Martial Law in the U.S.

[commonsense]

On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri, via its Department of Public Safety, issued what was called "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this report, people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly were referenced as being connected to potentially dangerous "militia members." But the inference did not stop there. People of conservative ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.

The MIAC report was categorized as "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive," meaning the report was intended for law enforcement personnel only. Fortunately, an unidentified (for obvious reasons) Missouri law enforcement officer, who was extremely disturbed by this report, sent a copy to nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones. Of course, Jones immediately "blew the whistle" on the story. This was on March 11.

The Constitution Party issued a "Travel Advisory" for the State of Missouri, warning tourists and residents about the possibility of being profiled by State Police for such things as having bumper stickers with political statements on their vehicles, etc. All of this commotion was not lost on several Missouri State legislators and executive officers, either.

Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon (who had previously stood by and defended the MIAC report) to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report. In addition, several Missouri State legislators said they would introduce an amendment to the Department of Public Safety's budget barring the agency from using "state or federal funds for political profiling."

On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent an apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, "I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations."

While Ron, Bob, and I appreciated the apology and retraction from Mr. Britt, the overriding offense of the report still lingered: namely, the report, with a very broad brush, linked people holding conservative political opinions to dangerous and violence-prone "militias," which Missouri law enforcement personnel were instructed to be on guard against. Therefore, public outcry against the MIAC report continued, Mr. Britt's apology notwithstanding.

Then, on Wednesday, March 25, the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to "permanently cease distribution" of this abysmal report. Keathley said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed.

Keathley also noted that the report was filled with numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not cite any sources for its broad statements about "right-wing" militias. He further said that his department would now review how the MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers. He said the process "needs improvement."


What does this say about “freedom in America” when those quoting the U.S. Constitution are considered “dangerous” ?

The article above makes no mention of the FBI’s continued investigation of third-party supporters. Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in the MIAC report. Further evidence that Mohammedan extremists, environmental whackos and socialists are all effective tools of the totalitarian take-over of America whose agenda is just hitting its stride with the emplacement of the current administration.

Limbaugh Covers MIAC Report

Missouri scraps MIAC report

[Yarn]

Google News

This should have been a bigger story. I mean, sure, there are lot of mainstream media sources on that list (e.g. CNN, Fox, and local papers), but still. I sure hope those governors don't get re-elected.

[WindWip]

I had to look it up myself to actually believe that they would pull something like that. I couldn't find a report where they named either Ron Paul or Bob Barr though, I must be finding the revised report - do you have a link to the original one?

[WindWip]

Btw commonsense, the sites you posted are very, very biased. I wouldn't expect to get very accurate information from them. They seem to pander very heavily to the strongly religious/conservative, anti-Obama crowd.

The headlines in renewamerica.us were:
Will Obama bring a cold-blooded murderer 'in from the cold'?
Suddenly one morning, tyranny
Texas board approves new standards requiring critique of evolution
Judge rules Texas pledge may reference God
Abortionist Tiller cleared of criminal charges

For infowars.com here are a couple:
Obama’s Dictator Status Expands With Firing Of Wagoner
Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

[Morality Games]

Btw commonsense, the sites you posted are very, very biased.

Commonsense gets information from biased sites?! Now what am to believe?

Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in the MIAC report.

Because Missouri is a stronghold of liberalism. Our power there is absolute.

i.e. because only right-wing, and particularly third party examples, espouse such sentiments. Or is the Green Party forming into militias?

People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.

Most conservatives are opposed to these things, so pointing out people profiled in the report held these opinions is meaningless. What is of significance is how far a conservative feels it is right to go to act against these things -- that is the line between a moderate and a radical.

Obama’s Dictator Status Expands With Firing Of Wagoner

Do conservatives think that sounds dramatic and terrifying? Comes across as overly sensitive, hyper-partisan blubbery to me.

[Chaossaber314]

Pertinent

http://www.semissourian.com/article/...WS03/703279996

Anger over the report's conclusions has bubbled among conservatives for weeks. The controversy intensified Wednesday after Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder held a news conference in the Capitol and called for Nixon's director of public safety to be disciplined.

Several hours after Kinder's news conference, Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. James Keathley said he had halted distribution of the report and said no future reports will be issued from the state's fusion center before he and Public Safety Director John Britt approve them.

[Morality Games]

The first mistake Nixon's predecessors made was taking these militias seriously.

[Yarn]

WindWip:

Btw commonsense, the sites you posted are very, very biased. I wouldn't expect to get very accurate information from them. They seem to pander very heavily to the strongly religious/conservative, anti-Obama crowd.

The article that he quoted from for his thread starter didn't fabricate any facts, in so far as I can tell.
- CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Missouri official apologies for linking militias to candidates « - Blogs from CNN.com
- 03/26/2009 - Missouri Highway Patrol rescinds controversial militia report - STLtoday.com

On reflection however, it doesn't appear as though the governors were involved, so I retract my statement against them.

[no1ninja]

WOW. This is mind-blowing.


These people will use the resources you give them to enslave you and not see anything wrong with the tactic.


As a canuck, I have no say in terms of votes, but was I ever impressed with Ron Paul.

[commonsense]

because only right-wing, and particularly third party examples, espouse such sentiments. Or is the Green Party forming into militias?


Ecoterror

Hummer arsons



"forming into militias" is a Constitutional Right. More importantly, it is so because it is a basic HUMAN RIGHT.

Everything "the left" espouses runs counter to basic human rights because it requires an oppressive police state in order to impose its agenda on the innocently unwilling. The intentions of the framers of the Constitution intended for it to preclude the possibility.
This is why the central govt was intended to be minimal. If you want socialism, enact it at the state level. Those not in favor of it can migrate to other states.

Guess what, though... states wouldn't enact it because it is only possible through force combined with theprinting of false money, which states cannot do on their own.

[Chaossaber314]

The first mistake Nixon's predecessors made was taking these militias seriously.

Oklahoma City would like a word with you.

[Morality Games]

Oklahoma City would like a word with you.

A few isolated crazies doing bad stuff every decade or so can't be avoided by any policy of government, or by anyone anywhere. People with neurological disorders (aka, major thinking and emotional problems) and the means to do a lot of harm will always find a "cause" to kill people for. In the endless stream of events and cultural movements, an opportunity always presents itself -- if it wasn't the U.S. Constitution, then it would be because "God told him to punish the hedonistic society" or something like that.

Ecoterror

Hummer arsons

Those are criminals, not paramilitary organizations claiming to have derived legitimacy from the U.S. Constitution.

"forming into militias" is a Constitutional Right. More importantly, it is so because it is a basic HUMAN RIGHT.

Historically, militias in the United States were overseen by federal or state governments, or a substitute political authority in the territories.

Everything "the left" espouses runs counter to basic human rights because it requires an oppressive police state in order to impose its agenda on the innocently unwilling. The intentions of the framers of the Constitution intended for it to preclude the possibility.

A statement so lacking in decency, civility, realism, and proof that it is virtually impossible to comment on. If the Founding Fathers believed they had the right to confiscate private property from unwilling persons to fund their war effort, and if they included clauses charging the government with responsibility for the general welfare and security of the United States, then your opinions are false. Since they provided an example of how far the government is able to go during wartime, and because they did include those clauses, your opinions are false.

Hate to break to you, but both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who represented the opposing sides in the thinking of the Founding Fathers (Federalists and Democratic-Republicans), set plenty of precedent for expanded government power. Of course, I don't approve at all of John Adams, nor do I believe that Jefferson was always wise in his decisions, but they set the precedent, and their examples among others show that in principle the Founding Fathers were not as adverse to expanded government power as many seem to believe -- especially not during emergencies, where the safety and future of the nation was concerned, as is the case in our current economic meltdown.

This is why the central govt was intended to be minimal. If you want socialism, enact it at the state level. Those not in favor of it can migrate to other states.

You can't implement socialism as such in the United States because it violates the establishment clause. That socialist movements are even allowed to exist in the United States is more because of their futility than anything else -- technically they have all the forms of freedom of speech, but that would not protect them if they actually attempted to institute a socialist political structure at even the state level, possibly county, or even in a city limits. The same goes with Neo-Nazis and fascism, or separatists -- the reason these groups are allowed a voice is because they are too weak to actually be in a position to violate the establishment clause. The only thing they can do, aside from grandiose posturing and making a lot of noise, is terrorize more level-headed people with threats and scattered instances of violence, which is why they get monitored by the government.

A large reason these groups are allowed to exist (the reason their existence goes unchallenged, and gets defended when challenged) is because of people who falsely believe the U.S. Constitution gives individuals virtual autonomy from political authorities. Such people would make a fuss if the government started forcefully disbanding fringe political movements, and would probably continue to do so even after U.S. officials pointed out the goals of Neo-Nazis or socialists are in direction violation of the establishment clause, and are therefore unconstitutional merely by existing as American institutions.

As for American liberalism -- American liberalism as whole does not intend on instituting a government other than a republic. Rather, it interprets the responsibilities of the republican government to be broader than those supposed by conservatives, and legislates to that effect. Because the government is entrusted with security and the general welfare by the U.S. Constitution, liberals believe that, for example, it is impermissible for the government to allow the elderly (who can no longer work high dollar jobs) to die for want of food or medical care, or for children to perform strenuous and dangerous labor. In that it still supposes a republican form of government is the most legitimate kind of government, American liberalism is actually closer to conservatism than socialism or anarchy.