In my opinion the U.N. threatens the sovereignty of all nations, regardless of internal politics. Squabbling certainly hasn’t stopped the numerous “peace keeping missions” over the years, and we’ve seen how those have turned out…
No. The militia believes the U.S. is a sovereign nation, existing under the grace of God. We view no other country or organization (i.e. UN) as being our “equal.”
No more paranoid than the freedom fighters of 1776…
Do you feel this job is not being adequately performed by US military, National Guards, and Federal, State and Local law enforcement organizations who are actually trained in do this job?
But how will you know who “they” are?
If some armed US Marshals show up on your doorstep, do you plan to go quietly or baracade yourselves in and fight it out like Waco or Ruby Ridge?
Would your group defend the rights of say…Muslim immigrants being rounded up in internment camps or blacks being chased by lynch mobs or does freedom only extend to Americans of Anglo/Christian ancestry?
Are there any gays, minorities or women in your militia group?
What makes you feel that you have the right to represent all or most Americans in armed conflict? (Compared to the US Military and law enforcement which is a volunteer force under the command of duly elected officials)
Out of curiosity, how do you feel when the US or UN act on foreign soil as a “police force”? Or do you prefer a more isolationist policy?
I completely understand the concept of isolationism and, if I were a US citizen, it might be a policy I would espouse. What I don’t understand is the concept of not regarding any other country as being “equal”. I am Irish and proud of my country and heritage but I would never suggest that other countries are anything less than “equal”. What is the basis for this inequality (by which I presume you mean American superiority)?
I think he means that no other country is equal in its right to create law that governs the US. As in, the US should answer to the US and no one else.
At least, I hope that’s what he meant, although it’s not clearly worded.
The U.S. military is primarily tasked to respond to international threats. The National Guard has evolved into a branch of the federal armed forces. Law enforcement agencies do not defend the inalienable rights of the people; instead, their job is to simply “maintain order” at any cost. This is where the militia comes in. Our primary role is to defend the inalienable rights of the people against all systematic threats, whether they be foreign or domestic. No other agency or group is tasked to perform this duty.
“They” is anyone who systematically forbids the people from practicing their inalienable rights.
I will hand over items listed on the warrant, if that’s what you mean.
Certainly.
No, but they’re certainly welcome to join.
I don’t know if “represent” is the applicable term here. If someone’s inalienable rights are threatened, and no one is defending them, then we will respond.
That would make a lot more sense, thanks. So, I’ll amend my question. Is there no room whatsoever for internationally binding treaties or the rule of international law? Does this apply equally outside of the US?
And, in view of your last post, which I didn’t see, how are the inalienable rights of the rest of the world’s population to be defended in the absence of international law?
For the most part I am against using our military as an international police force. As mentioned above, I don’t want foreign military troops on our soil; I presume citizens of most other countries feel the same. But there are circumstances when I think it’s O.K. for our troops to fight overseas (WWII comes to mind). Every situation is different.
My previous post was poorly worded. In one sense, every country is “equal” in “legal” terms, i.e. all countries have a right to exist, make their own laws, etc. etc. But many Americans (and probably most militia members) believe America is the greatest country on earth. (If I didn’t believe this, I would pack up my belongings and move.) We believe “God has shed His grace on thee.”
You are correct, Kyla. Here’s the way it (supposedly) works in the U.S.: The government is accountable to the people, and the people are accountable to God. With the exception of treaties, foreign entities do not enter into this equation…
I don’t have a problem with treaties per say, but I do have a problem with them being on par with the Constitution. But that’s another topic…
A good question with (obviously) no simple answer. As explained above, the militia defends U.S. Citizens on our soil from foreign or domestic threats…
How do you feel about drunk driver/ auto insurance registration stops where the local police systematically stop people and check their papers?
If our elected congress passes a treaty it becomes law. So if congress passes a treaty allowing say a police officer from another country (lets say a Canadian Mountie) look for a Canadian Criminal in your county what would you do?
I’m against it, as most people are. But I don’t think it can be defined as tyranny, since driving is not an inalienable right. Asking pedestrians for their papers would be a different story…
Not for a Canadian citizen. When we say to “foreign troops on our soil,” we’re referring to a situation where foreign troops are “policing” U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
Some of the right-Wing Extremist Militia members advocated overthrowing the government (federal, State, and County) branding ANY government employee as an enemy. Even Postal delivery and Department of transportation would be under siege.
If the government were to be replaced/restored by Militia appointees, how do they justify the preemption of the elections of the People? Whose to say someone else won’t attack the Militia Provisional Government?
Ok, I’ll bite- what do you mean by this?
Who’s advocating a “Militia Provisional Government”? Government belongs to the people, not the militia. The last thing we need is a government replaced/restored by militia or military appointees…
I don’t want to get too off topic here, but it is my understanding that treaties (as defined in the Constitution) have just as much “authority” as the Constitution itself. Some consider it a “loophole” for amending the Constitution. I’m not a Constitutional scholar by any means, so I could be off base here. Perhaps someone else can elaborate on this or (if necessary) correct me.