Erica Ritz:
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.
“People can spot anger and vengeance from a mile away,” the multimedia personality said. “When I sawthat video when [protesters] were lunging and jumping at the agents, I thought, ‘this is our side’s Occupy Wall Street.’ It’s happening all over again, and it will end the same way.”
Though Bundy has grazed his cattle on federal land for decades, the rancher has refused to pay grazing fees since 1993. Last week, the conflict sharply escalated after federal agents arrived in an attempt to round up Bundy’s “trespass cattle,” only to be met by protesters.
Beck said he wanted to be 100 percent clear on one thing he believes all Americans should be able to agree on.
“We need to agree on, ‘we condemn those who use violence,’” Beck said. “Inciting violence doesn’t solve anything. I vehemently denounce anyone who even hints at such tactics.”
Sorry Glenn, violence may be necessary with this bunch. Look at the weaponry BLM, HHS, and the rest have accumulated. Do you really think they won’t use them? I wish I could be that optimistic.
If he wants to compare the militia people with the occupiers, how is it that not one shot was fired? Troublemakers would have started something. These people just stood their ground and then advanced and that was enough.
I agree. This country was founded by people using violence against a government they found unacceptable. There’s no guarantee it won’t be necessary to do it again, although I’d rather see it done at the ballot box rather that the ammo box.
@Jim S:
I agree-the ballot box would be better-IF we had honest elections. The few bits and pieces that are coming out indicate that massive voter fraud is just normal election tactics for the dimocrats. I am just waiting for obozo to find his “Reichstag Moment” to declare martial law and suspend elections. THEN it will be time for Americans to stand up for themselves.
I had heard that this was NOT federal land but rather state and county land.
When did the feds get given this land?
@Nanny G:
When Nevada entered the Union, they ceded 83.9% of their state to the Federal government. But years ago, the BLM was supposed to start returning that land to the various states. The BLM returned land to a number of states, but not Nevada or Utah.
Now, the BLM wants the area in which Bundy’s ranch sits for the rehabilitation of the desert turtle. The projected Nevada wind farms will kill off the turtles in that area, so the BLM needs to move them. Enter Bundy who is the last rancher who has not been driven out of business by the reduction in BLM leases and an increase in BLM fees.
That is the premise on which Bundy claims the land belongs to Nevada, not the feds.
@retire05:
That is not quite correct in regards to this section of Nevada land. The land in question still belongs to the County and State of Nevada. However, due to a threatened species, (the desert tortoise, which is the state animal and lives in areas ranging from Nevada and California,) the State of Nevada came to an agreement allowing the BLM to manage the land. Because so much of Nevada is controlled by the federal government, it seemed reasonable for the state to let the BLM manage some of it’s lands as well. Once the BLM got that OK from the state, they began collecting the grazing fees that ranchers previously paid the state and county. (Bundy has said repeatedly that he would be fine with paying the fees to the State and county since it is their land, but he doesn’t recognize the BLM’s jurisdiction.) The BLM also began an ever evolving program of continually reducing the number of cattle each nearby Rancher was allowed to graze on the land.
Personally, I disagree with Bundy’s refusal to pay the grazing fees. What he should have done is send his payment directly to the State of Nevada. That would have given him some legal basis to argue. By not paying his fees, he set the court with having to lean towards “the landlords” and their “management company” the BLM. But I also think that the State of Nevada should have stepped in to represent all the Rancher’s who were being heavily affected with the BLM’s continual heavy-handed limitations on land use. Without the grazing cattle, there will without question be an increase in range fires, which can be just as devastating to wildlife (including the already “threatened” desert tortoise,) and nearby residents as the seemingly continual California fires. Unfortunately, there are a lot of eco-nuts in federal government land management who allow vegetation to overgrow to a point where it becomes a tinderbox. This is stupid land management.
@Ditto:
Study the original Nevada constitution. It cedes almost 85% of its land to the federal government.
But Arizona and Utah, along with Nevada, had been making demands that the feds return their lands to their ownership.