Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

[uscitizen]

State militias are the State based National guard units.

WRONG, National Guard units are the FEDERALIZED Portion of State Militias. States can have non Federal Militia as well.

Can have but why would they need them in addition to the National Guard?

 

[bodecea]

Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?

If states have militias, that movie could be a reality.

Legally States are allowed by the 2nd Amendment to have militias and No I do not mean the National Guard. Each State is authorized to have its own Militia with only a portion of it available to be called on by the federal Government. The National Guard is PART of the Army so would fill the part called on for National Services. Leaving every State the RIGHT to form a separate force for IN State use only.

You people really need to learn what is and is not legal.

The STATE...not some group of yahoos.

 

[uscitizen]

Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?

If states have militias, that movie could be a reality.

Legally States are allowed by the 2nd Amendment to have militias and No I do not mean the National Guard. Each State is authorized to have its own Militia with only a portion of it available to be called on by the federal Government. The National Guard is PART of the Army so would fill the part called on for National Services. Leaving every State the RIGHT to form a separate force for IN State use only.

You people really need to learn what is and is not legal.

The STATE...not some group of yahoos.

Absotively.

 

[MaggieMae]

Where was the outrage about this ?


YouTube - Obama Civilian Security
Obama civilian military(just as powerful, just as strong,just as well funded)

My sympathies for the apparent serious case of gullible-itis within your fact-free zone.

FactCheck.org: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

Fact check this bootlicker...

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.


JUST AS POWERFUL
JUST AS STRONG
JUST AS WELL-FUNDED
(as our military)


A peace corp as strong as our military?
Peace corps my ass....

Cherry pick much? The proposal for a civilian security force is precisely what I said it was. Ironically, it is the brainchild of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who began a program for civilian forces with a DoD directive that was immediately put into effect as soon as Obama took office.

http://libertarianvegan.today.com/d...nchor=Department+of+Defense+Directive+1404.10

Gates then proceeded to expand upon a civilian force (does anyone here even recall the old Civil Defense program of the 40's and 50's??????), by a series of speeches on the subject in which he iterated this:

"[We] need to create a more modern State Department and a “civilian national security force” that could “deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside the military.”

“If we’ve got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don’t have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated.”

Do those look like the type of people who would resemble SS forces? Puleeze...

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.......I was head of the Navy office for MEPS here in Amarillo, and I see a big problem with state funded militias.

Currently, we are in 2 wars, and the military needs every able bodied individual who is willing to serve.

Getting enough people to meet goal every month is hard enough because you have a limited pool of eligible applicants. Further cutting that pool down by having some of them join state militias could have an impact on national security.

No state funded militias are necessary and will only hurt the US military by dropping the pool of eligible applicants even further.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fact check this bootlicker...

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.


JUST AS POWERFUL
JUST AS STRONG
JUST AS WELL-FUNDED
(as our military)


A peace corp as strong as our military?
Peace corps my ass....

Funny you should mention "Fact Check"...

Now, pull your nose from between Sean Hannity's buttcheeks for a moment and read:

FactCheck.org: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

I already posted that, but wading through page after page of the right wing talking points written by everyone from Drudge to Limbaugh and all the little bloggers in between, it's hard to find any FACTUAL source. No wonder the general public is confused.

It really pisses me off, because LYING about things like this is what the right wing does so ******* well, and it accomplishes its mission by inundating the Internet with the same goddamned lie.

Mein Kampf, Chapter 10:

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah yes, the chameleon like Democrat Party; the Zelig Democrat Party. They're with Jesus, Gandhi, the Founding Fathers, they fought against slavery, they're fiscal Conservatives, they're whatever is cool and historic, but they are never ever wrong

Yepper Frank!

You're absolutely right. After all, neither party has changed at all in the last 150 years. Not one single iota.

The Democrats of the 1860's were obviously the same as the people you label "Fascist" and "Socialist" now. They didn't fight the Civil War based on what they thought was Federal over-reach, or anything like that, right?

After all, we know that anything that ever went wrong in history is the fault of Progressives, right? At least that's how Ann Coulter tells us history went.

Those Dems were for States Rights and as far as that goes, they were correct.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fact check this bootlicker...

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.


JUST AS POWERFUL
JUST AS STRONG
JUST AS WELL-FUNDED
(as our military)


A peace corp as strong as our military?
Peace corps my ass....

Funny you should mention "Fact Check"...

Now, pull your nose from between Sean Hannity's buttcheeks for a moment and read:

FactCheck.org: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

Thats exactly where my information comes from bootlicker....
your link to factcheck, and not Hannity....

Your head needs to be removed from your very own asshole....learn to read and use what little brains you have instead of relying on what factcheck tells you....
Obama said what he said, plain and easy to understand for even you.

Does large font make your point more credible or closer to God?

 

[MaggieMae]

These w lines follow one another in Obama speech...

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Just because "factcheck" presents them as two seperate paragraphs shouldn't fool anyone.

So that was a year ago, Alphie, where are all these big bad citicizen soldiers you think are gonna kick your ass into line?

 

[ABikerSailor]

He thinks large font gives him more credibility.

After all, isn't that what the big kid books have instead of just pictures?

 

[MaggieMae]

Thats exactly where my information comes from bootlicker....
your link to factcheck, and not Hannity....

Your head needs to be removed from your very own asshole....learn to read and use what little brains you have instead of relying on what factcheck tells you....
Obama said what he said, plain and easy to understand for even you.

Helps when you actually read the article.......

Q:

Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?
I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts.

What is the truth behind Obama's statements that he wants to create a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"?
A:

This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.
This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way:

Rep. Paul Broun, Nov. 10: It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's [Obama's] the one who proposed this national security force. ... That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did.

Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold.

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.

-Brooks Jackson

Wrong answer fart sniffer, it's for a Peace Corps.

What's more.........he's right.

Brooks Jackson is an AP Hack.

Oh, well that explains it. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MaggieMae]

If anyone takes up arms to oppose the government they need to be dealt with

I didn't realize America was the government.

Oh, and President Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

So you think that Jefferson intended the constitutional government he helped form to be eventually, inevitably overthrown by force of arms? And that he welcomed the prospect of that?

He was also talking about foreign enemies, not political rivals.

 

[MaggieMae]

If anyone takes up arms to oppose the government they need to be dealt with, I said before and I'll say it again, these compost Tea Bags are extremists, they are not oppressed people seeking equality or liberation thus no justification exists for them to take up weapons "to defend their rights," they're just trying to intimidate and their actions are just like the secessionists prior to the Civil War who wanted to "defend" the southern way of life.

For one thing, to take up arms against the United States Government is treason, pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. It's intriguing, however, that so many of these TP members use the Constitution as a crutch to justify their activities.

Have you never read the Constitution?

Do you have a single clue as to why the Constitution supports state millitias, a navy and continual funding for that navy but stipulates a standing army, once created, must not be funded for more than two years?



To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Article I | LII / Legal Information Institute


School me brainiac.

What the **** does that^ have to do with the treason clause, genius? Article III confirms that should a scenario such as the unlikely event where some legally formed "militia" (or any other person or organization) decide to turn AGAINST the United States Government, it WILL be treated as an act of treason.

Next?

 

[MaggieMae]

State militias are the State based National guard units.

A no-brainer. Go figure.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?

If states have militias, that movie could be a reality.

Legally States are allowed by the 2nd Amendment to have militias and No I do not mean the National Guard. Each State is authorized to have its own Militia with only a portion of it available to be called on by the federal Government. The National Guard is PART of the Army so would fill the part called on for National Services. Leaving every State the RIGHT to form a separate force for IN State use only.

You people really need to learn what is and is not legal.

Operative words.

 

[MaggieMae]

Since the topic turned to Obama's alleged "gestapo" civilian national security force, it's interesting to note that NOWHERE does he state that such a civilian force will be "armed."

It is therefore another lie debunked. And that is all.

 

[momonkey]

For one thing, to take up arms against the United States Government is treason, pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. It's intriguing, however, that so many of these TP members use the Constitution as a crutch to justify their activities.

Have you never read the Constitution?

Do you have a single clue as to why the Constitution supports state militias, a navy and continual funding for that navy but stipulates a standing army, once created, must not be funded for more than two years?



To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Article I | LII / Legal Information Institute


School me brainiac.

What the **** does that^ have to do with the treason clause, genius? Article III confirms that should a scenario such as the unlikely event where some legally formed "militia" (or any other person or organization) decide to turn AGAINST the United States Government, it WILL be treated as an act of treason.

Next?

Hey Chairman Mao, your panties all in a wad about using the federal government to "suppress" that irritating Tea Party movement?

Well, the remedy provided in the Constitution is for Congress to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections.

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

Now that I have given you such a huge hint, can you explain why the navy is to be funded at all times but any raised army for no more than two years?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I know!

It's in case we are invaded and have to defend ourselves. 2 years is all it should be, because that should be how long it takes to kick out invaders.

They don't want the militia to be permanent inside the borders, and since the Navy operates primarily outside the US, that is why the Navy is funded permanently.

 

[momonkey]

If anyone takes up arms to oppose the government they need to be dealt with

I didn't realize America was the government.

Oh, and President Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

So you think that Jefferson intended the constitutional government he helped form to be eventually, inevitably overthrown by force of arms? And that he welcomed the prospect of that?

Wow, you have a reading comprehension problem. He expected government to attempt to deny the people their liberties and for those same people to inform themselves and take back their liberties.

That was written in the eighteenth century and news media consisted of a few small news papers. Staying informed back then was far more difficult than today. The problem now for those who would distort facts and misinform the masses is the Internet. Jefferson would have approved of youtube, twitter, USMB, and he certainly would have embraced the Tea Party movement since it reminds our rulers that "this people preserve the spirit of resistance".

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't really think Jefferson would have embraced the tea party dude.

It's NOTHING like his tea party of old in Boston.