Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Why Ammon Bundy’s Oregon standoff is doomed to fail
Andrew Romano
January 5, 2016
Reblog
Share
Tweet
Pin it
Send
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7H...2158737c5e.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7HeVHqc.kRlUIJLcRgptxA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/f489ab8a680d397e4726df5c97304a2158737c5e.jpg"/>
Ammon Bundy addresses the media at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., on January 5, 2016. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
If you want to understand why the armed men who seized the empty headquarters of Oregon’s remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday are doomed to fail — despite vowing to hunker down for “as long as it takes” to defeat the “tyranny” of Washington, D.C., and threatening “to kill or be killed” if necessary — then you have to understand a few other things first. Things like grazing fees, desert tortoises and the property clause of the United States Constitution.
In short, you have to understand the larger war for control of the American West.
On one side of the Oregon flare-up is the federal government, which owns surprisingly vast swaths of the western half of the country, ranging from 29.9 percent of Montana to 84.5 percent of Nevada, and just over half, 53.1 percent, of Oregon.
On the other side are a bunch of antigovernment types who think that Uncle Sam shouldn’t own this much land, and who, for both economic and ideological reasons, would rather the more laissez-faire states owned it instead.
“Once [the people] can use these lands as free men, then we will have accomplished what we came to accomplish,” Bundy told reporters over the weekend.
SLIDESHOW – Armed militia standoff in Oregon >>>
The basic battle lines here aren’t new. Westerners have always seen themselves as rugged individualists, and the current clash has its roots in a law that Congress passed during Civil War.
But what has changed in recent years is that these Westerners are now willing to use confrontational, even violent, tactics to get their point across — a decision that is almost certain to undermine the larger cause to which they profess their allegiance.
Most of the blame belongs to a single family: the Bundys.
Ammon Bundy, 40, is the ringleader of the posse now occupying the Malheur refuge center; his brother Ryan and another Bundy brother are also reportedly among the occupiers. Last week, Ammon Bundy traveled 1,000 miles north from his home in Phoenix to attend a rally in Burns, Ore., ostensibly in support of Dwight Hammond Jr., 74, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, a pair of local ranchers who were convicted three years ago of burning federal lands in a dispute with the government over grazing rights for their cattle, then ordered in October to return to prison after a federal judge ruled that their original sentences were too short.
As soon as the rally ended, however, the Bundys and at least dozen like-minded outsiders they had summoned to Burns — including Jon Ritzheimer, a former Marine from Phoenix whose anti-Muslim rhetoric and activities triggered an FBI manhunt in November 2015, and other gun-toting vigilantes who travel around the country latching onto various local fights against the federal government — split off and took over a couple of unstaffed Malheur administrative buildings.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJ...176a5d224b.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJffbRjO2jEHA52icj7LnA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/513ded95266a05eb3462dd82b2529f176a5d224b.jpg"/>
Protesters gather at the Bureau of Land Management’s base camp near Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville, Nev., ranch on April 12, 2014. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Such is the Bundy way. In April 2014, Ammon’s father, Cliven, 68, led an armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., that involved more than 100 antigovernment militiamen and came very close to erupting into the next Waco or Ruby Ridge. “If a car had backfired,” one militiaman told Harper’s, “the shooting would have started.”
Read More
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Cliven Bundy’s beef with the BLM was longstanding — and specific to his own circumstances. You can read the whole two-decade timeline here. The short version is that in 1993 the BLM modified Bundy’s grazing permit to reduce the overgrazing of Nevada’s Gold Butte, citing the damage his cows were causing to the habitat of the threatened desert tortoise. (The federal government has owned the land where Bundy’s cows graze since before Nevada became a state.)
In response, Bundy “refused the permit modification, quit paying his fees, and, in an act of pique, turned out more than 900 animals onto the allotment — almost nine times the number stipulated by his permit,” according to Harper’s. Several times the BLM ordered Bundy to remove his cows; several times Bundy refused; several times the courts ruled in the feds’ favor. Eventually, after the defiant Bundy had racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fines and fees, insisting all along that the land rightfully belonged to “the sovereign state of Nevada,” the BLM began to impound his herd. Hence the standoff — which only ended when the BLM backed down and agreed to return Bundy’s cows.
“I abide by all of Nevada state laws,” Bundy said at the time. “But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.”
Bundy’s issues with Washington, D.C., may have been personal. But they were also symptomatic of a larger Western war that has waxed and waned throughout the 20th century.
In the mid-to-late 1800s, Congress sought to spur settlement on the Western territories it had acquired over the previous half-century by passing various Homestead Acts; in general, these laws decreed that if a U.S. citizen were willing to settle on and farm a particular patch of land for at least five years, he could claim it as his own. To earn a profit, ranchers in some regions needed more room than the 160 acres typically allotted by Congress. They eventually began to pay grazing fees for the right to lease federal land — if they agreed to federal oversight.
The relationship between these ranchers and the federal government wasn’t always a smooth one. In 1905, Western stockmen revolted against the Forest Service for implementing grazing fees and a permit system; in the 1940s and ’50s, an increase in livestock fees sparked a similar backlash.
And yet much of this (largely inhospitable) public land still hadn’t been claimed. In 1932, Pres. Herbert Hoover proposed to deed the surface rights to the unappropriated lands to the states, but the states complained that the lands had been overgrazed and would burden their budgets, which had been squeezed by the Great Depression. The BLM was soon created to administer the public lands that no one else wanted.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/at...aee5d68654.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/atmaH9JJ83mhmXL8EryxbQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/ed65c12dc62555faf971846c24801caee5d68654.jpg"/>
Rancher Cliven Bundy talks to protesters in Bunkerville, Nev., on April 11, 2014. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Such was the state of affairs until 1976. That was the year Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which formally ended the policy of turning over federally owned land to citizens who wanted to farm or ranch there — essentially locking in federal control.
Realizing that Washington could now enact whatever conservation measures it liked, some Westerners balked — and Western politicians began to listen. The result was what came to be known as the Sagebrush Rebellion. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, at least six Western states passed legislation aimed at nullifying federal ownership of land within their boundaries; Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch proposed a bill that would allow states to apply for control over selected parcels; and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, then running for president, told supporters in Salt Lake City, “Count me in as a rebel.”
Even so, the rebellion sputtered after Reagan took office — just like the similar rebellions before it. The reasons were complex: opposition from conservationists, Reagan’s push for privatization, the fact that federal grazing fees are actually a great deal for ranchers like Cliven Bundy — not to mention the Property Clause of the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the authority to manage public lands however it wants.
In the Obama Era, however, Republican lawmakers — with the backing of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit that drives conservative policy and whose members include Koch Industries and ExxonMobil — have begun to reintroduce land-transfer bills in statehouses across the West. Last year alone, conservatives in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming put forward legislation that laid the groundwork for transfers of public land to the states.
Their goal is simple: to channel the anti-Washington passions of the tea party into laws that will open up greater stretches of the West to mining, drilling, ranching and other economic activities, generating tax revenue for the states, and, of course, profits for the companies and individuals involved. (Otherwise, the states simply couldn’t afford to manage so much land.)
The problem for conservative lawmakers is that such passions, once unleashed, are very difficult to control. When Cliven Bundy and his acolytes first aimed their rifles at the BLM, many Republican politicians, eager to appeal to voters angry with Washington, stood by him.
Ted Cruz, for instance, described the situation in Bunkerville as “the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.” Rand Paul told Fox News that “there is a legitimate constitutional question here” and later reportedly met with Bundy for 45 minutes to discuss federal land management and states’ rights.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/30...3aa566f4ee.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/30mvCobg.LjT6uQVk5Aakw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/896ceab933ae10b8f0f4c50e4606b73aa566f4ee.jpg"/>
A bumper sticker on a private truck parked in front of a residential building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Since the standoff, however, Cliven Bundy has wondered aloud whether “Negroes” were “better off as slaves, picking cotton” and aligned himself with the most paranoid of right-wing extremists. In June 2014, two of his self-professed followers went on a shooting spree in Las Vegas, murdering a pair of police officers before killing themselves.
So now, as another Bundy defies the feds in Oregon, Paul and Cruz seem to be singing a different tune. On Monday, Cruz called on Ammon Bundy and his gang to “stand down peacefully”; Paul made a plea for political action instead.
“I’m sympathetic to the idea that the large collection of federal lands ought to be turned back to the states and the people, but I think the best way to bring about change is through politics,” Paul told the Washington Post in an interview. “That’s why I entered the electoral arena. I don’t support any violence or suggestion of violence toward changing policy.”
And that’s why the Bundys’ ongoing crusade may ultimately prove to be counterproductive. The more militant this latest incarnation of the Sagebrush Rebellion starts to seem, the less inclined mainstream politicians — not to mention the people of the American West — will be to support it.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
Here is an email from Kirk MacKenzie:
HAMMOND RANCH
JURISDICTION IS THE STORY!
Wrong Focus
Coverage of the Hammond Ranch situation is an example of why we don’t win. Nearly all coverage is focused on the wrong thing—the situation and its specific concerns, rather than the global issue! We can do better than People Magazine! Ammon and the others are there to bring focus on the issue, not on themselves. If we don’t do that, we all lose.
JURISDICTION is the story!
The Comstitution
created a government of limited scope. It was fenced in. The name of that fence is “Jurisdiction”. The federal government only has legislative, judicial, and executive powers within its Jurisdiction. The fight to limit federal overreach is synonymous with the fight over Jurisdiction. It is fruitless to fight the first without supporting the second.
The Opportunity
If there ever was one, this is the time—the opportunity—to unite the movement and fight federal overreach by shouting JURISDICTION from the “rooftops”—in every email, Facebook posting, Tweet, blog, and website. I encourage every one and every organization to do just that!
If you don’t understand Jurisdiction, study the DRA Jurisdiction page and my Jurisdiction white paper, or any other source you choose.
If you do understand Jurisdiction, now is the time to educate everyone else.
Quick Facts
The only legislative authority or ownership the federal government has over land is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, repeated below.
“The Congress shall have power to ... exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”―Article I, Section 8, Clause 17
The federal government is only permitted to own and exercise exclusive legislative authority over Washington D.C. and lands acquired from the states(called federal enclaves), in accordance with stated procedure, and only for enumerated defense purposes.
That’s it!
No other clause in the Constitution gives the federal government right to own or legislate over any other land. Where there is no legislative authority, there is no jurisdiction. The Constitution has never been amended to expand that authority.
In what I consider to be a corrupt decision, the Supreme Court decided the federal government could acquire lands outside the Constitution. Corrupt or not, it is crucial to understand that in so doing, the Court declared that in this circumstance the federal government acted in the capacity as any other buyer. It did not acquire any legislative authority or jurisdiction over the lands thus purchased. It obtained only a “proprietorial interest", i.e., the interest of a proprietor, an owner, not the authority of a government.
3. Jurisdiction remains with the states! By not exercising this jurisdiction or stepping in in defense of their citizens, “our" state and local governments are selling us out.
Our Objectives
Train and unite every one and every organization on Jurisdiction.
Get that story out.
Take control of local and state governments. Focus the majority of political efforts on this objective, especially in Rural America where we have the best chance of making a difference. The federal government is beyond hope.
Here is where the waters get muddy. These shysters use treaties to extend their municipal jurisdiction. It is too long to post here.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html
TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER
Within the last decade, many people have been utterly astonished at the phenomenal growth and influence of the so-called environmental movement. From its "salad days" of the early seventies, this movement has blossomed so quickly that it now has the visible support of giant corporations and powerful political figures. But, there appears to be a hidden agenda behind the environmental movement with its promotion of an environmental treaty.
Quite obviously, environmental legislation is inherently the proper subject of legislation for the State, and many States currently have such acts in effect within their jurisdictions. At the federal level, the jurisdiction of the United States is constrained by the operation of Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17 of the U. S. Constitution, and the multitude of decided cases regarding this part of the Constitution declares that the United States has territorial jurisdiction solely within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves inside the States, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. The possession of territorial jurisdiction is essential under this constitutional provision for federal municipal law such as environmental legislation to apply. Within the territories and possessions of the United States, the federal government possesses power similar to that of a State legislature; see Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 31, 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 (1954); and Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 317, 57 S.Ct. 764, 768 (1937). Therefore, municipal environmental legislation enacted by Congress could readily apply in these areas within the jurisdiction of the United States. Logically, a consideration of solely this part of the Constitution would dictate a conclusion that this type of federal municipal law could apply only within those areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and not within the jurisdiction of the States.
See more:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.htm
This could not have happened if the unratifed seventeenth amendent was not in the Constitution.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tumbleweed
Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.
Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cebu_4_2
Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?
I'm hearing that the original party are "distancing" themselves from the militia, if that's true whats the mission?
Are they somehow going to relieve other parties around there of some burden?
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Horn
I'm hearing that the original party are "distancing" themselves from the militia, if that's true whats the mission?
Are they somehow going to relieve other parties around there of some burden?
Somehow this stinks of infiltration. Been following it and it seems there are 3 angles and only one seemed legit in the beginning. Bad white people with guns seems to be the main street news.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cebu_4_2
Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?
I don't know what their strategy is. I wouldn't have taken control of that building. If they were to try to leave they'd probably end up in jail and if they stay they may get shot. The BLM and most of the people working for the government the Hammonds have dealt with have been corrupt, criminal and abusive in my opinion.
If they sit tight and aren't attacked by the Fed's they have time to educate people on how corrupt and abusive our government has become. If they do that they may win against the Fed's if enough people speak out against what the BLM and what their lackys have been up to.
If the Feds attack and kill them more people will probably wake up to how bad things have gotten in this country.
The Feds can kill them all and walk away and no one will go to jail for it.
This makes me think of the stories of the crazy dog indian warriors that would stake themselves out with a stake and thong then fight to the death all comers.
Looks to me like they've staked themselves out and sung their death song.
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
those white tea party gun-loving terrists are about to do something that makes nyc/dc xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx to stem the threat
signed,
nyc blood thirsty money junkies
we MUST keep the printing press in our control......imagine if we had to pay those idiots in gold. it would cut the head off of our snake
end the fed
Re: 150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tumbleweed
Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.
Will be interesting to see if the three instigators get busted.
