind of land to support an animal. I haven’t been to Nevada, but have been to Eastern Oregon, parts of Montana, E. Wash. and places that are probably similar.
Good point.
That occurred to me too.
yeah, but when was the last time you saw conservatives “riot”. the people Beck is talking to aren’t calling for general riots and lawlessness.
They are talking about, for lack of a better term, being willing to pick up arms to forcefully stop the further encroachment of expanding government, and I think, secession if needed. Beck is saying no, no, we need to vote.
But the problem is that since we have gone to the asinine system of letting everyone vote regardless of whether or not they contribute, voting is flawed because all those interested in government need do is promise the bottom 55% goodies to be paid for by the top 45%. To hasten this, they are seeking to flood the ballot box with illegals. That’s why voting is over. That 55% aren’t going to vote against their own self interest, and a large part of them breed like rabbits.
You can’t ask parasites to get off you. You get the tweezers and a match and pull or burn them off.
Well said... I like the parasite analogy. Very apt...
As you know what the Ninth Circuit said, why is the opinion wrong? Please give cites to statutes and cases.
Bundy did act as his own lawyer and failed to introduce any evidence. He also allowed all his appeal deadlines to lapse.
That said, once we have the REAL facts then we can 1. see if missing deadlines was excusable and 2. see if there was judicial abuse of discretion and 3. any prosecutorial misconduct (lol on the last one)
Let us not forget range wars were bloody and very emotional. (see sheephearders vs cows, farmers vs cows)
Did he actually call himself a pacifist? I missed the first hour, so maybe he did, but what I heard was a caller describing HIMself as a pacifist. I think that the term is being thrown around recklessly. There are actually very few true pacifists in the world, because as I understand it, a true pacifist is somebody who wouldn’t attempt to fight back if he or a loved one were being raped or murdered, who doesn’t want the U.S. to hit back after Pearl Harbor(Jeanette Rankin). Even very few libertarians are pacifists. Actually a lot of libertarians believe that a person has a moral obligation NOT to be a pacifist.
He did in a roundabout way. First the caller said he was a pacifist like Beck, and Beck didn’t correct him. But then when the caller went a direction Beck didn’t like, he told the caller that he wasn’t a pacifist. You’d have to hear it, but the way he said it was like he was saying you aren’t “one of us”.
But he also went on to say how he would not in any way advocate any violence unless God told him to, personally. So, since to my knowledge God hasn’t done that since the Old Testament, I dont know what any practical difference is between Beck’s stance and a pacifist. Also his two prime heroes, MLK and Gandhi were damn near if not pacifists.
Beck could not be more wrong.
It’s wrong because in the two three cases mentioned that touch on this subject, they expand the power of the Fedgov to retain Territory land after it becomes a State.
This isn’t allowed for in the explicit language of the Constitution.
There have been links posted to the relevant court cases in some of these threads. I’ll see if I can dig back to them.
Nor do Courts get to re-write law. IMO, anyone spouting “case law” should be tried for treason.
Not joking.
You’re not a lawyer, are you? Case law is the very foundation of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
You need to read the details. Signing up and paying the fees would destroy his livelihood.
I stand corrected about the article’s authors motives, and you could have politely helped me see the mistake without the smarmy comments. Do you always address people this way?
The fact remains Beck is NOT “anti Bundy” he is just saying if you want to start a fight with the government just for the sake of starting a fight, he does not want to be involved with you.
I thought this was an article by a libtard trying to show us “see...?? Beck is blah blah blah..”
Yeah, I’ve read the details. If I have my business in a building I rent and the landlord decides not to extend my lease, I have to come up with other plans. That’s just how the world works.
Nope. But time and time again we see judges relying on “case law” to shoe-horn a politically correct decision to fit a given case. This has created, not even a ratchet effect, but a morphing effect whereby an explicit prohibition turns into a job function, infringements become legal, and private Rights overturned for Unicorn farts/public good.
Each case, and each law, should be given it’s day in court on it’s own merits and facts. If 30 cases are resolved the same way, fine. But if the 31st doesn’t quite fit, should they be doomed just because a judge relies on “case law”?
Now compound that issue back to reconstruction and if you are unbiased, you’ll see the enormity of the problem and why we can no longer count on the courts to “save us” from bad laws...
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.