Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Going Way Too Far, Ok Tea Party Wants Own Militia
Bookmark and Share
TheCarolinaScotsman 
Posted: 13-Apr-2010, 03:23 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,508
Joined: 13-Jun-2003
ZodiacBirch

Realm: North Carolina

male

Medieval Kingdom
Rank #2
2,147,483,647 Gold!






State Tea Party organizers in Oklahoma are talking about forming a state militia to "help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty." They actually have some support in the state legislature.

Full story http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/na.../story/7405910/

Hey guys, South Carolina tried this almost a hundred and fifty years ago, persuaded a few other states to go along. Look where it got them. In some ways, we're still paying the price today.

If they go through with this, the Oklahoma Tea Party (and any others who go along) needs to be outlawed.


--------------------
TheCarolinaScotsman


Ya'll drive safe and come back soon.
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Jillian 
Posted: 13-Apr-2010, 06:16 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Brittany
Posts: 703
Joined: 29-Jun-2008
ZodiacOak

Realm: Pennsylvania

female





This has always been a contested issue (states vs fed gov rights). It appears as though in this case it's an umbrella group of the Oklahoma Tea Party--not the whole group. On the one hand, if states consistently challenged federal law, the centralized system of government would be in danger of dissolving into a weakened bunch of independent states. On the other hand, an overreaching federal govt can push states into feeling cornered enough to defend. I think with hotly debated topics such as health reform, more deliberation or maybe even state referndoms would have elicited more support. It reminds me eerily of Bush's agenda to go into Iraq without the support of the greater global community.

Jillian



--------------------

"Disappointments are inevitable. Discouragement is a choice."
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 13-Apr-2010, 11:32 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (TheCarolinaScotsman @ 13-Apr-2010, 03:23 AM)


If they go through with this, the Oklahoma Tea Party (and any others who go along) needs to be outlawed.

If they go through with what? Forming a militia? Challenging the federal government? I would be interested in the specific answer here.

From the article in your link:

QUOTE
But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance.


Do the states or private citizens not have a right to fight against a government that has far outstretched it's powers? Where in the Constitution can one find that the government has the authority to require the individual to purchase anything? I certainly do not advocate violence. However, some measure of resistence should be met against a government that bulldoze's over the Constitution, that set's federal penalties for failing to comply with unconstitutional mandates, that portends the determination to penalize the success of the wealthy through taxation while setting up strings of entitlements, etc., etc. At some point we must stand against government tyranny. Otherwise, the lack of resistence equates to a complete submission; a message to government that says "whatever you say, we will honor." Perhaps the formation of a militia, even in a symbolic sense, would be enough of a rallying cry to get the apathetic citizens of this country off their collective duffs and stand up.

QUOTE (TheCarolinaScotsman)
If they go through with this, the Oklahoma Tea Party (and any others who go along) needs to be outlawed.


Again, go through with what? Defending themselves from a government which has been handed more power than they have a right to? Of course any militia which forms may sooner than later be confronted by Obama's Army...depending on his "national security objectives":



--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 06:47 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







What is an unarmed militia? Or a "symbolic" militia? With what do they enforce their demands, besides the "removal" of undesirable officers by due process of election? I would like a very specific answer to that, in turn.

Militia, among many definitions:
# An army of trained civilians, which may be an official reserve army, called upon in time of need; the national police force of a country (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, etc.); the entire able-bodied population of a state; or a private force, not under government control
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militia

# Citizens of a state who are not part of the national military forces, but who can be called into military service in an emergency; a citizen army, apart from the regular military forces.
www.authors-corner.com/genealogy_terms.php

# a part of the organized armed forces of a country called upon in times of crisis
sln.fi.edu/franklin/glossary.html

None of this seems to define a civilian body that organizes itself and "takes up arms", even symbolically, to "defend the population" (however that is defined) against the state. Those individuals might more properly be called rebels/revolutionaries, or insurrectionists.

The legislation against which you propose to "defend" has already been passed. What form will your defense of the population take, then? Does it include going on the offensive? What does that consist of, even symbolically, beyond all the noisy but not essentially life threatening behavior that has taken place so far?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
TheCarolinaScotsman 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 08:02 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,508
Joined: 13-Jun-2003
ZodiacBirch

Realm: North Carolina

male

Medieval Kingdom
Rank #2
2,147,483,647 Gold!






QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 14-Apr-2010, 12:32 AM)
If they go through with what? Forming a militia? Challenging the federal government? I would be interested in the specific answer here.


Forming an armed militia with the purpose of confronting the federal government instead of "rolling over". How do you use an armed force to confront the government? If the government doesn't cave in to your demands, then what, attack? The only purpose in arming a militia is so the militia may use those arms. That is rebellion or revolution . It is not protest. It is not using the ballot box. The very moment that an organization takes up arms to resist the government, even if a shot has not yet been fired, they are in a state of rebellion. That should be sufficient reason to outlaw the group that supports them and gives them their directions.

As you know, in this part of the country, memories run deep. Our ancestors tried to defend the principle of states rights. You know how that ended. It has taken us a century and a half to recover. Do you want the same thing to happen again? The similarities of what is being said now in Oklahoma to what was being said then are chilling to say the least.

QUOTE

Where in the Constitution can one find that the government has the authority to require the individual to purchase anything?


If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, there are two avenues you may legally take to redress the issue. You may work to elect different congressmen who will change the policy or you can initiate a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Forming an armed militia and threatening rebellion (which is what the folks in Ok are really talking about) is not a legal method to redress a grievance.
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 08:50 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





QUOTE (TheCarolinaScotsman @ 14-Apr-2010, 09:02 AM)


If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, there are two avenues you may legally take to redress the issue. You may work to elect different congressmen who will change the policy or you can initiate a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Forming an armed militia and threatening rebellion (which is what the folks in Ok are really talking about) is not a legal method to redress a grievance.

Actually the Constitutionality will soon be addressed in the courts. A growing number of states are joining the federal law suit and several groups are working on a direct appeal to the SC. There are also plans in the next legislature to address that issue and other perceived inequities in the law. That, however, must remain until after the November elections.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 10:09 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (Patch @ 14-Apr-2010, 09:50 AM)
Actually the Constitutionality will soon be addressed in the courts. A growing number of states are joining the federal law suit and several groups are working on a direct appeal to the SC. There are also plans in the next legislature to address that issue and other perceived inequities in the law. That, however, must remain until after the November elections.

So how does forming a militia figure into it, then, if the issue is going to be litigated? Is that really only saber-rattling -- excuse me, a "rallying cry to get the apathetic citizens of this country off their collective duffs and stand[ing] up" -- or is something more substantive being contemplated?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 01:16 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 13-Apr-2010, 11:32 PM)
Do the states or private citizens not have a right to fight against a government that has far outstretched it's powers? Where in the Constitution can one find that the government has the authority to require the individual to purchase anything? I certainly do not advocate violence. However, some measure of resistence should be met against a government that bulldoze's over the Constitution, that set's federal penalties for failing to comply with unconstitutional mandates, that portends the determination to penalize the success of the wealthy through taxation while setting up strings of entitlements, etc., etc. At some point we must stand against government tyranny. Otherwise, the lack of resistence equates to a complete submission; a message to government that says "whatever you say, we will honor." Perhaps the formation of a militia, even in a symbolic sense, would be enough of a rallying cry to get the apathetic citizens of this country off their collective duffs and stand up.


Its the methodology being used or begun that's the question not the right of protest or dispute. At what point does a "militia" become a terrorist organization? Domestic terrorists are arrested for planning attacks. Where is this line to be drawn?



--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 04:09 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Lord of the Northern Plains
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





QUOTE
So how does forming a militia figure into it, then, if the issue is going to be litigated? Is that really only saber-rattling -- excuse me, a "rallying cry to get the apathetic citizens of this country off their collective duffs and stand[ing] up" -- or is something more substantive being contemplated?


I belive someone who shall be ME told you all that this was going on all over the west. Did you think I was joking? HELLO!


beer_mug.gif


--------------------
Hoka Hey!
The more Liberals I meet, the more I like my dogs!
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 04:19 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 14-Apr-2010, 05:09 PM)

I belive someone who shall be ME told you all that this was going on all over the west. Did you think I was joking? HELLO!


beer_mug.gif

I believe that nearly all Americans want to see this settled in a civilized manner. Those who live in some "politically sheltered" areas of the US have no idea just how concerned that the average citizen in America is.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    
PMEmail Poster               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 04:49 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 14-Apr-2010, 05:09 PM)

I belive someone who shall be ME told you all that this was going on all over the west. Did you think I was joking? HELLO!


beer_mug.gif

What "this," big guy? sad.gif Arming in anticipation of eventually conducting open attacks against centers of government? I'm not talking about demonstrations. Do you think perhaps that you are going to be subjected first to armed quelling of peaceful resistance, and then opt to fight back as a guerilla resistance, with firearms or other weapons or ordnance? Just what is the scenario you contemplate, that is going to require a citizen's militia that does not answer to the government? I'd like you to spell that out.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 05:28 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Lord of the Northern Plains
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





QUOTE
As I posted the other day, I am all over the western US. I work with construction folks of all trdes on these projects, a VERY  conservative group. And there is a strong undercurrent of revolution brewing. These are men and women that work for a living and are tired of losing everything they make to the govt. Every time we turn on the news, some a$$hole has some new design on our wallets.
As I said to some one else before "you don't get out much." If you did, in the same way I do, this would not seem so far fetched to you.



I posted this in response to you about 3 1/2 weeks ago. This is the "this" you ask about. Oklahoma is just the first public stirrings.


beer_mug.gif


PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 05:45 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







Yes, my dear, and I remember it. But you still aren't answering the question in any specific fashion. I am asking you to say what these people are planning, or already doing, to change this source of frustration in concrete terms that are consistent with the understanding of "militia," as far as you can tell or have been told. What means do the people propose to employ to force a change in this objectionable behavior on the part of the government? As far as you know, are their plans in accordance with standing laws, or not?

You see, vague threats and rumblings raise an atmosphere of anger or anxiety that has a damaging life of its own, but it's not a revolt per se. If you can't or don't want to say something more specific -- any of you, I don't mean just you, Dogshirt -- then there's a limited number of likely reasons why not. It's all smoke and saber rattling, or perhaps you know or strongly suspect something that you can't or won't reveal, that you at least endorse, even if you're not personally involved with it. So which is it?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 06:36 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





I think there is an assumption here that may not be accurate. The formation of a militia for the purposes of attack. Is it not possible that a militia may be formed only for the purpose of protection? Let's assume for a moment that this is the case. Should a state decide it will not comply with the federal mandates set forth in the health care or any other bill it feels is unconstitutional, at some point would not the federal government attempt to force compliance? And if that happens, and the state resists, would not the federal government then, by some act of force beyond withholding federal funds, take a further measure to force compliance? Should the people of said state also cooperate in the resistance toward the government in what they perceive is an infringement on their rights and an unconstitutional set of mandates, would not the federal government at some point send their armed forces into this state? The answer here is yes, of course they would. Perhaps this is where the idea for a formation of militia stems, and not from some notion of attacking the government (perhaps Obama knew his goals would spawn such militias, and that is the reason for his statement in the video I embedded earlier). Now, if this is the case, how is it wrong for a state and its citizens to prepare to defend their rights against a tyrannical government?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 14-Apr-2010, 06:39 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Lord of the Northern Plains
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





QUOTE
know or strongly suspect something that you can't or won't reveal, that you at least endorse, even if you're not personally involved with it



yes


beer_mug.gif
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt