Michigan: Let’s Make Refugee Placement Safer and More Transparent
WDTK 1400 AM 92.7 FM The Patriot
Listen Live online – http://saleminteractivemedia.com/ListenLive/player/WDTKAM
By: James Simpson | Townhall.com
While the Islamic State claims responsibility for triple bombings in Brussels this morning that have left at least 34 dead and scores injured, our political class hands out generic “thoughts and prayers” for the victims.
Neither thoughts nor prayers, muttered after-the-fact, are sufficient to defend America. By allowing unsecured borders, encouraging mass migration and aggressive “refugee” resettlement and by severely limiting law enforcement actions against illegals, our leaders are failing to protect us. They have abandoned their primary role of defending our people and, instead, are rolling out the welcome mat to people whose stated goal is world domination.
A screenwriter could concoct no better example than our lame-duck president. As the body count was still being tallied, the ostensible leader of the free world was cuddling with the leader of a long-standing state-sponsor of terrorism, Raul Castro.
By: George Hunter | The Detroit News
Michigan is expected to take in more than 5,000 refugees this year, the highest number since 2002, amid renewed concerns about security and the latest effort in Congress to overhaul the U.S. Resettlement Program.
Since 2002, the earliest year for which U.S. officials say they have reliable state-by-state data, Michigan has resettled between about 500 and 4,500 refugees annually. State social service agencies say they plan to take in about 5,100 this year.
The expected influx comes as intelligence officials warn Islamic State members posing as refugees will likely launch an attack on U.S. soil this year. A bill seeking to cap the number of refugees and strengthen security measures was approved Wednesday by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
By: Merrill McCarthy
We have a troubling story over here in Dearborn Heights, Michigan about a young man who planned to wage violent jihad against a church close to his work in Detroit.
He thought the church would be a good choice because it was a gun-free zone and target-rich with capacity for 6,000 congregants. The would-be-shooter’s plot was not carried out because his father found and confiscated the jihad kit in his car consisting of a gun, ammo and a mask. Thwarted in his initial plan to terrorize the citizens of Michigan and the world, he told an FBI undercover agent about wanting to use a knife or a sword to achieve his “dream of beheading someone”.
For months, twenty-one-year-old Khalil Abu-Rayyan, self-proclaimed Palestinian Muslim, has been peppering social media with violent and hateful speech, threatening jihad. The FBI tuned in and an undercover agent learned of the violence contemplated by this young man who wanted to go “Sahwat” hunting, a term for an Iraqi who opposes ISIL. An arrest was made before he was able to put his plans into action and he is currently in detention.
An audio clip of the arraignment reveals a well-spoken young man with no trace of a foreign accent. He was probably born here or has lived here most of his life. And yet, it appears his allegiance is not with the USA, but with an Islamist terrorist organization based in the Middle East.
Think about the lack of assimilation and what it means. This young man of fighting age could not make it overseas to wage jihad so he settled for doing it here:
He settled for a proxy target; a church having no ties to his enemies in the Middle East.
While we have many unanswered questions, the two that seem to be at the forefront are:
1) Why would someone who has lived in the USA for a lifetime, like the San Bernardino shooter, or this young man take up arms against innocent countrymen who have no ties to ISIL?
2) Why would the parents of an obviously dangerous young man fail to turn him over to the authorities when they had first-hand knowledge of intended criminal acts, much like the blind eyes turned to the bomb factory in San Bernardino?
Maybe there is something about the culture of these enclaved communities that do not resemble the America we know.
Places like Dearborn could be picked up and set down in the Middle East without skipping a beat. The signs on the stores are in Arabic, the food is Arabic and the language is Arabic. The ideology on-the-street is largely Sharia. (51% of US Muslims want the option of living here under Sharia)
A few months ago a man having a business breakfast in Dearborn overheard a quartet of retiree age men at a nearby table discussing world affairs. Since this man speaks Arabic, he understood the whole conversation and it was not pro-American. In fact, one of the men at the table went as far as saying that he wished he had the courage to strap on a suicide vest himself, and that perhaps if he were ever given a terminal cancer diagnosis he might just do it. Incredible! These are suicidal and murderous ideations. If a psychiatrist had heard them he would have been required to notify authorities about the outward threat and then would have to admit the man to a residential treatment hospital for protection because of suicidal thoughts.
And yet, this is coffee shop conversation in an enclaved city where Sharia Law is observed in many ways and Christians are stoned for sharing the gospel on a public sidewalk.
In Dearborn, a father can find a gun, ammo and a mask in his son’s car and think that taking the items away from him will solve the problem, or a family in San Bernardino can overlook a bomb-making operation in their son’s kitchen and a neighbor can decide reporting very suspicious behavior would be riskier that having people possibly injured as a result of that suspicious behavior.
These “lone wolf” attackers, inspired by social media seem to be on the rise. Pretty soon we will run out of enough FBI agents to monitor what is going on. More attacks will not be a surprise. We might as well expect them. We need to have better ways to identify and defuse them. Thanks to the FBI, we have dodged bullets on this one, but maybe the next time we will not be so lucky.
We need more help from the families and the communities of these young jihadi “wannabes” because the signs are always there. It is not enough to take away the weapons when you find them. The authorities must be notified and if not, the culpable families may need to assume civil and criminal responsibility for looking the other way when tragedy could have been prevented.
The community needs to step up as well. These “lone wolf” attackers are always presented as a shock to their neighbors, although that message is changing. In the San Bernardino shooting, as well as this one that was nipped in the bud, the initial public statements have been made by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Trial, the biggest terrorism financing prosecution in American history. CAIR has been identified as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood which has been condemned as a terrorist organization by the UK and several Middle Eastern countries.
So far, the message from CAIR on this case is that “we should not rush to judgment,” but actually their early appearance on the scene is a dog whistle to anyone else who may be contacted for a quote to defer to the CAIR spokesperson who will have the official spin – beware of Islamophobia.
CAIR is not interested in the truth. If an imam is radicalizing young men in Dearborn or elsewhere, we will not hear about it from CAIR. What we will hear is CAIR on the offense with claims of Islamophobia if people start asking too many questions or veer off the politically correct pathway. CAIR will not assist in getting to the truth and in the past have urged people to not cooperate with the FBI unless absolutely necessary.
The greater question here is about our flawed immigration policy, especially the Refugee Resettlement program. Why continue to bring people here who do not want to assimilate and are instead bringing the Middle East conflict here to be fought on our soil? The church full of worshippers Abu-Rayyan wanted to shoot-up was not his enemy, just an unfortunate casualty of his misguided ideological world view and the policy of flooding America with people who hate us.
It is correct for us to be concerned about bringing in unvettable Syrians or others who may be terrorists with fake passports. But we must also start finding ways to vet people who we have already brought in to our country. We must understand the ideology that guides their actions and recognize that they may be no more than economic migrants who have no allegiance to the USA at all, or worse, Islamists pursuing a world without non-Muslims.
We must be more realistic about projecting our patriotic values. We cannot assume we all share the same world view. Every day we learn more to prove we don’t.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Covering a topic with no end in sight, as they usually do, CNN has been highlighting negative comments about Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims coming to America until the nature of the Muslim terrorist threat can be analyzed and addressed. The terms include “unhinged,” “offensive,” “unconstitutional,” and “reprehensible.”
The term “unhinged” more appropriately applies to Trump’s critics.
The usual talking heads are brought on to express alarm. Larry Sabato on CNN called it a “turning point” for Trump and the possible end of his campaign. Over on Fox News, supposedly a rival network, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard called Trump a bigot. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mika Brzezinski said the Trump proposal scared her.
The American people are scared, but not of Trump. They are scared of terrorists. Trump seems to be the only political figure with anything approaching a solid proposal to keep potential killers out of the United States.
America has just witnessed two Muslim killers in San Bernardino carrying out a massacre, and all that the media can do is unite in anger against a candidate who proposes a ban on Muslim immigration until the two major political parties running Washington, D.C. can figure out what to do.
If anything, Trump’s proposal is cautious. He is giving Democrats and Republicans a chance to solve the problem before more massacres take place. This is supposed to be alarming?
Trump’s proposal can certainly be fine-tuned to make sure that Muslims with security problems or risks in their backgrounds can be kept out. But rather than accept the proposal as a serious topic for discussion, commentators on both the “right” and “left” sides of the major media are engaging in name-calling against Trump.
Demonstrating the staying power of the liberal media and their ability to cause a panic, in this case generating fear of Trump, the new House Speaker, Paul Ryan (R-WI), was quick to declare at a news conference that while he normally stays out of the GOP’s presidential nominating process, he just had to say he was disgusted with Trump’s proposal.
Ryan and some other Republicans have proposed a temporary pause in allowing some Muslim refugees coming into the U.S., but they are balking at a complete ban. They somehow think it would be un-American, during a time of war, to keep advocates of a threatening foreign ideology, Islam, from entering the U.S.
President George W. Bush treated Islam as a “religion of peace.” There may have been a diplomatic rationale for such a statement coming shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the U.S. wanted leads from the Muslim community about terrorists in their midst, but more than 14 years later, with the Middle East in flames and American blood being spilled in the cities of Paris and San Bernardino, such terminology cannot be justified. It is a denial of reality.
The media saw for themselves the Koran in the killers’ apartment. What was that for? Since we know the killers were devout Muslims, it is logical to conclude that they read the Muslim Holy Book and understood its message. This is the conclusion our media are desperately eager to ignore. They don’t want to face facts.
Ordinary Americans can read the Koran for themselves and many have. They understand that, in contrast to the “love your enemies” message of Jesus Christ, Muhammad spread violence and terror, just as some Muslims are doing today. America is their main target.
This, then, helps explain the pathetic Republican response to Trump. They don’t want to admit he has a point because to do so means that George W. Bush had it wrong as well. To put it charitably, Bush, a Christian, had been duped. Obama, by contrast, seems to be a true believer in the power of Islam. After all, he told the U.N. that the future didn’t belong to those who slander the prophet.
Denouncing Trump has become a media and political substitute for solving the problem, which begins at the top, in the White House, with a President who is seemingly oblivious to the need to prevent mass murder on American soil because he, too, believes in Islam as a religion of peace. It is delusion that borders on a mental disability.
Our stoner president, who claimed days before the massacre that there was no credible threat to America, had to give a White House address on Sunday to try to appear that he is on top of the problem. The people are not fooled. They understand that the media are in the business of protecting Obama, no matter how many Americans die.
Obama’s approach, which opened the door to last week’s attack that resulted in 14 dead and 21 wounded, is mildly criticized by the media as being “out-of-touch” with the terrorism problem. Trump, on the other hand, is called every name in the book, including “fascist,” and is being compared to Hitler, simply because he proposes banning those with a presumed commitment to jihad. How do you identify these Muslims? Our security people can’t identify all of them. But surelythe picture of the killers entering the U.S. in 2014, along with evidence of their foreign travel and connections, is enough to raise questions.
The criticism of Trump, especially by commentators on the right, masks their impotence in rectifying Obama’s record of damage and destruction. They not only failed to alert the American people to Obama’s Muslim and Marxist sympathies when he first ran for office, but have been making excuses for Congress not taking action to remove him ever since.
As part of their vilification campaign against Trump, CNN and other media feature the views of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group which got $500,000 from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
CAIR was quick to represent family members of one of the San Bernardino Muslim killers at a time when the FBI was still trying to figure out what exactly had happened. That seemed very strange. Why didn’t the family alert the authorities in advance? Is it possible they had no idea what was going on with Syed Farook, who was acting and looking like a jihadist more than a year ago? Or worse, did they consider him a mainstream Muslim?
Earlier this year, a report implicated Alwaleed in financing the terrorist group al Qaeda, out of which ISIS emerged. Alwaleed, an investor in the parent company of Fox News, once bragged about forcing Fox to stop referring to Muslim rioters in France as Muslims. More recently, he was suspected of pressuring Fox to stop documenting the existence of “no-go-zones” in France where non-Muslims are afraid to go. There are similar such areas in other European countries.
The worst may be yet to come. Not only is our country still open to potential terrorists, but wealthy Arabs and Muslims are poised to take over major media properties in the U.S., in order to further expand their influence and control.
As amazing as it seems, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is nearing the end of a public comment period, after which it plans to vote to accept tens of billions of petrodollars from the Middle East by overturning the ban on foreign investment in and control of the U.S. media.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Al Jazeera is trumpeting the news that Alwaleed is planning to spend $32 billion on so-called charitable causes. This could easily translate into money for media, mosques, and various other assorted Muslim causes in America.
It is all right to have “no-go-zones” or Muslim enclaves in European countries, which are already suffering from Muslim terrorism and desperately trying to prevent more massacres there.
But when Trump proposed a no-go-zone for Muslims in America, while authorities figure out how big the threat is and how to stop it, the media engage in their knee-jerk forms of political correctness.
The media organizations that act like they are indifferent to the security concerns of ordinary Americans are well on the way to becoming “no-go-zones” for accurate and truthful news and information.
by Sharon Sebastian
John Kerry is wrong. The Secretary of State displayed a dire lack of knowledge when he stated that the world is “not in a war of civilizations.” The enemy can only smirk at the naiveté or seeming ignorance of yet another American leader that blurs the reality of an ancient war in modern times. Kerry was right when he stated that Islamic radicals are recruiting “thugs” into their ranks. The criminal element has no cause. Their purpose is not religious. They are recruited as a front line of terror to be unleashed by hardcore jihadists.
We are at war. It is critical that Americans understand this ancient war in order to comprehend the long-term strife and bloodshed that is ahead. Some leaders, led by the American President, deny its root causes. Disturbingly, we are at war when Americans increasingly use words like liar, traitor, or incompetent to describe the Commander-in-Chief. Opinion grows that the sitting President is doing more harm to the country than any terrorist could as Americans suspiciously eye his actions.
The American people already hold the Obama administration accountable for the coming harm. Most question why our government would allow terrorists to penetrate our cities secreted among the refugees that are fleeing the bloodletting in their own countries. False identity documents are common. Male and female suicide bombers are equal threats. Whether a moderate Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Rastafarian or Mormon, as a nation, we all look the same to the jihadists. Whatever your skin color, all American blood runs red.
Historical hindsight is not needed to reveal that our government gave cues to the enemy that America was being weakened. To America’s profound loss most Americans missed the cues, but the enemy did not. Based on both our government’s wrong footed action or inaction, the enemy was strengthened with the resolve to do America harm. History will not dispute that recent actions and inactions by the White House enabled a ancient war of civilizations to emerge from a comparatively suppressed state into a new World War.
The enemy takes notes and the sabers of war are sharpened as:
The actions of President Obama have become so blatantly obvious that even the liberal press can no longer feign befuddlement.
Unsettling are the unacceptable actions by our government as it appears to choose sides on a basic human level. Evidence of that is an immigration quota that favors Muslim refugees over Christian refugees. The U.S. State Department released data showing that under 3% of Christian refugees are allowed into the country verses 96% of Syrian Muslims who are allowed in. Statistically that is discrimination. Ideologically that is discrimination. Blatant discrimination lies at the feet of this American President in this ancient war that has targeted Christians and Jews from its inception.
It is important to note, with irony, that in regard to the porous vetting of Syrian refugees, the stark difference between their entry versus many entering our country’s porous southern border is that they do not have to pay the coyotes. Most critically, among those in both groups who are escaping poverty or oppression are terrorists. True identities are smoke in the air for those infiltrating with the intent of doing harm.
What is this War of Civilizations that the administration is downplaying through the words of its Secretary of State? What is this centuries old war that erupts on the world’s stage when conditions are right for it to do so? Though it initially targets the world’s oldest faiths, Judaism and Christianity, none of the other world religions need apply for exemption from the coming violence.
The War of Civilizations is based on the enemy’s desire to hasten the return of the 12th Mahdi. While such a statement is foreign to most in the West, it is the basis for this current World War.
President Barack Obama understands this war’s connection to Islam having studied the Koran in Indonesia. That curriculum identifies The Twelfth Imam or 12th Mahdi as the Islamic savior — its Islamic messiah. Islam requires that in order for the 12th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in a global war. Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly revealed a divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12th Mahdi” as Iran sought nuclear weapons.
Destroying Israel, then America, facilitates the 12th Mahdi’s return. Iran’s former leader was clear that the world must first erupt into chaos as a signal for the Mahdi to appear. Both ISIS and the Iranian theocracy seek the return of Islam’s messiah. The two factions of Islam, the Sunni and Shia doctrinal divides of the Islamic faith, differ on who the 12th Mahdi is and remain engaged in an ancient war with each other.
Islam came into existence some 600 years after the groundswell of Christianity. The Christian Messiah is the Savior Jesus Christ. Islam reveres Jesus as a lesser prophet and not God, which puts Islam at inextricable odds with Christianity. The belief is that the “Mahdi” or “Twelfth Imam” will appear publicly during a time of great disaster, with Jesus at his side, to bring peace to a war-torn world. It is said that the 12th Mahdi will take Jesus to Mecca to replace the Bible with the Koran so that Christians worldwide will convert to Islam. A “Muslim anti-Christ” is also to surface in the world and falsely convince Jews that he is the Jewish people’s “Jesus” or “Messiah” that they have long awaited.
An “Islamic Jesus,” it is said, will kill all Jews and behead anyone worldwide who does not accept Islam as the only true religion. The Islamic Mahdi will set-up his kingdom in Jerusalem, establish a worldwide Caliphate, along with Sharia Law, and rule the world. Non-believers must convert, be fined, or put to death. Homosexuals will be killed and women will become property and be oppressed. Such belief is a driving force of today’s war on non-Islamic nations; an ancient war based on fundamental Islam that has entrenched the globe in a war on terror. Moderate Muslims declare that only extremists hold such beliefs.
Only the foolish would categorize this war as a war of political ideologies between the West and the Muslim world. A radical jihadist movement forced turmoil in the Middle East to set up the Caliphate and enslave global societies via a rampage of death and destruction. The youth in Paris at the concerts and coffeehouses now understand the savagery that is involved. Will America’s youth understand what is coming to our shores, that American blood runs as red as Parisian blood? Will the world community have the same conviction when it proclaimed “never again” after witnessing the horrors of the holocaust?
President Obama’s denigrations and actions against Christians and Jews signals to the enemy that they have commonality with America’s President. If the American President does not recognize that as a threat, the American people do.
Obama’s years of studying Islam should have taught him that he cannot unmoor this enemy from what they believe is the sole reason that they exist on the planet. To retreat in any degree from a war not of our choosing or to repeatedly mock a growing warrior response among others intent on protecting our nation is not leadership. It is acquiescence. Islamic radicals seek world chaos. Such intent nullifies comments by members of Congress who state that “they do not want to get sucked into this war.” Both misunderstandings of this new World War reveal either a profound ignorance or a dangerous, home-grown ideology. Americans did not seek this war, Americans do not want this war, but as many in Congress are proving, America will defend its homeland in spite of a recalcitrant White House and a reticent Commander-in-Chief.
Sharon Sebastian, author of the book, “AGING: WARNING – Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields” (here), is a columnist, commentator, and contributor in print and on nationwide broadcasts on topics ranging from healthcare, culture, religion, and politics to domestic and global policy. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.AgingWarning.com
By Publius Huldah
To All State Governors and State Legislators:
War is coming to America. Obama is importing young able-bodied males to make civilizational jihad on us; and Congress can’t summon up the moral courage to stop him.
To see what is ahead for us, watch this 20 minute video. It depicts the Islamic takeover which is right now going on throughout Europe as European countries are being repopulated by millions of young able-bodied Muslim males (euphemistically called “refugees”) who are explicit about their intention to breed the native Europeans out of existence, and replace the European cultures with Islamic culture.
And Obama is bringing it here.
This paper discusses the two courses of action set forth in Federalist Paper No. 46 for situations such as this: (1) The States must refuse to cooperate with the federal government; but if that doesn’t solve the problem, (2) The States must use their State Militia to defend their State and Citizens.
Those pushing for an Islamic takeover of Europe and North America are referring to these able-bodied young Muslim males as “refugees”. The use of that term brings the Muslims who are brought into the United States within the federal Refugee Resettlement Act. And since the Constitution delegates power over immigration to Congress, and Congress re-delegated refugee policy to the President, the States must submit to Obama’s Will and accept the “refugees” he forces on them. Thus goes the specious argument recently made by Ian Millhiser.
But we will look at the Truth.
Immigration (or migration) pertains to new people coming to this Country to live.1 Naturalization refers to the process by which an immigrant becomes a Citizen.
Our Constitution does delegate power over immigration and naturalization to Congress. Article I, §9, clause 1, delegates to Congress (commencing January 1808) power to control migration. 2 Article I, §8, clause 4, delegates to Congress power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
But what is going on now with the importation of large numbers of able-bodied young Muslim males is not “immigration” as contemplated by our Constitution. It is an act of war being committed against the People of the United States by their President. The plan is to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and set up an Islamic Caliphate over America. 3
That is Treason – it is Insurrection. It is not “immigration”, and it is not “refugee resettlement”.
Michael Boldin’s recent informative article explains how the federal resettlement program works: The federal government coordinates resettlement of “refugees” with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) located within the States, and thus circumvents state and local governments. Accordingly, the States should promptly stop all such NGO involvement; take control of the programs themselves; and then refuse to cooperate with the federal government.
James Madison, Father of our Constitution, spells this out in Federalist No. 46 (7th para). Respecting unpopular acts of the federal government:
“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
But if the federal government persists, then the States must move to the next Step.
Article IV, §4, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” [emphasis mine]
In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), Madison says of this provision:
“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…” [emphasis mine]
Article I, §8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power:
“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
Article 1, §8, clause 16 delegates to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. The States retain the power to appoint the Officers and conduct the training.
Article II, §2, clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. [But remember: the federal government may call forth the Militia only for the three purposes listed in Art. I, §8, cl. 15].
But the federal government hasn’t called forth the Militia to protect the States from the Islamic invasion. To the contrary, the President is importing the invaders and foisting them on the States.
So! What are States and The People to do? Because the President is aligned with the invaders, and Congress filled with moral cowards, must we passively submit to having ourselves and our Christian and Jewish children killed, and then let our surviving burka dressed daughters and granddaughters be handed over to the clitoris cutters?
No! The People have the Natural Right of self-defense; and the States have the reserved Power to defend their Citizens. With the State Militia, The People and the States have the means to exercise this Natural Right and reserved Power.
What is the Militia? As Dr. Edwin Vieira’s excellent series 4 on the Militia and how it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms shows, the Militia has a long history in America. That history began with the English settlements in the early 1600s. Every free male was expected to be armed and prepared at all times to protect himself, his family, and his community. Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement. So at the time of the drafting of our Constitution in 1787, everyone knew of this 150 year long history of free American males being required to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to answer the call of Duty.
Accordingly, the above identified “militia clauses” were written into our Constitution of 1787.
In 1792, Congress implemented these militia clauses and passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”. This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a rifle and ammunition pouch, and train.
As Section 1 of the Act shows, the adult able-bodied male Citizens of a State are The Members of their State Militia. So, continuing the long-standing colonial tradition, Members of Congress in 1792 thought it such a fine idea that all male citizens be armed and trained and members of their State Militia, they required it by federal law!
So! As Art. I, §8, cl. 15 shows, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into national service to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. But what if the federal government refuses to act?
Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the Citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para).
And on the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):
“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…”
True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the People have the natural right to defend themselves, and their States have the retained Power to employ the Militia to defend them from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.
The States are within their retained Sovereign Power to call up their State Militia to fend off invaders. Article I, §10, last clause, is an expression of this retained sovereign Power of States of self-Defense:
“No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded…”
Clearly, the States may use their State Militia to engage in War to defend the States from Invasion.5
James Madison spoke to the same effect as Hamilton respecting federal tyranny. In Federalist No. 46 (9th para), Madison speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:
“…Let a regular army … be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. … [To the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. … Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms [an insurmountable] barrier against the enterprises of ambition…” [boldface mine]
Article VIII of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee provides for Tennessee’s Militia. Consistent with the tradition which has existed in this Country since the early 1600s, all Tennessee Citizens are members of this Militia. Article I, §28, TN Constitution says:
“That no citizen of the state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”
Read your State Constitution. What does it say about the Militia? What do the implementing State Statutes say? Is your State Militia active? Why not? For information on revitalizing your State Militia, see Dr. Vieira’s three part series, “Are You Doing Your Constitutional Duty For “Homeland Security”?
Madison closes his magnificent 9th paragraph in Federalist No. 46 with this:
“…Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” [emphasis mine]
But we became “debased subjects of arbitrary power”. So now, will we lay down before the Invaders and Insurrectionists and those in our federal government who aid and abet them? Or we will man up, revitalize our State Militia, and show the world that we still have some “free and gallant Citizens of America” in this land?
1 Our Framers contemplated that immigration would be restricted to people who shared our culture and values – e.g., Federalist No. 2, 5th para.
But Americans got conned into believing that an ideal culture is multicultural. Thus, with Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reform act of 1965, our borders were opened to all. We congratulated ourselves on our new virtues of “tolerance” and “diversity”. But the goal of the multiculturalists was to eradicate our unique Culture – we were too gullible to see it. So now, the enemy is inside the gates, and more are coming in. And Islam doesn’t tolerate multiculturalism.
2 “Open borders” adherents bristle at the assertion that Congress has constitutional authority to restrict immigration. They insist that Art. I, §9, cl. 1 addresses only the importation of slaves and says nothing about free immigrants. But the text distinguishes between “migrations” and “importations”, and the Duty is levied on “importations”, not “migrations”. Slaves, being “property”, were “imported”. Free Europeans “migrated”. The power of the States to determine such persons as it was proper to admit, expired January 1808. There are various letters and speeches from our early days confirming this. I’ll write it up when I get time (if this doesn’t turn on the light). For now, see Federalist No. 42 (6th para):
“…Attempts have been made to pervert this clause [Art. I, §9, cl. 1] into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice [slavery], and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.” [boldface mine]
Our Framers understood that the national government must be able to determine who is allowed to come here. That’s why Art. I, §9, cl. 1 delegates to Congress power to control immigration, commencing January 1808. And isn’t one of your complaints against the federal government that it has refused for so long to control our Borders?
3 See the website for The Center for Security Policy (Frank J. Gaffney) HERE. There you can read The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and take over all American Institutions. They are working to make this Country part of a global Islamic caliphate. Open your eyes NOW.
4 Do read all 8 of Dr. Vieira’s papers in this series. They get very moving.
5 “Troops” as in Art. I, §10, last clause, are professional full-time soldiers. States may not keep “Troops” absent consent of Congress. But the States’ Militia is a permanent State institution. The States retain their pre-constitutional powers over their Militia, subject only to the federal government’s limited supremacy set forth in the 3 Militia clauses [See Part 2 of Dr. Vieira’s paper HERE.] PH