What is the Militia, Who are They, and What is the Militia Purpose?

***UPDATE MAY 1, 2014*** 

Most people didn't catch the statements being made past few weeks, "dis-arm the Feds." But I did. I've heard it come straight from Claven Bundy quite a few times and just a minute few other politically elected individuals. The media failed to elaborate on it, though they were quite aware of NOT informing the tv mainstream uninformative news watchers. but here's the latest below, and it's running down the tracks at quite a good amount of speed. But I was wondering how soon til regular news listeners would catch on. People still don't know, simply because they JUST don't like to read and they allow mainstream tv talking heads to form their opinions, beliefs and ideas straight from the can. Brains just aren't registering it.

Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’ By Cheryl K. Chumley

-

The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/30/bundy-aftermath-utah-lawmaker-moves-to-disarm-blm-/

Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.

“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

His mulled amendment to an appropriations bill comes in context of recent BLM actions against Mr. Bundy: The federal agents armed themselves and surrounded his property, tasered his son, closed down road access to the ranch and even shot a couple of his prize bulls. The reasons? Mr. Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees to the federal government, but rather fought the matter in court.

Militia from all over the nation came to the ranch to support Mr. Bundy in his standoff with the BLM — and for that, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid labeled them “domestic terrorists,” various media reported.

The BLM finally backed off and left — but not before a shocked nation expressed outrage at the government’s armed stance against a man who, at the root, was guilty of not paying a bill.

Mr. Stewart said it’s high time the government end its practice of arming its own special units for various agencies, like the BLM and the IRS.

“They should do what anyone else would do,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune. “Call the local sheriff, who has the capability to intervene in situations like that.”

The Interior Department, for its part, said the BLM and National Park Service had armed agents at Mr. Bundy’s ranch to guarantee the safety of the public and of their workers.

What is the Militia, Who are They, and What is the Militia Purpose?

 Leader and member of Pennsylvania states Constitutional Security Force Militia April 12, 2014. I saw this guy when the feed was live this morning I was thinking who or what is this dude?! The insignia on the helmet indicates the Pennsylvania unit

  Too many people haven't the foggiest idea of the difference between National Guard, reserves and Militia. They all have quite different purposes and missions.

  In light of the epic event the whole nation was fortunate to see without the help of mainstream media (MSM), had it not been for the various independent web news organizations, bloggers and social media, our Federal government now know to use the Bunkerville, Nevada ranch/BLM range war stand-off as a unique litmus test on how and why they will attempt to keep the militia from the next event, as they came from many states in Claven Bundy's case, including Tennessee, Massachusetts, Ohio, Montana and many more states who most of MSM's rare mentions of the tyrranical event referred as "his supporters."  But those of us who know better, know otherwise. The Federal government will use martial law next time, as they have their own laws giving them un-Constitutional ability to do so, searching every vehicle at key areas, on all public and interstate freeways and highways, as President George H.W. Bush (the elder) Executive ordered during his term. And President Bill Clinton also Executive ordered, and many individual states, including California, created laws enabling the ability of each individual city to declare martial law in 1994, for various reasons the City Councils see fit.

  Who are the Militia now? And who will they be in the near future? What have the Militia learned from the Claven Bundy/BLM event?

  Here is the explanation of the Militia as described in my state's website:



http://www.cal-militia.com/faq

What is a "Militia" ?

The "unorganized" or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation. It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution; Title 10 Section 311 USC; The Dick Act of 1903; The National Defense Act of 1916; and affirmed by numerous court decisions. There is no ambiguity, the "unorganized" citizens militia is not the National Guard or the state "select" militia under the governor, or part of the "organized" armed forces of the federal government. It is literally the entire body of the armed citizenry.
Although the "unorganized" militia can be called up for lawful (Constitutional) purposes, it is not under the direct control of any state or political jurisdiction. It represents the authority and power of the people over the government and stands as the last defense of the citizens of this country against any domestic tyrants.

Purpose:

The purpose of the militia as defined by the Constitution is to:
1. Enforce the laws of the Union (The Constitution)
2. Suppress insurrections
3. Repel invasions
These provisions affirm the right of the people to defend themselves and their republican form of government from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That means that the people, as the militia have the right to fight, if necessary, oppressive government, to prevent the usurpation of the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) by anyone, including the federal government.
The authority, duty, and obligation of the citizens, acting as the militia, is clearly expressed in our Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..., " further "... it is the right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,..." Together these provisions codify the natural rights of all citizens to defense of self, family, and country.
"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

           
       

Is a Militia a Political Action Group? 

The distinction between a political action group organized to promote Constitutional government and a militia is the military orientation and a political orientation of the latter. Both groups must work together in support of mutual goals. Individuals may participate in both. But, the militia prepare, train, and equip as a response group in fashion of minutemen of Concord and Lexington for the defense of self and community.
Therefore, to be recognized as a militia unit, the organization should adopt a written code of conduct and organization, have a distinctive uniform or method of identification, and implement a training program to fulfill the "well-regulated" disciplinary requirement of the Second Amendment.
     

Membership:

With the exception of certain public officials, all able-bodied men and women over the age of 18 and not currently serving in the regular armed forces, and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the "unorganized" militia. Law requiring militia participation are no longer enforced. With very few restrictions, membership in the militia must be open to all citizens regardless of race, sex, religion or political affiliation. Units not open to public membership and/or which are organized for any purpose other than the support of Constitutional principals may be considered private armies and are not to be confused with the Constitutional "unorganized" militia.
As a practical matter, every effort should be made to incorporate only citizens of good character in the militia. Those who advocate criminal activity, terrorism, revolution, or a change from our republican form of government should not be tolerated. This implies that militia members should understand the duties and obligations of both citizens and government under our Constitution.

  As always, I try to give as much of my take, and relevant information as possible, and yet keep it concise and interesting. So on that note, the following is going to be references to four of my previous blogs on what we as a nation are experiencing in unique ways, some very illite forces Constitution-loving Americans are up against, detail plans these forces have against us, and my take on ac ertain group of people who I have a very stron feeling who will be of great benefit to our Republic form of government which is under attack. All in that order. So enjoy, and please feel free to keep this article for future reference and maybe even "viral."

May 27, 2013

WHO, WHERE AND WHEN U.S. DEMS/SOCIALISTS GOT ILLEGAL VOTING IDEAS?

  WHO, WHERE AND WHEN U.S. DEMS/SOCIALISTS GOT ILLEGAL VOTING IDEAS?

By, Michael Tobin

http://michaeldtobin.blogspot.com/2013/05/when-where-and-which-us-demssocialist.html

 By now, you just may be aware of this two-term administration and government entities such as IRS, public services agencies, schools, libraries, mainstream media etc..., activities during both Obama elections, such as official voting mail-outs instructing people on their mail-outs who and what to vote for. It's already acceptable for personal campaign offices to do that, but since when has tax dollars been able be used by agencies to do the same thing? Never thought of that? well that is what democrat-leaning public tax recipient organizations I've listed above actually do.
   But what about the voters/ Are you yet aware of the thousands of non-citizens bussed in this past election, all told to vote for Obama? How about the electronic voters votes being switched from their G.O.P. or conservative or libertarian votes, to Obama? Wow must've been a glitch?
   Well, are you aware during the early 1990's Bill Clinton's 1st and 2nd terms focused heavily in the Baltic areas? WHAT did they learn over there? here's what they learned, and guess who got the glee, joy and privilege to put this knowledge to use. You guessed it. Read this and weep.  

 http://latviansonline.com/commentary/article/8548/ 

May 26, 2013

Non-citizen voting in Latvian local elections

Klavs Zichmanis

One of Russia’s foreign policy objectives in the former Soviet space is non-citizen voting in local elections. The upcoming Latvian municipal elections again put this issue on the front burner.
In the early 90’s, several international organizations (IO) designated the OSCE (Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe) to recommend that Latvia grant non-citizens the right to vote in municipal elections.
Pressure also came from Russia, which uses the OSCE recommendation to harass Latvia to advance its geopolitical interests. The IO were motivated by several considerations: strengthening democracy in the new post-Soviet states, extending Western influence, and ensuring long-term stability in Eastern Europe. What concerns the IO most is ethnic conflict, as in Yugoslavia, and which see the solution in political participation.
The West emphasizes civil, social and political rights. The OSCE recommendation adds political rights for non-citizens. However, the principle of national sovereignty does not allow foreign countries to dictate citizenship standards to other states, resulting in a conflict between the OSCE recommendation, international convention and Latvia’s standard of political rights only with citizenship. The EU has no policy regarding non-citizen participation in local elections and only allows citizens of member states to do so.

Estonia’s Choice

Estonia adopted the OSCE recommendation for one reason. When restoring citizenship in 1991 on the principle of state continuity, Estonians were about 62% of the population, and with inclusion of pre-war minorities, citizenship rights were granted to around 68% of the population. The strict Estonian position on citizenship caused Soviet era migrants in the Narva region to threaten separation from Estonia when around 8% non-citizens adopted Russian citizenship. To prevent secession, Estonia expanded citizenship eligibility and adopted the OSCE recommendation, thus allowing non-citizens to vote every four years in local elections. However, they could not join or start a political party. This pleased the OSCE, but did not change Russian foreign policy towards Estonia.

Latvia’s Choice

Latvia did not accept the recommendation because there was no secessionist threat. Latvia sees political participation as a citizen’s prerogative. Neither the Latvian Constitution nor its laws permit voting for non-citizens. In 1991 the low proportion of Latvians raised concerns about a possible Soviet migrant takeover of power. The first Citizenship Act of 1993 highlights this concern. Heated debate with the IO forced a change in the law, and by 1998 it was modified, removing the citizenship window system and allowing all Latvian born children to obtain citizenship on an ius soli basis, thus increasing the number of citizens.

Definition of Non-citizens

Residents of a state consist of citizens, foreign nationals, the stateless and near-citizens. Foreign nationals are individuals who legally reside in or visit a country. Stateless persons have no citizenship whatsoever and legally reside in a country but without its diplomatic protection. Near-citizens, or in Latvia nepilsoņi, have civil, social, and partial political rights, including diplomatic protection from Latvia, that is, they are almost citizens. Countries that use this status can adapt it to meet its needs.
In Latvia, political rights of near-citizens include being up to half of all members in a political party. As party members, they can defend their interests by influencing all party activities. Allowing voting in municipal elections would give an additional political right.
Latvian near-citizens status was a compromise with the OSCE’s desire to involve the stateless in political decisions. Non-citizens make up around 13% of the population. Of all citizens, 72% are Latvians and 28% are minorities. Of the total population, from 2001 – 2011 minorities declined by 23%, Latvians by 6%, and near-citizens also decreased significantly. About one-third are of pensionable age. Non-citizen Latvian born minor children are entitled to citizenship as a parental decision.
Russia’s strategic goal is to create a Russian led Eurasian Economic Union. This strategy is seen in its diaspora policy, investment policy and initiation of the language referendum to make Russian Latvia’s second official language. Russia is not interested in minority integration into Latvian society, but manipulates human rights issues to exacerbate ethnic relations. Russia’s demand that Latvia grant citizenship automatically to non-citizens is absurd as this disputes the very legitimacy of the Latvian state.

Ideological Victory

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold and ideological wars were won by the West, affording a sense of superiority for its understanding of politics. The idea that pre-existing political models could be used in Eastern Europe without deeper analysis even though no historical precedent for such major change in a large area involving hundreds of millions of people existed is a consequence of this feeling of superiority. Western democratic interpretations became universally applicable. But if a political ideology is almost perfect, historical comparisons to it are unnecessary and potentially devastating. The consequence of the Soviet legacy is one such damaging criticism and thus is ignored. Years after the Soviet collapse, Western researchers realized the limitations of the pre-existing model approach. The OSCE recommendation was created in this ideological victory period.

Citizenship

Citizenship is never granted unconditionally. No country grants it to all who incidentally live in its territory. Citizenship implies a degree of exclusion: an open concept of citizenship is a contradiction. Citizenship is based on consanguinity (jus sanguinis) or territory (jus soli). Many countries use both, but none use jus soli exclusively. The Hague Convention on Nationality (1930), permits states to define its own citizens. The Convention, however, limits absolute freedom in deciding national citizenship: all inhabitants have a right to citizenship; states must avoid creating statelessness; no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of citizenship; a change in marital status should not affect the other partner’s nationality. Citizenship should serve as a basis for civil rights, political participation, social support, identity and that which serves the common good of society. The European Convention on Nationality (1997) tried to standardize EU member states nationality laws.
Assumptions about citizenship differ in Western and Eastern Europe. For Western countries, citizenship is associated with an individual’s legal obligations to the state and international law, grounded in civil, social and political rights, civil society, ‘shallow’ national culture and identity and, at least in theory, ethnic neutrality of the state, and monitoring the state applying abstract human rights standards.
Eastern Europe adds political will, a desire for ‘deep’ national cultural identity to the concept of citizenship. This desire for deep identity contrasts with the West’s shallow vision: it is hard to reconcile both views. Citizenship as a norm is not a neutral term as all countries saturate it with values, ideals and ideological significance.
Latvian citizenship tries to deal with the consequences of the Soviet legacy. Civic and national identities being weak, ethnic identity remained. Latvians assume their usual position as a minority which must be defended. Today, Soviet migrants must adjust themselves to minority status in a small country, not the war-winning plurality they had become accustomed to. In order to maintain their former status, migrants use Western minority and human rights rhetoric. Latvians must acclimatize themselves to majority status.
In 1941 Soviet authorities imposed unilaterally Soviet citizenship on Latvia, which is not recognized in international law. The Soviets granted citizenship to individuals on a request basis without naturalization requirements. However, this is how non-citizens often understand the citizenship acquisition process.
Latvia wants the security of loyalty. Offering political rights before showing loyalty does not offer security. Political rights without citizenship separate the responsibility for their actions expected of citizens. Responsibility required by law against anti-state activity cannot be demanded of foreigners or non-citizens. If citizenship is not included in one’s identity, there is no relationship between non-citizen’s political rights and his loyalty to the state.
Europe has shown that states are built on a core group, usually an ethnicity. In national consciousness the civic and ethnic, consciously or not, are closely related. Balts want to experience this form of national identity, to create a national consciousness from differing social and ethnic groups. Majority and minority cultures cannot play the same role in society. Promoting minority cultures has limitations. International and national agreements prohibit discrimination against individuals on ethnic, racial or other grounds. Minority group rights as groups are not internationally recognized, and are not in the UN human rights declaration. If group rights were to become an international standard, this would take away the legitimacy and sovereignty of states, dismantling the existing international framework, which is based on sovereign states. In 1995 the EU adopted the General Convention Protecting National Minorities recognizing several approaches to ethnic diversity, allowing states to choose their own path.

Necessary changes

The hoped for rapid democratisation of the post-Soviet space in the early 90’s did not materialize, for national development requires several generations. Western resistance to East European use of the same nation-building tools they themselves had used for centuries is illogical. New EU member states must be allowed to evolve and address nation-building challenges using the Western pattern.
It’s surprising how little violence there has been in the democratization process. Western assumptions that East European nationalism is based on ancient hatreds which the Soviet period froze creating a Pax Sovieticus, thus disallowing ethnic hatred to flourish is absurd.
Allowing non-citizens to vote or not vote in local elections puts Western and Latvian tenets at cross purposes. If political participation is an important principle for the OSCE, the Latvian political option offered to non-citizens meets these requirements. The OSCE recommendation should include them as acceptable standards of participation. The OSCE must also recognize the Soviet legacy as a legitimate historical experience and respect Baltic security concerns. The Eurocentric understanding of history, the ideological victory euphoria and bureaucratic inertia should be discarded. Unfortunately, the West is faced with a dilemma: to accept the Soviet legacy as legitimate would require taking some responsibility for the consequences of WWII up to 1991. This step the West is not yet ready to take.