professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413 
|
Post by professorx on Jan 8, 2023 4:43:25 GMT
In the late 1980s the Militia of Georgia was founded and it quickly became the oldest and most continuous civilian militia and is still in operation. Unlike the wannabe select militias the Militia of Georgia {MOG} organization was open to all American citizens. For those outside the state of Georgia they had U.S. Militias. The leadership went from the late 1980s until 1998 before electing an official state leadership. They were public until sometime in the 2000s. It has been said that the remaining members of that organization are now exploring the possibility of going public once again and recruiting for the inevitable dark days ahead.
If this could be done it would be a welcome blessing given what lies ahead. Their problem is that the Internet militias that are really discussion boards and websites forced the real militia out of business and have dispersed the militia into a faction of people content to bang their computers and talk big. Some of them even follow political pretenders that end up getting people in deep doo doo. We've seen this with people that followed the incorporated version of the Militia of Georgia all the way up to the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, and various groups that participated in the Jan. 6 rally a couple of years ago. The Militia of Georgia existed publicly for well over thirty years that we can account for. It was the biggest militia in the country and even with its size there was never an instance of a MOG member ever being arrested or jailed for any approved activity of the MOG organization.
Some may think that is all well and good if the MOG organization was effective. That is the point. They were effective. The MOG was into civilian border patrols until the wannabe organizations coalesced around the self proclaimed Minutemen. The Minutemen were exposed as Nazis and some went on to commit crimes like a mass shooting and even murder. As a matter of fact the MOG organization warned against this well in advance. Civilian militias were effective in border control before the Minutemen and the policies that the Minutemen up to Trump failed. Consider that as we continue.
MOG trained a number of people in a program called Specially Prepared Individuals for Key Events. That program was started by former Special Forces - CIA operatives and the militia members that completed that course were super survivalists and preppers with a lot of knowledge on a wide range of topics. That is why they need to make themselves publicly available. America is almost out of options at the ballot box and there are no longer any constitutionalists. It is the blind leading the blind in this country. At least give this thread a like if you agree with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by weaponoffreedom on Jan 14, 2023 23:10:50 GMT
I wonder.........who is the commander of the militias? And if commanded by one state commander per state, who would be the supreme commander of all militias?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jan 15, 2023 17:17:42 GMT
I wonder.........who is the commander of the militias? And if commanded by one state commander per state, who would be the supreme commander of all militias? Let me see if I can give you some background on constitutional militias: constitutionalmilitia.org/militia-defined-by-law/Having posted that, I served as the first elected militia C.O. of the MOG organization that was started in 1987. We worked for a decade building a legitimate structure and I personally spent months crisscrossing the state, going to survivalist and militia events to make sure everyone understood that we were forming and that an unorganized militia did not have to mean disorganized. Even being the peoples pick for the job, I always acknowledged that the governor could call up the militia and we'd be obligated to answer the call. The governor would be under no obligation to accept our designated leadership, but I never worried. If a system is in place, it is doubtful that anyone would call you up and then want to make drastic changes. The governor, in my opinion, would be the ultimate militia authority in the state unless the people were having to fight against a tyrannical government entity. When I was C.O. other militia commanders would be required to answer to me as the deciding authority for any actions. And, when the MOG organization operated in other states, we were subject to the militia commander of that state. I would surmise that if America were attacked and the military couldn't sufficiently defend us, your question would be answered by Congress. The Constitution provides that: " Congress shall have the power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..." (Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution) That covers internal wars from outside forces, but I would imagine your question goes to the heart of who is in charge when the excrement interacts with the electric oscillating device because the de facto federal government has declared war on its citizenry and suspended constitutional guarantees. In that instance, at the state level, I would rally around the most legitimate and proven state militia. If the situation were so dire as to be where we have no constitutional leadership at the federal level, it's going to end in who has the greatest support for an interim government. It's a very good question as we have sheriffs that refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws and we have sheriffs that will not enforce federal laws pursuant to the Printz decision. If a governor tried to force the sheriffs to do so, the governor would be in violation of the law. It would then fall on that state's militia C.O. to use the militia and respond. The feds are already in violation of the spirit as well as the intent of the laws. So, they have no de jure jurisdiction when trying to force compliance regarding unconstitutional laws. If the state of Illinois called upon me, I'd be subject to the militia in Illinois. I could not violate the Constitution by obeying unconstitutional directives from the feds. Sooo.... I don't know who the ultimate supreme commander of the militia would be. We did, in the past, support U.S. Militias. That organization set standards and basically answered that question by saying (basically) that the state militia C.O. in an affected state would be the final authority IF there were no legitimate government to oversee the militia. Does that help? |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Jan 15, 2023 23:07:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by weaponoffreedom on Jan 16, 2023 21:26:45 GMT
So I would suppose it would matter on who deemed the GOVT tyrannical.......seems up to conjecture to me. Copy on gutless sheriffs, as i think that to be a real problem in most areas. It is my understanding that the real power was to reside in the sheriff........but who can saw what "real" power is on this topic. I would suppose that the militia would be immediately unrecognized as an entity, upon self activation. Kind of like the difference between a patriot and terrorist, just depends on who's eye you are looking through.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jan 17, 2023 5:14:21 GMT
So I would suppose it would matter on who deemed the GOVT tyrannical.......seems up to conjecture to me. Copy on gutless sheriffs, as i think that to be a real problem in most areas. It is my understanding that the real power was to reside in the sheriff........but who can saw what "real" power is on this topic. I would suppose that the militia would be immediately unrecognized as an entity, upon self activation. Kind of like the difference between a patriot and terrorist, just depends on who's eye you are looking through. Nice try, but no cigar. I have thought about what you allude to. There is no conjecture to it. Thomas Jefferson gave us a good beginning point: " On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823 In my opinion the way to arrive at that is to allow the judiciary to do their job and NO MORE. Their first rulings are the law. The United States Supreme Court absolutely does not have the authority to over-rule their own decisions. That is called legislating from the bench. And yet we've allowed it. The United States Supreme Court is not empowered in the Constitution to delegate plenary powers to any other branch of government and yet they do it. The United States Supreme Court is not empowered to disobey the Constitution and yet they do it. The United States Supreme Court is not only over-ruling their own precedents, but they are delegating their work to regulatory agencies under a bizarre doctrine called Chevron deference. I could go on and on. So, how do we know when they've exceeded their authority? That should be a no brainer; however, it is a rhetorical question generally employed by those who have no intention of ever holding the government accountable. They fear the fight may be too hard to win. They never consider the alternative. The beginning point to knowing when the government is exceeding their rightful authority comes with The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man: www.usresisters.com/charter/We are at a point where the laws have been breached, misinterpreted, misapplied, denied, unconstitutionally rescinded and nullified to the point that a Free People have to define the limits and authority of constitutional government. I just shared the framework of that with you. |
|
|
|
Post by weaponoffreedom on Jan 17, 2023 12:26:24 GMT
Close to what? If "the militia" was activated by a local commander......for whatever reason ( we will say the reason was to combat tyranny)...........then I would guarantee there would be a GOVT entity, ordered to react to the activation. This would be called an insurrection, or at the extreme, a terrorist plot. We are at a point where the laws have been breached, misinterpreted, misapplied, denied, unconstitutionally rescinded and nullified to the point that a Free People have to define the limits and authority of constitutional government. I just shared the framework of that with you. I do not see the issue really being with the framework or what is legal...........I see the issue being with the person. I do not think that there are that many citizens today that would openly, and ardently "stay the course". Most would fold under a little pain and inconvienience. You have been proven this by the mask mandates and lockdowns. I support the idea of the militia, and wish their were more things that supported the idea, such as the CMP and the like. |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Jan 18, 2023 2:33:59 GMT
Close to what? If "the militia" was activated by a local commander......for whatever reason ( we will say the reason was to combat tyranny)...........then I would guarantee there would be a GOVT entity, ordered to react to the activation. This would be called an insurrection, or at the extreme, a terrorist plot. We are at a point where the laws have been breached, misinterpreted, misapplied, denied, unconstitutionally rescinded and nullified to the point that a Free People have to define the limits and authority of constitutional government. I just shared the framework of that with you. I do not see the issue really being with the framework or what is legal...........I see the issue being with the person. I do not think that there are that many citizens today that would openly, and ardently "stay the course". Most would fold under a little pain and inconvienience. You have been proven this by the mask mandates and lockdowns. I support the idea of the militia, and wish their were more things that supported the idea, such as the CMP and the like. IIRC the number of people that supported breaking ties with King George was around 4 or 5 percent. Quoting a founding father on this point. “It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” Samuel Adams You seem to want what those of us here want but don't believe in the cause because masses don't rush in and stand with us. You have to make the charter a part of your life and promote it. You have to believe in the duty we have to resist unconstitutional usurpation of authority. Unless we develop the right mindset we don't have much of a way of winning any battle be it political or legal or psychological for that matter. If you're right you have to know why you're right. You can't back down from it either. You've got to stand for something or you will fall for anything. NOTE: I tried to delete my reply because it didn't show up right the first time. It happens sometimes. By accident I deleted your other reply instead of my own. I apologize. Post it again and it will get a proper response. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jan 18, 2023 6:03:01 GMT
Close to what? If "the militia" was activated by a local commander......for whatever reason ( we will say the reason was to combat tyranny)...........then I would guarantee there would be a GOVT entity, ordered to react to the activation. This would be called an insurrection, or at the extreme, a terrorist plot. We are at a point where the laws have been breached, misinterpreted, misapplied, denied, unconstitutionally rescinded and nullified to the point that a Free People have to define the limits and authority of constitutional government. I just shared the framework of that with you. I do not see the issue really being with the framework or what is legal...........I see the issue being with the person. I do not think that there are that many citizens today that would openly, and ardently "stay the course". Most would fold under a little pain and inconvienience. You have been proven this by the mask mandates and lockdowns. I support the idea of the militia, and wish their were more things that supported the idea, such as the CMP and the like. I wonder if you considered the Second Amendment in light of your postings. What was the purpose of a Right to keep and bear Arms? James Madison wrote the Second Amendment. He was also a president and he nominated Justice Story to the United States Supreme Court. This is what Story wrote: “ The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Volume III Chapter XLIV: Amendments to the Constitution, p. 746, paragraph 1890 As to the intent of the law, it cannot be any plainer. That has to be the ultimate authority as to the meaning and intent. I don't know whether to focus on WHO would get to decide OR HOW we determine what constitutes a just cause to resist unconstitutional laws. Let us do a hypothetical: If the federal authorities went in and tried to over-rule the sheriffs in Illinois and compel them to enforce the BATFE gun regulations, the governor would be obligated to resist them and support the sheriffs. The governor could call upon the militia to assist him. IF the governor did not do his job and the feds were in violation of the law, the state's militia could then muster and respond. That state's militia could request the help of other state militias to assist. And, IF those states did respond, the chain of command is the host state's militia leadership and then the governor provided that the governor was enforcing constitutional law. I'm hesitant to say that a governor can compel the "National" Guard to oppose the federal government since the NG gets federal funding. I've not researched them, but they might be under federal jurisdiction instead of the state in such a dispute. I can't say, having never actually been involved in a case where that was an issue. Beyond that, nobody has thought that far ahead as to what happens when the government becomes tyrannical and the people must act. What other country ever had a functioning government after a de facto government went to war against its citizenry? The real issue is that if you do not oppose tyranny, then you submit to it. There are no other choices. I can explain to you how we know if that is the question. |
|
|
|
Post by weaponoffreedom on Jan 18, 2023 10:51:12 GMT
I agree..........
|
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Jan 18, 2023 23:09:06 GMT
Okay curiosity killed the cat but how do we know when the government has gone too far? How do we really know what is constitutional and when we should act?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jan 19, 2023 4:50:11 GMT
Okay curiosity killed the cat but how do we know when the government has gone too far? How do we really know what is constitutional and when we should act? This is very difficult since it is so easy to demagogue the answers. Most people know (if they study diligently) WHAT an unalienable Right is and WHO grants them WHEN they were granted WHERE it comes from and HOW to start the process of reclaiming / protecting them. Let's use gun Rights as the perfect example. The Declaration of Independence is the birth certificate of America. It presupposes the Rights that each of us was born with The Second Amendment is the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence The earliest court decisions ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, pre-existing, inherent, absolute, irrevocable, God given, unalienable Right that is above the lawmaking power Both the author of the Second Amendment as well as the United States Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story (that the author, James Madison, nominated to the high Court), told us in unequivocal language what the meaning of the Second Amendment is all about The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment was passed, supposedly to give blacks some nonexistent right to vote (sic.) It did no such thing. What it did was to create two classes of citizens (and that is no conspiracy theory as it was taught to me in a formal law school.) Preamble Citizens retained their God given Rights under the Bill of Rights; Fourteenth Amendment citizens have privileges and immunities as doled out by the government. When you claim your Rights, you must proclaim that you are a Preamble Citizen OR you must grovel at the feet of the government for your privileges and immunities as the government sees fit. They may call them " rights," but they are privileges the government bestows upon you The CURRENT court cases say that the federal government " incorporated" the Bill of Rights into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. What that means is that the grantor of your rights (sic) is the government whereas the Declaration of Independence says that your Creator bestowed upon you " certain unalienable Rights." It is important that you know where your Rights come from Today the government is banning certain features and requiring people to register other weapons. Back in the day they thought it would be okay to fill out a Form 4473 and purchase the weapon. The government said it wasn't a registration document, but now we know better. And the government is going to use those Form 4473s to find out who is in compliance with their mandates. They will tax the people, ask for more registration information, and force the gun owners to agree to terms that they won't even bother to read. All of it is designed to serve as start to confiscation and the current Pretender in Chief, Joe Biden, is not bothering to sugar coat it. He is promising to take the firearms! When the objective is to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, then the action is wholly unconstitutional. That does not mean that the United States Supreme Court sees it that way. The high Court refuses to look at how unconstitutional laws and amendments were illegally ratified / passed into law. The average American lives in a state of denial. They want to argue the communist viewpoint that no Right is absolute. Then they apply their meaning to the word and / or a dictionary definition. NEITHER are correct in the context of legal language. We don't get to determine what the word absolute means. It was determined by the courts that interpreted the word for their earliest interpretations of our Rights. Furthermore, subsequent courts had NO authority to reinterpret their own rulings. Let's face it. We live in FEAR - False Evidence Appearing Real. I do not have a single critic that can show you, in the Constitution, ANY sentence that remotely gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to reinterpret the decisions they previously made. We do know what George Washington warned of along those lines: " If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES Okay, that is enough for now. Does anyone want me to continue along those lines? |
|
|
|
Post by weaponoffreedom on Jan 21, 2023 2:12:47 GMT
Okay curiosity killed the cat but how do we know when the government has gone too far? How do we really know what is constitutional and when we should act? I am sure that this answer will be met with opposition. There is no right or wrong answer
"when should WE act"
The short answer is there is no "WE". I think that in these hypothetical times, the answer resides in the individual. I am sure that my limits are different than some others, it is the nature of things.
My answer to this question is:...........Enough is enough when "I" say it is. When the uncomfortability, of the situation becomes too great to bear, when I am faced with a situation that I do not think I could stand, morally, and the like.
I suppose the question also poses a question as to "when is it a righteous act". I find this version of the question to be more important and valueble. I reckon that if it is truly righteous, then most would agree........the legal and or historical answer to this is irrelevant, because, you would be fighting against the system, and the system would not concede to your point of view.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 413
|
Post by professorx on Jan 21, 2023 4:48:10 GMT
Okay curiosity killed the cat but how do we know when the government has gone too far? How do we really know what is constitutional and when we should act? I am sure that this answer will be met with opposition. There is no right or wrong answer
"when should WE act"
The short answer is there is no "WE". I think that in these hypothetical times, the answer resides in the individual. I am sure that my limits are different than some others, it is the nature of things.
My answer to this question is:...........Enough is enough when "I" say it is. When the uncomfortability, of the situation becomes too great to bear, when I am faced with a situation that I do not think I could stand, morally, and the like.
I suppose the question also poses a question as to "when is it a righteous act". I find this version of the question to be more important and valueble. I reckon that if it is truly righteous, then most would agree........the legal and or historical answer to this is irrelevant, because, you would be fighting against the system, and the system would not concede to your point of view.
If you are looking for throngs of people to suddenly stand up and fight for what it is right then you are right. There is no we. If you try to take on the system on your own it is a suicide mission with no benefit to be had. What have you witnessed in the last few decades if you are old enough to know about the history of patriots? The right was winning the political and legal wars in the 1990s and were flipped by the left after 9-11. Since that time we have not tried to solve our problems with a constitutional solution. The closest is the fair tax thing which is a joke. If the republicans pass it in the house the senate will vote it down or lying Biden will refuse to sign it into law and it will die. There are steps all of us can take and then determine we have done all we can. Then a few people stand together and all row the boat in the same direction. Government agencies are cowards and they won't attack when there is even the smallest degree of legally constituted resistance. It was put to me another way. What has to happen before you would help someone you don't even know and put your life on the line to defend their rights? You cannot tell me that there are not people who think like that. There were quite a few before the media created the Minutemen as they called them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jan 21, 2023 11:00:49 GMT
Okay curiosity killed the cat but how do we know when the government has gone too far? How do we really know what is constitutional and when we should act? I am sure that this answer will be met with opposition. There is no right or wrong answer
"when should WE act" The short answer is there is no "WE". I think that in these hypothetical times, the answer resides in the individual. I am sure that my limits are different than some others, it is the nature of things. My answer to this question is:...........Enough is enough when "I" say it is. When the uncomfortability, of the situation becomes too great to bear, when I am faced with a situation that I do not think I could stand, morally, and the like. I suppose the question also poses a question as to "when is it a righteous act". I find this version of the question to be more important and valueble. I reckon that if it is truly righteous, then most would agree........the legal and or historical answer to this is irrelevant, because, you would be fighting against the system, and the system would not concede to your point of view.
I want to give you a response and do it in two parts. It's a modified version of my usual spiel. That way if you see no immediate value in the first part, you won't bother with the second installment... but if you do find value, you should use this and get behind it. Thomas Jefferson said two things along these lines that we need to consider: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence AND " The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild (sic), and government to gain ground". - The Quotable Jefferson History is cyclical and we all know that our Republic has run its course. So, I know that we are about to start over in the grand scheme of things. I also know that you don't need large armies to get things done. You need dedicated people. Jesus changed the world with twelve apostles. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, you cannot deny his influence... and he didn't have an army. It took 56 men to sign the Declaration of Independence and wage war against the world's superpower - and defeat that superpower. At the other end of the spectrum, Hitler started out with a few guys drinking in a pub and took a country no larger than the state of Texas and almost took on the world. My point is, there is a " we" and it may not be as strong or big as you like, but it is there. The blacks in America constituted less than 13 percent of the population in the 1950s. With the help of some influential financiers, they were able to force feed a lie down the throats of the American people and now have more control over America than the Posterity of the founders and framers of this country. It's near impossible to stand up to the outrageous lies from the 1619 Project and their political action arm BLM. Let's also throw in the support from the ADL, SPLC, NAACP, antifa along with the liberal news and entertainment media. All of that control yet they were a statistical minority a few decades ago. The reality is, the challenges we face today can be won. Our forefathers went from Declaration of Independence to functioning Constitution in eleven years. They didn't have cell phones, television, radio or the Internet. If you were to check YouTube right now you would find hundreds of videos regarding the brace ban on pistols. Add a few more for the bump stock ban that Trump gave us - oh wait, we won that one. How many people are tired of the government with regards to immigration? And how many people that were tired of the B.S. are now criminals due to the Jan. 6 rally? How many of them are genuinely pissed off and wanting to continue being patriots? Do you think that their convictions for pretend crimes will make them see the light and become pabulum puking liberals? I contend there is a " we" out there. If you want the rest of my spiel, it comes up next... |
|
