Rachel Maddow discusses OK's anti-Gov, state sanctioned (!) militia proposal.

[AlbertCat]

Run time: 09:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIMH5sNLCs8   Posted on YouTube: April 14, 2010 By YouTube Member: goog2k Views on YouTube: 70   Posted on DU: April 14, 2010 By DU Member: AlbertCat Views on DU: 946

 
If Obama's Nuke Summit didn't remind you we have serious enemies to deal with... you might be from OK. This treasonous militia crap is nothing but ignoring our real enemies.

P.S. OK is not the South, you'll notice. The Western states are making SC look good (almost).

[abelenkpe]

1. State Militias?

Really? States are facing default desperately in need of revenue, raising taxes and looking for other ways to collect money. The teabaggers are all up in arms over higher taxation and government spending positive that the debt burden of the government will reduce them and their children to slavery. And their answer is to have the state spend money it doesn't have to build a militia to oppose a federal government that is no threat.

That makes so much sense.

Do these people not realize that federal taxes have gone down? That it is the same state that they are seeking funding from that is raising their taxes? That the federal government is only raising taxes on the wealthiest people....people who are strangely absent from teabagger events yet profit the most from their rhetoric?

[rocktivity]

2. Sedition at best, treason at worst

Where are the calls for him to step down?

:grr:
rocktivity

[dotymed]

3. Don't the teabaggers realize

that the corporations own our government? They "own" most of our politicians (state also). The 1-5% of the ruling class are who profit off of our destruction? They destroy America for their profit. It seems that they would want to get corporations out of our government by regulating them (corporations, through legislation) and forcing them to reverse the outsourcing of America. I agree our government is corrupt. I think we should all take to the streets and demand that the government is taken back by "we the people." How about the recent SCOTUS "decision" to let corporations spend (buy our government) unlimited money for candidates. That applies to state candidates also. Follow the money and you will see what has happened to our government. BTW, glen beck is paid $23 million a year to keep you confused about who the real enemy is. We (they) would be destroyed in an armed confrontation. We & them, together, can make a real difference. The ruling class wants to "divide and conquer", that is why they got rid of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, fill anyone who will listen with propaganda and blame the government for its interference, when they control the government.:wtf:

[justinaforjustice]

4. Ok. Legislators to Create an Official McVeigh Militia?

Maddow reports that a Republican State Senator now running for governor promises to create a state militia "to confront the over-reaching of the federal government against state sovereign. There are several Republican state legislators who claim they will introduce a bill to create such a state militia next year.

Maddow then plays a video of a prison interview with domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, who explains his reasons for blowing up the Oklahoma Federal Building, which could be summarized as the need to the over-reaching of the U.S. Federal government by fighting back against the federal "bully".

Wow, I wonder how the Oklahoma families whose fathers, mothers, and children were blown up in the McVeigh terrorist attack on the Oklahoma Federal Building feel about their tax money going to create an official militia (will they call it the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Militia?) to carry out McVeigh's agenda to physically attack the federal government, its facilities and employees.

[gorfle]

5. This is precisely what militias were intended to be used for.

First of all I think it's funny that so many anti-firearm folks insist that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms, and here when such a militia is proposed, it is being poo-pooed.

Also, Rachel is completely wrong on her assessment of the second amendment (2:17).

The state militias WERE seen as to provide protection against an over-reaching federal government! Why do you think the founders set up our country with a decentralized military system!?!? The federal government was never even supposed to have a standing army. Why do you think this was done? Even if you don't read any contemporary documents, such as the Federalist Papers, it is plain to see that this was done because the founders did not trust such massive power in the hands of the federal government! They feared that it would be wielded as an instrument of oppression!

The militias of old were federalized in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act, which created the National Guard. By so doing, the federal government usurped the power of the militias from the states.

And for all of you who think these decentralized, state-sponsored militias are so terrible, how many imperialistic wars of American aggression would we have embarked on if all the states had to act in concert to do them? Do you think we would be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now? How about Vietnam?

Our government was set up as a massive collection of checks and balances. The decentralized military system, made up of state militias, was part of that effort to balance against the power of the federal government. Not just the power it could wield wrongly against the states, but wrongly against others, also.

Rachel is wrong on this one.

[AlbertCat]

7. The militias of old were federalized in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act,

So the Dick Act passed.... what about that do you not understand, Mr constitutional scholar? It PASSED. It is the law. If OK wants to defederalize the militias, then introduce such a law and get IT passed.

[gorfle]

9. Or...make a new militia.

So the Dick Act passed.... what about that do you not understand, Mr constitutional scholar? It PASSED. It is the law. If OK wants to defederalize the militias, then introduce such a law and get IT passed.

I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but it would seem to me that if the federal government usurped the States' original military forces by law, there is nothing that I am aware of that prevents them from raising new military forces to replace those that were lost.

Texas also has such a milita, as I understand it (The Texas Guard).

[gorfle]

6. A good quote.

"I think it's absolutely key, I think its the fundamental parts of the militia movement, of the militias within the patriot movement, they see or they fear that there's going to be a one-world government, ah, they fear foreign troops on US soil, ah, they fear that the us government will infringe on their rights, will take away their guns, this paranoia and fear is what drives these groups it's not about, ah, being a, a, offensive force to overthrow the government, it's it's always in the literature if you look on the web sites it's always about defense and that the best defense is to be prepared, to be armed, and to be organized."

Emphasis mine. This is precisely what militias are supposed to be and do. It is precisely the intent behind the second amendment.

And if this is "paranoia", it is a paranoia that our founders also shared.

[AlbertCat]

8. It is precisely the intent behind the second amendment.

In your interpretation.

I however see 18th century men in an 18th century agrarian society with few urban and large centers and a vast wilderness wanting people to be able to organize with flintlocks to come to the AID of the federal government if the British or anyone else decided to invade.... not to threaten the government with violence because they don't like who the people overwhelmingly voted in as President.

[gorfle]

10. I believe you are incorrect.

I however see 18th century men in an 18th century agrarian society with few urban and large centers and a vast wilderness wanting people to be able to organize with flintlocks to come to the AID of the federal government if the British or anyone else decided to invade.... not to threaten the government with violence because they don't like who the people overwhelmingly voted in as President.

First of all, the idea was not just to organize with "flintlocks", but "arms" suitable for infantry use. This would include any advancement in small arms also. This is probably why the Constitution vaguely refers to "arms" rather than specific kinds of arms.

Secondly, while the militias were definitely intended to help secure the nation against external threats, it was also created to protect from internal threats - specifically against the threat of tyranny from an overly-powerful central government. This is why the military was set up as a decentralized force instead of simply creating one unified army under the control of the federal government!

Of course there are contemporary writings to back this up; Federalist 29, for example.

Now what constitute valid reasons for rebellion is open to lengthy debate. I agree with you that rebellion over who was elected president does not seem like a good cause to me. But the American Revolution was set off by something as trivial as a tax on tea! Ultimately, the reasoning for rebellion is in the hands of the people, and it does not even have to be rational. Again, this is why the founders wanted a decentralized system. Not only would it protect the States from oppression by the Federal government, but also from other states. If one state were to act irrationally the other states could act in concert to stop them. This is precisely what happened in the Civil War.