Posted on 01/03/2016 4:13:57 PM PST by Kaslin
Yeah it is.
I have been watching this closely - with a few burps - and listening carefully to the people whose opinions I generally care for the most: the wild and wonderful Freepers.
I am just a freedom-loving American Jew with a family tree that looks more like a stump for all the killing in Europe so I am left with at least “two minds” on so much but sure of this:
I am grateful to the LORD to be an American - a citizen of a country where the PEOPLE are so powerful they can still scare their government.
That, my FRiends, is a blessing.
“BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE,” as Reagan said, Not the other way around.
Let’s not betray these folks.
Maybe these guys can build a kind of Ho Chi Minh Trail through the back way.
These are not random squaters who have come and seized land that the Federal government was using for some other purpose. Rather, they are members of families who have a long-term lease agreement on “tax payer owned land” wiho want to continue the lease agreement which is beneficial both to those leasing and the taxpayers. The Feds, for the political purpose of appearing green, want to have the land used in a less productive manner which will produce good feelings for some but no material benefit for the tax-payers.
GIven that these families went into business with one set of rules, and the government wants to change the rules, it is an issue of justice. Justice is a reasonable hill to die on.
The solution would be for Utah and Oregon to buy the land. Congress has the ability to do so.
As another Jew here, thank you.
It is Federal land de jure as well as de facto. In other words, it's just Federal land, period.
What is "the need to fulfill Constitutional duties" exactly?
The Federal government has the ability to acquire land and has been doing it since the first days of the republic.
There is no list of "duties" that need to be "fulfilled" in order legally purchase land. You purchase it.
“Less than 1% of Americans sympathize with the notion that the Bundys and their friends have the right to take and use taxpayer-owned land.”
“The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy” -Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Which candidate is that?
Which is what should be done in the first place.
And that is what is happening all over the West. The Feds are driving people off the land they have worked and loved for generations. This may not be a tidy way of doing things, but someone has got to stand up. And I am sorry, but many of you in the East do not understand the gravity of this. The industries they have killed, the lands they have ruined. Every single day Washington comes up with a new rule and regulation and cuts of land use for real people. It is suffocating the West.
Thing that bothers me most about this deal was that the Hammonds were tried twice for the same crime. First, they were tried for arson, convicted and served time, then later for ‘terrorism’ for which they are now supposed to go back and serve more time. Really not many legal details about this, best I could find was here:
Well played sir, well played.
If my landlord does not want to renew my lease, or if my landlord will only renew it on different terms, that's life and if I don't like it I'll need to move.
And that's even ignoring the fact that tenants who do not pay their rent, like the Bundys, are indeed squatters.
I gave my assessment of the number of Americans who likely agree with what the Bundys are asserting.
And I was being generous.
It wouldn't hurt you to be more graceful about it.
Drone air lift of supplies.
From what I understand (so far; and that’ not a good deal with all the incorrect facts “out there” at this point) one hammond served 2 months, the other 12 under a deal. The minimum for what they did is supposedly 5 years. So, yes, they did their time and got out then the judge said, but “wait, there’s more” and they claimed BS and that it was un-consitutional. THEN came the terrorism charges and they claimed double jeopardy.
I’ve been trying to understand all this as it is turning into a firestorm on the ‘net, but, who to believe? It is a flat out mess at this point. (And, now some people are claiming the “arson” was to cover up poaching on that land.(??)
I think Laz wrote something up about this earlier (and brought up a good point, they still have due process, although it may not be to their liking time wise) however the link escapes me; maybe he’ll see the pong and post.
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.