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 ...
Beck is talking about certain new arrivals out there that seem to be itching for a fight. He’s urging restraint. He’s saying the tea party types are doing it right, while others seem to want to provoke.
I haven’t paid enough attention to this story, so I don’t know all the facts.
I don’t want any conspiracy assumptions, just facts.
Why is it not a good point that the Feds owned this land, and they should be due “rent” as any other property owner?
Are we now sympathetic to deadbeat city tennants who don’t pay rent, yet (ironically) the local city government insists the landlord has no right to evict? This happens all the time - I was part of it.
If Bundy is just “borrowing” the land but knew there were fees, how is he innocent?
The question of how they treat him is beside the point. I just want to know what I am missing that his using someone else’s land without paying “rent” is a “right”.
These are honest, innocent serious questions. I haven’t looked at this much but on the surface this is what it looks like, Reid or not.
“It would be bigger than a “canary in the coal mine” if the Fedcoats were willing to open up on women & children with automatic weapons and sniper rifles while they were being videotaped, over cows.”
Only a coward would put a woman on the front line.
And only a morally bankrupt moron would see sense in it.
Is this the same Constitution that says that federal law is the supreme law of the land? The U.S. Constitution says that.
If Bundy was a self-pronounced Socialist who didn’t want to pay his legally-obliged grazing fees because he was of the OWS mind-set, none of us would support him.
I am at work right now and can’t post a youtube link but look up John Dickinson from the miniseries “John Adams” right before the Declaration of Independence vote. perhaps not a popular opinion. Or in retrospect or historically the “correct” one.
But one thar still should not have been ignored.
he just didn’t want to see American boys heads shot off by British cannons, or congress having to whore themselves out to the French and Spanish, you know their enemies, to get that they would need. I think that is where glenn is coming from here. Someone should always hold a contrary opinion opinion. It prevents group think.
I’d have been sympathetic to him if he’d followed the law, paid his grazing fees, and adhered to the court orders.
Hauling in a ‘militia’ to try to intimidate the feds into giving him a special deal goes beyond my sympathies.
None of them have a case whereby I’d advocate the illegal threat of violence, no.
Correct. Its my opinion that this whole Bundy v. BLM standoff was set in place by Obama and the feds as they seek to divert attention away from the IRS hearings.
Guess what? It worked.
Note :
Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144484/posts?page=7#7
According to a poster at Market-ticker.org, forty-eight.
Also found this:
“There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.”
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner”
When government ceases working for the people who pay their salaries, it is time for new management.
He's also clearly saying there is no comparison between our government today and that of King George IV, and that our grievances haven't reached the level of those of the colonists. On this I vehemently disagree.
The founders were VERY clear on what they thought should be done about a government like our's.
But taking things to the next level will require sacrifice many aren't willing to make, Glenn Beck included.
BTW I'm not talking about causing violence.
I heard that as well... Plainly said they would line up women and children...and see if the feds would shoot them...just to make a point. Lost respect for them at that point...
bkmk
Please watch the videos and then get back to me with your opinion.
If he had done as you recommend, he would have been out of business. The “militia” came running when they saw the tasering, dog sicking, and woman beating being handed out by the BLM.
Nor have you seen ansy support for the Bundy’s from Sarah, Ted, Rand and other Tea Partiers.
Which I think is prudent and correct. If this is a right wing version of OWS; then they better distance themselves from it.
We shouldn’t forget the tendency of the left to place their own problems in the crowd. When the minutemen started patrolling the border we saw them come running and they were the first ones the media talked to.
Yes, I agree with him on all points, but one: He and Pat kept saying we have representation. But that is just the problem. We don’t. There are some promising prospects out there for the mid-terms, but I am not convinced it’s enough to turn the tides. I have been hearing that we have term limits at the ballot box for decades. It’s not worked out so well for us. I am not saying it is time for CWII. But trying to do this through our system has not worked out so well. I mean, look where we are now, folks. Just look.
Under King George we had no representation.
We are, literally, having state and Federal elections in a couple of months that could change the balance of Government.
It’s a significant difference.
The way to change an unjust law is to raise awareness of its injustice and work for its alteration. I believe that Bundy has made great strides in that. And he did it without any shooting. The true, American way.
America is good because it doesn’t solve internal conflicts like a third-world $hit hole.
Going out and fighting the good fight sounds like good times to me, personally, but only after I no longer have legal means to fight. And I see a good deal of legal avenues.
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.