“Civil Asset Forfeiture” coming soon to a neighborhood near you…

“Civil Asset Forfeiture” coming soon to a neighborhood near you….

SHERIFF: This Land is Our Land, Feds Have No Jurisdiction!

This Land is Our Land, Feds Have No Jurisdiction!

January 5, 2012

Gil Gilbertson, Sheriff Josephine County, Oregon Photo by: Michell Binker - Her photo credit was mistakenly left off the picture in the last hard copy of the US~Observer.

By Ron Lee
US~Observer

In this climate it is utterly unheard of to have any official stand against the federal government. Typically, they stand with them – their hand out for more federal grants – no matter how much the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on the public. Thankfully there are those few who take their oaths of office and to the Constitution, with sincerity, and instead they choose to fight for the people; fight for what is true and just. They are people like Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, those who sign up to become oath keepers, former Sheriff Richard Mack and, of course, Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson; whose own fight against a runaway, power-grabbing, forestry service is just the tip of an iceberg Gilbertson is hauling into warmer waters.

With the USFS closing roads on county public lands, enforcement officers overstepping their legal jurisdiction and tens of thousands of acres of the county’s public land being usurped through the creation of national forests and monuments for the “protection” of the environment, Gilbertson is taking it on himself to protect the people – the ones often forgotten.

When asked why he has taken up this fight, Sheriff Gilbertson said, “My duty lies in the oath that I took to protect and serve the people of Josephine County, state law and the Constitution, and their [federal government] agencies are infringing on all of the above. It’s that simple.

“Look, much suffering occurred and many lives were sacrificed to make this great country what it is today; many sadly take this horrific loss for granted. A Republic form of government can be long-term but only if we maintain a system of checks and balance.

“Once we allow a runaway centralized government to weaken and/or erode the rights enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we risk losing it all. Our government is rapidly approaching a socialistic posture; and seemingly, changing our life, as we knew it, through ‘federally imposed REGULATIONS’.”

The US~Observer has obtained a letter written by Gilbertson discussing jurisdiction. We are choosing to print it in its entirety.

Furthermore, the US~Observer would like to extend our deepest gratitude to Gilbertson for doing what he said he would – protect the County’s people, no matter what.

Click Here to see Gilbertson’s letter:

Federal Jurisdiction within a State

CONCLUSION
In summation, the Supreme Court has declared the federal government has no authority or jurisdiction over
individuals or issues not involving interstate commerce or issues not involving federal territory. Neither
Congress, nor the President, can pass laws that govern life or activities within the boundaries of the several
States. “Police” powers are not explicitly granted to the central (federal) government and thereby fall
within the purview of the 10th Amendment Clause of the Bill of Rights.

How Congress Took Control of Indians’ Lives

Congress Took Control of Indians’ Lives

by Rob Natelson

Just as Congress has stretched its Interstate Commerce Power into authority over the entire national economy, so it has used the Indian Commerce Clause to justify micro-managing the lives of American Indians and of their tribes.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way.

The Articles of Confederation gave Congress power over Indian “affairs,” but in practice the states also continued to exercise authority over Indians. States passed trade laws, regulated Indian land transactions, and in some cases exercised a general police power over Indians within their boundaries.

When the Constitution was adopted, the federal government was granted some control over dealings with the Natives. However, this was one of the very few areas where the Constitution actually granted the new governmentless authority than Congress had enjoyed under the Confederation. Instead of sweeping power over Indian “affairs,” the Constitution granted (1) to the President-and-Senate, power to make treatise with the Natives, (2) to Congress, power over federal property and territories (where many tribes lived), and (3) also to Congress, the power to “regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.”

The Treaty Clause (II-2-2) empowered the President-and-Senate to govern the details of Indian relations, but only with the consent of the affected tribes, since both sides must agree to a treaty. The Territories and Property Clause (IV-3-2) granted Congress power to regulate tribes, but only on federal land. The Indian Commerce Clause (I-8-3) gave Congress control over mercantile trade and certain related activities. The specific model in the Indian area consisted of state Indian trade statutes and a Confederation ordinance that addressed such matters as preventing fraud, licensing merchants, and regulating prices.

Also part of the constitutional settlement was that the states retained their general police power over Indians within their borders, subject to pre-emption by congressional regulations of commerce and by treaties.

This system began to break down in the 1870s with the announcement by Congress that the federal government would no longer make treaties with the Indians. How Congress could bind the President-and-Senate this way was never adequately justified or explained.

Congress then began to regulate Indian affairs on the basis that doing so was part of its “inherent sovereign authority”—supposedly unenumerated authority outside the Constitution. The theory of “inherent sovereign authority” is complete jurisprudential nonsense, and contradicted by both the intent and words of the Tenth Amendment. Although the Supreme Court rejected the theory in Kansas v. Colorado (1907), it continues to surface from time to time.

Also cited as justifying wide congressional authority was the “trust relationship” between the federal government and the Indians. But trust rules do not grant power; they merely set standards by which power is to be executed.

In modern times, the favorite justification for congressional omnipotence over the tribes is the Indian Commerce Clause. Apologists resort to some of the same tricks used to justify congressional omnipotence over the economy—including the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, which I discussed in my last post.

In the area of Indian commerce, moreover, apologists for Congress often go even farther, claiming that congressional authority over Indian affairs is exclusive—that states have no jurisdiction over Indians at all. There is little justification for this theory, and it has proved unworkable in practice.

Get the New Book Today!

In 2007, I researched and wrote an article called The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause. During the research, I found that the state of the commentary on the Indian Commerce Clause was even more dismal than in most other areas of constitutional law. Most of articles on the constitutional background consist of interventions by activists and others with little knowledge of the Founding Era or of originalist methodology.

Bottom line: Reading the Constitution according to its real meaning shows that, although Congress was to have a significant say in Indian affairs, its rightful power is far from absolute. Both Indians and non-Indians need to inform Congress of this much more often.

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution(Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

WHY OATH KEEPERS?

WHY  OATH  KEEPERS?

By Elias Alias

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, Veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

Our Motto:  “Not on our watch!”

Our Slogan: “Guardians of the Republic”

Oath Keepers is a single-mission organization with a dual focus. Oath Keepers interacts with the Oath-Sworn, the Americans who fill the ranks of America’s military, firefighter, and Peace Officer personnel. We also are now focusing in our veterans communities. We educate men and women who swear that Oath, challenging them to learn the fine points of our Constitution and its history.

Oath Keepers’ primary purpose is very distinctly defined. It contains a three-step plan of action and initiative – we work to reach, teach, and inspire our troops, veterans, firefighters and cops to honor their Oath to the Constitution.

Pretty simple, that. Oath Keepers seeks to “reach, teach, and inspire all Oath ‘takers’ to become “Oath Keepers”. That kind of teaching requires that Oath Keepers first reach a willing soldier or peace officer or firefighter.

To get our soldiers’, firefighters’ and peace officers’ attention, Oath Keepers uses the Internet, public events, rallies, conventions and conferences, and we use full-feature services which facilitate a concise introduction to several key Oath Keepers doctrines, which include stressing that the Oath itself is sworn [or affirmed] as a sacred Oath to the U.S. Constitution. We also teach that the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice – the rulebook for our soldiers) makes it clear that no soldier is required to accept or follow or carry out an unlawful order.  An unlawful order could be an order to violate citizens’ rights, or a State’s rights, for example. Indeed, a soldier who follows an unlawful order may find himself before a court-martial facing charges. One example of that is Lt. Calley of My Lai Massacre infamy.

Oath Keepers teaches that America’s basic reality is that the several sovereign States in compact created the Constitution, and the Constitution then created the Federal government. That means that the Constitution existed prior to the government it created. The Constitution is the active source of government in America.  The Constitution is the people’s representation of the people to the government. It reflects the fact that the government was created by the people working through their several sovereign States, and is therefore the servant of the States, or of the people. The people’s Constitution is that to which the soldier and peace officer vows the Oath. The Oath is not sworn to the government. The knowledge of that is what we strive to share with our focus groups.

An aspect of Oath Keepers’ teach phase includes a published listing of ten unlawful orders which Oath Keepers swear [or affirm] they shall not obey.  See them explained here –

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

By presenting the “ten unlawful orders”, Oath Keepers places an idea in the American psyche, which carries with it the realization that “just following orders is no excuse”, as the world learned at the Nuremberg Tribunals for Nazi war criminals.

Oath Keepers insists all military and peace officer and firefighter personnel impeccably follow all lawful orders. That is part of the Oath too. Oath Keepers shares America’s pride in our military’s history, our firefighters’ history and in our peace officer history. Oath Keepers honors the traditions embodied in those services.

However, we also must realize the possibility that not all orders are necessarily lawful orders, as we saw in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina at New Orleans. Yet the UCMJ is clear in its pronouncement that military personnel are not required to follow an unlawful order.

Therefore, the Oath Keepers message presents a direct challenge to authoritarian power, and exposes it to those whom an authoritarian government would order against the American people.

In addition to active Internet use, Oath Keepers uses a high-quality printed materials program designed by Oath Keepers leadership for distribution among Military and firefighter and Peace Officer personnel whom Oath Keepers has reached. These materials are spread nationally by hand to hand friendly exchanges between Americans both in and out of uniform. We distribute videos. We do email blasts to more than twenty thousand email addresses. We march with Tea Party rallies, set up booths at gun shows, work directly with a wide variety of liberty-oriented groups and movements, do radio and television interviews, write educational columns, give live presentations, meet people and spread the word one-on-one all over grassroots America.

With the Internet, Oath Keepers has reached active duty military and peace officer personnel by the thousands, and now Oath Keepers has the printed word as well. With help from dedicated smart guys like Marti, Drew, and Mark, center-fire specialist Jim Ayala is creating a video capacity as an outreach tool. There are several versions of the Oath Keepers DVD in circulation. Oath Keepers has a solid brochure program which is very popular with grassroots America. Window decals, bumper stickers, shirts, hats and patches also reach out into society as well as onto military installations and into police and sheriff offices.

Stewart Rhodes in 2008 realized that trends and patterns exist, and that a ready template for authoritarian government is found in 20^th Century history. Federal activity has turned from service to the American people to service of the people to the government. This pattern is no longer debatable, and is authoritarian in nature. For such reasons, Stewart contemplated how it could be possible for a police state form of government to be erected here in America, and one thing occurred to him with striking gravity.

Any U.S. soldier who would or could be commanded by a rogue government is trained to follow orders. Current government training exercises for military and peace officer personnel indicates they may be ordered to take action against the American people. NORTHCOM is real, and its domestic combat troops are being trained at Ft. Stewart, Georgia, as we speak. Our soldiers must be reminded of their roots in our society and the meaning contained in the wording of their Oath of service. Seeing this as a challenge on behalf of the Republic, Stewart Rhodes consulted with his trusted military, peace officer, firefighter and veteran community friends and promptly founded Oath Keepers.

The first Oath Keepers muster was at Lexington Green on April 19, 2009 and we celebrate that date as our founding. It was a successful launch and the remainder of 2009 was spent by leadership trying to get hold of a swift growth in membership. We had a website to create. We had to choose a public forum system to move into and soon built our own, which is even now in May of 2011 being prepared for replacement by a much finer social network forum system. We had to incorporate, elect officers, jump through all the legal hoops, start State chapters, select State-level officers, write our by-laws and post them, develop our national communications system, produce our outreach materials, handle a snowballing membership, and many other pressing developments. 2009 was a very busy year for our band of grassroots officers in Oath Keepers national. See brief bios for most of our national officers here –

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/bios/

As you can see, Oath Keepers are grassroots Americans who have had careers in law enforcement, firefighting, and the military. Most of our Board members are retirees. Some of us, including myself, were one-hitch-only military and did not retire, but served in foreign wars. One thing we all share in common with all of our members across the nation is a keen respect for the Constitution and the way of traditional American life that document secures when acted up to properly. That, and the fact that we have all learned to work together, with each other, to fulfill the vision of Stewart Rhodes, which is to remove the peace officer community, the veterans community, the military community, and the firefighter community from the control of any rogue government agency or department which would use them against the American people.

Oath Keepers held its first corporate meeting in Las Vegas in October of 2009. We combined the organizational legal meeting with a national conference over three days and held our first awards ceremony with a presentation of plaques.

By mid-2010 we were growing too fast again and had to scramble as Stewart Rhodes became an item on television shows. By July of 2010 we held a Board meeting in Bozeman, Montana and premiered in conjunction a Matrixx Productions movie by James Jaeger, “Cultural Marxism”.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/06/21/cornerstone-matrixx-entertainment-oath-keepers-world-premiere-%E2%80%9Ccultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america%E2%80%9D/?cp=1

Also in July of 2010 Sheriff Richard Mack was elected to the Board of Directors for Oath Keepers and his operation has been a real asset. See Sheriff Mack’s website here –

http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack

Through the winter of 2010/2011 Oath Keepers developed a new strategy to acknowledge America’s pending economic crisis and Stewart Rhodes saw a need to unite the millions of veterans across the nation. To do this Oath Keepers has just launched our Operation Sleeping Giant, which is directed at the veterans as a challenge in Oath keeping after active duty service. Check it out here – http://www.operationsleepinggiant.com/

Our purpose with Operation Sleeping Giant is to alert our veterans everywhere to the need for their guidance in helping organize their communities’ capabilities for preparedness at the local level. To assist this new drive Oath Keepers is promoting the works of Dr. Edwin Vieira, who is one of America’s foremost Constitutionally-oriented historians, among other honors. Dr. Vieira reveals the proper correlation between sound money and the Constitutionally mandated lawful militia of the several States. Oath Keepers is challenging all veterans to study Dr. Vieira’s remarkable works, starting with his course entitled “The Purse And The Sword”. Get it here –

http://www.heritageresearchinstitute.org/PurseSwordPage.htm (free sample clips at link)

Oath Keepers is now working also with the Michael Boldin’s Tenth Amendment Center, and with the Von Mises Institute’s Thomas E. Woods, author of “Nullification”, and Stewart Rhodes tours with their Nullify Now! program. Additionally Oath Keepers is working with Giordano Bruno’s Alternative Market Project. Read about it here -

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/03/17/introducing-the-alternative-market-movement/

Further, Oath Keepers embraces Larry Pratt’s Gun Owners of America (GOA) organization, Gary Marbut’s Montana Shooting Sports Association and Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). We also promote the Fully Informed Jury Association which operates nationally from Helena, Montana. Discover their powerful message here –

http://fija.org/

Enjoy a LewRockwell.com feature article by one of FIJA’s founders, Don Doig, and Stewart Rhodes, writing in tandem –

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/doig1.1.1.html

Oath Keepers also has ties with, or maintains cooperative relations with, a number of other American liberty groups and organizations. These are too many to list here, but include the We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, The John Birch Society, Chuck Baldwin’s ministries, our official Oath Keepers Chaplain Reverend Garrett Lear and his outreach mission, Nelson Hultberg’s Americans for a Free Republic, and many others. Being non-partisan and strictly Constitutionist, Oath Keepers is welcome in many circles, and Oath Keepers welcomes all Constitutional-oriented liberty groups and orgs.

As Oath Keepers marches forward on behalf of our Constitution and the Republic it founded we embrace also our patriotic American citizenry. Americans who have not served in the military, or on a fire department, or in law enforcement, are welcome to join Oath Keepers as Associate Members. Our troops and cops need to know that the American people support them and will stand for them if they are ever forced to refuse an unlawful order. Supporting the Oath Keepers mission by joining and then getting out there and approaching our cops and soldiers and firefighters to spread the message to them is very effective activism for any Constitutionalist. Associate members are a valued and needed force in Oath Keepers.

Support Oath Keepers. Join Oath Keepers. Work to reach and teach with Oath Keepers. Help Oath Keepers spread the word.

Salute!

Elias
May 2nd, 2011

http://www.oathkeepers.org/oath/

Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell

 

Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell

by Michael Boldin

NOTE: The following was based on a speech given at a freedom rally hosted by State sovereignty advocate and Washington State Representative Matt Shea on Aug. 30.

Almost everyone I know has written a letter to the Federal government. Many of them have contacted their Representatives or Senators at some point. They have emailed, faxed or even called — asking, demanding or just plain begging these politicians to do something or not.

I never have.

Why? Because I believe it is an absurd idea to ask the Federal government to fix problems it created, and that doing so just doesn’t work.

For example, those on the antiwar left got a “peace President” who has bombed Libya and massively expanded the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of those same progressives vehemently opposed the Patriot Act forced upon us by former President George W. Bush and the Republicans. With the Democrats in power, they got more of the same. Again.

For those on the right, the so-called conservative Bush and the Republicans in Congress gave us more Federal control over education with their No Child Left Behind Act. They also laid the groundwork for today’s national healthcare mandates with the largest expansion of Federal control over healthcare in decades: Medicare Part D.

And for everyone, we’ve got the Transportation Security Administration. Because no one, at least no one I know, likes the fact that this particular agency violates the 4th Amendment almost constantly.

So, because of things like these, I’ve always thought it was pointless to write the Feds telling them anything. Until now.

I recently wrote a draft letter to my so-called Representatives in Washington. Before sending it to them, I thought I’d share it with you here to see if you have suggestions or if it meets your approval as is.

Here’s what I came up with:

“Dear Federal government: Go to hell!”

Out Of The Mainstream? Not At All

Start talking 10th Amendment, state sovereignty or — heaven forbid — nullification, and you will immediately find yourself branded as an extremist, a nut job, a radical and out of the mainstream. There’s even a supposedly nasty term for those of us who would dare advance such nutty principles: “Tenther.”

Well, apparently, the American majority is just plain nutty.

A Rasmussen poll released last Friday tells us that “54 percent of Likely U.S. Voters believe that states should have the right to opt out of federal programs they don’t agree with.” In other words, more than half of Americans now embrace the Constitutional concept of State sovereignty.

More telling than this small majority in support of such crazy ideas is the much smaller minority of people opposed to them. Only 31 percent of those polled disagreed and said States should not enjoy the ability to opt out.

Think about that for a moment, because it is significant. Less than one-third of the country opposes our base principle that each State can and should have a unique approach to handling various political issues.

Federalism Rules!

The Founders told us that such a system was not only a good idea, but also in line with the Constitution. They knew that one-size-fits-all solutions would lead to pretty much what we have today: a crumbling economy, liberty eroded and continual violations of the rules given to government.

Today, people everywhere are beginning to recognize a simple truth: What’s right for California is likely not right for Washington State, and what’s right for Idaho is likely not right for Alabama, and so on.

In fact, such a decentralized system (the system the Founders gave us in the Constitution) is the only kind in which people in a huge country like ours — with widely varying political, economic and religious beliefs — can all live peacefully together under a large defense umbrella.

John Adams famously told us that the real American Revolution was not the war for independence. He said:

The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.

Happening Right Now

Even more exciting than this poll is the fact that States around the country are putting this idea into practice.

In 1996, when my home state of California decided to opt out of Federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes, it was going it alone. But, soon other States recognized not only their own ability, but the possible benefit of opting out of this particular Federal program. Today, 15 States have done so, and they are increasingly getting away with it.

A few years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union championed State-level opposition to the REAL ID Act of 2005, which required States to follow Federal guidelines in issuing driver’s licenses. Since then, more than half the States have enacted legislation against participation, and all applied for or received extensions by the 2008 deadline.

Here we are six years later and it’s still not fully implemented, because States just won’t do it.

States opting out of Federal programs (at the Tenth Amendment Center, we refer to it as “nullification“) can be a pretty effective strategy. It’s far more effective than “voting the bums out” or writing a letter to Federal politicians, in my opinion.

States’ Rights: Not Just For Liberals

Better yet, this growing States’ rights movement is not just exclusive to progressives and the left. Conservatives have gotten on board with the idea in recent years; and they are becoming more effective with it, too.

A recent Washington Times article said: “All told, 17 states have enacted laws rejecting parts of the Affordable Care Act, according to a report by the National Council of State Legislatures.” And, as tracked by the Tenth Amendment Center, more than 10 states have begun to consider the next step, rejecting (read: nullifying) the entire Affordable Care Act — every word of it.

Going Mainstream

Rasmussen reported: “Support for states’ rights jumps higher when the question involves federally mandated programs with no checks attached. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters think states should have the right to opt out of such programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree and 16% are undecided.”

What does that mean? Only one in five people believe the States should have to blindly comply with Federal mandates, no matter what. This is certainly good news, and something to build upon. We Tenthers are winning the ideological battle amongst the people.

In the end, it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas from the Principles of ’98 have gone mainstream, as they should. He was far more eloquent than I when he wrote, “…the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…”

But, the message remains the same.

“Dear Federal government: Go to hell!”

NOTE: Michael Maharrey, communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, contributed to this article.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin – and visit his personal blog – www.michaelboldin.com

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

The Original Constitution: What it Really Said and Meant

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers speaking at Nullify Now! LA

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers will be speaking at

Nulify Now!  Los Angeles May 28th, 2011

A big Thank You all for your pledges.

Bring Stewart Rhodes and Oath Keepers to Nullify Now! LA

OBJECTIVE:

Bring Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers to Nullify Now! Los Angeles on May 28, 2011

TERMS:

If we reach at least $500 by May 15, 2011, then We will be able to cover needed travel expenses to have Stewart speak at the event

Nullify Now! comes to Los Angeles in May! OBJECTIVE:Revive the instinct for freedom among military and police with a speech from Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers.TERMS:Without the $500 needed for Stewart’s travel expenses, the momentum for the liberty movement amongst those who’ve taken the oath may be lost in Los Angeles.PITCH:The Oath Keepers message restores a theme that American society would do good to hear: that the price paid at home for Constitutional violations is not worth the temptation. His message is part warning call, part call to arms, and all parts a devotion to affection for family and tradition. Stewart Rhodes is a leader whose time has come.Give $20 or more, and you’ll get two tickets to the event. $100 or more, we’ll list you or your group as a supporter on the website.Cover at least $300? We’ll set you up with a vendor table and include you on the website and program as a sponsor.Thank you!

             ORGANIZER

Tenth Amendment Center

.

Los Angeles: 05-28-11

• What IS nullification? Clue – it’s not what the pundits of the politicians have been telling you.
• How nullification has been used in defense of free speech, as resistance to slavery and conscription, and how it’s being used in modern times, right here in California
• How we can address the TSA, foreign policy, marijuana, water rights, and other issues through state-based activity
• How we can roll back unconstitutional expansions of federal power through nullification
• Why the Founding Fathers believed that nullification was the “moderate middle ground”
• Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the states the power to nullify unconstitutional laws
• Why states – not the Supreme Court – should arbitrate disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s actions.

EVENT SCHEDULE (tentative)
4:00pm, doors open. Arrive early!
4:00-4:45 LOCAL MUSICIANS
4:45 – Speaker TBA
5:08 – Intro to the Principles of ’98/Nullification
5:30 – Bryce Shonka – nullification around the country today
5:45 – Nick Hankoff – nullifying the TSA

6:00 – DINNER and 2 local Musical Guests
(meals available for purchase on site)

7:00 – Art Thompson on effective grassroots activism
7:20 – Jason Rink – the Nullification documentary film
7:40 – John Dennis – Republican Liberty Caucus of California
8:10 – Michael Boldin – Tenth Amendment Center
8:30 – MUSIC
9:00 – Scott Horton – Foreign Policy, the National Guard and Nullification
9:30 – Anthony Gregory – Addressing the drug war, patriot act and more through nullification
10:00 – Thomas E. Woods – Author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

11:00 – LATE – more local musicians, DJ’s in our penthouse lounge. Relax, drink, dance, mingle – and network – with like minded people.

Liberty CAN be fun!

Orange County Oath Keepers table at Nullify Now! – Los Angeles May 28th, 2011

Stewart Rhodes speaking at Nullify Now!

Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. U.S. (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz/Mack vs. US landmark 10th Amendment case.

How to instructions to protect your state and local sovereignty.

Supreme Court

Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

---

Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503

---

JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 27, 1997]

Justice Thomas, concurring.

The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to “administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court’s opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) (“This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers”). “[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

In my “revisionist” view, see post, at 3, the Federal Government’s authority under the Commerce Clause, which merely allocates to Congress the power “to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states,” does not extend to the regulation of wholly intrastate, point of sale transactions. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 584 (1995) (concurring opinion). Absent the underlying authority to regulate the intrastate transfer of firearms, Congress surely lacks the corollary power to impress state law enforcement officers into administering and enforcing such regulations. Although this Court has long interpreted the Constitution as ceding Congress extensive authority to regulate commerce (interstate or otherwise), I continue to believe that we must “temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence” and return to an interpretation better rooted in the Clause’s original understanding. Id., at 601; (concurring opinion); see also Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. ___, (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Even if we construe Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce to encompass those intrastate transactions that “substantially affect” interstate commerce, I question whether Congress can regulate the particular transactions at issue here. The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress’ regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion or “abridging the freedom of speech.” The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government’s authority. That Amendment provides: “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. ^[n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government’s regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment’s protections. ^[n.2] As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms “has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” 3 J. Story, Commentaries §1890, p. 746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court’s opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

---

Notes

1 Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

2 Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the “right to keep and bear arms” is, as the Amendment’s text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right 162 (1994); S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L. J. 1236 (1994); Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 1193 (1992); Cottrol & Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L. J. 309 (1991); Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 637 (1989); Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983). Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. See, e.g., Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1365 (1993); Williams, Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 551 (1991); Brown, Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism: On Sanford Levinson’s The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 661 (1989); Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, 71 J. Am. Hist. 22 (1984). Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence, the Amendment has certainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public, debate.

Screenshot

Tenthers and Oath Keepers: Partners in Liberty

Tenthers and Oath Keepers: Partners in Liberty

EDITOR’S NOTE: There are very few organizations that are seriously dedicated to our cause – the Constitution – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses. So, when we connected with Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers (OK) to participate as both speaker and sponsor on our Nullify Now! tour, it was a natural fit.

Like the Tenth Amendment Center, Oath Keepers has been getting plenty of attention in the media – and probably even more. The mainstream doesn’t like an organization that calls upon its members to refuse compliance with unconstitutional acts. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) considers Stewart himself to be a dangerous patriot. Rachel Maddow considers us to be racist, neo-confederates.

Obviously, the mainstream doesn’t like what what we’re doing. But we’re going to keep doing it anyway. And while the pressure keeps rising from the mainstream media, it becomes essential for us to find ways to work together and support each other as much as possible. In that spirit, I strongly encourage you to read the following personal message from Stewart Rhodes….and I hope that you’ll do what you can to support his important new projects. Together, we can push back against the establishment and work for more liberty in your lifetime.

–Michael Boldin

OPERATION SLEEPING GIANT
by Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers

Tenthers, it is an honor to be part of the Tenth Amendment Center’s Nullify Now! Tour. The mission of Oath Keepers (www.oathkeepers.org) fits hand in glove with your mission. We urge active duty military and police to remember that their oath is to the Constitution, not to whoever happens to be “the decider” in the White House (of whatever party). And that oath to defend the Constitution requires that they defend the separation of powers between the federal government and the states, and defend the powers reserved to the states and to the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear. It is no accident that within our Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/) we vow to refuse orders to enter into a state with force, for any reason, unless, and until, invited in by that state’s legislature, or by the governor if the legislature cannot be convened, as required by Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution (known as the “Republican Government” clause). Nor will we obey orders to subjugate a state that asserts its sovereignty and nullifies unconstitutional federal laws, or orders to impose “martial law” on the American people (a power nowhere granted, or even mentioned, in our Constitution). We are proud to call ourselves Jeffersonians, and we have pledged our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor in defense of the timeless principles of liberty enshrined in our Unanimous Declaration of Independence. We are honored to work with all of you in any way we can in the fight for liberty.

However corrupt and power hungry the oath breakers in Mordor on the Potomac become, they are truly powerless if the military and police simply stand down. Is that possible? Yes, it certainly is! That’s exactly what happened in East Germany in 1989, where the commanding General of the Army refused the Communist Party’s orders to crush peaceful mass protests. Without the support of the Army, the hated Stasi secret police were overwhelmed by the people and the Communist Party was DONE. Two days later, the Berlin Wall fell. You can watch an interview with a former East German Colonel (who is now a Texas Oath Keeper) who was there when the wall fell, here.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/02/19/oath-keeping-at-the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall-video/

Likewise, in Romania in 1989, the military refused orders to fire on their own people and ten days after the uprising began, the brutal communist dictator Ceaușescu was dead. And we just saw a similar stand-down in Tunisia, with that dictator, Ben Ali, also forced to flee after the Tunisian military refused his murderous orders. I spoke of that example at the recent Phoenix ‘Nullify Now!” event. You can watch that speech here:

http://www.nullifynow.com/2011/04/on-our-watch-the-republic-will-not-be-destroyed/

If the armed forces of communist and third world dictatorships can finally wake up and do the right thing, then so can our military, so long as we don’t forsake them. The corrupt domestic enemies of our Constitution want you to believe that the military and police all belong to them. Don’t accept that. Deny them their “muscle” by helping us reach each and every man and woman in uniform with the message of liberty. Let’s send the elites the message that “all your bases are belong to us!” We already know, from our interview with Sgt. Joshua May of the Utah National Guard, that some troops did refuse to participate in gun confiscation during Hurricane Katrina:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/05/17/breaking-news-oath-keepers-proves-that-there-were-troops-who-refused-to-confiscate-guns-during-katrina/

We just need to create more Sgt. Mays. By and large, the military has the honor and courage, they just need the knowledge of what is the right path.

I invite you to join us, and take part in our efforts. Even if you are not prior service, you can join as an associate member. We have many dedicated citizens within Oath Keepers who have never served in the military, police, or emergency services but are very active in reaching out the current serving with our vital message.

NEW OUTREACH TO VETERANS: OPERATION SLEEPING GIANT

The second part of our mission is to remind veterans that their oath does not expire until they do, and to keep it they must vote only for oath keeping statesmen, such as Congressman Ron Paul or his counterparts in the state legislatures. To vote for an oath breaker, is to become an oath breaker. We also urge them to defend the powers reserved to the states and to the people by supporting state sovereignty resolutions and nullification of unconstitutional laws.

Veterans must take the lead in revitalizing the core institutions of a free people in sovereign states. That is now all the more urgent because the Federal Reserve created fiat money system is destined to collapse, and when it does, the power elites intend to force upon us a world-wide version of the “Fed” along with ‘world governance.” We need strong communities in strong states that can weather the coming storm and reject the “final solution” of the global elites, and instead choose independence and liberty.

That is why we have started Operation Sleeping Giant (www.operationsleepinggiant.com) to wake the veterans up! That effort urges them to focus on:

1. Food and fuel independence and security (as individuals, within local veterans organization chapters, mutual aid societies, co-ops, farmers markets, and at the town, county and state levels).
2. Physical security and Independence, again as individuals, neighborhoods, towns, counties and states, to include forming neighborhood watches, a volunteer sheriff’s posse, and county militias established by county ordinances but staffed by self-supplied and self-funded volunteers (like in a volunteer fire department), and ultimately, a true state militia capable of “repelling invasions.”
3. Economic security and independence, as individuals and communities, including barter networks, use of silver and gold as real money, and sound money bills at the county and state levels. We must have an alternative to the fiat money system in place when it collapses.
4. State sovereignty and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and actions. We encourage peaceful withdrawal of consent and support, and the application of the doctrine of interposition by states, in defense of the rights of their citizens.

Please go to www.operationsleepinggiant.com to learn more.

Click here to sign up for our free email alert list!

Please join our organization if you can, make a donation if you are able, or at least help us spread the message of liberty to the current serving and veterans by forwarding this message to any and all you know and feel free to repost our banner. I am encouraging all Oath Keepers to join the Tenth Amendment Center and to help you in your vital mission. Together, we can do it!

For Liberty and the Constitution,

Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter

A Day In The Life Of A “Homegrown Terrorist”

April 8th, 2011

A Day In The Life Of A “Homegrown Terrorist”

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/04/08/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-%E2%80%9Chomegrown-terrorist%E2%80%9D/

Oath Keepers, what with all the bad news we are constantly bombarded with, I figured you could use a good laugh, especially at Mark Potok’s expense (he is one of our favorite people, even if he does have a dead marmot on his head in place of where most people have hair. Every time he goes on air to demonize us, we get a spike in Oath Keepers membership).

Humor is often the very best weapon, especially in the theater of the absurd we now see playing around us.  As the below article lays out, there is no shorter path to being labeled a “domestic terrorist” or “extremist” than telling the truth, consistently standing for freedom, or asserting that people should simply act like free men and women. And God forbid you should advocate that we actually follow the Constitution.  If you do that enough, you will end up on Mark Potok’s official hit list:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/meet-the-patriots

Hey, you gotta have goals!   I expect “Giordano Bruno” (Brandon Smith) to join me on that list this summer.  As he notes in his article, Mark Potok is already cranking up the smear campaign against anyone who dares talk about sound money or alternative currency (using real money, like gold or silver, rather than the fiat “dollars”), so he is going to positively lose it when he catches wind of the Alternative Market Project at www.alt-market.com.  If Mark Potok doesn’t like it, you know that is exactly what you should do – so go out and buy some silver or gold and check out www.alt-market.com.  In fact, when I get up each morning, I think to myself, “what does Mark Potok NOT want me to do today”?  Then, after visualizing Mark scowling with disapproval, complete with his signature marmot fur head-helmet and permanent sour-puss expression, I chalk up a list of verboten items and go and do just that.  Enjoy.

Stewart Rhodes

By Giordano Bruno

Neithercorp Press – 4/8/2011

There was a time when having one’s name listed in the despised ranks of those villains that governments often categorize as “terrorists” involved quite a bit of leg work, as well as an ominous running resume of death, destruction, and general mean spiritedness. Of course, if one examines the history of every modern country which eventually disintegrated into despotism, the definition of who the “enemy” is tends to become rather broad rather quickly. That is to say, the more criminal the leadership of a country becomes, the easier it is for the average person to find himself labeled a criminal by that same leadership.

Today, one does not need to blow up buildings, take hostages in political motivation, send anthrax through the mail, or even wave a gun around in a public place to be considered a terrorist threat. In fact, a man could never leave his house and still find himself under suspicion as an enemy of the state. The Department of Homeland Security has released numerous standardized guidelines to law enforcement offices across the country which are meant to make it “easier” for police and others to identify a possible terrorist. If you were to take at face value such documents as the now famous MIAC Report, the Virginia Fusion Center Report, the DHS’ “see something, say something” campaign, the Enemy Belligerents Act, the post trial statements of the Department Of Justice in the Liberty Dollar case, or the wild spewing rhetoric of establishment mouthpiece organizations like the SPLC, then you would discover that a likely terrorist is:

Anyone who talks frequently about the Constitution, or ill of the government
Anyone who supports the idea of a Constitutional Militia
Anyone who fights against anti-gun legislation, or owns many guns (man do we LOVE guns)
Anyone who supports state sovereignty and 10th Amendment issues
Anyone who supports Ron Paul (the ultimate sin according to the SPLC)
Anyone who believes the private Federal Reserve is destroying our economy
Anyone who talks about the “New World Order”, or global government (does this include men like George Soros, Joseph Biden, Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbot, George McGovern, Mikhail Gorbachev, Richard Nixon, etc.?)
Anyone who discusses economic collapse as a reality in the U.S.
Anyone who speaks out against the IRS
Anyone who participates in “Hacktivism” (including those who leak documents embarrassing to government)
Anyone who participates in any form of activist group
Anyone who argues that the Left/Right political paradigm is a scam
Anyone who promotes Anarchist views
Anyone who distrusts FEMA (as if Katrina did not give us ample reasons)
Anyone who believes a truly independent investigation of 9/11 is rational and called for
Anyone who home schools their children
Anyone who flies a Gadsden Flag
Anyone who stores survival goods and food
Anyone who uses shortwave radios or HAMs
Anyone who watches movies like ‘Freedom to Fascism’, with anti-Fed messages
Anyone who operates private barter and trade networks
Anyone who stores gold and silver or uses them as an alternative to the dollar

Basically, ANYONE who dissents through independent political organization or protests through non-participation in the corrupt system might as well be Al Qaeda…

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1156877184684.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1278023105905.shtm
http://www.cdt.org/blogs/harley-geiger/us-intelligence-reports-continue-confuse-political-dissent-terrorism
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_liberty_dollars_raid

I could go on for pages with this stuff, but I think you get the picture. In a world where refusing a naked body scan at the airport earns you intimidation and a demeaningly thorough pat down, it is clear that now wherever we go we are all considered “suspects”. Why would I turn down a naked body scan, one might ask? Well obviously because I have something to hide; namely my genitalia from the prying eyes of the TSA. To be frank, my privacy and the privacy of all Americans is more important than your safety. Get over it.

America is moving closer to financial derailment, and with that kind of destabilization often follows the escalation of what we call the “police state”; a governmental framework that is designed specifically to protect the longevity of the core system that created the disaster in the first place, remove civil liberties one bite at a time while demonizing any person who dares to question the necessity of the system, and institute new social dynamics meant to acclimate the public to the loss of the freedom and prosperity they once enjoyed. That is, to condition them to accept the loss as “inevitable” and for the “greater good”.

Most unsettling but absolutely predictable has been the recent tapping of the SPLC and ever present establishment front man Mark Potok as the on camera media hit squad against organizations like Liberty Dollar, and anyone else attempting to promote alternative methods of currency and commerce outside of the corporately controlled economy. U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins’ post trial statement in the case against von NotHaus that “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism” was just the beginning. Potok has now come forward stating:

“He (von NotHaus) is playing on a core idea of the radical right, that evil bankers in the Federal Reserve are ripping you off by controlling the money supply,” said Mark Potok, spokesman for the group. “He very much exists in the world of the anti-government patriot movement, whatever he may say. That’s who his customers are.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_liberty_dollars_raid

Here’s what I love about Mark Potok; his ability to vomit unsupported accusations and make absurdly false associations all while making the absolute truth sound “insane” to the useful idiots out there in TV land. First off, how does Potok define the “radical right”? It sounds scary, but what does it mean? Who gets to decide what the radical right is? The SPLC? Is a right wing radical or extremist anyone who just happens to disagree with Mark Potok’s world view, or the global elitist vision of the future? Potok routinely haunts the transmissions of MSM networks to squat on our television screens and unleash a putrid torrent of Ad hominem attacks without ever having to actually qualify what he says. It truly is awe inspiring.

His style of propaganda comes from a long tradition of Alinsky-esque dishonesty in debate. When the SPLC argues a point, their goal is not to get to the truth of a matter, or to explore the complexity of an issue, it is to oversimplify the issues, to ridicule the opposition and taint their image in the minds of audiences before the audience ever gets a chance to hear the other side of the story. How often does Potok utter phrases like “radical”, “extremist”, “terrorist”, “white supremacist”, or hot button names like “Timothy McVeigh” while discussing legitimate activist groups like the Ron Paul campaign, Oath Keepers, the Tea Party Movement, anti-Federal Reserve groups, etc? The purpose behind this is to condition average Americans to automatically interpret the terminology as being mutually related. To hear Oath Keeper, for instance, and think “Timothy McVeigh”.

This tactic of false association invariably leads to more generalized definitions of criminality, or terrorism, and then to more intrusive legal actions and legislation.

The Liberty Dollar case is now being used by the DOJ in an effort to set a precedent, which would make it easier for the government to prosecute any barter network utilizing gold and silver as competing currencies to the dollar. The message is clear; you are not allowed to change the system. You are not allowed to buck the system or criticize the system. You are not even allowed to walk away from the system. You will sit down, you will shut up, and you WILL participate, whether you like it or not.

This philosophy is typical of autocratic nations around the globe. The citizenry is denied the ability to actively have a say in their own government because the parties involved refuse to represent them, or even stoop to abusing them, then, they are denied the option to protest this lack of representation, and then, they are also denied the choice of opting out and walking away. A slightly more extreme example of this would be the Chinese propensity for hating the Tibetan people and wishing they would disappear, while also shooting Tibetan natives who take the hint and attempt to leave the country by hiking over the border. Thus, the people are not just an enemy to be silenced or run off, they are also property which must be fenced in and subjugated.

Continue Reading at: Neithercorp Press

Feds Slam Montana’s Bid For State Sovereignty, by Elias Alias

Feds Slam Montana’s Bid For State Sovereignty
March 14, 2011 * Willow Creek, Montana * Elias Alias

It is a sad day for Constitutionalists in America. As I write this, the Bozeman (Montana) Daily Chronicle [1] is quoting in an AP article a named source stating:

An advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access, said at least 12 businesses were raided in six cities across the state. The DEA and U.S. attorney’s office would not confirm that number.
Americans for Safe Access also decried the raids as politically motivated.
“By engaging in these raids, the federal government is complicit in exploiting Montana’s current political dynamic with the aim of undermining the state’s medical marijuana law,” said executive director Steph Sherer. “Instead of letting the legislature and the people of Montana figure this out, certain hostile actors such as law enforcement and the federal government have instead chosen to obstruct the democratic process.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-6 to reject House Speaker Mike Milburn’s House Bill 161.
So what’s going down here?

We are seeing the unfolding of a remarkable Federal operation designed to do several things in one fell swoop. At the level of public perception, as witnessed by many of the comments under the Missoulian’s article [2] on this Federal travesty, the Feds are merely exerting their superior authority over Montana’s medical marijuana law. The Montana law is in fact a law which was not generated by and passed through the Montana legislature – it was a popular referendum enacted by the voice of the people of Montana. Many appear to see these raids as a proper thing for the Federal government to do. That’s on the public level.

Secondly, and also on the public level, is the perception that marijuana is bad for the State’s communities, and for those who hold that view this appears to be a great favor done for them by the Federal government.

And a third view which dwells in the public perception is that there should be some way to lawfully get the government out of the business of ownership over citizens’ bodies. They base that view on the fact that if the government can tell anyone what one can and cannot put into one’s body, then the government is presuming some authority of ownership over one’s body, which means that one is no longer a “self-owner”, which means suddenly and clearly that one is not “free”.

1 – There is the level on which business meets the State. On that level there are accountants, bankers, inspectors, employees, wages, taxes, licenses, logistics, costs and cashflows, and other routine business matters which accompany the care-giving business. All of that, by the way, does generate economic growth for the State as well as for communities. In a word, it’s “jobs”. If the Montana legislature were to over-ride the medical marijuana State law and shut down the businesses which have started up across the State, many jobs would be lost, many taxes would disappear, and our drug Task Forces would have more work to do, at a cost of more money.

2 – Also on the next level down from the public-perception level is the level on which law enforcement is caught between the opposing wills of several different types of citizens, as defined by individual views on the marijuana issue. There are the statist-minded right-wing Christians who would use the force of government to control their neighbors’ behavior, to suit their own interpretation of how people should behave.

Many of these types of people think of themselves as being Constitutionalists, but they are wrong – they are statists. They do not value being statists, but they do not question their stance and thus are unconsciously statists even though they believe they are Constitutionalists. These people want to use law enforcement to enforce their preferred will on the marijuana issue, and law enforcement hears from such people regularly.

But law enforcement also knows that the people have spoken in true democratic fashion by voting the law into authority, and therefore law enforcement, in difference to an officer’s personal convictions on the issue, is duty bound to protect the card-holders and the licensed growers/providers who have registered with the State to obtain permission to use marijuana lawfully, medicinally, and commercially. Law enforcement has thus far felt the pressure from both sides of this issue since 2004 when medical marijuana passed into law via referendum.

But finally, existing below the previously-listed levels of perception and much removed from the public discourse, there is the level on which Federal corruption at its finest is seeking to destroy the current movement in America which is seeking to re-establish the sovereignty of the several States in their respective compacts with the Federal government. That is what this is all about, and it’s huge. I will explain.

In 2009 Gary Marbut and the Montana Shooting Sports Association got one of their flagship bills through the legislature and got it signed into law by the Governor of Montana. All over America today, that bill is known as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009 (MFFA or FFA). That act was quickly mirrored by the legislature of Tennessee and passed into law in Tennessee. Shortly after that, several other States took up versions of the bill. I believe that seven States have now passed such a law for their respective States, and approximately twenty other States are considering it.

The Firearms Freedom Act is a challenge to Federal interpretations of the “commerce clause” and is a Tenth Amendment issue. It is a State sovereignty issue. Our MFFA is on its way to the Supreme Court, because the BATFE (ATF for short) has sent letters to Montana, Tennessee, and the other States who have cloned Marbut’s FFA bill, telling the States that Federal law trumps State law. [3] Here it is in their own words:

All Federal propaganda is based on the belief of Americans that they are “free”. Autonomists know that we are not free when the government can control what we put into our bodies. Such people feel that the Constitution, if lived up to by the Federal government, would never permit the government to own our bodies, much less our minds – that is what dictatorships do. Yet that is exactly what the centralized Federal government is doing with its so-called “war on drugs” today. It is undebatable – if the government can regulate/control what one puts into one’s body, the government is asserting ownership over one, including ownership over one’s body.

So those are three levels in the public perception. But there is another level below that public level, and it contains two manifestations.

“To the extent that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the GCA and NFA, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.” – Robert E. Chase, Special Agent In Charge, Denver Field Office, DOJ/ATF September 29, 2009

As Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, has already said, the conservatives who are lauding this move to strike down a lawful referendum of the people of Montana, and thereby repeal legal medical marijuana, are just about to turn the corner down a street they’re not going to like one bit. That street is called Gun Control Avenue. At the other end of that street is Gun Confiscation. (I won’t go into another facet of the gun control problem in this essay, but we should all be aware that all holders of medical marijuana cards are likely to be relieved of their Second Amendment rights also, owing to the fact that they now are registered as users of a psycho-tropic drug. The Veterans Administration is presently rescinding Second Amendment rights for returning war veterans who are diagnosed with PTSD or who are on psychological-related prescribed drugs.)

You see, the medical marijuana issue and the firearms freedom issue are both Tenth Amendment issues.

And what has been set up for rules by which to play either game? The players must be on either one side or the other on each of those two issues. The progressives are supposed to want to squash the firearms freedom movement in Montana, while the so-called “conservatives” are supposed to want to squash the medical marijuana freedom movement in Montana – and both sides are fanned and flamed by the forces of powers which work behind the scenes, behind the public perception.

Montanans, indeed, all Americans who love their country, are now at a crossroads. Great powers have now been centralized in Washington D.C., and the tentacles of those powers reach down into our own State governments across the land, even into our once-private lives here in Montana. Centralized power always must, always has, and always shall seek to control the behavior of its tax base, which is you and me and all of our good neighbors. Centralized power will presume ownership over your body and centralized power will also presume ownership over your right to keep and bear arms. The draping curtain, the unseen veil, is officially named “Security”.

Centralized power benefits when it can induce the progressive segment of society to support its quest to regulate the American people’s gun rights; and centralized power benefits when it can induce the religious right or deluded conservatives to support its quest to own everyone’s bodies. If centralized government wants you to have a flu shot, so be it – the full power and force of government enforcement will show one how to comply. If the centralized government does not want one to ingest a particular item, so be it – the full force and power of government enforcement will show one how to comply. That is how centralized government works at the level of public perception, but from behind the scenes.

But centralized government has yet another quest in mind, and that is just as I just typed it – it is a quest for the “mind”. Your mind, my mind, and our good neighbors’ minds. The central government is keenly interested in what you and I think, in how we perceive things, in what we believe, and in what motivates us to behave in various ways. More on that below. There is much to tie together to complete this essay properly. All of this ties into the raids brought down upon innocent Montana businesses by the Federal agencies and their interfacing local law enforcement.

The centralized government seeks to shield us from knowing various facts from our own history, and pumps all sorts of nonsense into our minds for multiple reasons. Americans generally do not pause to reflect upon the fact that their very own tax dollars are used by government to study ways by which to control, regulate, tax, and otherwise benefit from our citizenship. They play, we pay; that’s their way.

Read that in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle for March 14, 2011 linked at note #1 below. Also in that article is the notation that the bill to repeal medical marijuana died in committee this morning at our legislature in Helena.

Wall Street does the same thing. And lately, Wall Street and the Federal government appear to be in collusion in manipulating the public perception to their mutual advantage. Hence the sweep of cultural Marxism [4] during the past half-century, and hence the rise of corporate fascism [5] during that same time frame.

Thus, when the Federal government wanted to influence the public mind in support of a massive so-called “war on drugs”, Wall Street and the American media/press stepped up to the task and generated the desired fear-based public perception in support of the very thing which would literally create a drug problem in America – a war on drugs. Having learned how it was done during Prohibition, and therefore anticipating the growth in demand for government enforcement jobs and a Federal boosting of cash-out to communities where all the new drug agents chanced to live, LBJ’s Great Society saw a drug war as a way of creating jobs and empowering the Federal government further. Always remember this one undeniable fact – before the Federal government created a “war on drugs”, there was no drug problem in America. A few jazz musicians in New Orleans and New York City was the worst we knew as a nation.

But Prohibition had shown that banning substances on which there would be a demand is a sure way to drive up prices on said substance, and a black market would invariably be created, from which a growing government could profit nicely while creating yet more enforcement jobs. A burgeoning consumption was the response to the Federal crackdown on the anti-Vietnam-war movement, which quickly caused marijuana to become a part of the counter culture which opposed the war – our young people, college people, art communities and such. Pot smoking became a sign of rebellion against an undeclared and immoral war (which I fought in as a volunteer with the U.S. Marines, being totally duped at that age in my life).

Millions of Americans discovered that pot is a harmless weed with certain valuable properties, especially for those of us who have creative tendencies, such as musicians and artists, poets and philosophers. It taught millions of people that our perception of time is relative, and that there are vast spaces unexplored in each of our minds, and that the discovery of those inner spaces was a part of the human birthright.

Of course, along with that cultural shift away from the norm came the fringe misfits who just wanted to abuse the weed, to get themselves “out of it” for a while – and their stupidity was what the government used in publicity campaigns to further drive the wedge between the conservative right and the peace-movement on the left. That is how it became distorted into a party item, and the magic of the personal discoveries in self-knowledge which the original artful community had revered was largely lost on the masses. Its medicinal properties remained valuable, however, and many people continued to use marijuana for that purpose, and still do.

For irresponsible people, marijuana is a waste, and I must say that a goodly percentage of users I’ve known through the years have not in any way benefited their lives by smoking the weed. But I also know a lot of very intelligent, very responsible people, including many doctors, dentists, professional people, successful people, who have used marijuana for many years with no problems, either behavior-wise or physically. It’s the same with alcoholic drinks – some people can hold their drinking to very responsible limits, and for them there is no problem. Some other people can’t be in the same room where someone pops a cork without turning into a fool. We call that sort “alcoholics”.

There is no comparison between people who abuse marijuana and people who abuse alcohol – it’s like the two are not even in the same world. Alcohol is a deadly, very dangerous drug; marijuana is at worst a passing distraction for curious young people. Nobody has died yet, to my knowledge, from ingesting marijuana, and I know of no one who has developed any medical condition because of using marijuana. But all this is beside the point.

A hysteria was generated in the public perception by Federally-funded pseudo-science “studies” to demonize use of marijuana. That, for the purpose of selling the war on drugs to a support base peopled largely by conservatives and the far right. For those who have trouble following me here, there is a fascinating synopsis of the history of this in Ron Paul’s book, The Revolution: A Manifesto [6].

So Americans on both sides of the political fence are now faced with a choice which I trust will appear clearly to each one reading this. It is the choice to look deeply into what is ‘behind the scenes’ with so many of our political concerns today. Are we being manipulated by hidden powers of which we’ve never been aware? Should not every rational human being ask this question, often, in a representative Republic of law, lest the Republic itself turn lawless? Is anything “so” just because the government says it is so? Has our government ever lied to us? The Gary Powers U-2 shootdown; the Bay of Pigs; the assassination of JFK; the Gulf of Tonkin; the Watergate; the Iran-Contra scandal; BCCI? Aren’t those all classic examples of governmental lying to the American people? Is the government lying to the conservative populace, those who have never smoked a joint but are ready to condemn those who have? Most of those who oppose medical marijuana or recreational use of marijuana have never experienced it for themselves, and so they are believers in a government created myth which features all the horrors of demonic possession and loss of personal control and general wickedness and the good Lord only knows what else. That is what the government has caused three generations of Americans to think and it’s a damn lie.

And for that lie true believers like some of our squishy RINO Republicans are willing to bring the full force and might of the government down on their good neighbors, are eager to pay the cost to bust over seven-hundred thousand Americans each year, year after year, for marijuana. Can you imagine the profits which state governments and the court systems and the bond business and law enforcement make off of three quarters of a million Americans arrested each year in this country? That is the average number per year.

Does freedom even matter to people any more? In a system designed and created to protect personal freedom equally for all citizens, what will be the outcome if that system begins to function in ways contrary to the way it was designed to work? Isn’t the opposite of freedom slavery? Can we see signs of the gradual, incremental loss of our personal freedoms in our communities? Property ownership is now under fire; water rights are under siege; permits and licenses are required for almost everything; invasive data collection by the Census is now commonplace; the Bush-43 and Obama administrations both have maintained the NSA’s justification in monitoring all of our communications; our financial transactions valued at $600.00 or more must now be registered, including the purchase or sale of gold and silver; interfaced databases will pack all of the following increments into one chip on our national ID card as soon as Fedgov can get the States in compliance: medical history, credit history, education history, military-duty history, consumer-spending history, criminal records – all of these things and more will be readable by government agents and merchants anywhere at any time.

Meanwhile, we are being asked to do “nation-building” in Iraq, and a ten-years-running war in Afghanistan, and our military is being used to keep the corporate trade lanes open around the world while also being prepared to police “civil unrest” here domestically, on U.S. soil [7].

Homeland Security is now interfaced with the Pentagon, the CIA and all other Intelligence agencies, the Justice Department thug-groups like ATF, DEA, and FBI, the medical profession, the educational system, transportation system infrastructure nationally, all air transport both industrial and commuter, the DOE, NASA, the nation’s University systems, and like a big red cherry on top of all that, DHS is interfaced with the NYSE and the big boys of finance on Wall Street and over at the Federal Reserve System, Inc., which continues to print mountains more FRNs by the minute to allay interest payments on our multi-trillion dollar debt packages.

Add to all that the social divisiveness over an influx of Sharia-Law-touting Islamics, the massive hype over the CIA’s generated Jihadist terrorism, the influx of many millions of working-wage competing foreign workers who seek the jobs of the poorer class of America’s work force. And add to that the massive off-shoring of our manufacturing base under NAFTA, CAFTA, and the SPP. Meanwhile consider that we’re given professional sports as our means of venting our competitive natures harmlessly, and an entire world of entertainment and distraction is at our fingertips every moment.

And, finally, we can add in this current debate over marijuana. In light of greater concerns as I’ve listed just a few above, should we really care what our neighbor is doing in his own home with an herb which grows wild in Nature all over the globe and has been used medicinally for several thousand years? (And which, by the way, is *not* narcotic no matter what the DEA says.)

Is our determination to eradicate that behavior from our good neighbors’ daily lives really worth assisting this Federal behemoth which is now exceeding its Constitutional limitations like a run-away freight train on downhill tracks destined for the dark pits of hellish slavery in a totalitarian world over-seen by a global government of the ultimate concentrated, centralized authority and power in earth’s history?

Have you read the United Nations’ so-called “Bill of Rights and Duties” for the “global citizen”? Do you have any idea what awaits our people once our Constitution is retired and this nation is absorbed into the collective madness of a totalitarian one-world government? Can you see that the USofA is the last stronghold against this globally-sweeping craze for a one-world communist humanist authority with everything in the control of a handful of European banking families?

Yes, I’ve got questions for all of us. But the primary question is this –

Can we not see the beauty in our several States rising to the challenge and reasserting their Constitutional rights to their own sovereignty as the counter-checks and balances to Federal damnation?

The States created this union and its Federal government. That government has always belonged to the several States in compact with each of the other States in the Union. And the people themselves have reserved unto themselves the ultimate source of sovereignty, authority, and legitimacy for not only their respective State governments but also for our national government. What we must do is recognize that we’ve been duped as a nation, and agree to put our petty differences aside long enough to save this nation.

One of the surest ways of doing that would be to stop funding this insane war on drugs. Montana has taken a giant step forward in doing that, a step toward sovereignty, and now we see the opposition is willing to do anything to reverse that step toward State sovereignty. But we must move ahead anyway, and encourage our legislators to grant us the tools we need, such as passage of the Sheriffs First bill, the Sound Money bill, the Coordination bill, the Home Guard bill, the Fully Informed Jury bill, and other liberty-oriented bills.

Those bills exist in this year’s legislature because many other Montanans see the things I’ve touched upon herein.

Those bills can help strengthen Montana and by example can inspire numerous other States. The States can save the America they created, but they can only do that by exercising their inherent sovereignty, which most Americans have forgotten.

With a strong sense of State sovereignty, Montana can shield her citizens from much of the mischief the errant Federal government might make on less independent States around the Union. But some readers are going to be reluctant to take my word on the sovereignty issue, because the government propaganda machinery has lately been demonizing that word, “sovereignty”. So allow me to fortify my statements with a couple of gravely significant passages from, first, the Supreme Court of the United States of America and, secondly, from one of our greatest Founding Fathers.
From the Mack/Printz v USA Supreme Court decision:

“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty…. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal government, they retained ‘a residuary and inviolable sovereignty’…. Residual State sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art.1,Sect.8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people….The framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one State and one Federal, each protected from incursion by the other – a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it. The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.” – Justice Scalia, majority opinion, Mack/Printz v USA, 1997.

To see if there is any backup for that, all one need do is put “Virginia Resolutions” or “Kentucky Resolutions” into one’s search engine and enjoy the fullness of proof. Speaking of which, here is this from the pen of Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798:

“Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general [Federal] government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general [Federal] government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1798.

Our rich history as America holds tons of this kind of language provided us by the nation’s Founders. This is the way our nation was created to be, and this is the proper, lawful relation between the States and the Federal government. It is also the birthright of every person reading this, and is sufficient reason to return to our founding principles and to the documents which embody them, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the united States of America.

It’s the American way. It worked just fine, for the most part, until the American people got blindsided during the Woodrow Wilson administration, after which we’ve been on a downhill slide away from our lofty planes of freedom and liberty as the world’s greatest nation ever. I want that back, and I’m guessing that many reading this also want that back. We can get that if we would come together and confess that our government is out of control, that it is destroying our heritage as it levers us ever closer to assimilation into the one-world government. But we need to rebuild our State sovereignty as the several States in compact, as the States were on the day they ratified that Constitution and created that Federal government. How strongly do we want that America back?

What the Federal agencies who conducted the marijuana/caregiver raids in Montana on March 14, 2011, have done is a gross offense against the Constitution. Every agent and local law enforcement officer who participated in these raids has violated his moral obligation under his Oath to the Constitution. Montana Oath Keepers condemns these raids on moral and Tenth (and other) Amendment grounds.

My message to conservatives is to question your very soul and ask, is allowing this sort of Federal incursion into Montana’s internal affairs worth the loss of America? Just to stop some people from smoking a joint? Really? Is it really worth it? This is the only country we’ve got. If we lose it, it’s gone forever.

My question to everyone, and to myself as well, is simple and direct:

Does freedom matter any more in America?

Copyright 2011 by Elias Alias and Oath Keepers, Inc.

NOTES:
There are two books I must recommend for any serious student of the Constitutional concepts I’ve included in this essay.
Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume 1: The Nation In Arms. Copyright 2007 by Edwin Vieira, Jr.; Bookmasters, Inc., 30 Amberwood Pkwy, Ashland, Ohio 44805; ISBN (10) 0-9671759-2-5; ISBN (13) 978-0-9671759-2-8.
Order your copy directly from Dr. Vieira: $19.95 postpaid, by check or money order to
Edwin Vieira * 52 Stonegate Court * Front Royal, Virginia 22630
And…
Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny In The 21st Century
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.; copyright 2010 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.; published by Regenery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001, www.regnery.com; ISBN: 978-1-59698-149-2.
I draw much from those books, and salute both authors in gratitude for their research.
- We are Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic. Join us. Support our mission. Contribute.

Numbered Notes:
1) Feds raid Montana medical marijuana businesses
2) Feds raid medical marijuana operations in Missoula, statewide
3) ATF’s letter to MT FFLs
4) Cultural Marxism, the James Jaeger movie at Matrixx Productions
5) Corporate Fascism, a movie by James Jaeger and Matrixx Productions
6) Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto
7) U.S. Military Prepares for Economic Collapse

“…the Army has launched an operation called ‘Unified Quest 2011’ in which it studies the ‘implications of ‘large scale economic breakdown’ inside the United States that would force the Army to keep ‘domestic order amid civil unrest.’” The Quest also trains the Army in how to ‘deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets’.”
Rubicon in the Rear-View, Part I: Militarizing the Police

The seamless integration of the military and law enforcement into a single “Internal Security Force” is the defining characteristic of a fully realized police state. Once this fusion is accomplished, the question becomes not “whether” a police state exists, but rather how acute its institutional violence against the subject population will become.
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

“Beginning Oct. 1 [2008] for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks….They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control…”

Because of the so-called “war on terror”, our local police and Sheriffs have been Federalized and interfaced with both military and Department of Homeland Security commands, as extensions maintained by the nefarious “Fusion Centers” which are the liaison between local and national enforcement offices. This is the unmistakable infrastructure of a military-police state. It’s here now.

This next link is a pdf of a Pentagon/Joint Chiefs of Staff document from back in 1962. This document shows clearly that our government will plan terrorist events in U.S. cities to promote the public perception in favor of desired governmental policy.

From that document:

Further, it is assumed that a single agency will be given the primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the basic plan. It is recommended that this responsibility for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged in several forms:
We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela…. The passengers [EA note: passengers as here referenced are not “real”, but instead are aliased stand-ins for press and media objectives.] could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
It is recognized that any action which becomes pretext for US military intervention in Cuba will lead to a political decision which then would lead to military action. [emphasis added]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are talking, in 1962, about creating terrorism in Miami, other Florida towns, and even Washington D.C., to blame on Cuban “terrorists” as a psy-op. Can the gravity of that sink into our minds for a moment please? This is real. James Bamford got the document through the FOIA suit in the year 2000, thirty-eight years after this document was presented to the White House as a plan to make the American people support an unwanted war.

Some readers may want to read my article on the Northwoods Document, written years ago as an open letter to the Montana legislature, here –

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are talking, in 1962, about creating terrorism in Miami, other Florida towns, and even Washington D.C., to blame on Cuban “terrorists” as a psy-op. Can the gravity of that sink into our minds for a moment please? This is real. James Bamford got the document through the FOIA suit in the year 2000, thirty-eight years after this document was presented to the White House as a plan to make the American people support an unwanted war. We are forced to admit that elements inside our government will use terrorism to forge public perception. Right here in America.

I will close these notes with one parting gift for any reader who really wants to know what’s going down here in Montana and in America today. This is a 248-page U.S. Army document. Download it while it’s still available online, or save your selected screen-shots. This one will show any reader what we’re up against if we intend to save our America from the “enemy domestic”. This one explains psy-ops and the use of terrorists as surrogates in psychological operations designed to make use of the media to influence the mass public perception for beneficial perspectives favoring the desired centralized governmental program or policy, such as an invasion of North Korea or the super-spy trickery involving an Israeli hit on Iran, or whatever “pretext” our nation’s deep thinkers and planners have up their sleeves. This is what our special operations soldiers are now being trained in, schooled in, and deployed in. They now work with the Intelligence community and are attached to any other governmental agency deemed necessary by the planners. What’s it all for? Power. National Power. Imperial Power.

Here, from that pdf, is the listing of appendixes which define the areas of operations for our Unconventional Warfare special-ops black-ops psy-op soldiers, tax-dollar financed. You ought to read this, even a little bit of it:

Appendix A THE DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER…A-1

Appendix B THE INFORMATIONAL INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER… B-1

Appendix C THE INTELLIGENCE INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER… C-1

Appendix D THE ECONOMIC INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER … D-1

Appendix E THE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER… E-1

Appendix F THE LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER… F-1

Appendix G THE MILITARY INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER … G-1

Appendix H THE ROLE OF HISTORY AND CULTURE … H-1

Appendix I A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE … I-1

Appendix J AN OUTLINE HISTORY OF THE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE

States’ rights, anyone? Sovereignty? Freedom? America? Anyone?