See other Resistance Articles
Title: Daryl Hannah and Elderly Land Owner Arrested for Trespassing on Land Stolen Under Eminent Domain
Source:
infowars
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/daryl-hanna ... d-stolen-under-eminent-domain/
Published: Oct 7, 2012
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2012-10-07 07:39:40 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 1274
Comments: 83
Actor Daryl Hannah and an elderly land owner were arrested in Texas on Thursday for criminally trespassing on land stolen under eminent domain. From the Washington Post: Hannah and landowner Eleanor Fairchild were standing in front of heavy equipment in an attempt to halt construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Fairchild’s farm in Winnsboro, a town about 100 miles east of Dallas. They were arrested for criminal trespassing and taken to the Wood County Jail. In August, a court in Paris, Texas, ruled that the Canadian energy company has the right to build a pipeline on private land despite widespread opposition by land owners. The transnational corporation is exploiting a loophole in Texas’ oil and gas regulation, according to the New York Times. In Texas, if a company qualifies as a “common carrier” the state allows it to condemn land without the consent of land owners, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which state “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” As the founders knew, property ownership is a natural and unalienable right. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In 1766, English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that there are three natural rights: the right to personal security, the right to personal liberty, and the right to private property. In America, circa 2012, we have mostly lost the sense of this and have allowed the state to steal our private property under “eminent domain” without much of a fuss. As William Norman Grigg notes, the Fifth Amendment has unfortunately served as “one of several Hamiltonian-mercantilist Easter eggs covertly embedded in the Constitution…” The familiar civics class platitude describes this provision as necessary for the construction of bridges, hospitals, and other amenities that are supposedly “public goods” only government can provide. The inescapable reality is that eminent domain is a particularly vulgar form of plunder used to enrich the political class and their corporate cronies at the expense of the rest of us. Predictably, the state has characterized the theft of private property as job creation in order to get the commoners to accept the act of corporate rape as somehow beneficial. In April, as partisan politics played out as usual, House Speaker John Boehner lambasted Obama for his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. “He should listen to the voices of the American people and unlock the project so we can get Americans working and address high gas prices,” said Boehner. This, of course, does not include the voices of the Tar Sands Blockade carried out by a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and environmental activists opposed to TransCanada’s use of eminent domain to steal private property for the pipeline.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
This can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime tyranny sets itself up. Texas, how can this be happening in the Lone Star State ? Have you lost all of your pride ? Will Texans allow a Canadian Oil Company to steal a fellow Texan's land ? Shame ! "In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
The words "eminent domain" aren't in the Constitution. Corporate use isn't public use.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again). Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect. [This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity. "In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
Civilization and society in particular, have always understood that seizing of private property for public benefit has ALWAYS BEEN A NECESSARY EVIL. For the good of the many vs the detriment of the few. There is no other way.
When public benefit is interpreted to mean a "New Wal Mart" or any private for commercial purpose benefit - I protest.
"In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
And the public benefits from this how exactly?? Please tell me why you reference the Consti-stupid when it's all to clearly demon-strated to be of no effect. [This is not a personal attack - I know you're a good guy even if a dreamer] The constitution has become a nullity. Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities. They are interlopers, trespassers, secessionists, invading forces. Nullify their intrusions. Void their false claims to overrule the Constitution and Americans of it. P.S. Am not a mister. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Indeed you should. This project will make some rich people richer as is always the case, however it will benefit untold millions over a very long period of time. Example...Here untold hundreds of miles of pipeline are being laid on State and mostly private lands to gather the output of hundreds of natural gas wells, All are connected to a thirty six inch line that is going to NYC, to benefit the twelve million people in the NYC metro area. Because of this the millions in the Metro area were able to stop importing LNG from Qatar at twice the the price. My natural gas bill has dropped thirty per cent in the last three years. To my knowledge, no farm owner tried to stop the project. They were all well compensated and millions of NYC residents are now happy to know they have a safe and affordable energy source, free of foreign manipulation.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken None of the articles that I've found reveal the amount of money that Mrs.Fairchild has received for this taking. Nothing will ever return her land as it once was. The best hope for her is a jury trial suing Keystone for her loss. imo “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken Folks want to set their thermostats where the kids can sleep comfortably at night and want to be able to light the range so they can get their eggs in the morning. Employers and employees want the lights on the shops and offices when they get there, and people want all these things without sliding into the red at the end of the month. One of the advantages of gas is that it can be piped everywhere from producer to consumer. For that you need a right of way. I just don't know how that can be done without eminent domain and just compensation. How the hell else are we going to free ourselves from sources of supply in very unstable places? Remember that when you add it all up, no single nation on this earth has as much in total available hydrocarbons as does the United States. There is a faction in this country that wants to keep us welded to energy slavery to others. I find that ninety nine percent of the time, whenever actors or other artists demonstrate for some cause, that cause is in the long run contrary to the general welfare. Well said.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken Bullshit. Do you have a Social(ist) Security Account Number ? If so, you are one of those in opposition to the Constitution "just like them" ! Every license, permit or contractual agreement you share with that govt makes you a "partner" pard. Not only that but each time any of us signs on to a program of the government we are in effect condoning their authority. (P.S. Am not a mister.) OK, that's good to know. "In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it and Unconstitutional "laws" aren't valid. I'm guessing you don't want to discuss Constitutional enforcement. Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You're in error. The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't. "In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
There is no other way. This I do not accept. IT is not what is going on here in this situation. With better fuels and better engines, and better industrial innovations in transportation and power productions...... OIL IS ON ITS WAY OUT! Do yall really believe there have been no innovations in power production and transportation in the last 100 years? that oil is all we can use forever? Because such is not so. What is so is that rich old oil men are evil fucks that set themselves up into government power over 50 years ago. These same oil men and oil families have used their public offices they subverted to increase their own profits and protect their monopolies. That pipeline is not necessary. The theft is not necessary ... rich oil men are just not used to be told no. Like their muslim sheik buddies in sudia arabia... the trash thinks it owns the world. If I got the chance... I wouldn;t stand in front of the bull dozers, I'd sugar their tanks at night... If the tanks were locked I'd dip their dip sticks in sugar... I would destroy their tools of destruction... I hope others do in my stead. ____________________________________________________________ . . . The US government has declared civil war on itself. Its lust for war grew so great... Liberty before death. We run , we live, We fight again, till we win. We did not start this fight. We damn sure did not willingly pay our taxes to buy the bullets and drones that shall be used to kill us. We will correct the violations of this rogue nation....our rogue nation. We will fix this because nobody else can. You will work to help me help us all to fix this failure. After you're done educating yourself, Action!!!
The contract clause of the Constitution [ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. You can contract away the constitution if you choose. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional - voluntary servitude isn't. I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution. ne t/xconst_Am14.html The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
In a tyranny it really doesn't matter whether you had informed consent or not and it matters even less if you were coerced "in a blatant dictatorship." America is a very short distance from being a full blown tyranny so the "laws" starting with the Constitution are elastic and mean whatever some corrupted judge says they mean. The whole idea being to keep the idiots believing in the constitutional fairytale in order to maintain control. In this way, the judge is able to "instruct" the mullets on every jury as to what the law is (despite desparate attempts to enter jury nullification) and the couch potatoes on the jury like all clapping seals give the prosecutor his victory 98% of the time. The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement. I disagree. The 2nd Amendment provides a gun in a free state. What people do with those guns is up to them. I'll conclude with this statement and I think we can agree on some things. Our Constitution is only as valid as our ability and willingness to enforce it. Currently, we're living in a police state wherein the Constitution is just a "G.D. piece of paper." Of course, much adoration and tribute is paid the Constitution by the scumbags holding offices of trust because they don't have another choice other than all out civil strife. They'd prefer to limit the strife to a few "tin foil hat" wearing patriots, and they do that by placating folks like you with a lot of patriotic fairytales and other nonsense that causes good folks to spend countless hours researching and preparing cases for court that have NO MERIT, and that get good (but stupid) folks put into prisons or to death. I think we'd also agree that we're not going to escape violent revolution before we return Constitutional Government. In the mean time we should admit at least to ourselves that we live in a (virtual) democratic dictatorship not a democratic republic. "In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
One other thing I want to mention is that FEDERAL doesn't mean national. Since the enactment of the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT and the resulting bankruptcy of the U.S. the FEDERAL GOVT is whatever the (receiver) bankers say it is. Do we have a right to revolt ? You betcha ! Will we ? As long as people continue to believe in fairytales like we live in a constitutional democratic republic I tend to doubt it. "In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is prison." Thoreau
Like Adm.Yamamoto, the bankers will not attempt a full-frontal assault here, it will be despotism by increments; and most will never really notice.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken you're not? all this time I thought you were! ;)
I've made a few posts around this place to try and resolve the misperceptions. Used to be more diligent about that years ago. At some point, it got to be like a speedbump that slowed things down or a windshield that might interfere with others speaking their mind exactly. This time I decided to add Constitutionalist Female to my Homepage option here for clarification and as a time conserving template. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Daryl Hannah and Eleanor Fairchild Defend Fairchild Farms From Keystone XL Published on Oct 5, 2012 by Tar Sands Blockade How can you be arrested for "trespassing" on your own land? Well, anything can happen when a multinational corporation comes in and expropriates your farm for their profit. That's why actress and activist Daryl Hannah has joined forces with East Texas ranch owner Eleanor Fairchild, 78, to stage a protest against Keystone XL construction on Mrs. Fairchild's farm. The actress is intent on defending Mrs. Fairchild's home and business, Fairchild Farms, a portion of which has been expropriated by TransCanada, for its toxic tar sands pipeline. The duo claim their action is inspired by our ongoing tree blockade happening on a neighboring property. On Thursday afternoon, Hannah marched across Fairchild Farms with the ranch owner to block bulldozers from continuing to clear large swaths of Mrs. Fairchild's land along the toxic tar sands pipeline's route. Keystone XL will permanently bisect Mrs. Fairchild's 300 acre ranch, which includes undeveloped wetland areas and natural springs producing over 400 gallons of fresh water per minute from her property. Hannah, whose outspoken anti-Tar Sands position dates back many years, expressed pride to be able to stand with Mrs. Fairchild who is watching her home and its delicate ecosystems be destroyed in front of her eyes. Edited to add this comment excerpt from the YouTube site: My property I have in Arizona , my water rights stripped temporary they said because the neighbors who are Chinese corporation need the water. thanks to the left my business closed, lost my income because of this and even though the area is on a class action law suit we just cant do anything as now I been shipping my business overseas to get out of this communist country. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I prefer the sugar idea. And yes, I'd do it too. We send our men and women overseas to fight for oil, gas and poppy crops in Afganistan. Now we have to fight to keep our land from being exploited for gas pipelines. I wonder if Eleanor was given constructive legal notice prior to this Canadian Oil Company taken the move to bulldoze on their land. They do have to give the landowner notice before doing such a deed. If no notice was given, I think Eleanor should have a trial by jury to decide the facts and evidence of this case. And I believe she would prevail.
Excerpts from: It's Not America Anymore I have to laugh every time I hear someone attack “capitalism” and free markets as the source of all our ills. America has not had the pleasure of free markets for at least 100 years (since the construction of the private Federal Reserve, a collusion between banking and government interests). No one alive today has ever seen an actual American “free market” beyond community barter, so to blame free markets for our modern failings is rather thoughtless. To summarize, the U.S. economy is nothing like what the founders envisioned and fought for. I have heard the argument that America is meant to be a kind of chameleon built to change its stripes and adapt to the demands of the era. I have heard it argued that the Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers are outdated and inadequate for our new age of technological wizardry and terrorist ideologies. This is pure intellectual idiocy. The principles of freedom never expire. Individual liberty is inherent and eternal. It is the driving force of every great accomplishment in the history of mankind. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights embody the spirit of that eternal battle of individual liberty. There is no adaptation. There is only freedom or tyranny. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com alt-market.com is a project that offers some alternatives to the Fed Res Tyranny. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Absolutely! I have heard it argued that the Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers are outdated and inadequate for our new age of technological wizardry and terrorist ideologies. This is pure intellectual idiocy. The principles of freedom never expire. Individual liberty is inherent and eternal. It is the driving force of every great accomplishment in the history of mankind. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights embody the spirit of that eternal battle of individual liberty. There is no adaptation. There is only freedom or tyranny. The Constitution is not outdated but to the corporate capitalists who desire to maintain the status quo in the business sector they view the Constitution as outdated and simply in their way of future progress to pave their desired de facto government to which they push onto the us. As a result, expect the "great unwashed" to become more educated on what is really on and as a result revolt by standing up against the foes. Right now these elite capitalists really desire that we continue to keep busy as worker bees while they continue to plunder us and lie to us more. The more educated and informed we become, the more they begin to worry because then they have to worry about clashing up against us! They do not want us here. They rip us off with high oil prices, steal our land and have us killed while serving in combat. They don't care about us. They want us gone so that they can have full access to the natural resources of the Earth because in their minds the Earth belongs to them.
You: I disagree. The 2nd Amendment provides a gun in a free state. What people do with those guns is up to them. I'll conclude with this statement and I think we can agree on some things. Our Constitution is only as valid as our ability and willingness to enforce it. Don't forget the first part: You might recall me telling you some time ago about the removal of Benjamin Franklin's son from office by his State's Militia. America's Secret Army: "if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45 [My note: between meaning 18-44], you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know." Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able- bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. [cont.] Edit to add that I don't think it's a racially prohibitive law anymore since the Post Civil War Reconstruction era and such. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. Some people confuse State Militias with the National Guards but the National Guards are an expected quota of volunteers from State Militias for dual service at the Federal level as well as in their State. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I remember pointing out that we are the militia in a classroom taught by a stalinist teacher. They would tell us "the law does not imply American citizens the right to keep and bear arms." They further stated, regarding the militia, that "they were afraid of us Americans with guns." It was then that I shot up my hand and stated for the record that we are the militia according to State law consonant with Title 10 USC Section 311 regarding classifications of the militia and non-professional armies. When I pointed out to this traitor that we do have the right to keep and bear arms and that we are the militia, they composed a vendetta against me. I had the statute right in my hands and they couldn't stand it at all. I busted their ass!
That needs to be updated... "able-bodied resident, male or female"
That about sums it up in a nutshell, for sure. There's a long story I could tell here about a Committee of Safety Patriot named Walter Reddy and a turncoat provocateur named Mike Vanderboegh. FOX News is partial to Vanderboegh. The short story is that Mike Vanderboegh wrote a book titled "Absolved", which I haven't read except for a quick random scan but did find a section at Chapter 24 to be alarming and indicative of under-preparedness. Here's the link and an excerpt: Sipsey Street Irregulars - Absolved: Chapter 24, Green Laidlaw watched the chopper circle ineffectually through 7x50 binoculars from a distant tree line. He turned to the young and old men and women (no boys and girls now) who were nearby and ordered, "Move out." One thing was certain. There was going to be a lot more training in their future. A whole lot more. Edited for spelling and grammar. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
"able-bodied resident, male or female" I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Bravo, purplerose! Wouldn't surprise me if that Stalinist was from New York. I read an article some hours ago that they're even afraid of raccoons there now. New Yorkers petrified as hundreds of 'hissing' raccoons invade the city - Mail Online ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Umm, I think you're referring to the professional standing army. The other militia (Title 10 USC Sec 311 (section b)) refers to the non-professional able-bodied men and women. See here ; http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt This is the very same statute I read to that teacher whom afterwards attacked my character. These fellow travelers are working tirelessly in our American classrooms paid by our state taxpayers to foment uprisings and undermine our laws and Constitutions by making such blatant subversive statements in the classroom like that which are not protected by the First Amendment.
Not sure where they were from but they taught in a school in L.A.
Well then, wouldn't surprise me if that Stalinist traitor was from up around San Francisco, which is like Commie Central West, imo.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Good heavens no. I would have no problem at all, as a Commander of infantry, in ordering a mostly female unit to charge the enemy lines.
Umm, I think you're referring to the professional standing army. The other militia (Title 10 USC Sec 311 (section b)) refers to the non-professional able- bodied men and women. See here ; http://uscode.house.gov/do wn load/pls/10C13.txt This is the very same statute I read to that teacher whom afterwards attacked my character. These fellow travelers are working tirelessly in our American classrooms paid by our state taxpayers to foment uprisings and undermine our laws and Constitutions by making such blatant subversive statements in the classroom like that which are not protected by the First Amendment. Read through the link, thanks. I agree that women are to be included as drafted into their Constitutional State Militias. My objection is to their presence inserted in combat zones rather than some other capacity, the same as I object to that within the regular Military. If they happen to come under attack in the course of their non-combat duties, of course they should be capably trained to defend themselves and others in the vicinity, just as the males are trained. However, standards have been lowered to "gender equalize" fitness, which means the men are undertrained and, as if that's not bad enough, women have been allowed to walk instead of run obstacle courses if they wanted to. After a while, I noticed there was a change from boot camp action videos to photo format footage of that so it wasn't as obvious that's what was happening. No amount of training or ego can redefine women as just a somewhat smaller version of males physically with monthly concerns. A male serviceman down who can't be pulled to safety quick enough by a female serviceperson could be the difference between whether he lives or not and her too if targeted in the process, especially in hand to hand combat. There are a number of other problems such as not having the upper body strength to throw a grenade far enough that they and others around them won't get blown up or hit by the shrapnel. One of the worst Naval ship disasters was a female jet pilot that crashed. That sort of thing. Not saying at all that women shouldn't be in the Military or the Militias -- just not attached to Combat Arms Units, for the safety of our men as well as theirs. Would like to address a section at your link in another post... Edited to activate link and to add the word "jet". ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I would have no problem at all, as a Commander of infantry, in ordering a mostly female unit to charge the enemy lines. How about an all female unit? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
-STATUTE- So, it sounds there like females are exempted from being drafted into the national Militia forces of the United States comprised of "the several (50) States" unless they have already volunteered for dual Federal service in the National Guard of their State, all of which can be called up/drafted at the Federal level for duty in-country here -- not for foreign duty, as is the popular misinterpretation. I don't think that means females are exempt from being drafted into their Constitutional State Militias. On the in-country duty issue of State/National Guard Militias, during the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson ordered 3 Militiamen to be executed for refusing to cross into Canadian territory. They were right to refuse -- that being a Standing Regular Army matter of soveriegnty vs. jurisdictional Military actions and not theirs. He was terribly wrong. To clarify the difference above between what is meant by the Federal definition of "organized militia" and "unorganized militia", that doesn't mean that the State Militias should be unorganized, just that the Non-National Guard State Militias are regional and separate from the organization of the United States Military forces. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
We are the militia, Grey Lmist. We don't need to be registered with some infantry to be recognized as one. It the same thing as saying we have the right to keep and bear arms. The "we" refers to the John Q. Public. And you don't need to register your firearms. If you do, then you deserve to have yours confiscated. As for the militia, we citizens are that militia. And the reason why we are the militia is to prevent professional standing armies from taking their position at your doorstep which violates the Fourth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was intended for this purpose and had nothing to do with squirrel hunting. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps an able-bodied citizenry from being attacked by an enemy government. A government that no citizen should EVER put their trust in at all. A citizen should be very vigilant and WATCH what those people in D.C. are doing. That is the reason why we are the militia and is the reason why that cockroach of a teacher is afraid of an armed citizenry.
Then females should NOT benefit from Affirmative Action for promotions in the DOD or municipal gov't services like fire or police, etc - all of which - have a pre-requisite of physical strength and prowess. Tell that to Sandra O'Connor and hear her (personal AA benefited) response. I'm a woman and frankly all this "sisters B.S." bugs me bigtime. If my "sisters" want to benefit from AA than they need to put their asses at risk, on the line- what have you- to earn their promotions over their brothers. Otherwise, step aside, and let real men earn their stripes by putting their lives at risk for others.
it's nice to know we have another very bright lady here!
As for the militia, we citizens are that militia. And the reason why we are the militia is to prevent professional standing armies from taking their position at your doorstep which violates the Fourth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was intended for this purpose and had nothing to do with squirrel hunting. The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps an able-bodied citizenry from being attacked by an enemy government. A government that no citizen should EVER put their trust in at all. A citizen should be very vigilant and WATCH what those people in D.C. are doing. That is the reason why we are the militia and is the reason why that cockroach of a teacher is afraid of an armed citizenry. I agree with your views there and I'd like to say absolutely. I should clarify that being drafted by law into State Militias doesn't mean that everybody of age would be forced to muster against their will for organization and regulated training in what the Federal government refers to as the unorganized Militias of the States (for its purposes of distinguishing between State-level and National Guard-level Militia forces). I don't see much of an opt-out problem with those of the State Militias who prefer to stay unregimented. I think they'd still be considered as part of the Militia, just as before and after age-bracket call ups, of course, but the Constitution does formally specify a more disciplined level of training, imo, as being necessary to effectively secure a free State. Am open to hearing other thoughts about it, though, from you and others. Edited for spelling and highlighting for clarification. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Gadzooks! scrapper2 hath speedily repelled out of the blue into yon upper sector. Whatever shall we do? lol Just jokin' :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Standing ovation and applause! If Sandra Day O'Conner and NOW, et al. Feminazis really think they're physical equals with men or better in combat zones, they should be in favor of women on the frontlines with no male backup.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Indeed! Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor mistakenly believes that sitting in the SC court room today and glaring at the SC Justices as the University of Texas affirmative action policy is debated constitutes "enough" front line battle as her AA selected SC self can handle. AA for the female gender should include Selective Service sign up. "Equality" should not be a one way street to success - some heavy lifting and SACRIFICE are in order as well.
Good heavens no. All units fully integrated, gender equal, luck of the draw. No powder rooms in the jungle or the outback, no privacy, kill or be killed, "every person on their own".
A nation that sends its women to war has become quite rotten inside. A very large tree, hollowed out by disease and vermin, will collapse in even the slightest wind.
Can't argue with that.
I say we waive discriminatory age-limit barriers too so that she and others like her in the overage bracket can be treated fairly and equally to actual combat frontline duty. I agree up to and including heavy lifting. I think I know what you mean by the rest of your statement...like no specially comfortable quarters and such. If so, I agree on that too. If they and their egos don't get in the way of our men and their Military performance by "PC" propulsion, that would be more as it should be, imo. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Be reasonable, Cyni. No women attached to male Combat Arms Units. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
But that is where the marxists and moral reductionists are taking us. I for one wish that we were less concerned with the practical consequences of waging perpetual war sponsored by a State consumed by fanatical egalitarianism. If we put down the damned gun and got back to inventing things and letting folks get back to the business of making life better for themselves, I'd be fine with it, and so would a lot of other people that I know. But no, we'll have no suck luck. We are and have for quite a damned long while been in the merciless hands of Wilsonian crackpots who want us to march around the planet blowing up stuff and making the world free for what it is I'm not quite sure. Very difficult to be reasonable with the PC feminism onslaught going on. It shames me personally, being from the olde school, when I check the number of young girls that have been killed in the Middle East. The last time I checked, there were sixty or more that have died for nothing. There is a reason the government hides such figures as much as possible. If NO YOUNG GIRLS JOINED THE MILITARY, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DRAFT FOR MEN OR WITHDRAW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. Each Navy carrier that sails usually has a female compliment of at least ten percent, that is over 600 young girls. If one does the math, the military has, there is no way they could sail without the females. Being from the olde school, it makes me sick. If we are to wage endless war, at least do it with men.
No it does not specify a more disciplined level of training. That is why Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311 part (b) exist. See here: Title 10 USC Sec 311 (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The reason it exist is because too many lawyers, and even some Supreme Court Justices have either tried to omit this law or were unaware it ever existed or feigned ignorance of this statute. The reason the part (b) exist as it does is to reinforce the reader of those inalienable Constitutionally protected rights. Remember that regimented militias go in the same category as the National Guard which is the real legal professional standing army under the control of the State Governor. And regimented militias can be infiltrated by traitors. You are aware of this I am sure. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco as the example of why I stress this so well. Both were infiltrated by people working within the government who wanted to destroy these militias and religious groups. Militias are lawful and legal but there are always hostile elements working tirelessly withing our government who strongly desire to dismantle the Second Amendment altogether. And they dismantle it by playing semantic games with peoples minds because they think we are too damn stupid to figure it out. To them, if we don't know our rights then we don't have any and they ain't gonna tell us what they are either. And when you become part of that group of "disciplined" level of training, you are always setting yourself up for betrayal by those you'd least expect in your group. Some of those members live a double life and they are not loyal to your cause or to the United States of America at all. They are loyal to their handlers and to the Intelligence community that they are prostituted to.
The only things that we're free of are peace, prosperity, and freedom itself.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken i know! i know! i'm always happy to see scrap. ;)
i had NO idea the number was this large.
The Navy does not care to publicize the fact. They also admit that over ten percent of the young ladies will become pregnant during the six months at sea. So many that the Navy medical corp is now prepared for childbirth, if need be, while at sea. Some admit to getting pregnant so they will be taken off ship and flown home.
It's not that I'm not willing to defer to your expertise on the matter. You probably do know more overall about the subject than me. First of all, though -- without getting into a debate about Ruby Ridge and Waco particularly -- Constitutional State Militias are legitimate State Citizen Defense Forces and not just at the National Guard level. It should be considered a Treasonous Act of War to infilitrate them through subversions to undermine, weaken, and fragment State Defenses, imo. Some stand alone, ad hoc paramilitary groups might proclaim themselves Militias of their State or independent/anarchal Militias that aren't encumbered by law in their opinion, but protection of their State and citizen safety or Freedoms isn't necessarily always their agenda, as I think you know. Edit to add: Not to say that some aren't genuinely motivated patriotically to be their State's Militia guardians, sparse in ranks though they may be since the Clinton era of Militia villifications. Next, on the Militia Acts of law -- I think prior to those, all able bodied [free] male citizens of a State were expected to be armed and well trained regularly and on call. The general, able bodied citizen population of a State (now not on call with regularity for training or duty except if an attack is immenent or in process somewhere within the State or there's a State crisis) are still of the State's Militia but my reading is that the Militia Draft concerns a certain age- bracket of the citizenry automatically for more regimented training to effectively secure the State and that the National Guard are an expected quota of those from that group (or even the population at large if qualified by age- waiver, for example) who Volunteer (are not automatically assigned) for regimented dual service at the Federal level too. So, there is a more Unorganized group that is the unregimented general population of able bodied State citizens, a Drafted age-bracket group of regimented training for effective State security and a Volunteer group of regimented training for effective State and intra-National security that is comprised of those who may or may not be of the Drafted age- bracket group. Then there's also the matter to consider that the States have the power to go to War to protect themselves against invaders and the problem of who would be left as regimentally trained well enough to defend the State and citizenry if the National Guard is the only group of the Militia expected to be drafted into regimental training but the National Guard units happen to get downsized, duplicitously or not, by a Federal duties call up to somewhere else in-country that leaves the State more vulnerable to harm or a takeover. The National Guard are supposed to be like Joint Task Force Volunteer Units, not just Drafted by age as if such. If I'm wrong in your estimations about any of that, please let me know. I can't say that I've studied as much as I should of Dr. Edwin Vieira's works on the topic of Constitutional State Militias but that's my basic understanding of it at this point on those distinctions. Edited for an addition at the end of paragraph 1 for claity, bracketed insert and rewording at paragraph 2, rewording of the 3rd, and a grammar insert + punctuation at the 4th. This has been a lengthy work-in-process that I hope is clear enough and do think is actually done now. Thanks for reading the revised editions. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You wonder how long an organization can or will be willing to deal with that kind of overhead when things get serious. Forever. It creates more dependent constituents. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken One more dependent on the payroll plus all medical bills are paid for by the taxpayers.
Heck'of'a'deal!
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken Interesting story but it seems like there is something missing. Utility companies throughout the country work with property owners for "right of way" access rights. It's a common occurrence; copper and fiber optic telephone lines, gas lines, sewer lines, etc. Why was it necessary to foreclose on the entire property? There's a natural gas pipeline going through a property of a private residence right down the road from me. Maybe there is some law saying that the pipeline must be a certain number of feet from a dwelling for safety reasons.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT! You're on a roll today, CyniLod! I like this thread. So many interesting discussions going on civilly. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I can't say that I've studied as much as I should of Dr. Edwin Vieira's works on the topic of Constitutional State Militias but that's my basic understanding of it at this point on those distinctions. So what you are proclaiming is that militias that are not part of some state citizen defense force are not really legitimate as far as the 2nd Amendment applies to? I tend to disagree there. I have not read nor heard of any of Dr. Edwin's Vieiras works on Constitutional State Militias. Viera sounds like they are discussing militias specifically from a State Defense issue which sounds like that of the collective right. And in a collectivist society a collective right is one where you do not have rights but privileges granted by the government. And with privileges you have to register them. With Rights you do not register them. But I have read Stephen P. Holbrook's book http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/c...quote.pl?stephen_holbrook Also here http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html where at the end of the cite he is referenced by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Dept of Justice "That Every Man Be Armed was cited as authority by the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right" (2004), http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm, and in the following judicial opinions: Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 939 n.2 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 577 n.53 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kleinfeld, J., joined by Kozinski, O'Scannlain, & Nelson, dissenting) United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, 603-09 (N.D. Tex. 1999) Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1052 (R.I. 2004) (Flanders, J., dissenting)"
Yeh - this one's swerved all over the board. 1. Getting our gender assignments correct was a plus. 2. In my family's personal experience, Mrs.Fairchild's only recourse is to take a well-prepared case to state district and sue Keystone for all damages (real and imagined) that were not compensated when her land, and all easements, were condemned. A jury of her east Texas peers would likely see things her way, bigtime. 3. Now to go deal with the laundry. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken I'm not sure where you're seeing that about enforced gun registration in the issues we've discussed or privileges granted by the government rather than unalienable rights. I don't think that citizens who prefer to opt out of State Citizen Defense Forces have a lesser right to be armed but then they'd likely not even want to be considered as necessary to the security of a free State, as the Constitution addresses. I don't think the Constitution speaks of the Militia as just whatever someone or some group wants to call it on their own terms. Not to say there's a prohibition against calling themselves some other from of Militia not attached to the State but neither would I consider it a Treasonous Act of War if they were infiltrated like I would if State Militias were. Am not familiar with Holbrook but thanks for the link. Will check it later. I think you'd like Dr. Edwin Vieira.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I should be doing laundry too. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
It says it plain in site that we are the militia. And that the second Amendment applies not jut to the organized State (and Federalized) militias but also applies equally so to the individual right as well. I have read some of Dr. Edwin Viera's works and he plainly discusses Militia from a Statehood Right where they are organized and controlled by the Governor. His view is contrary to what the Supreme Court has already ruled in their decisions couple years ago that the 2nd Amendment is an individual inalienable right. Now how does all of this discussion on the 2nd Amendment relate to this thread? Well, lets just say that I hope that Eleanor will not have to take defense to gain access to her own property by means of arms. She does have that right and if I were her I would do it!
An easement does not deny access to anyones' land; you know that. Typically, they are 50' in width, although that's negotiable, and nothing about an easement prevents landowner from grazing the land or otherwise using it as long as they do not disturb/destroy/damage the utility involved. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken No, but an enclosed fence does. And especially if there are "No Trespassing" signs posted which gives the intended trespasser advanced Notice. http://www.infowars.com/daryl-ha...len-under-eminent-domain/ From the source of this thread read an interesting comment below: Jethal says: October 7, 2012 at 6:09 am My family co-authored the Texas Constitution of 1876. Under Texas state law, Daryl Hannah and this elderly land owner were illegally arrested and jailed.
I'm not aware of any fencing of the easement. Here's a reply from a guy posting on junkscience.com re: pipeline experience - One Response to Keystone XL pipeline is issue of property rights for some ranchers Allen Brooks | July 30, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Reply In the 1970′s a natural gas pipeline was built from the Powder River Basin fields in Wy to Colorado. The pipeline ran through my father-in-law’s ranch. Despite contrary advice from all of his neighbors, he signed an agreement with the pipline. It took them about two weeks to palce the pipeline across his property and they left every fence and trail intact until the last moment, replacing fences and covering trails as soon as the line was in place. Everything was restored and the disturbed soil reseeded immedaitely. One year later there was only a slight scar left to mark the line. He never lost anything and his ranch suffered no damage. Most of this opposition is based on hysteria. ++++++++++++++++++++++ This reflects my family's experience with utility easements in general. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken The pipeline cuts across the Riverby Land and Cattle Company in far NE Fannin County, here's a pic I took this evening in far NW Lamar County: As soon as the pipeline is buried the grass will grow back and nobody will know it's there except for the usual small "Don't dig here!" utility signs that will be planted every so often.
#2. To: noone222 (#0)
#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)
(Edited)
The words "eminent domain" aren't in the Constitution. Corporate use isn't public use.
#4. To: noone222 (#0)
The inescapable reality is that eminent domain is a particularly vulgar form of plunder used to enrich the political class and their corporate cronies at the expense of the rest of us.
#5. To: Cynicom (#4)
#6. To: Cynicom (#4)
of private property for public benefit has
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#7. To: noone222 (#3)
OK, you're right, I guess. I know what the consti-stupid "says" ... in spite of this a kazillion acts in opposition to it occur daily. (Here we go again).
#8. To: noone222 (#5)
When public benefit is interpreted to mean a "New Wal Mart" or any private for commercial purpose benefit - I protest.
#9. To: noone222, 4 (#0)
some more information at link -
#10. To: All (#9)
#11. To: Cynicom, All (#8)
safe and affordable energy source, free of foreign manipulation
#12. To: randge (#11)
#13. To: GreyLmist (#7)
Those in opposition to the Constitution are not our government or our authorities.
#14. To: noone222 (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: GreyLmist (#14)
Contracts in violation of the Constitution don't supercede it
#16. To: Cynicom (#4)
For the good of the many vs the detriment of the few.
#17. To: noone222 (#15)
You're in error.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)
(Edited)
I disagree that there is any valid Obligation of Contracts under duress or without informed consent. State and Federal force cannot legitimately be used to impair the Constitution.
#19. To: GreyLmist (#17)
#20. To: noone222 (#19)
#21. To: GreyLmist (#7)
P.S. Am not a mister.
#22. To: christine (#21)
#23. To: noone222 (#0)
(Edited)
#24. To: titorite (#16)
If I got the chance... I wouldn;t stand in front of the bull dozers, I'd sugar their tanks at night... If the tanks were locked I'd dip their dip sticks in sugar... I would destroy their tools of destruction... I hope others do in my stead.
#25. To: noone222 (#19)
Do we have a right to revolt ? You betcha ! Will we ? As long as people continue to believe in fairytales like we live in a constitutional democratic republic I tend to doubt it.
There are in fact two kinds of patriotism: the concrete, and the imagined. Many Americans fall haphazardly into the fantasy of being patriotic. They define patriotism upon the exploits of the mainstream and of the government in control at the time. They become cheerleaders for the establishment instead of stalwart champions of their country’s founding principles. In fact, true patriotism is NOT about blindly defending one’s nation or leadership regardless of its trespasses; true patriotism is about defending the philosophy that made one’s nation possible and prosperous in the first place — even if that means standing against the power structure in place today.
#26. To: GreyLmist (#25)
(Edited)
true patriotism is about defending the philosophy that made one’s nation possible and prosperous in the first place — even if that means standing against the power structure in place today.
#27. To: noone222, All (#18)
(Edited)
Me: The 2nd Amendment provides for Constitutional enforcement.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Chap. XXX III.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]
#28. To: All (#27)
Edit to add that I don't think it's a racially prohibitive law anymore since the Post Civil War Reconstruction era and such.
Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which made the provisions of the 1792 act permanent.
#29. To: GreyLmist (#27)
(Edited)
America's Secret Army: "if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45 [My note: between meaning 18-44], you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know."
#30. To: GreyLmist (#27)
able- bodied white male citizen
#31. To: purplerose (#26)
(Edited)
The Constitution is not outdated but to the corporate capitalists who desire to maintain the status quo in the business sector they view the Constitution as outdated and simply in their way of future progress to pave their desired de facto government to which they push onto the us. As a result, expect the "great unwashed" to become more educated on what is really on and as a result revolt by standing up against the foes. Right now these elite capitalists really desire that we continue to keep busy as worker bees while they continue to plunder us and lie to us more. The more educated and informed we become, the more they begin to worry because then they have to worry about clashing up against us! They do not want us here. They rip us off with high oil prices, steal our land and have us killed while serving in combat. They don't care about us. They want us gone so that they can have full access to the natural resources of the Earth because in their minds the Earth belongs to them.
Even the bodies of their fallen had been policed up.
#32. To: Cynicom (#30)
That needs to be updated...
#33. To: purplerose (#29)
I remember pointing out that we are the militia in a classroom taught by a stalinist teacher. They would tell us "the law does not imply American citizens the right to keep and bear arms." They further stated, regarding the militia, that "they were afraid of us Americans with guns." It was then that I shot up my hand and stated for the record that we are the militia according to State law consonant with Title 10 USC Section 311 regarding classifications of the militia and non-professional armies. When I pointed out to this traitor that we do have the right to keep and bear arms and that we are the militia, they composed a vendetta against me. I had the statute right in my hands and they couldn't stand it at all. I busted their ass!
#34. To: GreyLmist (#32)
I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
#35. To: GreyLmist (#33)
Wouldn't surprise me if that Stalinist was from New York.
#36. To: purplerose (#35)
#37. To: GreyLmist (#32)
I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
#38. To: purplerose (#34)
(Edited)
I agree but think women in combat zones jeopardize the safety of men.
#39. To: Cynicom (#37)
Good heavens no.
#40. To: purplerose, All (#34)
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
#41. To: GreyLmist (#40)
#42. To: GreyLmist (#38)
No amount of training or ego can redefine women as just a somewhat smaller version of males physically with monthly concerns. A male serviceman down who can't be pulled to safety quick enough by a female serviceperson could be the difference between whether he lives or not and her too if targeted in the process, especially in hand to hand combat. There are a number of other problems such as not having the upper body strength to throw a grenade far enough that they and others around them won't get blown up or hit by the shrapnel.
#43. To: GreyLmist (#22)
#44. To: purplerose (#41)
(Edited)
We are the militia, Grey Lmist. We don't need to be registered with some infantry to be recognized as one. It the same thing as saying we have the right to keep and bear arms. The "we" refers to the John Q. Public. And you don't need to register your firearms. If you do, then you deserve to have yours confiscated.
#45. To: christine, scrapper2 (#43)
#46. To: scrapper2 (#42)
#47. To: GreyLmist (#46)
(Edited)
they should be in favor of women on the frontlines with no male backup.
#48. To: GreyLmist (#39)
How about an all female unit?
#49. To: Cynicom (#48)
#50. To: randge (#49)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#51. To: scrapper2 (#47)
Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor mistakenly believes that sitting in the SC court room today and glaring at the SC Justices as the University of Texas affirmative action policy is debated constitutes "enough" front line battle as her AA selected SC self can handle.
AA for the female gender should include Selective Service sign up. "Equality" should not be a one way street to success - some heavy lifting and SACRIFICE are in order as well.
#52. To: Cynicom (#48)
All units fully integrated, gender equal, luck of the draw. No powder rooms in the jungle or the outback, no privacy, kill or be killed, "every person on their own".
#53. To: GreyLmist (#52)
Be reasonable, Cyni. No women attached to male Combat Arms Units.
#54. To: GreyLmist (#52)
Be reasonable,
#55. To: GreyLmist (#44)
(Edited)
"...but the Constitution does formally specify a more disciplined level of training, imo, as being necessary to effectively secure a free State. Am open to hearing other thoughts about it, though, from you and others."
#56. To: randge (#53)
#57. To: GreyLmist, scrapper2 (#45)
#58. To: Cynicom (#54)
Each Navy carrier that sails usually has a female compliment of at least ten percent, that is over 600 young girls. If one does the math, the military has, there is no way they could sail without the females.
#59. To: christine (#58)
i had NO idea the number was this large.
#60. To: purplerose (#55)
(Edited)
#61. To: Cynicom (#59)
Some admit to getting pregnant so they will be taken off ship and flown home.
#62. To: randge (#61)
#63. To: Lod, randge (#62)
It creates more dependent constituents.
#64. To: Cynicom (#63)
#65. To: noone222 (#0)
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#66. To: Lod (#56)
The only things that we're free of are peace, prosperity, and freedom itself.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#67. To: Esso, All (#66)
#68. To: GreyLmist (#60)
(Edited)
It should be considered a Treasonous Act of War to infilitrate them through subversions to undermine, weaken, and fragment State Defenses, imo. Some stand alone, ad hoc paramilitary groups might proclaim themselves Militias of their State or independent/anarchal Militias that aren't encumbered by law in their opinion, but protection of their State and citizen safety or Freedoms isn't necessarily always their agenda, as I think you know.
#69. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#67)
#70. To: purplerose (#68)
#71. To: Lod (#69)
#72. To: GreyLmist (#70)
I don't think the Constitution speaks of the Militia as just whatever someone or some group wants to call it on their own terms.
#73. To: purplerose, 4 (#72)
#74. To: Lod (#73)
(Edited)
An easement does not deny access to anyones' land; you know that.
#75. To: purplerose (#74)
#76. To: Lod (#75)
-Alex Kurtagic
#77. To: X-15 (#76)
Where is this in relation to the new mega-lake going in up there? Thanks much.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#78. To: Lod (#77)
North and East. It crosses the far NE corner of Fannin Co., goes over to Lamar Co., then turns south not very far into Lamar Co. Here's a good map about 1/3 of the way down:
-Alex Kurtagic
#79. To: X-15 (#78)
Thanks for the detail. With all the new production coming out of OK and everywhere up and down the line, I see the need to get the product to refineries on our coast.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#80. To: Lod (#79)
In addition: the stretch of land that's cleared for the pipeline makes a real good place to plant food-plots and put in stands for deer hunting after the pipeline crew has done their work and left. They've already plowed up the land, all you have to do is a little discing to plant your seeds and away you go!!
-Alex Kurtagic
#81. To: All, *Totalitarian Tiptoe* (#27)
Bumping this and other references in the thread pertinent to the Unconstitutional maneuvers to disarm Americans and the lesser known impact of disarming State Militias, too, which are comprised of the States' citizenry. Reminder: the National Guards are not the equivalency of Constitutional State Militias. They are a portion of volunteers from the State Militias that agree to work in a dual task force capacity with the Federal government. America's Secret Army: "if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45 [My note: between meaning 18-44], you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know."
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#82. To: All (#40)
Although it is verifiably correct that Militia units refused to cross the border into Canadian territory during the War of 1812 and that they were right to refuse, I was unable to locate info (for another thread) on three Militiamen having been executed for that. Am noting while re-addressing the matter that the New York and Vermont Militias reportedly refused the border crossing order as Unconstitutional for them to obey; because they weren't Regular Army troops but intended for national Defense only -- not international warfare. However, it is verifiable that Andrew Jackson ordered the executions of six Tennessee Militiamen farther south for Mutiny and Desertion because they thought their terms were for 3 months Constitutionally rather than 6 months of duty, which is a complicated issue and the time-extension arguably didn't even apply to them. They weren't the only ones executed by Jackson's orders but I thought that they should be given an honorable mention here, as well -- along with New York and Vermont -- because of their stand for Constitutionality. On the in-country duty issue of State/National Guard Militias, during the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson ordered 3 Militiamen to be executed for refusing to cross into Canadian territory. They were right to refuse
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#83. To: All (#82)
Should have mentioned there too that the Massachusetts and Connecticut Militias similarly refused a Presidential order that the Militias of the northern States march to the frontiers in the War of 1812 -- on the grounds that there was neither an invasion nor an insurrection there. Am noting while re-addressing the matter that the New York and Vermont Militias reportedly refused the border crossing order as Unconstitutional for them to obey; because they weren't Regular Army troops but intended for national Defense only -- not international warfare.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest