M.O.W.C.A.

It has come to the attention of a few that the Volokh Conspiracy posted an article stating that it is time for the unorganized militia to reappear, titled The Unorganized Militia Once Again is Needed. Some are of the opinion that the Obama administration would oppose that.

Actually, every administration for the last 100 years would have likely opposed the resurgence of the unorganized militia. Certainly we can say both Bushes and Clinton opposed it. Please remember that Wayne Fincher was prosecuted under Bush Jr. The Federal Government’s attitude toward the unorganized militia is perfectly exemplified in the following excerpt from the in-camera hearing during the trial of Wayne Fincher. The questioner is Chris Plumlee, assistant attorney to Wendy Johnson, Assistant US District Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. Wayne is the respondent.

I think the government’s attitude toward the unorganized militia is loud and clear:

Q.    And so what state agency is it that you answer to?
A.    The governor or the legislative body.
Q.    Okay.
A.    And if the sheriff would have an emergency, he might or he might not choose to call us into service.
Q.    How many times have you been called up by the governor of the state of Arkansas?
A.    None.
Q.    Who in the militia is designated to be contacted by the governor in time of a call-up?
A.    Well, the commander, Paul Smith, would be.
Q.    Okay, so I presume — what’s the name of the person at the  governor’s office who has your telephone numbers and Mr. Smith’s telephone numbers so they can call you up if they need you?
A.    I’m not sure, but all they’d have to do is call the sheriff of Washington County, and that’s their duty to, not mine.
Q.    Well, you’ve sent them a lot of documents notifying –
A.    Yes.
Q.    – them what you believe the law is and your declarations and stuff.  I mean, I don’t see your phone number on here any-where.  I mean, how is the governor supposed to contact you in the time of a crisis?
A.    Believe me, the governor has the ability to contact us if he so desires.
Q.    Okay, and the first declaration you sent to the governor, which I think is Defendant’s 1-A, was sent in 1998, correct?
A.    I believe that’s correct.
Q.    So between 1994, the foundation of the militia, and 1998, how was the governor supposed to call you up at that time?
A.    Like I say, if the governor so chooses, he can — he can put out a public broadcast that all militia appear at a certain place, and that’s within his authority, and that’s his respon-sibility.  And I don’t have to stand and wave a flag waiting for the governor to call me.  It’s his duty to take care of this thing on behalf of the state.
Q.    Okay, so would you concede to me that you’re not — you’re not run by the State of Arkansas, you’re run by each other in the militia of Washington County?
A.    No, sir.  We’ve read all the laws that we could find pertinent to the militia and we obeyed those laws.
Q.    But, again, you’re not operated or sanctioned by the State of Arkansas; is that correct?
A.    That’s not correct, sir.
Q.    Okay.  By the governor’s office?
A.    By Article 11.  Whether the governor likes it or not, Article 11 declares the people in a certain range are in the militia, and it also calls for volunteer companies, the infantry, calvary, and artillery.  If the governor — if the legislative body is in session, then the legislative body would call in in however they choose, and that’s their option and their duty.
Q.    And, again, has anyone in the militia had contact with their legislators about providing your telephone numbers and things of that nature so they can contact you in the event they need to call you up?
A.    I’ve read in some of the codes that if they want to contact, they’d probably put out broadcasts, and the people are expected to go to that.
Q.    Would it be like a radio broadcast or television?
A.    Well, it would be — it would depend on what the situation was.  They might put it in the newspaper.  If it was an emergency, they might just broadcast a certain class of men.  They might not want a thirty to forty-five.  They might say all men between — it’s their option.
Q.    Well, I mean, wouldn’t you be pretty disappointed if you put all this effort into the militia and you don’t get called up?
A.    It’s not about whether I’m pleased or disappointed, sir.  It’s about a long-term project to protect this state.  Whenever the state of Arkansas joined in with the United States, it agreed that it would not keep a standing army, and it was guaranteed by the federal government that this republic would be unmolested in having its militia.

Need I say more?

Take a long look at the following video. (h/t Tyranny Unleashed) Watch and listen carefully — run through it two or three times. Please realize what is being stated here . . .

At this point I trust you have come to realize that when they deliberately break their own rules, and then brazenly lie and say that they didn’t, that they DO NOT care about the Federal Constitution, your rights, your liberties, your life . . . AT ALL.

Now, combine that with what Harry Reid, the guy who instigated all the rule-breaking, thinks the American people will think about what he “accomplished:”

On the floor before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “We’re going to hear an earful, but it’s going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for for a long time.”¹

In the times before us, others have spoken to this turn of events . . .

§, 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

§, 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.² (emphasis mine)

§. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

§. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.³ (emphasis mine)

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.⁴ (emphasis mine)

It is high time the American people changed the way they think . . . about how, when, and with what they will vote.

1. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Dems_not_worried_about_postvote_backlash_at_home.html?showall [↩]
2. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Of the State of War [↩]
3. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Of the Dissolution of Government. [↩]
4. The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 [↩]

Oral Arguments were conducted yesterday in St. Louis, in the 8^th Circuit Court of  Appeals pertaining to the In Forma Pauperis status of Hollis Wayne Fincher. You may listen to the arguments using the link below:

U.S. vs Fincher, 8th Circuit, 17 Dec. 2009

Quentin Rhoades represents Wayne, pro bono, in this matter. Wendy Johnson represents the U.S. Government.