No products in the cart.

News

Selective ‘History Lesson’ on Militias Ignores Inconvenient Truths

1200px-Minute_Man_Statue_Lexington_Massachusetts
Evidently, per LTC Robert Bateman, Esquire, and a seeming majority of its readers, Capt. John Parker should have been hanged for treason. (“The Lexington Minuteman” sculpted by Henry Hudson Kitson. Photo: Daderot/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0)

LTC Robert Bateman presumes to lecture us on the militia and the Constitution, choosing Esquire Magazine as his forum so that, near as I can figure, we can also educate ourselves on the latest fashion tips for men, join in “progressive” attacks on conservatives, and catch up on all-important information about pop star Prince and his surprise concert tour. Bateman’s bottom line: The militia is what the government says it is, and if you join with others to defend against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles, you’re committing treason.

Bateman, some may recall, first came to the attention of many gun rights advocates with a 2013 Esquire piece declaring “It’s Time We Talk about Guns.” Understanding that piece helps us see what he’s up to in his latest screed.

He not only took SCOTUS and Justice Antonin Scalia to task for their Heller decision interpretation of the Second Amendment, but went on to propose citizen disarmament edicts that dispense with false assurances given by some in the gun ban camp that nobody wants to take our guns away.

Bateman does, big time, and makes no bones about it. In a way, he’s done us a service by giving a glimpse of the end game less candid incrementalists are sneaking toward.

That he attained his rank brings an assumed gravitas to his writings. When such a man speaks out, there is a natural presumption of authority. The problem is, his arguments don’t live up to that expectation, and rather quickly fall apart with just a superficial analysis, meaning his metrosexual Esquire hoplophobes are apt to swall… uh, there’s got to be a better way for me to phrase that.

Ah well, the people who watched him take his oath to the Constitution believed him, too. So get a load of what he’s selling now.

The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. “As of 1903,” he maintains, “the ‘militia’ has been known as the National Guard.”

Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the “unorganized militia” to include “members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” but Bateman dismissed that, claiming, “Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”

There are two problems with Bateman’s assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress documented, “Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

As for who is protected by the Second Amendment, it’s the people, just like the unmistakably clear wording says. Alexander Hamilton addressed “well regulated” in The Federalist No. 29, conceding “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

Hamilton recognized that soldiering is a profession, and knew that people had farms to work, shops to tend, trades to ply. But the value of them being “properly armed and equipped” was nonetheless recognized, even if they weren’t “well regulated” as a body — what regulation they would be subjected to would come if and when mustered, but there was no precondition on arms ownership imposed on what they could possess outside of such duty.

As wrong as Bateman is on chastising SCOTUS for “flunk[ing] basic high school history,” that’s not where he has generated the most applause from his “progressive” fellow travelers and the most contempt from gun rights advocates. That comes when he tells us about laws he’d like to see enacted.

He wants to end the practice of police being able to auction seized weapons. He wants to do a nationwide “buyback.” He wants to nationalize arms manufacturers. He wants draconian and escalating ammunition taxes.

But wait, as late TV pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more.

He wants to limit private gun ownership to “Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets … Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns [and] Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds.”

“We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers,” Bateman threatens. So much for the illusion of civilian control of the military, although it does drive home the fear the Founders had of a standing army.

“That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes,” he explains.

“Hopefully,” but not necessarily, Colonel? Will you also wait “hopefully” for my heirs?

“When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them,” he dictates. “Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.”

While he doesn’t flesh out how all this will be enforced, he does offer some chilling clues.

“My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence,” he explains. “There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

“I am really good at my job,” he self-assesses.

Ah, that monopoly of violence the “progressives” are so intent on crushing the Republic under…

Still, since he started the conversation in this direction, it would be helpful if Oberstleutnant Bateman would provide some specifics.

What happens if some of us say “No”? What happens if some of us resist, and do it creatively? Give us some scenarios here, LTC Bateman. I mean, after all, you guys have jets and tanks and nukes and everything.

Flesh your jackbooted terror campaign of national conquest out for us. Tell us about that “really good” violence you will orchestrate, you ridiculous and contemptible totalitarian.

Jeez, Bob, some of us will not roll over for you and, I don’t know how else to say this, but we are everywhere. So your move.

As to his latest contention that Shays Rebellion “proves” citizen militias were never intended to be “allowed,” Bateman conveniently avoids the inconvenient truth of the militias at Lexington and Concord standing against the “government” of King George. And he says nothing about another Founding document which boldly proclaimed “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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.”

The Opposite Day “progressive” collectivists don’t get to subvert and sabotage the work of the Founders and then call those attempting to protect and restore that heretofore unparalleled system for protecting unalienable rights through delegated powers “traitors.” Not on our watch.

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

82 comments

    1. Mr. Bateman is NOT an LTC! IF, he is in the Army, Air Force or Marine Corps he is a Lt. Col.
      IF, he is in the Navy, he is a Lt. Cdr. ALL of the LTC’s I could find are;

      LTC Lakeshore Technical College (Wisconsin)
      LTC Lieutenant Colonel
      LTC Lawn Tennis Club
      LTC Laptop Computer
      LTC Learning Technologies Center
      LTC Leadership Training Conference
      LTC License To Carry (firearms)
      LTC Leave Travel Concession
      LTC Linear Time Code (BETACAM)
      LTC Leaders Training Course
      LTC Language & Technology Conference
      LTC London Transit Commission (Canada)
      LTC Learning Technology Centre
      LTC La Tienda en Casa (Spanish tele-marketing company)
      LTC Long Term Captive (wildlife)
      LTC Line Training Captain (aviation)
      LTC Line Termination Coordinator
      LTC Line Traffic Coordinator
      LTC Leadership Training Continuum
      LTC Language Training Canada
      LTC Long Term Costing
      LTC Lowest Two-way Channel
      LTC Land Transportation Commission (Philippines)
      LTC Lot Trace Code
      LTC Laundry Technology Centre (UK)
      LTC Line Trunk Controller
      LTC Last Trunk Capacity (ITU-T)
      LTC Last Telecast
      LTC Limited Tenders Committee
      LTC Laurell Technologies Corporation (North Wales, PA)
      LTC Lam Tech Center
      LTC Lafferty Transportation Company
      LTC Landestheater Coburg
      LTC Loss of Test Channel
      LTC Large Technical Committee
      LTC Low-Temperature Controller
      LTC Low Tritium Column
      LTC Long-Term Concentration
      LTC Lost Time Case (health and safety statistics reporting)
      LTC Love, Tender, Care
      LTC Libyan Transitional Council (Libya)
      LTC Long-Term Contract
      LTC Little Traverse Conservancy (Michigan)
      LTC Load Tap Changer
      LTC Logistics Training Center
      LTC Longitudinal Time Code
      LTC Long-Term Care
      LTC Lotus Translation Components
      LTC Liquid Transport Corporation
      LTC Loan to Cost (UK banking)
      LTC Language Teaching Centre (South Africa)
      LTC Louisiana Technical College
      LTC Lazy Task Creation (computing)
      LTC Long Term Customer
      LTC Love the Children (various organizations)
      LTC Long Thread Casing (tubing)
      LTC Linear Tool Changer

      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_colonel_(United_States)#Etymology

        “While written as “Lt. Colonel” in orders and signature blocks, as a courtesy, lieutenant colonels are addressed simply as “colonel” verbally and in the salutation of correspondence. The U.S. Army uses the three letter abbreviation “LTC.” The United States Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force use the abbreviations “LtCol” and “Lt Col” (note the space) respectively.
        The U.S. Government Printing Office recommends the abbreviation “LTC” for U.S. Army usage, “LtCol” for Marine Corps usage, and “Lt. Col.” for the Air Force.”

      2. You forgot Ludicrous Turd Chomper…or how about the traitor uses LTC in his own email address: R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com.

        Aside from the fact that this so-called ‘patriot’ who neither recognizes his duty according to the oath he swore, or understands history in it’s real form, how about the fact that he violated DoD Directive 1344.10. “SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces ”

        “POLICY

        It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as “members”) (including members on active duty, members of the Reserve Components not on active duty, members of the National Guard even when in a non-Federal status, and retired members) to carry out the obligations of citizenship. In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement, the following policy shall apply:

        4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

        4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces. ”

        Seems the LTC cannot seem to decipher common DoD regulations, therefore making any attempt to inform anyone with regard to military history or attempting to sway public opinion while using LTC in his email, is in clear violation of said regulation, and thus equivalent to cannon fodder. Consider the source comes to mind.

        1. Sir, thank you for your service.

          As for your comment, spot on and his traitorous activities and disrespect for the uniform and tradition mark him as a politicized creature of ambition in pursuit of the rank of general officer. That is quite obvious.

          Best Regards

        1. Randall, I’m sure everyone would agree with your assessment, but we discourage direct name-calling here. Please forgive, but I can’t allow that as a direct ad hominem attack. Thank you for understanding.

          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

  1. Hey, Mr. LTC Robert Bateman, when you get ready to come get my guns, no need to let me know, just come on and take them, okay? Molon Labe!

    Until then, you are just puking hot air you traitorous coward.

  2. Regarding LTC Bateman’s implication that weapons must only be used ‘in defense of the nation”, I believe Ronald Reagan might reply something like:

    “The Second Amendment was not written to protect the government from the people. It was written to protect the people from government tyranny.”

    1. And this worthless bureaucrat is exactly the kind of person the Second Amendment was designed to protect against. He WILL be a threat to Americans and patriots, given a chance.
      But since he is so determined to disarm us, it is likely that IF he does ever go into combat against American citizens, one of his OWN men will off him. Not everyone is a brown shirt.

  3. LTC Bateman has never seen combat. He has been a staff officer with no command or combat postings. Prior to becoming a “military historian”, he served as a platoon/company commander from late 1995-1997 (total field experience of only 25 months in 2-7 Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division). He was reassigned to the USMA to teach history mid-tour. We all know what that means.

    Those of us with experience have a name for folks like this…. Useless.

    His remaining experience:

    Deputy Chief of Plans – NATO, Allied Rapid Reaction Corps
    September 2010 – Present

    Deputy, Future Plans – ISAF Joint Command (IJC) Kabul, Afghanistan
    January 2011 – January 2012

    Office of Net Assessment, OSD, Pentagon
    February 2006 – January 2010

    Adjunct Professor, Walsh Graduate School of Foreign Studies – Georgetown University
    2007 – 2009

    Strategist – Multinational Security Transition Command – Iraq (MNSTC-I)
    January 2005 – February 2006

    Department of the Army, G3
    August 2002 – December 2004

    Adjunct Professor – George Mason University
    2003 – 2004 (1 year)

    Research Fellow – Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS)
    July 2001 – August 2002

    Associate Professor – United States Military Academy
    June 1998 – July 2001

    1. LTC Bateman is a prime candidate for discharge. Perhaps he could retire to Venezuela, although I would be loathe to foist this personage on that poor population. Perhaps there is a cell still open in Gitmo, sounds more like a domestic terrorist to me that an officer of the US Military.

      1. My thought exactly! Although “useless” would certainly be an accurate appellation. One of the characters in George R R Martin’s series, “Song of Ice and Fire” refers to something being as “useless as nipples on armor”. Around here we compare some people to “tits on a boar hog”. Unfortunately, comparing this guy to either “nipples on armor” or “tits on a boar hog” does a grave injustice – both to nipples on armor and tits on boar hogs!

    2. Navyjack: Thank your for the summary of Bateman’s career. I had been wondering about his touted accomplishments. I agree with many of the commenters that he is embellishing his career and using it to add weight to his opinions when he was mainly a staff officer..

    3. Thanks for the summary on this guy’s career. First article of his that I read was exactly what I expected from a condescending self-righteous REMF “strategist”. Above validates my preconceived notion of this toad. Must have worked hard to avoid the field in this day and age. Bateman, get some PT, field time and lose the fork and try to not be a douche bag. .

  4. The email in the link is to a hotmail account. Can one of you active duty guys look him up on AKO white pages and get his .mil account? Just curious if this guy is legit, and what kind of unit he runs. Could you imagine standing in his formation listening to him spew this garbage?

    1. Yeah, he’s legit. He was checked out after his 2013 Esquire article. NavyJack’s info above is correct.
      .mil address is floating around the web. Or you can construct it yourself. Hint: middle initial L and number 3
      (I’m not active duty, nor a veteran.)

  5. Isn’t this one of the scenarios in “The Tipping Point”? The LTC was the second person executed after his and his CIC’s trials and convictions for Treason.

  6. Esquire magazine is still in business? When I was a kid we talked about it in hushed tones as it was a place where a young lad could view parts of the female form not on display everywhere on the street, as is now the case. Congrats to my fellow OKs for this ‘deep state’ intel.

    What the hell has happened to the US Army? In the old days such a douche bag, as this idiot’s disjointed thought process and words proclaim him to be, would be laying in a (undeserved) place of honor in Arlington. Yes, he would have been dispatched by a Mike-26 launched by a duly elected ‘snuffy’ in his command.

    I am not going to critique his words. This forum is not the place, as my response, formed that way, would be as lengthy as any novel ever written. I will say, that such a man probably is in the majority, if my forays into the bars and public places in Portland, Oregon are any measure.

    We “ Bitter Clingers” are the butt of jokes, and when not being laughed at, are completely shunned by the rainbow crowd-the progressive crowd? Heck I don’t know, what do you call these people? Sheep I guess. Highly intelligent sheep who think inviting wolves to dinner is a thumb in the eye to the sheep dog, who they hate for his courage and quiet strength.

    I can only pray that when the Colonel is bending down prying my weapon from my cold, dead fingers, that my neighbor will perform a public service and put one behind his ear. Hopefully he has a few other field grade Gods with him to write his citation for his heart and star.

    Semper Fidelis

    1. Why waste a round? If I was present under those circumstances, I have a pattern 1905 bayonet that fits nicely on my 1903 Springfield rifle that I would put as far up his “6” as the muzzle would allow. As my surgeon acquaintances say, all bleeding stops. Sixteen inches of American-made steel can cause a LOT of bleeding. But he’ll be “cured” of his hemorrhoids!

    2. My friend, when a sheep considers itself highly intelligent, it is involved in self deception. This is one Oath Keeper that will leave a pile of current criminal rulers around me before I have any cold dead fingers to pull my knife, rock, bat, sword or one of their own weapons from. Remember David and Goliath. The Goliath of corrupt government cannot fight the people in righteous indignation as then corruption goes against God and that is always a losing battle. I fear only God and certainly have NO fear of even an enormous army of criminals, no matter what false rank they have stolen by fraud or bought by bribe. Bring it on LTC as I know that stands for lame timid creep in the case of Bateman the coward. Such people do not uphold and defend the Constitution even though they swore to do exactly that. As a child, my Uncle was a Marine and all the men in my family served except for two that were intellectual sheep that knew God to be a fairy tale and supported the Palestinian cause. One was my idiot brother that stole a lot from the family.

  7. There is another, more recent use of militia. In 1946, in the city of Athens, Tennessee (Battle of Athens, TN), a group of recently returned WWII vets used modern military arms “borrowed” from the local National Guard armory for the purpose of protecting ballot boxes from tampering by the local law enforcement, who were part of a local political “machine”. At the time, ballot stuffing was a common problem and the former GIs decided that the time had come for an honest election. They took the necessary action to ensure it.

    1. We covered this story several years ago here at Oath Keepers. I got the story from Aaron Zelman, who is now deceased, of JPFO, who called me one day and sent me all his research on this event. I had lived most of my life in Memphis Tennessee, and never heard about this most significant event in Athens, Tennessee, until Aaron told me. The article I posted here is no longer available, but I do have a text file saved and can rebuild that article if time permits.
      Meanwhile, here is the video with more than two million views. This serves as a synopsis in thirteen minutes and is an exciting video to view. The lessons carried in this story are important and numerous. Enjoy:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      1. I figure that the last election had about FIVE MILLION fraudulent votes at least. The “machine” that included both Democrats and Republicans is determined to NOT lose control.
        The first blatant sign that Republicans were involved was when Lisa Murkowski won the Alaska Senate seat with write in ballots. That would have been impossible with massive fraud. And tthen the Republicans show there color by giving her her old seniority, even though she had run as an INDEPENDENT.
        Folks, it is much worse that most believe. And every outsider that goes to Washington seems to be very shortly to join the ranks of the corrupt and start to work to destroy our nation.

        And anyone who believes that Trump is an OUTSIDER is simply deceived. He IS a Democrat, come over to the Republican side to steal the nomination from a real conservative.
        God help us.

  8. civilian militia, posse defender of liberty, protector of our county (ies) call it what you will the educated American public will do what is our God given instinct…regardless of some individual (s) whose agenda is evil and senseless. So many warped pukes in our nation in or out of office in or out of military uniform… geez… no wonder we as a nation are so messed up. God open these blind eyes to reality.

  9. If it were not for the many conversations I have had with active duty military and police personnel about our oath to uphold and defend the Constitution then idiots like this one, and the murderers of Lavoy Finicum, could cause a serious level of distrust in anyone that wears a uniform. Fortunately, I suspect that the numbers are still in favor of the Constitution rather than against it, but I suspect that we will know the truth about this very soon.

    1. Unfortunately, Dr, Alford, my conversations with mid-level and senior enlisteds and Officers from 1Lt through LTC has not made me at all confident that, should versions of OK’s 10 Orders be issued, a significant number of NCOs and Officers would hesitate to execute those orders exactly as issued. The most common response I have gotten is essentially that they do not have a full/proper perspective on events and therefor trust the chain of command not to issue what we might consider “unlawful orders”. I fear that, while they might privately wonder at the propriety and lawfulness of their orders, they would sufficiently trust the chain of command to vigorously execute those orders. I would also add that I have yet to speak to a serving G.I. who was even aware of the existence of OK. Further, they, to a man, feared that to even browse to this website – even on their off-duty time and from a private computer – could lead to their clearance being lifted/voided and even administrative or even UCMJ punishment being imposed.

  10. When the constitution was written there was no national guard therefore the militia were the individual people. The Supreme Court has up held this to be true.

    1. It will take a number of hours to get the full picture, but if anyone wants the full history of what Colt45 is talking about, the answers are in the books written by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
      I would start with “Three Rights” and then do “Constitutional Homeland Security”, and for the very lengthy study of the Colonial and original thirteen States’ cultural and societal embrace of and use of the “Militia System” as prescribed later in the Constitution of 1789, get the CD-ROM (pdf) copy of The Sword and Sovereignty. It’s the entire history of the Militia from the Colonies through today. It’s a treasure.

      The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the Several States” (Constitutional Homeland Security, Volume 2) Multimedia CD – 2012; by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.; copyright 2012 by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. (This is a pdf on a disc; has not been printed as a book yet.) Buy your copy at Amazon

      At Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles/dp/0967175941/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=1A23720TNTC903SQ5VF4

      See all of Dr. Vieira’s books here:

      https://oathkeepers.org/oath-keepers-academy/edwin-vieira/

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

  11. “My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence,” he explains. “There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

    “I am really good at my job,” he self-assesses.

    This LTC Bateman, is what makes you a conductor only. Those of us that held and hold the weapons are the ones good at killing. Don’t you ever forget that!

  12. The Allied Rapid Reaction Corps are so slow they can’t even get out of their own way. Bunch of festering pustules led by a total incompetent. The 2nd amend was written to protect the people from just the kind of treasonous Government we have today!”A free people ought not only be armed, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status in independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government” GEORGE WASHINGTON

    1. Washington believed that under the US Constitution we can, and should have our own “manufactories” to create our own weapons, particularly those used by the military, just in case this type of corrupt and treasonous people got into our government and we needed to remove and replace them.

      George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

  13. “Bateman’s bottom line: The militia is what the government says it is, and if you join with others to defend against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles, you’re committing treason.”

    Yes, ever since Lincoln, the Feds define everything, and if you challenge their definitions in any meaningful way, you are subject to losing everything.

    1. I am not a fan of Lincoln, but I believe you are incorrect in your assessment.

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

      1. Right on Cal…we are about weeding out the miss-carriages and restoring our Constitutional Republic. The ‘Rule of Law’ will prevail and we will all again rest easy.

  14. The formal Act of Congres that formed the National Guard occured in 1909. In that Law, the “unorganized militia” was formally recognized and defined as able-bodied men, 18-45, since extended to 60. The National Guard is NOT the ‘Militia of the several States”, period.

    I am rather surprised that the troll Bateman, a perfect little Nazi if ever one existed did not know this. The Act was named for him; “The Dick Act of 1909”. I am not making this up.

  15. The essential error in the Esquire piece is that the National Guard is “the militia” in a constitutional sense (or any kind of “militia”, for that matter)., Actually, the National Guard (and the so-called “Naval Militia”) are the “:Troops, or Ships of War” which the States may “keep * * * in time of Peace” “with[ ] the Consent of Congress”, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. This is obvious from the statutes of 1903 through 1916 (and thereafter) which created and put into final form the National Guard and Naval Militia.
    The bottom line of the Esquire article is sufficiently refuted in the Appendix to the second edition of my book “By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of ‘Martial Law'”. I suspect, though, that someone who writes for Esquire might find that book a tad too intellectual to digest.

    1. Thank you for clarifying the National Guard. What confuses me about the debate on the 2nd is the position taken by groups such as the NRA, GOA, and various state organizations.
      The leadership of these groups either intentionally mislead their membership, or are ignorant of the defined authority of Militia at Article 1, Section 8, and the fact that the words, meanings, and powers enumerated cannot be changed by acts of the congress. The congress has the delegated authority “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. It is stated for all to read, and understand. However, where, if at all, can we find the authority for the congress to un-organize, disarm, or leave Militia without the proper training required to execute their duty? Surely the legal professionals at the NRA would have such questions and act accordingly.

  16. “Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”

    Well, I completely agree, and since I swore an oath before Almighty God to uphold the constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic, I would ask the gentleman; which are you? I’m feeling somewhat un-“well regulated” I must admit. More training is therefore in order and since I’m no longer active duty I fall outside of being “disciplined by the congress” and revert back to the standing militia. Furthermore, my oath was not temporary, so I would ask the colonel again; which are you?
    From your for bearers; “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…”
    *Well Regulated = Trained and equipped – Since I may be needed to honor my oath at a moments notice.
    *organized armed and disciplined = in service – well, thanks for the training and the free housing was a plus.
    Hey Colonel pinhead, the word “Part” is capitalized??? That, is in the original. My oh my, if only I knew English I would understand which “Part” of the militia I am in right now. Anything else I can help the FORMER soldier with?

  17. 4GW. One aspect means skipping the fodder and going straight for the order givers. [Two sentences deleted by Elias Alias, editor] Seriously… do these people have ANY brain cells?

  18. This “Bateman” is nothing but a communist who either ignores the Constitution and the Federalist papers or is ignorant of both. The dangerous part is that he swore to uphold the Constitution and is now refusing to do so. He should be court marshaled and given a dishonorable discharge.
    I guess then he would run for political office as a Democrat.
    What a joke.

  19. “My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence,” he explains. “There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

    “I am really good at my job,” he self-assesses.

    General Thomas Gage was supposed to be “really good at his job”, you know. In fact, Commander William Howe was, too. General Sir Henry Clinton joined Gage and Howe in attempting to defeat the Continental Army, which was composed of many different elements. They were not a highly-trained fighting force but a combination of regulars and volunteers from every walk of life.

    Well, we all know what happened, and Bateman can pound sand.

    For the Republic

  20. All I can tell you is that there are plans made and are adapting as situations change. There are leaders in place. Patience, patience, patience……! Stay in prayer to our Lord Jesus the Christ.

  21. I don’t know who this clown thinks he is its hard to tell about someone who polishes chairs with his butt but the 2nd was written to protect us from such idiots.
    I’ll just wait for him to pry my weapons from my cold dead hand cause knowing me I’ll be playing possum mo!on labe dear sir

  22. The gun grabbers plan is to have SCOTUS declare that the Second Amendment only protects the right to bear arms for those in the militia.

    In December 2015, Illinois State passed a resolution HR 855 that only militias have 2nd Amendment rights. http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900HR0855&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=HR&LegID=92803&DocNum=855&GAID=13&Session=&print=true

    On 30 Jan 16, a Massachusetts state congressman published an invitation to discuss repeal of the 2nd Amendment in Huffpo. One of his ideas was that SCOTUS would rule against private gun rights in favor of protection only for the militia. See here: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

    Two weeks later in midFebruary, I was not at all surprised to see the mysterious death of Justice Scalia. I was even less surprised to read that Obama intended to rush a SCOTUS nomination.

    Now we get this Esquire article from a gun grabber, taunting us that the Army will kill us if we defend our right to bear arms, and that only federally approved militia (limited to National Guard) can keep and bear arms.

    LTC Bateman obviously isn’t a JAG, since he will be humiliated to learn that by law, 10 USC 311, every male between 17 and 45 is in the militia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    The fight just went from Obama’s executive orders to SCOTUS. That’s why Scalia had to be killed and a gun grabber appointed to the court to reinterpret the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

    And now, for the Unintended Consequences, as so beautifully written by Karl Denninger: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231078

    And to end on cinematic quotes:

    Tombstone, “I’m your huckleberry.”

    And

    Conan The Barbarian, “Do you want to live forever?”

  23. So what you are saying is that guy is a self important twit. For some odd reason I do not need a room filled with 22,000 law books to translate the US Constitution to me. It is fine and easily understandable.
    Just remember the majority of those who translate and create “laws” within our government are doing so illegally. The original 13th Amendment stated clearly that those holding royal title, the Esquires, those who are BAR certified cannot legally hold office in the US Government. Which means the majority of people operating in the US Government are illegal and criminal. Not up for discussion. Read the original 13th Amendment and understand it was put there to prevent exactly what has happened.
    The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
    To The Constitution For The United States

    “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” [Journal of the Senate]

  24. Thank you to all the uplifting comments that gives me hope for my grandchildrens future. And especially for all of you that have served and are serving. Just a note I want to add….reading all the comments from LEO, Military, Veterans….We have a family of hunters. And knowing the Cowboys out west are also armed, keep us in mind, thousands of us….we too are “Oathkeepers” by proxy (the person so authorized; substitute; agent). Molon Labe

  25. The real question for me is, How do Bateman’s superior officers permit this??? He’s writing his political views while on active duty. Isn’t he required to obtain permission before submitting his articles?
    Reading one forum, people filed complaints about him to the Army after his 2013 and 2014 Esquire articles, some over his hostile replies to posts in the articles’ comments sections. He threatened some posters with UCMJ action for insulting a superior officer.
    Yet he’s allowed to continue to write anti-2nd-Amendment drivel. Must be Gen. Dempsey’s idea of a good soldier. I think he should have been forced into retirement right after the 2013 article appeared.

  26. I just wanted to correct one misconception I saw in the article, Mr. Codrea. LTC Bateman is correct on one point. If you take up arms against your government, it is treason. Article III, Section 3. of the Constitution explicitly states this when it says treason shall consist of levying war against the US. I think we all should remember this.

    As with many of our forefathers though, and as stated in much more elegant terms int eh Declaration of Independence, I believe that not only may it not be wrong to commit treason, but at times it is our duty to do so. I just want us all to remember that it is treason and if you do so and lose the war, you will be convicted of treason and the punishment may well be the death penalty. Patrick Henry certainly understood this concept when he said “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

    1. Just a thought Steve — I like your turn of logic, but would offer you a friendly tweak. It may be seen, from some perspectives at least, that the liberty movement is not talking about taking up arms against the government. They are talking about taking up arms to protect themselves from criminals who have usurped our lawful seats of governmental power and authority. Any criminal can get into public office these days. The very people, like us for instance, whom our alleged government is saying are “anti-government” are actually anti-crime-in-government. Our voice is overcast by a massive media machine in the control of the same forces which have taken over the control of our Federal government, and we’re beset with entire departments and agencies which have no valid Constitutional authority to even exist, such as the ATF, DEA, EPA, BLM, USFS, etc. Those who run such organizations under the “color of law” which is not law because it is not pursuant to the Constitution — they are the damned criminals who are anti-government. We the People who live on the land do not want to throw over the government, we want it cleaned up and run properly, Constitutionally.

      There is a remembered voice, and I’ll trot it back out here just now –

      “If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the “poor”; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or “fast-track”; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax . We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited.”

      Spoken by the Honorable Congressman Ron Paul (R, TX), in 1998.

      The “fog of war” would veil just who has committed treason, wouldn’t you say? I feel like I’m seeing very clearly when I see that the criminals who’ve hatcheted our government, committed treason, are wearing coats and ties and sitting in the People’s seats of government. It is only natural, a typical archetypal projection, that the criminals in WDC would call we Constitutionalists “treasoners” or “terrorists” or “extremists”.

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

    2. I attempted to make clear in the first paragraph the distinction between treason and “defend[ing] against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles.”

      If you can’t do that, there is literally nothing those in govt employ cannot do to you under “color of authority”. If that’s the case, even advocating resistance against illegitimate “official” predation could be labeled “sedition.”

      But I get your point– that’s what the real traitors call us, and if they win, that’s how they’ll treat us. But I’m not going to cede any illusions of “high ground.” They use their twisted Newspeak to manipulate language and the opinions of the ignorant to the benefit of the totalitarian agenda. And just because they present something as “legal” doesn’t mean it comports with “the supreme Law of the Land.”

      1. As say to those who wish ill on my ownership and right to bear arms that they should set the example by ridding themselves of their firearms and any public or private armed protection. I myself do not intend nor willingly provide those Stalinists such easy path. We resubmit the declaration of independence; nail it to their foreheads if need be.

      2. David, while I agree over all with your sentiment, I would have to agree with Steve that anyone taking up arms against the Republic would, in fact, be committing treason – as were the patriots in 1775 and following. It is not for naught that the copy of the Declaration of Independence sent to London was not signed. Those guys new full well that signing their names to the document would be signing their own death warrants. No sense giving the Redcoats a list of who to round up.

        That being said, I am reminded of a scene in (at least the television version) of Clavel’s “Shogun” (which, it so happens, I watched not far from where much of the story took place) where Anjin (Richard Chamberlain) tells the Shogun about how the Pope had divided the world up between Spain and Portugal. When the Shogun asks Anjin if that was not treason, Anjin replies, “Only if THEY win.” If a revolution comes, the insurgents will certainly be committing what could be termed “treason”. But that will not matter if the insurgents win. If they do NOT win, being considered traitors will surely be the very least of their troubles.

    3. Steve, you do not understand that those who SERVE WITHIN OUR government are NOT our government, it matters not if they were elected, hired, contracted, etc. The other thing you do not understand is that Treason is always against the American people, though it can come at us through those who serve.

      Notice in the Declaration of Independence it was not any who served within “government” that declared themselves free from the King’s tyranny. It was the people.

      Dr. Vieira explains Treason well here –
      http://freedomtalknetcast.com/Site_3/Freedom_Talk_Report_and_News_files/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf

      People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): “The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, …It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.”

  27. From Bateman in his article: “let’s look at what it means to be a “militia,” as these men claim to be.”

    No. The Malheur occupiers never claimed to be a militia. It was the press who kept referring to them as a militia. From the initial story in the Oregonian, which printed “Militia takes over Malheur,” the press has repeatedly called them militia. The press sometimes calls them the Bundy Militia; there is no such organization as the Bundy Militia. Bateman in his article’s title calls them the “Oregon militia.” What Oregon militia?

    Are ANY of the Malheur occupiers besides Payne militia members? My understanding is none. So why is Bateman writing about the “militia” in Oregon?

    The media struggled with what to call the Malheur occupiers, and various media outlets used different names to describe them.
    Oregon militia or militants? Media wrestle with labels
    http://www.oregonlive.com/editors/index.ssf/2016/01/oregon_militia_or_militants_me.html

    Link to the WaPo article in the Oregonian article didn’t work; I think this is the article they want to link to.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/

  28. Bateman writes, “The men in Bend, Oregon identify themselves as ‘patriots.'” How nice for them! Bundy and followers were in BURNS, Oregon. Bend is 2 hours away from Burns.

  29. My favorite sentence in this article: “…Jeez, Bob, some of us will not roll over for you and, I don’t know how else to say this, but we are everywhere. So your move….”

  30. I think the bigger issue here is that the military is in fact teaching this in their academies. It does not appear to be “official” doctrine, but both the USMA and USNA (I do not have any friends at the USAFA to verify) have classes where the National Guard is taught as the “replacement” for the militias. It took me almost an hour to convince a USNA instructor that the information being presented is wrong. The formal curricula is actually correct and presents both US Title 10 and Title 32, Sections 311-313:

    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 commissioned officers of the National Guard.

    The error in instruction is a function of “handed-down” instructor notes and poor references used during presentation. The confusion starts with the definition of the “Reserve Militia” defined in the “Militia Act of 1903” being called the “Unorganized Militia” under Title 10. From here the military instructors made the jump from “Unorganized” to other than “Well Regulated”. Once I actually got my USNA friend to read the Militia Act of 1903, it all started to make sense to him that the “Reserve Militia” is the pool of candidates that the Counties, States or Federal Government can call upon.

    Several States have laws that prohibit militia members from forming into “military companies” without State consent. In most cases, these laws do not prohibit militia members from using military structures and terminology for training exercises. In some states, these laws do not apply to rural areas. In some states, veterans are allowed to form “companies” for parades and/or reunions. The key is to know your State and local laws. To be safe, organizations in states with these types of laws should steer clear of using military rank designations and unit titles (platoon, company, brigade, etc.) that would run afoul of any “military company formation” prohibition.

    1. Some things to consider from those who would know:

      John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States”: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

      George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

      Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “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.
      The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

      Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

      Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

      Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.”

      Cockrum vs State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

  31. The “Militia Act of 1903” (the Dick Act) has nothing to do with the right conveyed by the 2nd Amendment. The “Militia Act of 1903” provides guidance on the method for organizing, using and funding the National Guard. It also reinforces the need for the “Reserve Militia” that is defined in the act. The act placed no limitation on a State’s ability to raise a militia separate and apart from the National Guard. Any argument pro/con on this issue is not supported by facts.

    The argument that 2nd Amendment rights somehow only apply to the need for maintenance of a “well regulated militia” is a false argument. The first thing we need to recognize is that without the “Bill of Rights” there would be no US Constitution. The first 10 amendments were “non-negotiable” items to the ratification and adoption of the Constitution.

    The 2nd Amendment reads as follows:
    “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.”

    The right conveyed is the right to “keep and bear Arms”. No other right is conveyed by the 2nd Amendment. The right is conveyed to “the people”, not members of a “militia”. The right is not limited. The amendment uses the phrase “shall not be infringed” to ensure no future limitation is placed on right of “the people”.

    Patriots who are fretting the death of Justice Scalia and the effect that his death may have on the 2nd Amendment should remember the words of Thomas Jefferson:

    “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”

    These important words go hand-in-hand with another famous declaration made by Mr. Jefferson:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    The list of “causes” (offenses) attributed to King George III in the “Declaration of Independence” was long. In my opinion, one offense stood above all others:

    “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”

    Laws and acts of legislation which are foreign to our constitution are as despicable today as they were in 1776.Never forget that the events at Lexington and Concord were a direct result of a “gun control” act ordered by King George III.

  32. Judges are upholding unconstitutional regulations and laws, and otherwise striking down what is constitutional. Today, the results are evident. Persons of criminal minded Bateman likeness have become embolden because they experience no consequence for their evil imposed on unalienable rights. I do not comply nor concede to any other mans tyranny.

  33. Lt. Col. Bateman, when the time comes to enact your master plan, please remember that there are roughly 300 million private firearms owners in the US, most of which come from a Military background. We the people comprise the militia per the 2nd Amendment. You might get one of us, but, then the word will get out and you will have a supreme fecal storm headed you’re way. I will bet you that most of my team members are better equipped and trained than your team.

  34. @David Codrea
    David,
    Great article. Please permit me this one very friendly critique.

    While tutoring LTC Bateman on the rights of we the people via the words and directions of our founders in our Declaration of Independence I wish you would have continued a little further down the document to remind him that it is not only our right, but our *duty* to put down an out of control government.

    They didn’t just agree we should have the right, they agreed that it was expected of us to defend the sanctity of this Republic.

    I think the following sentence is far too underappreciated and underutilized when discussing the options our founders left for we the people to keep control of our government and, in turn, our liberties.

    ” 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, ”

    Again, Great job. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and for your vigilance.

    TomM

  35. LOL. Your militias are absolutely useless. You bring up Lexington and Concord but forget to discuss the War of 1812 where American Militias racked up a terrible performance record. Your article also forgot to mention how Washington HATED militias because they were next to useless on the battlefield to defeat the regular British Army. The Battle of Cowpens is a great illustration just how unreliable the historical militias were. Lee put them in front while the Continental Regulars- the REAL soldiers- provided the bastion for the actual battle. Modern militias are all but discredited with the comedy clown show in Burns, OR. And you sling shit at this West Point professor, nice. Veterans and rank only mean something when you slap it on your Rothco knock-off multi-cam. I seem to remember that many of the so-call “Veterans” of the clown show in Burns where either POGS or just plain ‘ol fakers.

    1. Wow! We get a visitor from an alien camp! Awesome that you would spare us a moment of your time. I anticipate that better philosophers and historians than I shall take you to class, and I hope they do so without ad hominem attacks on you as a person. If no one responds, however, to your shallow, sound-bite-repeating talking points, I’ll try to make time to help you recall the cultural mores of George Washington’s time, and remind you that all the soldiers in the Continental Army were themselves recruited from the Militia of the Colonies. You see, General Wolfe, back in that day every man was a member in the Militia, in most Colonies it was by force of law. George Washington may not have despised the Militiamen as much as you claim, since he built his Army using them. What he was lamenting was the lack of a centralized training regimen, which he longed for the Continental Army to furnish through training.
      But with that much, I must confess that I’ve got other more pressing things to do at the moment, so will for the time being leave it to smarter people here to rebut your premises.
      In the meantime, please avail yourself of the actual history of the Militia by going to Amazon dot com and getting this 2,400 page tome on the subject by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has given this country the definitive history of the Militia with extensive research, fully sourced and documented by America’s foremost authority on the Militia.

      http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles-Homeland/dp/0967175941/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420352146&sr=1-1&keywords=edwin+vieira%2C+sword+and+sovereignty

      Thank you for checking us out here at Oath Keepers. Stick around.
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

    2. General Wolfe eh? Are you British, English Canadian or American? Offhand, I can recall the history of a British Major General James Wolfe during the battle of Quebec, French Indian wars and various European theatres. The surname “Wolf, Wolfe, Wolff pretty well covers American, UK, French, German, Italian and a few others.Though, It’s rather obvious that your something else as you seem to be of none of the above.

    3. General Wolfe: LTC Bateman’s articles are simply collectivist propaganda. As clearly documented in my comments above, his analysis is wrong; intentionally.

      As for the militia under Washington, it is true that he blamed many of his early failures on the militia. It is also true that militia units were responsible for many of the most stunning victories during the war. Go figure.

      As for your “Burns” comments; there were no “militias” involved in the standoff at the Oregon Wildlife Refuge. This too is propaganda. The individuals involved occupied the refuge without the support of any militia group.

  36. I have long been thinking about a possible (probable?) coming revolution and have reached the following conclusions about governments and rebellion against them.

    In 1776, when Thomas Jefferson wrote (in the American Colonists’ Declaration of Independence) of governments deriving their power (“just” power to be exact) from the consent of the governed, he was merely stating the obvious . All rulers operate by the consent of the governed – whether said “consent” is willing, tacit or coerced. Call it “divine right of kings”, “mandate of heaven” or “rule by fear”, it all only amounts to consent. If sufficient numbers of individuals withdraw their consent, then any government – I say again ANY GOVERNMENT can fall. It may require different percentages of the “governed” in different situations, but the principle is the same. A sufficiently large force of unarmed, untrained (in martial skills) peasants can overpower the most skillful, heavily armed and armored mounted knight. The same principle obtains equally whether one considers armored knights or nation states. This is the critical point the “resistance is futile” crowd fail to understand. Given sufficient numbers and sufficient strength of will, a revolution WILL succeed. It is inevitable. The ratio of “Chiefs” to “Indians” has always been and forever MUST BE in favor of the “Indians”. Revolutions fail only when the numbers of rebels or their will to break free is insufficient.

  37. If one seeks true Independence and Liberty, the purse first must be brought back to it’s rightful owner in accordance with their Constitutional obligations. Thus, the strings attached will drawn taught and snap and many a fool will feel like a sap. NGO’s will hastily flee if enough in society desire to be free. The above article was quite good and quite easily understood.

  38. Lets talk openly about all the lies being perpetuated to destroy our nation from within and to keep the people and those that would be used against us “guessing” on what is correct and true.

    Most people will not do the research unless links are given. But there is no excuse to not read the US Constitution and many comments from the framers and our forefathers about who is the Militia are listed here and elsewhere by many of us who do the research. The Militia is the whole people who have the capability to do the “job”. But…

    To be able to LAWFULLY enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution, to enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are laws in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution ONLY), to be able to protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” one must be a regulated Militia.

    A regulated Militia requires training of the people involved as congress requires those in the US military to be trained – and that training can come from those who are now vets. The other requirement is that they know and understand the US Constitution so as to be able to enforce it in a lawful manner. That does not do away with force, but it does require that crimes be handled as our laws in pursuance thereof the US Constitution require; charges made, arrests, jury trials. etc.

    But the US Constitution MUST be enforced in all of its requirements.

    So lets look at the impersonator of a US President, Obama, who is “making laws/codes/regulations/EO’s – none of which is lawful or binding on the American people – and using other Americans to “enforce” them because they are ordered to do so (shades of Hitler’s Germany, Stalinist/Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China, etc).

    The US Constitution REQUIRES that any person who aspires to be a presidential candidate/US President meet only THREE REQUIREMENTS. Obama did not meet all three requirements as he is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen as our founders understood “natural born citizen” to mean (here is a good explanation of “natural born citizen” http://freedomoutpost.com/explained-natural-born-citizen-naturalized-citizen/).

    Obama was never a lawful presidential candidate, he was illegally and unlawfully *placed into the position, won by **Election Fraud, etc; and NEVER met the three requirements. It would not matter if he had legal and lawful votes of 100%, without meeting those three requirements he can NEVER be a LAWFUL US President, order our troops, etc. He IS NOT THE US President. America have been without a LAWFUL US President for about 3 decades – but that is not what I am discussing here.

    One must understand that a person impersonating a US President has to have the backing of the legislature and the judicial (and unlawful military) branches of our government. It is widespread Treason and Terrorism being perpetuated onto and against the American people, the US Constitution, and the USA.

    Lies and misinformation are everywhere to confuse the people. All that has to be done to wipe our that confusion is to read and then ENFORCE the US Constitution.

    A few comments by our framers, by those who created, and/or served within our early government shows the way. Not much has changed within our US Constitution itself (lawfully or not) so its requirements are the same as they ever were.

    We can manufacture our own weapons/supplies, even military ones, or especially those by the military as George Washington shows here in this comment. Since the US Constitution requires it no law can be made that does away with our supreme LAW that all laws are REQUIRED to be in pursuance thereof.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29: “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

    John Adams, ‘A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States’: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

    George Washington, “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”

    St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

    Patrick Henry: “The president will lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you.”

    Patrick Henry: “The power of the federal courts would swell the patronage of the president.”

    Patrick Henry: “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade.“
    (Ambuscade meaning is basically a concealed or hidden attack; concealed attacks which I believe describes exactly what we have been experiencing.)

    Thomas Jefferson: “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”

    John Adams (1735–1826), from A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765): ““Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right. . . and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution… On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “… a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”

    Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause, Federalist 33: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

    John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

    Here are just a few interesting tidbits they wrote, but they show how far offbase those who serve within our government have gone.

    Thomas McKean, Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states”.

    James Iredell, 1st North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

    It is important to realize that ALL laws/regulations/etc MUST come from those serving as Senators and within the House of Representatives as per the US Constitution; NOT from anyone else in that branch or from another whatever their position is.

    The Militia of the people are the ONLY ones who can lawfully enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution, to enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are laws in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution ONLY), to be able to protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” BECAUSE that IS the Constitutional requirement. It is past time we enforce the US Constitution. It is past time that the people of the USA READ it as required reading.

Comments are closed.