Excluding this very able bodied citizen would not make the warrior princess happy.
Posted on 06/04/2005 2:45:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
The Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have the power.... To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and Repel Invasions;..." Since we are being invaded and the laws of the Union are being violated should the Militia be called up and placed on the borders to protect the laws and the American people?
Yes
No
Undecided
Pass
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=102
Can we be the protectors of the world? Shouldn't we start at home?
This actually brings up another point. If China were to attack Taiwan and we declared war would we not then be attacking hundreds if not thousands of foreign investments currently in China. Would countries like Germany, England, etc. have a claim to keep us from destroying thier investments in China? Sure, we would not bomb t-shirt factories but a war against China would force us to choose between defending Taiwan and defending even our own country's companies that have heavily invested in China, wouldn't it?
Excluding this very able bodied citizen would not make the warrior princess happy.
Okay, according to the code I was exempted last year when I turned 45.
However, the connotation 'militia' has been turned into a negative as opposed to the positive intention of the framer of the Constitution. Under these term I will vote yes on the poll.
Rag-Taggery is still pretty rampant, though. Imagine taking a group of high school seniors and college freshmen on putting them on the border.
I'm talking about Taiwan, not the entire world. That's an isolationist argument which I reject outright.
If China were to attack Taiwan and we declared war would we not then be attacking hundreds if not thousands of foreign investments currently in China.
And what's the word of The United States of America to Taiwan?
The kids would come through, just like their fathers and grandfathers before them.
Sure, there's a learning curve.
Okay, you have made it clear. You are more interested in protecting Taiwan than the U.S. Unless, of course, you are practicing hyperbole.
I really don't see how protecting our borders from illegals is isolationism. But if that's how you see it, then there must be a rational explanation. I would like to read it.
No doubt some would. If they had good leaders. But, if GW was leading them what would they do? GW wants the open border. How does one rectify that?
I had to ponder a moment before answering 'yea' because of the 'called up' aspect. A moment is all it took as soon as I rationalized the definition of 'called up' as answering the call of a neighborhood in trouble, my neighborhood, which is my country.
That's a different track.
I've given up on Bush.
I was thinking that if we put volunteer militia on the border, us old goats would be leading the kids and we would come through.
The biggest thing in the way of saving the nation is those that rule it.
I totally agree with you. Going against GW would be tough because he has the military. It would mean something very close to open revolt. Although, most of us conservative certainly wouldn't see it that way. The time is coming soon, I think.
And you are a bald faced liar. I never said nor intimated that, and you know it. We have on the books the TRA (Taiwan Relations Act) which stipultates "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability." SOURCE
I really don't see how protecting our borders from illegals is isolationism.
Protecting ourselves from illegal immigration is not isolationist. My comment was about your non sequitur about us policing the world. This is about relations between two nations, not the world.
Can you read?
When It's a sad day when our elected leader sides with illegal aliens over his own citizens, those he gave an oath to protect.
Truer words were never spoken.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."
- Mark Twain
Hmmmm. You first brought up the idea that China might attack Taiwan. To which I replied "Can we be the protectors of the world? Shouldn't we start at home?"
Since then you have talked about protecting Taiwan while I, said that we should protect our borders first. In no post to me did you agree to that. From that I inferred that you were more interested in honoring the agreement we have with Taiwan then agreeing with me that we should (per the Constitution) demand that our Federal Govt. protect our borders.
My comment was about your non sequitur about us policing the world.
I did not say police but rather protect. There is quite a difference.
In a previous post there was a list of 135 countries around the world that we have troops. They are protecting interests of ours and foreign countries.
That's an isolationist argument which I reject outright.
When you think of your own home do you think about how well protected your neighbors home's are first and then go on to provide protection to your home? Clearly not. Then why would it be isolationist to protect our country in order to provide support for the protections we extend around the world? There is no logic to your conclusion that protecting our country first before Taiwan, or any other country for that matter, is isolationist.
Can you read?
Can you keep your arguments straight?
Now that's a solution! let's hire the illegals to guard the border! Damn! Thanks for making my day! I luv it.
OK!
I think that's what the Minutemen are doing, in effect. And you're right, a lot of people are answering. Plus getting called 'vigilante' and worse for their trouble, but I suppose that comes with the territory.
Would it be possible to have another vote?
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.