It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NH establishing a permanent state defense force

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Much to be supported.

Those other statements are for guidelines of structure.

They could be used for a natural disaster, hence the cordination with Homland security, as Fema is under them now.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
Much to be supported.

Those other statements are for guidelines of structure.

They could be used for a natural disaster, hence the cordination with Homland security, as Fema is under them now.


The important difference being that here, the Governor would call the shots, notthe Feds. I'm sure it'd get rather interesting when Homeland Security chose to press these people and they got pressed back. If Washington State enacted a militia, I'd be there.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

The inactive reserve state guard shall be comprised of all able-bodied residents of the state who are 18 years of age or older, who are, or have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States, and who are not serving in the national guard or the active reserve state guard or exempt under subparagraph (b) unless such exempt person volunteers to serve in the inactive reserve state guard.


Does this mean that, in case of an emergency, they can institute a draft from the pool of all able-bodied citizens of New-Hampshire?

Also, one more thing that caught my attention:


111:7 Pay and Allowances. RSA 110-B:37 and any other provisions of RSA 110-B which relate to pay shall not apply to the state guard. Members of the state guard shall receive no pay or other form of compensation from the state.


So, apparently this is a non-paying position. Good luck with that one.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


Yes it does read that way.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I think its political posturing or, Maybe New Hampshire is going to protect it self from Massachusetts. NH going to put guards on the border to stop Mass from coming in and trying to steal their tire tax money. Its kind of funny but a few years ago the two states were off handedly threatening each other with state police. Recently mass renewed its aggression against NH regarding taxes. NH can be funny also. Somebody put a piece of tape on their license plate covering up the state motto,” live free or die” and they were threatened with jail.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Ok I must be having a bad day today. sorry
but I guess I was not the only one to not catch it.

They already have a state Militia law. This is to revise it and to make it permanent. As in if you look further down and the budget, the Command part of it.
It's still all good!




1 Finding. The general court finds that a large portion of the New Hampshire national guard has been and is on active duty outside the boundaries of the state and, therefore, finds it prudent to heed the recommendation from the Department of Homeland Security to establish a permanent state defense force by revising the militia statutes relative to the state guard.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by j2000]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Plasma applicator
 


If this is the case, will they need a Navy also?





posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 



Yes and most importantly


recommendation from the Department of Homeland Security


A federal agency. Hopefully someone will dig a little deeper soon in the news.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by nonnez]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bismarcksea
reply to post by sapphirearaidia
 


You are reading it wrong!

What it is saying is that this Militia will be subject to the same rules and regulations as the military.

In other words they will have a code of conduct and basis of organization.

This defense force would answer to the state of NH and NO ONE else!


I do not agree

Really read the following......slowly.....


The governor is hereby authorized and required to organize and maintain within this state [during such period], under such regulations as the Department of Defense of the United States may prescribe for discipline in training, and otherwise in general conformity with existing law, regulations, rules, and practices pertaining to the national guard, [such] military forces [as he may deem necessary] to defend this state from invasion, rebellion, disaster, insurrection, riot, breach of the peace or imminent danger thereof, or to maintain the organized militia.


Especially the following piece of language:

under such regulations as the Department of Defense of the United States may prescribe for discipline in training, and otherwise in general conformity with existing law, regulations, rules, and practices pertaining to the national guard

[edit on 26-2-2009 by nonnez]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
freestateproject.org

Join the revolution



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I don't know. This is a bit troubling for me.

Seems like a good way to get some people riled up and register for the State Militia. Then also a good way to crack down on them and grab their guns.

I'm afraid that this may be a trap. Especially considering they voted down this bill. I'm afraid they may have been strong-armed into this and could be setting people up.
Which types of people? Those posting on this site about moving to New Hampshire.

Divide and conquer. They are giving people an avenue to form whatever revolution people think may be coming. But in a way they can manage it.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
This is incredible.

Bush was the one who violently raped our constitution and the bill of rights and Obama is trying to get it back for us and you all are planning a sedition?

You got to be kidding me!

And who are you going to put as president? a Republican? or are you going to call Bush back? because you truly are all blinder than a bat.

Unbelievable geesh.

I think that if most Americans are like you then we do deserve what is going on in our country.

Gosh!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


I just finished reading the NH page and was coming to post asking about those exact same bits. It sounds like a really great thing until you read the actual document. I was very caught by the bits that say:

The active reserve state guard shall be comprised of those citizens of the state who volunteer for service in the active reserve state guard. Active service in the state guard shall be for a period of one year and members shall be subject to such discipline as is determined by the adjutant general of the state.


So, they only serve in the active reserve for one year, but the inactive reserve bit states:

(a) The inactive reserve state guard shall be comprised of all able-bodied residents of the state who are 18 years of age or older, who are, or have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States, and who are not serving in the national guard or the active reserve state guard or exempt under subparagraph (b) unless such exempt person volunteers to serve in the inactive reserve state guard.


There is no time limit for the inactive reserve service. Once you hit 18 you are part of the inactive reserve for the rest of your life, voluntary or not? I'd be hesitant about that whole involuntary pressed into service thing. The only time it is voluntary is for the active reserve. Especially since just under that it states:

Pay and Allowances. RSA 110-B:37 and any other provisions of RSA 110-B which relate to pay shall not apply to the state guard. Members of the state guard shall receive no pay or other form of compensation from the state.


Provisions relating to pay do not apply to the state guard and they will receive no payment or any other form of compensation. Not only are they doing this all for free, involuntarily, for life as of turning 18, they are also providing for themselves as stated here:

Equipment. The state shall not be required to supply equipment or uniforms to the state guard. The state may supply equipment or uniforms to the state guard which is considered surplus or obsolete by the national guard or which is donated by a service organization. The state guard may apply for grants and donations to pay for equipment and supplies. The state guard may also apply to the armed forces of the United States of America for surplus equipment.


So unless the state has some leftovers to spare, or the state guard goes begging to the U.S. armed forces and they have some leftovers to spare, it looks like you have to provide your own equipment and uniforms, too. Out of your own pocket, because you aren't being paid or compensated for all this state guard duty that is involuntary.

Honestly, I'd be really hesitant about this whole thing. If you actually read it closely, it doesn't look like it is doing the state citizens any favors here. Instead, you are doing them for the state under the recommendation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. For free. For life. Involuntarily.

Take care,
Cindi

Edited to add: I meant to mention, in the providing for yourself section, that it isn't just spares you might get, it is obsolete spares.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Glencairn]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I am very aware of the situation with the proposed new NHSDF and I can shed some light on it.

I am not going to stray off-topic, although if anyone has any questions about SDFs in general, you are welcome to contact me, or start another thread elsewhere and tell me about it. I think that going off on a tangent about SDFs would detail this thread.

Back to the business at hand...

Please understand that at least one major force behind the new NHSDF is a name I have not seen mentioned yet, and is not a politician. I will refrain from mentioning his name, and his assistant’s name, on a public forum. Suffice to say there is a man, and a friend of his, with questionable former US Army discharge status, who have been run out of every other SDF in the area, trying to start something in NH for their own benefit. When I say “benefit,” I mean in terms of needing to “belong” to something, have a feeling/illusion of power, and ability to create opportunities to misappropriate materiel, and possibly funds, for personal use. As someone who works in law enforcement and specializes in interrogations and criminal psychology, having met both men on many occasions, I firmly believe they are both mentally unstable, manipulative, and pathological liars. I am not educated in making a clinical diagnosis, but I could take my guesses as to what a psychologist would conclude.


I served in the MA State Guard with these two misfits about five years ago. One of them was commissioned a Captain and the other was a senior NCO. They attempted to “usurp” (for lack of a better term) the power of the state training command and literally write their own SOP, and make soldiers follow it, with no authorization from higher-ups. Between their inability to produce DD214s to prove their Army service, poor leadership skills, and then this training SOP incident, I believe they were pressured to leave MA before the excrement hit the ventilation device in a legal sense.


The MA State Guard was put into some sort of suspended status about a year ago, so the two men in question could not whine or beg to Governor Patrick anymore, so they set their sights on NH. NH has not had an SDF for a while, I want to say 10-15 years or so, due to what I heard were a series of problems in the old SDF. I was never in the NHSDF so I can not be sure. I also heard that since the NHSDF was disbanded, there were one or two names kept on the records as command staff, however none of them want anything to do with this new regime.


Someone I know who knows the two men in question, much better than I ever knew them, has also pointed out more information. The two men in question, along with many friends of theirs, participate in WWII German military re-enactments and have an obsession with Nazi logos and cadence music. The group has displayed large framed pictures of Hitler, Rommel, and Goebbels at public re-enactment events, which always draw lots of complaints from the public and is considered to be in bad taste in the re-enactment community (note: I am not involved in re-enacting, I am only passing on what was told to me). The person I know is in charge of many re-enactment events in this area, and said that the group that these two men belong to is regarded far and wide as a bunch of neo-Nazi crackpots whom the re-enacting community is discouraging from attempting to participate in their events.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by therainmaker]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
After reading "Recommended by Homeland Security", the first thing I thought, was Obama's Brown Shirts.

I noticed that they are instating this Military that will be utterly and totally unequipped. Did anyone else notice that. Basically, it will almost be like the original intention of the Militia, where the Militia brought its own stuff. In the original intention of the 2ndAmmendment, the Militia was to have the ability to out gun everyone else by having the civilians have access to ALL weapons and not BANNING them like the Current President is about to do.

This is a Sleeper Brown Shirt Law in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I too have been writing my own legislators on this issue. I interpret this move by N.H. as a move to implement their own standing army, composed of National Guards and State Militia to stand against an armed invasion, much like Virginia suffered in the 1860s. America was at one time a Republic of States, Lincoln stopped that cold. America became a Democracy instead, and who can show me just one democracy that stood the test of time? Lincoln ordered, and jailed those who protested, 7500 troops to invade Virginia and crush the "rebellion." It didn't start as a rebellion, just a State asserting its rights, and telling the far off Washington D. C. to go fish. A State can easily govern itself, defend itself, and do business on the open market. State can deal with each other for needed supplies,and government is way too big for my liking. I am behind this move, and look to see new currencies come up to replace the FED dollars, and to stop the implantation of the Amero. I also see a full stop to the NAU/NAFTA plan to merge Mexico, America, and Canada into one nation. The States are sick and tired of Washington dictating to them what to do, and forcing Federal Laws on them, like the Federal speed limit and seat belt laws, for instance.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by vigusa
This is incredible.

Bush was the one who violently raped our constitution and the bill of rights and Obama is trying to get it back for us and you all are planning a sedition?


The day the current President decides to actually read and follow the US Constitution to the letter, is the day I'll start supporting him. He's a lawyer, that day will NEVER come.

As for Obama trying to get the Constitution "back for us", you mean by all the fantastic things he's done so far like: failing to institute Habeas Corpus for all prisoners in Guantanamo? Or signing a Presidential directive officially ending the PATRIOT Act? Or bringing an end to Homeland Security and it's Gestapo-esque procedures and policies? Or getting rid of airport security measures that are there only to harass people into submission when we all know that if someone tried to take a plane these days they'd be jumped by the entire plane all at once and left in pieces at the front door for collection by the FBI? Or did you mean his willingness to fire missiles into Pakistan, a nation we haven't declared war upon (though firing upon them can be taken by them as a declaration of war)?

You know after all that, this current President sure is different, and is doing everything he can to get the Constitution back for us.

New Hampshire is on the right path. They are taking the steps necessary for their own protection. If the steps this current President has taken are any indication, the Federal government won't be helping anyone when the economy collapses but themselves.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
If the Fed Govt wanted to get back to the Constitution,
It would have to fire itself.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Yes sir. We need to see this here in Texas. Hell, we need to see this in every state. This gives teeth to the recent reaffirmation of states power over the federal behemoth.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bpg131313
 


Right on brother. Help this guy put his foot in his mouth. Right on.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join