Oklahoma legislature contemplating legislation to authorize state militia to resist Feds

Some Oklahomans want a state militia to resist Washington

Apr 12, 2010
On Deadline - USA Today

Fed up with what they see as Washington's intrusion into their state, Oklahoma "tea party" leaders and some conservative legislators want to create a volunteer militia to defend against the federal government, the Associated Press writes.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said Al Gerhart, a tea party activist who heads the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

State Rep. Charles Key, a Republican representing Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance that legislation could be introduced next year to authorize a militia.

A tea party leader in Tulsa, J.W. Berry, has been soliciting interest through his newsletter, urging that readers "buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

Lots of details to work out. For instance, how would a militia be organized, and how could it block federal mandates?

Critics point out that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs. They worry a militia would stoke extremism.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma, adding that a militia could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals."

Next Monday marks the 15th anniversary of the anti-government terrorist attack by Timothy McVeigh. The former U.S. soldier and militia sympathizer killed 168 men, women and children with a truck bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. He was executed in June 2001.

(Posted by Michael Winter)

On the Necessity of Well-Trained Militias, and the Jewish Media/Gov Establishment's Demonization Thereof

"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." -Amendment II, The Constitution of the United States

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

'MILITIA' USED AS MANIPULATION

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
April 2, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Mainstream media has recently reported the story of the alleged “Militia” group in Michigan which supposedly had plans of killing police officers as a sort of “freedom task”--in the name of Jesus Christ no less. In reality, “This is a group that [is] neither a militia [n]or a Christian group.”[1] This is not the first highlight of news where the media has misused the concept of a “militia” as a representation of everything evil and insane. Virtually every mainstream reference of “militia” today implicates terrorism, anti-American and wacko-extremists--right along with those Al Qaeda terrorists who are attempting to destroy America just because “we are free.”

From 1776 to 2010, the concept of a militia has been turned completely on its head. What was once seen as a necessary component of maintaining and protecting freedom against attacks by a tyrannical domestic government is now seen as a disgusting roach that must be stomped out of existence. Am I suggesting that some of these people who would classify themselves as a “militia” group are legitimately sound and constitute the real purpose of a militia? No. Just as I do not suggest that doctors who perform abortions upon the mother’s mere “choice” constitute actual doctors whose first purpose of treatment is to “do no harm.” We all know that a few people can give a bad name to the rest. What I am talking about here is manipulation to further enslave the people of the States, and empower those who control the federal government and global agenda.

There is without doubt a push and agenda by elitists, major media, politicians, and revolutionaries (who despise the ideals held by our founding generation) against the concept of a Second Amendment militia--one whose purpose is to provide for the protection of freedom within the state by citizens of that state: “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.”[2]

Particularly, in context of this amendment, the ratifiers were sure to express that militias were to secure a free “State” (singular)--not a free “United States” (plural). Those who attempt to strip the significance and application of militias by replacing “militia” with the “U.S. military” are, quite frankly, ignorant of America’s history and constitutional government or are deceitful and manipulative for a certain agenda. As expressed throughout the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the people were more scared of a standing U.S. military than they were the U.S. Supreme Court.

To our founding generation, the importance of a well-regulated militia could not have been overstated or overrated. Indeed, the existence and maintenance of well-regulated militias were not only recognized as being necessary for a “free State,” as expressed in the second amendment, but also were considered a duty of each State:

“The roots of [the Second Amendment] strike down in to the past until they reach the Assize of Arms of Henry II (1181), whereby the old constitutional force was reorganized by the duty being imposed upon every free man, for the defense of the state, to provide himself arms according to his means.”[3]

Of course, the underlying presumption and foundation for the implementation of well-regulated militias was the evil inherent in human nature--particularly those who possess political power. They recognized that these militias would not only serve a practical effect of resistance against tyrants, but also a mental effect of inhibition.

The founding generation had personally experienced the efforts of Great Britain to disarm the people of the colonies. They knew the potential reality that government would attempt to disarm the people and eliminate the militias so that the people would be good little subjects to the government. To tyrants, obedience is all that is required to be a good citizen.

Founding Father George Mason’s daughter described this American experience and observed the evil of “gradual slavery” perpetrated by “their” government in Great Britain. She says:

“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”[4]

Not much has changed since 1775 and 1776, because human nature never changes. So, it is no wonder why the second amendment was insisted upon, such that the federal government had no power to forbid militias or prevent the armament of the people of the States. Militias were in fact what stood between freedom and tyranny, in the minds of our founding generation.

Acknowledging the existence and strength of the citizens’ militia in 1787, Alexander Hamilton even found it hard to believe that the federal government would ever usurp power not granted to it by the people of the States because of well-regulated militias (one of the presumptions for the states ratifying the constitution). Hamilton observes: “dangers [from the federal government] so formidable can[not] assail the whole Union...if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia.”[5]

Compare today, where anyone who suggests that the states need well-regulated militias strong enough to defend their state from the potential of U.S. military force would be labeled as a terrorist or extremist and would perhaps end up in prison like these arrested in Michigan. Like Sir William Keith, who betrayed the freedom of the colonists for the sake of empowering Great Britain, there are betrayers, instigators and propagators doing the federal government’s bidding today.

Understanding how this agenda has been successful is no wonder. Consider the sources used and implemented by the media, law enforcement and the federal government concerning militias and other “hate groups”: sources that are proposed as being “credible,” like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which allegedly “monitors hate groups and other fringe organizations.”[6] Advocacy groups like this are the same groups which feed information to fusion centers throughout American concerning “hate groups,” and these fusion centers are the same governmental agencies that create reports such as the highly-suspect “MIAC” report, which suggested that supporters of Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Bob Barr should be watched closely as potential terrorists.[7]

And so the manipulation takes hold into every fabric of society. This understanding is easy enough to grasp considering that millions of American do very little independent thinking (if at all); do very little or no study concerning principles of freedom and American and world history (and I’m not talking about books written by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the like); conduct little or no research of their own concerning what they hear on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. When Americans hear a story about a crazy “militia” group in Michigan and then hear a fusion center report about Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul or Bob Barr being leaders of terrorist mentality, they easily make the logical leap: militia equals bad; Chuck Baldwin equals bad; Ron Paul equals bad; firearms equal bad; state sovereignty equals bad. Don’t even suggest to them that a State actually maintain a well-regulated militia for second amendment purposes!

These tactics of delusion and manipulation are obvious and their purposes are known. They go right along with the agenda to strip this country, these states and these people of all effective and meaningful means by which independence, self-government, limited government, constitutional government, state sovereignty, individual sovereignty, and natural rights and freedom are secured.

So, what is the effect of this purpose-driven manipulation? I recently had a person email me in response to my article, “National ID: Who Will Resist?” in context of this recent Michigan “militia” arrest story. In his email, he expresses his trepidation of the federal government as a result of their prosecuting this alleged “militia” group, saying: “Are you kidding? Resist that? You will lose....Find a different way.” And so the federal government parades: Goal accomplished! Thankfully, not everyone thinks this way.

Let us theorize for a moment: what if a state revives a state militia, for the sole and expressed purposes of defending that state against foreign and domestic tyranny and usurpations, as expressed in the second amendment? What if three-fourths of the states deny this state the right of protecting its freedom, independence and sovereignty through a well-regulated militia? What if the federal government attempts to shut the militia operation down and criminally prosecutes those participating?

As I have repeatedly stated, the States in America are choosing (and will be forced to choose) which path they are going to take: the road to freedom or tyranny? Some will choose the path of truth and freedom. Others will choose the path of manipulation, lies and slavery. And so the principles of limited government may be able to thrive once again in those states that choose freedom.

Let us get this straight at least: if we do not have a generation of people in the States that are willing to do what our founding generation did in securing freedom, then how dare we claim to love them, their ideas and what they attempted to bequeath to us. Just as in generations past, “it has grown the fashion to praise the men of former times but to deny their ideal of Independence.”[8] Praising our founders does nothing to preserve freedom.

To such a slothful attitude and philosophy, perhaps the following statement is appropriate: “Why, had we resigned without a struggle that which our ancestors encountered every danger to win, who would not have spit on you?”[9] Indeed, if our founding generation had the opportunity to spit on us, it is doubtful that they would find it worth their time to indulge us so.

It is past time that the people of these States get a grip of reality concerning the “course of human affairs,” in which we live. It is time that men become men, who are willing to both live and die for freedom. Quit pandering and cowering to these manipulations and threats perpetuated by anti-freedomists. Insist that your state legislators, governors and sheriffs uphold their oath to the Constitution by resisting unconstitutional federal actions. In truth, insist that your state and county officials (and candidates) implement and resurrect the second amendment as it was designed: TO PROTECT YOUR “FREE STATE”!

Footnotes:

1, CNN Wire Staff, Militia Arrests Timed To Prevent Violence, CNN News, (March 31, 2010)
2, United States Constitution, Second Amendment.
3, Hannis Taylor, The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution, (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911), 232–233.
4, Kate Mason Rowland and General Fitzhugh Lee, intro., The Life of George Mason, 1725–1792, vol. 2, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1802), 409.
5, Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 26.
6, CNN Wire Staff, Militia Arrests Timed To Prevent Violence, CNN News, (March 31, 2010)
7, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal Leads to Advisory on SPLC & ADL, (March 26, 2009)
8, Terence MacSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 242.
9, Terence MacSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 239.

© 2010 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin129.htm

Related:

Time to Revitalize the Constitutional Militias

The Original Anti-Government, White Supremacist, Pro-Militia, Freedom-loving, Anti-Tax, Gun-toting "Radical Rightwing Extremist Domestic Terrorists"

"Anti-government, survivalist, white supremacist Christian Identity" individuals targetted as most dangerous enemies of JOG

Erroll Southers is Barack Obamas nominee to head the Transportation Safety Administration — the TSA, that organization that screens passengers getting on airplanes. [1]

Erroll Southers: "Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government, in most cases anti-abortion. They are usually survivalist type of nature, Identity oriented.

[...]

Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and Christian Identity oriented."

Deconstructing the "terrorism" label

Definition of "terrorism":

"The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

In other words, it's merely another term for warfare.

"Terrorism" is simply a smear term used by the established powers-that-be or a superior force in order to attempt to delegitimize and demonize a smaller resistance force.

The Original Anti-Government, White Supremacist, Pro-Militia, Freedom-loving, Anti-Tax, Gun-toting "Radical Rightwing Extremist Domestic Terrorists"

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."--Declaration of Independence

"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." -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.





"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)





"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." --Patrick Henry

"We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists." - Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry






"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." —Samuel Adams





"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." --George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington







"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." --Thomas Paine

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine




"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson


"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 tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson







"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." --Abraham Lincoln


“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

-Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

Missouri Highway Patrol rescinds controversial militia report

Although this is an important development, the anti-militia, anti-patriot conditioning will merely continue in Missouri via a number of other avenues.

By Roseann Moring | ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH | 03/26/2009

Jefferson City — A report about modern militia activity will no longer be distributed to Missouri law enforcement officers after receiving nationwide criticism that it contains political profiling.

The decision came Wednesday, hours after Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder called for Department of Public Safety Director John Britt to be placed on leave because of the report, which said followers of third-party political candidates might be militia members.

But the superintendent of the Missouri Highway Patrol said Britt wasn't to blame. Instead, Col. James Keathley said, the issue is a flawed oversight system, which will be revamped. Keathley said the report was sent to highway patrol members without being reviewed by him or Britt.

Since the report was leaked to the public earlier this month, it has been criticized by conservatives and third-party candidates.

The report was produced by the Missouri Information Analysis Center as a guide for state troopers. The center, created by the Department of Homeland Security after Sept. 11, is a means to share security information between different entities.

The report, titled, "The Modern Militia," specifically mentioned 2008 presidential candidates Republican Ron Paul, Libertarian Bob Barr and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin. It said that militia members "most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups."

Britt apologized on Monday to the three candidates for the inartful way in which one section of the report was written.

"Upon review and reflection, it is the judgment of the Department of Public Safety that the report should have made no reference to supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or of any other third-party political candidates," wrote Britt, who is a former Secret Service agent.

In the letter to the three candidates, he promised to redact the section in question.

Missouri Libertarian Party spokesman Mike Ferguson said his party is happy with Britt's apology, although they support the efforts of other groups to look at other parts of the report.

The response hasn't satisfied Kinder. He criticized the public safety director's apology for not mentioning another aspect of the report, which included militant anti-abortion as an ideology sometimes espoused by militia members. Kinder pointed to other groups, such as eco-terrorists, not mentioned in the report.

"There was no mention of this, because apparently it's more important to focus on pro-lifers," he said.

Kinder spokesman Gary McElyea said Keathley's statement doesn't change Kinder's position. "The buck stops with him (Britt) and the governor, and either the governor or Britt should be willing to sit down and answer these questions," McElyea said.

Keathley didn't make it clear which parts of the report or which complaints his statement addresses. State patrol Capt. Tim Hull said this center produces such reports independently, meaning neither Nixon nor Britt asked for the data.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said the first time the governor saw the report was when it showed up in the media, and the office supports Keathley's changes. Holste said the governor would leave the enforcement of the new policies to Britt.

The report first appeared on the website of conservative radio commentator Alex Jones. Jones said a law enforcement officer gave it to him.

Department spokesman Mike O'Connell said the department isn't debating the accuracy of the version online, but wouldn't provide a copy of the report.

Time to Revitalize the Constitutional Militias

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. --Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

When a despot has amassed a critical level of power, only force can be used to overthrow their rule. The natural right of self-defense through the use of force is our last resort as a guard against tyranny -- which our Founders supported, put to action, and preserved for their posterity. The "militia" referred to in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is all able-bodied men in the republic. And "well-regulated" means that they are well-trained and capable as a military force. Now, for what purpose is the militia? To repel invasions, suppress rebellions and insurrections, enforce the laws -- and especially to guard against tyranny from our own government.

GUNS AND GODFor many years I have written about Dr. Edwin Vieira's brilliant work on the Second Amendment regarding the militia. Back in May 2005, Edwin began writing columns for NWVs. Each column brilliantly lays out the history of a well regulated militia and why the states of the Union MUST reconstitute them or we will not survive the iron fist of totalitarian government looming over our heads.Our very survival depends on the states of the Union revitalizing the constitutional militia.

The only truly free men are armed men. Only slaves are prevented from the possession of arms:

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA, SLAVERY, & CONTEMPORARY "GUN CONTROL"Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.June 6, 2005NewsWithViews.com[...]The principle in operation was that the only truly free men are armed men, because an armed citizenry is necessary to maintain a free society. As the Second Amendment came to summarize the idea, "[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". A "free State" is one with "[a] well regulated Militia"; and "[a] well regulated Militia" is one composed of all "the people" actually exercising their "right * * * to keep and bear Arms", with no "infringe[ment]" by public officials. Arms in every citizen's personal possession are the precondition for freedom, freedom the hoped-for consequence of such possession (if the Militia do their part). And public officials can do nothing to interfere with such possession, being limited in their authority to ensuring that, through and in the Militia, everyone obtains and maintains private possession of firearms suitable for defending individual liberty and social order.[...]Those "kept in due Subjection and Obedience" could not be suffered to possess firearms without strict supervision and restraint, lest they attempt to employ those firearms to free themselves from that "Subjection and Obedience". So, slaves' access to and use of firearms were strictly "licensed" or otherwise controlled, in order-to minimize the number of firearms available to them;-to keep track of which slaves had access to which firearms and for what purposes;-to limit the uses to which slaves could put firearms;-to make sure that the selfsame firearms made available to slaves during the day were returned to their masters' control "at Night" (when, presumably, the danger of insurrection was most acute); and-to subject to seizure all unlicensed firearms, and any firearms possessed outside of permissible places or during prohibited periods.

REVITALIZING THE MILITIADr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.December 12, 2005 NewsWithViews.com [...]The essence of today's "political correctness"--that is, goodthinking according to the Establishment's lights--is to eschew "hate". What, though, is "hate"? According to the dictionary, "hate" is "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury". Well, should every American not fear a police state? Should every American not be angry that any politician or bureaucrat is trying to impose one? Should every American not feel injured in such circumstances? A police state is political evil incarnate. So, should not it, and those who promote and administer it, be the subjects of intense hostility and aversion? Unfortunately, hostility and aversion by themselves are only a reaction, not a plan. What is the antidote to the police state now being set up in this country? The only antidote is revitalization of "the Militia of the several States". I say again: The only antidote to a police state in this country is revitalization of "the Militia of the several States". Print out this page and save it, so that when a police state has been set up, you can read it once more, and realize that you knew the answer when there was still time, even if you did nothing about it. Especially if you did nothing about it.