=======================================================

OPINION RELEASE:  Stanley NOTE:  "Damn Right"

The National Guard Is Not The Militia - Armed Citizens Are!

   The National Guard Is
   Not The Militia -
   Armed Citizens Are!
   By Ted Lang
   ©. 2005 All Rights Reserved
   5-25-5

           It is fundamental common sense that no encyclical presenting a rule of
law of, by and for the people of a nation, when conveying upon its chosen and
created government so established, to create also within that same document via
amendment, instruction to its standing armed forces as regards the necessity of
military discipline within its ranks, especially when such a standing armed
force is strictly forbidden by that very same document.

           The military organization of any nation requires only a bare minimum
of codified authorization and legitimization to be legally established; beyond
that, military organizations develop their own internal rules and regulations
for discipline independently and outside the executive, legislative and
judicial functions that normally constitute government powers.

           That section of the United States Constitution that prohibits a
"standing army" is really not a prohibition, but a funding limitation enforced
by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12: "[The Congress shall have the power] "to
raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years."

           By limiting funding in terms of two year intervals, a standing army is
made impossible. It was the desire of the Founders to prevent the buildup of a
permanent army on land. Instead, since the Continental Army, a ragtag bunch of
poorly equipped rogues, drunks, farmers, unemployed and unskilled footloose
"irregulars," were able to defeat the finely- uniformed, disciplined and
well-equipped army of King George III, it was always the opinion of the
Founders that an armed people could "take care of themselves."

           As long as Americans stayed at home, took care of their farms, their
mines, their shops, and in general, minded their own business, all that was
required to keep US safe and secure was John Adams' "wooden wall" [the Navy].
Proof of the pudding is Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 13: "[The Congress
shall have the power] "to provide and maintain a Navy." No restrictions as
regards funding are mentioned. The Founders feared a standing army with weapons
on land, where they could be used the same way King George III used his Army.
When disagreements heated up, the British sent their army to Lexington and
Concord to seize guns and ammunition [gun control] in order to disarm the
American colonists.

           Now when looking at the Second Amendment, and employing fundamental
common sense to it, it suddenly becomes quite easy to understand:
           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.

           Why would a document establishing the rule of law of the people, a
document whose preamble begins, "We the People," exclude themselves from having
the same firepower as King George's army? Why mention a "Militia" if you rely
upon a standing army?
           With respect to the term "well-regulated," this refers to the
responsibilities of the joint and several states, and describes those
responsibilities in Paragraph 16: "[The Congress shall have the power] to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress."

           Why would Congress have to develop a code for discipline in the ranks?
Obviously, because a militia is composed of individual citizens, even if they
don't own any firearms!
           Hence, a militia is not an army; it is an unorganized, undisciplined
group of civilians. And it doesn't have codes of military rules and
regulations; if it did, it would be a military unit like the Army National
Guard, which can and does get called up very frequently by the president, and
not the governor of the unit's home state.

           Clearly, the responsibility for maintaining a free state, meaning
citizens with protected individual freedoms, rest upon the citizens themselves,
and this is assured when individual citizens own and carry[bear] guns. To offer
that every one of the first ten Amendments is directed at the individual rights
of the citizens, namely "We-the-People individually, yet the Second Amendment
addresses those rights collectively, especially as regards a trained,
well-disciplined sate or federal military unit guided by military rules and
regulations, is the height of mental deficiency.

           The issue as to what constitutes a militia, and what constitutes the
Army and Air Force National Guard, or the Navy and Marine reserves, has just
come up in another unlikely area of government activity. On Friday, May 13th
[leave it to government], the Pentagon announced its pick of bases for
submission to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission [BRAC] for closure,
realignment, or increased mission. On Wednesday, May 11th, Illinois State
Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, "said she would file a federal lawsuit on
behalf of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich if any of the state's National Guard
bases are included in the closure list," according to an article posted on
GovExec.com. entitled, "Base closing recommendations expected Friday," by staff
writer George Cahlink.

           The article continues, "Illinois has Air National Guard bases in
Springfield and Peoria. Madigan and other BRAC opponents contend that the
federal law prevents closure of National Guard bases in a state without the
consent of its governor. That reading of the law is disputed by BRAC supporters
who contend the commission has the authority to close bases."

           Interesting dispute, no? Especially interesting coming from a state
with a long history of hating, loathing and despising the militia, er, National
Guard. Illinois Governor Blagojevich is on record as hating the Second
Amendment as well, especially demanding that laws be imposed on other states to
protect his state from gun crimes. His website offers: "Governor Blagojevich
launches effort to fight gun trafficking - Governor sets up gun crime unit in
State Police; New Gun Trafficking Unit will work with Indiana, Mississippi and
federal agencies to stop flow of crime guns into Illinois." Got it? According
to Blagojevich, ALL guns, and therefore, ALL of the Second Amendment, are
ILLEGAL in his model state, a state that harbors the Cook County, City of
Chicago Mayor Daley political crime machine that would put another former
Chicago organized criminal to shame: Al Capone.

           Blagojevich was perfectly happy to involve other states in his illegal
gun control scheme, and even welcomed help from outside the state and the
federal government, bent on eliminating a "citizens' militia" as provided for
in the Constitution. And therefore, you may rest more than comfortably assured
that the Gov' is one of those fuzzy-brained characters with a pointed head that
offers: The National Guard IS the Militia, of course depending upon your
definition of the word "is."

           What a rude awakening for a police state fascist, no? The feds have
just told Blagojevich that the National Guard and its base belong exclusively
to them. As the late William Bendix so often pointed out from his days in the
role of Chester A. Riley on classic radio and TV: "What a revoltin'
development!"

           But the Gun Nazis have always contended that the National Guard and
the Militia were one and the same! "What a revoltin' development," indeed!

           I called the Governor's office after checking the BRAC list, and after
being switched around umpteen times, the last PA person agreed when asked, that
the Capital Airport Air Guard Station was definitely in Springfield, and the
realignment, not closure, would cause a net loss of 30 military spaces as well
as all 133 civilian jobs. The PA person wasn't clear whether or not State
Attorney General Madigan would pursue the matter further.

           The issue, of course, isn't whether or not the State's Attorney
General has jurisdiction or not in this matter; nor is it germane to point out
that the biggest lying, most corrupt politicians seem always ready to jump to
one side of an issue or the other as suits either their political party's needs
or their own interests in order to manipulate public opinion. If the Militia
isn't the National Guard, and the National Guard belongs exclusively to the
feds and can be called up by the president, then who and what represents the
State of Illinois', or for that matter, any state's, National Guard?

           Theodore E. Lang

           Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.


   MainPage
   http://www.rense.com