Remember that Michigan Militia charged with sedition?

page: 2
57
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Can't wait till they use NDAA and people just start disappearing.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The acquittal came not from a higher power but from the American court system, which relies on evidence, which in this case, there was no evidence for the charge. Still a couple of illegal firearm charges to go through for two members (Stones).


continuing on...the investigation began (9-2008) during Pres Bush's term, initiated by the FBI under Director Mueller (Bush appointee) and Att Gen Mukasey (Bush appointee), but did continue under Att Gen Holder.

The Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations was updated in 2008 by Mukasey...

In this new version the FBI no longer has to demonstrate a “predicate” to an investigation, effectively giving the agency the power to spy on whomever it wishes, for however long it wishes, even if that individual has never committed a crime or, more important, is not even suspected of one.


When the Bush DHS issued its report in 2009 (Pres Obama's term) referencing right wing extremism, the

The agency responded to the criticism by gutting the office that analyzed domestic extremism. ...

And while right-wing radicals and white supremacists have been given less attention, the Homeland Security apparatus has been wielded in full force against others deemed enemies of the state, particularly those who undermine the interests of Congress’s chief lobbyists. The expanding category of national-security threats includes animal- and environmental-rights activists as well as left-leaning political protesters, whether antiglobalist, anticapitalist, or antiwar. Enhanced surveillance and wiretapping powers initially passed under the Patriot Act can now be used against citizens who are merely “suspected of associating with radical activists.”

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed in 2006, expanded the scope of “domestic terrorism” to include any “interference” with such entities as medical researchers, grocery stores, zoos, and clothing stores. The measure, which was promoted by lobbyists working for the biomedical industry, covers, along with acts of vandalism, virtually anything that can affect a company’s bottom line. Another bill, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, introduced in 2007 and passed in the House but not the Senate, called for a national commission to investigate potential domestic extremism. The bill was reportedly ghostwritten by the RAND Corporation, which had previously warned that the danger of “homegrown terrorism” is not merely from jihadist sleeper cells but from “anti-globalists” and “radical environmentalists” who “challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism.”

source

So, under Obama, right wing groups have been given a pass, but if you go against corporations, better think twice.

Justice was done in this case. But as we see, "The price of freedom [for all] is eternal vigilance [by all]".

And re "speedy trial"...nowadays it seems a "speedy trial" begins at a year or more after one sits in jail
edit on 28-3-2012 by desert because: forgot source



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
um this is a little off topic, but do any of you guys think we're being blacklisted just for being on sites like this? There's no way the government is unaware of these kinds of sites.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Icecream117
 


You're just now getting around to considering that? Were you around when the nutbag who shot Congresswoman Gifford was discovered to have a profile here? In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.

I'm from the Midwest originally. I worked with a couple of militia guys at one time. They were upstanding citizens.
I believe in the concept of non-violence, and I don't personally advocate the violent overthrow of the government.
However, I do believe in protecting yourself, your family, and your local community. I do support the concept of a "proper" militia that exists to help the community. I think the people who advocate political violence are way off the mark. If these guys were a$$h*^s, then I'm glad that they were slowed down a bit. But I am glad for what this means for upstanding militias overall.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK
 





For those of you that thought they were not guilty, you should be a judge here in the US. For those of you thought the other............shame.


I would be more then happy to be a Judge then, when do I start ?


Also give this guy a medal

edit on 28-3-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icecream117
um this is a little off topic, but do any of you guys think we're being blacklisted just for being on sites like this? There's no way the government is unaware of these kinds of sites.



It's a matter of time until the FBI tries to foil tinfoilers


the big shabooz himself

It's Sarah Palin's fault



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Icecream117
 


I would use my real name but the owners of the site discourage that. Meh! I use my own name everywhere else on the internet. Who cares, let them come!

"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Everyone else, thanks for the replies.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


I did not see your comment in that thread. Thanks for the Arlen Specter vid, it really accentuates the propaganda that the government has fostered since that time.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
This wont be happening much in the future.

NDAA



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
Michigan Militia cleared of charges!
....
By the way, in jail for two years, I wonder if Holder will be apologizing for this? Maybe Obama can call for a beer summit.



Great news. At least there's one judge who isn't corrupt. There may be hope for this country yet.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I remember that day well. We were very close to war that day in the United States. All across the Country many militias were mobilized and ready to roll.

And how many places throughout the Country did we blow up and destroy? None of course.

Why?

Maybe we are more disciplined that lead to believe? Fire was held. Intel was patiently gathered until the situation could be fully understood before any decisions were made.

In Michigan, same thing. A very large mobilization. No shots fired. No engagement. All remained tied to the chain of command, with no breaking of that chain.

We were very close to War that day. Maybe the news should report on our use of our heads that day. Doubt it. Our actions that day are telling. After looking through this thread, it seems public perception has changed and is changing on the Militia. The media physiological operations against us is not working out so well any longer, as our actions disproved their many words about us.

Fact of the matter is, we love this Country, and all how dwell in it. We are the old guard of the Republic. Our enemies both foreign and domestic, and includes anyone that wants to take the rights away from Americans, and wars against the Constitution. Traitors.

We dont want to overthrow anything. Just a return to legal rule of Law. Our Systems of Government here is the only one that provides the opportunity for People to be free and seek their own self fulfillment. We of course are a long way from that.

We of course have a very deeply entrenched enemy operating in the shadows through our Government. Most of you know these enemies have infiltrated many many years ago.

We dont want War, but will be here just in case anyone wants to get jumpy with the American population. ANYONE! Like we always have been.

Until that time its the American Peoples responsibility to change things non violently. It is our responsibility as well.

That endeavor does not look very bright right now. That is ok either way. If it is impossible to fix, then War is inevitable. Unless of course you all want to live in a Soviet style system. Thought so.

Time will tell what the outcomes maybe, but the clock is ticking....



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icecream117
um this is a little off topic, but do any of you guys think we're being blacklisted just for being on sites like this? There's no way the government is unaware of these kinds of sites.


it's probably a long list. i'm not scared though. if 300 can beat a million what can a million do?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


Right. More propaganda of fear from the Government. People dont realize this. Its the "art of war" 101. When you are weak and like a mouse, act like a lion. When you are strong, act like a mouse.

Our Government is acting like a lion. Which means its really a mouse. If there was any bite to this, they would not be projecting their supposed power like they are. In reality, our Government is very weak right now, and is being cleaned out, though it does not appear that way right now.

The Government cant deploy American troops against Americans. Number 1, most of the troops would not do it. Despite their programming, etc. It has always been this way. American troops are different than Chinese troops. That is well known.

The enemy cannot use foreign troops or UN troops against us. Unlike using American troops, the American People would outright and openly resist such invasion.

They are running out of time as well, their window is closing due to the awakening taking place in the population. They are hard pressed for time.

As of today, no one has explained how the execution of the red/yellow/blue lists would actually take place. Their are millions of People on those lists if those lists are active and real. The United States geographically is a very large place. People are armed to the teeth. Especially those on the supposed lists.

I dont see how such an operation could even be effectively planned, much less executed.

Remember, our Military has trouble finding targets in little bitty countries. Our terrain and topography is better suited for evasion and engaging than most other places.

The cities will be very difficult for any force to maintain control of. Impossible even. Their best bet would be secure a perimeter around the cities and starve everyone out. That would be the only way to take a US city. Or a nuke. Biological. Etc.Otherwise forget about it.

It is our enemies that fear. They fear failure and what that will mean for them. Keep pushing them to the wall.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by HermitShip
 


star for you anybody who qoutes the art od war is my new best friend



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


hey it's carls brother from aqua teen hunger force



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Link to Case.

There is case after case reaffirming the legality of the Citizens Militia, and distinguishing it as a separate entity from anything else that Congress, Federal, or State Governments have control over. This is also a reminder to everyone that our Justice system is not entirely broke. Their are many good judges out there. They just dont have the cases before them. Any sensitive case that might further strengthen the Constitution is dropped by the Government so that the issue cannot be raised in a Court of Law.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’sright of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations uponthe individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause. 2. Prefatory Clause. The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “theMilitia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comportswith founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militiaof a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at othertimes left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]hemilitia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the MilitiaClauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 23 Opinion of the Court Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . aNavy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given thepower to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and notto organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect ifthe militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize“the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definitionof the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool,Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8,1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothingmore than the imposition of proper discipline and training.See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule ormethod”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, 24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court trained to arms”). b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not securityof each of the several States as the dissent below argued,see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in histreatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in referenceto the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “‘free country’” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Securityof a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is tothe several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” inArticle I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution. There are many reasons why the militia was thought tobe “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders largestanding armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 25 Opinion of the Court better able to resist tyranny. 3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and beararms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, wasnot over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear thatthe federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militiawas pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 TheComplete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s“command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M.Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given nopower to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keepand bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The 26 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556.
edit on 29-3-2012 by HermitShip because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-3-2012 by HermitShip because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
reply to post by usmc0311
 


Thanks for the additional media report. In your article, they state that unregistered guns is a felony charge? Wow, I am kind of glad all my guns fell into the lake that one time I went boating. Close one.


It depends on the state. Some states require that you register your guns, while others don't.

It is UnConstitutional to require people to register their guns, or to put any form of law against arms. But the assholes in chargedon't give a rat's butt about the Constitution.

They should all be charged for being traitors, except Ron Paul and a few others, to the Constitution they are supposed to abide by and defend...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Its good to the see the reaching paranoid mentality spawned on 9/11 can exceed its grasp. Can I expect a tax refund as the Gov. pays me back for this waste of time and money?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icecream117
um this is a little off topic, but do any of you guys think we're being blacklisted just for being on sites like this? There's no way the government is unaware of these kinds of sites.


maybe you should have thought on it a little more...before becoming a member





top topics
 
57
<< 1   >>

log in

join