| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Going Way Too Far |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 13-Apr-2010, 02:23 AM |
| 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/national/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. |
| Posted by: Jillian 13-Apr-2010, 05:16 AM |
| 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 |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Apr-2010, 10:32 PM | ||||||
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:
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.
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": <object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gwaAVJITx1Y"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gwaAVJITx1Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object> |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Apr-2010, 05:47 AM |
| 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? |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 14-Apr-2010, 07:02 AM | ||||
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.
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. |
| Posted by: Patch 14-Apr-2010, 07:50 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. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Apr-2010, 09:09 AM | ||
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? |
| Posted by: Antwn 14-Apr-2010, 12:16 PM | ||
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? |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 14-Apr-2010, 03:09 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!  |
| Posted by: Patch 14-Apr-2010, 03:19 PM | ||
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 |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Apr-2010, 03:49 PM | ||
What "this," big guy?  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. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 14-Apr-2010, 04:28 PM | ||
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. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Apr-2010, 04:45 PM |
| 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? |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Apr-2010, 05:36 PM |
| 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? |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 14-Apr-2010, 05:39 PM | ||
yes |
| Posted by: Patch 14-Apr-2010, 05:46 PM |
| If one familiarizes ones self with the documents relating to and leading up to the ratification of our Constitution one can understand the thinking of the founding fathers and why they believed it's parts and the amendments were so important. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Apr-2010, 12:26 PM | ||
I think this itself may be the rather circuitously and rhetorically worded false assumption; but if the response to acting on it even now, as if it were already a given, is to arm preemptively and in essence prime the expectation of violence, then this is a left-handed but fairly transparent attempt to force an armed revolution while trying to stick the blame on an "oppressor". If the new legislation is going to be litigated and overturned, that still does not call for armed resistance. Dogshirt, although he is still being a bit evasive as to particulars, at least has the guts to come right out and say what he believes is happening. |
| Posted by: Antwn 15-Apr-2010, 01:16 PM | ||
Life isn't Hollywood. I think your "what ifs" are far fetched, and sound like a ptich for a new Chuck Norris flick. Shall we cue the theme music? There are other options for the states, the feds and the citizens than armed conflict over health care. What you're posting here is madness, and I for one have at least enough faith in government at both levels to presume their ability to come up with better options than this. Your scenario is insane. Again, I'm not talking about standing up for the constitution as being insane, but the methods of enforcement and resistance in your scenario. Any group arming itself over its fantasies of a likely government takeover of state authority by military means is delusional. There must be some predisposition waiting in the wings for a suitably justifiable provocation with some of these groups to grab their guns over health care. That seems to me the more pertinent issue. A simple solution to the constitutional question would be for the SCOTUS to simply rule that the mandatory purchase of health care (and/or other aspects of the bill) is unconstitutional without ruling the entire bill to be so. Dump it back in the congressional cauldron and let them come up with a new brew. No tanks need roll down Main Street America. This process has been in effect all along, why would you assume that it has fallen apart and the enforcement of legislation must now be from the barrel of a gun? Don't you think the Obama administration would prefer less extreme methods? What would they gain by a military incursion into the states? Civil war? Over health care? Do you really think anyone wants health care legislation that badly? |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 15-Apr-2010, 02:23 PM | ||
Your saying that if a state declares it will not follow federal laws and instead starts making its own laws in contradiction to the federal government, that said state would not be de fact seceding from the union? Of course it would. Would the feds send in the army? Do you remember Wallace standing in the school house door and the Alabama National Guard being federalized to enforce segregation. Did you study about Fort Sumpter in school, remember the ultimate results? The lesson is clear, the federal government will brook no defiance on the basis of states rights. The state level politicians of today, don't have the gonads to go to war with the feds and any local militia that tried would be totally eliminated. Is this what you are advocating? You say that it's the federal government doing it to you, but you would be the one who decides to break the law. A law that was passed by the Senate and House of Representatives and signed into law by the president. These people were elected by folks in every state in the union. For congressmen, the majority of folks in every state in the union, for president the majority of electors in accordance with the US Constitution that you say you are trying to protect. Perhaps you did not vote for them, but that does not change the fact that they were elected by the people. Don't like it, then get involved in politics and elect a new government. Armed rebellion is a stupid idea and the resort of people who are extremists to the point that they no longer have any solid grasp of reality. Creating and joining an armed militia for the stated purpose of resisting the federal government or defending against the federal government or however you wish to parse it is foolhardy and stupid. |
| Posted by: Patch 15-Apr-2010, 02:38 PM |
| I am very actively involved in politics and some here "obviously" do not like that. In fact, I soon will be leaving for La. That is what the Tea Party is really about. It was named after the original Tea Party in Boston Harbor of December 16, 1773. That one led to the founding of our country and we hope that this one will lead to the saving of our country. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 15-Apr-2010, 02:51 PM | ||
And to my knowledge, you are not advocating armed rebellion but are trying to use the ballot box as is proper. I have no argument with that. I do disagree with your opinions and some of your statistics, but as you say, that is politics. What I don't like are the nincompoops who think arming themselves for "the revolution" is a smart thing to do. If one wants to purchase a gun, fine. But if one wants to plan or incite or join in some kind of "armed resistance", that is very objectionable to me. |
| Posted by: Patch 15-Apr-2010, 03:31 PM |
| I just saw the new FBI crime stats that indicate that as arms sales increased, violent crime (including murder) decreased drastically. The people buying these arms are not using them illegally. If someone is on a watch list for being a member of a questionable group, they will not get a firearm. I talk to many people as Dogshirt and others here also do. In most of America the people are not at all satisfied with the direction the country is being taken. In La, I will wander the area around our hotel and talk to as many locals as possible. When we eat out on these trips, they get mad at me as I am always the last ready to head back to the hotel. I believe Dogshirt travels a lot too and this enables us to gage just how the public feels. The malitia is not at all like the media portrays it. The ones I am familiar with work with law enforcement if body retrieval and finding lost persons. They help with crowd control and none are planning to overthrow the government. In my state they are the only organization that has trained Blood Hounds trained to find cadavers or lost people. They even have at least one that can locate a drowning victim from the scent over the water as the dog is moved through a search grid in a boat. There are and always have been radical groups. With 350 Million people here, they can not be avoided. Todays radio news reported that a gay rights group had circulated pictures and home addresses of council members in a city in this general area who voted against a measure they favored. An FBI spokesman stated that the group was on their watch list as a "domestic terrorist group." Does this cast a shadow on all gay groups? Absolutely not! Just as one bad malitia (using the term loosely in their case) should not cast a shadow on all malitia groups. There are bad people through out the world. For the most part, we will not know them till we meet them. It behoves all of us to have a plan to protect ourselves. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 15-Apr-2010, 05:10 PM | ||
This thread is specifically talking about the groups in Oklahoma who want to form an armed militia to resist the government and any that may be of similar purpose. It is those people who are coming very close to what I call treason. There are legal avenues to take to work on changing the system. Armed resistance is not an acceptable method of protest. In Oklahoma the people speaking of forming an armed militia were described as Tea Party leaders. If the general Tea Party movement wants any credibility as a legitimate political movement, then it needs to loudly disavow any association with these people and make sure that the national media covers that disavowal. And take legal action to prevent these people from identifying themselves with the Tea Party. Failure to do that implies tacit approval of their agenda and that is unacceptable. Equivacations telling us that many people are upset or angry are not disavowals of that element wanting violent confrontation. There needs to be specific language that says these people are wrong and are not part of your movement. |
| Posted by: Patch 15-Apr-2010, 06:12 PM |
| The Constitution gives only certain rights to the federal govt and all others NOT listed belong to the states. Just because the federal govt does something does not make it Constitutional. Many states are now or have amended their own Constitutions to relieve themselves from control of the federal govt other than what the US Constitution allows. Eventually all will probably have to follow for their own fiscal survival. There are no amendments to the US Constitution changing the federal govt's rights so I do not know just where it could go. The SC would be a good choice but I do not see obama doing that! I do know that the military has had little success in finding troops that would take up arms against their own today so maybe that is where obama's "civilian force" would come into play. If a "secret" govt. force were to be unleashed against the people only God knows what would happen. We should all pray that it does not ever come to that! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 15-Apr-2010, 06:22 PM | ||
Wanting armed confrontation and feeling that there is no other option because your govt. has turned it's back on you are entirely two different things. These are honest, hard working people that feel that they no longer are represented by their elected officials. This seems like the only option left to them. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 15-Apr-2010, 06:28 PM | ||
The government has not been looking for troops to "take up arms against their own". For one thing it is illegal to use the army domestically. Obama's only "force" is the political organization Organize for America. All it does is lobby congressmen and raise money. There is no "secret government force"; that is the stuff of conspiracy buffs. The only "force" talking violence is the groups advocating for armed militias to resist the government. You didn't say this was wrong. Does that mean you support them? If you don't plainly state that you don't support armed resistance to the federal government and in fact condemn it, we have no choice but to assume you are in favor of such action. All I want is a simple answer, not a discussion of what may or may not be or what might happen or how angry people are. Just yes or no. Do you disavow the elements of the Tea Party who are wanting to form a militia for armed resistance to the federal government? |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 15-Apr-2010, 06:35 PM | ||||
Then they should be informed that they do indeed have other options. First and foremost is the political option. Then there is the possibility of taking their concerns to the courts. Violent confrontation to "convince" the government is never an option, unless of course you wish our country to be run by coups and counter coups. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Apr-2010, 06:59 PM |
| Wow, there sure seems to be a lot of tutelage going on about what is is. I thought we had a government with limited powers; one which was to abide by the constitution and that the system of checks and balances ensured that the constitution would be adhered to. From what i'm reading here, it doesn't matter what the government does so long as it is endorsed by elected officials. My question is this. Is there any circumstance which could arise from Washington which would make resistance to the federal government justifiable? |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 15-Apr-2010, 09:05 PM | ||
1. It must be passed by constitutionally elected congress and signed by President 2. It must withstand all court challenges, up to the supreme court if it goes that far 3. If it does that, it is constitutional no matter what your opinion may be. That is what the constitution says, not my opinion, not what I want, but what the constitution says is the legal process. At the moment, the law people are upset about has not gone through the judicial process yet, but everything is on track as dictated by the constitution. Suits have been filed that will be heard. If your constitutionally elected congress passes it and your constitutionally elected president signs it and your constitutionally appointed supreme court approves it, then it is constitutional. Given those circumstances, then no, there is no instance where armed rebellion is justified. Show me something that has been done where the process (not the bill, that is for the court to decide) was not constitutional. Everything has been done by the book. You and a lot of other people may not like it, but it is according to the constitution. Now if the elections in November totally turn about congress, then the new congress may change the law, if they want to. If that happens, I may be upset, but it will still be by the book. |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 15-Apr-2010, 11:45 PM |
| This is what the Declaration of independence has to say about it; The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.[70] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. It would seem that rebellion is our Right, and perhaps our duty. |
| Posted by: Patch 16-Apr-2010, 01:37 AM | ||||
The last step in number one should be the most important step and you forgot it. After passage by congress it MUST then be "ratified by a majority of the states" to become an actual amendment to the Constitution. Then all other challenges can take place. I have taken a number of classes in Constitutional Law as it helps considerably when in discussions with legislators. Most of them have no clue as to what their limitations are and I can accurately predict in advance which are clueless. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Patch 16-Apr-2010, 01:59 AM | ||
Our forefathers eloquently put their reasoning for rebelling against the King on paper for posterity. They were willing to risk life, limb and property for these beliefs. We should not take their actions lightly or dismiss them and can find further documentation in their other writings/letters of that time. The Founders letters re: the second amendment also allude to the American people replacing their government if it should become necessary due to that govt surpassing it's Constitutional limitations and oppressing it's people. I would pray that never becomes necessary but I do not believe God expects the American people to be oppressed either. I am certain our forefathers did not! My thinking would be that should any insurrection take place, it will be done by the military, not the people. The Generals are politically inclined but their support comes from below and obama does not have it now. That may be why no real troop reductions have taken place overseas. Just an observation there. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 16-Apr-2010, 02:54 AM | ||
You would be right had I been speaking of an amendment, but I was not. I was speaking of laws. There has been no admendment passed. There has been a law passed that has sparked all this protest. The passage of that law was done in a coonstitutionaal manner. I would still like an answer to my question, do you disavow the people contemplating an armed resistance to the federal government or do you in fact support them and the idea of armed insurection? |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 16-Apr-2010, 03:01 AM | ||
That's my point exactly, the people were and are represented by the congress they elected. That is government of and by the people. There may be a lot of people who disagree, but they have not been short changed in any way. The dissenters will have there chance to change that representation at the ballot box, a rebellion is not needed nor is justified in any way shape or form. |
| Posted by: Patch 16-Apr-2010, 07:38 AM | ||||
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution explains it all. I never had any intent of answering our question as you are on a fishing expedition. When the information is available to you it is your responsibility to find it. I and others tried to help in that respect, but you refuse that help. The letters written by the founders would also be of assistance. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 16-Apr-2010, 08:12 AM | ||
First, thank you for finally responding to my question. Even refusing to answer is an answer. Secondly, I never needed any help with the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. You assumed I was speaking about one thing when I was speaking about something else. If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have correctly stated all the facts. I think you will find that misdirection is a very old trick and seldom works anymore. |
| Posted by: Patch 16-Apr-2010, 08:14 AM | ||||
on page one of this topic we have a video where obama asks for a "citizens national security force". And you feel states are over reacting?! The federal govt has passed it's limitations and the quickest way to get this to the SC now is for the states to refuse to follow the federal requirements. No matter what you call it we have seen these "forces" in history. None worked out too well!!!! As for the govt using troops, the NG is a force available to the federal govt and the govt has, in the past, been willing to use them in violation of the Posse Comitatus law. I am done with this topic. You can find someone else to "discuss" (?) this with. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Apr-2010, 11:15 AM | ||
OK, I've always loved Jefferson as both a thinker and as one of the maybe 5 best writers ever born, anywhere. It seems to me that you are tending to place disproportionate weight on some of his words, and a bit too little on others, according to your own convictions at the moment. I'm not much concerned for Jefferson's sake -- if the Bible has survived this intellectual cherry-picking process, so will he. But look at part 1. that I pulled out of the chunk you decided to use as authority. It carries, or should carry, just as much weight in actually judging the necessity of this declaration as anything else. And in part 2., consider what "absolute Despotism" means, and what he knew and understood it to mean. There is no such thing here in our time -- or, OK, if you can define anything going on in this country as absolute despotism, including the experiences of the people you are talking about in support of militia formation, let's hear it now in lots of detail. You wouldn't be posting this stuff here if there were even relative despotism, much less absolute. Unless you think your sacred founding father here is just flinging around the accusation of absolute despotism as hyperbolic nonsense for the sake of getting his own way, like some pig-headed colonial proto-libertarian who didn't want to suffer any legal limitations to his own designs, and it really means nothing very important in this document. |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 16-Apr-2010, 11:20 AM | ||
Sir, I salute your tenacity in the art of obfustication. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Apr-2010, 11:34 AM | ||
And, taking note not only of the clip but the poster, I ask what context this carefully shaved sound morsel was taken from. Unless I see proof to the contrary, in the form of the whole statement from which this clip was extracted or a substantial run-up to the byte in the actual video, I am going to assume that the president is referring to the need for greater internal protection and vigilance against either state-sponsored or individual terrorism as being everyone's responsibility, not just the military's job. If that also includes domestic terrorism, it actually seem appropriate enough. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 16-Apr-2010, 12:07 PM | ||
Would you care to explain what you mean by this? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Apr-2010, 12:11 PM | ||||
Certainly. I am interested in the fuller content of the clip and in why it is edited to include exactly what it does -- no less and no more -- and also I'd like to hear more on how you see the clip, so edited, to support the point you are making in the post in which it appears. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Apr-2010, 12:38 PM | ||
Let me be sure I understand this. Reductions in troop deployment in the two main foreign theaters of war active at this time are possibly being delayed, to keep the number of available troops in the States at a small enough level to prevent a military coup? How do you figure that the Generals are politically inclined to actually initiate such a thing, by the way? |
| Posted by: Dogshirt 16-Apr-2010, 05:48 PM | ||
First, I am not cherry picking so much as bowing to my lack of tech. knowledge. I can build your house or even your office building, but my computer skills have limits, and I cannot spend the time to go through the whole text and highlight the parts we need to address. Second(Antwn) I feel no need to post a link, since if I can find it, my granddaughter can find it. Not to pick you out, but YOU seem to want a link to every reference. Do your own work. I've done mine. Okay Lynn, you seem to want details, more than I am willing to go into. So, I will give you as much as I can. YES!!! I do belive that armed rebellion is a viable option. Without the possibility of being overthrown by the people, there is NOTHING to keep ANY government in check. We have all seen how much the Constitution means to pelosi, reid and their ilk. And this was not really a truly major issue. If the thought of facing their fellow countrymen waving guns in their face was not a TRUE reality, do you think they would give a "diddley goddamn" for the constraints placed upon them by the Const. ? We, The People keep this country what it is, and if our Govt. gets in the way of our doing that, THEN, YES BY THE GODS, REBELLION IS THE ONLY OPTION!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 16-Apr-2010, 09:01 PM | ||
According to FactCheck.org, Obama's use of the words "Civilian National Security Force" was deliberately misinterpreted to mean he wanted a....well....civilian national security force. From FactCheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html Why would any organized group of people formed by the US which operates on foreign lands be referred to as a "national" anything? Secondly, which of these organizations could be aptly referred to as a "force"? Thirdly, explain how in the hell these benevolent organizations could be justifiably "as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded" as our military? The answers...they wouldn't, none, and they couldn't. Obama simply let it slip. He didn't mean to do it, but he let the cat out of the bag. He did, however, on a number of other occasions allude to the notion of having our youth conscripted into service. This is easily verified. How this is pertinent is in the use of the term force. The citizens of this great land need not be enrolled in the federally sanctioned, traditional military service in order to defend and preserve their rights under the Constitution. In fact, every citizen should find it their duty to defend against their government should it forcibly go beyond its bounds and infringe on the rights of the people. Under this belief, the idea of forming a militia then becomes the purest form of patriotism. And it is my firmly held belief that patriotism is NOT simply swallowing the flavor of the week as handed down from Washington. When the duly elected officers of this country use the legal process to pass law that goes beyond the intended reach of government, then their actions are unconstitutional and we the people have a duty to resist it. |
| Posted by: Patch 16-Apr-2010, 09:44 PM |
| If you engage people in conversation in the places where they gather, you will find that the majority including those of ALL political persuasions hold those beliefs you describe today. The harder the administration tries to force their swill on the American people the more resistant the people become. It definitely helps the Tea Party movement. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: englishmix 16-Apr-2010, 11:02 PM |
Ah, its a lovely time for a spot of tea!  |
| Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 17-Apr-2010, 12:16 AM | ||
The people's first duty is to wait and see how the courts adjudicate the issue. The Supreme Court is the final say about the constitutionalty of a law. Let the prcess work before you get all fired up about forming militias. South Carolina actually fired on Fort Sumter before the new administration had a chance to do anything. They had been told that Lincoln would do this and do that, but we'll never know for sure because SC jumped the gun. Actions taken in haste can not be recalled. Our first duty is to wait for all the facts to develop before a decision is made, unless of course, you want a blood bath. |
| Posted by: Antwn 17-Apr-2010, 02:41 PM | ||
I don't want a link to everything, I want so called facts substantiated. If someone says X% of this group of people think this, or the majority of Americans believe that I just want to know according to whom....what source? Its NOT my responsibility to trudge across the internet in search of verification of someone else's statement. If you post an argument or take a position and attempt to substantiate it with facts, then for those facts to be considered valid one must know their source. Its the poster's responsibility to list that source, not ask their readers to wander cyberspace in search of verification of a poster's sources. If you read a book making claims, is it your responsibility to compose a bibliography stating the sources of their information, or is it the author's? If you're a scientist doing a study, is it your responsibility to list how the study was done for the purposes of peer review or is it the responsibility of others to guess? Carolina Scotsman: Thank you sir for your excellent posts on this thread. Stoirmeil too. |
| Posted by: Antwn 17-Apr-2010, 04:07 PM | ||
Patch: Scotsman is asking for your opinion here, where you stand on a specific issue. What kind of research techniques would you have him adopt aside from asking you a direct question? Here it is again: "I would still like an answer to my question, do you disavow the people contemplating an armed resistance to the federal government or do you in fact support them and the idea of armed insurection?" If you'd really like to help him like you've said, wouldn't the easiest way to be to answer him? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 17-Apr-2010, 07:15 PM | ||
Oh, hey. I have been teaching that for the last couple of weeks in my Writing for the Sciences class -- at that level, the person publishing his or her findings is supposed to be so transparent about not only the results themselves, but also the methods used to derive the results, that a well-versed colleague could replicate the experiment himself, as a pure "I ain't taking your word for it" peer review option. Standard practice. The cost of fudging is so high, it can take down a distinguished career into irreparable shards in one shot, and has done so. Nobody here holds to that degree of accountability, or is really expected to in support of a personal viewpoint. But I do think it's a courtesy to keep it as a somewhat distant but still visible gold standard, especially when hard and presumably documented facts and statistics are offered as "proof" of an opinion. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 17-Apr-2010, 07:22 PM | ||
The first sentence I agree with completely. The second sentence is true, but I know the SC can "vote" on vary narrow margins, which tells me that often nearly half see an issue one way and half the other. More directly, I think the SC perfectly capable of finding constitutionality in a law when it is viewed just the opposite by a vast majority of Americans. Lastly, I'm not fired up about militias (the word "you" was probably meant generally, yes?), but at the same time, the simple formation of a militia is not an act of aggression i.m.o., so I see nothing at all wrong with it. Preparedness is the mantra of our US armed forces, why not for a state? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 17-Apr-2010, 07:37 PM | ||
Preparedness of either the US armed forces OR the population in general against the nation itself is not a mantra for any part of this government. Do you think -- since we seem to have a wide tolerance about the aptness of analogies -- that allowing or even encouraging your kids to defend themselves, with physical force if necessary, extends to when they don't care for their father's house rules or limitations on their activities? |
| Posted by: Antwn 17-Apr-2010, 07:52 PM | ||
I know no one holds anyone to that degree of accountability, it was only an example. Trouble is the opposite extreme is normative here, no one holds anyone to any accountability and we're expected to grant authority to figures just because they're posted. This wasn't the first time I've been chastised for suggesting the posting of sources and not the first time I've been told rather emphatically to authenticate other's figures myself as if the hubris and audacity of assumed infallibility weren't silly enough. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 17-Apr-2010, 08:04 PM | ||
I know. And I did try to separate out posting personal opinion simply as such from bringing statistical or other evidence in support of opinion, that CAN be provided as a courtesy for other readers. And maybe I wasn't clear. |
| Posted by: Antwn 17-Apr-2010, 08:11 PM | ||
To extend this analogy, the "father" was elected by the "children" who can unelect him at will and by majority agreement alone. As Scotsman has said several times, given this circumstance, constitutionally mandated, what would be the need of state or citizen militia insurrection? Preparedness? For what? Your use of the Obama statements (rhetoric is not action) to surmise the nation's military's invasion of states is far fetched. His statements are general, he has not said why he doesn't think we can rely solely on the military or what those national security objectives are or why they'd require a "national civilian security force". Maybe he's thinking of a national neighborhood watch, you don't know. At any rate the militias I think we're talking about are not state militias but citizens who arm themselves, call themselves militias and entertain assorted assumptions about impending government takeovers because legislation they disapprove of has been legitimately passed. |
| Posted by: Antwn 21-Apr-2010, 12:22 PM | ||
...and for good reason. How many average Americans are well versed in law in general not to mention constitutional law and precedent? The constitutionality of a law is not subjected to popular vote or consensus. Now how are you determining how the vast majority of Americans view the constitutionality of something? I'm not saying their opinion is worthless or should not be considered, but I'm asking what is the value of an opinion sourced in knowledge as opposed to one that isn't? Do you ask a plumber to perform heart bypass surgery because, although he doesn't deal directly with arteries, he works with pipes? Why do you think SC nominees are scrutinized so heavily? Yes, its partly political, but like any job interview, its also to determine the degree of expertise and qualification. Who would want a SC judge who knows only what the average American knows about law? |
| Posted by: Patch 21-Apr-2010, 02:53 PM | ||
Actually there are malitias in every state in the US. A lot of them! There probably have been since this country was founded. I am not aware that any attempted to overthrow the govt was ever attempted. Again, if that should happen here it is likely to happen in the same manner that happened in South America when a leader attempted to do away with the country's constitution. They (the military) removed him and the people then elected someone who preserved their constitution. The communist countries, some socialist countries and obama were opposed to the military action but it stood. I listened to some tapes on TV re: the Hutare malitia that was supposedly planning attacks on police. The tapes released by the FBI so far were not in any way threatening. I would assume and, since these people have been arrested, hope there are more recorded conversations to back the govt up. Obama's words and deeds have caused a great majority of those who voted in the last election to loose trust in him. That is why we have so many D's supporting the Tea Party movement and also, a majority of all Americans, including those who did not vote in the last election, do not trust him or his policies either. November looks brighter every day. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Antwn 24-Apr-2010, 03:51 PM |
| "Obama's words and deeds have caused a great majority of those who voted in the last election to loose trust in him. That is why we have so many D's supporting the Tea Party movement and also, a majority of all Americans, including those who did not vote in the last election, do not trust him or his policies either." ....according to Patch The Omniscient, peace be upon him, who has intimate knowledge of what the majority of Americans think about everything and what their level of trust is. C'mon big guy, do something usefull with that psychic ability, gives us the winning lottery numbers! Tell us the secrets of the Mayan 2012 predictions! How many more kids will Brangelina adopt? Channel me some spirit guides! Hey, hold on....Oprah's calling...... |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 05:40 PM | ||
Odd you should be thinking in that direction. I've just finished watching a documentary on Allende's overthrow, participation in which was one of America's lowest and most shameful hours on record. It can't be that one that you're referring to, though -- Obama was a twelve-year-old kid at the time, and it hardly describes Pinochet and his regime of terror. So which recent military overthrow and subsequent fair, non-junta-driven non-dictatorship in Latin America were you thinking of? Sounds like a sheer wish to me, that anybody's military should take out a leader and then sit back, relinquish power (or is it, keep only just enough power to prevent looting, riots and outright cannibalism?) and then smile benevolently on a fair populist election. Not even here, man. But enlighten me.  |
| Posted by: Patch 24-Apr-2010, 06:22 PM |
| For those who might really be interested. Honduras: Military Ousts President Manuel Zelaya. Jun 29, 2009 In the first military coup in Central America in a quarter of a century, the Honduran military ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Former Parliamentary speaker Roberto Micheletti was sworn in as Zelaya’s replacement. Zelaya attempted to suspend the Honduras Constitution and to make himself president for life. He then tried to run as a write in candidate and failed miserably. He had slipped back into the country illegally and the last I knew he was holed up in a foreign embassy within the borders of Honduras. The military had the embassy surrounded to prevent his escape. Good enough? It only took a little over a min. to find this again. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 24-Apr-2010, 06:25 PM | ||
   Just days ago we all agreed to stick with the discussions. Belittling comments like this directed at a fellow CR member in good standing are not necessary nor are they contributive toward the discussion at hand. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 06:34 PM | ||
"we all?" Where? I'm sorry, I've been off for a week or more. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 06:59 PM | ||
The Honduran Congress had already begun a rightful impeachment process to oust Zelaya. It was ill-advised and unnecessary of the military to intervene and do it illegally as a coup. That smells bad, no matter who does it. Micheletti was nominally appointed by the Congress, instead of being openly stuck up there by the Army, which is somewhat encouraging; but he is still in hot water, and this is also an indication of the illegality of the act as well as its (and Micheletti's) unpopularity with the people. And organization broke down during his interim, with an escalation of violence and a host of human rights abuses -- including the usual male security force solution to any upheaval, which seems to be raping of women -- by government security forces. His appointment was no solution to the Zelaya problem, with six months to go in Z's legal administration, and such a huge popular refusal of his attempted term extension grab. Am I hearing approval in your tone about the way this was done? I would like to know if your approval extends to the way something might be done in the United States, if you are looking for models of a justifiable overthrow, as I think you have been for some time, particularly in light of this habitually generalizing statement you made in your post: "The communist countries, some socialist countries and obama were opposed to the military action but it stood." |
| Posted by: Patch 24-Apr-2010, 07:09 PM | ||
You asked for specifics and now you have them. I was just stating a much publicized and well known fact. I am working on the November elections period. |
| Posted by: Antwn 24-Apr-2010, 07:09 PM | ||
From the TOS: "Personal attacks against other members are not allowed. For example, you can disagree with a member, but do not engage in name calling" I don't consider my post a personal attack or name calling, unless you consider "psychic" derrogatory. Posts in a satiric style are not ad hominem attacks, but attempts to make fun of ideas and assumptions, in this case the idea that any one person has intimate knowlege of what the majority of Americans think and who they trust. That would entail over 150 million individuals. If we're going to censor style we're going to have a rather monotonous forum, but if its agreed on that my post violates TOS then I stand officially chastised and warned and if not then your opinion is noted. Thanks for your concern. |
| Posted by: stevenpd 24-Apr-2010, 07:11 PM | ||||||||||||
Since you can't find the time to do your own research:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/index.html Or would you prefer:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie Or maybe this:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_profile_many_ways_to_describe_a_movement And then there is this:
Ibid. (This means the same reference as above from Rasmussen Reports above.) And then there is this:
And this:
http://people-press.org/report/606/trust-in-government I think it is safe to generalize that a majority of Americans have lost trust in the current administration and ultimately in Obama himself. And this must include those that voted for him. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 07:21 PM | ||
These are not specifics, and you are doing the usual: citing "much publicized and well known" non-facts that are not only general, they are insinuating a false association. I don't agree with your reading of the Honduras case, and your implied approval of a military coup as a solution to their (or our) problems remains alarming. Sorry to disturb you from working on the November cabal -- but if you put out suggestive stuff here, I guess it would be fair to expect you to substantiate it as necessary. |
| Posted by: Jillian 24-Apr-2010, 07:25 PM | ||
 Jillian |
| Posted by: Patch 24-Apr-2010, 07:26 PM |
| For those interested, it was in the news from the date it happened (June 29 2009) and continued to be covered for at least 4 months. Actually it is condensed from a report by a NYU professor in Latin American studies as the link would not work here. Hopefully you will be able to take it from there. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 07:38 PM | ||
Still being covered. The truth commission on the coup is scheduled to start in a week or so, so they can investigate and write up the objective and impartial account. Eduardo Stein, former VP of Guatemala and OAS official, is coordinating the inquiry. I shall be most interested in following this one, especially with regard to the human rights atrocities following the destabilization. Thanks for the lead on the NYU professor, although a name would have been helpful, assuming you could remember it long enough to type it in --but we have some very good poli-sci analysts on our own campus too, associated with our Colin Powell Center, and a separate Latin American Studies department. The joy of teaching in the truly democratic City University of New York. |
| Posted by: Patch 24-Apr-2010, 07:42 PM |
| Soooooo? |
| Posted by: stevenpd 24-Apr-2010, 07:44 PM |
| Now, if you kids can't play nice, I'll be force to close this topic down. |
| Posted by: Patch 24-Apr-2010, 07:44 PM |
| Stevenpd: Maybe your polls will be accepted. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 07:48 PM | ||
Is this addressed to me, Steven? |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Apr-2010, 07:51 PM | ||
Soooooo . . . I believe in objective and impartial investigations six months after the fact -- actually, getting closer to a year now -- like I believe in the Easter Bunny. I expect this to be a sop pointed toward acceptance of the new administration. In any case, I do not expect the decision making heads of the military to catch much more than a slap on the wrist. We shall see. |
| Posted by: Antwn 25-Apr-2010, 11:58 AM |
| Steven - Your CNN, Hill and Rasmussen reports refer to surveys of Tea Pary members, not the majority of Americans. The bullet points on the Rasmussen Report survey even specify that. The only post which defends your point is the Pew Research link. Of course I can also post reports suggesting the opposite. The Pew report says its survey was taken in March. A Gallup poll shows a 50% approval 43% disapproval rate of Obama as of April 2010. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Since public opinion is based upon the actions or lack thereof of governments, they're fluid and ebb and flow in response to those actions, yes? Here's Patch's comment which I made fun of, specifically the clause in which he says "the majority of all Americans......do not trust him or his policies either." He of course is speaking about Obama: "Obama's words and deeds have caused a great majority of those who voted in the last election to loose trust in him. That is why we have so many D's supporting the Tea Party movement and also, a majority of all Americans, including those who did not vote in the last election, do not trust him or his policies either." The approval/diapproval of government as a whole is distinct from that of Obama. |
| Posted by: Patch 25-Apr-2010, 01:04 PM | ||
That is not how the D's who have joined the Tea Party movement feel. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Apr-2010, 01:20 PM | ||||
First of all, and as always, how do you know that so definitively? But that's just academic. Second -- how can anyone who is paying attention to the bloody, muddy trench warfare of passing a bill or appointing a justice these days possibly believe that? The only reason to pretend to believe it is to support a rigid "the end justifies any and all means absolutely" position. Which, granted, seems to be a Tea Party axiom. |
| Posted by: Patch 25-Apr-2010, 01:22 PM |
| We simply ask them. |
| Posted by: Antwn 25-Apr-2010, 01:31 PM | ||||
Assuming you do know what they feel (a stretch at best) you're only talking about 14% of a group which consists of 24% of Americans, according to the Rasmussen data posted by stevenpd. That may be significant in your world, but is not statistically significant beyond it. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Apr-2010, 02:05 PM | ||
 OK, if you say so. I know that must be a very big and time-consuming job . . . and how about the second question:Second -- how can anyone who is paying attention to the bloody, muddy trench warfare of passing a bill or appointing a justice these days possibly NOT believe that "[t]he approval/diapproval of government as a whole is distinct from that of Obama"? |
| Posted by: Patch 25-Apr-2010, 03:11 PM |
| Again we ask them why they decided to join the movement. |