I'm not the one forming a position on such half assed measures. I don't know and I am okay with that. I do know the legal standings in regards to state's rights and federal lands and their central position of ceding lands to the state has zero basis.
See I am not some dumbass that tries fumbling halfassed through someone else's paralegal investigative work trying to draw an exhaustive conclusion. As has been pointed out the investigation is ongoing. I don't think coming to a conclusion right now is very wise, fattie.Cons utional huffing and puffing aside, residents in states like Oregon and Utah have zero legal rights to the land they are trying to claim. The act declaring Utah’s statehood, for example—just like legislation granting statehood to other territories in the 19th and 20th centuries—stipulates that its Legislature “forever disclaim all right and le to the unappropriated public lands.” In fact, the land that these ranchers call their own belongs to the entire country—to school teachers in New York and shipbuilders in Virginia as much as to ranchers in Oregon.
What’s more, the West has historically been a beneficiary of the U.S. government, not a victim. You won’t hear any of this from Bundy or from elected officials who mimic his argument, if not his lawlessness.
The real story is one of a niche interest group (ranchers and their allies) that feels en led to a federal handout—potentially one of the largest in American history—at the expense of residents of East Coast, Midwest and Southeast states. Like the first Sagebrush Rebellion of 40 years ago, this revolt represents a classic case of fictional privilege, grounded in a shoddy understanding of United States history.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3wgpRnbiA
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 01-08-2016 at 04:25 PM.
It's not sexual, fattie. I just know that it bothers you because of the personality type you display.
This particular whine does nothing to dissuade me, gordo. If some people want to think I'm gay and hold it against me because I think your fat after having a knee replacement and when you respond in this fashion then so be it.
You are just lazy. Here is some reading material for you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-property.html
Now see if you can figure out why there was no poaching cover up.
youre back to a couple of words when I look at the quote in my profile.
I might look at it if someone else thinks its interesting but I sincerely doubt that.
And you wonder why call you , wonder why they call you . No one believes you don't read every single post of mine in real time. But continue on with your pseudo ignore function.
here comes the angry spam. it's so much better filtered this way. Anyway I'm going to go eat a sandwich.
My dear Patriots.
I understand your feelings have been bruised by the many mentions of your groups as "terrorists." Understandably so. Nothing is so loathesome to civilized minds as one who would inflict violence and fear on the innocent to further their political beliefs. I'm also told you prefer to be known as members of a militia. Certainly a nobler appellation, but one which poses some complications.
As you are known to be scholars of the Cons ution, let us begin there. Please get out your ubiquitous pocket copies and follow along.
Article I, Section 8 of our founding do ent states, ""The Congress shall have the power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
The rather vague description (Congress defines, states appoint officers) was clarified somewhat by the First Militia Act of 1792, which specified " "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" and, further, authorized the nationalization of state militias "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state," specifically when the lawbreaking was too big for civil authorities to handle.
The same year, Congress fulfilled its cons utional duty by outlining exactly how state militias were to be organized in the Second Militia Act. In 1795, Congress made clear that the militias could be called into service by the president of the United States.
These laws, along with state laws regarding militias, appear to have sufficed for the needs of such organizations, standing largely unchanged for over a century. However, jurisdictional feuds and other SNAFUs which developed in the Spanish-American War led to the scrapping of the 1792 statutes and their replacement in 1903, when command structures and specific requirements for federalization were codified in a new Militia Act, which defined two varieties of militia, Reserve and state National Guard units.
Got all that? Great. Now let's jump back to that booklet you love so dearly and the passage quoted above: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
So, it appears that our Founders were quite specific in the matter of what a militia is and who controls it, to wit, the Congress and president of the United States and, in the matter of staffing, the executives of individual states. This authority was further clarified by the 1827 court case of Martin v. Mott, in which the Supreme Court ruled emphatically that the president has sole authority over whether militias could be called out for military operations.
Never has there been a single court case or law allowing citizens themselves to make such a determination. I cannot find any evidence of a "DIY Militia Act" of any year.
So it's clear that under no legal or cons utional definition can your group be called a "militia." While you may not like the label "terrorists," your actions bring you squarely under that definition, as Merriam-Webster marks it. At best, you could be called "thugs" or a "violent street gang" (admittedly with a marked lack of streets at present).
But if, by bending law and language to the breaking point, you could, in any interpretation, be considered a militia, you know who your boss would be?
This guy.
Have a nice day. Pick up your trash before you leave our bird refuge, please.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...s?detail=email
Funny, I don't know what any of that has to do with setting an illegal fire.
You'll have to ask FuzzyLumpkins after he is done eating his sandwich. I'm going to go buy some dog food and maybe clip my fingernails so I'll respond to you at my own leisure.
What a pathetic you have become, Breitbart.
That's what was being talked about, you idiot.
Are you really so stupid you can't follow a simple conversation.
Well you already answered.
I followed it quite easily, Breitbart. I asked what it has to do with the legality of the fire.
Controversial Federal Grazing Fees Not A Great Deal For Anyone
Because at face value that’s exactly what it looks like. Grazing fees are calculated in a weird unit called an Animal Unit Month – A-U-M – essentially how much it would cost to feed one cow and a calf for one month. So on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land, that price is currently $1.69.
Now if you compare that to the going rate for private land, which averages about $20 per animal per month, it looks like ranchers are getting a huge discount to use public lands.
It isn’t. Because those two numbers include very different things.“If you just look at the grazing fee itself, and you see the small amount on public land and then a 10-fold increase on private land grazing fees, it looks like — people call it a subsidy,” said John Tanaka, a rangeland economist at the University of Wyoming. “But when you consider all the costs involved in grazing, they’re roughly equal. Or in some cases, public land grazing can cost the rancher more.”
Joe Villagrana, a ranch manager from Lake County, in Southeast Oregon, says permits on public land carry their own costs.
“What people don’t realize is, by holding the permit, you are responsible for maintaining the fences, maintaining water, for example like water troughs,” Villagrana said. “And that costs money. So you add up time, labor, fuel, material and all that, it actually gets to be very expensive. So yeah, that sounds pretty cheap, but with everything that’s put on us to keep that permit, it costs us a lot of money.”
On private lands, a lot of this infrastructure is already included in that up-front price.
Probably the biggest challenge is changing the formula the feds use, or even throwing it out completely. Rimbey said bidding on permits, like they do in Idaho, would get closer to reflecting what the actual market value of the grazing is. But that would require a change to a law that has essentially been the same since 1966.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns...-grazing-fees/
Do the Feds police the ranchers on public to see if they really do the required maintenance?
what do the ranchers want? pay the $1.69 but have the Feds to all the maintenance?
ing free-loading, whiny moochers wanting "free stuff".
btw, a graph on the above link shows that the Fed fee hasn't increased in 35+ years, so $1.69 was a lot more expensive in 1980, so why no Bundy bull back then?
Armed Oregon occupation: Is it really about white poverty in the West?
If you thought the armed occupation of a federal bird refuge in Oregon was simply a battle over land rights, think again.
This week, Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group, complained that Westerners are helpless against a federal foe that is “literally putting [people] into poverty.”
To be sure, since their take-over of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last weekend, Mr. Bundy and his group have struggled to elicit sympathy and support. But by reframing the issue, Bundy may find a wider audience. And he's right: Poverty in the American West is rising even as it has fallen in the Deep South.
By raising the plight of poor, mostly white Americans languishing under the thumb of federal land managers provides a poignant insight into recent economic trends as well as a centuries-old fight over land use in the west, one which could, some say, provide these Western range riders common cause with other groups of marginalized Americans.
Bundy’s comments are “really the first time [since the Great Depression] where rural people are talking about their fear of poverty and their experience of poverty,”
“White people don’t want to talk about being poor or a small town in Kansas being a white ghetto – nobody’s going to use those terms.
What’s remarkable is that these guys are actually saying ‘impoverishment’ and blaming it on government, as opposed to broader structures in society.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...ty-in-the-West
These low-wage, low-info. we-want-free-stuff rurals have bought the Repug/VRWC LIES that govt is root of ALL problems.
"If we could just kill govt, all problems would disappear."
Tribe Member: 'We Would Have Been Dead By Now' If We Acted Like Oregon Militants
BURNS, Ore. -- The armed protesters who seized remote federal property in Oregon should leave, the Burns Paiute Tribal Council urged Wednesday. The occupiers claim the federal land rightfully belongs to the mostly white population of eastern Oregon, but Harney County was largely Paiute territory prior to white settlement.
On a foggy Wednesday morning, some of the tribe's nearly 420 members gathered at the top of a snow-packed hill on the Paiute reservation to discuss their concerns about the outsiders. The doors of the meeting center were plastered with signs warning people not to bring firearms inside.
"As a Native, if we were to go out there and fight back like they are, we would have been dead by now," said Carla Teeman, a social services assistant at the tribe.
"They are desecrating one of our sacred traditional cultural properties," said Charlotte Rodrique, the tribal chair. "They are endangering our children and the safety of our community."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000003
Ammon Bundy's mother sends out a call for supplies, FBI arrives:
http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/...3tmaE_4MA.cspxSaturday, members of the FBI began arriving at Burns Municipal Airport about 30 miles from the U.S. bird refuge where militants have occupied a federal building for the past week.
Western Voters Don’t Agree With The Demands Of Armed Militia In Oregon
The poll, released Monday by Colorado College, surveyed voters in seven western states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming) on their views regarding public lands and energy. It found that most western voters — 58 percent — don’t want states to take over management of public lands. That’s one of the main desires of Ammon Bundy and the rest of the group that’s occupying the Malheur Wildlife Refuge — to turn federally protected lands over to private and state ownership, which the group thinks would help open up these lands to more drilling, mining, and grazing.
“These findings show us that the Bundy family…are far out of touch with most folks living in the West,” Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said on a press call Monday. “Anyone who tells us to hand public lands over to private owners and the state are telling us a story that won’t stand the test of time.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...te+Progress%29
I remember other ranchers disagreeing with Cloven, that he should pay his subsidized grazing fees like everybody else.
The militia is an easy target and useful tool to distract from the real problem of the out of control BLM and the tactics they are using to force people off of their land.
The Honkey Invisibility Cloak outchea in Full Mutha in' Effizzzekt!
You need a new schtick, this one is completely ignored by all.
except for yourself?
Kang Barreh needs to light these welfare porkskinned squatters up with some in drones n .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daYXkvDNj0U
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
