Oklahoma lawmakers and Tea party discuss forming a militia

Originally posted by LurkerMan
another variable in the oklahoma situation is the Indian tribes. i could easily see them sideing with the state, which will create a myriad of problems for the feds.

the indians have even more sovereignty than the state, their own funding/resources/police force, and their own land.

A very important point. What are the various tribes thoughts on this matter? Would they take a side in the matter at all, even if a defined stance of neutrality?

reply to post by Khounur


I guess that includes the America in which the 'n-word's knew their place right?

I agree with this move, we cannot forget the importance of States rights. There has been such a move toward the Federal Government being the supreme all knowing all providing master but in truth the States have the responsibility to manage and govern on the local level.

This is a wise move and the Feds need to take notice that change is indeed on the horizon.

Change is on the horizon. As former military, you take an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, FOREIGN or DOMESTIC. The Government exist only by the consent of the people, if at anytime the Government stops SERVING the needs of the people, we have the RIGHT to dissolve it!

Originally posted by warpcrafter
Sure, they can join the crowd. That will just be more reason for the feds to listen to their phone calls, read their e-mails and tail their cars.

So your solution to the problem is to do nothing? Come back when you have a better solution.

edit: probably not need, this seems like baiting.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by piddles]

reply to post by Ahabstar



its hard to say because the tribes in oklahoma are anything but united. so their stances could easily vary.it would all boil down to who they get their $$$ from.

i suppose it would depend on how well off the tribe is already doing too.plus each tribe has a unique relationship with the federal government. some tribes are completely dependent on federal funding and receive A LOT of handouts, where as others like mine (chickasaw nation) are almost completely independent/soverign.

the chickasaw nation is almost completely funded on reservation tax's and gambling profits, so in their eyes anything dealing with the FBOIA (Federal bureau of Indian affairs) is a burden, because the constiution gives power to regulate commerce between the indians to the feds. But all the actual Revenue (or the majority of it) comes from non-tribal citizens of the state.

it would be pretty divided, but i think in Oklahoma's case the state has a better relationship with the tribes than the Feds do. the indians have a very very very unique position in the whole picture because they are an entity like a state (domestic dependent), with their own courts and borders. but do not fall under the definition of a state of the union.

so it would be interesting to see whos side they end up on, they have the same resources that the state does, but no chance of "secession".

Its all well and good that the state things they can stand up to their master but we all know its never going to happen. The Federal Government dominates the court systems and will quash any legal maneuvering, in the realm of the physical the states are destined to fail as well given the resources, equipment and manpower the Feds wield.

Anybody who believes the Feds would hesitate for even a second to send a full ground force of combat-armed troops and armor into Oklahoma would be sorely mistaken. Heavy handed is the preferred method of control as far as Washington is concerned and I have little doubt they would consider such acts as OK is considering to be outright open insurrection and respond in their typical fashion.

If you value your life I would highly suggest distancing yourself from militias, the tea party groups, and ANY political group at all; its not worth the stress and heartache in the end.

Obama's response to OK lawmakers and Tea Party leaders discuss forming a militia:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c060da7fd49d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Ahabstar


First off..this according to Tea Party Members...any Politicians qouted in the article...secondly the OP article concedes...

Thus far, the discussions have been exploratory. Even the proponents say they don't know how an armed force would be organized nor how a state-based militia could block federal mandates.

Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma.

reply to post by Ahabstar


....Isn't that what the Oklahoma National Guard is for? .. That IS the states main militia... the Governor has control over it?!

Weird to see this in the Washington Post though.

reply to post by Rockpuck


It also was in USA Today, NPR, AP, as well as various blogs.
a google news search

I'll not be adding my name to any list of those willing to fight against the Federal government. I'm FROM here and I'm not getting involved in some one else's cause de jour.

While I like the idea of a militia to stand up to the Feds overruling State's rights, we'll be left with Oklahoma lawmakers who ALSO don't pay any attention to Oklahoman's rights. This is designed to protect the State GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE of the state.

When there are tanks on the street, I guarantee ya, you won't have to ask for volunteers to defend the place. We got no shortage of rednecks here.

reply to post by piddles

buncha rednecks disagree, immediately go to some sort of violence. This doesn't surprise me?

So what would certain extremist religious/leftist groups do when they don't agree?

Hint Hint, it goes "BooM"

Thanks for posting. Looks like things are coming to a head. Those Okies have a lot of guns, too.

reply to post by LurkerMan


Having been in positions of management several times in my career , please allow me to say this .

There are times that a job needs to be done a certain way to achieve the most desirable outcome . Most of the people who work for you , most always have their own opinion as to what would be the proper way to do said job .

Their way of doing it probably will not give you the results that you desire .
A large percentage of 'workers' feel that they know how to do the job better than management because they are the ones who are out their on the line everyday , making things happen . They are the grease that keeps the wheels turning . I only 'set in the office' , and therfore , there are those who might resent me coming out on the line and telling them how to better do their job .

Certainly , I can't fire everyone , so I have to come up with a plan to achieve my goals .

I have found the best way to do that is to encourage them to talk amongst themselves and see if they can come up with a better way of doing things .

There are most always a few that will do whatever you want them to anyway .

Those are the ones that I take aside and 'plant' seeds of thought , without being too obvious .

I will plant the thoughts and they then take those ideas back to the rest of the employees and discuss these ideas amongst themselves .

I keep 'working it' until the employees present me with 'their' plan of how they feel things need to be done to accomplish what I originally asked for .

I pretend to mull it over for a bit and then I tell them all what a brilliant idea it is .

They all feel a sense of accomplishment for having stood up to 'the man' , and now they are more than willing to do things the 'new' way .

I get what I want with no one being the wiser that they have just been 'played' by the 'man' .

There are even times that you have to insist to them that ' their' way will not work ., while they insist to you that it will . You finally 'give in' and let them prove to you that it works .

You pretend to eat crow and everyone is happy .

It's not that hard to understand .

reply to post by skunknuts
I cant imagine what you would describe as a repressive government if it's not both houses of congress and the executive branch going aganst the vast majority will of it's own people as this current congress and president has done as recent legislation proves. With a few exceptions bush and obama are two sides of the same coin, (different stances on U.S. position on Israel as a friend,different stances on abortion,different on 2nd. ammendment rights,different on supporting extremest musssilm's, conservitive judges, etc.) these execption and a few others are all that seperate them, as i said TWO sides of the same coin.Bush's failed policies on staying in the war (we did our job, now get out),on big goverenment getting bigger, on immigration,on foriegn dependence on oil,government bailouts of business,increased government intrusion on individual rights,on taxes, on the economy,on ignoring or destroying parts of the constitution and many many more. THESE SAME CORRUPT POLICIES AND AGENDAS THAT BUSH HAD GOING AT 100 mph. OBAMA HAS TAKEN TO LIGHT SPEED. You said that if Palin or such were the leader of the right you would be willing to fight aganst the right. What if palin or such were the duly elected, constitunal leader, would you fight then? I'm not encouraging anyone to take up arms,i'm just pointing out your obvious hatred of the right & your hypocracy toward those who want to fight aganst the radical & extreme left, which obama & this congress represent. I dont think anyone is saying they want a violent revolution, but we sure as hell didn't sign up for this type of CHANGE either, the right to bear arms and form malitias is what earned our freedoms and our founding fathers knew that it just might help keep them. Can these corrupted policies be stoped at the polls, i hope and pray to God that they can otherwise we're in bigtime trouble, neither our economy or our constitution can take much more. Remember that when our founding fathers discovered that they could take no more they decided to lock-n-load with what the "authorized" government of England called "rebelous rabble and militias". Today, even with 65 million armed citizens, the governments military and technological superiorty is such that violent revolution is all but impossible. It seems to me that our only option is to grovel,duck and cover or go to the polls and with few' if any exceptions, if they are in office, vote them out - peroid.(It's the only way to truly start fresh). Remember TWO sides of the same coin, duck & cover and lock & load at the polls,our best ammo is the ballot, see you at the polls.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

....Isn't that what the Oklahoma National Guard is for? .. That IS the states main militia... the Governor has control over it?!

Weird to see this in the Washington Post though.

"In 1982 the Senate Judiciary Committee Sub-committee on the Constitution stated in Senate Document 2807:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States.

All the arms, munitions, armament and equipment of the National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as clearly stipulated in the Second Amendment.

The Unorganized Militia consists of all able bodied persons of the nation and of the states between the ages of 18 and 44, and is exclusive of all members of the organized militia, i.e., the Armed Forces of the Federal Government of the United States and of the National Guards of the various states of the Union."

reply to post by SaturnFX
First of all texas isn't big enough for all the "righties", second and more importantly, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, do you honestly think that repeating the extremist liberal leftwing lies makes them true? The teapartyers are average everday people, Me & my kind, WE'RE the rightwingers, our idea is to put all of you guys out on the left coast where you belong (it's already financially & morally bankrupt, you'll fit right in),nuke the san andreas fault & wave bye bye as you slide off into the sunset.You couldn't stop it because you let the government take your right to bear arms & form militias. We'll even divide your little country into seperate large islands queer males & only queer males on one island and lesbians & only lesbians on the other seperated by a few hundred miles of shark infested water. We'll see how natuaral that is by how well nature takes care of that little debate,we'll wait a couple of hundred years & check back up on them.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex
No, they want to protect & defend their constitunal rights including the 2nd ammendment, only left wing extremest, consider exercising their 2nd ammendment rights as an act of war,think about it, i know obama is just following many of bush's policies and the right wasn't happy about some of bush's policies(that is why his elections were so close - we stayed home) they are two sides of the same coin,Repubs & Dems. The problem is that what bush was doing wrong he was doing at 60 mph., obama is doing those same wrong things & a whole lot more wrong things also & he's doing it at light speed.