20100330

30MAR10 Militia terminology misuse by all Media, and politicians...

Fox News has fallen into the same trap as most of the mainstream media these days, and there have been more than one story like this sadly. Currently Fox News is calling the "Hutaree" gang a 'militia'. Now, as you all know from a my recent post about Militia, and Service to the State that Militia is a term that needs to be reserved for military forces that SERVE the elected body of the State in which they are organized. This is the very basis of the US National Security plan since the days when we were but Colonies of the Old World powers, and continued under the Continental Congress, Articles of Confederation, and finally the Constitution of the United States. Our nations Revolution began when Great Britain attempted to sieze the Colonial Militia's powder magazines at Lexington and Concord... The men of these colonial Militias answered to the Colonial Governments which were at odds with the Crown. This conflict is nothing really new if you care to study the English Civil War and review the conflict between the Crown and the Parliament over who had authority over the Militia. Once again, the Militia answers to the people through an elected body...

...which is why its absolutely infuriating to see news agencies mis-use and abuse the term Militia with no historical context of the term, instead they use the lexicon of modern Progressive Liberal Fascism. PLF forces have turned the term into a rubber stamp of 'right wing Christian inbred racist nuts with guns' out of shear convenience. Taken in context with the Bias Against Guns (a smashing good book by John Lott by the way), its part of the incremental effort to isolate gun owners and Soldiers who serve their states in State Guards and State Defense Forces, and a round about shot at State Sovereignty and the 10th Amendment as well as the 2nd Amendment; and a way to punch holes in the Constitution indirectly.

Here is the what the Constitution has to say about the Militia and why I'm so angry at the News Media at large for using the term in reference to what could very well be anti-government hate groups and armed mobs/gangs (they still face trial and are innocent until proven guilty folks, my point here being the term used inappropriately):

Article I, Section 8
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

-To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of the 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.

Article II, Section 2
-The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...

Both Congress and the President of the United States have very specific duties relating to the Militia. If an organization doesn't fall within the scope of this authority, it doesn't fall within the Constitutional definition of a Militia now does it? So why are reporters, government officials, and others mis-using the term Militia so much? I think its pretty clear here what the Militia really is and what it isn't.

No comments: