Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

You might not be saying that land was stolen from ranchers but I think that is Bundy's implication.

If you sell something it is not "taken" from you.

Have they taken anything, ya figure, if they put a fence around your own water supply? How about if they block a public road you have to travel to reach your own property and attend to your herd? How about if they flood your land and your home, and then "buy" from you cheap? It that "taking" anything?

From the reading/research I did last night - some of the property was donated/willed to the government to be part of the refuge. Some was purchased. And again, it was a small number of properties involved. About 80% of the refuge is made up of the original land grant plus 2 ranches.

Has this been reported anywhere other than that weird conspiracy theory website?

Threads like this would benefit from threaded replies.

That's exactly what I thought so I'm really trying to understand all this "taken" talk. It doesn't add up.

I like to get both sides of a story so I'm hoping someone can clear it up without resorting to boogeyman web sites.

I keep reading some things about water rights but it seems the government owned the land with the water source and I'll wager these guys argue that land owners should have final say on how their land is used. Of I guess they would unless the government owns the land.

there are tons of original source documents online - you can find the info on the land grant if you're willing to look at gov't docs and reference books through google book searches - same thing with the land sales and donations

__

you're right about many of the water sources in dispute being on government land. there are accusations of diversion - but the diversion attempts seem to have been by the ranchers, not the government. I get why they try to do it, but they have to understand that if they get busted, there is going to be a problem.

So how does this compare with the Occupy Movement? A bunch of people occupying a public place without permission to protest, sounds similar but without the guns. If the government comes in and starts carrying people away like they did with the Occupy Movement, how do you think that is going to play out? Do you think this is similar to that protest?

You not I seems to be an expert on such sick minds however our friend did copy details by details a bombing plot and means contain in the book The Turner Diary and that bombing of the Hoover building in the book was part of a revolution by the whites against the Jews and the blacks

He is said to have love that book and sold copies at gun shows and it was found in his car after the bombing if I remember correctly.

But maybe he did not have dreams of a revolution after all.

Any of those actions sound like a many millions dollars lawsuit in the making.

As the government must obey such common law concepts as easements as must as anyone else does.

I wonder how many times private citizens have won litigation filed against the government in regards to seizures of property via eminent domain.

The doctrine has been abused in the past and almost certainly will again in the future.

Some people, in this forum and elsewhere have pre-fab minds. They hear "eminent domain" and "property rights," and they immediately think of right-wing extremists. That is until they learn Donald Trump unreasonably profited from the exercise of eminent domain.

The only thing that is different between this "protest" and any other that involves the occupation of public or private property is that these guys seem to have gone out of their way to announce they are armed and prepared to die. Now that is not a small thing, as it increases the possibility of violence, and not necessarily because these guys are more likely than anyone else to use their guns. Whatever federal agents are eventually tasked to deal with them might get itchy trigger fingers when the time comes.

All things considered, they are at least foolish to be armed and making the comments they are making. The underlying issue is not worth dying for, particularly since the lives lost will be totally wasted. Bloodshed won't result in the stated goals they pursue, and it definitely won't lead to a nation wide rebellion if that's what any of their fevered minds are hoping for.

Of course liberal politicians and media folk are going to seize on this as a scary example of the right-wing menace we face in this country. We've already seen them described as "terrorists" which is of course ridiculous. They may be reckless fools and they may even be criminals by virtue of trespassing laws, but they are not terrorists.

At the same time conservative pundits and politicians need to be careful not to give these guys cover if they have broken any laws or break any, and they shouldn't be sympathizing with anyone who grandstands about willing to kill or be killed for their "cause."

Everyone who takes up a righteous cause is not righteous, and a lot of them are stupid and can get people killed.

There was a pretty good backstory article in The Oregonian the other day, before this whole militia thing took off: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html#incart_story_package

One thing is says is:



I wonder if this whole thing would just blow over if Obama DID issue a pardon...

Here's what the local Sheriff has to say about the group:

Excerpt:

The lawman at the center of the action at the moment is Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward, who has less than a half dozen deputies to police the ninth largest county in the United States.

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Ward said in a statement Sunday. “When in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

. . .“I haven’t slept a full night in close to two months now. I have a lot of anxiety,” he told a reporter for public broadcasting. “What we’ve been threatened with here is civil unrest and the insinuations of armed rebellion,” he said.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/01/04/bundy-sons-lead-antigovernment-extremists-militia-takeover-federal-wildlife-headquarters

The SPLC article provides a pretty thorough backgrounder.

Several common threads run through these militia groups: conspiracy theories about the federal government; a revolutionary outlook in which members compare themselves to the founding fathers and are particularly fond of the Thomas Jefferson quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"; stockpiling of arms and ammunition as well as training with them in the expectation of revolutionary violence in the future; nuisance lawsuits against federal, state, and local governments; cranky legal theories based upon misinterpretations of case law and arguments by analogy using common law; constant recourse to the Constitution (or their interpretation of it) with heavy emphasis on the Tenth Amendment (often to the exclusion of nearly every other part).

When I say "revolutionary outlook" I'm referring to a spectrum ranging from belief in and anticipation of a vaguely expected event, without plotting to bring it about, to incitement in which illegal acts are committed as media attention grabbing catalysts to inspire a broader uprising, to methodical planning, robbery and murder. Often, there is an apocalyptic expectation that society and government will collapse, and the revolutionary outlook is one of exploiting this rather than bringing it about or actively plotting insurgency; but revolutionary violence is always bubbling on the back burner, if only notionally.

"Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

"In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012."

http://nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?referer=&_r=0

Timothy McVeigh was at the fringe of the movement. I believe he was tossed out of one militia group for advocating acts of violence that were too extreme by the group's standards.

If the Occupy people in Zucotti Park had been armed, Mayor Bloomberg would have called in the National Guard and closed it down within days. And rightly so. Occupy was a nonviolent protest movement. The Bundy people are just bullies.

That's not what the US Constitution says. Article 4, Section 3 decrees that "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States". National wildlife refuges are "other property belonging to the United States". And the Constitution does not mention any Common-Law concepts restricting the Congress's power to regulate their use.

Here's something about a meeting by an interesting collection of folks, that illustrates some common and perhaps convergent threads on the American Right:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/midwifing-militias

I was particularly interested in the mysterious Dr. Edwin Vieira who couldn't attend because he was busy with a plan to organize militias in all 50 states. Since there are militia groups in most if not all states already, I had to wonder what this meant. If you believe his bio he has degrees from Harvard University, and reading one of his essays on the topic it's clear that he is what passes for an intellectual in the militia movement.

I was puzzled by the way he pooh-poohs the concept of private militias, arguing for government regulated militias. Eventually I came round to the conclusion that it's because he wants militias to BE the government and a liaison between the two is the necessary first step to his foot in the door approach to subversion. An excerpt:

"...the Militia are the key institutions through which WE THE PEOPLE can protect and exercise popular sovereignty through popular self-government. The Militia are the most important institutions of government, because in a republic founded upon the principles of popular sovereignty and popular self-government THE PEOPLE must enjoy both the legal authority and the institutional capability to assume direct control of the governmental apparatus whenever the circumstances warrant such action, and to defend their government from all threats, foreign and domestic, with whatever degree of force may be required."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin271.htm

This case seems to have very little do with these nuts actions other then to provide an excused to bring out the guns.

They own lands surrounded by government property and to that degree the government must honor such common law concepts as easements IE not blocking the land owners access to their property.

Now the leasing and use under those leases of government lands is another subject.

All over the US, people are being forced out of apartments in good neighborhoods as the rents rise and being forced to sell homes as property taxes rise, but heaven forbid a rancher has to pay a nominal fee to graze on federal lands. Yep, let's pull out the rifles and march to their defense. The sense of entitlement is amazing.

Is anyone alleging credibly that the US government violated any such obligations in this case?