Warnings of Insurrection - Read "Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April"

Reaction to: “Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April” 2/17/2009, The Daily Times Herald, Carroll Iowa by Butch Heman Staff Writer
http://www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7451&TM=55111.9


Plans for fighting insurgency here, on our own U.S. soil, are already underfoot. The techniques honed in Iraq are being brought here. The founders of our constitution must be rolling in their graves. It may seem unreal that military forces might one day knock on your front door, looking for weapons dealers, but, that's a potential future being anticipated now, by certain unnamed military decision-makers. Our second amendment "right to bear arms" no longer protects us from intrusion, thanks to slick legislative chicanery.

While the second amendment has embroiled controversy about state vs private interest, it is nevertheless clear that the reason for the second amendment was for citizens to have the capability of armed revolt. This is supported not only by considering its root naturalist position, but also, alongside well-documented experiences and quotes of the founders. Existing scholarship already agrees that federal interest has no right to militia against the people, or, private interest (see: Cornell Legal Information Institute: " Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. " < http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2 >)

Its frustrating that, from this vantage, the military acts without jurisprudence, by starting up programs that clearly are, at very least, debatable. If it looks, walks, quacks, like a duck...when the U.S. military can send troops to search homes for weapons, the second amendment has been violated. Yet, not even an argument is heard, only that the plans are implemented. Apparently, the loophole is to use the national guard, which is technically a state interest.

Yet, it can and should be argued that the national guard is now serving defacto federal interest. With the October 2006 amendment of our United States Code by bill HR 5122, subtitle H, section 1076, including its supposed 2008 repeal (HR 4986 sec 1068 110th congress), the state and federal arms are intertwined. Read the existing language of section 333 of the code title 10, sub A, pt 1, ch 15:

“…The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, …

So, the United States government can take armed action to squash resistance of either a state or federal law. Therefore, the national guard can be deployed in order to protect federal interests. This shows that the federal government is not restrained, as it should be, according to our 2nd amendment rights.

There is a ubiquitous mischaracterization of HR 4986 sec 1068, that it repeals HR 5122’s amendment of section 333, or that it reinstates an earlier version, commonly named the Insurrection Act of 1807, which refers to sections 331 to 335 of the above-cited U.S. Code. The precedent text is not internet accessible, so, we only see the revision - this, alone, ought to raise red flags. It is not immediately clear what actually existed as the Insurrection Act, prior to the 2006 changes.

The 2008 amendment does not substantively alter the 2006 version, it simply rearranges it. Compare for yourself in table 1, below. Actually, the opposed section 333 language is reiterated by amendment in HR 4986. The only repeal in HR 4986 is in section 1068, and is of USC title 10 sec 2567, pertaining to provision. Which, turns out to be a wild goose chase, figuring out exactly what this does.

The bottomline is that the existing public law statute plainly sets up conditions for a federal interest to reside within the state interest, thereby impeding the limitations placed by our second amendment rights.

Of course, the legislation is so complex, it is confusing. Apparently concision is too much to ask: it’s status quo to dig through obfuscating details, and we’re expected to keep up with fine print and circuitous reference. Internet sources do not give permanent links, or else, they would be provided here.

Still, please, read the primary sources and begin monitoring legislation. To look up legislative bills, you need to search using the bill and congress session numbers. This can be searched at the US Code page , or also at GovTrack.us. GovTrak has a promising trial application for tracking current bills, by the U.S. Code section they impact < http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billusc.xpd .> You can find US Code and other informative U.S. constitution topics, but not bills, at Cornell’s Legal Institution .

If we are resigned to troops in our neighborhoods, we are powerless against tyranny and coup d'etat. The talk of revolution has only been increasing on the streets, at least in the buzz I have witnessed since 2001. Revolution would mean destabilization, and is likely to be counter-productive. The US Constitution still stands, lets continue to honor it, and take appropriate action to preserve it.

Its not too late for a peaceful correction, with no need for armed force. But the message must ring loud and clear: rely on peaceful protest; do not create an excuse for the military to use force. The legal maneuvering to allow that has already been accomplished. The oil regime may seem assured of getting, or creating, an excuse, given how discombobulated our people now are, and 30-40 years of violence training by media. But, lets prove them wrong and take the high road. Remember the lessons from the civil rights movements, including Gandhi and Dr. King. Speak with truth, resist with peace, and, "we shall overcome."

Language for USC Title 10 section 333
HR 5122 section 1076 - Replaced	H.R. 4986 section 1068 – In Place
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to-- `(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that-- `(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and `(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or `(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2). `(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that-- `(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or `(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. `(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.	`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it-- `(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or `(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

Favorites, Decisiveness, and Existentialism

I sometimes have a hard time deciding what I want, because I never do manage to pick favorites.

Have you ever had one of those "get to know each other" games when everyone asks each other their favorites? The same favorites list the kids used to ask about at the bus stop: color, movie, song, food, etc? Historically I choke on favorites.

My mom used to tell me that this was due to my horoscope having a libra ascendant. She might be right, who knows? However, as I grow, I am discovering the deeper explanation.

I never forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Far be it from me, to counter another's perception. Why should I bother to have a favorite anything? Its as if the choice of a favorite has somehow devalued other items I could have chosen. Although, that is impossible. Nevertheless, I steadfastly hold to nonfavoritism - despite the indecisiveness which might underly it.

Yet, when it comes to things of personality, spirit, and intuition, my subconscious immediately hands over my position. I am surprised at how decisive I am about faith, philosophy, and the critical value of communication.

In fact, I observe that we all have this common internal process, letting us know feeling even without having learned it first. Because feelings lack entity, yet are possessed, we attach the handy term of experience to them. But you never observe the feeling, you just know the feeling. Its the '"just knowing" part that intrigues me.

From my earliest memories I suspected that stuff is not what it seems. The essence of all is energy; all things are collectively one, at the energetic level. Perception is the reality of existence, and all else is a construct of determination. It may be possible that once we, as a collective being, release our perception, we will return to the energy state.

So, I don't pick favorites because that reasoning stands on a belief that differences are real, that things can be valued, then compared. I'd rather pilgrim the territory of all things as one. Yes, I am always too deep for the sandbox, but I don't mind it, now that I'm almost a grown up.

Mt. Rose

Mt. Rose, originally uploaded by Rob~Simpson.

I love this photo of Reno skyline against Mt Rose, by Rob Simpson, found on Flicker

Discovering Yourself in Others

I think that an idea rings especially true if you've thought of it alone, then later discovered it outside.

This has a correlation to a main construct for me, "there's nothing new under the sun." I stand by my theory for selective bias, that is, that you can always find examples to support yourself. Thats not so much my theory as it is a science tenet, yet, I tend to take it far beyond that context, into a spirituality that I create internally, by collecting artifacts along my life's path. In science you have to meet protocols, but in life, selective bias is a blessing.

I like to keep the good parts of things I encounter. By 'good' I mean those things that resonate within, that provide me personal sense of growth. So, if each person does this, we end up with entirely unique sets of good parts, so that effectively, nothing bad exists. It turns out, everything exists, and its all constructive, and dependent upon the frame of reference. I should replace the word good with useful.

Today Ive been enlightened by exposure to ideas from Gregg Baden, and a variety of web authors discussing concepts that rang true for me. Specifically, InLak'ech, a Mayan saying that means "I am another Yourself." What I decided for myself a few years back was that we truly are a collective conscious, and that when we interact with others, we are literally percieving alternative visions of our own self, holographically. We are perceiving those things that lead us through a private never-ending evolution. Like a kaleidoscope, each personality is a reflection that is distinct and constructs a higher pattern. All of this language turns out to be very similar to Gregg Baden's. And so this shows how thoughts can seem to have physicality, existing outside yourself, even though clearly also a unique private understanding, as well.

I think major evidence for collective consciousness is the way that inventions, like electricity, tend to happen at about the same time, yet by different inventors, from different places, and different resources. What more examples of these can we think of?

Here's some of the information that interested me:

Living In Lak'ech' Becoming One With All Life Aluna Joy Yaxkin August 1997
http://www.kachina.net/~alunajoy/97aug.html

Gregg Baden
Holographic Nature of the Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ih3RoDASkw