Showing posts with label MIlitia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MIlitia. Show all posts

January 10, 2016

In Defense of The Oppressed: The Malheur Refuge Standoff

(Jan. 8, 2018 UPDATE): National & World

Rancher Cliven Bundy released from prison, lawyer says


Bundy would not pay grazing fees


http://www.ktvz.com/news/national-world/rancher-cliven-bundy-released-from-prison-lawyer-says/683170965


(CNN) - A federal judge on Monday dismissed a case against rancher Cliven Bundy that stemmed from an armed standoff with federal authorities in Nevada four years ago, according to court papers.
Bundy and several others -- including his sons, Ryan and Ammon Bundy -- were indicted by a federal grand jury in 2016 after the showdown two years earlier against federal land managers on the open range where Bundy's cattle grazed and fed.
Cliven Bundy would not pay grazing fees, arguing the land belongs to the state and not the US government.
In December, US District Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in the case against the Bundys and self-styled Montana militia leader Ryan Payne, CNN affiliate KLAS reported. Navarro said then a fair trial was impossible because prosecutors failed to hand over evidence that could have helped the defense, KLAS reported.
Navarro dismissed the case against the Bundys and Payne in a hearing on Monday, according to court papers.
Bundy was released Monday, his attorney Bret Whipple told CNN.
"Today was the hearing to determine if the mistrial of the court was with prejudice or without prejudice, and Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning that the US Attorney's Office could not bring the case against Cliven Bundy back," Whipple said Thursday.

Navarro had released Cliven Bundy in November during the trial but he chose to stay in prison, saying he didn't want to violate the principle "that other people are still in custody and he would be free," according to Whipple.
"It was important for [Cliven] to go home to his family but it was important to him to go home as a free man, with no contingencies, no conditions," Whipple said.
The federal Bureau of Land Management and local authorities backed down in the face off, halted the roundup of Bundy's cattle and returned about 300 head to avoid any violence.
Authorities later accused Bundy of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, assault on a federal law officer by use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, interference with commerce by extortion and obstruction of justice.
Cliven Bundy was the leader of the movement to extort the federal government into returning his cattle, the indictment said.
"The defendants recruited, organized, and led hundreds of other followers in using armed force against law enforcement officers in order to thwart the seizure and removal of Cliven Bundy's cattle from federal public lands," the indictment said.
Bundy faced life in prison if convicted.
In 2016, Ryan and Ammon Bundy were among those who took part in a 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon after gathering outside for a demonstration to support two ranchers who were convicted of arson, and in defiance of federal land policies.
One man was killed during an attempted traffic stop weeks into the occupation of a vacant building on the refuge. Police said he was reaching for a gun; prosecutors said the shooting was justified. The standoff ended after the last holdouts surrendered to authorities.
Before the final surrender, federal agents arrested the elder Bundy, who did not take part in the 2016 standoff.
In October, the younger Bundys and others were found not guilty of firearms charges and conspiracy to impede federal workers in the wildlife refuge standoff.
The US Attorney's Office had not responded to CNN's calls for comment on Monday.








In Defense of The Oppressed
by: Michael D. Tobin Jan 10, 2016


Psalm 82:3 "Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the OPPRESSED."

Right this moment, there are those oppressed who are taking a stand in the state of Oregon for many who our Federal government have oppressed and are still oppressing. Private citizens from all over the western states are there for a just cause, which society as a whole are being deprived of understanding of, and who are willfully ignorant of, and against all friction from state run media, gutless politicians and ignorant and un thankful generations of brainwashed young people of obvious generation belongings, as is evident in so many of their shameful comments seen on social media and news article comments. They can be referred to as sheeple.
Now the Church; the Church has no qualms with the first part of the above verse. Who can argue against defending the fatherless and the poor? (Maybe some of the sheeple can argue with it, but I can't.) But I don't see the last part, "the oppressed", being focused on in the Church. Perhaps it's because of 501c3 status? Don't jeopardize the ability of the government to threaten the ability to award those with something in return for gifts, at tax time. We're supposed to give without accepting anything in return anyway. Or maybe support will cause "division" in the church as a result in taking a stand for those who are oppressed by our government? What is the Church afraid of?
Well, all the excuses in the book will not stand past sermons applied to other subjects at will, but not applied to others, such as "the oppressed." I see cherry-picking going on. Apply the scriptures to what seems easy or convenient to preach about, but not to what we claim we have supernatural boldness, authority and God's favor over. Yes, I see. Do you? Church! Do you really want the "righteous to rule and the people to rejoice?" Then the proof is in the pudding. Put up or shut up. We can turn this country around for at least another minute, if the Church alone will step forward and fill the space that is blank. Let's do it. Raise your voice, live by faith and rely on God. Again.




http://michaeldtobin.blogspot.com/2016/01/tribal-ranchlands-state-run-media-and.html

Tribal & Ranchlands, State-Run media and 

Public Sentiments By: Michael Tobin


   It's amazing how many people are condemning them just the way the government and state run news wants them to.
  
  As reported Monday Jan. 4, 2015 by Bend Oregon NewsChannel 21, the closest television news station, an NBC affiliate,  to Burns, Oregon, "A member of the Central Oregon Constitutional Guard was back from Burns Monday, attending Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden's town hall meeting in Madras and urging him to visit Harney County and help defuse the protest by militia members who took over federal buildings."I'm concerned -- I'm truly concerned," B.J. Soper of Redmond told Wyden at a town hall meeting that drew a crowd of about 70.Soper told NewsChannel 21 he's well-acquainted with Dwight and Steve Hammond, the ranchers at the center of the dispute, and with the Bundys. He also said he spent weeks in Burns, preparing for Saturday's peaceful protest, unaware what would come next."  http://www.ktvz.com/news/burns-protest-leader-from-redmond-opposes-takeover/37265112?platform=hootsuite 
 Many news site commenters keep referring to themselves as against militias standing for property rights in Oregon, Nevada and past demonstrations and militias because they are
paying taxes and protesters are breaking the law. And they commonly repeat that the town of Burns, Oregon are mostly against the protesters. But NO, they want to quit paying FEDERAL taxes on state and Indian land in other states. It is the federal government granting contractors rights to frack on tribal lamds in other states. I want the federal government off your state lamd so I can stop paying for it. It's already been proven that nasty word, unconstitutional, and concerning the constant media reports of the town's unsattisfaction with neighboring and local militia presense, here is one man's report I saw on a supporters facebook, that refutes media reports:

  "i came to Burns Oregon to find out the truth...Now, im just laying here alone in my room taking in all I've learned ..what I can tell you is the media like we all have come to expect is lying...from my view anyway....as far back as 100miles where ever I ask...who ever I ask...all support the Hammond's and the Patriots !! as of yet I have not found a single soul that live in fear of the Patriots nor think the Hammond's guilty of anything...not a single one...but I did find that fear the media speak of so fast in regard to good men just trying to save our Nation...but that fear was not found against Patriots....I had Americans ...right here on American soil ..telling me of their support for the Bundy brothers and the Patriots that stand with them....in hushed voices...fearful that someone from the BLM might hear...wrap that around your minds people....a whole town bullied by the BLM! behold reality ! right here in the good ole USA...Americans speaking in hushed tones in public places...afraid of who in our gov of power might see...how did we allow this? how did we let it fall so far." Tim Davis 


  With the state running state property, state elected officials are less likely to burn their voters land, homes and livestock. And with state run land, state elected officials have no authority to grant contractors rights to mine, drill and frack on tribal lands. But that just makes too much sense and the US Constitution is too good to be true.

  Tribal leaders and all other militias from all other states all want federal OFF of state and tribal land. Why is the Federal government granting an Australian company mining rights on tribal lan in one state, and why is Federal government granting contractors rights to frack on Tribal land in yet another state? I think state militia and tribes have the same foe. And the US Constitution must be too good to be true, in some people's minds.

  So after reading so many mainstream media articles regarding the whole militia events and now, Tribal Indian concerns, I usually know it's all the same, that it's all being ignored by every Walking Eagle who ever occupied the Whitehouse. So now there are those from many other states demanding what the US Constitution says, and trying to get something done. If this succeeds, no doubt there will be a better deal for tribes and all property owners across the country whether it's in some neighborhood, ranch, farm or rural property. Like I said, we all have the same foe. And it's time they listen.

  It's a good thing there are news sources who don't report the way the state tells them to. Mainstream media should be seen as "state run media" as our own mainstream media likes to call Chinas, Russias and any other socialist countries news. They are all divided yet call for the same thing. redistribution of wealth, state owned land, and a Gestapo to enforce the government decrees. That all sounds pretty typical anti establishment lingo, but it's actually true. If people realized it, there's no way corporate news in the U.S. can actually report accurately, because heads roll, and many have and will bite the bullet for doing so. So they want to support their families and they want to live. That is why it's good to read books and do your own research. Sorry for the long speech but I think it's starting to sink in. Do you notice ALL of Oregon is in on this this year? And in 2014 the rest of Nevada could care less about their own citizens? The commonality is that honest and caring people from many states came to help. They left their families to help one family. That's pretty encouraging.


For the origins of the Bureau of Land Management what is the Constitutional Militia, and how they have exercised their obligations, select this link: 

Bureau Of Land Management (BLM) a British Company? Bunkerville, NV Range War


http://michaeldtobin.blogspot.com/2014/04/nevadafeds-beating-women-ranchers-range.html

Download my new book,

Making America Righteous-Again: From Bitterness To A Delight Kindle Edition

     http://www.amazon.com/Making-America-Righteous-Again-Bitterness-Delight-ebook/dp/B01A1JPHUC/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1451610171&sr=1-1&keywords=Michael+D.+Tobin

This book is not time sensitive, meaning that it will never lose it's relevance. In fact, it should be read to relate to any time now and in the future by students, instructors, new believers, non believers and seasoned laypersons. I also avoided listing current statistics that would just waste reading time and space, when we now have internet search capabilities to fulfill those purposes With that said, I think we can agree we all feel like the world is in a NASCAR race full of crashes, delays, cautions, pit-stops and even deaths. This race and all of its' madness has to stop, and I want a sense of peace. He leadeth us to still waters. 
There is an old saying, "the end results justify the means to achieve such results." 
The reason for my book title containing the word, "righteous", instead of greatness, is because it's a pun on Donald Trumps' Presidential campaign slogan, "Lets Make America Great Again." My point throughout this book is to show that righteousness is the means to achieve greatness. Therefore one does not become great in its' desired sense and definition without first becoming righteous. Also, America will never be great, unless the Church is great. I have compiled eleven years of my best essays relating to this books title, and one of them is from twenty-six years ago that I finally wrote in 2006. 
Here are the definitions of righteousness, and great: 
Righteousness: the quality or state of being just or rightful 
Great: wonderful first-rate; very good...


April 12, 2014

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

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?

Photo 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:


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
 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

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.

SpaceX VSFB HIGH N Southwest 012926

SpaceX VSFB HIGH N Southwest 012926  Southwesterly trajectory, but not as west as the previous. Today's launch was a beautiful, clear ...