Oklahoma's Militia

[dbacksfan 2.0]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Grazing_Act_of_1934

[swake]

Kind of like the Constitution doesn't specify anything about income taxes or an IRS as a defense for not paying taxes?

It's the same people. They are the same kind of people that bombed the Murrah building.

One of this idiots supporters, a former Arizona sheriff, was  quoted saying this:

"We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it's going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/


Scumbags.

[Ed W]

Do a search for militias on FB. They're as common as cockroaches but not as personable.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[heironymouspasparagus]

You know I am telling on you; right?

Even a broken clock is right at least once every 50 years or so....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Who is Scott Shaw, I've never heard of him before.

Militia guy in the video on the link guido posted...

[heironymouspasparagus]

The constitution doesn't explicitly say that the federal government can own land so he doesn't recognize the federal ownership. That's his defense.

Which goes directly to the point of his having no knowledge of history and certainly no idea what is in the Constitution - because, by definition, the Supreme Law of the land consists of a triad of the Constitution, Laws that Congress passes, and Treaties with other countries.  These idiots conveniently don't even read the document they claim to worship.  Think Michelle Bachman.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Do a search for militias on FB. They're as common as cockroaches but not as personable.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Give me a bushel basket of cockroaches over these clowns ANY TIME!!

[cannon_fodder]

First Conan, Article I, §8, as well as the 16th Amendment make it clear the Federal Government can levy and collect taxes.  Including income taxes.  So very painfully clear (the no-tax nuts have no leg to stand on).
Bundy is on equally weak legal footing with "Federal Government cannot own land" bit.  In bullet points:

-   The Federal Government acquired forts, bases, and stockpile locations during the revolutionary war.  The easiest example is West Point (Ft. Clinton) which was occupied by Federal Troops in 1778 and never really gave it up.  In 1802 that freedom hater Thomas Jefferson established it officially as the US Military Academy.
-   The "NW Ordinance" of 1787 establishing territories and selling lands west of the Appalachian mountains (think Northwestern University, in Chicago). 
-   Washington DC was carved out of existing state land to make an exclusive Federal District in 1790
-   1803 The Federal Government bought the watershed of the Mississippi from Napoleon

All of this was done by the Founding Fathers.  They acquired huge amounts of land for the Federal Government.  Now, it was their policy to sell off most of that land – but saying they had to or that the Fed cannot own land didn't hold up even with the Founding Fathers.

Moving on...

-   1848 the US wins the Mexican American war, recognizes Spanish and Mexican land grants, and reserves all royal/Mexican Federal land to the US Government.  As each state was established, land was apportioned to the state, sold, or retained by the Federal Government (note the "established" parts of that territory have little Federal land [Texas, coastal California], but the unestablished portions still remain largely Federal as they were never granted to anyone)
-   The 1862 Homestead Act gave away huge amounts of Federal Land to anyone who applied and promised to work the land
-   The 1863 act of Congress authorizing Nevada to join the Union stipulated the Nevada was to come in without gaining a grant of any Federal land.  Citizens could still homestead and could still enter negotiations to buy Federal land in Nevada.
-   The 1864 Constitution of Nevada states "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;..."
-   Following the civil war, the issue of "States rights" and sovereignty was essentially decided in favor of the Federal Government.  The reconstructionist Amendments codified this arrangement.
-   In 1867 The Federal Government purchased the entire state of Alaska, and again retained most of the land

This is were Bundy claims his family moved to Nevada, in 1880, and started running cattle for free on land they didn't buy, rent, or pay any taxes or fees on.  AFTER all of the above, and case law supporting it, was well established and universally known.  In fact, the presence of Federal land to run cattle on is what prompted many people to move to those areas to start with.  NOT the prospect of owning vast tracts of land, the prospect of USING vast tracts of land for little or nothing.

His family never bought the land.  Future generations did not homestead additional acreages.  They simply exploited the land for free, which worked fine for them.
But Federal Lands were being destroyed.  The open access policy led to over exploitation.  No one over grazes their own pastures, because your cattle will die next year when the pasture land will not be able to support cattle the next year.  But, if it is Federal land with open access – who cares?  So the first person in over exploited the land, rendering it fallow for years to come.  A poor economic use of the land, which led to

-   The Taylor Grazing act of 1934, which required permits to graze on Federal lands, authorized the collection of fees, and gave priority to permits to people with land contiguous with Federal lands.

This benefited the Bundy clan.  They had contiguous land, so they got the permits and could now exclude other ranchers from the Federal land.  So the Bundy's used the land for a couple generations paying minimal fees.  Much cheaper than buying the land.  Much cheaper than homesteading, or any form of ownership that would require paying taxes and/or paying on a loan. 

But now he doesn't want to pay the fees anymore because the Federal Government cannot own land.  He claims the land is owned by the State of Nevada – which Nevada denies.  He claims any fees should be paid to the State of Nevada, but has paid not fees to the State of Nevada. 

It's a joke.

A great Law Journal article on the subject:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

The most on point excerpt:
The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to
lands. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over
the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:
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.

This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands
acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority
to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has
described this power as "without limitation," stating that:

"...while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a
State by the State's consent or cession, the presence or absence of such
jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress' powers under the Property Clause.
Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal
lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact
legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause.... And when
Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state
laws under the Supremacy Clause." Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 542-543 (1976).

[heironymouspasparagus]

Kind of like the Constitution doesn't specify anything about income taxes or an IRS as a defense for not paying taxes?

Amendments are the Constitution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Good job, cannon_fodder!!

And that is just part of it.  The Louisiana purchase gave the US title to a huge piece of the center of the country.


The Revolutionary War transferred title of the entire US to the new country from the previous owner, King George.  ALL property rights are granted from the beginning of the country by the new owner - the US - with de-facto acceptance by anyone who chooses to stick around that they will obey and abide by the laws and regulations made by the Federal, State and local entities.   The reality is that at the most fundamental, basic level, an individual never owns a piece of property free and clear - there is always a 'partner' in that ownership who may levy fees (property taxes) on that property, and if you don't pay those, you lose the use of that property.  Individuals never own it - they can have a long term lease, if they keep paying the rent.

[DolfanBob]

Am I missing something? Is there a Government Land Rush we don't know about?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611035/The-federal-agency-involved-wild-west-stand-removal-Nevada-ranchers-cattle-claiming-90-000-acres-land-Texas.html

[cannon_fodder]

Generally speaking, people that are wackos in one area tend to be wackos in other areas.  His crazy is showing more and more...

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.

Continue reading the main story
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he asked. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?_r=0

The Negro better off as slaves because now they never learn how to pick cotton.  Duly noted.  The 1950's called and want their politics back.

This man will really freak out when his 15 minutes are over and the government breaks his balls.  I love a good government hating as much as the next American, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

He blew a hole in his credibility big enough to sail the Queen Mary through.

[patric]

Of all people Glen Beck hit the nail on the head:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ucrk7y/apocalypse-cow---welfare-rancher

but now he can go back to being the broken clock.