14 Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses, To Be Ready Against Obama’s Rogue Fed

[Cebu_4_2]

14 Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses, To Be Ready Against Obama’s Rogue Federal Forces

Posted on Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 1:27 am. by: Thomas Jefferson
http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/network-300x288.gif (http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/network.gif)
via Before It’s News (http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/03/14-governor-prepare-state-militia-defenses-to-be-ready-against-obamas-rogue-federal-forces-2446142.html)
By Editor | Conspiracy,

Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many “citizen soldiers” choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government.

Obama is angered by the several State Governors who have reestablished “State Defense Forces.” These forces are described as: “State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the ArmyNational Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.

http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/uncategorized/14-governors-prepare-state-militia-defenses-ready-obamas-rogue-federal-forces/

[palani]

More than just the states shown. Received in an email:


Greetings,

We wish to start functioning in dealing with the "emergency powers courts" which is what the courts we have been dealing with since 1972 when the law enforcement was placed under the national guard and the national guard was federalized. We would like to have as many counties as possible represented so if you would respond stating you county or if you wish not to be a party to straighten out this sick system please let us know.

Thanks,
Iowa jural Society

[Carl]

The states should be getting off their collective ass and take back their Article 5 protected right to equal suffrage in THEIR SENATE, and put a stop to this crap at the source.

[Ponce]

And think how many troops are from those states, do you really thing that they will shoot the "rebels"......I don't think so, better count them as rebels.

V

[monty]

.........

[SWRichmond]

We do not need to mobilize against them...it is they who are in trouble and afraid, not us. Congress' approval rating is 6%. Who will fight for the politicians? Not the cops, as we learned in NYC, when any real shit started they went into survival mode. It's already over, and we already won, we just have to realize it.

Everyone hates DC, no one would fight to defend it. No one.

Virginia's governor is an alcoholic party boy pussy democrat, by the way, not a Constitutional bone in him.

[SWRichmond]

Exit polling on CNN, of republicans

"How do you feel about the federal government"

PA, CT, MD results were almost exactly the same: 45% dissatisfied, 46% angry

It's all over except the purge. I prefer my revolutions French. Roll out the guillotines!

[mick silver]

stocks on tar an feathers are up

[monty]

More than just the states shown. Received in an email:
Greetings,

We wish to start functioning in dealing with the "emergency powers courts" which is what the courts we have been dealing with since 1972 when the law enforcement was placed under the national guard and the national guard was federalized. We would like to have as many counties as possible represented so if you would respond stating you county or if you wish not to be a party to straighten out this sick system please let us know.

Thanks,

Iowa jural Society

Get your State Militia revitalized before it’s too late! (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/)

In all questions respecting the Militia, Dr. Edwin Vieira is the authority. In the 7 minute video below, Dr. Vieira shows us the difference between the State Militia and the State national guard.

I’m going through Title 58 of the Tennessee Code now compiling “The Tennessee Military Code of 1970”. We don’t have an active Militia (within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 – and which James Madison described in Federalist Paper No. 46) here in Tennessee. All we have is the national guard which is an adjunct of the federal military (Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 12-14).

When the islamists the obama administration is importing as fast as they can start the civil war here, we better have our own State Militia organized and ready to defend us. But those are not my words. JAMES MADISON SAID IN FEDERALIST NO. 46 that the purpose of the Militia is to defend us from the federal government.

Alexander Hamilton also said that when the federal government acts against our interests, we must look to our States to defend us (Federalist No. 28 and 29).

I call upon retired military men all over the Country and of all the various branches to get together and look into your State Constitutions and State Statutes and find out the Status of your State Militia. It may be that we will have to go back to the State Militia laws which were in effect before the State Military forces were federalized as a result of the Dick Act of 1902.

We better un-federalize our State military forces before the trouble starts. We can not depend on the US military to defend us. Obama is purging the US Military of good men. All that will be left will be his thugs & bullies – and of course, transgender people and such like.

Freedom isn’t free – as we will soon find out.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s articles here: http://edwinvieira.com/ (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fedwinvieira.com%2F&h=BAQG4UFQz) And no, News with Views is not an “attack site with malware”. Some people don’t want you reading the articles they publish.

https://i2.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/delicious.png (http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&partner=[partner]&noui&url=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&title=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i1.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/digg.png (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&partner=[partner]&url=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&title=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i1.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&t=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i1.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/Google.png (http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&title=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i0.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/myspace.png (http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?u=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&t=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog&c=%20)https://i2.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/newsvine.png (http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&h=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i1.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/reddit.png (http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&title=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i2.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/stumbleupon.png (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/&title=Publius-Huldah\'s%20blog)https://i1.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/technorati.png (http://technorati.com/faves/?add=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/)https://i2.wp.com/www.PerlitaLabs.com/Social_Bookmark_Builder_1_2/icons/24/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/)
Share this:




inShare




7

Share on Tumblr (http://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubliushuldah.wordpress.com%2F2 016%2F05%2F10%2Fget-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late%2F&name=Get%20your%20State%20Militia%20revitalized%20 before%20it%27s%20too%20late%21)
Email (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/?share=email&nb=1)
More (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/#)







May 10, 2016 (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/) Posted by Publius Huldah (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/author/fscut/) | Dick Act of 1903 (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/dick-act-of-1903/), Edwin Vieira (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/edwin-vieira/), Federalist Paper No. 46 (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/federalist-paper-no-46/), Islamization (Islamification) (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/islamization-islamification/), James Madison (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/james-madison/), Militia (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/militia/) | Dick Act of 1903 (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/tag/dick-act-of-1903/), Dr. Edwin Vieira (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/tag/dr-edwin-vieira/), James Madison (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/tag/james-madison/), Militia (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/tag/militia/), national guard (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/tag/national-guard/) | 17 Comments (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/get-your-state-militia-revitalized-before-its-too-late/#comments)


http://youtu.be/cvtIb3OzHsc

http://publiushuldah.com

[mick silver]

one would need the same tools that the other group has

[monty]

one would need the same tools that the other group has

Edwin Vieira Jr. -- The Armed Forces And The Militia, Part 1


Since I first started to write columns for NewsWithViews in 2005 about the need to revitalize “the Militia of the several States”—a full decade ago—that subject has received scant support,
sympathy, or even mention from the run of self-styled conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and (most depressing of all) champions of the Second Amendment who have made themselves prominent on the Internet.

Instead, if they say anything at all about the matter, they tend to parrot the line put out by a certain notorious “‘poverty’ law center”, that anyone who mentions the word “militia” (except to disparage the concept) is some sort of “extremist” or other crackpot whose goal is “to overthrow the federal government”. Or they take the position that the only “militia” in which Americans can have confidence are “militia” with no connections to “government” at all—and that somehow the Constitution provides for such “militia”.

Or they contend that Americans’ right to defend themselves with arms against private criminals and tyrants in public office has nothing to do with any “militia”, but is exclusively an “individual” right with no “collective” purpose or manifestation. Apparently, as far as these people are concerned, that the original Constitution incorporates “the Militia of the several States” as permanent, integral components of the federal system of government—and that the Second Amendment conjoins “[a] well regulated Militia” with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the very same sentence, and even declares that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”—are facts without significance (or facts the significance of which has somehow escaped them).



These are not the only examples of the astoundingly tortuous mental gymnastics in which such people indulge, for what reasons Heaven alone can fathom. For, on the one hand, many of them predict with approval that Americans may soon have, and will want, to depend upon leaders in the Armed Forces who will thrust themselves into positions of political authority in order to save this country in the event of a nationwide crisis. Yet, on the other hand, not a few of these very same prophets repeatedly warn Americans that “the federal government” is plotting to deploy the Armed Forces to impose “martial law” throughout this country, under color of either a real calamity or a “false-flag” deception. Apparently, in these people’s imaginations, at one and the same time the Armed Forces are not just capable of, but also intent upon, both a coup d’état to enforce the Constitution and a coup d’état to eviscerate the Constitution.

(Note that in the term “Armed Forces” I include both the regular Army of the United States and the National Guard—because, although people often assume that the National Guard is some sort of “militia”, it actually is not any kind of “militia” at all, but instead consists of the “Troops, or Ships of War” which the States may “keep * * * in time of Peace” “with[ ] the Consent of Congress”, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution.)



I presume, however, that the upper echelons of America’s Armed Forces are not yet composed predominantly of aspiring Bonapartists, Peronists, and other assorted uniformed usurpers and traitors who itch to seize control of this country under whatever pretext of faux patriotism or pressure of some manufactured crisis can supply them with a plausible excuse for the imposition of “martial law”. Rather, until the necessary experiment falsifies the hypothesis, I believe that the true patriots within the Armed Forces should, could, and (with the proper encouragement and education) would go a long way towards saving this country by doing exactly what that “‘poverty’ law center” and its partisans, dupes, and useful idiots of both the political “Left” and “Right” so deprecate.

Through successfully promoting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, the Armed Forces would help to prevent the assassination of the Constitution, by foreclosing the deadly threat of “martial law”, not just now but once and for all. (As I have written a lengthy book, entitled By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here.)

Not only that, the Armed Forces would help to provide the institutions Americans desperately need in order (among other things) to secure honest elections, to introduce an economically sound and constitutional alternative currency within the several States, to put teeth into “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, and to make meaningful the assertion of the Tenth Amendment that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, both today and for the foreseeable future.

(As I have written an even more lengthy book, entitled The Sword and Sovereignty (http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles-Homeland/dp/0967175941/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432614868&sr=1-1&keywords=the+sword+and+sovereignty), on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here, either.)



But how should this be done? Quite simply. Every time questions of “homeland security” arise in Congress and the States’ legislatures, spokesmen for the Armed Forces who are called as expert witnesses should make it a point to testify in favor of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” as the missing, critical, and indispensable element in any coherent, comprehensive, and constitutional plan for “homeland security”. Not just referring to revitalization, not just recommending it, not just urging it—but demanding it in no uncertain terms. Explaining that no fully constitutional Militia now exist in any State in this Union. And emphasizing that something needs to be done as soon as possible to correct this situation—because, without revitalization of the Militia, this country very soon will find itself in exceedingly dire trouble with which the Armed Forces are almost entirely unqualified, as well as quite ill prepared, to deal.



That is what spokesmen for the Armed Forces should be telling legislators at every opportunity. If they did, their audiences would have to pay serious attention to what was being said. The big “mainstream media” could not get away with refusing to report the story. Average Americans would take notice. And even the mass of self-described conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and champions of the Second Amendment could no longer disregard or dismiss the matter!



Exactly why, though, should the Armed Forces take it upon themselves—indeed, perhaps go out on a political limb—to promote revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”? For two reasons: principle and practicality.



I. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of imperative moral, political, and legal principle. Perhaps the most familiar of the mottos people associate with the Armed Forces is “Duty, Honor, Country”. But what is the very first and most important duty all members of the Armed Forces—and especially the higher ranks in the Officer Corps—owe to their country? Why, to do their best to understand, to protect, to defend, and to promote America’s foundational laws: namely, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.



Consider first the Declaration. Intent upon “let[ting] Facts be submitted to a candid world”, the Declaration set out a litany of abuses related to King George III’s deployment of “Standing Armies” and their imposition of “martial law” against the American Colonies:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our legislatures.—He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.—He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:—For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:— * * * For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:—For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences * * * .—[and] He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging war against us.


These, the Declaration asserted, constituted “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.



Moreover, the Declaration did not reflect American patriots’ mere disapproval, or disparagement, or even disgust with those abuses, but instead evidenced their downright denunciation of such wrongdoing. Those “repeated injuries and usurpations” constituted no less than violations of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, so serious that they justified “the good People” of the Colonies in absolving themselves “from all Allegiance to the British Crown” and in severing “all political connection between them[selves] and the State of Great Britain”.



Self-evidently, in the light of this history, no member of America’s Armed Forces who takes seriously the motto “Duty, Honor, Country” should desire to give anyone the impression—or worse, grounds for suspicion—or worst of all, an actual basis in “Facts [to] be submitted to a candid world”—that he would ever advocate, participate in, or aspire to take a commanding rôle with respect to the sort of abuses in condemnation of which the Declaration excoriated George III. Nonetheless, the present-day para-militarization of State and Local police forces, the provision to those forces of military equipment by the Department of Defense, and the close coöperation being effected between the Armed Forces and State and Local “law-enforcement agencies” in various domestic “anti-terrorism” exercises all supply “Facts” from which “a candid world” could reasonably draw the conclusion that someone is preparing the Armed Forces to implement something akin to “martial law” somewhere within this country under some circumstances in the foreseeable future—as well as conditioning common Americans to accept this turn of events as somehow justifiable as well as inevitable.

The obvious danger is that, once the precedent for such a deployment has been set anywhere within the United States, rogue public officials can concoct one ersatz “crisis” or another in order to rationalize further deployments of the Armed Forces just about everywhere, until “martial law” (in effect if not in name) becomes commonplace.



Unless Americans will have lost their wits entirely, though, they will eventually recognize these events as parts of what the Declaration of Independence described as “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object[, which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”—and the stage will then be set for desperate patriots once again to assert “their right” and “their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. Yet that, one may rest assured, will be a consummation devoutly to be avoided, if at all possible. Certainly the Armed Forces should not want to be the immediate cause of such a calamity—indeed, to be the moving parties, as the Armed Forces are the only establishments that can actually attempt to impose “martial law” within America. Fortunately for them, they can always put that praiseworthy desire into effect. For they are the only parties capable of absolutely guaranteeing that “martial law” will never be imposed, because if they do not impose it no one else can.


http://edwinvieira.com/edwin274.htm

[monty]

Edwin Vieira Jr. -- The Armed Forces And The Militia, Part 2


To be sure, one must take seriously the objection that extraordinary situations may arise “in the Course of human events” when and where only some “martial” institution can adequately execute the “law”, and that this possibility must somehow justify some form of “martial law” administered by America’s Armed Forces, notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence’s unqualified animadversions on “martial law” administered by Britain’s “Standing Armies”. Obviously, though, the great statesmen who subscribed to the Declaration, along with the other enlightened patriots of that time, were not unaware of this seeming paradox—or of how to resolve it.



The solution to the apparent problem of “martial law” is found, in pellucid terms, in the Constitution. No spurious distinction between America’s Armed Forces of today and Britain’s “Standing Armies” of yesteryear need be attempted. For “martial law” administered by Americans can no more claim a place within the Constitution than “martial law” as administered by the British found favor in the Declaration. That is, as a matter of constitutional law, “martial law” in that sense can find no place at all.



As the Preamble to the Constitution attests, “WE THE PEOPLE * * * ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution”. However, WE THE PEOPLE enjoyed the legal authority to do so only because the Declaration of Independence “solemnly publish[ed] and declare[d], That the[ ] United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; * * * and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”. But “may of right do” in accordance with what standards of “right”? Obviously, the standards established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which, as the Declaration explained, alone “entitle[d]” Americans “to assume among the powers of the earth, [a] separate and equal station”. Those “Laws” establish that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers”—and only “just powers”—“from the consent of the governed”. Even the People themselves cannot consent to be governed by any “Form of Government” purportedly vested with “[un]just powers”. (Which, of course, is why the Preamble lists “establish[ing] Justice”, not “imposing Injustice”, as one of the Constitution’s six goals.)



Plainly enough, America’s Founders did not consider “martial law” such as George III attempted to fasten upon them to be a “just power” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, or they would not have catalogued and condemned it in the Declaration of Independence as part of “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” on the King’s part. Therefore, imposing “martial law” of that ilk on America’s citizenry cannot be included within the “Acts and Things” which the Declaration asserted that “Independent States may of right do”. As an unjust power, it could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” by “the consent of the governed” in the late 1700s—neither by WE THE PEOPLE to their State governments in the several States’ constitutions, nor by WE THE PEOPLE to the government of the Union in the Constitution of the United States. And because a power to impose “martial law” could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” in America then, no “Form of Government” in America can claim to exercise such a power now. “Martial law” is as morally, politically, and legally impossible under the Constitution today as it was impossible under the Declaration of Independence in 1776.



Nonetheless, the Constitution does provide for certain “martial” institutions to which it assigns the authority, responsibility, and capability “to execute the Laws of the Union” “when called into the actual Service of the United States”: namely, “the Militia of the several States”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. It delegates no such authority or responsibility to the Armed Forces, though. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 12 through 14; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. So, if “martial law” is defined in general terms as the execution of the “Laws of the Union” (or of the several States each within her own jurisdiction) by a “martial” institution, then the only institutions constitutionally entitled, and required, to engage in such execution are “the Militia of the several States”, either “when called into the actual Service of the United States” or otherwise in the performance of duties mandated to them by their own States.



By delegating to the Militia—and to the Militia alone—the right, power, and duty to execute the laws, the Constitution solves the apparent paradox of “martial law” mentioned above. For, although the Militia are governmental institutions of the States, and permanent components of the federal system, they are not “standing armies”. Perhaps nothing makes this dichotomy clearer than Article 13 of Virginia’s original Declaration of Rights in 1776: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty”. Similarly, the Second Amendment declares “well regulated Militia” to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. So the “law” executed by the Militia, even in a “martial” fashion were the circumstances to warrant it, would always be executed by THE PEOPLE themselves for the ultimate purpose of securing their own freedom.



The problem which confronts America today is that, if constitutional “martial law” were ever needed in response to some major nationwide crisis, constitutional “martial law” could not be had. For the constitutional “Militia of the several States”, for all intents and purposes, do not exist—and therefore cannot be “called into the actual Service of the United States” in order “to execute the Laws of the Union”, or called forth to fulfill the analogous duty for their States. Some Americans have voluntarily enrolled in the National Guard, which a statute deceptively denominates as “the organized militia”, when actually it is no “militia” at all—whereas all other Americans who are eligible for service in the Militia have been consigned by that same statute to what it calls “the unorganized militia”. See 10 U.S.C. § 311. Relevant statutes of the States follow the same pattern. As the name implies, “the unorganized militia” is precisely that: unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, and ungoverned. Contrast U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16. But, as American legal history proves beyond any possible doubt, an “unorganized militia” is as much of a contradiction in terms as a “square circle”—and therefore is a constitutional impossibility. (See my book The Sword and Sovereignty (http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles-Homeland/dp/0967175941/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432614868&sr=1-1&keywords=the+sword+and+sovereignty).)



What obviously needs to be done in order to forefend the danger of “martial law” of the sort denounced by the Declaration of Independence, as well as to provide for the possibility that a “martial” execution of the laws allowable under the Declaration and the Constitution may become necessary in this country the not-too-distant future, is for the “martial” institutions which rogue public officials expect will impose “martial law” on common Americans—that is, the Armed Forces—to state publicly, categorically, and repeatedly that: (i) the imposition of “martial law” in any form is not and cannot be the constitutional mission of the Armed Forces; and (ii) execution of “the Laws of the Union” and of the several States in a “martial” fashion under exigent circumstances is the constitutional prerogative of “the Militia of the several States”, and only the Militia. Inasmuch as no one is better positioned at the present time to make this clear to legislators and the general public than are the Armed Forces themselves, it is their duty to do so.



II. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of practical necessity. Unfortunately, even with a constitutional principle in one hand, today one still needs an Abraham Lincoln Federal Reserve Note in the other hand to be able to buy a small espresso in a fashionable coffee shop. That is, constitutional principles command very little purchasing power in the contemporary “real world” of egotism, materialism, and hedonism, which allow only two notes on their discordant scale: namely, “me...me...me” and “dough...dough...dough”. So even the Armed Forces will need some very practical incentives to promote revitalization of the Militia. Some of the most important of these, however, are not difficult to identify.



a. Just as an authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” forms no part of the Armed Forces’ express constitutional mandate, so too does it fall outside, and would be expected to hinder the fulfillment, of their vital practical mission to deter aggressors in foreign venues and to defeat them if deterrence fails and Congress must “declare War”. (Surely it is no accident that Congress’s power to do so, set out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, is immediately followed by its powers “[t]o raise and support Armies” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” in Clauses 12 and 13.) Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” will enable the Armed Forces to devote their undivided attention to their constitutionally proper rôle, relieved of the possible burden of being diverted into domestic difficulties through deployments that smack of “martial law”. The Militia would “secure the home front” by maintaining law and order domestically in its proper form: namely, what the Second Amendment denotes as “a free State”.



b. In the event of an unavoidable nationwide domestic crisis, such as the collapse of the monetary and banking systems, revitalization of the Militia would be requisite, for the obvious reason that the Armed Forces could never deploy enough “boots on the ground” to reëstablish and then maintain law and order in every locality where significant social unrest arose and civil disobedience broke out. Part of the explicit constitutional authority of the Militia is to “suppress Insurrections”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. And enrollments in revitalized Militia would outnumber by far the total possible enlistments in the Armed Forces. Even if the Armed Forces could mobilize forces arguably sufficient in raw numbers to quell violent disturbances throughout the entire country, those forces would face innumerable, often novel, and predicably insuperable difficulties in dealing with other untold problems peculiar to the thousands of unfamiliar Localities they would be called upon to police. Revitalized Militia, in contrast, would be composed entirely of Local citizens—raised, organized, specially trained, and always deployed at the Local level—and imbued with intimate knowledge of and sympathy for their Localities and the people who lived there, which would enable them to deal intelligently and effectively with all of the disparate situations which arose in different areas of the country.



c. A collapse of the monetary and banking systems is not the only conceivable nationwide or regional catastrophe which might threaten this country in the near future. Consideration must also be given to pandemics, famines, natural disasters, and massive industrial failures or accidents, to name but a few. The Armed Forces are not prepared, and therefore cannot be expected—let alone ordered—to deal with all of the complex challenges each and every one of these events could bring forth. Indeed, the Armed Forces can never be prepared for such duty, because they have few, if any, places in their tables of organization for people with the various kinds of highly technical knowledge and specialized experience which would be vital to draw upon in the event of such crises. In contrast, being composed of just about every adult American not enrolled in the Armed Forces, “the Militia of the several States” would not just as a matter of fact have access to, but also as a matter of law could call upon and dispose of, almost the entirety of national talent in every relevant field—with many, if not the vast majority, of these people already resident in, and therefore familiar with, precisely those areas in which the crises would most seriously manifest themselves.



d. Even in the event of an actual invasion of the United States, the Armed Forces would need support from the Militia. That support would be forthcoming, because one of the explicit constitutional responsibilities of the Militia is to “repel Invasions”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. Moreover, that support would likely be necessary. For any initially successful invasion would involve hordes of enemy troops which would have to be fought with every tactic available, from direct counterattack at the invasion sites to guerrilla and partisan warfare throughout every part of the country into which the invaders penetrated—which types of warfare would require full and unstinting participation by the Militia.



http://www.newswithviews.com/images/boxes/shop-btn-anim.gif (http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc)


To expect such a “Red Dawn” scenario always to be confined to movie theaters is naïve in an era in which America’s borders apparently cannot be made secure against even an invasion of illegal aliens composed almost exclusively of unarmed men, women, and children. (And, by revitalization of the Militia, even these now-porous borders could finally be sealed, without deployment of the Armed Forces.)



A final note of concern and caution. In the present state of political, economic, and social uncertainty and unrest throughout America, the Armed Forces will surely forfeit the confidence of every thinking citizen if, instead of supporting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, they attempt to impose “martial law” anywhere within this country when some major crisis breaks out (for which eventuality many observers believe they are training right now). For, by such behavior, they will prove “to a candid world”: (i) that they are politically unreliable “Standing Armies” with scant concern for the Constitution; and, worse yet, (ii) that they are willing to aid and abet America’s dysfunctional and disloyal political-cum-economic Establishment in “affect[ing] to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” throughout this land—even if that turns out to be part and parcel of the Establishment’s “design to reduce the[ People] under absolute Despotism”. Confidence so lost can never be regained. Once the Armed Forces have alienated themselves from the people, the full consequences of their breach of trust may be unpredictable. But they surely will be prove to be undesirable in the extreme.



Click here for part -----> 1 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://edwinvieira.com/edwin274.htm), 2 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://edwinvieira.com/edwin275.htm),

http://edwinvieira.com/edwin275.htm

[monty]

http://edwinvieira.com/images/Edwin_Vieira_com_hdr.gif


Additional Titles (http://www.edwinvieira.com/)










Other
Vieira
Articles:
Coming Soon

http://edwinvieira.com/images/flouride_deception_120.jpg (http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books17.htm)

http://edwinvieira.com/DeWeese/images/sustainable-development120x168.gif (http://www.newswithviews.com/HNV/Hot_New_Videos2.htm)

http://edwinvieira.com/images/sweet_misery_120.gif (http://www.newswithviews.com/HNV/Hot_New_Videos1.htm)

http://edwinvieira.com/images/VOM-Gen-120.gif (http://etools.ncol.com/a/jgroup/bg_wwwpersecutioncom_NewsWithViews_9.html)

http://edwinvieira.com/images/Imperial_Judiciary120.jpg (http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books20.htm)


"HOMELAND SECURITY" -- FOR WHAT AND FOR WHOM?

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

March 8, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Why do so many Americans think that "homeland security" means what they think it means?

Americans have learned the painful lesson that what "is" going on in politics and government these days all too often depends upon the secret, idiosyncratic definitions of "is", and many other words, that politicians and public officials are using. Of course, if a public official says something that he knows people will think means X, when in his own mind he means Y, he is lying. But such verbal legerdemain is difficult to expose, because the deceitful officeholder can always defend his statement as being literally true. Americans must therefore be perpetually on their guard to parse every sentence, phrase, and even noun and verb that politicians and public officials employ, searching for the hidden meanings lurking among the letters.

This problem of differentiating between the sound of what members of the political class intone and the sense of what they really intend is nowhere more critical than in the matter of "homeland security". Too many people, however, naively accept this term at face value, without asking the vital, probing questions: What "security"? and Whose "security"?

If the "homeland" is the United States of America, then obviously her "security" is defined by her Constitution, because there cannot be security without law, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Just as obviously, those who are to benefit from that security are the authors of the Constitution and their descendants: We the People.

The essentials of America�s true, historic "homeland security" are to be found in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble is more than an exhortation. It is neither a mere "wish list" nor a set of dispensable options. The Preamble is a statement of political purpose, a legal mandate and requirement, and a strict rule of interpretation. All the powers and disabilities (that is, absences of power) that follow in the body of the Constitution are to be construed in light of, and to be employed so as to advance, all of the goals the Preamble sets forth, not to thwart, subvert, or ignore any of them. That all of the goals are of equal importance and to be achieved simultaneously the Preamble makes clear in its use of the conjunction "and".

Yet all Americans are being told, and large numbers of them apparently have come to believe, that "insur[ing] domestic Tranquility, [and] provid[ing] for the common defence" is actually incompatible with "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". They are told that "security" must be preferred to liberty, and can be obtained only at the price of liberty. And they are told that it is necessary to implement this supposed trade-off by setting up a Department of Homeland Security which will provide a largely undefined "security" precisely by limiting Americans' real, historic liberties. As to the last point, surely, public officials are not lying. For no one needs an advanced degree in the structural engineering of criminal politics to identify the Department of Homeland Security, in its purpose, architecture, and operations, as a burgeoning national police-state apparatus all too reminiscent of a Ministry of the Interior in some Stalinist regime in Eastern Europe in the 1950s.

Even more ominously, Americans are being warned (although "conditioned" may be a more accurate term) by people as highly placed as General Tommy Franks that someday soon the Constitution will be set aside entirely in order to enable the General Government to provide adequate "security". Even disregarding the questions of who has lawful authority to overturn the supreme law of the land, and how there could be a legitimate "government" at all in that eventuality, anyone can see that, with the Constitution gone, America will be under the heel of a police state subject to no law at all other than the wills, appetites, and vices of the people who run it.

How is any of this possible? America's civilian and military leaders all take oaths to support the Constitution. For example, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution, the President takes an "Oath or Affirmation" that he "will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Self-evidently, the Constitution cannot be "preserve[d]" by being set aside, or "protect[ed] and defend[ed]" by being disregarded in any particular. And what is so difficult to understand in the Preamble's explicit conjunction of "domestic Tranquility, * * * the common defence, * * * and * * * the Blessings of Liberty"? Are the public officials who tell Americans that liberty must be surrendered for "security", or that the Constitution as a whole must be discarded, simply incapable of understanding the Constitution (in which case they cannot honestly take an oath to support it), or simply unwilling to tell the truth about how they intend to violate it (in which case taking such an oath is plain perjury)? To answer the question "Why is this happening?" one must ask the deeper question: Cui bono? Who benefits? Whose "security" is being obtained by the systematic abridgment of common Americans' constitutional liberties? And by the step-by-step creation of a national police state that could (and doubtlessly is designed to) eliminate those liberties altogether? And by what is obviously a plan in the works to cement that police state into place by scrapping the Constitution when a suitable occasion and excuse arises or can be contrived?

Well, what good is the "security" of a thoroughgoing police state to its victims? Obviously, none. A police state provides security only for the elitists who run it and who benefit from the repression it imposes on the mass of citizens. By hypothesis, then, today's push for "homeland security" actually aims, not at the security of the United States or of the American people under the Constitution, but at the Establishment�s security over the Constitution and against the people. This is as perfectly understandable as it should have been predictable: The "security" at which the Establishment aims is always its own security, not that of common Americans. In the final analysis, to the Establishment common Americans are mere "human resources" to be used by "the government" (that is, the �litists for whom "the government" fronts) for the purpose of maintaining and increasing the Establishment's economic and political power, the general welfare be disregarded, if not damned outright. (That the Establishment does not openly disparage Americans as "cattle" is probably not because it holds them in higher esteem than bovines, but instead because it considers most of them, at least morally and mentally, mere vegetables.) The Establishment does not identify itself with the people. To the contrary: It sees itself as separate from the people, independent of them (except when it misuses their votes in manipulated elections to provide a veneer of "democratic" coloration to the misrule of its political Pinocchios), and always superior to them, in the way that men are superior to cattle, and even cattle are superior to vegetables.

But why, with all its wealth, power, political and social positions, and other advantages, is the Establishment so suddenly and deeply concerned about its security? All the militant Islamic fanatics from Casablanca to the Celebes could never subjugate this country in a hundred years of waging a "war of terror". They could not even inflict much physical damage in comparison to what an old-fashioned conventional shooting war might cause, for which the Department of Defense supposedly already provides this country with adequate protection. And, in any event, the Establishment's big wigs, their families, and their assets are thoroughly guarded against the worst that handfuls of terrorists could accomplish. So, the ostensible threats terrorists pose cannot possibly justify turning this whole country upside down in fits of orchestrated mass hysteria, let alone constructing a Stalinist-strength police state that directly contravenes the Constitution. For this result some reason other than the Establishment�s paranoia must be discovered. Even paranoiacs can have real and dangerous enemies whom they recognize and rightly fear although others do not. The Establishment is systematically constructing a domestic police- state apparatus, indoctrinated, trained, and ready to impose on the great mass of Americans whatever harsh measures the Establishment decrees, because it expects, in the not-so-distant future, disturbances in America of magnitudes far greater and consequences far more reaching than anything a few Islamic terrorists could possibly cause. These must be disturbances that involve very large numbers of average Americans, not simply a few militant extremists. They must be disturbances that only a police state can quell, which means that in whole or in large part they will be completely justified under the Constitution. And, most importantly, they must be disturbances which, if not quelled at whatever cost, would bring down the Establishment. What might cause such disturbances? As with most questions in criminal politics, the answer can be found by "following the money". What poses the most dangerous threat to the Establishment's continued rule, and even existence, if not the instability of the Ponzified monetary and banking systems, and superheated financial markets, that provide the foundations for its economic and political power? Any scheme of fractional-reserve banking based on fiat currency the value of which is secured by nothing more than economically unsound debt and the government's power to tax is inherently and inexorably self-destructive. No such scheme can long survive. The Federal Reserve System is just such a scheme. And the Establishment knows it.

If America's hypertrophic markets and gas-bag banks were to burst all at once, as they did in 1929-1932, nationwide chaos would ensue. A catastrophic implosion (depression) or explosion (hyperinflation) is perhaps unlikely, though, because the Establishment can employ myriad economic and political dirty tricks not available in the 1920s and 1930s to retard the destructive forces from aggregating into one big bang. (Or at least the Establishment seems to believe, or hopes, that it can.) The Establishment cannot, however, prevent the rotten monetary and banking regime from gradually crumbling in a series of smaller, yet nonetheless serious crises. And, again, the Establishment knows it.

When a critical mass of Americans finally realizes that these crises will continue to consume more and more of their economic substance, and that the people in charge be can do nothing to abate them (or are in fact their ultimate cause, and probably profiting from them as well), the Latin-Americanization of the financial sector will spill over into a Latin-Americanization of the political sector. Political instability will threaten the Establishment's debt-based currency, the incestuous relationship between the Ponzified banks and the Treasury, and even the Establishment's phony "two-party system" of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks--who, of course, Americans will correctly recognize as equally responsible for the mess, because they are but the two false faces of the same evil political god, Janus Americanus.

Make no mistake about it: To maintain its own economic and political positions, the Establishment will sacrifice the economic welfare and the constitutional rights of everyone else. And to succeed it will be compelled to crack down: first, on people's resistance to its propaganda, agitation, disinformation, and other techniques of psycho-political manipulation; then on refractory dissent; then on rebellion at the polls; then on mass refusals to obey its oppressive "statutes", "regulations", and "judicial decisions"; and, at length, on revolt against every aspect of its misrule. The Establishment is building a domestic police state today for the purpose of deterring, cowing, and if necessary smashing this opposition tomorrow. So, even if the supposed threat from Islamic terrorists were to disappear today, the Department of Homeland Security would continue to grow tomorrow. Also, the breakneck speed at which the Department of Homeland Security is being constructed should warn America how much the Establishment fears that monetary and banking crises of serious proportions cannot be long delayed.

http://edwinvieira.com/images/Article-Support-NWV.gif (http://www.edwinvieira.com/DonateNWV.htm)

The question is what Americans intend to do about it, before they can no longer do anything about it. Simply opposing the Department of Homeland Security or the Patriot Act (and subsequent legislation of that ilk) will not be enough. For these are only effects, not causes. The danger will continue to exist as long as this country's Ponzified monetary and banking systems remain in place, increasingly shaky and prone to collapse. Americans need to begin working now to replace these systems with sound money and honest banking.

© 2005 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved




Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts (newsforyou-list-subscribe@newswithviews.com)
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale








Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight (http://www.piecesofeight.us/): The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us (http://www.piecesofeight.us/)He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER (http://www.crashmaker.com/): A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com (http://www.crashmaker.com/)His latest work is "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books20.htm)"He can be reached at P.O. Box 3634, Manassas, Virginia 20108.
E-Mail: Coming soon


Home (http://www.edwinvieira.com/index.html)

[monty]

The III%'ers aren't going to protect us from a qovernment gone rogue. Like Mick says we need equal arms and equipment, a well regulated (and equipped) constitutional militia . . . . . . . .


when a critical mass of americans finally realizes that these crises will continue to consume more and more of their economic substance, and that the people in charge be can do nothing to abate them (or are in fact their ultimate cause, and probably profiting from them as well), the latin-americanization of the financial sector will spill over into a latin-americanization of the political sector. Political instability will threaten the establishment's debt-based currency, the incestuous relationship between the ponzified banks and the treasury, and even the establishment's phony "two-party system" of mensheviks and bolsheviks--who, of course, americans will correctly recognize as equally responsible for the mess, because they are but the two false faces of the same evil political god, janus americanus.
make no mistake about it: To maintain its own economic and political positions, the establishment will sacrifice the economic welfare and the constitutional rights of everyone else. And to succeed it will be compelled to crack down: First, on people's resistance to its propaganda, agitation, disinformation, and other techniques of psycho-political manipulation; then on refractory dissent; then on rebellion at the polls; then on mass refusals to obey its oppressive "statutes", "regulations", and "judicial decisions"; and, at length, on revolt against every aspect of its misrule. The establishment is building a domestic police state today for the purpose of deterring, cowing, and if necessary smashing this opposition tomorrow. So, even if the supposed threat from islamic terrorists were to disappear today, the department of homeland security would continue to grow tomorrow. Also, the breakneck speed at which the department of homeland security is being constructed should warn america how much the establishment fears that monetary and banking crises of serious proportions cannot be long delayed.

http://edwinvieira.com/images/article-support-nwv.gif (http://www.edwinvieira.com/donatenwv.htm)
the question is what americans intend to do about it, before they can no longer do anything about it. Simply opposing the department of homeland security or the patriot act (and subsequent legislation of that ilk) will not be enough. For these are only effects, not causes. The danger will continue to exist as long as this country's ponzified monetary and banking systems remain in place, increasingly shaky and prone to collapse. Americans need to begin working now to replace these systems with sound money and honest banking.

© 2005 edwin vieira, jr. - all rights reserved