# Militia Members Arrested in Southern Michigan



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Apparently a group called "Hutaree," arrested today.

http://hutaree.com/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ests-point-to-tripling-of-militias-since-2008



> Federal authorities say the Hutaree started to conduct military-style training in Michigans Lenawee County in August 2008.
> After debating different scenarios, the group decided upon killing a local law enforcement official and attacking the subsequent funeral procession, the indictment says. The indictment says the Hutaree planned to use improvised explosive devices and explosively formed projectiles that, authorities say, qualify as weapons of mass destruction.
> The group accelerated training in February and March with plans to carry out the attack in April, the indictment states.



This is so not good.  I thought we were done with these militia groups.

Here's one of their YouTube Videos:


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

Done?  With group lunacy in humans?

Bill... c'mon, man


----------



## Omar B (Mar 29, 2010)

Just saw this on MSNBC.  Gotta love those nutjobs.  Who wants to hurt the men and women out there actually protecting us.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> Done?  With group lunacy in humans?
> 
> Bill... c'mon, man



Group lunacy, no.  That goes hand-in-hand with the human condition.  But I thought we were perhaps past these domestic terrorists.  After OKC and then 9/11, the crazies went pretty much underground or otherwise got on with their lives.  What now?  Are we in for another spate of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Justice Township and whatever else the loonies can come up with and the federal government can ham-handedly make martyrs of?


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 29, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Just saw this on MSNBC. Gotta love those nutjobs. Who wants to hurt the men and women out there actually protecting us.


 A nut job by any other name, to paraphrase WS.  I've known a few "militia" types in the past.  Some where very serious about the Constitution and protecting the rights there-in but most were utter and complete asshats who just wanted an excuse to drink beer, shoot weapons and belong to a "super secret" group.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Group lunacy, no. That goes hand-in-hand with the human condition. But I thought we were perhaps past these domestic terrorists. After OKC and then 9/11, the crazies went pretty much underground or otherwise got on with their lives. What now? Are we in for another spate of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Justice Township and whatever else the loonies can come up with and the federal government can ham-handedly make martyrs of?


 
I dunno...everything is cyclic.  i'm sure we'll have a few groups that think they can make a run at the gov't.  If not now, then later.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

theletch1 said:


> A nut job by any other name, to paraphrase WS.  I've known a few "militia" types in the past.  Some where very serious about the Constitution and protecting the rights there-in but most were utter and complete asshats who just wanted an excuse to drink beer, shoot weapons and belong to a "super secret" group.



Yeah, I've seen those types also.  Even seen some of the 'drill' on films and so on.  Not impressed.  The videos made by these guys seem to indicate that their members are at least physically fit and well-armed.  Didn't see any beer guts or hunting rifles, although I did see what looked like a Pomeranian pooch running alongside one of them.  Weird that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

Will we see calls for the eight detained alleged terrorists to be tortured so that we can catch the ninth on the run?  Or just to show them that we mean business?

Somehow I don't think so.


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Will we see calls for the eight detained alleged terrorists to be tortured so that we can catch the ninth on the run?  Or just to show them that we mean business?
> 
> Somehow I don't think so.



Maybe not.  

But its great to see you back with us, Dr. Hands.    You've been missed.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Will we see calls for the eight detained alleged terrorists to be tortured so that we can catch the ninth on the run? Or just to show them that we mean business?
> 
> Somehow I don't think so.


 
How many people have they killed so far?  How many millions of dollars do they have in their account?  How many members do they have?  What does their infrastructure look like?  How many people, in how many countries, do they have cheering their efforts?  How many people have joined their cause as a result of this arrest?

Context is kind of important.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> But its great to see you back with us, Dr. Hands.    You've been missed.



Thanks Carol.  I needed a sanity break.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Context is kind of important.



Indeed.  The supposed liquid bomb plot that has resulted in our completely awesome 3oz or less TSA policy was a fantasy, and never could have worked in real life.  Yet the TSA regs remain.  In the case of waterboarding, all the relevant military and intelligence experts told us that the torture would produce no useful data.  Yet the torture occurred anyway, and was repeatedly called for.  Most of the way people think about the War on Terror and our reactions to it are emotional, not from a place of reasoning and context.

Which is why Scott Roeder, these 9 idiots, and others like them will all get their day in court, none will be waterboarded, none will be sent to Gitmo, none will be held indefinitely without charges.  Because they are white and Christian, their terrorism doesn't freak out the nation into treating them like they want us to treat everyone else.

Hell, some of the War on Terror's biggest hawks find it easy to sympathize with terror when they don't like the terrorists' target: "Yeah, theyve been pretty brutal in Chechnya and *in some ways  have brought this, Ive got to say, on themselves*." - Bill Kristol


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2010)

Nope, they're still around.  Some have cloaked themselves in a mantle of legitimacy (some of the Minutemen groups), others have been less visible.  They're all still out there... along with white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and the rest.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Indeed. The supposed liquid bomb plot that has resulted in our completely awesome 3oz or less TSA policy was a fantasy, and never could have worked in real life. Yet the TSA regs remain.


 
Yeah, I don't know what to tell you about that one.  'parently, our government knows as much about science as it does about healthcare.   



Empty Hands said:


> In the case of waterboarding, all the relevant military and intelligence experts told us that the torture would produce no useful data. Yet the torture occurred anyway, and was repeatedly called for. Most of the way people think about the War on Terror and our reactions to it are emotional, not from a place of reasoning and context.


 
Yes, I'm aware that all the pertinent studies have shown that torture doesn't work.  I'm also aware that KSM, one of the handful of prisoners on whom it has been done, has given huge amounts of information to his handlers.  But he probably intended to do that anyway, so no doubt they were just torturing him for the hyuks.  That's really sad.  



Empty Hands said:


> Which is why Scott Roeder, these 9 idiots, and others like them will all get their day in court, none will be waterboarded, none will be sent to Gitmo, none will be held indefinitely without charges. Because they are white and Christian, their terrorism doesn't freak out the nation into treating them like they want us to treat everyone else.



They won't get waterboarded because they don't know ****, and even if they did they would readily give it all up because they are soft Americans from BFE, Michigan.  I for one don't think they've got information about an impending dirty nuke attack.  It's not because they're white and Christian, it's because I don't believe they have the brains to successfully blow their nose.  Maybe if they had a few televised decapitations under their belts I would think differently, but it's just funny to hear the same people who scoff about the "so-called war on terror" all of a sudden go "ZOMG, teh Christians are coming" whenever a gang of Cletuses (Cleti?) get rounded up.



Empty Hands said:


> Hell, some of the War on Terror's biggest hawks find it easy to sympathize with terror when they don't like the terrorists' target: "Yeah, theyve been pretty brutal in Chechnya and *in some ways have brought this, Ive got to say, on themselves*." - Bill Kristol


 
Well, now I'm confused because all this time people have been saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves, so which is it?  FWIW, I don't agree with Kristol.  I think Russia should have been much firmer in Chechnya, especially after Beslan.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

'Cletusae'


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> 'Cletusae'



Gesundheit.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Yes, I'm aware that all the pertinent studies have shown that torture doesn't work.  I'm also aware that KSM, one of the handful of prisoners on whom it has been done, has given huge amounts of information to his handlers.  But he probably intended to do that anyway, so no doubt they were just torturing him for the hyuks.  That's really sad.



Lynndie England and her buddies did do it for the hyuks, apparently.  I have no idea why KSM was waterboarded 183 times (after he had supposedly given up all this info, not to mention the government lied and claimed it was 3 times).  For the laughs is as good an explanation as any.



CoryKS said:


> They won't get waterboarded because they don't know ****, and even if they did they would readily give it all up because they are soft Americans from BFE, Michigan.  I for one don't think they've got information about an impending dirty nuke attack.  It's not because they're white and Christian, it's because I don't believe they have the brains to successfully blow their nose.  Maybe if they had a few televised decapitations under their belts I would think differently, but it's just funny to hear the same people who scoff about the "so-called war on terror" all of a sudden go "ZOMG, teh Christians are coming" whenever a gang of Cletuses (Cleti?) get rounded up.



It's a "so called" War on Terror because the "Terror" is being defined incredibly selectively, in a way that flatters American interests and prejudices.  Underwear Bomber didn't know **** (and gave up what little he knew without torture), the Kool-Aid Bombers were dumber than a box of hammers, and I know it's crazy, but Islamic terrorism does encompass many groups and different people.  Some of whom would as soon kill each other as you and me.  So torturing Underwear Bomber to find out the (laughable) nuclear plans of a bunch of dusty cave dwellers in Pakistan makes as much sense as torturing our Militia friends.  In other words, it doesn't make any sense at all.  Yet the Militia terrorists will be treated as criminals, which is a horrible travesty when it is applied to Islamic terrorists.  You explain it.



CoryKS said:


> Well, now I'm confused because all this time people have been saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves, so which is it?



Come now, don't be obtuse.  Kristol and the war hawks like him broadly condemned any attempt at "explanation" or "understanding" of Islamic terrorism.  When some in this country said we brought it on ourselves, that made them insane, foolish traitors.  Yet, suddenly, when Russia is the target of terrorists, Kristol finds understanding for the motives of terrorists.

IOW, none of the arguments made by those like Kristol were made in good faith.  They were made to advance their political interests, and to go to war against people they don't like.  There was not a shred of principle among them.  That is why people like me think the War on Terror is a sham.

If it wasn't, the right would be calling for those like these Militiamen to be treated the same way they wanted Islamic terrorists treated.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 29, 2010)

Although I think that some of these organizations are composed of yokels, I find it interesting that people here ignore the fact that many of the people that helped establish this country were "militiamen".  They fought in defiance of a what they considered a tyrannical government.  Some were even considered terrorists.

How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Although I think that some of these organizations are composed of yokels, I find it interesting that people here ignore the fact that many of the people that helped establish this country were "militiamen". They fought in defiance of a what they considered a tyrannical government. Some were even considered terrorists.


 
Ever notice how long it took the country to put together a system to prevent that sorta thing from easily happening again?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....



Are you ****ing kidding me?  They planned on killing a policeman, and then ambushing the funeral procession.  Which, presumably, would include any recently widowed spouses and parentless children.  You're goddamned right I'll be quick to judge that little plan.

You want to run around the woods, hate Democrats, and talk about freedom?  Knock yourself out.  But don't pretend that makes you the defender of freedom when it comes time to attack a funeral procession, you cowardly ****s.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Are you ****ing kidding me? They planned on killing a policeman, and then ambushing the funeral procession. Which, presumably, would include any recently widowed spouses and parentless children. You're goddamned right I'll be quick to judge that little plan.
> 
> You want to run around the woods, hate Democrats, and talk about freedom? Knock yourself out. But don't pretend that makes you the defender of freedom when it comes time to attack a funeral procession, you cowardly ****s.


 
What I'm referring to is the overall theme that these discussions are taking, not this particular group. In this and the thread "Government to Silence, Tax, and and Infiltrate all Dissident Groups", we see the continued and derogatory malignment of "militia groups". Understand, some of those people come from the same line of thinking of some of the Founders, whether you choose to believe it or not. And the fact that during the Revolutionary War, similar acts as were planned here actually occurred. 

You talk about "understanding" the motivation of Islamic terrorists, but you won't give the same courtesy to people in this country who are affected by the similar issues.

Question: At what point are you going to actually stand up to the government that continues to ignore your wishes, take your rights away, and taxes you without representation (sound familiar)? The question is rhetorical, as it is up to you to judge your own limitations. Though I may not condone their actions, I certainly do understand their sentiment.  Politcally, not religiously.

BTW, I am sure that "militia" groups hate the steady encroachment of the Republican on their rights, just as much as they hate the Democrats. Some of these groups may be right wing politically, but its not like the Republican party of today is "right-wing" either.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

Personally, 5-0, I think if you're going to speak in generalities, you might want to use less inflammatory phrases than "_How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....". _Particularly in thread speaking specifically of people planning rather dastardly actions.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 29, 2010)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> Personally, 5-0, I think if you're going to speak in generalities, you might want to use less inflammatory phrases than "_How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....". _Particularly in thread speaking specifically of people planning rather dastardly actions.


 
Fair enough.  I guess I'm just getting tired of people accusing all classially liberal groups who have guns as being militia groups full of racist, sexist, seccesionist, "neo-Confederate", etc, just because they have the gall to physically challenge the government for violating what they see as their very clear rights.  After all, it was within the rights of the King of England to do what he did to the colonies, but we rebelled against that.  The question is why aren't we castigating the Founders like we are doing the militias *for doing the exact same thing.*


Hence the "how quick to judge" comment, which, admittedly, could have been stated a better way.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

Perhaps building a thread to address that perception might be in order.

Again, your wording here is highly confrontational and could lead to some very harsh comments.

Personally, I agree that we should not let the government have as much power as they do and it should be confronted; however, I do not, IN ANY WAY condone the actions or plans of the group being discussed in this thread.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 29, 2010)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> Perhaps building a thread to address that perception might be in order.
> 
> Again, your wording here is highly confrontational and could lead to some very harsh comments.
> 
> Personally, I agree that we should not let the government have as much power as they do and it should be confronted; however, I do not, IN ANY WAY condone the actions or plans of the group being discussed in this thread.


 
As I said, I do not condone the tactics utilized by this group. But this thread begs the question as to what to do when the government oversteps its bounds and tramples upon people's rights. Even to the point where our so-called elected senators / representatives / President have said that they don't have to listen, and consequently don't. And now they hold us, and by every state and local government, hostage financially and physically. There is no point in voting with the feet, because this is happening in every state.

Sure my comments are confrontational.  But only in the realms of ideas, not personal conflict.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 29, 2010)

I'm just trying to keep it civil.  I'd hate to see a flame war erupt.

This is obviously a very serious and sensitive topic.  Perhaps 'The Great Debate' might be a particularly good spot to discuss it?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Although I think that some of these organizations are composed of yokels, I find it interesting that people here ignore the fact that many of the people that helped establish this country were "militiamen".  They fought in defiance of a what they considered a tyrannical government.  Some were even considered terrorists.
> 
> How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....


There is a difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary or patriot or fifth-columnist, whatever you wish to call them.

The terrorist targets innocent victims, primarily selecting their targets for the terror that their actions will inflict.  The patriot/revolutionary selects targets of military value... and avoids targeting innocents.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As I said, I do not condone the tactics utilized by this group. But this thread begs the question as to what to do when the government oversteps its bounds and tramples upon people's rights. Even to the point where our so-called elected senators / representatives / President have said that they don't have to listen, and consequently don't. And now they hold us, and by every state and local government, hostage financially and physically. There is no point in voting with the feet, because this is happening in every state.
> 
> Sure my comments are confrontational.  But only in the realms of ideas, not personal conflict.



_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,  that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,  that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That  to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving  their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any  form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of  the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,  laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in  such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and  happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long  established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and  accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to  suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by  abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train  of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a  design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it  is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards  for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of  these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to  alter their former systems of government. The history of the present  King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,  all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny  over these states. _  (emphasis mine)​The question has been answered by men who have been proven to be wiser than me.  However, it is very much worth paying attention to the bolded phrase, and noting that it precedes the underlined phrase.  Throwing of the government of England was not something the Founding Fathers did lightly, or without making many attempts to obtain redress through the normal channels before they revolted.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Although I think that some of these organizations are composed of yokels, I find it interesting that people here ignore the fact that many of the people that helped establish this country were "militiamen".  They fought in defiance of a what they considered a tyrannical government.  Some were even considered terrorists.
> 
> How quick to judge.... especially against mostly people who haven't hurt anyone....



I think most are judging the barking nutters out there like McVeigh and the loons they just arrested. You don't really come across as patriotic or a freedom fighter when your plan is to just randomly attack policemen or an office building. 

The term you tend to draw then is "terrorist". They're only revolutionaries when they win.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 30, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> There is a difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary or patriot or fifth-columnist, whatever you wish to call them.
> 
> The terrorist targets innocent victims, primarily selecting their targets for the terror that their actions will inflict. The patriot/revolutionary selects targets of military value... and avoids targeting innocents.


 
Do you really believe that. Was Mao a patriot when he destroyed villages in China? What about the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution. Or the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Patriots all, at least in their minds. 

That's easy to say when you're the winner writing the history.

As far as the U.S. Revolutionary War:

Look up the Schenectady massacre.

Look up Charles Lynch (for whom lyncing is allegedly named) for his "extra judicial" actions during the Civil War. 

Let's not begin to discuss the U.S. Civil War, during which "patriots" of both sides committed atrocities.

Besides which, what are the police but the "combat arms" section of the executive branches of state governments. They are the proverbial "security forces" of the United States government. They are, despite what many may think, a legitimate "military" target. 



> The question has been answered by men who have been proven to be wiser than me. However, it is very much worth paying attention to the bolded phrase, and noting that it precedes the underlined phrase. Throwing of the government of England was not something the Founding Fathers did lightly, or without making many attempts to obtain redress through the normal channels before they revolted.


 
Do you think that others did take their revolutions lightly?  

What makes you think that the American "militias" are taking their revolution lightly?

I would add more, but I have to get to work. Just some stuff to think about.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Fair enough.  I guess I'm just getting tired of people accusing all classially liberal groups who have guns as being militia groups full of racist, sexist, seccesionist, "neo-Confederate", etc, just because they have the gall to physically challenge the government for violating what they see as their very clear rights.  After all, it was within the rights of the King of England to do what he did to the colonies, but we rebelled against that.  The question is why aren't we castigating the Founders like we are doing the militias *for doing the exact same thing.*



Because they won.

Had they not won, then everybody would know that a handful of traitors had tried to overthrow her Majesties government in the North American colonies, and were rightly hung, drawn and quartered for high treason, just like Guy Fawkes.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Besides which, what are the police but the "combat arms" section of the executive branches of state governments. They are the proverbial "security forces" of the United States government. They are, despite what many may think, a legitimate "military" target.



The police are keepers of the peace, who signed up to try and make the world a slightly better place to live in. Not all of them probably, but enough of them.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> What makes you think that the American "militias" are taking their revolution lightly?



As long as you can vote and determine the outcome, there is little need to revolution, because without a majority of support for a revolution, all you are doing is shooting the country to bits and destroying an entire economy without having anything to replace it with.

Without a majority support, the American founders would have failed as well. But they had a legitimate grudge against their government, they had no non-violent options to affect change, and they had the support of the population. These militias having nothing like that except a grudge which may or may not be valid.

If an American militia is really aiming for revolution in the current US context (where votes still determine the government) then they are 3 tomatoes short of a salad.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2010)

Is this really about revolution?  Or is this more about power and attention?  

Do these nutjobs have more in common with the Lackawanna 6?  Or the KKK?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 30, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> The police are keepers of the peace, who signed up to try and make the world a slightly better place to live in. Not all of them probably, but enough of them.
> [/quote}
> 
> I understand what the police are. I am one, after all.
> ...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> First, your premise is dependent upon the fact that a person's vote can determine the outcome. I will tell you that in California, my vote in the past couple of elections for President would not have determined anything (thank you electoral college). Even still, as I stated before, those who are supposed to represent us have literally told us that they will do what they want, despite the will of the people.



The EC was invented by the founders. It is a states right issue.
Texas does the same. I think the EC should at least be split according to the voting percentages, but Texas and California would have to do it at the same time or either the dems or the reps will get a huge advantage.
Regardless of that, federally speaking the president is still chosen by majority vote.




5-0 Kenpo said:


> This is just not true. You don't need *majority* support. You need *enough* support. This does not mean that you have to have at least 51% of the population supporting you, at least in the initial stages of the revolution.



Well, but suppose one of these militias has oodles of firepower and manages to disrupt the government. They are a tiny minority. Hence even if they would succeed, the result would be even worse tyranny.

This is why I think it is a good idea that the 2nd amendment is not presently covering tanks, missiles, WMD and other things. If there is a legitimate need to overthrow the government, there will be enough grassroots support that you can win by numbers and by taking control of infrastructure.

If a militia doesn't have support and they are a tiny fringe group, _then _ they'd need uber firepower. But in that case, they are just terrorists because the majority of the governed are ok with the current situation.

You are still allowed to create your own political party, right? So you can start taking control at local level, and work your way up to national level. The election process is still adhered to. Sure, it is a lot of work, but as long as you are not able to drum up support for your cause, any alternative approach like a violent revolution is destined towards failure as well.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Group lunacy, no. That goes hand-in-hand with the human condition. But I thought we were perhaps past these domestic terrorists. After OKC and then 9/11, the crazies went pretty much underground or otherwise got on with their lives. What now? Are we in for another spate of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Justice Township and whatever else the loonies can come up with and the federal government can ham-handedly make martyrs of?


 

We deal alot with Michigan Militia in our county.  They did use to be alot more noticeable in the past.  Now if you go to their website, they promote themselves as kind of a community action group.  If you didn't know what they stood for and what they do, looking at their website it would seem they are a good group of people to hang out with.

Any group is always going to have the fringe members that take everything to an extreme.  Luckily, in this case they were caught before they could carry  out their plans.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What I'm referring to is the overall theme that these discussions are taking, not this particular group.



I see, thank you for clarifying.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Understand, some of those people come from the same line of thinking of some of the Founders, whether you choose to believe it or not. And the fact that during the Revolutionary War, similar acts as were planned here actually occurred.



I know they see themselves that way, but such a belief is delusional.  There is no comparison.  First, the militia movement as a whole is rife with antisemitism and racism.  Common tropes include the coming race wars, and the Turner Diaries as literature.  The movement as a whole is infested with the belief of the Zionist Occupied Government.  Many are also obsessed with white racial purity and similar racist concerns.  

As for their "arguments", if they knew even a little history, there is also no comparison.  They think they are unrepresented?  Only propertied white males could vote when the US was established.  Senators were not elected by the people until the 20th century.  It was up to the states to decide if the people elected the President as well.  The US used to be ruled by elite money far more than it is today, and it is ruled by elite money today as well.

They think they are taxed?  Taxes are lower now than at any time since the early 20th century.  The top rate was above 90% during the Eisenhower administration.

They think their rights are curtailed?  John Adams, you know one of those Sainted founders, put newspaper editors _in jail_ when they criticized him.  Jackson ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court.  Lincoln suspended _habeas corpus_ as a wartime exigency.  Roosevelt put all the Japanese Americans in detention camps during WWII.  If the militia had any sense, they would know they are in a record time of prosperity, respect for rights, lack of corruption (yes, it's true), representation and even fairly low taxes.

But none of this knowledge fits their preconceived fantasies and flatters their egos, so it is ignored.  So I don't spend a lot of time taking their self-flattery that they are just like the founders seriously.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> You talk about "understanding" the motivation of Islamic terrorists, but you won't give the same courtesy to people in this country who are affected by the similar issues.



I speak of understanding Islamic terrorists because it is smart military strategy.  Know what your opponent will do, know why, know what you can do to undermine him and his support.  Know what you can do to remove the grievance so no one else feels compelled to die.  I would understand the militias for the same reason, as indeed I do.  I've read a lot on the movement, from former members, interested outsiders, infiltrators and the like.  



5-0 Kenpo said:


> BTW, I am sure that "militia" groups hate the steady encroachment of the Republican on their rights, just as much as they hate the Democrats. Some of these groups may be right wing politically, but its not like the Republican party of today is "right-wing" either.



They know who their allies are in the mainstream, where the sympathies lie.  They are not stupid.  They excoriate the Republicans for not going far enough.  Before the Southern Strategy, those with similar political beliefs knew where their sympathies lay with the Democratic Party.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2010)

In my opinion, anyone who bases a justification for armed insurrection or revolution in the USA on the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers needs to ask themselves one critical question.

Are we still capable as citizens of changing our circumstances?

That is, can we still vote the bums out?  Do elected representatives refuse to leave office if they are not re-elected?

If the answer is yes, that we still possess the power of the ballot box, then there is no justifiable excuse for insurrection or revolution.  Our system cannot be called oppressive or despotic or a cruel regime while we still possess the power to change things completely.

The fact that many of us are not happy with our elected representatives or the direction our nation is headed is simply not the same as saying that we as citizens have lost control of our nation.  It's saying that we don't like what's happening, but we can't seem to muster majority support to change things.  That's just too frickin' bad.  And I say that as one who does think we're going the wrong direction, one who is not happy with our elected representatives.

We get the government we vote for.  If they displease us and we still keep re-electing them, then shame on us.  If some minority (like me) thinks things are horrible, then our job is convince our fellow citizens to vote the bums out.  If we can't manage to do that, then too bad, so sad, move on.

Revolution is for when the government no longer responds to the people.  What we're seeing now is a government that makes a lot of people angry, but which still rules by law and can be voted out at the end of their respective terms.  Vote or shut up.  Picking up a weapon and declaring war on our government while we still possess the power of the ballot box makes a person a traitor, IMHO.


----------



## crushing (Mar 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is so not good. I thought we were done with these militia groups.


 
They have been around the whole time, what has changed is the leadership of the executive branch.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 30, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Will we see calls for the eight detained alleged terrorists to be tortured so that we can catch the ninth on the run? Or just to show them that we mean business?
> 
> Somehow I don't think so.


 
Would it be cruel and unusual punishment or torture to make them watch Congress in session over and over on a repeat loop?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> As I said, I do not condone the tactics utilized by this group. But this thread begs the question as to what to do when the government oversteps its bounds and tramples upon people's rights. Even to the point where our so-called elected senators / representatives / President have said that they don't have to listen, and consequently don't. And now they hold us, and by every state and local government, hostage financially and physically. There is no point in voting with the feet, because this is happening in every state.
> 
> Sure my comments are confrontational. But only in the realms of ideas, not personal conflict.


 
Do you mean like the response that came about from 9-11-2001?

I said I did not like what the government was doing then. I was called a traitor and communist and democrat and other terms meant as insults as I did not want to give up my freedoms and rights for perceived safety. 

I agree what can we do against the government? I know I can call and complain. I can vote for different people. 

But the general population was in knee jerk reaction and they took away rights. 

Now, that a different party is in control people are upset with them taking the next step or continuing the implementation of the last party for our safety or just because. 

This is not meant as anything personal. Just me commenting and asking questions.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 30, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. _(emphasis mine)​The question has been answered by men who have been proven to be wiser than me. However, it is very much worth paying attention to the bolded phrase, and noting that it precedes the underlined phrase. Throwing of the government of England was not something the Founding Fathers did lightly, or without making many attempts to obtain redress through the normal channels before they revolted.


 
JKS,

I agree wiser men did decide. But, for us to do it again would be considered treason until you won.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> But, to lump in all "militia" groups into similar categories is disingenuous. To shuffle them off as mere crazies is to ignore their possible legitimate gripes, and their willingness to do something about it.



I thought that ignoring gripes and painting groups with a broad brush is the only way to save the country from terrorism.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 31, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> The EC was invented by the founders. It is a states right issue.
> Texas does the same. I think the EC should at least be split according to the voting percentages, but Texas and California would have to do it at the same time or either the dems or the reps will get a huge advantage.
> Regardless of that, federally speaking the president is still chosen by majority vote.


 
The EC is not a states rights issue.  It is a Federal issue,  U.S Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.  The only thing that the states have control over is whether they are going to apportion all of the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, or apportion them by percentage.  Only two states, Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral college votes by percentage.

And, only 24 states have laws against "faithless electors" (those electors who vote for candidate other then to whom they have pleged).  Even if they are prosecuted, their vote still stands in all but one state.

Also, there have been three elections where the popular candidate lost the electoral college election, so no, the President is not chosen by majority (of the people) vote.




> Well, but suppose one of these militias has oodles of firepower and manages to disrupt the government. They are a tiny minority. Hence even if they would succeed, the result would be even worse tyranny.


 
Not true, if they give the people more freedom then they had before they succeeded.



> This is why I think it is a good idea that the 2nd amendment is not presently covering tanks, missiles, WMD and other things. If there is a legitimate need to overthrow the government, there will be enough grassroots support that you can win by numbers and by taking control of infrastructure.


 
Although I do think that the rifleman is the backbone of any military, guerilla movement, or revolution, when a tank comes rolling down the street threatening to crush you and your family for rebelling, that sends a powerful message, especially if you have nothing to defend yourself with.



> If a militia doesn't have support and they are a tiny fringe group, _then _they'd need uber firepower. But in that case, they are just terrorists because the majority of the governed are ok with the current situation.


 
This depends on your definition of support.  Many people may agree with the militia, but be afraid to actively support it for fear of reprisal.  There were alot of people against Hitler, but because of his disdain for the law of the land (at the time), they did nothing.  And look what happened.  



> You are still allowed to create your own political party, right? So you can start taking control at local level, and work your way up to national level. The election process is still adhered to. Sure, it is a lot of work, but as long as you are not able to drum up support for your cause, any alternative approach like a violent revolution is destined towards failure as well.


 
You are.  But then you have the national media saying that the Tea Party members are racist, anti-semitic nutjobs, thereby attempting to negate any power that they may accrue.  How does one fight that?  

Now understand, all else being equal, I think that they may have a fighting chance.  But that's the whole point, isn't it.  Not all things are equal.  And that is what some of these groups are "revolting" against.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 31, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I know they see themselves that way, but such a belief is delusional. There is no comparison. First, the militia movement as a whole is rife with antisemitism and racism. Common tropes include the coming race wars, and the Turner Diaries as literature. The movement as a whole is infested with the belief of the Zionist Occupied Government. Many are also obsessed with white racial purity and similar racist concerns.


 
Really? So, some of the groups that supported the Founding Fathers weren't racist or anti-semitic? They owned slaves, for goodness sake, and feared what would happen if the Africans were set free upon America. Not to mention what they thought of, and did to, the indigenous population of America. 

Sorry, but this does not help your case.



> As for their "arguments", if they knew even a little history, there is also no comparison. They think they are unrepresented? Only propertied white males could vote when the US was established. Senators were not elected by the people until the 20th century. It was up to the states to decide if the people elected the President as well. The US used to be ruled by elite money far more than it is today, and it is ruled by elite money today as well.
> 
> They think they are taxed? Taxes are lower now than at any time since the early 20th century. The top rate was above 90% during the Eisenhower administration.
> 
> But none of this knowledge fits their preconceived fantasies and flatters their egos, so it is ignored. So I don't spend a lot of time taking their self-flattery that they are just like the founders seriously.


 
Ok, so when Black Americans fought for equal civil rights in the '50s and 60's they should have kept their mouths shut. After all, they weren't slaves anymore, how bad could it be? So they couldn't vote in the South without fear of beatings and death, at least they weren't forced to work the fields with no wages and barely sustainable nutrition.

Either way, it does not mean that we are not "backsliding" into something of what we had before. The only difference is that now it is "for our own good".

Again, IMO, this does nothing to help your case.



> They think their rights are curtailed? John Adams, you know one of those Sainted founders, put newspaper editors _in jail_ when they criticized him. Jackson ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court. Lincoln suspended _habeas corpus_ as a wartime exigency. Roosevelt put all the Japanese Americans in detention camps during WWII. If the militia had any sense, they would know they are in a record time of prosperity, respect for rights, lack of corruption (yes, it's true), representation and even fairly low taxes.


 
I really wonder how you can say this considering that you have also said: 



> It all depends on how you make your definitions [regarding a police state]. The US has more of its people in prison than any other country on the planet. Your property can be confiscated without going before a judge, and without a trial. You can be detained and searched for making jokes or saying certain words. Paramilitary style police raids are being used more and more often to serve simple warrants. There is extensive surveillance and monitoring of our communications, without judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that you can be detained for refusing to show identification to the police, even if you are not in a vehicle. And so forth.
> 
> I agree that we are a long way from the classic police state - we tend to be more subtle if nothing else. There are many troubling trends in place though.


 


> I speak of understanding Islamic terrorists because it is smart military strategy. Know what your opponent will do, know why, know what you can do to undermine him and his support. Know what you can do to remove the grievance so no one else feels compelled to die. I would understand the militias for the same reason, as indeed I do. I've read a lot on the movement, from former members, interested outsiders, infiltrators and the like.


 
Gotcha.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 31, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my opinion, anyone who bases a justification for armed insurrection or revolution in the USA on the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers needs to ask themselves one critical question.
> 
> Are we still capable as citizens of changing our circumstances?
> 
> ...


 
It may be that we can vote a candidate out, but we have absolutely no say in what candidates are presented before us for election.  That is handled by the National Party Campains.  Unless someone is a multi-millionaire, a la Ross Perot, we must suffer who the parties tells us to suffer.  

And how can a third party amass such power and prosperity to rival the Democrats or Republicans.  The entire system is designed to prevent it.  After all, the Democrats and Republicans, who set up the rules of the system, are all of a sudden going to allow another party to rival them.

Seriously... Do we really have a say in what occurs?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It may be that we can vote a candidate out, but we have absolutely no say in what candidates are presented before us for election.  That is handled by the National Party Campains.  Unless someone is a multi-millionaire, a la Ross Perot, we must suffer who the parties tells us to suffer.
> 
> And how can a third party amass such power and prosperity to rival the Democrats or Republicans.  The entire system is designed to prevent it.  After all, the Democrats and Republicans, who set up the rules of the system, are all of a sudden going to allow another party to rival them.
> 
> Seriously... Do we really have a say in what occurs?



Yes, we seriously do.  We have had different political parties as majorities before, and it still happens that the influence of various parties ebbs.  The pace is slower than most of us notice, like a glacier's movement, but that doesn't mean it does not happen.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 31, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Really? So, some of the groups that supported the Founding Fathers weren't racist or anti-semitic?



Of course they were.  However, they did not found their rebellion from England on racism and antisemitism.  They didn't claim they needed to rebel because George III was going to start a race war or because Jews had taken over the monarchy.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ok, so when Black Americans fought for equal civil rights in the '50s and 60's they should have kept their mouths shut. After all, they weren't slaves anymore, how bad could it be? So they couldn't vote in the South without fear of beatings and death, at least they weren't forced to work the fields with no wages and barely sustainable nutrition.



I don't even know what you are getting at here.  Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't make things perfect now, or even not bad now.  It also doesn't mean things don't need to change now.  But if as a militia member you are going to point to the past as a model for how much better things were and how revolution is needed now, then things had actually better be worse back then.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> I really wonder how you can say this considering that you have also said:



Both things are true.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 31, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, we seriously do. We have had different political parties as majorities before, and it still happens that the influence of various parties ebbs. The pace is slower than most of us notice, like a glacier's movement, but that doesn't mean it does not happen.


 
That would be to assume that their is a major difference between the two parties.  We still have no say as to who our candidates are.  I don't like the choice of having to choose least worst instead of best.

Either way, this is not about our perspective, but theirs.  Can you at least begin to understand where they might be coming from, even if you don't agree?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That would be to assume that their is a major difference between the two parties.  We still have no say as to who our candidates are.  I don't like the choice of having to choose least worst instead of best.



No one is forced to vote for candidates put up by their respective parties.



> Either way, this is not about our perspective, but theirs.  Can you at least begin to understand where they might be coming from, even if you don't agree?



No, I don't see where they are coming from at all, not even slightly.  Under our current system, there will always be the disenfranchised, those whose views are in the minority.  They will always feel neglected, downtrodden, even abused.  No matter who 'they' are.

Since there will always those who feel they live under a repressive regime, to give any one group the _'moral right'_ to act in revolution is to say that they're all OK if they do that.  Even if I'm one of those who feels his views are neglected, that the country is not moving in the right direction, that I no longer have a voice.  Making it OK for me makes it OK for everyone with a grudge.  No way, brother.

As long as change is possible, even if not probable; as long as the bums can be voted out and will go if that happens; then there is no legal, no moral, no ethical, and certainly no constitutional basis for revolution.

Put these guys on trial.  If they fomented seditious acts against the United States and they are found guilty, execute them.  Period.  Rebellions should be put down, hard.

If the day should ever come when we vote an incumbent out of office and he or she refuses to go, if one branch of government ever dismantles or shuts down the others, if anyone seizes power by might rather than by vote, then I will do what needs to be done.  Nothing short of that; and I mean nothing, would ever convince me that those who foment domestic revolution are anything other than terrorists to be put down like mad dogs.

And just look at them.  What were the alleged plans?  Kill a police officer and then detonate a bomb at his funeral to kill many other police officers (and presumably any other innocent people gathered to mourn a hero who went down in the line of duty).  This was supposed to incite further acts of rebellion.  What courage.  What honor.  What cowards.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 31, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course they were. However, they did not found their rebellion from England on racism and antisemitism. They didn't claim they needed to rebel because George III was going to start a race war or because Jews had taken over the monarchy.


 
And not all "militia" groups are either.  Have a look at the Free State Movement, especially the Free State Wyoming project.  Although they would not necessarily be considered a militia per Federal definition, they don't have a racist basis.  Also, there are alot of survivalists who feel the same and conduct "paramilitary" training and could be considered militias. 




> I don't even know what you are getting at here. Just because things were worse in the past, doesn't make things perfect now, or even not bad now. It also doesn't mean things don't need to change now. But if as a militia member you are going to point to the past as a model for how much better things were and how revolution is needed now, then things had actually better be worse back then.


 
Your stated that they apparently should have no complaints if they had a better historical perspective and they would then know just how much better they actually had it.  Same thing with Black Americans.  How can they complain when they had it better then they did before?  How could they start armed organizations to prevent what they felt were abuses of their rights, as Black Americans did.

Militias are doing the same thing.  There were people who didn't think that Black Americans had the rights to do what they did to "protect" themselves, and it is the same with these militias.

And I don't know as they are looking to the past for such things. I do know, from some of the things that I have looked into, that things aren't good enough now, and that continual government interference is unacceptable to them.  Besides, it also depends on just how far back you are going.  If you go back to the early 20th Century, then sure, your perspective may be correct.  But if you go back even further, then things might be a bit different.



> Both things are true.


 
So is there some threshold in which people can then take up arms to combat the abuses by government?  Or should we just acquiese until the point where citizens have had all of their rights taken away, including the ability to arm and organize oursleves, and therefore have no real fighting chance anyway?


----------

