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

Re: blatham (Post 6102191)
Maybe one day you will not conflate every possible variant and perversion of conservatism with the GOP and mainstream conservatism. Maybe.

BTW - Marshall's comment is idiotic because BLM has faced a "backlash" not because the two movements are such polar opposites.

Recent past Republican presidential primaries were shaped by whether candidates passed a series of ideological benchmarks, but the 2016 race has been dominated instead by personality. This shift is most evident in the front-running candidacy of Trump, whose past is littered with conservative apostasies.

“Nobody cares,” Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said. “Political records and promised plans have turned to dust in front of us.. . . That’s not what this election seems to be about for Republicans. It’s about rescuing the country before it goes over the cliff.”

I am rolling from the buttom up:
a) I had to re-read Shewolf's fund-me-account thread. I had not even spoken to you at all; you were concerned of the validity of her cause and roger answered you. Nothing panned out - except in your head.

Of course, one should look at facebook first before bashing Finn d'Abuzz.
I apologize Finn, I just saw that you donated to shewolf - you do have a heart! She sincerely will appreciate your donation and I will eat my words.
Again I apologize deeply!!

b) If you were broken into three times than there is something wrong with you and you are not taking precaution to secure your house.

c) Who talks about a blood bath? Too many violent movies, perhaps?

d) Don't compare Occupy Wall Street with this incident. There were no guns involved and OWS was a peaceful mission OUTSIDE government buildings. No comparison whatsoever.

e) Ninja raid and Feds storming the building? Again, you watch probably too many rambo-zambo movies. These things can be handled in a peaceful manner despite one side being heavily armed. They're not dangerous really, just a bunch of airheads who haven't got a plan B.

This is the Federal Land Retention and the Constitution's Property Clause: The Original Understanding It is an interesting read addressing the issue of whether or not the Federal Government has the right to acquire property and to retain it for other than needful purposes, and what constitutes needful.

http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=faculty_lawreviews

Title to the land in Montana should have gone to the state as soon asMontana became a state in 1889. And the only realquestion is: Does the federal government owe us rent on that landsince then?" - Former State Senator Casey Emerson

CONCLUSION
Considered from the vantage point of original meaning, both the conservative and liberal interpretations ofthe "other Property" portion of the Property Clause are partly correct.

The liberals are correct in that the Constitution-not just arguably, but clearly--authorizes permanent property ownership outside the Enclave Clause....Moreover, the liberals are correct in suggesting that those lands are subject to a public trust and cannot be ceded to the respective states without compensation. Federal land disposal, like federal land management, must serve the interest of the entire country.

On the other hand, the conservatives are correct about another aspect of original meaning. As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government's authority to dispose was
unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not: all the latter functions could be exercised only to serve enumerated powers...At the end of the day, however, all federal land not "necessary and proper" to execute an enumerated power was to be disposed of impartially and for the public good...

In future years, the public interest might justify disposing of (on suitable terms) agricultural lands to homesteaders, mining lands to miners, and environmentally sensitive lands to other public entities or to nonprofit environmental trusts. Generally, though, the Constitution's original meaning was that lands not dedicated to enumerated functions were to be privatized or otherwise devolved on terms that best served the general interest.

From Bill Moyers: They demand that government-controlled land be handed over to ranchers and loggers because they claim the Constitution says it should be. But the anti-government and anti-Muslim activists involved in the takeover are not locals — “they are a small group of individuals who travel around the country attaching themselves to various local fights against the federal government, usually over land rights,” explains Jennifer Williams at Vox.

Which, if true, puts them in the same arena as the Westboro Baptist folks.