The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Yeeeaaahhhh. He's been a feature a time or two over at ThisAintHell dot us.They have a slightly different name for him, Master Bateman.B WoodmanIII-per
Well, he IS stating the obvious.The III%ers & OKers (& fellow trav-lers) are NOT seeking a return to the US constitution.Judging by your words and militia deeds, what you want is a return to the Articles of Confederation (or to the somewhat comparable, Confederate constitution). Lost in your Lost-Cause world, I say.
Upon opening the linked-to article by Robert Bateman, the page had a banner with photo-links to other Esquire articles. One of them was 'Is Ted Cruz the Zodiac Killer? A conversation...'.Now, if Esquire really had journalistic integrity, there would have been another link to an article titled 'Is Hillary Clinton really the Wicked Witch of the West?'. But they don't, and there wasn't.
My comment there:"Bottom Line: There is no such thing as a "locally organized" militia that is not subject to the authority of a State or the Federal Government. Indeed, such is almost explicitly prohibited, in no small part because the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent something like Shays' Rebellion from happening again. "Feel free to cite to some actual legal precedents for that claim. Note that the wording in the Constitution-that YOU quoted-"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;To 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."-specifically acknowledges the existence of the militia outside the bounds of Federal or State government direction or usage.
And the USAF vet would have no issues with shooting this guy in the head. So come and get my rifle LTC Deadmeat. Wait, he won't come over. LTC Pussyman.
Mike:Sent 25 February in a.m. to LTC Bateman:"Sir:Re: your article just recently published in Esquire Magazine.Unlike John Fries of Quakertown Pennsylvania, Daniel Shay never incited a tax rebellion against these united States. Shay led a tax revolt against the sovereign state of Massachusetts and its courts, not against the federal government.A second point that brings the veracity of your article into question:You seemed to have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that "militias of association," whose only authorization was from the citizen's Natural Right of self defense, predate the Constitution. Documents such as the Suffolk Resolves gave guidance and direction to the American Patriots against the tyrant George III. "Militias of Association" gave the First American Revolution genuine teeth. There is a very real difference between militias of association and 'constitutional militias.' The precedent still applies today.See T.H. Breen's, American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People andRobert W. Churchill's, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face.Oh, and one more thing. The Three Percent isn't 'extremist.' Unless its 'extremist' to insist that the federal government actually follows the contract (the Constitution) with We the People. Unlike progressives, the Three Percent doesn't want to 'fundamentally transform America.' The Three Percent merely wants to hold the regime to the promise that it made in 1788.Cordially,"
Esquire - another one of those publications that remind me of the publications in the movie "They Live", where upon seeing them with the special glasses all that's actually written in them are the words "sleep, consume, and obey". Brainwashing for the already brainwashed. Use one iota of truth and then expand upon that in any direction that suits the narrative.
Why am I not surprised? self serving retiree attacking the Constitution...Yup, no surprise.Sign Me, Neal Jensen
Mr. Neal Jensen, sir,With all due respect to age, including my own: your comment regarding self-serving retirees might well be directed to many of the readers and commentators here.It is interesting how many have to argue that the 'militia', gun-rights and other rights predate the constitution or are god-given. They do so because they are NOT clearly enunciated in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. Bateman has a point.you can call me al
Okay, so everyone tries to serve themselves, ultimately.Some choose to trust in the promises of God to His faithful, other's choose to trust in the Feds.We'll see who actually picked right come Judgment Day, I suppose.
Post a Comment