Posts Tagged invasion

The Reason For An Armed Citizenry

From Bearing Arms:

The Second Amendment was created with one purpose in mind, and – let’s be honest here – that purpose wasn’t hunting or even self-defense from criminals. While our Founding Fathers supported the right to have arms for those purposes, the primary motivation for the Second Amendment was to protect this country.
That thinking played into the potentially apocryphal comment made by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, who argued that invading the United States would be a disaster because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” I say it’s potentially apocryphal because no one has been able to confirm that the admiral actually said this, but it’s the kind of valid observation of America that Yamamoto was known to make.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Civilians Take Security of Border Into Their Own Hands

From The Houston Chronicle:

Militia groups along the Texas-Mexico border have grown to more than 10 active “teams” from El Paso to the Rio Grande Valley, despite warnings from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and state lawmakers.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Russia Examines Its Options for Responding to Ukraine

Russia Examines Its Options for Responding to Ukraine is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

By George Friedman

The fall of the Ukrainian government and its replacement with one that appears to be oriented toward the West represents a major defeat for the Russian Federation. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia accepted the reality that the former Eastern European satellite states would be absorbed into the Western economic and political systems. Moscow claims to have been assured that former Soviet republics would be left as a neutral buffer zone and not absorbed. Washington and others have disputed that this was promised. In any case, it was rendered meaningless when the Baltic states were admitted to NATO and the European Union. The result was that NATO, which had been almost 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from St. Petersburg, was now less than approximately 160 kilometers away.   Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Ukraine’s Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge

Ukraine’s Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

By Eugene Chausovsky

Just days before the Ukrainian crisis broke out, I took an overnight train to Kiev from Sevastopol in Crimea. Three mechanics in their 30s on their way to jobs in Estonia shared my compartment. All ethnic Russians born and raised in Sevastopol, they have made the trip to the Baltic states for the past eight years for seasonal work at Baltic Sea shipyards. Our ride together, accompanied by obligatory rounds of vodka, presented the opportunity for an in-depth discussion of Ukraine’s political crisis. The ensuing conversation was perhaps more enlightening than talks of similar length with Ukrainian political, economic or security officials.

My fellow passengers viewed the events at Independence Square in an overwhelmingly negative light. They considered the protesters camped out in Kiev’s central square terrorists, completely organized and financed by the United States and the European Union. They did not see the protesters as their fellow countrymen, and they supported then-President Viktor Yanukovich’s use of the Berkut security forces to crack down on them. In fact, they were shocked by the Berkut’s restraint, saying if it had been up to them, the protests would have been “cleaned up” from the outset. They added that while they usually looked forward to stopping over in Kiev during the long journey to the Baltics, this time they were ashamed of what was happening there and didn’t even want to set foot in the city. They also predicted that the situation in Ukraine would worsen before it improved. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Alan Keyes: Unconstitutional attack on the state of Arizona

Alan Keyes

“Back in April, I wrote a column pointing to the constitutional provision (Article I, Section 10) that recognizes that when one of the United States is “actually invaded,” the state government may act, without federal authorization, to defend itself.

Due to the federal government’s ongoing dereliction, in open and abusive defiance of existing federal law, Arizona and several other states of the Union are the victims of an ongoing invasion, which endangers and damages the lives and livelihood of their inhabitants.

According to the Constitution’s language, when actually invaded, a state may go to war in defense of its citizens. Arizona has undertaken instead to respond to the invasion by directing its police forces to make a special effort to do what the federal government refuses to do – carry out existing federal law.

But even if there were no such federal laws, Arizona has the clear constitutional prerogative to respond to the actual invasion of its territory.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=185349

, , , ,

No Comments