Multiple militia groups from across USA going to Las Vegas for standoff w/Bureau of Land Management

If they care so much about doing the right thing with the land, how about they lobby to return it to the Native American tribes?

kuwisdelu said:

If they care so much about doing the right thing with the land, how about they lobby to return it to the Native American tribes?

Click to expand...

I can get behind this. I'll even pay rent.

...not...back rent, cause...I don't think I have that much money.

I mean, look at it this way, they can hardly do a WORSE job than the people running the land now!

ShaunHorton said:

Every name listed in the article is Republican. I'll go ahead and call that fringe, and put this up there with all the calls for secession.

Click to expand...

So you'd call them fringe because they're members of one of the two major political parties?

What if every member of each major party thought that about the opposing party? I can see the headline:

"Ninety Percent of Americans thinks 45 Percent are members of a Fringe Group."

benbradley said:

So you'd call them fringe because they're members of one of the two major political parties?

Click to expand...

The problem is, what used to be considered fringe in American politics is now indeed mainstream in the Republican Party.

The existence of far right wing groups who refuse to recognize the authority of the federal government is nothing new. In the 1970s the posse comitatus was making headlines.

Posse members believe that there is no legitimate form of government above that of the county level and no higher law authority than the county sheriff.

Click to expand...

Sound familiar?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization)

And these groups, who were also racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic (although back then being homophobic was not even something to be questioned, it was simply assumed was the default position of every real American) did not fade away – in fact they morphed into today's militia movement.

But back then, these fringe a-hole nut jobs were recognized as such by almost all responsible people. Now, we have governors and senators (and of course, FOX News) praising them and holding them up as heroes and examples of true Americans.

And this support is giving them a cloak of legitimacy, and emboldens them to further indulge in armed resistance. It's a dangerous and deadly game the new republicans are playing and it's going to come back to bite everyone. There is going to be a serious incident before long, imo, with numerous casualties .

benbradley said:

So you'd call them fringe because they're members of one of the two major political parties?

What if every member of each major party thought that about the opposing party? I can see the headline:

"Ninety Percent of Americans thinks 45 Percent are members of a Fringe Group."

Click to expand...

I think I've seen that headline somewhere actually...

Maybe fringe was the wrong word though. Maybe delusional? I dunno. More names of who was attending and their positions would make things clearer. I try to imagine it and I'm envisioning the burger-flippers at several McDonald's all getting together for a conference about how to take control of their paychecks away from the restaurant managers.

Or something along the lines of, "Yeah, we're telling everyone this is what we're getting together to discuss, but really, we're all just taking vacations to hang out on the backs of our state's dime.

Synonym said:

I heard somewhere that the BLM controls enough acreage to equal the size of the nation of South Africa. (Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, I haven't had a chance to look that up.) I'll give it a look-see here in a minute.

There have been rumblings for years by the people that live near BLM managed lands, about their 'one size fits all' management style. I'd be very much interested to hear more about this Western States meeting.

Nobody cares or knows more about the land than those that live next to it, in my opinion. If your neighbor hasn't cleared the brush, or dead fall, you are the one that's in danger of getting burned out by wildfire. If the land is off-limits because of an endangered species, but you hear that someone with big money and close ties to a politician is going to be allowed to build a sub-division, then you wonder how special treatment trumps endangered species. Tends to make folks a little mad when it happens often enough.

Click to expand...

Those are all good points, made more pertinent when one sees the actual size of FedGov holdings out west.

Now, when I see that map, and realize that land was seized unilaterally by proclamation, I have little trouble understanding why some people who live in those areas might be slightly concerned about the whole situation. They might as well just go ahead and put Nevada back in the "territory" classification, 'cause there's certainly nothing for the "sovereign" state government to address.

Those folks who lol at this situation, or make great fun of the fact that a lot of western states get more revenue from FedGov than they take in, should first take a look at this map so they can understand "the rest of the story."

Of course it's easier to just claim "FedGov Good, State Govs Bad" and leave it at that.

If y'all want to argue that federal lands out west should be handed over to the sovereign governments with a greater claim over them, then I'm happy to agree.

But those sovereign governments are absolutely not the state governments.

Of course, I'm sure states' right supporters would be happy to keep forgetting the number of sovereign nations that exist within their borders, as they've been doing for decades.

No different from the federal government.

That many if not most of these supposed groups are in fact deeply xenophobic/racist and distrustful of the change occuring in the United States.

Plot Device said:

Wow, Rugcat. I'm so glad you have let us all know that political groups which ascribe to the notion that federal overreach must be curtailed are groups who are likewise guilty of being racist, anti-Semetic, and homophobic.

No wait. Maybe I generalized a little bit there.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Click to expand...

You've summed it up pretty well.

Even the most cursory examination of the development and history of the Posse Comitatus and the various right wing militia groups demonstrates this conclusion very clearly.

I also think one of the points was that, due to a lack of strength or a core in the current Republican party, many of these fringe elements are becoming the mainstream. So, I suppose the proper question is, does that makes these groups not fringe? Or, does that make the Republican party more of a fringe grouping itself?

Plot Device said:

Should I just leave?

Click to expand...

Can you re-phrase the question so that I know what you are asking?

Plot Device said:

Should I just leave?

Click to expand...

rugcat said:

The existence of far right wing groups who refuse to recognize the authority of the federal government is nothing new.

Click to expand...

Is this you? And are you also a militia member? Do you arm yourself and confront law enforcement officials with your weapon when you disagree with a law -- or rather, wave your weapon around because you believe the federal government has no legitimacy and therefore all federal laws are invalid?

And, as logically follows, are you willing to shoot law enforcement officers for trying to enforce what you consider they have no right to enforce?

If so, I don't much care if you leave or stay, honestly.

Plot Device said:

I'm a little pissed off that I'm being asked to defend myself. But here it is.

Click to expand...

Get used to it. Purity tests are popular with totalitarian regimes. Either you're with 'em or you're against 'em. There will be less and less neutral ground as more and more of your daily behavior is prescribed or proscribed. Haven't you noticed that "If you think A then you're B" is no longer considered bigotry when applied to political stances? Few people bat an eye at the assumption that those who question FedGov's unlimited power must be racist, anti-semitic and homophobic, for example.

Or just try discussing the difference between anti-semitic and anti-zionist. You'll find most people don't recognize any difference. If you are anti-zionist you must be anti-semitic, right?

Out-of-line opinions or actions will be derided and/or smacked down quickly, before they have time to spread discontent. Defending any act of perceived wrong-thinking is going to become a way of life for those who question authority. I've been watching that trend over the last few years, and it's getting rapidly worse.

Plot Device said:

1) A central government is a good thing,

2) A central government with too much power is a bad thing.

3) A central government which repeatedly chooses to symbiotically service wealthy and powerful corporations is a heinous thing.

4) I have come to the conclusion that the current state of the US central government is one of runaway graft and an impenetrable elitism.

5) I still believe the system can be worked with, but there are forces who are striving very hard to make it unworkable.

Click to expand...

Given that Princeton/Northwestern has determined by examining close to 1,800 U.S. policy changes in the years between 1981 and 2002 that statements 3 and 4 are accurate, do you have any factual basis for statement 5?

Oh, and to the LEO question, in case anybody wonders; given that most of the LEOs around here like me a lot more than FedGov, I doubt that'll ever be an issue.

Don said:

Or just try discussing the difference between anti-semitic and anti-zionist. You'll find most people don't recognize any difference. If you are anti-zionist you must be anti-semitic, right?

Click to expand...

The problem is, some people hide behind the labels or arguments that don't make them look as bad. Always have, always will.

The cynic in me says this is true more often than not. And yes, that includes those most vocally opposed to the current President.

Of course, people are also quick pass judgment based on their own politics. So what do we get when we allow this? A mess. And a lack of attention to actual evidence to defend or support these kinds of accusations.

In this particular case--that of Cliven Bundy--what we have is a schmuck (imo) who really doesn't understand the details of his own positions, a Federal agency that really didn't think through its plan of action, and a host of others who are mostly misreading the situation, one way or the other.

The "tyranny" claims on one side are stupid, but the "domestic terrorist" angle on the other is every bit as bad.

All that said, I think there really is a problem with the amount of Federally managed lands in the West. But I don't think there are enough people ready to have a calm and reasonable discussion on the matter. Which is sad, imo.

Plot Device said:

Do I really need to defend myself??

Click to expand...

Well no, not if you are not a member of a far right gun waving fringe group.

And in fact, if you will look at my post again, you'll see I was referring specifically to the Posse Comititus and the militia groups that flocked to support rancher Bundy -- who himself fits in just perfectly. These are simply dreadful people as well as nut cases, and I stand behind everything I said.

Lots of people think that the federal government overreaches in everyday life. These are not the people I was referring to, and I'm not totally unsympathetic to that view, although I think when it's taken to the extreme it's rather foolish.

But I don't know why you expanded my critique of these far right groups to everyone who mistrusts the government.

Perhaps there was some miscommunication between my intent and your perception. And perhaps I could have responded a little less snarkily to your concerns.

Apocalypse Cow! Thank you Daily Show, for pointing out how psychotic and hypocritical these militia nuts actually are.

I would also suggest the second video, where you can see a clip where Bundy compares himself to the founding fathers.

robeiae said:

All that said, I think there really is a problem with the amount of Federally managed lands in the West. But I don't think there are enough people ready to have a calm and reasonable discussion on the matter. Which is sad, imo.

Click to expand...

As a long time resident of the West, i'm no fan of the BLM, though for different reasons than the right. (Environmentally oriented people routinely refer to the agency as the Bureau of Logging and Mining.)

But their mission, at least theoretically, is to protect the land for all people, not just residents of a particular state.

And when the states talk about land management, what they really mean is exploitation -- how to squeeze every last drop of money out of those lands just sitting there "doing nothing."

Which means selling leasing rights for strip mining, drilling, fracking, and cattle ranching. It some cases, it means actually selling off the land to private industries.

Their goal is simple -- provide jobs, (even though those jobs will eventually disappear when the resources run out) bring money into state coffers, and provide a windfall for private companies and corporations.

Ironically, the end result will be the alost total destruction of the very essence of the West thatr so many fighting against federal "interference" cherish.

Too much federal land? Too little, I'd say. Once the states and developers get their hands on it, it's gone forever.

The usage of land is very similar to Canadian crown land. There is a lot of taiga and mountain under the crown. The jurisdiction issue is likely not as similar, with mining and logging fees going to the provinces.

What people tend to forget are there are more governments here than state and federal, especially out in the West.

Too much federal land? Maybe. But who should it go to? Not states or private industry or individuals. That's for sure.

I still say there's nothing new under the sun.

People fight each other for land. I'm not sure that's different than when Ghengis Khan decided to take some land.