# Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

Disturbed moneys

Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia | News One


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 16, 2010)

> OKLAHOMA CITY &#8211; Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
> 
> Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
> 
> ...



Okla. tea parties and lawmakers envision militia - Yahoo! News

Yep.  It's a legit story.  Figures that those idiots in OK after getting told no state militia would turn to the tea baggers.

If this happens and goes from exploratory discussion to actual thing, it's gonna be ugly.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> > OKLAHOMA CITY  Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
> >
> > Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
> >
> ...



Thats true, but its truly amazing how the Tea Bag sympathizers in this forum would like for most of America to believe that this is the right way how to handle things, all it takes is for another crowd to gather in support of the health care bill and things will get ugly. I can't think of anyone on the left doing something as stupid as this and taking things this far.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 16, 2010)

Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?  

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


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?
> 
> If states have militias, that movie could be a reality.



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.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2010)

Armed militia LOL

Are there unarmed militias?

Dems fled the Union rather than give up their slaves, remember?


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Well, let's see.

A state doesn't like a legislation created by the duly elected representative government of the United States...

So they form an army to stop said legislation from being instituted?

Hmm, what does this remind me of?  something from the mid-19th Century...

Why, I do declare, them there people are planning *treason*.


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Armed militia LOL
> 
> Are there unarmed militias?
> 
> Dems fled the Union rather than give up their slaves, remember?



Yes, Frank, and we all know that the mostly southern-based Democratic party of the mid 1800's is EXACTLY the same as the progressive Democrats of 2010.

Right?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Armed militia LOL
> 
> Are there unarmed militias?
> 
> Dems fled the Union rather than give up their slaves, remember?



The "Dems" of the Civil War era were very much like the Republicans of today, the only thing the Dems of the Civil War era and today share is just the name, do your history homework.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?
> ...



Uncle Joe would be proud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Armed militia LOL
> ...



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


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

OPINION: The GOP&#8217;s Neo-Confederate Problem, Rewriting The Civil War | News One

Indeed, the compost Tea Baggers are sick, the author made a great point when he said:

_*Can you imagine if states in Germany began showing off the Nazi flag? What if a state in Germany declared Nazi history month or people began bringing Nazi flags to protests supported by a political party like Tea Party protesters use Confederate flags.* The confederate flag has been used as symbol for racism both before and after the Civil War and to African Americans, shares the same connotations as the Swastika._


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 16, 2010)

Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.

Everybody better run and HIDE they're now forming , militias.

Like there hasn't been militias around BEFORE.


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 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.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> 
> Everybody better run and HIDE they're now forming , militias.
> 
> Like there hasn't been militias around BEFORE.



Has there ever been militias forming over health care bills? What do we know about militias in America? Is it necessary for the Tea baggers to form a militia? What is forming a militia going to achieve other than a group of angry, confederate flag waving Repub jockeys?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 16, 2010)

OMG 
We sure don't want to see a bunch of angry, flag waving people.
shit, we had to watch eight years of flag burning, banshee yelling anti-war protesters protesting against a duly elected President, but hey, I suppose that was then and we didn't have a Democrat boy-king sitting as President like today.


----------



## Alpha1 (Apr 16, 2010)

*Where was the outrage about this ?**

*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]YouTube - Obama Civilian Security[/ame]
Obama civilian military(just as powerful, just as strong,just as well funded)


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> 
> Everybody better run and HIDE they're now forming , militias.
> 
> Like there hasn't been militias around BEFORE.


 
it's an attempt to paint them like the nutjobs the FEDS cracked down upon a couple weeks ago.

It's nothing new. It's just more foaming at the mouth ignorance from the usual suspects.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 16, 2010)

The T said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> ...



of course it is, they have become so transparent you can see right through them.
luckily they are FAILING and the tea party grows with more people from every political party. and those on the left are skeeeerd.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 16, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> > OKLAHOMA CITY  Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
> >
> > Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
> >
> ...


Maybe they can call their first unit the "Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigade".


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Apr 16, 2010)

The T said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> ...



Thats how they painted themselves, who stated they wanted to organize themselves into militias?


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> *Where was the outrage about this ?*



Ahh, it's fun to take things out-of-context!


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 16, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?
> ...



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.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 16, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> 
> Everybody better run and HIDE they're now forming , militias.
> 
> Like there hasn't been militias around BEFORE.



A few toothless mountainmen or a bunch of redneck yahoos riding around in pickups doesn't count.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 16, 2010)

What is forming a militia going to achieve other than a group of angry, confederate flag waving Repub jockeys?

A poor showing for the Republicans in the midterm elections


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 16, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> OMG
> We sure don't want to see a bunch of angry, flag waving people.
> shit, we had to watch eight years of flag burning, banshee yelling anti-war protesters protesting against a duly elected President, but hey, I suppose that was then and we didn't have a Democrat boy-king sitting as President like today.



At least those protesters ALL knew what they were protesting. I'd wager half the people that show up for the tea party rallies go just for the free beer they can mooch. From the looks of their signs, many were protesting just to be protesting.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 16, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEr65ZX6gLw]YouTube - Liberal Media Hypocrisy Test[/ame]


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 16, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> *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.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 16, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> OPINION: The GOPs Neo-Confederate Problem, Rewriting The Civil War | News One
> 
> Indeed, the compost Tea Baggers are sick, the author made a great point when he said:
> 
> _*Can you imagine if states in Germany began showing off the Nazi flag? What if a state in Germany declared Nazi history month or people began bringing Nazi flags to protests supported by a political party like Tea Party protesters use Confederate flags.* The confederate flag has been used as symbol for racism both before and after the Civil War and to African Americans, shares the same connotations as the Swastika._



*HOLY FUCK!!!*​
I just realized that it is the Bass that started this thread and is doing a pretty good job of posting.  Good job Charles.

Back to the discussion..........I digress.............

My question to you Charles, is what would happen in Germany TODAY, if during elections, certain "grass roots" movements showed up with the candidate being shown as a Nazi, much like the tea baggers have done today.

What would happen, hmmm?


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Midnight Marauder said:


> YouTube - Liberal Media Hypocrisy Test



Couple of points here:

1.  When the far-left protesters who held up those signs did that, the Right-wing media was ALL OVER IT.  And now they say nothing about the current protester craziness.

2.  I fail to see any footage of any major media source calling bush a Stalinist and a Nazi, like the right-wing media has been doing.  Perhaps you'd like to explain that.

Now, I didn't like the way the left-wing media treated Bush during his presidency.  The man made a hell of a lot of really stupid decisions, but MSNBC commentators would attack him about every little tiny thing, which was clearly uncalled for.

HOWEVER, disliking all talking heads as much as I do, I will have to say that *this batch of right-wing blowhards that are currently screaming at the top of their lungs about Obama is the worst in biased medias since the McKinley assassination.*


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> *HOLY FUCK!!!*​
> I just realized that it is the Bass that started this thread and is doing a pretty good job of posting.  Good job Charles.
> 
> Back to the discussion..........I digress.............
> ...



*If I can channel Glenn Beck here for a moment*, only a left-wing version: 

_The Nazis started out as an anti-establishment "Grassroots Movement" too, and didn't they form a "militia"?  Called the "Brownshirts"?

Now, I'm not saying the Tea Partiers are Nazis, I'm just asking some questions here..._


----------



## Alpha1 (Apr 16, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Alpha1 said:
> 
> 
> > *Where was the outrage about this ?**
> ...



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....*


----------



## Vast LWC (Apr 16, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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"?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 16, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> 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."


----------



## Alpha1 (Apr 16, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Alpha1 said:
> 
> 
> > Fact check this bootlicker...
> ...



*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.*


----------



## Alpha1 (Apr 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 16, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



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.
> ...



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

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


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2010)

Well, what were we to expect of the Teabaggers. Obviously they have offended most of the electorate with their idiocy. So the only thing left is to try to scare that electorate into submission.

Except that won't work, either. But it will definately impress the electorate. Not at all favorably.


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Alpha1 said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


 
Brooks Jackson is an AP Hack.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 16, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone takes up arms to oppose the government they need to be dealt with
> ...



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?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 16, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> OMG
> We sure don't want to see a bunch of angry, flag waving people.
> shit, we had to watch eight years of flag burning, banshee yelling anti-war protesters protesting against a duly elected President, but hey, I suppose that was then and we didn't have a Democrat boy-king sitting as President like today.



President Obama was elected.  You lost.  quit whining.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 16, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Disturbed moneys
> 
> Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia | News One



Armed?  lol, that calls for Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels classic!

Eddie: They're armed. 

Soap: What was that? Armed? What do you mean armed? Armed with what? 

Eddie: Err, bad breath, colorful language, feather duster... what do you think they're

 gonna be armed with? Guns, you tit!


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 16, 2010)

The T said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



That same AP that is mentioned in the teabaggers thread about exposing the party crashers?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Apr 16, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> 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?



No.  I don't think it.  I know it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 16, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



I guess then we're lucky he's dead and that most of us aren't still living in the 19th century.


----------



## Zona (Apr 16, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> > OKLAHOMA CITY  Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.
> >
> > Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.
> >
> ...



IF something does happen, the righty's will say Obama is over stepping his bounds by taking down these real mericans.

I am watching this thing on Waco right now and am looking for to the OK city bombings on tv on monday.  Maddow is doing a show on him specifically.  

Freaking disturbed freaking black helicoptor looking for nuts/teabaggers.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 16, 2010)

Ahh the level of self assurance that some have...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 16, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone takes up arms to oppose the government they need to be dealt with
> ...



I guess that makes John Wilkes Booth a true Jeffersonian patriot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 16, 2010)

If converted to action from rhetoric, the backlash will just how few loons will be standing there holding weapons in opposition to the armed forces of the state and the national governmnt.  Hint:no minutemen will be coming avenge your dead bodies.


----------



## Zona (Apr 16, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Armed militia LOL
> ...



I love when they play that crap.  Its like they expect no retaliation to it or something.  Do they actually believe the dem party today is anything like it was then?

Crusader Frank is  a hack.


----------



## Zona (Apr 16, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> ...



YOu mean like waco?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 16, 2010)

I can visualize a teabagger militia now.

Elderly overweight men in camos riding their 4 wheelers with guns strapped on it and a cooler of beer on the back.

Give em a few weeks and they would accidently kill off most of each other anyway.
The rest would need to go get more BP medicine or run out of beer and miss the widescreen and go home.


----------



## momonkey (Apr 16, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Bass v 2.0 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...





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.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 16, 2010)

State militias are the State based National guard units.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 17, 2010)

The unorganized militia have not legally existed for more than 100 years.

If the fools try to form one then act, they will be rightfully taken down as traitors, with the great, great majority of America yelling "Yay".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 17, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> 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.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 17, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



EVERY State is authorized to HAVE Militias you RETARD.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 17, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The unorganized militia have not legally existed for more than 100 years.
> 
> If the fools try to form one then act, they will be rightfully taken down as traitors, with the great, great majority of America yelling "Yay".



Wrong EVERY State has a legal RIGHT to form Militias. By the way some States already have them. Here in NC we have one. They still use the unit titles from the Civil War units by the way. And it is State Funded.

You retards really need to learn what is and is not legal. Just because the States stopped having Militias when the National Guard was formed does not mean they can not reform non Federal Militia forces for in State use. The 2nd Amendment protects this action by States. As does the Constitution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 17, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> 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.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 17, 2010)

The only restriction on Militias is as follows...

section 10 Article I



> No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.



and  the Second Amendment

[quote}

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[/quote]

U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Each INDIVIDUAL STATE is authorized a Militia with a portion to be reserved for the Federal Government to call up ( the National Guard)

section 2 Article II



> The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 17, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > State militias are the State based National guard units.
> ...



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


----------



## bodecea (Apr 17, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?
> ...



The STATE...not some group of yahoos.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 17, 2010)

bodecea said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Absotively.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2010)

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 (Apr 17, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> Alpha1 said:
> 
> 
> > Fact check this bootlicker...
> ...



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 fucking 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 (Apr 17, 2010)

Vast LWC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> 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 (Apr 17, 2010)

He thinks large font gives him more credibility.

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


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

The T said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



Oh, well that explains it. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

momonkey said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...



What the fuck 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 (Apr 17, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> State militias are the State based National guard units.



A no-brainer. Go figure.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Ever see the movie "Southland Tales"?
> ...



Operative words.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 17, 2010)

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 (Apr 17, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> momonkey said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...






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 (Apr 17, 2010)

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 (Apr 17, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Bass v 2.0 said:
> ...




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 (Apr 17, 2010)

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

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


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 17, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


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









You're such a fucking retard!

Priceless!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 17, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really think Jefferson would have embraced the tea party dude.
> ...



And apparently you don't know your history or what the tea party is today............

Back then, it was a SINGLE UNITED GROUP protesting unfair taxes by England.

Today, it is a WHOLE BUNCH OF DISJOINTED GROUPS protesting taxes they THINK is unfair because of all the GOP rhetoric.

If they actually bothered to check, all those protesting are in the 250,000/yr or more groups.

And that is where the greedy fuckers are.


----------



## Smartt33 (Apr 17, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Disturbed moneys
> 
> Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia | News One



Wrong.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 18, 2010)

momonkey said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > momonkey said:
> ...



Do you even know what we're talking about? The term "militia" as it is referred to in the Constitution does NOT mean the type of "militia" formed as some arm of the Tea Party Movement which intends to raise arms AGAINST the United States Government, which INCLUDES its own military complements. Duh... You keep talking about the Army v. the Navy and their funding. WTF? That has zero to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 18, 2010)

momonkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



And I suppose you think the right wing noise machine is pure as driven snow with regard to distortion of facts. Surely you jest.

I wouldn't be trying to channel Jefferson if I were you. He said a lot of things that clearly would upset you. Like this:

_*"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.*_ (March 31,1809)


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2010)

Oh Gawd,more hysterical Left Wing "Militia" fear mongering. This is such old & tired fear mongering chit. At this point i'm expecting to see another Ruby Ridge/Waco-type massacre any day now. This is where this kind of fear mongering will take us. Where are all these 'Militia" Boogeymen? The Left Wingers rant about them daily yet no one has ever seen any of these Boogeymen. Bill Clinton and his followers should be very careful with their fear mongering rhetoric because that kind of rhetoric could lead to tragedy. I'm beginning to fear that we will be seeing another unnecessary Ruby Ridge/Waco-like massacre very soon. It's almost like the Left Wingers want this to happen. How sad.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 18, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Oh Gawd,more hysterical Left Wing "Militia" fear mongering. This is such old & tired fear mongering chit. At this point i'm expecting to see another Ruby Ridge/Waco-type massacre any day now. This is where this kind of fear mongering will take us. Where are all these 'Militia" Boogeymen? The Left Wingers rant about them daily yet no one has ever seen any of these Boogeymen. Bill Clinton and his followers should be very careful with their fear mongering rhetoric because that kind of rhetoric could lead to tragedy. I'm beginning to fear that we will be seeing another unnecessary Ruby Ridge/Waco-like massacre very soon. It's almost like the Left Wingers want this to happen. How sad.



So you think it's just hysterical fear mongering? Think again.

Hutaree militia arrests point to tripling of militias since 2008 / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

_The Hutaree is one of 127 armed militias in the US, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit organization in Montgomery, Ala., that tracks hate groups nationwide. That number has increased 200 percent since 2008, when there were 42, SPLC says. _

How about you tell us what YOUR reaction would be if the tables were turned and hundreds of leftist organizations were forming armed militias to go after YOU and YOUR elected representatives. War protesters were protesting THE WAR, period. The incident at WACO had nothing to do with politics. All it's going to take for all out civil war among the privately armed "militias" which are far-right hate organizations intent on bringing down _our government _and not opposition to some religious organization or a foreign war, is one bullet that will kill one person. If you think that's acceptable, you have my sympathies.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2010)

The Hutaree nutters were more like a nutty cult than a "Militia." So why not just call them a Cult? Why call them a "Militia?" The use of the term Militia is being used for political purposes by the Left and that's just plain sad. This kind of rhetoric will only lead to tragedy in my opinion. What is a "Militia" anyway? The Left's definition of that term is pretty vague and selective. This fear mongering stuff is not a good thing for the country. Lets hope the Left tamps their rhetoric down.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2010)

These are becoming some very dark & dangerous times for our nation. It seems the Left is willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as being an evil "Militia" Boogeyman. This kind of stuff is not good for our nation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

Then the Tea Party movement, if LibocalypseNow is correct, continues to be a minor joke of a movement on the political landscape.  Got that.


----------



## The T (Apr 18, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> These are becoming some very dark & dangerous times for our nation. It seems the Left is willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as being an evil "Militia" Boogeyman. This kind of stuff is not good for our nation.


 
Of course. it's in the Alinsky playbook.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 18, 2010)

The T said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > These are becoming some very dark & dangerous times for our nation. It seems the Left is willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as being an evil "Militia" Boogeyman. This kind of stuff is not good for our nation.
> ...



How "amusing" that the far right is now taking Alinsky's rules for radicals to heart as their own. Hmm, NOT plagiarism but definitely emulation? Who do you think this sounds like today?

Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinsky writes:

_"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. *They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. *This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families  more than seventy million people  whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

The cons may be following alinksy's rules because they have become a massive fail the last two election cycles and will be this fall.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> These are becoming some very dark & dangerous times for our nation. It seems the Left is willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as being an evil "Militia" Boogeyman. This kind of stuff is not good for our nation.



Yeah, and the Right is willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as being an evil "liberal boogeyman".  You're right, this kind of stuff isn't good for our nation.

So why do the righties on this board continually do it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2010)

The whinge fringe do it because they can't win any other way, not realizing this behavior by them is separating them from mainstream Americans.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 18, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> *Where was the outrage about this ?**
> 
> *
> YouTube - Obama Civilian Security
> Obama civilian military(just as powerful, just as strong,just as well funded)



Yeah, the "outrage" wasn't there because anyone with critical thinking skills could easily see what he was speaking about - increasing funding to volunteer programs - not a "civilian national security force".

Eventually you guys are going to realize that all of these "gotcha" moments that you guys make such a big deal about are not winning you supporters.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 18, 2010)

bodecea said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



This thread is ABOUT a STATE organizing a Militia separate from the National Guard, NOT private citizens. But local communities also have the right to form Militias, towns Counties and communities.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 18, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



That is all Oklahoma is talking about. Forming their own in State Militia, not subordinate to the Federal Government but to the State.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 18, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



So OK is admitting that they have failed to keep order in their state?
or expect their current system to fail?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Alpha1 said:
> 
> 
> > *Where was the outrage about this ?**
> ...


Militias are voluntary, by definition.

And if Obammy's brown shirts are truly volunteers, why do they need federal funding?

I guess I'd need to be one of them "critical thinkers" to figger that one out, huh?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Trying to low ball the State won't work either. It is solely at the discretion of the individual State whether they authorize a separate militia from the National Guard. Pretending first that it was not a State plan and now trying to pretend it has anything to do with the State being unable to control its borders is simply an attempt to discredit the rights of the States.

Get a real argument.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 19, 2010)

Dude said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



You know that "Obammy's Brownshirts" don't exist, right?

It's a fantasy.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 19, 2010)

This thread is the internet version of mass hysteria. 

One fool starts a panic and a bunch of other fools jump in and, pretty soon, we got a whole thread full of lefties screaming. 

"You guys" are laughable.


----------



## Article 15 (Apr 19, 2010)

The T said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > These are becoming some very dark & dangerous times for our nation. It seems the Left is willing to label anyone who disagrees with them as being an evil "Militia" Boogeyman. This kind of stuff is not good for our nation.
> ...



Says the guy who spent the Bush years calling those who dissented traitors ....


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 19, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Disturbed moneys
> 
> Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia | News One



I believe I know the organizer of this group. I'm in the process of getting in touch with him.

I'll find out if this story is bogus anti-Tea-party propaganda.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 19, 2010)

Funny how the Bass uses a blog from a site called "News One..*N*......"For a *Black America."*

Wonder if I can find any sites that are for a "White America"?


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 19, 2010)

This makes as much sense as the stories about Whites wanting to bring back slavery. It's pretty much a fake conspiracy. 

Wonder if a mod will put this thread in the conspiracy category where it belongs.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 19, 2010)

Hey Mud Drizzle.........it's also on Yahoo news about this.

Matter of fact, I posted the link on the first page of this thread.  Nice to see you pay attention dipshit.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 19, 2010)

Dude said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Alpha1 said:
> ...



Transportion and living expenses are always covered by government stipend, and even my own travel costs for "volunteering" medical transportation for elders are paid by the State.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I realize that now, but a bill won't even be introduced until next year, if at all, so what do all those trigger-happy folks do in the meantime is what's troubling. 

Some fascinating facts and comments at this site:
'Is It Scary? Sure It Is' -- Tea Partiers Want Oklahoma Militia | TPMMuckraker


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 19, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



ModDude just likes to keep the pot stirred is all.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 19, 2010)

California Girl said:


> This thread is the internet version of mass hysteria.
> 
> One fool starts a panic and a bunch of other fools jump in and, pretty soon, we got a whole thread full of lefties screaming.
> 
> "You guys" are laughable.



Sure, armed militias are real funny. But why would you care when you live across the pond?


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 19, 2010)

California Girl said:


> This thread is the internet version of mass hysteria.
> 
> One fool starts a panic and a bunch of other fools jump in and, pretty soon, we got a whole thread full of lefties screaming.
> 
> "You guys" are laughable.



Ironically, "mass hysteria" was when the YouTube video of Obama announcing the civilian national security corps immediately went viral, and which of course many of those who suffer gullible-itis _continue_ to believe is a "brown-shirted" policy. See Alpha1's Post #17.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> This makes as much sense as the stories about Whites wanting to bring back slavery. It's pretty much a fake conspiracy.
> 
> Wonder if a mod will put this thread in the conspiracy category where it belongs.



Are you nuts? (Nevermind, I know the answer.) The "story" has been published nationwide.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 19, 2010)

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Man, is there anything that Tea Party isn't doing.
> ...



Hey stupid, Oklahoma wasn't a Confederate state. As a matter of fact Oklahoma wasn't even a state of the union until 1907.


----------

