Elias Alias

Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers

The Myth Of Federal Authority

Being an open letter to the Honorable Senator Jim Shockley of Montana
regarding his vote against the Sheriffs First bill, SB-114

By Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers

February/04/2011

Forgive me please, Honorable Senator Shockley, but there is no way to keep this brief and still carry the meaning I need to convey. I am not an attorney, nor am I a Constitutional expert, so I will speak as one common man to you, and I trust more knowledgeable voices will bring forward the lawful renderings you require to change your opinion regarding SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill. I am offering this in rebuttal to your published letter of explanation regarding your vote against SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill. I have thought on this, and have written for hours, and have edited-out much material, some of which I may add later. Please consider this to be an open letter. Thank you for your patience.

PART ONE: Anti-Federal-Criminality

Senator Shockley, I shall quote a passage from your published open letter at this webpage:

http://polymontana.com/2011/01/31/senator-jim-shockley-why-i-voted-against-sb-114/

“I voted against SB 114 last week, a bill that, in my view, was contrary to the U.S. Constitution. The proponents of the bill were unhappy with the federal government in general and federal law enforcement in particular.”
Elias Alias: Good Senator, I salute you as a fellow U.S. Marine veteran, though I only served a brief hitch compared to your twenty-two years. Yet it is from that brotherhood’s eternal bond that I address, and disagree with, your take on this issue, for as we both know, “once a Marine, always a Marine”.
Semper Fi! You and I have that in common, and I respect that brotherhood.

I trust you’ll accept that I am not disagreeing with you as a man or as a fellow Marine, but am instead merely disagreeing with your perspective on this one issue. I am suggesting that you are a righteous and honorable man who labors under a temporary misconception which may in due course of study reverse itself, in perhaps only this one instance, as to the relationship between State sovereignty and an ever-expanding federal juggernaut. One Marine to another, I’d like to share my perspective with you.

That said, I want to congratulate you for stating that the proponents (those who favor this bill) are “unhappy with the federal government in general and [with] federal law enforcement in particular”. Yes, Sir; that is totally correct. While that is true, the fact that you included it in your published statement indicates that, perhaps, to be unhappy with Federal mischief somehow negates the concern of the people who are thusly displeased. Federal advocates are taught that a certain “fringe”, a small percentage of the population at large, are “anti-government”. Federal employees are taught to tolerate that in public, but to expect it also, and to ignore it in general. Those malcontents are not inside the government, so they don’t count when it comes to doing one’s job. The misperception creeps in right there, for today, those who object to out-of-control Federal activity are no longer the “fringe”, but have become the American middle class. That is important. The numbers have all shifted. A sleeping giant is surely opening his eyes.

Speaking only for myself, I am intensely unhappy with the federal government, and especially with federal law enforcement. I’m one who believes that the States can handle their needs for law enforcement better than can a Federal bureaucracy. With your indulgence I shall reveal a fraction of why I am so resentful of today’s federal government and its methods of administering itself upon the American people and we who live in Montana.

This kind of Federal law enforcement presentment ….

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQV6v_UYkNzgXsNJ8YPKHh45rHu6lVvV-WRvfQ30xKZPh3E5M5J

… leads to this sort of State-level law enforcement presentment….

http://www.rickeystokesnews.com/article.php/updated-law-officer-wears-ski-mask-on-traffic-stops-in-houston-county-al-16121

… and the good people of Montana .…do not want this kind of trash operating in our State. That is for openers. But it gets worse, Senator.

I note these things by way of asserting that the people are indeed quite justified in their resentment of the federal tyranny. The size and scope of Federal incursion into our lives is revealed by the Washington Post, here –

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america/

My resentment of federal criminality is not grounds for the dismissal of the merits in this SB-114. My dissent is not “anti-government”, but instead is “anti-criminality-in-government”. As a Montana Oath Keeper I support the rule of law in a Republic of law, while enjoying the fact that inside that Republic of law also functions the democratic process. There are those who are “anti-government”, but there are many more who are pro-government but who yet insist that government must act in lawful ways only. I am one who is anti-criminality-in-government. I want a government which follows its own law religiously, with vigor. I do not want a government which violates its own founding legal charter in ways which violate the people’s unalienable rights. I am not “anti-government”. Indeed, here am I spending an inordinate amount of time and mental energy addressing the happenings in the legislative session. I submit that that one observation suggests I believe in government. That distinction is lost on the Montana Human Rights Network, but I pray it is not lost on Montana’s Senate.

I further state that were we able to fully act in liberty in our daily lives right now, as Montanans are accustomed to do, the Committee would not find anyone sacrificing valuable time and energy to appeal to the Senate for just considerations. Citizens have to drive long distances, miss work, burn gasoline, and sacrifice time to come up to Helena to testify on a bill. Happy, free people who do not feel threatened by government tend to stay out of government processes, mostly. It is only when the people become oppressed that they turn their focus onto government activity.

I humbly submit that the good Senator reflect upon this fact – but for one lone opponent the unanimous voice of the people stood before the Committee in favor of the Sheriffs First bill. They were opposed by government employees, and, excluding that one citizen, only by government employees or their lobbyists. A Senator who truly wishes to represent the will of the people would take serious note of that fact.
I have written elsewhere about the trickery and gamesmanship existing behind the scenes regarding SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill. In fact, this article likely assisted in prompting you to publish your reasoning for opposing SB-114.

http://polymontana.com/2011/01/28/why-are-montana-sheriffs-associating-with-communists-and-gun-grabbers/

In your published letter you suggested that your “nay” vote on SB-114 was based more on the Fourth Amendment than on the Tenth Amendment. I think there may be another way of seeing things. It may be about both the Fourth and the Tenth Amendments. Or it may not even be about the two Amendments combined – it may be about more. It actually may be about “freedom”. From the Washington Spectator’s online news site (2006):

“Americans of all persuasions were shocked by the revelations, first reported in the New York Times in December of 2005, that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop secretly for years on the calls and e-mails of American citizens, bypassing the warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment…. The superficial change-back to FISA control merely masks more deeply hidden examples of secrecy and deception in the concerted attack on American constitutional values. … the recent scandalous disclosures that National Security Letters (NSLs) have been deceptively and illegally used by the FBI to spy on unsuspecting Americans, or in these NSA programs, this attack on our constitutional core demands a vigorous response.” [emphasis ea]

What in the world are “national security letters”, Senator Shockley? Here is a redacted picture of one (pdf):

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/4610_001_redactednsl.pdf

National security letters (NSLs) are used by the FBI to secretly demand personal records about innocent customers from Internet Service Providers, communications service providers, libraries, financial institutions [such as your bank], and credit reporting agencies without suspicion or prior judicial approval. The FBI can then bar recipients of an NSL from saying anything about it. Example: the FBI presents the head of your local library with an NSL while seeking the Internet activity (hard-drives) of the public computers available there. The librarian is put on notice with this NSL that if she reports to anyone that the FBI was there to gather this warrantless information she can go to prison for two years and be fined as well. Is that “police-state” intimidation? Can we think of past regimes which employed that sort of tactic?

The Justice Department’s Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 National Security Letters. The Justice Department’s Inspector General has reported serious FBI abuses of the National Security Letter power. This is a reincarnation of the writs of assistance which, with other specific grievances, fomented the American Revolution.

Let us look back in time. This, on writs-of-assistance, is from Wikipedia:
In the area of customs, writs of assistance were first authorized by an act of the English Parliament in 1660 (12 Charles 2 c. 29), and were issued by the Court of Exchequer to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs were called “writs of assistance” because they called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to “assist” the customs official in carrying out his duties. In practice, customs writs of assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs became controversial when they were issued by courts in British America in the 1760s, especially the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Controversy over these general writs of assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States. [emphasis ea]

So there we have a bit about how the Fourth Amendment came to be in our Constitution, yes? We can clearly see that as Americans, our heritage justifies a common resentment to unscrupulous incursion into our lives as free moral agents, as citizens, and as sovereign souls possessed of unalienable rights. I hope you can agree that such a perspective is a glorious freedom for the individual.

It’s roots go well back in time. One may find this at Findlaw:
”Every man’s house is his castle” was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne’s Case, decided in 1603. A civil case of execution of process, Semayne’s Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King’s agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King’s process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes’ polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself.
Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive ”of all the comforts of society,” and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person’s papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ”contrary to the genius of the law of England.” Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ”great judgment,” ”one of the landmarks of English liberty,” ”one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,” and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment. [emphasis ea]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#3

A bit more from history, courtesy of Sheriff Richard Mack in his book, The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope -
The historical review of the office of the sheriff dates back over one thousand years. During that millennium, the basic role of the sheriff has not changed; he was then and is now charged with the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of “domestic tranquility”.
In the early stages of the 11th Century the King of England would appoint a representative called a “reeve” to keep the peace in the “shire” or the county. The shire reeve or the sheriff, as it evolved to through time, has always been the chief law enforcement officer in the county. As stated, the King originally appointed him, now the people appoint him. In fact, this is the most important aspect of the sheriff’s authority; he is elected by, for, and of the people. He is not appointed, he is not a bureaucrat, he does not report to the town manager or to the city council. He reports directly to the people and is answerable to them and them alone.

This is our birthright in freedom. It has been guaranteed and protected by our Constitution, and any federal activity which opposes that is by nature and spirit flat-out wrong, unlawful, and repugnant to the Constitution.
Federal repugnancy is here today, it is here in Montana, and we the people resent it, we reject it, and we rejoice in the certain knowledge that our Constitution can protect us from this kind of intrusion. We want our Sheriffs to see this with us, to understand the supreme error in Federal interpretations of the Constitution as evidenced by blatant and candid violations. I will explain.
Since the creation and ratification of the Constitution, we have devolved in our State sovereignty under an onslaught of expansive Federal encroachment. We find Federal misinterpretation of, or manipulation of, various “clauses” in the Constitution, e.g., the “interstate commerce” clause. That encroachment has expanded incrementally across our 23 decades of existence as a nation of States united. Evidence of that now exists in sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001.

PART TWO: Military Police State

How bad can things predictably come to be? Let us read from an article by Dr. Edwin Vieira.

During the six days of the so-called “Watts Riots” of 1965 in Los Angeles, California, over 30,000 adults took to the streets as rioters, 34 people were killed, 1,100 were injured, and upwards of $100 million worth of property, including some 1,000 buildings, was destroyed, looted, vandalized, or otherwise damaged. The riots were triggered by an altercation incident to a simple arrest for alleged drunk driving—but their suppression required more National Guardsmen and police than the total of American Armed Forces personnel whom President Lyndon Johnson deployed to take over the entire Dominican Republic in that same year. And suppression of the rioters did not address, let alone alleviate, the riots’ underlying causes, which were chronic in the community—including such socio-economic problems as high unemployment, substandard living conditions, and a lack of adequate public education, together with political grievances linked to institutionalized racial discrimination in the city.
In the Los Angeles riots of 1992, again the triggering event was relatively trivial—the questionable acquittal of three local police officers on charges of using excessive force to make an arrest. [4] Within hours of the “not guilty” verdicts, rioting broke out and then continued for three days, with live television coverage of arson, assaults, looting, and vandalism by rioters, and suppression of the disturbances by National Guardsmen and police, being broadcast nationwide. Overall, 50 people were killed; more than 4,000 were injured; and some $1 billion worth of property was destroyed or damaged.
These events teach certain lessons that Americans would be imprudent to imagine do not apply to themselves today:

First, each of the riots in Los Angeles erupted over a relatively minor event—but one which people on the spot linked to long-standing, widespread, and serious animosities derived from social, economic, and political grievances that public officials had failed, neglected, or refused to address.
Second, the Los Angeles rioters obviously believed that mass violence could and should be employed as a justifiable form of political activism, when nothing else worked. In this, one might note, they were in rough agreement with the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence. And the timeless wisdom of the Declaration—that “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”, but that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations * * * evinces a design to reduce the[ People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”—will surely gain many more adherents as insufferable economic catastrophe, caused by the nincompoops in the General Government, sweeps across America.
Third, probably very few of the participants (other than perhaps adventitious semi-professional looters) expected to gain anything in terms of significant personal profit or meaningful social betterment as a consequence of the upheavals in Los Angeles. Most of the rioters could never have expected the riots to bring about any specific political reforms, but instead engaged in them simply as a staging of anguished, despairing, and defiant political street-theater, the value of which inhered in the unmitigated violence through which the dialogue was communicated to a national audience. People who find themselves in dire economic straits throughout America tomorrow may also be expected to turn to the red-curtained drama of mass violence in order to “send a message” across the footlights. This message, however, will not be sent from a very small part of the country to the rest of it, but from the entire country to the very small part that constitutes the failed economic and political leadership classes. So the level of violence will be far greater, and its focus far narrower and much sharper.
Fourth, although the territory in which they broke out was limited in extent, the riots in Los Angeles were so severe that they could not be put down with only the local police forces available, but instead required deployment of the regular Armed Forces (in the form of the National Guard). Major civil disturbances throughout the entire length and breadth of the United States will render this country ungovernable in short order, even if the entire National Guard were mobilized and none of it defected to the popular side.

(snip) Seventh, in general, the more extensive the underlying socio-economic dislocations, and the more callous the disregard for these problems exhibited by the political apparatus, the more likely the eruption of mass violence that the perpetrators will rationalize as their only effective means to protest, broadcast, and redress their grievances with petitions written in the harsh language of destruction. Which augurs ill for the present time, inasmuch as no one can believe that the socio-economic problems that underlay the riots in 1965 and 1992 in Los Angeles alone were anything but minor in comparison to the dislocations that full-blown hyperinflation or depression—or even the run-ups to those conditions—will bring about in contemporary society throughout America.

Now, if Americans are to deal intelligently with this situation, they must understand the reasons for it. Basically, the reasons relevant here are that one vitally important constitutional principle has been flouted since 1913 and that another such principle is now being systematically disregarded.
The central economic problem plaguing this country since 1913 has been the presence of the Federal Reserve System. Without the Federal Reserve System’s debt-currency scheme having effectively supplanted the constitutional monetary system based upon silver and gold, it would have been impossible—not simply improbable, or difficult, but impossible— for politicians in the public sector and speculators in the private sector to have amassed the staggering level of unpayable, unconstitutional, and unconscionable debt that now bears down upon this country.
The critical political problem now emerging is the absence of a proper “homeland-security” structure based on “the Militia of the several States”, which the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. Instead of thoroughly organizing and preparing the American people at the State and Local levels to deal with economic and social crises by themselves and with their own resources, public officials are setting up a centralized para-military police-state apparatus, which in a major nationwide crisis will impose upon this country the very worst kind of “homeland insecurity” in the style of the East-European communist “people’s republics” of the 1950s.

(end quoted passages from Dr. Vieira’s “Going To The Roots Of The Problem”) Read the whole article at News With Views:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin206.htm

So that is a little glimpse of what high-ups on Wall Street and the Federal government are preparing for. They have outsourced millions of American jobs, off-shored our manufacturing base to Asia, allowed millions of job-hungry illegal aliens into the country to compete for our low-end jobs, taxed us, regulated us, denied us the use of natural resources, socialized us with cultural Marxism and collectivism which is totally dependent upon government welfare programs, grants, loans, and other schemes, they have sent us into two undeclared wars, commercialized our prison industry so that now private prison systems trade on the NYSE based on how many bodies they can bed, crushed our Constitution with the so-called “war on drugs” while laundering the benefits of that on Wall Street to the tune of half a trillion to one trillion dollars – in cash – per year, according to the DEA’s own figures. They have taken the gold and silver out of our money. They have made secret treaties with foreign nation-states, and have been party to “trade agreements” such as CAFTA and NAFTA etc. They have merged our Federal agencies with counterparts in Canadian and Mexican governments through working groups via the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP – www.spp.gov ), they have merged our military under NORTHCOM with the militaries of Canada and Mexico, and the U.S. military is now managing the Mexican military on the border drug wars inside Mexico. They have extended our debt past cosmic proportions and stuck the middle class with the tab. They spy on us in our emails and phone calls and denigrate us if we don’t like what’s being done to us. They name us “extremists” and “radicals” and “homegrown terrorists”. They now are training our troops and peace officers to see us as “extremists” or “terrorists” or “terrorist sympathizers”. Instead of listening to the people, the “authorities” simply bear down harder with the boots of oppression and repression.
But now the people are waking up to this abuse. This has everything to do with why SB-114 has been introduced into the people’s legislature with every expectation that the bill shall move forward and become law. We are claiming our Sheriff as the highest law enforcement officer in his County. We want our Sheriff to have veto power over any Federal act in his County, just as we are demanding that a fully-informed juror be reminded by the court of his duty to judge of the law as well as of the facts in a case before him in a court of law.

(The Fully Informed Jury bill, HB-332, gives the details for citizen resistance to governmental tyranny. This bill has been introduced into the Montana legislature by the Honorable Representative Bob Wagner, with Judiciary Committee hearings set for February 09, 2011.)

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0332.htm

The following avalanche of horrors, which are only a few of very many, have been rolled down upon us.
National Security Presidential Directive 51 (PDD 51)

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/offices/fcd1.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm

Council of Governors
The “Council of Governors” Executive Order, January 11, 2010, takes advantage of PDD 51′s provisions of conferred dictatorial powers, and provides for the federalizing of a group of 10 Governors that will assist the various Czars of National Security provided for in the E.O.

‘Military Commissions Act of 2006′ which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare anyone an ‘enemy combatant’ and deny one’s right to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007
Revises the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09) A FEMA counter-terrorism exercise using the U.S. Military
“…broad regional participation of state, tribal, local, and private sector is anticipated. This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09.” That would be the training of foreign troops on U.S. soil, including road-block scenarios, at the same time interfacing local law enforcement.

Global Governance 2025
The United States “National Intelligence Council” (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends important to shaping a future international system that establishes Global Governance by the year 2025.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf

Supporting Executive orders:
National Archives Federal Register address:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

When reviewing these Executive Orders, you will observe that they were issued at various dates and times, and by various Presidents. If you should choose to review these E.O.’s you will see that there is an extensive history attached to each that reveals which E.O. revoked the former E.O., and then which E.O. replaced the former, or modified it to reflect further amending by the current administration, thereby bringing it up to date and extending its powers (or limiting it) and extensions of authority into future administrations.

All of these Executive Orders, although they are currently “sleeper” executive orders, or “standby” executive orders, have been extended by previous administrations and are currently active, and can sometimes be found under new E.O.’s, and have been consolidated for implementation under the provisions of Presidential Directive Decision 51 (NSPD 51/HSPD 51), which makes use of them under the auspices of “Continuity in Government” policy.

EXCUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appoints the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. (Seat of COG)

There are another fifteen “stand-by” Executive Orders to facilitate what leaked to the American people during the Iran-Contra Senate hearings as Continuity of Government (COG), revealed by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas (two minute video)

(extra reading with Oliver North mugshot)

http://jeffersonrivercoalition.com/Persistence_Of_Pardonable_Criminals.htm

…which is the plan to use military-police state rule to subject the American people in the event of any emergency including but not limited to a crash of the financial markets and the Federal Reserve System. The Federal government has these plans and presently has NORTHCOM and treaty jurisdiction over the people of the United States of America. Expect government soup lines, curfews, travel permits, communications regulation, Internet censorship, population zoning, rations and more – all enforced by the networked military – local enforcement agency “partnership” set up by DHS.

COG, you see, is dependent upon a number of violations of the Constitution. And sitting in authority over all of COG is the power which claims by emergency powers to suspend the Constitution and install what General Tommy Franks (CENTCOM) calls, “A military form of government”.

Working for that invisible, top-secret power which claims power to over-ride the Constitution is DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. To execute these violations, DARPA found appropriate, even prosaic, language to mask the violations while meeting requirement for reporting on agency operations. This, from 1997, predates Secretary of Defense Cohen’s infamous “Grave New World” speech by two years, and predates the false-flag attack of 9/11/2001 by four years. Quoting –
Part I: The Partnership Between Law Enforcement and the Military
The boundaries separating the functions of the law enforcement and military communities are clearly defined in law. The military’s function is to provide for the national defense, while Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies maintain domestic tranquility.

Although performing different functions, law enforcement and the military perform many of the same tasks. Both law enforcement and the military operate their own judicial, police, and prison systems. Within the limits set by law, civil law enforcement and the military communities work cooperatively. For example, in communities near large military installations, military police routinely maintain offices in metropolitan police stations. The Federal Prison System incarcerates hundreds of the military’s more difficult prisoners. At the same time, the Federal Prison System receives special consideration from the military in the disposition of military properties made available when domestic installations close or in locating prisons on active military installations. Often law enforcement and the military may also participate in the same missions. Such interagency efforts include waging the war against drugs, countering terrorism and espionage, and providing disaster relief.

And while that is interesting enough, the following lets the cat out of the bag. (Quoting)
Increasingly, the military finds itself conducting operations such as peacekeeping, in which it is confronted by an absolute mandate to apply force discreetly and then to use only the minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish a particular mission. These are essentially the same rules under which law enforcement agencies operate. Like their counterparts in the law enforcement community, military commanders find that these constraints severely limit their options and thus too often limit their effectiveness. On occasion, the severity of these constraints leaves commanders with the alternative of doing nothing or placing the lives of the involved personnel at risk.

A further consideration that affects how the military and law enforcement apply force is the greater presence of members of the media or other civilians who are observing, if not recording, the situation. Even the lawful application of force can be misrepresented to or misunderstood by the public. More than ever, the police and the military must be highly discreet when applying force. (end quote)

DARPA, in this report of 1997, is talking about only using enough force to keep people under control. That is a virtue, to only put one’s foot on another’s neck hard enough to keep him down. But our nation’s policy planners must think in terms of hard reality, for if enough people take to the streets, such as is happening in Tunisia and Egypt, the combined military and police must only use enough force to control them, but must use at least the minimum force to control them. The mission is to control the people. They shall call it “peace keeping”.

But yet one final excerpt from the DARPA report of 1997. (Quoting)

The potential benefits of a joint development program became clear to officials in DOD and DOJ, as well as to Congress, in 1993. The overlap of technology needs had been noted by a senior working group (SWG) convened by DARPA in 1993 to assist in formulating a program to develop technologies to enhance the effectiveness of U.S. forces engaged in Operations Other Than War (OOTW). These kinds of operations involve providing humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, countering the flow of drugs into the United States, and countering terrorism. This initiative was prompted by events in Somalia and elsewhere. The SWG and DARPA noted many common technology needs between civilian law enforcement operations and OOTW. (end quote)
That was the first time I learned about something called “OOTW”. Operations Other Than War. What is the military doing, talking and thinking that way? Is not the military to fight our wars? The U.S. military is to protect this union of States from enemies without. No matter what the smooth-talking wordsmiths at DARPA may say or write, the U.S. military is not granted the power to suppress dissent within the population of this nation. To do so is to politicize not only the military, but also the Federal government itself. The proud tradition of the U.S. military is that it is non-partisan, fulfilling its duty to this nation under every Administration no matter what the political affiliation. COG and OOTW as well as psy-ops under a U.S. military program named “Unconventional Warfare”, (UW) which admit to using national media and staged events carried out by “surrogates” to create public perception which is necessary for consensus on matters of national “policy”), have primarily the focus on dissenting populations when dissent threatens popular support of a given regime, such as the last four consecutive Administrations, two Republican and two Democrat. You won’t have time to read this one, but if you at least open the pdf and scan the section titles, you’ll get chilled enough – this document, by the U.S. Army, explains how and why “surrogates” must be used in psy-ops and other ops under Unconventional Warfare, and it includes in its listing of potential “surrogates” the word “terrorists”. Government psy-ops carried out to shape public perception by employing the mass media are now admitted to use “terrorists” as a tool for their “mission”. That opens up the largest can of worms on earth right now, but we won’t go there in this letter. But do go ahead, read it for yourself. (248-page pdf)

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-130.pdf

But let us venture yet one more indictment to conclude this militarization of our local peace officer community. Fourteen years later, we’re being stared down face to face by NORTHCOM. The following is from the Army Times. (Quoting)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro – Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 30, 2008 16:07:12 EDT
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 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.
(end quote)

And then there is this current confession –

http://www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_nurban27.20c9ee0.html

Urban terrain is their term for cities and towns. War has moved from battle-fields to cities and towns. How might a government hell-bent on COG use OOTW in the employment of NORTHCOM, which by treaties now can call in foreign military when more boots on the ground are needed, against popular dissent, “civil unrest”? How has this mechanism’s infrastructure now incorporated our local law enforcement, fire fighters, EMTs, and other compartments, into the military’s chain of command? Where, exactly, is the “enemy” on whom this force shall be applied?

The apparatus for a military police state is now with us, openly announced. Will it be used benignly, or will it be used for COG if an Administration feels threatened by the dissent of the masses? To answer that question, we must also consider that the U.S. Army has announced that it is training troops to quell public disorder in the wake of the failure of the Federal Reserve System, Inc. Senator Shockley, Washington D.C. knows full well that the Fed is about to implode, and if that happens this nation will be a hot-cooking mess of chaos, at least in the urban centers which are totally dependent upon a transportation infrastructure to bring in the food and take out the garbage. Economic trauma could shut down municipal water systems, creating panic and desperation. The government feels responsible to restrain violent uprisings when such a thing happens, and they know it’s coming and are openly preparing to control the population when it arrives.

PART THREE: Sound Money and Preparedness
Bear in mind that the Defense Contracting Industry drives the Pentagon. The Defense Contracting Industry also drives much of Wall Street, which in turn has driven the U.S. government since the Federal Reserve System, Inc., was installed in 1913. Here is a four-star Marine Corps General, the only Marine in history to rival Chesty Puller for the honor of being “the greatest Marine in Marine Corps history”, General Smedley Darlington Butler, who says what I’ve just said in his book, “War Is A Racket”. General Butler was awarded two Medals of Honor. On my way home from Viet Nam I spent a week at USMC base Smedley D. Butler on Okinawa, a state-of-the-art forward military base named for this General. You may read his book online here:

http://www.jeffersonrivercoalition.com/War_Is_A_Racket_Smedley_Butler.htm

General Butler said the same thing I’m saying here today. It’s Wall Street, Washington D.C. and the Pentagon, all being directed by the hidden European owners of the Federal Reserve System, Inc., which generates the massive debt capacity of Fedgov to finance the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech, which you can read here:

http://www.jeffersonrivercoalition.com/military_industrial_complex_speech.htm

Senator Shockley, it is no longer a secret that the Federal Reserve System is being destroyed by deliberate Wall Street and Federal collusion, and the roots of that collusion lie in Europe. As an example, I give you the current Virginia legislature’s Resolution to Study an Alternative Monetary System, which states for the record that Virginia has the obligation to protect its people against the impending failure of the Federal Reserve System.
This is not conjecture or paranoia put forth by “anti-government conspiracy theorists”. This is exemplary of the consciousness now working in many State legislatures. Even here in Montana you will see a bill calling for Sound Money (introduced by Representative Bob Wagner), similar to that of Virginia’s Resolution and other States’ bills. The awake and the alert are aware of the deliberate implosion of the Federal Reserve System.

If the Fed’s fiat, debt-based, fractional-reserve monetary system crashes the Dollar, we will be presented with a global currency at the time the Fed crashes and our dollars shall be burnt wholesale to heat powerless houses during hyper-inflation, and we will be forced by United Nations and global economic sanctions to accept a global currency. The COG planners and other think-tanks understand this. They do exercises and conduct studies on this.

The plan is that it will be enforced by our own military and our law enforcement communities in the name of peace-keeping and/or in the name of the so-called “war on terror”. Montana deserves better. Montana sovereignty shall bring better. We are a resourceful and resilient people, made hardy by Nature and made moral by hard work and traditional values. Our communities can do better without foreign or national troops sent in to preserve our local order.

In this light, the people have sent up to this legislature various bills which are intended to buffer Montana from Federal criminality. The Sound Money bill; the Sheriffs First bill; the Home Guard bill; the Coordination bill; and the Fully Informed Jury bill are some among others. The nature and intent of each of those bills reveals the people’s distrust of Federal power, a fear of same, and a resolve to work through our State’s constitutional means of self-governance to protect our State from this incursion.

In December of 2010, just a couple of months ago, I helped organize an important forum/conference in Helena, Montana. At that conference were representatives of various businesses, communities, Tea Party groups, organizations, and even Montana’s legislature. It was an impressive and powerful moment for Montana. I would like for you to read about it here please – You will see that we the people from all walks are now working together, building momentum for Constitutional principles in the public perception.

http://masslpa.org/content/montana-oath-keepers-holds-statewide-liberty-leadership-forumconference

We little people, we average working middle-class Americans, honor our system of self-governance, and we honor our State’s legislature, before which we come seeking protection and support, showing thereby our deep respect for this lawful body, the Montana Senate, as the final arbiter for our grievance. Where else can we turn? When it gets down to where the pavement meets the dirt, where the hay is brought forth from the field, after our legislature, all we the people have standing between our lives and Federal criminality is our County Sheriff.

An example: The FBI began its campaign against Martin Luther King in the late 1950s, with no provocation other than the man publicly questioned federal authority. The FBI was used to suppress the voice of dissent. It did so illegally, unlawfully, unconstitutionally. I’m sure that we all can agree on that, as it is a matter of public record. Our fully-empowered Sheriffs can protect us from that kind of FBI mischief.

During the 1960s, in clear violation of its statutory mission to co-ordinate foreign intelligence operations only, the CIA ventured into the domestic spying business through “Operation Chaos,” in which it spied on as many as 7,000 Americans involved in the peace movement.

We all remember the FBI’s infamous COINTELPRO, laid bare by the Church Committee.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIj.htm

COINTELPRO involved not only FBI mischief, but was joined by CIA as well. The entire program was operated to suppress dissent against Federal policy involving the Viet Nam war. The FBI committed crimes – many of them. The FBI violated the American people’s Constitutional rights, and has been exposed for so doing. It is no secret, is on the U.S. Senate record, and cannot be denied.

We all know that our Federal government engages “Agents Provocateur” – paid employees or paid informants who seek to persuade innocent Americans to break the law. In bygone times, that sordid practice was denounced universally by most Americans as being “entrapment”. The Federal agents had no shame in carrying out operation COINTELPRO for years. The Fourth Amendment was trashed thoroughly, Senator Shockley. They had no shame because their minds had been “trained”. Federal agents are “trained”. They are programmed, conditioned, and “Feducated” with a false paradigm of authority. They are taught everything from the statist perspective, the “government issue” take on official power. They could therefore turn the force of the Federal government upon innocent Americans whose only qualifier was their disapproval of U.S. foreign policy regarding the war in Viet Nam. Federal enforcement agencies now have much more efficient technology, logistics, funding systems, and methodology – but the statist attitude of power and its lawful extensions into the public sector yet predominates. Call it a national version of that “thin blue line”.

That brings us up to recent times. Please pause here and read this short speech by then-Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen, which was published in the Washington Post on July 26, 1999.

http://www.jeffersonrivercoalition.com/Cohen_Grave_New_World.htm

In paragraphs 9 and 10 we read:
“As part of a federal interagency effort launched last year by President Clinton and led by the National Security Council, the Defense Department is doing its part to prepare the nation for the catastrophic consequences of an attack that unleashes these horrific weapons. Because it has long prepared to face this grim possibility on the battlefield, the military has unique capabilities to offer in the domestic arena as well.
“Several core principles are guiding our efforts. First, any military assistance in the wake of a domestic attack must be in support of the appropriate federal civilian authority — either the Department of Justice or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Second, an unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability for that support must exist.” [emphasis ea]

That was a dozen years ago. Since that prophecy by Defense Secretary Cohen, in which he gave us the chain of command [what, after all, is, “an unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority, and accountability”, if not a chain of command?] as it would be developed to issue from the Pentagon downward through the Department of Justice and FEMA, a network of Fusion Centers has sprung up across America. These Fusion Centers operate under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security.
We all notice that our local police and Sheriffs’ offices are receiving Federal assistance, funding, and logistics under Federal “programs”. Info sharing, interfacing, and inter-agency training is now common, even demanded by DHS, so that our local peace officers are now sufficiently federalized in effect, and many offices feel the dependency on continued federal funding. Cohen was predicting our modern “fusion centers”, which is how the Federal enforcement agencies and our military are fused with our local enforcement agencies (along with First Responders and fire-fighters etc.). It is the outline for federal extension, which would be fine if the Federal government were acting responsibly to the American people and upholding its obligations to its founding legal charter. But our Federal government is not acting responsibly as regards the Constitution. Federal enforcement mentality right now is rampant with the politicization of popular perception.

Did all readers here take time to read the leaked MIAC report? (pdf)

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

That report lumped together anti-government violence-prone radical extremists with three Presidential candidates – Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. The report casually implies that Ron Paul and other Presidential candidates who ran on “third-party” tickets, are in the same class of social standing as anti-government extremists prone to violence. Further, the report suggests that those who supported either of the three candidates should be viewed the same as anti-government violence-prone radical extremists. So those Montanans who put a Ron Paul bumper sticker on their pick-up truck are resoundingly attacked by this secret report. The report was to be circulated within the law enforcement community as educational material. It was intended for law enforcement only. It was secret. It got leaked by a conscientious law enforcement officer. The public was stunned. The Governor of Missouri finally had the Missouri Fusion Center rescind the document. It is obvious brain-washing propaganda, extremely politicized and was packed with the subliminal association techniques characteristic of, and directly from the bowels of, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC has now been discovered to have officers sitting on a committee inside the Department of Homeland Security, where this kind of propaganda is formulated as the planned “training” of law enforcement personnel.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/08/its-official-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-part-of-dhs/

The MIAC report was followed some weeks later by a leaked Department of Homeland Security report which was even worse. In that one, U.S. war veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are earmarked by DHS to be likely sources of trouble for law enforcement and should be watched more closely simply because they have been trained at arms and may have difficulties adjusting back to civilian life.

Aside I’ll say: Perhaps fedgov learned a wee bit by observing the Viet Nam veterans for forty years? Old soldiers who feel that their government duped them with lies certainly can have a touch of attitude, yes? And with good reason. Imagine if you will my tears at that black wall sunk into the ground on the Mall in D.C. as I spent a day there twenty years after my time in war, and lamented the fifty-eight thousand brothers and sisters who died for nothing, who died for government lies, lies which were bolstered by a compliant media and the damned FBI’s torment of anyone who dared protest it. You know they died for nothing. We all know it now. Hell, the very government which sent us to Viet Nam to fight communism is now doing business like gangbusters with the biggest communist nation on earth – so what did those dead vets die for after all? After many years I’ve answered that question – they died for their personal honor, which is something no damned government on earth can give a man.
Those of us who went and somehow survived have a damn right to form opinions about corruption sitting inside our seats of public governance. And the Federal government knows it and will use law enforcement to suppress us, as DHS has now confessed. And that Federal government also knows that every returning vet from today’s undeclared wars may likely come to realize the great lie which deceived him as he gave of his patriotic duty, same as with the Korean War vets and the Vietnam vets.
We vets have a right to speak our minds. That right was bought by the blood of brothers. We vets who went belly-down in the blood and mud of Viet Nam owe it to our dead brothers to speak the truth to the living before we join them. It was a bright shiny Federal lie, and a whole generation, except for the anti-war movement, bought it. That is part of why we must always question Federal motive, Federal action, especially now that Defense Contracting drives the Pentagon. Thank you for allowing me to demonstrate just a bit of why I personally am unhappy with the Federal government.

The Federal government is an out-of-control bureaucratic power structure which has grown to fruition since 1947 when America became, in Gore Vidal’s words, a “National Security State”. All Federal criminality now is excused under the one-size-fits-all catch-phrase, “national security”. But that too is a lie, and the Internet has exposed it.
The inherent infrastructure of the mechanism is the hierarchy of dispersed power from centralized authority. It invariably uses manufactured statements of morality and mis-represented glances at Constitutional adherence as the means of justifying its activity as it sends now the might of Federal power outward across this land of ours to control, against their expressed will, the descendants of the very people who created it. The pattern of reversal is complete. It is blatantly obvious and undebatable.
At the same time we are forced to admit this, we also must note that this entire projection of U.S. power has grown to the point that a sitting President can fire the head of General Motors and install a government-run apparatus on one hand while on the other hand demanding the authority to force every American citizen to buy a product from the Insurance industry.
All of this mis-behavior in our Federal government has been accelerated exponentially by the so-called “war on terror”, and it is under the rubric of the war on terror that a condition of “emergency” has been used to justify all sorts of violations of our Bill of Rights. The mass of the American people, at present, seem to accept that a certain degree of unusual ‘license’ unto otherwise forbidden powers is an appropriate response to a declared “state of emergency”. But we are given to see differently when reading in Dr. Edwin Vieira’s book, “Constitutional ‘Homeland Security’: Part One: The Nation In Arms.
(pages 12 and 13) “Even the Supreme Court has recognized, as a fundamental constitutional principle, that:
‘emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency’” [HB&LA v Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425; 1934]

The existence of some situation that self-serving politicians label an “emergency” has no constitutional effect in and of itself. Neither a “grave national crisis” nor any other “extraordinary conditions” can: ‘create or enlarge constitutional power. The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, … but these powers … are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary.” [ALASPC v United States, 295 U.S. 495, 528-529; 1935]
It is clear that no “emergency” can justify the Federal government’s usurpation of our unalienable rights, Amendment or no Amendment. The Constitution itself is constructed to prevent “emergency” from creating “powers” not granted.

Speaking now as a Montana Oath Keeper, must say that none of this madness can happen while agents and officers of Federal enforcement agencies, State law enforcement agencies, County law enforcement agencies, and our soldiers in the Armed Forces, honor their Oath to the Constitution and refuse to follow orders which would further facilitate this aggression. Oath Keepers reminds our brothers and sisters in arms that the Oath is sworn to the Constitution, and that the Oath is not sworn to the government which came out of that Constitution. That is what Fedgov fails to teach government employees whom it otherwise showers with training, schooling, conditioning, and programming. Proof:

When an officer in the BATFE authors this letter to every Federal Firearms Licensee (pdf) …

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/BATF%20Marbut%20Response%20Letter.pdf

…and states: “To the extent that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supercedes the Act and all provisions of the GCA and NFA and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.”

…the arrogance of that Federal agency is driven home to all Montanans. The will of the Montana people must be subjected to the interpretation by the BATFE of the commerce clause. An empowered County Sheriff could stop that sort of nonsense at the County line. The BATFE’s stance is that “interstate commerce” may be regulated in matters involving a direct violation of the Second Amendment, which clearly states “shall not be infringed”, which, faithfully understood, means that every law regarding arms bearable by the American people is by definition an “infringement”. But to the under-girding:

In Gonzales v Raich, Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court wrote the dissent:
“As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586—589 (concurring opinion). The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. d., at 586—587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term “commerce” is consistently used to mean trade or exchange–not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112—125 (2001). The term “commerce” commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857—862 (2003).” [emphasis ea]

Gary Marbut’s Firearms Freedom Act of 2009, troduced by the Honorable Representative Joel Boniek, swept through the House and Senate (despite the arduous objections by the lobbyist for the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and Montana County Attorneys Association) and was signed into law by a Democrat Governor. This bill was intended by its author to challenge the warped interpretation of the commerce clause presently held arrogantly by the U.S. Federal government [in the body of some of its employees], and it is on its way up to the Supreme Court as we speak.
Those forces who in 2009 opposed that new Montana law are now arrayed against another challenge coming from Marbut’s legal barrel, the Sheriffs First bill, SB-114, which is presently, on February 02, 2011, tabled in Committee as you know. That bill needs to move out of committee and onto the floor.
Senator Shockley, I am on the Board of Directors at Oath Keepers national. Oath Keepers is on the record calling for our troops and peace officers to honor their Oath to the Constitution. Oath Keepers studies the Constitution and observes government errancy. Part of our outreach program involves teaching our peace officers and soldiers the proper, lawful requirement for all government activity to protect the unalienable rights of the people. Unlawful orders can be given. That fact is declared in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in which it is written that a soldier has the right and duty to disobey an unlawful order. Further, the UCMJ provides for penalty if a soldier does obey an unlawful order. I give you the Court Martial of Lt. Calley, of My Lai infamy. Oath Keepers is calling for three things subsequent to the keeping of the Oath –
1, sound money
2, preparedness
3, the revitalization of the Constitutional, lawful, “well organized militia” which the Constitution states to be necessary “to the security of a free state”.
Oath Keepers stands on those three concepts as being necessary – now – to counter Federal corruption and Federal misguidance. We are popular within the population, we are popular within the peace officer community, and we are popular within the U.S. military. We are an effective educational arm of the liberty movement in America, with much public support.
Sitting on the Board of Directors of Oath Keepers national is Sheriff Mack, former two-term Arizona Sheriff and hero of the Tea Party movement. Back in the 1990s Sheriff Mack teamed up with Montana Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County and together they sued the Clinton Administration over aspects of the Brady (gun control) Bill. Their suit went to the Supreme Court. They won!

Justice Scalia writing for the majority opinion in Mack/Printz vs USA (the Clinton Administration’s Brady Bill) – “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.’ …. 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. …. The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.”
Further, that opinion by the Supreme Court includes:
As Madison expressed it: ‘The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general [ea: Federal] authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” Federalist no. 39, at 245. The separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.” – Justice Scalia [emphasis ea]

That is a remarkable pronouncement, Senator Shockley. And it is the voice of the Supreme Court, which with the Mack/Printz decision flat-out told the Federal government it cannot force a County Sheriff to carry out a Federal order. You can get the document from Sheriff Mack www.sheriffmack.com

The government is not the authority over people. The people are the authority over government. The proper sequence in time runs thusly:
1 – The people threw off the government of the day, which was invested in King George III of England, which as such it was a monarchy.
2 – Freed from all government, the people of the former Colonies came together as their respective States, and agreed to an Articles of Confederation.
3 – For reasons, the people came together again and created the Constitution for the united States of America.
4 – The Constitution for the united States of America created the Federal government.

It is important to note with gravity that the people created their government, which means that the government did not create the States. The States pre-existed the Federal government. They had transitioned from Colonies to autonomous States. They began their independence as thirteen sovereign States operating within a confederacy. They next created the Constitution. That is the sequence: the people came together, the people drew up papers, and from those papers came the Federal government. We must never overlook the significance in that sequence.

Next we must note that the States granted only specific, enumerated powers to the newly-created Federal government. (Article 1, Section 8) The people wrote their founding legal document so as to preserve for all posterity the sovereignty of the respective States and the sanctity of the free individual American citizen as the two authorizing sources of legitimacy for their own governance. The Tenth Amendments reads, “…the States, or to the people”. It does not say, “and” to the people. It says “or” to the people. Big difference. Any reading of the Constitution which denies that is in error. Through this template anyone may read the Tenth Amendment in proper context and in the primary perspective which is compatible with the entirety of the Constitution as written.

But, Senator Shockley, perhaps it is not about the Fourth Amendment, nor about the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps it is about both Amendments. We may also say that it is, therefore, about the Constitution itself, as all of its parts fit together harmonically to form an interfaced whole, and that strikes at the heart of this debate over the Sheriffs First bill. It is about whether the good people of Montana shall be free.

Freedom is our right in this country. It is our heritage. It is our tradition. It is the will of the people. Our lawmakers have a duty to protect our freedom, to guard it carefully, and to support it.

Senator Shockley, please recall the one true source of authority in this land governed of, by, and for the people. Recall your Oath to that one true source. The people trust their Sheriffs. Montana’s Sheriffs come from the bosom of our communities; they are “us”. The people want their Sheriff to have the full backing of Montana law in all Federal searches, seizures, and arrests in his respective County. The people want their Sheriff’s approval, in writing, prior to any Federal agent’s endeavor to search, seize, or arrest anywhere in Montana.

I have shown clearly that the Federal tradition is flawed by numerous criminal acts which offset the vast number of good acts by Federal agencies and agents. I have exposed a fraction of the abusive of the system by Federal agencies and agents. I did not mention two of the more damning abuses in Idaho and Texas. There is plenty to digest even without those stand-out examples. Everything to which I’ve alluded above is sourced and documented. It’s all on the public record, and this little bit herein is but a fraction.

The people have faith in their Sheriff, and we seek now through our legislature the Sheriff’s empowerment to protect us against Federal incursion and intrusion. It is righteous to demand government adhere to both the Fourth and the Tenth Amendments. The Constitution which prefaces those Amendments did indeed create a “system of dual sovereignty”. Thus the Constitution is the vision of freedom within our States, which in mutual compact are the rightful owners of the Federal government. That which is rightful is righteous.

Senator Shockley, stand not against this righteousness, for God’s sake.

Thank you for reading.

With a salute to Orange County California Oath Keepers, New Mexico Oath Keepers, and Nebraska Oath Keepers,

Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, National Oath Keepers

Join us! www.oathkeepers.org/

March 27, 2011

OATH KEEPING AT THE ATF

ATF Deals Death In Massive False-Flag Psy-Op

-

“When mankind lost sight of the way to live, came codes of law and order.”

-          Lao Tzu, circa 500 BC   -

Forenote: Blow-Back’s A Bitch

What would take the average writer an afternoon has taken me well over a week. Yet I must acknowledge that this story is breaking like storm waves on the government’s beach, and every time I think I’ve got the story covered another breaking wave of new developments hits home hard. Suffice, that this story is going to “grow legs”, with much credit to CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson.

As I write tonight, Thursday, March 24, 2011, I’ve viewed a video of President Obama discussing this case with a Mexican journalist. He used the interview like a pick-me-up photo-op as he slyly got in a plug for the Security and Prosperity Partnership < spp.gov >, and boldly confronted reality with a Presidential air of denial.

Attorney General Eric Holder is under the heat-lamp, and so is head of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano. Not to mention every salty dog atop the ATF’s hierarchy of internal power, the big-wigs of America’s most rogue Federal enforcement agency, the brilliant but power-damaged minds of ATF’s leadership.  This story is going to grow and spread universally, and its gravity is more than significant. It is a scandal of extreme proportions, enough-so that the President is now denying that neither he nor Holder was aware of this massive criminal ploy by ATF.  So as readers dive in below, recall that this is just an accounting of facts I’ve gathered as of March 24, 2011. I’ll give links to a couple of the original timelines by David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh below.

-

At the ATF’s Group VII Gunrunner operation in Phoenix, Arizona, (codenamed “Fast And Furious”), there has been some dissension within the ranks.  What could be bothering the troops – what could possibly cause dissension? It must have something to do with their job. Are some of them listening too closely to their consciences, while others operate by the hardened hearts produced by government training programs? ATF training involves use of violent force which may be lawfully applied upon free American citizens.  Do the agents expressing dissent object to certain ATF policies? Are they worried that the ATF has been knowingly furnishing firearms to the Mexican drug cartels? To see, let us begin with a look at the message sent by email from the group leader to his “boots on the ground” ATF agents at Phoenix. Here is the supervisor of the ATF Phoenix Group VII, writing by email to his agents.

- It has been brought to my attention that there may be a schism developing amongst the group.  Whether you care or not people of high rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we [Phoenix Group VII] are doing what they envision the Southwest border groups doing.  It may sound cheesy but we are “The tip of the ATF spear” when it comes to Southwest Border Firearms Trafficking.  We need to resolve our issues at this meeting. I’ll be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumors or other adolescent behavior. I don’t know what all the issues are but we are all adults, we are all professionals and we have the exciting opportunity to use the biggest tool in our law enforcement toolbox. If you don’t think this is fun you’re in the wrong line of work – period! This is the pinnacle of domestic U.S. Law enforcement techniques. After this the tool box is empty. Maybe the Maricopa County Jail is hiring detention officers and you can get paid $30,000 (instead of $100,000) to serve lunch to inmates all day. We need to get over this bump in the road once and for all and get on with the mission at hand. This can be the most fun you have with ATF, the only one limiting the amount of fun we have is you.

David Voth, Group Supervisor, Phoenix Group VII

-

That email has been preserved by CBS news and others.  You can see the pdf here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Grassley_2011_03_page14.pdf

So what might be the problem?

The problem is that the ATF has been caught placing thousands of guns into the hands of the Mexican drug smuggling cartels.  And other characters of interest. It’s safe to say that that is indeed a problem.

The first symptom of the problem arose when some of the ATF’s agents in Group VII felt like doing a little bit of old fashioned Oath keeping. Some of the agents and officers saw something very ugly about the ATF helping the Mexican cartels obtain powerful weapons – lots of weapons, with lots of ammo.

You’re reading this correctly – The ATF has helped “straw buyers” purchase weapons here in the United States and has made notes about the purchases, but the ATF also has allowed the straw buyers to move those guns into Mexico, knowing they would end up in criminal hands.  Remarkable, that. But it’s deeper than just that.

The vast spread of the involved governmental agencies, policies, and offices related to this case are mind-boggling. The case is a scandal of serious proportions, and it reaches from the blood-stained sands of our southern border with Mexico all the way to the top of several Federal agencies. It even reaches into the top tiers of the U.S. Department of Justice, and, shockingly, into the Department of Homeland Security itself.

Apparently there are two ways to interpret Mr. Voth’s email to his agents in Phoenix.  He has stated that the Project Gunrunner program is the “’tip of the ATF spear’ when it comes to Southwest Border Firearms Trafficking”. That is an amazing statement, for it can be seen two ways, now that we know that the ATF has been running guns into Mexico. It now appears that ATF could be among the most prolific gun traffickers of all. In reality, we must realize that a program this large has to have a recorded sourcing in our governmental structure, for it involves many millions of tax-payer dollars.  (The taxpayers probably will want to fume a bit when they learn that their dollars went to assist in supplying Mexican drug lords with high-powered guns. )

Further, as U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, R-California, both assert, the Department of Justice and the ATF as well as other agencies have lied to Senator Grassley’s investigation into allegations that the ATF was arming criminal gangs in Mexico.

In an article at WorldNet Daily,  http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276413 we read some strong language:

“The gun shops are often vilified for being the source, but in this case they did the right thing. They contacted the agency and were told to go ahead,” Issa said. “As we get to the truth, we’re going to hold those who lied to us early on accountable.” Issa is also determined to break through the agency’s efforts to stonewall the investigation. Kraft said Issa also supports plans for an inquiry by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

“ATF and DOJ denied the existence of the program and stonewalled the senator’s requests, relying on a policy of not disclosing information relating to an ‘open investigation’.”

- End quoted passage -

There are two excellent timelines organized to reveal this story in its proper sequence of development. These two timelines are provided by David Codrea of Gun Rights Examiner and Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars.  [1] David and Mike are the prominent two individuals who pushed this story to the top despite much resistance and reluctance by mainstream media.  Their inspiring efforts helped an ATF agent whistle-blower working inside Fast And Furious at Phoenix come forward with his explosive revelations, and helped get this whistle-blower some protection by a U.S. Senator and, finally by some decent protective coverage by CBS.

With a grateful salute to David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, as well as to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Oath  Keepers will share with our readers the fruits of David’s and Mike’s outstanding work on the BATFE’s deliberate scheme to smuggle guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords and other criminals. And then we will look at an outstanding conscientious American who awakened to a very nasty situation inside one of America’s most notoriously scandal-ridden enforcement agencies.

What Does The ATF Do?

Although the ATF has a very long list of abuses of American citizens and has been atop the ‘most-hated’ list of many Americans for decades, one highly criminal event in ATF’s past rings the bell as the quintessence of the ATF’s character as an agency which trucks in government force, even militarized force.

Remember Waco? That was a production in Hellish federal authoritarianism run amok, and it was engineered by the ATF.  In early 1993 the ATF was expecting budget hearings in Congress, and leadership decided to pull off a – publicized – military-style invasion of a church which had been in the community at Waco, Texas, for half a century.  ATF had been training its agents to behave like combat troops, and they really wanted some kind of confrontation in which they could “practice” their militant techniques.

The pretext was that the ATF wanted to serve a warrant about allegedly illegal gun activity. The minister of that church had friendly relations with the County Sheriff, and was often seen shopping in town, and was known by ATF to take his health jogs each morning on County roads by himself – the perfect time to serve a warrant without risk of escalation.

But the ATF wanted to serve a warrant to the minister of that church with fanfare, do it as a well-choreographed

photo-op. This would gain maximum publicity, which was hoped to inspire Congress to increase ATF’s budget. The ATF notified a couple of news organizations and invited them along for the show.

ATF then blundered its way into the notorious shoot-out with a bunch of church people, leaving four ATF agents dead and others wounded. The metal front door of the church, which bore the flanges of incoming bullets on the inside of the door with none protruding outwardly from gunfire inside the church, has mysteriously disappeared. The entire church complex was burned to the ground and buried by the government. The ATF’s calling card was to shoot David Koresh as he stood in the doorway, unarmed. After two churchmen were wounded by wild ATF gunfire, the church folks began returning fire. Four ATF agents were killed, and some churchmen were also killed.

That began a siege, in which the FBI and the U.S. military were brought in under Bill Clinton’s infamous PDD-25. The ATF got the military involvement/assistance by lying to the Pentagon, saying that the church was manufacturing illegal drugs inside their church. The ATF also lied about alleged child abuse, which did not happen,  as the medical staff which examined the surviving children attested on film in the documentary named Waco: A New Revelation. That documentary interviews the Sheriff who knew David Koresh personally, and features the FBI FLIR footage which reveals government troops, FBI agents, ATF agents, shooting the church members as they fled the burning buildings. That’s FBI footage. Get the movie and see the truth.

Now ATF has given us a fresh reminder of the sort of mentality which guides this hapless agency, and this newest adventure is destined to rise to the level of Waco, for although the ATF did not do the actual shooting of Agent Brian Terry, two guns which the ATF had purposely allowed to “walk” across the border under surveillance did turn up in the hands of the villains at the fatal encounter where Agent Terry was shot to death.

Cruel and indifferent, and blatantly disorganized due to its being used extensively in Unconventional Warfare operations, black ops, and clandestine activities, ATF has a “public face” which it shares with the public and it has a “false face” which it hides carefully behind the universal veil called “national security secrecy”.   No Federal agency holds in contempt the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as wrathfully, criminally, and with as deadly consistency as does the ATF.  It’s what ATF does. Enforce infringement for the government which funds them.

On its public face, ATF is here to stop the bad guys who might dare to shorten the barrel of a rifle or shotgun, or who might have a gun which fires too many bullets too quickly. But on its false face, the face it always tries to hide, ATF generates fines, jail terms, and taxes peripheral to gun manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and citizens who buy guns.  ATF is the Federal tool for gun control in America. ATF has murderous blood on its hands.  Since Waco, and the subsequent bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City (about which ATF also has much to deny),  ATF has managed to keep most of its criminal activity out of the public spotlight – until now.

As David Codrea says, this breaking and snowballing story “just may have stopped federal gun control legislation in its tracks for the foreseeable future.” I tend to agree with David Codrea.

To wade into this, let’s look at some documentation.  For readers who have not yet caught this story in the media/press, we’ll ask if Project Gunrunner is real? The DOJ/OIG thinks so…

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0906.pdf

from that pdf:

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Divisions – Interim Review of ATF’s Project Gunrunner – September 2009 – Report Number I-2009-006

Project Gunrunner is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) national initiative to reduce firearms trafficking to Mexico and associated violence along the Southwest border.

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and in fiscal year (FY) 2009 appropriations, ATF received $21.9 million in funding to support and expand Project Gunrunner. In May 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) opened an evaluation of Project Gunrunner, which is ongoing. We are issuing this interim report on Project Gunrunner plans as ATF is expanding the project.

(end quoted passages from above linked pdf)

Twenty-one point nine million dollars in Recovery Act funds, on top of whatever the Congress additionally may have funded in 2009, is a lot of money. Americans are about to wake up in anger as they see that such a large sum went to arm the drug cartels of Mexico, get a lot of innocent folks shot to death, and convert bands of criminals south of the border into raging military units of professional crime.

The bright spot in this is that Agent Voth is having ‘fun’.

It is unfortunate that DOJ’s Office of Inspector General failed to concern itself with ATF’s oversight of, and literal assistance for, a river of serious guns and ammo streaming across the border into Mexico. All that study did was assess logistics for an abstract operation. Did the Justice Department know that the ATF was running thousands of weapons across the border for the drug cartels? The answer to that question is destined to come out very soon now. But remember, President Obama has said that neither he nor Holder knew.

Perhaps the leadership at ATF smokes too much of the DEA’s bad weed, for we can clearly see that ATF’s logic was a pipe dream which runs like this – ATF would let the guns be sold to known gun runners. ATF even filmed some of the purchases, as CBS footage shows. ATF asked the gunstore owners to jot down the license plates of those who bought too many guns at one visit. These straw buyers were buying fifty-caliber sniping rifles in quantities. Then ATF would somehow follow the guns into Mexico where, magically, ATF would know which drug cartels got the guns.

Then, as this fantasy pipe dream goes up in smoke in the bonfire of bureaucracy and attendant idiocy, after ATF had let the cartels stock up like a criminal military force ready for street combat, and just before anything really bad happened with all those guns ATF was “following”, ATF would don its Savior Suit and dash down there into Mexico and arrest all the bad guys in one fell swoop.

Something like that. Absolute genius. Govlish-style genius at its finest.  Pure pipe-dreams. Psy-hash – lit with your tax dollars for toking-up and running guns across the border. But the ATF’s slap-happy hallucination has metamorphosized into a raging nightmare. Hundreds of human beings have been shot with these guns. The Drug Lords, Cartels, and mercenary criminals in Mexico are now heavily enough armed to be a serious problem for the military of Mexico, not to mention local law enforcement in northern Mexico.

Meanwhile, for years the government of Mexico has been begging the U.S. government to do something to stop the flow of heavy armaments into Mexico across our southern border. The ATF of course has striven to keep their Project Gunrunner strictly secret, and has denied the Mexican government much knowledge of their dastardly operation, which was aiding those weapons to cross our border into Mexico.

Don’t Tell Pedro

To the American tax payer who has funded this madness, ATF continues to present its “public face”, but to those who might interdict or stop ATF’s folly the agency only shows its “false face”. ATF brags about how many weapons it has confiscated, loudly and often, but it never told the Mexican government doodly about its cherished gun-running gig.

In fact, the ATF has been lying outright to the Mexican government. Don’t believe me? Read this –

http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/texts/et080116eTrace.html

That is from the U.S. Embassy in Mexico. It is an ATF fact sheet furnished by ATF to the Mexican government and to the government of the American people. Here is how it starts –

ATF is deploying its resources strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms, the “tools of the trade,” to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border, and to combat firearms-related violence affecting communities on both sides of the border. In partnership with other U.S. agencies and with the Government of Mexico, ATF refined its Southwest Border strategy. ATF developed Project Gunrunner to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico and thereby deprive the narcotics cartels of weapons. The initiative seeks to focus ATF’s investigative, intelligence and training resources to suppress the firearms trafficking to Mexico and stem the firearms-related violence on both sides of the border.

Firearms tracing, in particular the expansion of the eTrace firearms tracing system, is a critical component of Project Gunrunner in Mexico. ATF recently deployed eTrace technology in U.S. consulates in Monterrey, Hermosillo and Guadalajara, with six additional deployments to the remaining U.S. consulates in Mexico scheduled by March 2008. ATF has conducted discussions with the government of Mexico regarding the decentralization of the firearms tracing process to deploy Spanish-language eTrace to other Mexico agencies.

In the past two years, ATF has seized thousands of firearms headed to Mexico. Trends indicate the firearms illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are becoming more powerful. ATF has analyzed firearms seizures in Mexico from FY 2005-07 and identified the following weapons most commonly used by drug traffickers:
· 9mm pistols;
· .38 Super pistols;
· 5.7mm pistols;
· .45-caliber pistols;
· AR-15 type rifles; and
· AK-47 type rifles.

Most of the firearms violence in Mexico is perpetrated by drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) who are vying for control of drug trafficking routes to the United States and engaging in turf battles for disputed distribution territories. Hundreds of Mexican citizens and law enforcement personnel have become casualties of the firearms-related violence. DTOs operating in Mexico rely on firearms suppliers to enforce and maintain their illicit narcotics operations. Intelligence indicates these criminal organizations have tasked their money laundering, distribution and transportation infrastructures reaching into the United States to acquire firearms and ammunition. These Mexican DTO infrastructures have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S.

ATF has dedicated approximately 100 special agents and 25 industry operations investigators to the SWB initiative over the past two years. ATF has recently assigned special agents to Las Cruces, N.M., and Yuma, Ariz. These assignments are part of a broad plan to increase the strategic coverage and disrupt the firearms trafficking corridors operating along the border.

And it goes on from there. It covers much, indicating its willingness to share information on its tax-funded operations in Mexico. It does not at any time allude to just where in Article 1, Section 8, the ATF derives its excuse to exist as a Federal organization. It does not tell the Mexican government or the American people’s government about how many straw buys the ATF oversaw in recent years as the straw buyers legally purchased high-powered firepower and ammo from stores which the ATF was using as if those stores were satellite ATF stations involved in a mysterious and seriously large operation destined to take down the border crime lords in one fell swoop. Nope. The ATF didn’t go into that. So what this “fact sheet” really is a lie-by-omission.  Before leaving that document let’s look at one other passage which portends something in what I refer to as “Govlish” –

Firearms tracing helps identify firearms straw purchasers, the traffickers, trafficking networks and patterns, thus allowing law enforcement to target and dismantle the infrastructure supplying firearms to the DTOs in Mexico.

When they say, “target and dismantle the infrastructure supplying firearms…”, their statement might be construed to include the gun stores which they presently regulate. The retail gun stores are constantly harassed by ATF as it zealously enforces the letter of its “law”. ATF offered a number of gun store owners a sense of acceptance when the owner agreed to do the ATF’s spy-work for them in his store, keep the records and forward them to ATF on demand.  I’m sure ATF went easy with the stores which cooperated in their Gunrunner program. As to regulating those stores, there’s this last sentence in the document –

ATF conducts firearms seminars with federal firearms licensees, commonly referred to as licensed gun dealers, to educate the firearms industry on straw purchasers and gun trafficking. More than 3,700 industry members attended outreach events in SWB divisions in FY 2007.

Here is an article in the Los Angeles Times which notes that the Mexican government wants some answers –

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-mexico-guns-20110311,0,2534184.story

Excerpt: Lawmakers in Mexico are demanding an investigation into a U.S. law enforcement operation that allowed hundreds of weapons to flow into the hands of Mexican drug cartels amid claims from a ranking legislator that at least 150 Mexicans have been killed or wounded by guns trafficked by smugglers under the watch of U.S. agents.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has acknowledged that at least 195 weapons sold in Arizona under Operation Fast and Furious have been recovered in Mexico, traced as a matter of routine via serial numbers after their recovery from crime scenes, arrests and searches.

Nevertheless, the new information is bound to complicate U.S.-Mexico relations at a rocky time. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is already upset at U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual over a series of leaked diplomatic cables citing shortcomings in Mexico’s 4-year-old war against drug cartels.
Mexican politicians have criticized the ATF program as a violation of Mexico’s sovereignty and evidence of U.S. arrogance toward its southern neighbor.

- end quoted passages –

Don’t Tell Uncle Sam

So the Mexican government wants some answers. But also, the U.S. Congress now wants answers, as we see in this pdf letter from the House Judiciary Committee to Eric Holder, Attorney General.

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/pdfs/HJC%20Gunrunner%20Letter.pdf

From that Congressional letter to the Attorney General dated March 09, 2011 –

We find it ironic that the government allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico as part of a program designed to stop guns from being trafficked into Mexico. We are also troubled that ATF engaged in activities that may have facilitated the transfer of guns to violent drug cartels while simultaneously attempting to restrict lawful firearms sales by border-area firearms dealers.

- end quoted passages -

Are we beginning to see how serious this is?

Let us quickly note that we cannot blame the gun dealers who were running legitimate businesses in Arizona. They are licensed and operating perfectly legally. Please note as this story unfolds that several of the Federally licensed gun dealers from whom the criminals were buying large volumes of guns had suggested to ATF that such purchases should be forbidden – but the ATF, which needs a job to do, a reason to exist, and also needed big plans to spend all their allocated funding, and which must have something to justify its expensive budget each year, over-rode those FFL gun dealers’ recommendations.

The ATF geniuses told the store owners to continue to sell to known gun traffickers, “straw buyers”, so that ATF could follow the guns as they “walked” across the border. ATF asked the gun store owners to keep records and contact ATF whenever the straw buyers made significant purchases.

Watch the Fox News video of March 09, 2011,in this next linked-article, and notice how Fox News people are trying to carefully choose their language while exposing as little as possible about how deeply this thing goes toward the heart of government policy. Where Sharyll Attkisson of CBS News is telling it straight up as it truly is, Fox News, in a feeble effort to keep up with CBS, gives a very hesitant, even reluctant report on this story. But please note – the wickedness inherent in Gunrunner cannot be avoided now, cannot be denied no matter how carefully newscasters at Fox News parse their words. In this article Senator Grassley notes that this scandal goes into the Department of Homeland Security itself.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/09/project-gun-runner-scandal-border/#ixzz1GD6CbS3T

Already we know the weapons used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry were being tracked by Gunrunner, but new documents reveal a much bigger problem.The questions this morning in Washington are how high does this go and will Congress call for a formal investigation of its own.

“I’m still asking questions and we’re getting the runaround from the Justice Department” Sen. Charles Grassley told Fox News. ”They’re stonewalling.  And the longer they wait, the more they fight, the more egg that they’re going to have on their face.”[U.S. Senator] Grassley and others say Gunrunner was a dismal and deadly failure, with ATF intentionally allowing thousands of weapons to be illegally trafficked to Mexico.

Sen. Grassley says ATF isn’t the only guilty agency. He says Department of Justice lawyers and agents from Homeland Security also watched this debacle unfold, often hand in hand with ATF. Grassley has lengthy correspondence and numerous documents he wants to post on the Senate Judiciary website, but sources on the Hill say Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy won’t allow it, refusing to call for an independent congressional investigation. “I’m not satisfied with the inspector general there doing the investigation; to me it looks like a fox guarding the hen house,” echoes Grassley.

- End quoted passages -

I would add – every government official who seeks to interdict, limit, stall, prevent, discourage, twist, avoid, evade,obfuscate or spin this investigation will be viewed as complicit in the ATF crimes now being investigated. It is called, “conspiracy”.

So now we know that the ATF’s project Gunrunner is real, that it involves several Federal agencies in a lawbreaking spree of official insanity, and that a lot of people are now dead, on both sides of the border, many of them shot by guns furnished under ATF surveillance.

Before moving to the next part of this story, let’s look briefly at an amazing phenomenon. I call it:

Beanbags Vs Bullets

In December, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was murdered in a shoot-out at Peck Canyon northwest of Nogales, Arizona, in which our Border Patrol agents were armed with “beanbag bullets” while the smugglers were firing real bullets. Typical fedgov progressive political-correctness set up that scenario – thank Washington D.C., DOJ, DHS, ATF – well, actually, no one seems to want our gratitude, for each of them are denying they gave the order to put bean-bags in Border Patrol guns.

In  January, 2011, street agents of the ATF began a discussion online at “Clean Up ATF dot org.

http://cleanupatf.org/forums/

The discussion was about the gun which allegedly killed Agent Terry. It appears that two of the rifles being used by the smugglers were “Project Gunrunner” weapons which had been allowed by ATF to “walk” across the border into cartel hands.  Mike Vanderboegh was notified about this online discussion. We can thank Mike for helping get the story out to the world.

Diane Macedo for Fox News  published this article on bean bags as bullets and revealed another dimension of this story.  Here is the link for the full article, posted by Fox News on March 03, 2011 –

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03/fbi-report-raises-concerns-border-agents-facing-bullets-bean-bags-609544203/

We read there -

The U.S. Border Patrol is under fire for allegedly ordering its elite, SWAT-style units to use non-lethal bean bag ammunition before responding with deadly force – even against suspects armed with high-powered semi-automatic and automatic weapons like AK-47s.

The controversy over the agency’s “bean bag” policy began in the days following the Dec. 14 killing of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and has escalated recently as more information is uncovered in the investigation of the fatal shooting.

“When the suspected aliens did not drop their weapons, two Border Patrol agents deployed ‘less than lethal’ beanbags at the suspected aliens,” according to a FBI search warrant request filed in the U.S. District Court in Tucson on Dec. 29. “At this time, at least one of the suspected aliens fired at the Border Patbrol agents. Two Border Patrol agents returned fire, one with his long gun and one with his pistol. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was shot with one bullet and died shortly after.”

The warrant appears to support claims made by Terry’s brother, Kent, and former U.S. Rep.Tom Trancredo that Terry’s team — part of the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit, also known as BORTAC – was under standing orders to always use bean-bag rounds first before using live ammunition.

“There was a group of four guys with my brother and two had lethal and two had non-lethal weapons there,” Kent Terry told Fox News Friday.

- end quoted passages -

On March 09, 2011, CNN published this piece of damage control by Janet Napolitano, Big Sister head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-09/politics/napolitano.border.shooting_1_lethal-force-border-patrol-agents-illegal-aliens?_s=PM:POLITICS

Written by Mike M. Ahlers, CNN:

Four Border Patrol officers who confronted armed immigrants in the Arizona desert last December were not under orders to use “less-than-lethal” force, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, countering critics who say an ill-advised shooting policy contributed to one of the agent’s death.

But Napolitano declined to say whether two of the four agents were armed only with non-lethal “bean bag” guns, saying the incident is still being investigated.

An FBI affidavit has raised questions about the incident, saying that two of the agents fired “less than lethal” bean bags at the armed immigrants before the immigrants returned fire.

- End quoted passages -

Did those bandits know that our guys would shoot first with bean bags?  There is this from the Arizona Daily Star: Records show agents fired beanbags in fatal border gunfight

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_681d29cf-845a-5aea-9f34-3837d70b8a31.html

Border Patrol officials declined to answer questions about protocol for use of force, citing the ongoing investigation.

But Terry’s brother, Kent Terry, said the other agents who were there that night told him that they were instructed to use the non-lethal beanbags first. It’s a policy that doesn’t make sense to Kent Terry.

“You go up against a bandit crew that is carrying AKs, and you walk out there with guns loaded with beanbags – I don’t get it,” Terry said in a phone interview from Michigan. “It’s like going to the Iraqi war with one knife. It boggles my mind. … These guys (Border Patrol agents) are professionals; they should be able to use their judgment call on their own.”

On the night of the deadly encounter, agents were trying to apprehend at least five suspected illegal immigrants. One agent, using thermal binoculars, spotted two men carrying rifles. When the group came close, at least one agent identified himself as police and ordered the men to drop their weapons.

Here’s how the rest of the events are described in the FBI document:

“When the suspected aliens did not drop their weapons, two Border Patrol agents deployed ‘less than lethal’ beanbags at the suspected aliens. At this time, at least one of the suspected aliens fired at the Border Patrol agents. Two Border Patrol agents returned fire, one with his long gun and one with his pistol.

- end quoted passages –

Agent Voth’s Oath Keeper

I’m sure DHS’ Janet Napolitano is having a large time with this, and Agent Voth is still having fun. Eric Holder is probably smiling despite it all as he also tries to find a “public face” to greet the faces he meets. But what about any Oath Keepers in this developing story? Can we find an Oath Keeper in all this? We know that Janet Napolitano violates her Oath every day. More than likely, so do a lot of people working inside DOJ, FBI, DEA, ATF, and numerous other agencies under DOJ’s umbrella. We certainly know that supervisor Voth is totally despicable as a raging fun-seeking Oath breaker.

Let’s talk more about Agent Voth. In his email to his agents, he was talking about the serious questions some of his agents were discussing among themselves – questions about the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, in operation Gunrunner. It had come to their attention that Agent Terry had been murdered by, possibly, a Gunrunner weapon which ATF had let “walk”.  Two rifles at that death scene were Gunrunner rifles. Did Mr. Voth give a damn about his Oath to the Constitution? Nope. He was into having “fun”.  And he was not about to let his fun be spoiled by some disturbing awareness about the grave reality underpinning his fun.

With a typically Feducated mentality, Mr. Voth took the bureaucratic/governmental approach to leading his men back to their senses. Force them. Threaten them. Warn them. Give them “what-for!” Keep the troops in line. It’s called “authoritarianism”. Works big-time in the military, and also in today’s militarized law enforcement. It is a form of psychological pathology which infests power-damaged minds in too many Federal agency offices.

It is blind, it is careless, it is dangerous, and for the most part it is highly criminal. It is what Heinrich Himmler drove into the hearts and minds of his SS troops. It is the mindset which wants to have fun while playing God with other peoples’ lives. Mr. Voth likely does not know how hideously ugly his mind now appears to Americans. He most likely shall take my criticism as “all in a day’s work”, or “part of the job”, and he will pat himself on the back for enduring in his madness no matter what.  But what Superviser Voth probably did not see coming his way is the fact that right there in his Phoenix Group VII stands his antithesis, a man of principle, and that man has come forward.

We see that at leadership levels in DOJ and ATF there is not likely to be found very many Oath Keepers.  All up and down the scale they are lying to Senator Grassley, stonewalling, giving Congress the run-around. They’re as immature about this as any three-year-old child caught in the cookie jar. But of course we can’t really expect government-paid employees who play with guns to fess up when they mess up, now can we? I mean, this mess-up is big enough to do serious damage to the entire Federal policy machinery.  They’re caught arming drug cartels in Mexico, after all.

Now we’re ready to look to the Oath Keeper and his conscientious companions.  There is one Oath Keeper who came forward first, and he is already joined by about a dozen others. This one man was the first man to allow CBS cameras to put a face on an ATF agent confessing the bitter truth about Gunrunner. He and his fellow agents of honor are good men who can, despite their rigorous training, heavy programming, perpetual conditioning, and reinforced mindsets, finally see the truth and the horror of berserk governmental thinking/planning/execution in the tragic  “biggest tool” in ATF’s tool box.

Now we have a hero. We have a real man among men. We have an ATF agent who has been willing to face the truth behind the ATF’s bold-faced lie. And this man has chosen to honor his Oath at great personal risk. He did not call up Oath Keepers and ask to join. He did not make a big deal about honoring his Oath. The man just saw what was wrong, knew what it would take to make things right, weighed the consequences, counted his options, and concluded that his duty to the American people and to Agent Terry’s family was to step forward, go public, let this horribly ugly ATF secret out of the bag, and take his chances on any future career.  Why? Because ATF agent John Dodson has what all Oath Keepers have – he has a conscience.  Here is what he told CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson:

“I’m boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we’ve been doing it every day since I’ve been here,” he said. “Here I am. Tell me I didn’t do the things that I did. Tell me you didn’t order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn’t happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn’t happen.” – Agent John Dodson, as quoted by CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson

BATFE Agent John Dodson is talking about government-permitted gun running, a long-questioned practice of America’s clandestine government functions.  He has proved his mettle as a true American, a man with a conscience which matches his training and skill as an agent, and a man who is willing to do the right thing.  From Oath Keepers nationally, Agent Dodson, thank you.

Following The DEA’s Example

We will remember that the reason why the cartels in Mexico want guns is directly related to the business of dealing illegal drugs.  On that one point, there is this interesting take by a Houston attorney who is involved with one of the gun stores which ATF had conscripted.

From this WND article

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=274449

“Senator Grassley is still looking for answers to the questions that he asked of the various agencies. He continues to ask questions as he learns more about the actions of the ATF and the Department of Justice,” Levine stated.

In the search for answers, the Houston attorney says he knows the ultimate solution to the Project Gunrunner question: End the war on drugs.

DeGuerin believes the war on drugs is the issue driving the entire Project Gunrunner problem, because the drugs provide the incentive for criminal activity.

A word or two about that please.  We know that the DEA permits drug task forces at both Federal and State level to “let drugs walk”. DEA gives illegal drugs to “snitches” (informants) so they can set-up their associates for future busts. That is not a contested “theory”, it is a known fact – the DEA will let illegal drugs onto the street so they can “catch” somebody.  What ATF was doing with the guns was similar, except that they had no way of tracking the guns once they crossed the border into Mexico.

The problem with all that is that ATF knew it could not track those weapons, but it let them “walk” across the border anyway. Worse, as the figures came in, Agent Dodson even asked ATF leadership if they could not see the correlation between escalating gun-crime violence at the border and the volume of guns ATF let “walk”. ATF was not appreciative of Agent Dodson’s query. That would not be fun. Better to ignore the blatant correlations and keep on letting the guns move to Mexico.  One superior told him that “if we want to make an omelet, we have to scramble some eggs”. That’s cold.

And that brings up an even more sinister question:   Could a psy-op now be about to surface in the investigation spawned by Senator Grassley? I mean to ask, is it possible that certain policy makers on high want some reason to inject military/police operations into Mexico under the guise of a raging drug-smuggling gang-warfare chaotic hell on earth – which someone has to bring under control? If the violence would predictably lead to combining the U.S. and Mexican militaries and law enforcement, would that not be another small step toward the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership), otherwise known as the North American Union?

Is NORTHCOM  now in Mexico in an “advisory” role? Doesn’t NORTHCOM already have a military agreement with the Canadian military for troop exchanges?  The ATF has stated its plans to expand Operation Gunrunner, although funding for that may now be in jeopardy.  If the gun crime figures continue to rise in Mexico, ATF would have no trouble getting a larger Federal funding package to combat it, is that not true?

Would the ATF benefit thereby in letting large numbers of guns walk into Mexico? Would DHS benefit for letting ATF benefit? Would the SPP benefit? Would the Federal government benefit? Am I a fool for asking such questions, or would I be a fool if I didn’t?

I work for Oath Keepers. You won’t believe the things I hear from around this nation.  The answers to some of these questions are at the links in the Notes section below. This story is only beginning. Oath Keepers salutes Agent John Dodson and his honorable patriot friends who are backing him up as he brings this to the world’s attention.

Agent Dodson worked inside “Project Gunrunner”.

He has come forward to expose it.

Oath Keepers salutes ATF Agent John Dodson.

Copyright 2011 Elias Alias and Oath Keepers, Inc.

Notes:

1 –  David Codrea’s; timeline:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker

Mike Vanderboegh’s  time line:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/01/sources-timeline-summary-of-atf-project.html

-

March 23 – Obama on Gunrunner with Mexican journalist – CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20046151-10391695.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

President Obama says that he and Holder did not know about Project Gunrunner. – “We’re trying to build a kind of cooperation between Mexico and the United States that we haven’t seen before …”

Obama  – “It’s not just Mexico’s problem, it’s also our problem. “

-

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, Feb 23, 2011, Scandal

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml

-

Sharyl Attkisson, March 03, 2011 –  Agent Dodson’s on-air statements

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

-

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, March 08, 2011 – ATF gun running since 2008

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/08/eveningnews/main20040803.shtml?tag=stack

-

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, March 10, 2011, Holder Speaks

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20041655-10391695.html

From that article:

Prior to this week, the position of the Justice Department was that ATF has never knowingly allowed guns to get into the hands of suspected gunrunners. However, Attorney General Eric Holder no longer appears to be denying the allegations, which have been made by a dozen veteran ATF agents…At a hearing today, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison asked Holder to comment on the case. Holder emphasized “The mission of ATF… is to stop the flow of guns. That is the focus of ATF and why they are bravely working in Mexico and in this country.”

Holder went on to say for the first time that letting guns “walk” into the hands of criminals for any reason is wrong. Holder says he’s “made it clear to people in the (Justice) Department that letting guns ‘walk,’ I guess that’s the term people use, is not something that is acceptable. We cannot have a situation where guns are allowed to walk, and I’ve made that clear to the US Attorney as well as the agents in charge of various ATF offices.”

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Phoenix U.S. Attorney’s office under the Justice Department supervised ATF’s Fast and Furious operation.

-

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, March 21, 2011 – 2^nd Agent comes forward

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20045650-10391695.html?tag=latest

-

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, with ATF Special Agent #2, video – ATF Special Agent Rene Jaquez – March 21, 2011

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360353n

-

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS, Darren Gil, ATF man in charge of Mexico operations for ATF – March 25, 2011

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20047027-10391695.html

-

David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh on the radio / gunrunner interview / inside stuff

http://jimbotalk.net/programhighlights?date=20110317

-

Killer good site – Codrea’s War On Guns site –

http://www.waronguns.blogspot.com/

-

Miscellaneous Links –

http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/texts/et080116eTrace.html

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/03/01/another-federal-agent-killed-by-atf-walked-gun/

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_2ff03f40-3940-11e0-98c3-001cc4c03286.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/programs/project-gunrunner/

Oath Keepers National –  Guardians of the Republic. Join us. Support our mission!

http://www.oathkeepers.org/

NOTE FROM STEWART:Below is Elias’ article on the ATF “gunwalker” scandal, lauding the whistle-blowing AFT agents.  In response to the article, frequent commenter Remember the Alamo asked a very good question:”Where does the U.S. Constitution delegate to the federal government via the United States Department of Treasury and its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives the power to regulate the use alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives in the individual sovereign states of the United States?”My response:  Nowhere. And that is why I have a problem with calling any ATF agent an “oath keeper” of any kind. Frankly, to truly keep their oaths, they would have to resign.  And not only is there no such power granted, it is also in direct violation of the Second Amendment, since what the ATF doees EVERY DAY is certainly an infringement of our right to bear arms.

As Elias amply illustrates in his article, the ATF’s job is to harrass, snare, entrap, and imprison as many gun owners as they possibly can, and that is what they do all the time (and at times, such “law enforcement” results in the deaths of people who’s only “crime” was to own items that Hoplophobes fear and hate).  See the Olofson case (in that case, I helped write an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court, pointing out the absurdity ATF’s Alice in Wonderland shifting definition of what is a full auto that would find even a malfunctioning double barrel shotgun or malfunctioning single action revolver from the 1800′s to be a “full-auto” if, while malfunctioning, they fired more than one shot per trigger pull).Out of respect for Elias, who is a heck of a researcher and writer, and a friend, I didn’t monkey with or edit his piece, but I had to add this comment.  While I congratulate the whistle-blower agents on their courage and integrity in blowing the whistle, and I hope more federal agents do the same across the board, I must point out the obvious contradiction of their job with their oath. What they did is worthy of praise, but they do need to think hard about what it is they do for a job, everyday, in light of that sacred oath they swore to support and defend the Constitution.  And then, as Jesus told the harlot, go and sin no more!Stewart Rhodes, Founded of Oath KeepersWe encourage all readers, and all Oath Keepers members and supporters, to contact their US Representatives and Senators and demand that they support hearings, and also let them know we want to see the resignation of the head of the ATF and of Holder, and we want to know what Obama knew, and when.

1. Thanks BonFire, for publishing this.
   Salute!
   Elias

   Comment by Elias Alias | February 6, 2011 | Edit | Reply

2. Elias – I pray he reads this – nice piece of work! Celia

   Comment by celia | February 7, 2011 | Edit | Reply

3. Thank you! I have sent this link to many friends and my entire family. I suggest EVERYONE who reads it do likewise. Whether one is left, right, middle of the road like a Texas armadillo, indifferent to political spectra, we are all in this together. Hang together, or hang separately – your choice, but please don’t kill my grandchildren if you choose to bury your heads in the sands of time.

   Comment by Jim Greaves | February 7, 2011 | Edit | Reply

4. Bonfire thanks for posting. Excellent work Alias. We can add even more evidence on top of your research. We will repost this on our web site. A great read and great research. I hope you get through to the establishment dolts.

   Comment by JohnO | February 7, 2011 | Edit | Reply

5. Working with Elias is a privilege and an honor. You sir are a great patriot, an awesome researcher and a sophisticated author. Together we all can make a big difference and what little I can do for our cause comes from my heart and soul for love of my family and my country.
   So I thank YOU Elias Alias for participating in my blog fighting for our Republic bringing your multi-talents to the table.
   For The Republic!

   ~Bonfire

.

.

1. by Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, USMC Vietnam veteran

   Scenario SB114
   If the mayor is under attack
   For running a game behind your back,
   Look-out Jack, better step back -
   Duck the flak, but stay on track.

   Scenario: Deception distorts perception in the debate on SB114, the Sheriffs First bill

   The people of Montana are grateful to Senator Shockley for reminding the people that Montana’s legislators are primarily Montanans and only secondarily serve as occasional legislators. They do not have to specialize in American history or in Constitutional studies.

   We are now told that because the North won the Civil War, the conclusion we all should draw from that is that Federal law trumps State law, “like it or not.” Somehow Lincoln managed to rewrite the Tenth Amendment by winning a war – or did he? Let us make a scenario.

   In our scenario, an amateur student of history who has given countless hours over many years to study the Constitution and the contexts of the era in which it was written, shows up at a committee hearing for a particular bill to speak for a bill, and finds to his dismay that the citizen legislators, some of whom have not bothered to learn the important lessons of history, are enmeshed in a tightly-orchestrated schedule and cannot grant one enough time to pack even the most condensed quintessence of ten years’ worth of study into a two-minute presentation before the committee.

   Perhaps that is simply a blow delivered by bureaucracy’s inherent constructs, the infrastructure of organized governance. All can see that it is impersonal, that it is just how busy sessions work.

   But our scenario grows darker when we recall the recent hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, January 21, 2011. The bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee was SB114, commonly referred to as the “Sheriffs First” bill. The public was invited to appear before the Committee and speak for or against the “Sheriffs First” bill. A number of Montanans drove to Helena to stand before the microphone and plead for passage of this important bill.

   However, the citizens who spoke for the bill were opposed by a battery of public employees who showed up to speak against the bill. Interesting, that. As reported, all who spoke against the bill were public servants, while the people from the private sector were in favor of the bill. There was that clear delineation – public servant vs the public. In this scenario, the public servants are convinced that they know what is best for the public, and shall wield the public power of office to ensure that the public gets only the laws which public servants deem appropriate. That begs the question, “Who is serving who?”

   The citizens who supported the bill represent the sector of Montana society which encourages study into Constitutional issues, constitutional philosophy, study into contexts, study into history, and Supreme Court precedent. These citizens represent the aware and conscientious patriots within Montana who do as the founders insist all citizens should do – which is to be ever vigilant in watching over the manner in which government administers itself upon the governed.

   Opposing the citizens were “associations” or lobbies for ‘special interests’. Of the several opponents of the bill present at the hearing, one in particular is handy for this extended scenario. We shall try to be elegant as we review some things, but we must now name a lobby which opposed the Sheriffs Bill. Of all things, it was the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (MSPOA). The spokesperson for MSPOA was Helena Mayor Jim Smith, a man with considerable connections at the core of governance.

   He is the mayor of the State Capitol, after all. So let’s take a look at him from the city’s website:
   http://www.ci.helena.mt.us/departments/commission/mayor-and-commissioners/mayor-smith.html

   There we read: – quoting from city’s page on Mayor Jim Smith:

   “ In 1978 he began working on public policy issues, with the Montana Seniors Citizens Association and the Rocky Mountain Development Council. In 1983 Jim began working as a Lobbyist at the Montana Legislature. He has lobbied every Session since, working for a variety of human service, health care, law enforcement and local government associations and organizations. In 1994 Jim became a co-owner of Smith and McGowan, Inc., a lobbying, management and government relations firm located in downtown Helena. The firm’s clients include: the Montana Council of Community Mental Health Centers, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Montana County Attorneys Association, the American Cancer Society, and others.”

   So that is part of our scenario – the gentleman is a well-connected lobbyist. A professional lobbyist. He advocates professionally for organizations, both public and private. He’s got position, and personality.

   Speaking of personality traits, there is this tidbit, published on December 17, 2009 by the Missoula Independent.
   http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/targeting-gun-violence/Content?oid=1198586

   [Bob]McKelvey and [Mike]Chessin founded Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence (MU-SGV) years ago to combat what they saw as a serious problem in the state. Late this summer, they finally reached out and approached state Reps. Dick Barrett and Ron Erickson, both of Missoula, about helping the group. In November, Helena Mayor Jim Smith joined MU-SGV’s steering committee.

   “I think it’s a voice that needs to be heard in the debate here in Montana over gun rights,” says Smith, who has lobbied against concealed weapons carry for 15 years. “I don’t think there’s another grassroots organization or a group of ordinary citizens who are committed to the end of gun violence and the maintenance of a civil society.”

   The group faces a number of tasks for 2010, most immediate of which is agreeing what issue to use as a rallying point. McKelvey says he has growing concerns over the rising number of open carriers in the Bitterroot—an issue highlighted by recent Celebrating Conservatism meetings that feature numerous attendees with firearms. But Barrett says putting open carry practices in the group’s crosshairs could galvanize Second Amendment proponents.

   Our scenario continues to develop. We have a ‘lobbying personality’ which is running a city in Montana and providing its talents to the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, and lo and behold, this lobbying personality, presently dwelling like a clouded dream in the head of the Mayor of Helena, has taken a seat on the steering committee for a gun control group run in part by a fellow traveler named Mike Chessin.

   Montanans who enjoy traditional gun culture in Montana are seen by Mr. Chessin to be “a serious problem”. He apparently has concerns about the Celebrating Conservatism movement in the Bitterroot, who lawfully carry their guns openly, but I’m sure he doesn’t think the Maiden of Montana Liberty, Ms Mona Docteur, would pop a cap on him. Surely he is not paranoid about his vision of a gun-free Montana, a somewhat delusional vision which he entitles “…the maintenance of a civil society”.

   But what can we ask about Mr. Chessin, Mayor Smith’s partner at the Montanans United To Stop Gun Violence organization? May we ask if he once was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley? May we ask if, owing to alleged communist affiliations, Mr. Chessin fled UCB during the McCarthy era at a time when communists were being expunged from public offices? May we also ask whether at that same time the University of Montana was having accreditation problems for not having sufficient numbers of ‘accredited’ professors? And may we further ask whether the University of Montana picked up a handful of trans-locating communist professors, (some of whom were fleeing their offices under light of public scrutiny), at a discount price, including Botany professor Chessin? Finally, may we ask whether students who attended U of M during that time readily admit that Chessin kept posters of Stalin and Lenin on his office walls at the U of M? We are just asking questions of course, but we can be sure that Chessin does not approve of Montana’s gun culture, its traditions, and its importance in today’s world.

   Question – aren’t communists always against allowing a population to keep and bear arms? And isn’t the keeping and bearing of arms one of our denoted “inalienable rights”, which public officials are sworn to protect on our behalf?

   Another question. Why would the University of Montana take down the Internet page which could have revealed the reasons we have so many questions today regarding Chessin? The information on faculty-member Chessin, now removed from the www, used to be at this link – it’s a dead link now: http://www.umt.edu/journalism/student_work/veterans_history_project/mikechessin.html

   Scenario: The fearless professional lobbyist who is also the Mayor of Helena, Montana, sits on the steering committee for an anti-gun group with an alleged – but unproven – communist sympathizer at the same time he is providing his services to the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association. On their behalf, in their names, he has stood before the Montana Senate’s Judiciary Committee to oppose a bill which would affirm the (Montana) constitutional Sheriff’s authority as the highest law enforcement officer in his County. This he did while the unanimous voices of the citizens were entered into the record requesting that the Committee move the bill forward.

   The citizens’ voices were confronted by Mr. Smith’s retort that: “The sheriffs of Montana really do not want to be pawns in anyone else’s political games.”

   Is it not the quintessence of gall for a man to seek to install against the wishes of the people “…the maintenance of a civil society”, which is a politicization in itself, by accusing freedom-loving Montanans of playing political games? Shouldn’t Smith admit that the ‘Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence’ organization is indeed “politicizing” an issue of our County Sheriffs’ authority? Isn’t MUSGV a self-declared political organization with a self-declared mission to infringe upon Montanans’ rights to keep and bear arms?

   Gary Marbut, of Montana Shooting Sports Association wrote this Sheriffs First bill. Gary is the same author who gave us the successful Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009. Gary Marbut represents the voice of the Montana citizenry. Gary Marbut is not a lobbyist for any government office or agency. Gary Marbut defends the Montana Constitution on behalf of a free people.

   Yet the professional lobbyist for MSPOA and MCAA is representing an anti-gun-rights agenda at the same time he purports to lobby for our Sheriffs and Peace Officers. Who is politicizing what here?

   Some may say that kind of question begs “standing”. Very well. Here is some standing -

   We are asking questions about the psychology of lobbying, its place in our lives, where it fits into our world. What does a lobbyist do? Lobbyists are “statists” who represent “interests” in efforts to shape, mold, and structure state authority in ways which benefit the “interests” who pay for such services.

   What is a “statist”? A statist is one who values and believes in the power of the state (as in, the government, on whatever level). Statists use the force of the state to animate their policy, which is derived from their personal perception of various systems available to them.

   Communists, for example, are statists, as also are ‘collectivists’ and ‘Marxist socialists’ or ‘progressives’ harking back to Colonel Edward M. House and Woodrow Wilson. Neo-cons are also statists. Communism, like Marxism or socialism or any other governmental “ism”, is based on the individual’s willingness to believe in the power of the state, and the use of that power to control or regulate others. That is a psychological element of a perception which elicits a personal response in harmony with one’s view of life on earth – one’s “perception”.

   A lobbyist who is a collectivist, or one who is a statist, can be employed to shape public perception in ways which benefit one’s client’s interests. A lobbyist who chooses to represent a government arm, such as, say, the office of County Sheriff, but brings a statist perception to the table, may, if one is not exceedingly careful, awaken the very Sheriffs and Peace Officers upon whose good name said lobbyist rides.

   Question – Do the Sheriffs and Peace Officers who are represented by this particular statist lobbyist know that he works with an anti-gun organization?

   Did Mr. Smith call the Sheriffs of Montana’s Counties to see how they felt about SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill? Was the lobbying of the Mayor fortified by the spread of “official” views for each Sheriff to hold regarding this bill, before Mr. Smith purported to represent their personal views to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

   We do know that at least two courageous Sheriffs have taken stands for the bill, much to their respective Counties’ glory. We wonder what the other Sheriffs may think. There is, after all, an Oath to the Constitution, and that Oath is, as President John Adams said long ago, “a sacred obligation”, which is why the Oath was written into the Constitution – to bind a public servant down to honorable service to the people who created the government, to ‘we the people’.

   How many Sheriffs in Montana will stand on their Oath? How many Montana Sheriffs recognize the need for a powerful buffer between Federal intrusion and the inalienable rights of the people? How many Montana Sheriffs truly want a communist sympathizing anti-gun professional lobbyist representing them before the people’s legislature?

   But there is more. Let us add some color to our scenario. This is a pdf.
   http://www.montanaviewpoint.com/ads/oct-16pg.pdf

   We have to ask. Is Mayor Smith’s fair City of Helena involved in any way with the United Nations’ Agenda-21 and ICLEI? What do those terms mean? Here is an excerpt from that pdf:

   The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.

   ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at the ICLEI inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. In a nutshell, the plan (Agenda 21) calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.

   It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.

   This is now being implemented in several Montana cities, and Helena is one. We must wonder, who lobbied to get ICLEI operating in Helena? Do the people of Helena know with cognizance that a United Nations radical and extreme land-control program has been installed in their city? Could city planning be affected by anti-gun-rights affiliations? Isn’t that a part of what Smith’s partner sees as “…the maintenance of a civil society”?

   To really understand what the United Nations’ Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and ICLEI are all about, read often at the best online source for the full picture – Michael Shaw’s remarkable site, Freedom Advocates: http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

   So let us see. We have a lobbying Mayor representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorney Association in opposition to the Sheriffs First bill, and he works at the same time with an anti-gun organization which is pondering getting rid of our right to openly carry our guns, and all the while he’s not embarrassed to make deals or cooperate with the United Nations, which seeks a higher authority over our U.S. Constitution. And this guy claims to be representing our communities’ law enforcement? And our County Attorneys?

   That’s quite a scenario.

   Does Helena’s Mayor have some help from within those organizations? Yes. He does. Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert took time from his busy schedule to speak against the bill at the Committee hearing, and spat a bit of his own vitriolic resentment that, in his misguided view of SB 114, the people’s elected Sheriff should have the power to interfere with his federal associations. Dr. Ed Berry has already quoted him, but just for the record, Mr. Lambert sees the bill as an infringement on his job.

   Could that infringement in any way affect his friendly relationship with the federal agencies operating in his County? Aren’t the in-state activities of Federal agencies/agents part of the object of this bill? How would the Sheriff’s lawful duty to require all federal agents to obtain the Sheriff’s written permission prior to search, seizure, or arrest of any County citizen somehow threaten the Attorney’s job unless the Attorney has discrete liaison with federal offices? Where in this Sheriffs First bill is any Sheriff instructed to manage the office of the County Attorney?

   But wait – doesn’t that bring us back to the opening of this lengthy screed? We began by talking about citizen legislators and we noted that Senator Shockley gave us pause with his statement regarding his conclusion about the Civil War. Senator Shockley mused that since the North won the war, that settled the question of Federal vs State sovereignty. States are under the authority of the Federal government, as he would say it. His gracenote was “Like it or not”.
   But we may ask next, what about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009? It was passed into law, signed into law, and immediately the Federal ATF declared that Federal law trumps Montana law, sending letters to that effect to each FFL in the State. Did not the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association oppose that bill also, as they are opposing the Sheriffs First bill this session? (Or was it just their lobbyist?) But the real question to ask is whether the Federal denial of our lawfully-enacted Firearms Freedom Act of 2009 would be weakened by the passage of the Sheriffs First bill?

   What about Montana’s medical marijuana law, which the Federal government also refuses to recognize? How would the Sheriffs First bill affect the Feds’ insane push to over-ride Montana’s law? Do the people of Montana have any sovereignty if their voted and legislated will is subject to Federal incursion? And isn’t it Federal incursion when the Federal government threatens Montana with Federal powers to over-ride the written will and law of the Montana people? And is not the Sheriffs First bill a threat to that kind of Federal mischief?

   Dr. Ed Berry has alluded already to the Mack/Printz Supreme Court decision of 1997. The full story on that is available at Sheriff Mack’s website – http://www.sheriffmack.com/

   Enough can’t be said about that landmark decision. Icing on the cake with that decision is the fact that then-County Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, the distinguished patriot Sheriff Jay Printz, was Sheriff Mack’s partner in the suit against Clinton’s Brady bill. Two Sheriffs, one from Arizona and one from Montana, sued the Federal government and won, and part of the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, goes like this:

   “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, 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 by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to 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… The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.” – Justice Scalia

   Senator Shockley, it can’t get any more clear than that. The Federal government did not create the States, and it does not give us any “rights” – the Civil War did nothing to damage the Tenth Amendment. The Federal government was created by the States to protect individual rights which are clearly stated to be unalienable rights. That means, no government can place a lien on our God-given/Natural rights.

   Senate Judiciary Committee, think on these things please. Listen to your people. The people of Montana want the Sheriffs First bill passed into law. Support the people and the State of Montana as we resist Federal incursion and Federal intrusion. Acknowledge the citizens’ rightful seat of legitimacy and authority in this Republic of law. The document begins with, is of, by, and for, “we the people”. Choose the people over the special interests, over the socialists, over the communists, over the professional lobbyists. Choose the law as written, not a lobbyist’s interpretation of law. The perception of the opponents of this bill has been furnished to them by Federal programming and a dependency on Federal funding. It is only natural that they, joined at the waist with Federal programs, would oppose this move by the people to reclaim Montana sovereignty. Good Senators, please hold dear Montana’s historic culture of freedom, and please celebrate Montana’s compliance with the Constitution for the united States of America. Please pass SB114.

   Thank you for reading.

   Salute!

   Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, USMC Vietnam veteran

2. Notes, brief bibliography -

   Freedom Advocates -Michael Shaw
   ICLEI –
   Mack/Printz v United States – Montana Shooting Sports Association – Gary Marbut
   Oath Keepers –Stewart Rhodes
   Liberty Fellowship –Dr. Chuck Baldwin
   Matrixx Productions – Creator of these films is James Jaeger:
   Fiat Empire
   Cultural Marxism
   Original Intent
   Corporate Fascism
   The Purse And The Sword – by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., holder of four degrees from Harvard. This is the definitive advanced Constitutional course, over eight viewing hours’ worth, on sound money and the lawful Militia of the several States:
   Constitutional “Homeland Security”: Volume 1: The Nation In Arms
   by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.; copyright 2007 by Edwin Vieira, Jr.; Bookmasters, Inc., 30 Amberwood Parkway, Ashland, Ohio 44805; International Standard Book Number (10): 0-9671759-2-5; International Standard Book Number (13): 978-0-9671759-2-8.
   To order Dr. Vieira’s Constitutional Homeland Security, 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
   How To Dethrone The Imperial Judiciary
   by Dr. Edwin Vieira; copyright 2004-2005 Vision Forum Ministries; Content copyright 2004-2005 The Conservative Caucus Research, Analysis, And Education Foundation and Dr. Edwin Vieira; Vision Forum Ministries, 4719 Blanco Rd., San Antonio, Texas 78212, http://www.visionforum.org; ISBN – 10 0-9755264-1-3; ISBN – 13 078-0-9755264-1-5.
   The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a Third Political Party to Win It by Nelson Hultberg; copyright 2009 by Nelson Hultberg; published by Americans for a Free Republic, P.O. Box 801213, Dallas, Texas 75380-1213; ISBN: 1-891191-45-4. Mr. Hultberg also works with The Daily Bell:
   Unalienable Rights And The Denial Of The U.S. Constitution
   by Michael E. LeMieux; copyright 2007 by Michael E. LeMieux; published by PUBLISHAMERICA,LLLP;
   http://www.publishamerica.com; Baltimore; ISBN: 1-60441-785-4;
   Michael LeMieux is the Nebraska chapter President for Oath Keepers.
   The Constitution In Exile: How the Federal Government has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law Of The Land. by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; copyright 2006 by Andrew P. Napolitano; published by Nelson Current, a division of a wholly owned subsidiary (Nelson Communications, Inc.) of Thomas Nelson, Inc., in Nashville, Tennessee; email: SpecialMarkets@ThomasNelson.com.
   Lies The Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History
   by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; foreword by Ron Paul; copyright 2010 by Andrew P. Napolitano; published in Nashville, Tennessee by Thomas Nelson, a trademark of Thomas Nelson, Inc.; ISBN: 978-1-59555-266-2.
   The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope
   by Sheriff Richard Mack ; copyright by Richard Mack 2009; published by Sheriff Mack, P.O. Box 971, Pima, Arizona 85543. http://www.sheriffmack.com
   Sheriff Mack is on the Board of Directors at Oath Keepers national.
   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, ISBN: 978-1-59698-149-2.
   http://www.regnery.com

3. 

   

Republican Betrayal

by Elias Alias
Sunday, February 27, 2011

The depth of ignorance regarding what is happening to our beloved America, and by extension what is happening to our beloved Montana, is staggering. I have said often that the elections of 2010 were a Tea Party victory, not a Republican victory. But as I watch how so many RINO Republicans continue to vote with the progressive statists against the array of liberty bills in the current legislative session, I begin to realize that there was no victory at all, or precious little, in the 2010 election in Montana. Maybe a small handful of truly Republican Tea Party candidates managed to get elected, and each of those who remain loyal to the nation’s founding principles is indeed a blessing to our State. But obviously some candidates were elected (and more were re-elected) who have no clue about our impending fate as Montanans caught up in the destruction of America.

I mentioned the word “ignorance”. I will elaborate briefly. I can recall the Bush-43 Administration with its imperial police-state Executive Orders and unconstitutional laws, which set up the platform which President Obama is now expanding. I recall people in Bozeman approaching me and telling me that they had once thought I was “full of it” when I spoke of the criminality of the Federal Reserve System, Inc., but that “now I’m afraid you’ve been right all along”.

Yes, I’ve heard that a lot over recent years as people in conservative circles begin to wake up to the sinister danger this illegal banking cartel has posed. And it is good that so many of our citizens in Montana are indeed figuring out that the Fed is bankrupting our nation as a whole and thereby threatening the several States which form our union. But very few indeed seem to be able to go further and realize the role the Fed has played in bringing this nation to the brink of destruction, and, for whom; and, for what purpose. It is indeed unfortunate that so few truly see what damage is being done at the Federal level, and at the International level. And it is sad that so few see how this shall impact Montana. The ripple effects are already upon us – loss of houses and farms, loss of jobs, rising prices due to the devaluation of the dollar, insecurity on all fronts, rising stress levels, fears of five-dollar-per-gallon gasoline, friction at home as families struggle to provide food and transportation, addiction to sports and other distractions, increasing crime rates, political conflict, general confusion and blanket ignorance. And foremost, a prevalent sense of denial.

I say that because until a majority of Montanans awaken to our impending peril, our State is very vulnerable and shall, month by month, continue to drift away from Montana’s historic values, traditions, freedoms, and blessings of life. We are losing our way of life. Many reading this email know this, and fear that it is true, yet most do not know how to approach an understanding of the problem. That ignorance precludes any realistic solution, and we are now seeing a deliberate refusal by some of our legislators to even consider that Montana could be in trouble. Despite revealing facts of known history, despite Supreme Court rulings, despite countless quoted passages from this nation’s founders, and despite my willingness to share damning evidence which proves my fears regarding Montana’s future to be valid, we see so-called Republicans flat-out denying logic, history, and their Oaths to both Constitutions to vote across the aisle with progressive statists against such bills as Sheriffs First and the Fully Informed Jury bill.

These legislators seem to feel personally challenged to cling to whatever view caused them to vote against freedom and prosperity, and they vehemently defend their votes against our liberty bills. But their “defense” of their votes against the people of Montana will not hold water, will not stand up in the light of truth, and that is why I am predicting that it is a waste of time to invite them to post their comments over at PolyMontana where Dr. Ed Berry has invited them to put in writing their views and motives and reasons for voting with the Democrats and statist-progressives. (See below)

What is going down in Helena at the 2011 legislative session is heart-breaking. I am at a loss for what to say. This was the chance for freedom, for truth, for Montana, to survive into the coming generation. But many of the “R”s themselves cannot even see that vision, couldn’t care less about saving Montana, and so they reach across that aisle to embrace the coming totalitarianism of the socialist-progressive agenda. Sadly, I do not think that they are doing this intentionally – I think that they are doing this in abject ignorance, which they adamantly protect as their vision by erecting a wall of denial which excludes anything the true patriots are trying to get into their heads. Two stand-out examples are Senator Jim Shockley and Representative David Howard – neither of whom can support their votes in light of informed knowledge which has been shared with them, and neither of whom is interested in even looking into the possibility that each may suffer from a misperception born of ignorance. And I can scream at the moon all day long, but those gentlemen are the ones who are empowered to vote against our liberty bills while all I can do is try to get them to see the light – in vain. Very well.

Because of this kind of hard-headed ignorance and entrenched denial, here is what I think we’ll see for Montana in the next two to three years – I hope I’m proven wrong! Print this out for future reference, and remember old Elias sent it to you on this day.

1- The failure of the dollar and its replacement or modification into a “basket of regional or global currencies”;
2- The implosion of the Federal Reserve System, Inc. and a run-up to hyper-inflation;
3- Government take-over of all infrastructure from communications to transportation to food service to energy etc;
4- Travel permits to cross State lines, coupled with relocation assignments;
5- Intensified government surveillance at work and at home;
6- Increased judicial powers;
7- Open presence of troops under NORTHCOM to secure public unrest – this will include foreign troops on U.S. soil;
8- State-sponsored “soup lines” or other Federal relief efforts;
9- Work camps overseen by military/police chains of command;
10- United Nations relief programs (which will destroy any sovereignty);
11- Rationing;
12- Curfews;
13- Conscription;
14- Civil War mixed/combined with Revolution;
15- A full-blown military-police form of government with suspension of the U.S. Constitution, suspension of the Bill of Rights, and suspension of habeas corpus.
16- The triumph of cultural Marxism and corporate fascism.

That is what ignorance in our legislature shall purchase for Montanans. The ignorance comes in many types, many forms. Ignorance of American history; ignorance of the Constitution; ignorance of America’s military history; ignorance of the Tax-exempt Foundations such as Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan; ignorance of the Federal Reserve; ignorance of the fraudulence of the 16th Amendment; ignorance of government-sponsored “psychological operations”; ignorance of state-sponsored terrorism and the so-called “war on terror”; ignorance of the so-called “war on drugs” and the devastation to our Constitution which has occurred under that guise; ignorance of the communist-socialist presence inside the Federal government; ignorance of the tentacles of the United Nations; ignorance of how money works and why; ignorance of the manipulations of the press and media; ignorance of the objectives of the National Education Association; ignorance of private sector think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission etc.; ignorance of the assault on Christianity and why that assault is ongoing; ignorance of this nation’s founding generation’s values and morality and ethics; ignorance of the term “personal responsibility”; ignorance of the value in liberty. There is a lot of ignorance sitting up there in Helena right now.

Yes, ignorance comes in many guises, is worn behind the appearances of many faces as those faces traffic the halls of our legislature. Ignorance, for example, allows a Senator to claim that the victory by the North in the Civil War is the precedent that the Federal government over-rides State sovereignty, “like it or not”. Ignorance allows a Governor to say this on one hand -
— Regarding Schweitzer’s declaration that he did not vote to nullify the Real ID Act, here is a picture of him signing “Montana’s formal rejection of the federal Real ID Act into law”. This was published on April 17, 2007, here:
From that article –
“‘The best way for Montana to deal with the federal government on this issue and many others is to say ‘No. Nope. No way and hell no,’” Schweitzer said. Montana is among a number of state legislatures throughout the country rejecting Real ID…”

And now the good Governor is saying this on the other hand – (same Governor):

From here:
“But a state like Montana saying, ‘We will pick and choose which laws we will enforce?’ ” the governor said. “That’s not the American way. … “Some of these (bills) are actually passing. … The nullifying bills are anti-American.”

Which is it, good Governor? To speak two opposites out of the same mouth is ignorance of the law, and indicates an even greater ignorance of a personal nature, does it not? And Montanans’ lives and futures are subject to this kind of double-talk, sadly.

All of you so-called Republicans who voted against the Tea Party’s liberty bills already, and who shall continue to vote against freedom and sovereignty for Montana, I’m forwarding to you now an invitation by Dr. Ed Berry of PolyMontana to have the decency to tell your constituents *why* you have voted against our liberty bills, and to make your statement in the comments section at the link below.
Begin message from Dr. Berry with invitation to current legislators:

Read who were the 20 Republicans who voted with the Democrats to not nullify Obama Care in Montana.

Forward this email to your elected Republicans who voted against you and who you thought were your Patriot representatives. Ask them to please explain the reasons for their vote in a comment on PolyMontana.com under the above article. Hey, maybe they have a good reason we are not aware of. We will listen.

Do it now.
Salute!
Elias Alias
–
Heirs to self knowledge shed gently their fears.

States Seek Sound Money System
March 6th, 2011“Although control of the monetary and banking systems has serious political significance, the apologists of the Federal Reserve System have been extremely successful in the last seventy years or so in removing monetary and banking issues from the agendas of the political parties, candidates, and anybody else who is on the political platform or in the political arena. – Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.Several State legislatures are introducing resolutions to create commissions to study alternate money systems for their people in the event that the Federal Reserve System, Inc., implodes or otherwise mismanages its fiat currency programs. The term, “Hyper-Inflation” is used.Economists and political devotees around the nation now are admitting that the Fed may have jeopardized its ability to maintain our annual rate of inflation at controllable levels, and the bailouts and stimulus packages give grave concern to those who study money’s relation to the laws of economics.Tennessee’s legislature is following Virginia’s, South Carolina’s, and Montana’s legislatures in recommending that its State government look into creating an alternative money system to compete with the Fed’s fiat, debt-based “legal-tender” money system – or to replace the Federal Reserve Notes if the dollar is allowed to go into hyper-inflation.From here, WSMV we read:State Sen. Bill Ketron said he believes the federal government is implementing many things that are not sustainable, and he wants to make sure Tennessee is prepared in case the bubble pops. That’s why he wants to set up a committee to look into what it would take for Tennessee to come up with an alternate currency. He said there’s concern hyperinflation could render the U.S. dollar worthless and could throw the state’s budget and economy into chaos. Since the federal government hasn’t come up with a backup plan, Ketron thinks the state should exercise its 10th Amendment right to do so.So that sentiment is now before the Tennessee State Legislature. The text of the legislation is here:Is it paranoia, or fear-mongering, when various State legislatures talk about the Federal Reserve System’s imminent failure and begin preparations to study the implementation of alternate money systems for their respective States?The book-cooking gurus on Wall Street and at the Federal Reserve have much to say by way of reassurance, but the simple fact is that “legal tender” laws cannot check a run-away currency which has been excessively over-printed while no real increase in backing has occurred in the workplace.The danger posed by carrying out the bailouts and stimulus packages, plus endless war financing abroad coupled with a Homeland Security military-police-state domestically, lies in the temptation to just print more money to pitch at the problems. There is a catch to that trick, however.The gross domestic product is what the working people of America generate by doing what they do each day. That GDP is a solid figure, measureable, and is the basis of our economy. When the Fed just prints up a few extra billion dollars, creating Federal debt in the process, all the previously-existing dollars in circulation become worth slightly less, owing to the fact that the GDP did not grow to match the newly created influx of fresh money.The vernacular term for this money-tweaking magic is “Inflation”.History has shown the folly in doing this, yet the Fed swears by the system. But the Fed, which is a privately-owned banking cartel and is not an agency of the U.S. Federal government, demands as much secrecy as does our CIA and is now playing a game which historians assure us has been played by other nations in the past. This game has deadly consequences. No fiat money system on earth has been sustainable in the long term, and all previous fiat currencies have failed or crashed.Montana’s Honorable Representative Bob Wagner introduced a sound money resolution into the 2009 Montana legislature session, where it stalled. In this current session he has a stronger version of the bill. He has stated –“Our object isn’t to forcibly replace Federal Reserve notes with sound money. History and the dynamics of a failing financial system will likely do that without any input from us. Passage of this Bill will provide the option, template and the mechanism to give Montana a worthy alternative to insolvency should the existing Federal Reserve System fail.”Meanwhile, in Virginia’s legislature, Representative R. G. Marshall introduced HJR-557. Opening lines of that resolution include this –HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 557

Offered January 12, 2011

Prefiled January 5, 2011

Establishing a joint subcommittee to study whether the Commonwealth should adopt a currency to serve

as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major

breakdown of the Federal Reserve System. Report.

–––

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 554

(1891), that “the police power” of a State “is a power originally and always belonging to the States, not

surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United

States, and essentially exclusive”; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Beer Company v. Massachusetts,

97 U.S. 25, 33 (1877), that the police power of the States “extend[s] to the protection of the lives,

health, and property of the[ir] citizens, and to the preservation of good order”; and

WHEREAS, the protection of the lives, health, and property of Virginia’s citizens, and the

preservation of good order in the Commonwealth, depend upon the maintenance of both an adequate

system of governmental finance and a sound and robust private economy; and

WHEREAS, an adequate system of governmental finance and a sound and robust private economy

cannot be maintained in the absence of a sound currency; and

WHEREAS, the present monetary and banking systems of the United States, centered around the

Federal Reserve System, have come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years, and will

be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come; and

WHEREAS, many widely recognized experts predict the inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve

System’s currency through hyperinflation in the foreseeable future; and

WHEREAS, in the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the

breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, for which the Commonwealth is not prepared, the

Commonwealth’s governmental finances and Virginia’s private economy will be thrown into chaos, with

gravely detrimental effects upon the lives, health, and property of Virginia’s citizens, and with

consequences fatal to the preservation of good order throughout the Commonwealth; (snip)

-

That is fairly strong language, and a lot of that language can be derived from the works of Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., author and Constitutional scholar. A few hyperlinks can introduce readers to Dr. Vieira’s works:

The Book: Pieces of Eight — the Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution: A Study in Constitutional Law.

Advanced Knowledge: The Purse And The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira. An eight-hour course on four DVDs, this could be the most important purchase you’ll make this year.

“Self government is not a spectator sport.” – Edwin Vieira. Hear Dr. Vieira say that in context at this next link. Please view this ten minute interview with Edwin Vieira on the Alex Jones show.

The Knowledge: A remarkable essay entitled Restoring the Dollar

Quoting from that essay by Dr. Vieira:

The evolution of the Federal Reserve system exemplifies a typical historical devolution or corruption of monetary systems throughout the world for the last two centuries. This is a devolution from commodity money to fiduciary money to fiat money.

But first here are some definitions:

Commodity money is a medium of exchange, the units of which are fixed amounts of an actual commodity that has value other than as money alone. Historically, silver and gold coins of known standard weights and designs emerged as the preferred monies of the civilized world. Certainly that was the result at the end of the last century.

With commodity money, the actual commodity, the silver or the gold, is both the medium of exchange and the standard of value. The supply of commodity money is self-limited because of the costs of minting, refining, and coining the silver and gold. New supplies of commodity money will be coined only to the extent that coinage is economically profitable. The market will simply not produce more gold and silver coin than is necessary compared to all the other uses of that capital.

Fiduciary money is composed of some intrinsically valueless substance, typically paper, which the issuer promises to redeem on demand in commodity money. Private bank notes and government treasury notes served for fiduciary monies in general circulation prior to the 1930’s in this country.

With fiduciary money, the promise to pay is the medium of day-to-day exchange. That is what people carry around in their pockets. But the actual money and the ultimate standard of value remains the promised medium of payment, the silver or gold coin.

The supply of fiduciary medium is also self-limited by the requirement of redemption. In a free market system, in which contracts are enforced, the supply of fiduciary money is issued only to the extent that the issuer is confident it can satisfy the demands for redemption. (The self-limiting aspect of fiduciary money has always failed whenever the government or a powerful private interest has been able to step in and license the issuers of the fiduciary money to suspend or to repudiate that promise to redeem.)

Finally, fiat money is composed of some intrinsically valueless substance which the issuer does not promise to redeem in a commodity or in a fiduciary money. Because fiat money has no legal connection to a commodity money, and, therefore, has no real economic cost in terms of production, the supply of fiat money is never self-limiting and is always largely a matter of public confidence in the economic or political stability of the issuer.

Historically, every major fiat money has self-destructed in what is commonly called hyperinflation, that is, extreme decreases in purchasing power that is caused either by unlimited increase in supply by the issuer or simply by loss of public confidence in the value of the money or in the economic or political fortunes of the issuer.

-end quoted passage from Dr. Vieira’s essay entitled Restoring The Dollar –

There are now several States considering alternative money systems. This is the money America’s founders required in the Constitution itself. It is not paranoia – it is facing a reality which is now visible by simply knowing twentieth century American history.

But as we know now today that old history, we also are aware of current events, such as the G-20 financial planning meeting in Pennsylvania, the existence of a Bank for International Settlements which is the global central bank for all national central banks, a World Bank, an International Monetary Fund, a World Court, and a world governing body called the United Nations. We see the infrastructure for consolidation of vast regional economies into what is referred to as a “global economy”. We know that very powerful people in key positions of governance and finance refer to and act upon the reality of that global economy and that they have spoken publicly, published, in fact, a shared plan to dominate the world through directing the activity of that global economy in the policies of nearly two hundred member nations on the roster of the UN. Here, in the words of one of their own, is a rather point-blank confession:

(From page 324 in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope.)

“[....] The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world.” ~ Professor Carroll Quigley [emphasis EA]

We must ask, if indeed the Federal Reserve System, Inc., were to self-destruct into hyper-inflation, what would our governmental and economic leaders/planners do?

It appears that they plan to put into effect a Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon, and FEMA interfaced system of enforced order while consolidating State, national, and International (UN) forces to maintain civil order and infrastructure – and – to introduce a regional or global currency such as the SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) of the BIS (Bank for International Settlements, created in 1930 and kept well hidden from the public discourse under the most rigid non-national charter of secrecy known to man – no government authority from any nation on earth can question or audit the BIS, which grants employees international diplomatic immunity from all national laws of all national governments or international governing bodies such as the UN or the EU).

In other words, once the gamut of fractional reserve, fiat styled tom-foolery has been completed and the Federal Reserve System has been corrupted to the point of self-destruction through fiat-caused hyper-inflation, and the U.S. and world economies are thrown into chaos, the world planners intend to bring in the global version of this Federal Reserve System on the back of a global currency (or a basket of regional currencies). In their view, the IMF/World Bank can become the world’s “Federal Reserve” and they can then begin their fiat enterprise anew, with no authority left on this earth to oppose it.

That would be the final take-down of the U.S. Constitution, the end of American sovereignty as an autonomous nation on this earth, and the unchecked, unbridled rule by a corporate-fascist culture of Marxism relying upon the force of global governance to police humanity in all sectors. Our freedom as individual Americans is what is at stake as some of our courageous and visionary State legislators introduce bills for sound money into State legislative processes.

And that is an inkling, a brief glance, into what is behind Oath Keepers new mission in the Veterans community across America, in which our Veterans shall take up this torch of knowledge and assist in restoring in their respective communities the Oath Keepers three-tiered plan to restore the Republic –

1 — Sound Money;

2 — Preparedness; and

3 — the Reinstitution at the local and County level of the Constitutionally required lawful “well regulated militia” of the several States.

The purpose of coordinating these three areas of action, sound money, preparedness, and reinstituting the lawful militia, is to establish a foundation on which to rebuild in the several States their original status of sovereignty. State sovereignty is the constitutionally-provided answer to Federal tyranny, as the Tenth Amendment Center so clearly shows. State sovereignty depends on the people of the several States and their adoption of sound money, a degree of personal, community, and state-wide preparedness against possible disruptions, and the security provided by the totality of the citizenry in their lawful, well-regulated militias.

Oath Keepers will unveil our Alliance of Liberty Leadership (ALL)

in the Spring of 2011, and charge the Veterans community with front-lines action in accordance with the faithful fulfillment of their Oath in their own local communities. In the meantime, one truly patriotic action each Oath Keeper can do is to support these courageous statesmen who are introducing and promoting bills at the State level to accept their responsibilities as States of the union to ensure economic stability for their people through sound money legislation. Urge your legislatures to pass these bills. Support those who vote for sound money, and replace those who vote against sound money. And whatever else we all do as individuals, support the Tenth Amendment Center and Oath Keepers!

I will close by asking each reader to recall with me a favorite Tea Party rally sign, held by an unknown woman at a public Tea Party event:

“If they can just print money when they need it, why are we paying taxes?”

-

Copyright Elias Alias and Oath Keepers 2011

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, http://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? Anyo

Why Oath Keepers

1. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/02/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 20th 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/

   Comment by bonfiresblog | May 3, 2011 | Edit | Reply

2. [...] Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, BonfiresBlog, and to [...]

   Pingback by The Myth Of Federal Authority | PolyMontana | May 8, 2011 | Edit | Reply

3. Nice Post. It’s really a very good article. I noticed all your important points. Thanks”

   Comment by facebook poker chips | May 14, 2011 | Edit | Reply

USA PATRIOT ACT Sunsets Extension Act statements May 2011

June 10th, 2011

There is a remarkable point of interest brought out in this transcript of a Congressional hearing regarding extending the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001. I hope all readers here will read this carefully and ask the right questions after reading. One question might be: “Why would our government want to keep its interpretation of our law secret from the American people?”  – Posted by Elias Alias

-

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2011_cr/wyden052411.html

[Congressional Record: May 24, 2011 (Senate)]
[Page S3247-S3262]

PATRIOT SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011--Motion to Proceed [...]
  Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. It seems to me the Senator has laid out the case
for  why there needs to be a thoughtful debate about the PATRIOT
Act and what is necessary to strike the key balance between
fighting  terrorism ferociously and protecting our liberties.
  I am interested in what my colleague thinks about the
proposition of how you have a thoughtful debate on these issues,
when there is secret law where, in effect, the interpretation
of the law, as it stands today, is kept secret. So here we are,
Senators on the floor, and we have colleagues of both political
 parties wanting to participate. 

Certainly, if you are an American, you are in Oregon or Colorado,
you are listening in, you want to be part of this discussion.
But yet the executive branch keeps secret how they are
interpreting the law. What is the Senator's sense about how we
have a thoughtful debate  if that continues?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from Oregon has put his
finger on why it is so important to have a debate on the floor
and not rush these provisions to the House because of a deadline
that I think we can push back. We can, as you know, extend
the PATRIOT Act in its present form a number of other days or
a number of weeks in order to get this right.   

But the Senator from Oregon makes the powerful point that the law
should not be classified--as far as its interpretation goes.
Of course, we can protect sources and methods and operations, as
we well should. Both of us serve on the Intelligence Committee.
We are privy to some information that should be classified. But
we have come to the floor to make this case because of what we
have learned on the Intelligence Committee.
[...]

 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the
Chamber, I wished to tell him what a welcome addition he has
been to the Intelligence Committee. I have served on that
committee for 10 years. We have had excellent chairs--first,
Senator Roberts, then Senator Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein.
  So we continue to try to look for bipartisan support for
trying to strike that balance between collective security
and individual liberty. I am struck both by the clarity of
your statement and the fact that those who are going to vote
on these amendments and the American people who are listening
in tonight ought to be able to get, in a straightforward,
easy-to-access fashion, how the executive branch is currently

interpreting the PATRIOT Act.   

   The fact is, law professors give assignments to their
students to write analyses of the PATRIOT Act. The
Congressional Research Service actually has an analysis
 out. But it is not possible to get the official
interpretation of how the U.S. Government frames this
law as far as the operations are so essential for our
country. The Senator has laid it out very well. It is
a pleasure to serve with him on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, let me sum up with what this issue has come
down to, to me.

 These are dangerous times. If you go into the Intelligence
Committee several times a week, as Senator Udall and I do, you
come away with the indisputable judgment that there are
threats to the well-being of this country, that there are
people who do not wish our citizens well. In these
dangerous times, the sources and methods of our antiterror 

operations absolutely must be kept secret. 

 That is fundamental to the work of the intelligence
community-- keeping the sources and methods of those who
serve us so gallantly secret and ensuring that they are
as safe as possible.  But while we protect those sources
and methods, the laws that authorize them should not be
kept secret from the American people. That is what this
is all about--whether the laws that authorize the 

operations that are so essential, which have been passed
by the Congress--that their interpretation should be
kept secret from the American people.
   I call it ``secret law.'' I want to say to this body,
yes, we need secret operations, but secret law is bad for our
democracy. It will undermine the confidence the American 

people have in our intelligence operations.

 You might recall that it was only a few years ago, during the
Bush administration, that they secretly reinterpreted the
warrantless wiretapping statutes to say that it was possible to
wiretap our people without a warrant. When it came out, it took
years to sort that out, with the executive branch and the
Congress working together. 

   I don't want to see that happen again.
So that is why I have joined Senator Udall in these
amendments, and we hope we can get bipartisan
support for what we are trying to do and especially
ensure that the official interpretation of the PATRIOT
Act, an important intelligent statute, is made public 

to the American people, and I think it can be done 

in a way without jeopardizing our sources and methods.

 One of the reasons Senator Udall, I, and others feel so
strongly about this is--and Senator Udall touched on this
--that this is a time when Congress should finally say we
are not just going to keep kicking the can down the road.
That is what has been done again and again over the last
decade. The PATRIOT Act was passed a decade ago, during a
period of understandable fear, having suffered in our
Nation the greatest terrorist attack in our history.So
the PATRIOT Act was born out of those great fears. 

  It seems to me that now is the time to revisit that and
ensure that a better job is done of striking the balance
between fighting terror and protecting individual liberty.
Unfortunately, every time over the last decade there has
been an effort to do just that --revisit this and strike a
better balance--we have had the same pattern; we have said
we just have to get it done quickly and we really don't
have any time to consider, for example, the thoughtful 

ideas Senator Udall has mentioned. I just don't think it
is time now to once again put off a real debate on the
PATRIOT Act for yet another always-distant day.  

  There is an irony about what this is all about, and
that is that Senators are going to want to consider
the amendments of Senator Udall--and I believe Senator
Paul is here, and others who care strongly about this.
It is awfully hard to have a thoughtful debate on these
specific amendments, whether it is the Leahy amendment,
the Paul amendment, the Udall amendment, or the ones we 

have together, if, in fact, you cannot figure out how the
executive branch is interpreting the law.
  An open and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act requires
that we get beyond the fact that the executive branch
relies on the secret legal interpretations to support
their work, and Members of the Senate try to figure out
what those interpretations are. 

 Here are the rules. If a U.S. Senator wants to go to the
Intelligence Committee--and I think Senator Udall touched
on this-- the Senator can go there and get a briefing.
Many Members of Congress, however, don't have staff
members who are cleared for those kinds of briefings.
Under Senate rules, it is not possible for Senators to
come down here and discuss what they may have picked
up in one of those classified briefings. 

  I just don't think, with respect to the legal interpretation,
that is what the American people believe we ought to be doing.
The American people want secret operations protected.
They understand what sources and methods are all about
and that we have to have secrecy, for example, for those
in the intelligence community to get the information we
need about sleeper cells and terrorist groups and threats
we learn about in the Intelligence Committee. 

   But that is very different from keeping these legal
interpretations secret. 

 In my view, the current situation is simply
unacceptable. The American people recognize
that their government can better protect national
security if it sometimes is allowed to operate in secrecy. 

  They certainly don't expect the executive branch to
publish every detail about how intelligence is collected.
Certainly, Americans never expected George Washington
to tell them about his plans for observing troop movement
at Yorktown. But Americans have always expected their
government to operate within the boundaries of publicly

understood law.
As voters, they certainly have a right to know how
the law is being interpreted so that the American people
can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf.
To put it another way, Americans know their government will
sometimes conductsecret operations, but they 

[[Page S3260]] don't believe the government ought to 

be writing secret law. 

  The reason we have felt so strongly about this issue of secret
law is that it violates the trust Americans place in their
government and it undermines public confidence in government
agencies and institutions, making it harder to operate effectively.
I was on the Intelligence Committee, before Senator Udall joined
us, when Americans were pretty much stunned to learn the Bush
administration had been secretly claiming for years that
warrantless wiretapping was legal. My own view was that disclosure
significantly undermined the public trust in the Department of
Justice and our national intelligence agencies. Our phones were
ringing off the hook for days when the American people learned
about it. The Congress and executive branch had to retrench and
figure out how to sort it out.

   I certainly believe the public will be surprised again
when they learn about some of the interpretations of the
PATRIOT Act. Government officials cannot hope to indefinitely
prevent the American people from learning the truth. This
is going to come out, colleagues. It is going to come out
at some point, just as it came out during the Bush
administration about warrantless wiretapping. It is
going to come out. It is not going to be helpful to the
kind of dialog we want to have with the American people, 

an open and honest dialog, to just continue this practice 

of secret law.
  The reason I am offering or seeking to offer this amendment
with Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and other colleagues
with respect to changing the practice of secret law is
that we have raised this issue numerous times--on the
Senate floor, in correspondence, in meetings with senior
administration officials--and I have been joined in the
past by other Senators, and we talked about it with
respect to the problem in the news media. But the 

problem persists and the gap between the public's
understanding of the PATRIOT Act and the government's
secret interpretation of it remains today. Once information
has been labeled "secret," there is a strong bureaucratic
tendency--it almost gets in the bureaucratic chromosomes
to keep it secret and not revisit the original decision.  

  So what Senator Udall and I and colleagues seek to do
is correct this problem. We seek to offer an amendment
that states that it is entirely appropriate for particular
intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret
but that the laws that authorize these techniques should
not be kept secret and should instead be transparent
to the public. We seek to offer an amendment that states
that U.S. Government officials should not secretly
reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that 

is inconsistent with the public's understanding of these
laws or describe the execution of these laws in a way
that misinforms or misleads the public.

  So under this proposal, the Attorney General and Director
of National Intelligence would--and we note
this--provide a classified report to the congressional
intelligence committees. It makes it clear that intelligence
collection continues to go forward, and our amendment
would simply require the Attorney General to publicly
lay out the legal basis for the intelligence activities 

described in the report. The amendment specifically directs
the Attorney General not to describe specific collection,
programs, or activities, but simply to fully describe
the legal interpretations and analyses necessary to
understand the government's official interpretation of 

the law.   

Let me close--I see colleagues waiting to speak--and say
that we can have honest and legitimate disagreements
about exactly how broad intelligence collection authorities
ought to be, and members of the public do not expect
to know all of the details about how those authorities
are used, but I hope each Senator would agree that
the law itself should not be kept secret and that
the government should always be open and honest with
the American people about what the law means. All
that Senator Udall and I seek to do, along with
other colleagues, is to restore some of that
openness and honesty in an area where it is now needed.
I hope colleagues on the floor of the Senate and in
the Obama administration will join in that effort.

 __________________________

[Congressional Record: May 24, 2011 (Senate)]
[Page S3281-S3286]
                   AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED 
  SA 339. Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
 Merkley, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1038, to extend
the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until June 1, 2015, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
       At the end, add the following:
     SEC. 3. REPORT ON INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES.
       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
        that--        

(1) in democratic societies, citizens rightly expect that
 their government will not arbitrarily keep information secret
 from the public but instead will act with secrecy only in
 certain limited circumstances;
(2) the United States Government has an inherent
 responsibility to protect American citizens from foreign
 threats and sometimes relies on clandestine methods to learn
 information about foreign adversaries, and these intelligence
 collection methods are often most effective when they remain
 secret;
(3) American citizens recognize that their government may rely
 on secret intelligence sources and collection methods to
 ensure national security and public safety, and American
 citizens also expect intelligence activities to be conducted
 within the boundaries of publicly understood law;
(4) it is essential for the American public to have access
 to enough information to determine how government officials
 are interpreting the law, so that voters can ratify or reject
 decisions that elected officials make on their behalf;
 (5) it is essential that Congress have informed and open
 debates about the meaning of existing laws, so that members
 of Congress are able to consider whether laws are written
 appropriately, and so that members of Congress may be held
 accountable by their constituents;
 (6) United States Government officials should not secretly
 reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that is
 inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws,
 and should not describe the execution of these laws in a way
 that misinforms or misleads the public;
 (7) On February 2, 2011, the congressional intelligence
 committees received a secret report from the Attorney General
 and the Director of National Intelligence that has been
 publicly described as pertaining to intelligence collection
 authorities that are subject to expiration under section 224
 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 295);
 and
 (8) while it is entirely appropriate for particular
 intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret, the
 laws that authorize such techniques, and the United States
 Government's official interpretation of these laws, should
 not be kept secret but should instead be transparent to the
 public, so that these laws can be the subject of informed
 public debate and consideration.
 (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
 enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish in
 the Federal Register a report--
 (1) that details the legal basis for the intelligence
 collection activities described in the February 2, 2011,
 report to the congressional intelligence committees; and
 (2) that does not describe specific intelligence collection
 programs or activities, but that fully describes the legal
 interpretations and analysis necessary to understand the
 United States Government's official interpretation of the
 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801
 et seq.).
                                 ______

June 13th, 2011

The Mother of All Leaks

Pentagon

I found a link to an announcement that The Pentagon Papers is to be released online. It’s like, re-leaking the leak of all leaks.

http://www.salon.com/news/pentagon/?story=/news/feature/2011/06/13/us_pentagon_papers

Decades after leak, Pentagon Papers coming out

Release is timed 40 years to the day after The New York Times published its first story on the report’s findings

By CALVIN WOODWARD and RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Pres

Forty years after the explosive leak of the Pentagon Papers, a secret government study chronicling deception and misadventure in U.S. conduct of the Vietnam War, the report is coming out in its entirety on Monday.

The 7,000-page report was the WikiLeaks disclosure of its time, a sensational breach of government confidentiality that shook Richard Nixon’s presidency and prompted a Supreme Court fight that advanced press freedom. Prepared near the end of Lyndon Johnson’s term by Defense Department and private foreign policy analysts, the report was leaked primarily by one of them, Daniel Ellsberg, in a brash act of defiance that stands as one of the most dramatic episodes of whistleblowing in U.S. history.

The National Archives and presidential libraries are releasing the report in full, long after most of its secrets had spilled. The release is timed 40 years to the day after The New York Times published the first in its series of stories about the findings, on June 13, 1971. The papers showed that the Johnson, Kennedy and prior administrations had been escalating the conflict in Vietnam while misleading Congress, the public and allies.

As scholars pore over the 47-volume report, Ellsberg says the chance of them finding great new revelations is dim. Most of it has come out in congressional forums and by other means, and Ellsberg plucked out the best when he painstakingly photocopied pages that he spirited from a safe night after night, and returned in the mornings. He told The Associated Press the value in Monday’s release was in having the entire study finally brought together and put online, giving today’s generations ready access to it.

At the time, Nixon was delighted that people were reading about bumbling and lies by his predecessor, which he thought would take some anti-war heat off him. But if he loved the substance of the leak, he hated the leaker.

He called the leak an act of treachery and vowed that the people behind it “have to be put to the torch.” He feared that Ellsberg represented a left-wing cabal that would undermine his own administration with damaging disclosures if the government did not crush him and make him an example for all others with loose lips. It was his belief in such a conspiracy, and his willingness to combat it by illegal means, that put him on the path to the Watergate scandal that destroyed his presidency.

Read the rest of the story at original link, above.

-

Of course, some of us actually bought a copy of the Pentagon Papers when the New York Times published it years ago. Even so, I am glad to see that the documents will now be available online.

The Pentagon Papers

As leaked to and published by the New York Times in 1971; copyright 1971 by the New York Times; cloth edition available Quadrangle Books, Inc., 12 E. Delaware Place, Chicago, Illinois 60611; published by Bantam Books, Inc., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10019.

I would also like to note for readers that Ellsberg has a book which is a must-read, as it gives the details of his conviction to leak the study to the press. I bought my copy in December, 2002.

Secrets: Memoirs of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers

by Daniel Ellsberg; copyright 2002 by Daniel Ellsberg; published by the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, USA; ISBN:  0-670-03030-9.

As a sharp and highly recommended Rand Corporation big gun, Ellsberg was requested by then-Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to work on McNamara’s massive project to analyze U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia going back to World War II and bringing the study forward through the Johnson Administration.  This was a top-secret study conducted by the Pentagon, and Ellsberg was given the highest security clearances at the White House, Pentagon, State Department, and I’m supposing, anywhere else he needed to poke around. McNamara gave Ellsberg and his cohorts on the study the keys to America’s government’s deepest secrets involving Southeast Asia. For you Viet vets reading here, you may want to look into America’s deal with Ho Chi Minh during the early 1940s as we bribed him to use his underground army alongside us to fight the Japanese, supplying his Viet Minh underground army, only to throw him to Peking and Moscow after he helped us defeat the Japanese in Southeast Asia.

What Ellsberg discovered bothered him, but as you’ll read in his book “Secrets”, he met an Indian woman with that “dot” on her forehead between her eyes, who had a conversation with him one afternoon which changed his life. She told him that her dialect in India did not contain a word for “enemy”, and that struck Ellsberg in a profound way, causing him to spiral into an inward journey into his own heart.  The book reads like a thriller as we read how he designed a plan to get actual copies of the study into safe hands in several States before “leaking” it to the New York Times.

We then learn how Nixon responded by getting a court to shut down the New York Times’ publication of this material, after which Ellsberg’s next-in-line newspaper picked up where the NYT left off and began publishing the material. When Nixon shut that paper down from printing it, low and behold a third newspaper picked up where that paper had left off, and repeat yet again as finally a fourth paper began publishing it and Nixon’s machine could not ultimately stop it from going public.  Ellsberg had planned the leak impeccably, as we’d expect from a highly-respected super dude at Rand Corporation.

Nixon was beside himself, as this study showed clearly that the Defense Department and the military-industrial complex had every intention of extending the war as long as they could get the American people to pay for it, meanwhile raking in huge profits while our soldiers were dying in a meaningless war which also killed two million Vietnamese peasants in their straw huts and their rice fields.

Nixon went berserk on the FBI, demanding they catch and arrest Ellsberg (I won’t repeat the names Nixon used to describe Ellsberg). The book details how he successfully evaded capture by the FBI. As I said, this book reads like a thriller, but it’s all true.

Secrets also has some choice excerpts from the Oval Office tapes which Nixon made famous, including one scene in which Nixon is talking with Kissinger about this problem of catching an elusive Ellsberg. The language on those tapes would make a Sailor blush. But Nixon couldn’t catch him, and Ellsberg finally turned himself in at the appropriate time, and then defeated the Nixon Administration in Federal court and walked away a free man.

This event was the singular most important turning point in the Vietnam war, for it exposed the intensely-high levels of corruption at the most powerful seats in Washington D.C., the Pentagon, and on Wall Street, all of whom had been deliberately lying to the American people big time.  Combined with Watergate, it cost Nixon the Presidency and he resigned in disgrace rather than face the Impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, which he knew he could not win.

So enjoy the new release of The Pentagon Papers, but you history buffs will certainly want to include a copy of Ellsberg’s “Secrets” in your collection.

Salute!

Elias Alias

.

*Elias Alias, Oath Keeper, used this hate groups venue  to do excellent damage control in light of what the SPLC has in mind to degrade and mark all potential Montana ‘state militias’ aka ‘home guards’ as extremists using this mans actions as an example.

Militia Leader Sought After Shots Fired at Officers

.

• Elias Alias said,

  on June 15th, 2011 at 2:23 am

  Just for the sake of objectivity, and not to steal SPLC’s thunder, but to add some touch of basic perceptive info based on fact, perhaps someone could have edited into this article the correct number of militiamen in this guy’s Project 7 Militia. Can SPLC come up with a number of soldiers in this guy’s “militia”?

  I found in reading this article that it carries an undertone of exaggerated exploitation of the word “militia”. This guy’s “militia” consists (consisted in 2002) of what – five or ten guys back in 2002 when it was busted? Or was it only three or four of them? Whatever the “militia” membership, it amounted to no more than the sordid collection of ungentlemanly gents congregated at the south end of a Saloon’s long bar, in the section reserved for the Dirty Dogs club, where boisterous and risky conversation float up like tiny bubbles in drink glasses and the big bad boys with bigger mouths enjoy letting their imaginations run wild before staggering home to sleep it off.

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not recall their having killed anyone. In fact, when they were busted in 2002 they had not even shot at anyone, to the best of my memory. I seem to recall instead that they were perceived by law enforcement to be “planning” to take down some law enforcement personnel and a judge or two, and that was established by finding in their possession a list of deputies’ names and addresses and the names and addresses of some judges. (That’s why many Montanans don’t keep phone books in their homes, yes?)

  I do not mean to lessen the gravity of this guy’s current misbehavior, and if he did shoot at peace officers I would hope he is quickly brought to justice and that no officers are harmed in doing so.

  But lest readers here get the notion that Montana is bristling with militia armies behind every hill in a long and large wilderness of Rocky Mountains, I would suggest that this guy and a couple of his pals are extremely isolated examples of criminal mentality and in no way represent the people of Montana or our perception of how to live responsible, productive, and peaceful lives here in one of America’s most beautiful States.

  I would also add that Montana’s law enforcement enjoys a rather high standard for honesty and integrity in the execution of their duties, and if they say that this guy fired a gun at officers, then I tend to believe them. But all things considered we should also recall that last month, in the first week of May, 2011, the Sheriff’s office of Pima County, Arizona issued statements to the press which said that Jose Guerena fired “bullets” (plural, as in, more than just one bullet) at a SWAT team which had just busted down his front door at his house near Tucson – and that report, repeated for two or three days in the press and media, was later rescinded and the Sheriff’s Department there was caught in an outright lie – Guerena did not fire his rifle even one time as he died violently in a hail of 71 bullets fired by the SWAT team in his hallway, being hit more than twenty times. I mention that because we have in the past seen various examples of lying, falsifying, and obfuscating from police or Sheriff reports coming out of situations like this.

  But I want to be clear – Montana’s law enforcement, except in several of our larger cities (all four of them, with the largest being only a little over one-hundred-thousand in population, btw) where some ego-warps manage to get into law enforcement while possessing power-trip mentalities and end up abusing the citizens, consists of very admirable and respectable women and men of high moral standards. So if Montana law enforcement says the guy shot at officers, I tend to believe them.

  But wisdom usually suggests awaiting all the facts before drawing conclusions, as we learned last month with the Pima County, Arizona SWAT team’s statements about a young Marine who had served two tours in Iraq, worked a good job, had bought his family a house, and was not charged with any crime – but was related to several people who are at least “accused” of crimes involving the Devil’s Own marijuana.
  Here is an accounting of what happened at Tucson last month

  http://oathkeepers.org/oath/20…..-part-one/

  Roll on, SPLC. Thanks for the venue.
  Salute!
  Elias Alias, Oath Keepers dot org

June 18th, 2011

American Banks ‘High’ On Drug Money_Part 1

[Note from Elias Alias: This article is thorough, and I've found that almost all thorough articles these days require too many words, are too long, and tend to discourage some readers because of the length necessary to give the complete picture. Considering that, I've decided to post this article in two parts, as well as provide the link where readers can see it at the original site. The reason I want to post this article in full is to insure that the article remains available. This is one very important story, and the mainstream media/press has no interest in sharing this information with the average American voter. But no matter how much the media and press hate to admit this, here is the ugly truth, or part of it, behind the so-called "war on drugs". One last thing please - when reading this article, please keep in mind my article entitled Oath Keeping At The ATF, and muse upon the question of how government gun-running to the Mexican drug cartels may now be seen in tandem with corrupt banking and lax Federal transparency. See footnote #1 below article for link.]

American Banks ‘High’ On Drug Money: How a Whistleblower Blew the Lid Off Wachovia-Drug Cartel Money Laundering Scheme

A fraud investigator helped expose the shocking world of multi-billion dollar drug laundering by American banks and the surprising lack of oversight by the Feds.

June 10, 2011 |

Read original here: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151135/?page=entire

Martin Woods, an Englishman in his mid-40s, is blessed with a Sherlock Holmes instinct and demeanor. Woods is an expert at sniffing out “dirty” money passing through International Banking Systems.

A police officer for 18 years and later a detective with London Metro Police Agency, Woods capitalized on his unique expertise as a fraud expert by joining Wachovia’s London-based Bank in March 2005 as an anti-money laundering officer.

It wasn’t long after taking the job that he discovered that his own employer, one of America’s leading banks, was a major player in aiding the “bloodthirsty” Mexico drug cartels to launder billions of dollars in drug money through Wachovia banks. Woods traced and identified a “number of suspicious transactions” related to Mexico-based Casa de Cambios (CDC).

Casa de Cambios are currency-exchange operations set up along the U.S. Mexico-border to assist cross border transfers of money to remit labor paychecks. And on the illegal side the Casa de Cambios are also known as the superhighway for narcotic proceeds into the U.S. and overseas financial markets.

When Woods zeroed in on deposited traveler’s checks with sequential numbers sent by the CDC he discovered that large amounts of funds were exceedingly more than a typical person would need. The questionable CDC checks either lacked adequate identifying information or had none at all, including no legible signatures affixed on the funds.

Following this discovery investigator Woods issued a “suspicious activity report” (SAR) on a series of the CDCs’ financial transfers and deposits. Then he requested the CDC checks to be temporarily blocked from transaction pending further investigation.

Not long after, an exchange of heated words occurred. A senior Miami-based manager called Woods’ SAR reports “defensive and unwarranted.”

Feeling jaded, Woods, as he recalls, “came under fire from the bank staff to change tactics and develop a better understanding of Mexico.”

Wachovia officials ordered Woods to cease inquiries about Mexican CDCs and to also stop blocking other Eastern Europe and Moscow accounts. The British investigator, snapped, “I don’t need to read up on Mexico. My interest are drug trafficking and money laundering.”

His instincts proved correct. On April 10, 2006, during early morning hours, a DC-9 airplane landed onto the tarmac at the International Airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, located east of Mexico City. Once the engine turned off, military soldiers trained by U.S. FBI agents immediately grew suspicious and surrounded the aircraft. Armed with high-powered weapons, the soldiers searched the luxury plane and discovered five-plus tons of pure cocaine packed in suitcases.

The cocaine was valued at $120 million, and the Feds working with Mexico later determined the drugs were headed for the United States from Venezuela. A stash of paperwork found on the plane eventually identified discreet connections between an American bank and Mexico-based currency operation Casa de Cambios Puebla. A subsequent investigation would prove that Wachovia Bank washed billions of illegal drug money into the U.S. financial system on behalf of the Mexico-based Casa Cambios.

With U.S. Federal law enforcement backing him up, Martin Woods’ investigation assisted the Feds to build an airtight case against Wachovia. Starting off, the Feds discovered that $13 billion dollars in drug money was transferred by the CDC into correspondent bank accounts at Wachovia to purchase airplanes for the use of trafficking drugs from Colombia to Mexico and then the drugs were shipped to the U.S.

This high-profile investigation ultimately revealed that from 2004-2007, a staggering amount of illegal drug proceeds totaling $378.4 billion dollars were transferred into Wachovia by the Mexico-based Casa Cambios that violated U.S. government anti-money laundering compliance.

Following these findings a slew of federal charges filed in 2009 by Federal prosecutors in Florida hit Wachovia with the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act in U.S. history.

Douglas Edwards, senior vice president of Wachovia Bank confessed they didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling the $378.4 billions for the Mexico’s Casa Cambios. But Edwards declined to answer specific questions including how much they earned for handling the billions of dollars for the currency operation.

Overall, the amount of drug proceeds ($378 billion dollars) that the CDC deposited into Wachovia Bank actually equaled one third of Mexico’s entire $1.4 trillion dollar annual GDP.

As part of the agreement Wachovia agreed to pay the government a fine of $110 million dollars with an additional fine of $50 million dollars to be paid to the U.S. Treasury Department. The total fine of $160 million dollars was less than 2% of the bank’s $12.3 billion dollars in profit made in 2009. By the time Wachovia agreed to pay the hefty fine, Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia during the banking crisis for $12.7 billion. Then Well Fargo reaped a windfall from the government, a gift of $25 billion dollars of taxpayers money as part of President Obama stimulus package in 2009.

“Today, we announce the deferred prosecution of Wachovia, one of the largest banks in the United States, said U.S. Jeffrey Sloman on March 12, 2010. “Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations by laundering drug proceeds.”

Sloman further stated, “as this case demonstrates, financial institutions—no matter how large will be held accountable when they allow ‘dirty’ money to pollute the U.S. banking system.”

The Wachovia scandal sent fears into the banking industry among prominent members because now they suspected the Feds would crack down more heavily against foreign customers, particularly Mexico.

In an interview with a Daily Business Review reporter, International Banking Attroney Clemente Vazquez-Bello, said, “The concern, obviously, in the industry is are we going to pay for the sins of Wachovia. … It’s mind-boggling beyond comprehension that in the compliance world that an institution of their size and stature would have permitted these enormous deficiencies.”

Mexico Drug Cartel

Mexican drug lords are among the world’s most dangerous and wanted criminals. They are savage, rich, notorious for violence, and transport massive shipments of narcotics into the United States and throughout the world. They profit billions from the prohibitionist drug policies of the U.S. government.

When Mexico president Felipe Calderon took office in December, 2006, he immediately ordered the armed forces to kill or capture the cartels including their members and associates. So far, the unrelenting violence has killed more than 35,000 people, with 15,000 last year. Overall, the stark reality in this ongoing brutal and sadistic violence has failed to stem the drug war.

The tremendous amount of proceeds that the CDC transferred in-and-out of Wachovia bank raise a provocative question: How do Mexican cartels get their money into American banks? Either banking officials were asleep at the wheel or tacitly ignored the shady business going on to boost profits for themselves.

“The failure of U.S. banks to take adequate steps to prevent money laundering is a widespread and ongoing problem,” said Michigan U.S. Senator Carl Levin in February 2010.

Investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker wrote stories about the Wachovia drug cartel scandal on his website. Hopsicker’s investigation uncovered the fact that the airplanes that were busted with cocaine and purchased through Wachovia with illegal drug funds, previously had a steamy relationship with CIA and National Defense contractors.

Disappointed that the case against Wachovia didn’t go to a criminal trial, investigator Woods lamented, “Bankers will continue to take dangerous risks because the deferred prosecution concludes there’s no personal consequences for their actions.”

“We were hoping the case against Wachovia went to trial because the laundering of drug money was related to organized crime, drug trafficking and thousands of murders in Mexico,” he said.

Antoino Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said in 2008, “there’s evidence to suggest that proceeds from drugs and crimes were the only liquid investment capital for banks in trouble of collapsing [during the financial crisis].”

If billions of dollars in drug money rescued banks and other financial institutions from closing down then it’s reasonable to argue that the economy itself is addicted to drugs.

As professor Dale Scott noted in his book, American War Machine: Deep Politics; the CIA Global Drug Connection: “A U.S. Senate staff chaired by the banking committee reportedly estimated that between $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars are laundered each year through banks worldwide, with approximately half of that amount funneled through U.S. Banks.”

The UK Independent newspaper reported in 2004 that drug trafficking constituted “the third-biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade.”

“New York and London are the world’s biggest financial institutions for money laundering and offshore tax havens,” Woods told this journalist during recent interview. “New York is the global currency for legitimate and criminal business because it is offshore to everywhere. And London is the world’s biggest financial center by value and volume.”

Clarence Walker is a veteran Houston-based journalist who writes on criminal justice issues. He can be reached at cwalkerinvestigate@gmail.com

1 – http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/03/30/oath-keeping-at-the-atf/

* Part 2 – http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/06/18/american-banks-high-on-drug-money_part-2/

Quartzsite

Quartzsite Desert Rainbow

“Gems In The Rough At Quartzsite, Arizona”

Writing July 20, 2011 through July 27, 2011; Willow Creek, Montana

By Elias Alias

Owing to my work career as a jewelry designer, I had known about Quartzsite’s famous desert-sprawling mineral show which happens each winter. The American jewelry industry is well aware of Quartzsite’s remarkable mineral and gem show. The show has a good reputation and is attended by large numbers of jewelers from around America. Many swing from the Quartzsite show right into the Tucson show, which is the world’s largest gem, mineral, jewelry and fossil show.  Having had businesses in both manufacturing and retail ends of the jewelry industry, I for many years knew people who traded at Quartzsite.

But I did not know about the possibility of some outlaw from Ohio or South Carolina hiding out under an alias while working in the camel stables at Arizona back in the 1850s.

Did I say “camel stables”? In Arizona? Yep. There is a really cute little tidbit of southwest American history waiting for you at this link:

http://www.outwestnewspaper.com/camels.html

Here is a teaser – [quoting] “…in 1855 when Secretary of War Jefferson Davis was told of an innovative plan to import camels to help build and supply a Western wagon route from Texas to California. It was a dry, hot and otherwise hostile region, not unlike the camel’s natural terrain in the Middle East.

“Davis, convinced of the idea, proposed a Camel Military Corps to Congress. “For military purposes, and for reconnaissances, it is believed the dromedary would supply a want now seriously felt in our service,” he explained.

“Congress agreed and appropriated $30,000.

“Major Henry Wayne was sent to the Middle East where he bought 33 of the animals. With much difficulty, they were loaded onto a Navy ship (with part of its deck modified to accommodate the large creatures) and transported to Texas. There Lieutenant Edward Fitzgerald Beale took over. Forty-four more camels arrived later.” [end quote]

Camel Monument Quartzsite

But while the camel caravans are now just old history, a new type of caravan musters at Qaurtzsite each winter. An “RV Big Tent” show rolls into tiny Quartzsite well before the mineral show. The camp crowd which shows up each winter in their RVs and Motor-homes and Campers can swell the town’s population from under its customary four thousand citizens to more than a hundred thousand. This annual flock of snowbirds descends upon little Quartzsite and turns the desert into what is sometimes billed as “the world’s largest desert parking lot”.

Quartzsite Big Tent RV Show

So we see that Quartzsite has some interesting color in its desert culture. And now on July 20, 2011, I sit to write about another story in Quartzsite. It had been playing around in my head since mid-June, a month earlier, and today I knew I had to start writing it. I had received a call from a gentleman who lives in Quartzsite, Arizona, who told me quite a desert-styled tale of intrigues and overt corruption.

That call in June was unbelievable, but I would soon become a believer.  You probably will too.

That is when this story started for me — when a guy called back in June of 2011. (Let’s call him “Daryl”, which is not his name but will serve to protect his anonymity.)

Daryl  was highly concerned, worried. Yet he was composed and coherent. He was obviously accustomed to speaking with people. His voice carried concern without sacrificing his poise as a man of dignity. But there was urgency in his voice, and he could not hide it. He was reaching out for help.

Daryl spoke of ten Quartzsite police officers who had compiled 200 pages of written allegations against various members of local government, including the Chief of Police in Quartzsite and the City Council.  He spoke of the Mayor of Quartzsite being arrested by the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police is alleged to be corrupt.

He had previously read coverage of the Oath Keepers ceremony at the Jose Guerena memorial on May 30, Memorial Day 2011, at Tucson, Arizona, and he thought of Oath Keepers in his personal moment of stress.  Learn why he would naturally think of Oath Keepers by reading, in case you missed this, here  –

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/06/03/walking-a-mile-in-freedom%E2%80%99s-shoes-oath-keepers-muster-tucson-memorial-day-may-30-2011/

I listened intently as Daryl spoke of police officers who had written allegations of corruption in Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert’s department.  The more Daryl spoke, the more interested I became. He noted that there are between twelve and fourteen officers on the Quartzsite, Arizona Police Department.  He said that ten of those officers had put in writing, or had signed with the others, allegations of corruption.  Ten out of fourteen is a significant number of cops accusing their Chief of corrupted and abusive practices in his Department.

Further, Daryl told me that the Mayor of Quartzsite was on his way to Phoenix that very moment as we were speaking, to seek assistance from the Governor’s office.  He had the 200 pages in hand, to show the Governor.

I asked Daryl to give the Mayor my phone number here in Montana and after we ended our talk he did so.

Soon enough, that afternoon in June, I got a call from the Honorable Mayor Ed Foster. He was still in Phoenix and he was perplexed. Said he had gone to the Governor’s office and was referred to the Attorney General’s office. He went there, and they referred him back to the Governor’s office. It had become a “run-around”.

As the Mayor of a town in Arizona, he had no traction with the State government, even while holding ten Quartzsite cops’ written statements about corruption in his hand. Mayor Foster told me that he could not get any interest in either office, and that both muttered something about jurisdictions. Said he hoped Oath Keepers could help.

Ten out of fourteen police officers sign allegations of corruption against their Police Chief? And that Police Chief arrests a Mayor? Twice? Really?  I don’t get calls like this every day.

Both of those tales would be of interest if they proved to be true. Why, I wondered, would the Governor’s office and the Attorney General’s office have no interest in such a bizarre matter? I wanted to find out all I could. I mean, the man is the sitting Mayor of Quartzsite. So I got busy looking into it by asking myself ‘why Quartzsite of all places’, and ‘what’s going on there?’

Quartzsite is about a hundred-thirty miles west of Phoenix, Arizona, out in the southwest desert, near the California border with Arizona.  It sits right on top of Interstate 10 in the middle of nowhere. It is surrounded by desert mountains. The intrigue there is blooming into a topic of epic proportions and national curiosity. But it is a dark bloom, in contrast with the natural beauty of Quartzsite’s desert surrounding.

Hedgehog Cactus Bloom

Taken aback, I brought this up to several Oath Keepers friends, officers and Board members in following days – what should we think of approximately eighty percent of a small city’s police force standing up and signing allegations against the Chief of Police and the City Council? It struck us as darn good Oath Keeping.  Had we stumbled across ten peace officer Oath Keepers in one small town in the desert? While the Quartzsite Ten are not dues-paying members in Oath Keepers, we are proud that these peace officers have become willing to risk their careers by making a stand against alleged corruption and injustice. I salute them for being true Americans and following their consciences.

But what should we make of the Police Chief arresting the Mayor? What was going on in that town?

If we read at the Mayor’s website we learn that candidate Ed Foster got himself elected as Mayor. He did so with a platform which promised the citizens of Quartzsite that he would expose the alleged corruption if he were elected. When Ed Foster was elected as Mayor, the City Council had a heart attack and scurried around to make new rules limiting the powers of the Mayor’s office, before his tenure as Mayor began. They de-fanged the Mayor’s office by Council resolution, before the man could be seated as Mayor.

You read that right. Here is how Mayor Foster says it himself on his website  –

“We have a situation wherein I was elected to office and immediately prohibited from looking at any of the town’s financial records. I was also forced to sit silently by and watch as the council immediately moved to restrict my activities and actions as Mayor until there were quite literally none left.”

Well, when Daryl and the Honorable Mayor called me that day, I was hooked.

That was in mid-June, 2011. Since then I have spoken with Daryl a number of times and have exchanged emails. Quartzsite has become in past weeks a daily source of interest for me. I could see back in June that Quartzsite could quickly become a case-study for Oath Keepers, and truly it has.

Just as the Quartzsite Ten have stood to oppose a tyrannical alleged corruption, the Police Chief and City Council have stood to protect  something.  It is an open battle, and one which could turn to frightening times for many of Quartzsite’s citizens and guests.

Oath Keepers enjoys supporting peace officers who oppose corruption in government and departments, for that is the spirit of justice embodied in the Oath.

Polishing Facets On A Quartzsite Crystal

Between the time Daryl first called me and his call today, a remarkable mistake was made by the Quartzsite City Council and the Chief of Police at a Council meeting.  It would be the first of many, as we will see. On June 28, 2011, more than a week after Daryl had given me his first phone call, a City Council meeting occurred and was open to the public as required by law in Quartzsite.

Over the strenuous objections of the City’s Mayor (newly elected Ed Foster), a citizen was arrested at that meeting  - while she was holding the microphone and addressing the meeting. She had been duly given the floor to speak before the Council, and was arrested while speaking, for doing nothing other than speaking. The Council’s problem was not that she was speaking, it was what she was speaking, which some might fear would lead to embarrassing revelations of the corruption infesting that town. Her name is now known all over America.

Jennifer Jade Jones

Jennifer “Jade” Jones, activist and patriot, having been given the microphone, began to speak into matters that the City Council did not want recorded at a public meeting.  The nervous Council members quickly feigned an unauthorized vote, over the objections of the Mayor, who, being an honorable patriot himself, wanted Jennifer Jones to spill all she knew. Upon the basis of that vote, which was not properly engaged by a motion to vote, the Council signaled the attending police officers to arrest Jennifer Jones.

They attempted to remove her while she stood before the Council with the microphone as the designated speaker, the one who was supposed to have the floor. She was not waving a gun in the air, she was not threatening anyone, she was not speaking obscenities, she was simply speaking as a citizen before the City Council – with the Mayor’s recognition as the designated speaker. And that was all it took to bring down upon her the power and force of the Quartzsite Police Department. Officers approached her and attempted to take the microphone from her hand.

Jennifer ‘Jade’ Jones did not wish to relinquish the microphone and the officers struggled with her briefly. She held on to the microphone valiantly as the officers tried to force it from her hand. As they scuffled the Mayor managed to restore some degree of order and convinced the officers that they must let this woman speak her peace.

The officers backed away finally, and Jennifer Jones continued to speak.

The City Council members saw that the Mayor had regained control over his meeting. He had thwarted their attempt to keep embarrassing Council business from being addressed in the meeting. Did this strike fear into the Council members’ hearts? Who can say, but amazingly, the Council quickly, again, signaled for the officers to stop her.

Again the officers approached Jennifer Jones and this time they succeeded in wrestling the microphone from her hands. They grabbed her arms and used force to move her from the room. She did not go quietly.

Well, that embarrassment to Quartzsite, courtesy of the City Council and the Chief of Police, made its way onto a video which was posted on the Internet. You may see it here –

Jennifer ‘Jade’ Jones runs a newspaper. (That would not cause Chief Gilbert to hold a grudge against her, right?) She does a great job with her paper. Check out her website – The Desert Freedom Press:

http://thedesertfreedompress.blogspot.com/

The City Council Goes Berserk

Less than two weeks later, Daryl called me again from Quartzsite to say that the City Council had called a meeting earlier in the day, on July 10, 2011, and had sent Police Chief Jeff Gilbert to personally request that the Mayor attend. Mayor Ed Foster, who had already been arrested twice by this Police Chief, agreed to go to the town hall, but refused to ride there in the Chief’s car.

When the Mayor arrived he realized that this Council meeting was unlawful and he stated that he would not be involved in the meeting.  The rest of the Council members went into the meeting room and closed the doors, refusing to allow the public into the meeting.

As their Mayor waited outside with some concerned citizens, the Council declared a “state of emergency” for the city of Quartzsite.

The Chief would now have some added assurance from the City Council if he chose to further harass the patriot citizens in Quartzsite, which is one of his customary habits, according to ten of his officers. The City Council knows about things which Council members prefer to keep hidden from the citizenry, so the Council has good reason to place extra authority in the hands of the Chief of Police.

Their cover-story is that activists have made threats to the City’s leadership, creating an emergency which detracts from dutiful functioning of government. So the Council has condoned the Chief’s activities regarding the patriots in town.  In fact, harassing patriot citizens is one of the allegations about which ten of his police officers denote the need for an investigation.

The Chief’s and the Council’s abuse and/or misuse of government power is being alleged and contested here in a power-play. Indeed, much of the allegations lodged against the Chief of Police by the Quartzsite Ten involve use of police power to harass political opponents or patriots who dared question the murky goings-on in the city’s government.

That is now on the record, put there by ten of his officers.

In writing.

Here is part of their statement –

Over the last two years the problems have continually got worse. Chief Jeff Gilbert is fIxated [sic]on the politics in this town. He is personally involved in them and all his time and attention is directed towards political gain to benefit of himself. He is obviously biased towards certain council members and is against and outspoken to other candidates and council members. He runs license plates just to find out names of people whose vehicles are parked at business residences of people he don’t like. Not for an investigation, but to gain personal information about people for his political benefit. He runs criminal history reports through NCIC to try to find “dirt” on candidates or citizens supporting the candidates he does not like. Our policy clearly states that we are not to get involved in politics and must remain unbiased at all times. He orders officers to pull over and arrest or cite violations of citizens he feels are against him or he doesn’t like. Not because they have committed a violation that he wants enforced equally, but because it is someone he doesn’t like. Clearly this is a misuse of his power. He will target officers and go after them if he feels they are going against him. Candidates, supporters of him or friends can be in the same violation, even have outstanding valid warrants and officers are told to leave them alone. He caused the firing of the town prosecuting attorney because Chief Jeff Gilbert felt the  Town  Attorney would not follow through on or file ridiculous charges against people involved In a certain political group. He practices selective enforcement in the community against people who do not like him, agree with him or may go against him. He also directs the officers to do the same. This selective enforcement by Chief Jeff Gilbert can Influence decision and can initiate negative actions with highly negative results; this practice can also leave the Quartzsite Police Department employees and the City of Quartzsite open to accusations and lawsuits and liabilities. This also gives Law Enforcement as a whole a bad image.

That was written and signed by ten of Quartzsite’s police officers.

Read it here: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/07/12/quartzsite-police-officers-association-letter-regarding-police-chief-jeff-gilbert/?cp=7#comment-33312

And from the Lost Chord on July 12, 2011 …

http://lost-chord.blogspot.com/2011/07/quartzite-az-tyranny.html

…we note the following:

Now the council has ousted Mayor Ed Foster from power and declared a state of emergency.

Mayor Foster asserts that the town council held a last-minute meeting that was closed to the public — in violation of the open meetings law — Sunday night, after declaring a state of emergency in the 3,600-person western Arizona town.

Compounding matters, the council issued a declaration putting controversial police Chief Jeff Gilbert in charge. Foster referred to the act as making him the “deputy chief executive of nothing right now.” The declaration also allows the five-member council to meet without public notice and suspend all public comment at the meetings until they declare the state of emergency over.

The videos have gotten thousands of views and have people near and far sending messages of support to Foster and messages of outrage to the council. Foster’s supporters have launched a Facebook page and website.

Foster was elected in May 2010 on a campaign promise to investigate allegations of corruption in the La Paz County town.

He said since being in office, he has discovered that every pay period, eight to 10 paychecks go to unnamed people and that he has been denied access to financial records to find out where the money actually goes. He said that’s been happening since 1991 and amounts to $250,000 every year. “That’s literally millions of dollars,” Foster said.

*

Aha! Enter money, stage Left.

I began to look into some other people in Quartzsite, and have discovered that the townspeople are a divided lot. There have been legal actions flung back and forth like a dueling dart war. Outside town is a very large and valuable collection of collectible cars, owned by one man. That man not long ago sold a lot of land for a lot of money, and some people in Quartzsite did not like it. But who is he? Does he fit into this unfolding story? Ever hear of Richard Oldham?

Richard Oldham was the City of Quartzsite’s first Mayor, the founding Mayor.

Richard Oldham Quartzsite

There is an interesting bit of history surrounding Richard Oldham. Oldham, being an honorable and dignified individual, worked to arrange the water rights for the City of Quartzsite, as he was the founding Mayor. He was also a property owner of some enviable means, a true Western gentleman and an honest man.

We may talk more about Richard Oldham in coming times, but at present let’s look at just one interesting event in this founding Mayor’s past. After serving his term in office as Quartzsite’s Mayor, a subsequent Mayor, who had a beef with former Mayor Oldham, put out a murder contract on Richard Oldham. That nasty Mayor got caught, and went to prison, and former Mayor Oldham dodged the bullet, figuratively speaking.  But wait. After some time in prison, I am told, the nasty Mayor got released from prison – I’m told it was by virtue of a new source of contradictory testimony – and returned to local government, not as a Mayor, but in another capacity. We’re likely to hear more about this guy, and Richard Oldham, as the Quartzsite spectacle unfolds.

There are other problems which the City Council apparently does not want aired publicly. There are questions about a judge who seems to be helping the Council protect something.  There has been a problem with porn on the City’s computers – the illegal kind. The City had to hire an out-of-towner to come in and purge their computer system to get rid of it. Stories swirl around that little embarrassment.

And there is also this crazy question about an airplane runway belonging to founding Mayor Richard Oldham, on his property, which has recently had a swath cut across the runway wide enough to accommodate a road, which someone has decided must be cut across Oldham’s runway landing strip.

There is a story in that one thing right there, to be sure. And what’s this about the County Sheriff having once worked with the Quartzsite Chief of Police when they were both on assignment in Colorado? Could an old working friendship be behind the Sheriff’s reluctance to help this Mayor in his fight to expose the corruption? Does the Chief of Police have an abnormal relationship with the City Council? I’m asking.

Actually, there is not time to go into all the types of mischief that have been going on way out there in the southwestern desert.  Some of these things could come up, out of darkness into public light. Corruption is now on the defensive, which explains why the City Council has suspended public attendance at City Council meetings, declared a state of emergency, given the Police Chief extraordinary powers, virtually bound an honest Mayor, placed eight of its City Police Officers on Administrative Leave with Intent to Investigate and/or Fire, and has snarled in the face of a curious nation.

So we see that one article on this story will never suffice. I’ll keep running current updates as the story unfolds. In the meantime, let’s look at one of our heroes.

Ed Foster Quartzsite Mayor June 2011

Here is Mayor Ed Foster. Recall, his first phone conversation with me was back in mid-June, while he was being frustrated in the Attorney General’s office and the Governor’s office, being led ‘round the rosebush in a circular disregard shielded by the excuse of “questionable jurisdiction”.  He has been fighting this corruption since winning election to the office of Mayor. He was disappointed that the State government of Arizona had no interest in his fight for justice in Quartzsite, an Arizona city. Personally, I think that the Governor should express an interest – but apparently that will take a bit more leverage, of the sort which only the Internet can generate.

Mayor Ed Foster runs this website, where you can keep up with the developing story directly from the Mayor’s desk.

http://www.quartzsitemineshaft.com/

Some contact info for reaching or following Mayor Ed Foster:

SUPPORTERS OF ED FOSTER FACEBOOK PAGE

Just Log Into Your Facebook Account and do a search for Supporters of Mayor Ed Foster –  Join In!

*

Edward L. Foster

Post Office Box 956

Quartzsite, Arizona 85346

E-MAIL:  DeepInTheDirt@QUARTZSITEMINESHAFT.COM

*

From Mayor Foster’s front page –

“Why can’t the officials at the Town of Quartzsite run the town according to the rules? Why are they so interested in refusing to subject themselves to any level of scrutiny by those qualified to offer it? Instead, they’ve appointed Al Johnson, the wearer of any and all hats — interchangeably — to ‘investigate the police’ who have asked for an investigation of the police department as operating under the direction of Chief Jeff Gilbert.”

Also on Mayor Foster’s homepage is an article announcing his being represented legally by Stewart Rhodes, and the Mayor has some good words to say about Oath Keepers.

Quartzsite Mayor Ed Foster 2011

Like Jennifer Jones, Mayor Foster is telling his story online for all to read and know.

Let’s prove true something an old hand in the computer game, one Rageboy (Chris Locke of Boulder, Colorado), once prophetically said – that being:  “hyperlinks subvert hierarchy”. (It’s number ‘7′.)

http://www.cluetrain.com/

This story should go viral, in the newly arrived tradition of the good ol’ Internet. It can happen, and I’m thinking it shall, for already a number of news crews and anchor journalists on tv have reported on this story, so it’s growing legs as we speak.

The video of Jennifer Jones being hauled out of that City Council meeting has jumped to more than a hundred-twenty thousand downloads, which is likely good enough numbers to trigger viral growth nationally.

Doing The Devil’s Due

So I’ll wrap up. Now Daryl was on the phone again, with a new update. It was Wednesday, July 20, 2011.

“Elias, let me tell you about what they’ve just done!” he said, his voice stern with a strained resolve to be able to actually say it, to actually speak it.

“Go ahead, Daryl”.

“Mr. Alias, they’ve just put the Quartzsite Ten on Administrative Leave! With ‘intent to fire’!”

“What are you saying, Daryl – are you saying that they have just suspended the ten good cops on the force there?”

“Yes! With intent to fire! I’m frightened to death! This town’s Council and Police Chief have gone crazy.”

“I’ll certainly agree with that. This is unbelievable! Tell me what happened please.”

He laid it out for me.

This is the pdf link for the Quartzsite City document which has placed the Quartzsite Ten on “Administrative Leave”. I only count nine names in this document being placed on leave, and one of them is not a police officer, iirc, so I’ll update when I find out why all ten names are not on the document.

http://www.quartzsitemineshaft.com/Notice.pdf

You’ll see in reading that document that the Quartzsite Ten are placed on what amounts to house arrest between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and Noon, and between the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. five days per week.  The officers are to be paid while on Administrative leave. The officers are being investigated by assistant town manager Al Johnson. The investigation is stated to focus on “Engaging in any conduct, on or off the job, that might bring discredit to the Town in violation of Quartzsite Personnel Policy Section 1502 (O).”

That’s pretty rich, in my opinion – a town conflicted by alleged corruption within its government is now trying to prove that the ten officers who value their Oath and understand that they are to serve and protect the people of Quartzsite, those ten who are giving the only sign of hope for dignity and justice in Quartzsite’s governance, are to be accused of giving the town a bad name.

A Darker Bloom Unfolding

I will wrap up this first article on Quartzsite’s political power play with some words of another writer. This is the most chilling and telling development yet. This is the connection between the Department of Homeland Security and a local jurisdiction, the nexus at which the force of the domestic war on terror is brought home to the daily lives of a town’s citizens as Federal policy working hand in hand with local corruption to the advantage of a thusly empowered government.

By comparing citizen activism with terrorism, the full force and authority of the Federal bureaucratic behemoth shall be brought down upon this helpless little town as an exercise in governmental assistance to the proper civil authorities, just as we’ve covered in the Oath Keepers series on Jose Guerena’s death by SWAT at Tucson back on May 05, 2011. Here – read it for yourself –

http://powerandpolitic.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/law-enforcement-receives-quartzsite-alert-az-independent/

Law Enforcement Receives Quartzsite Alert- AZ Independent

by powerandpolitic on July 23, 2011

The Arizona Department of Public Safety is not commenting on a counter terrorist alert issued for Quartzsite and La Paz County, suggesting that the controversial arrest of a woman at a public meeting in June could result in a future threat.

DPS spokesman Bart Graves said the department does not comment on active alerts. Earlier this week, The Independent obtained a copy of the alert, which advises area law enforcement to be aware of possible domestic terrorist threats in response to the arrest of Jennifer Jones at a Quartzsite City Council meeting. A video of the arrest has been viewed by thousands of Internet browsers.

Graves also said the DPS is conducting an active investigation involving Quartzsite Police Chief Jeff Gilbert, but did not indicate when that investigation might be concluded.

“About a month ago our major crimes bureau was asked to investigate,” he said.

Graves said per state law, ARS 41-17.11 B, the DPS needs to be asked to assist an entity with their investigations, but declined to say who in Quartzsite asked for the assistance.

-end quoted passage-

This story knows no bounds. And, incredibly, this story is only in its beginning phase.There will be more, and now we can see that this story can go all the way up the “chain of command” to the Department of Homeland Security and its profiling pushers of foolishness at the SPLC.

We’ve stumbled across a gem in the southwest desert, and it belongs to the people of Quartzsite. Like any quartz crystal in the rough, it will need to be cut, shaped into a gemstone, and polished. The Quartzsite Ten, Quartzsite Mayor Ed Foster, and Quartzsite Publisher Jennifer Jones have dug up this Quartzsite Crystal, and the town Council has unplugged the lapidary shop at City Hall, and the Chief of Police with his four remaining footmen who did not join the Quartzsite Ten are now guarding the ‘mine’. It is my hope that the people of America will rally to support the good folks of Quartzsite, Arizona, in their fight to keep the gem of liberty in their own hands.

Garnet Diamond 18k Gold on Quartz Crystal by Elias Alias

Salute!

Elias Alias, for Oath Keepers National and Montana Oath Keepers

Updates:

Important Update for this story, posting on July 30, 2011: I spoke with Mayor Ed Foster on the evening of July 29, 2011, and he advised me that two of the Quartzsite Ten have been fired as of July 29, 2011. They are Officers Linda Conley and Sgt. Ponce. We send our deepest regrets that this has befallen two of the honorable cops who have served Quartzsite. We also note that the Chief’s investigation of the remaining Quartzsite Ten who have been placed on Administrative Leave is being accelerated in a quest to remove as many of them from the Quartzsite Police Department payroll. Mayor Foster suggests that more will be fired in the next few days. - Elias

-

Second update: Under the sub-title named “Law Enforcement Receives Quartzsite Alert- AZ Independent” by powerandpolitic on July 23, 2011,  I posted some paragraphs which Mayor Foster has just told me are questionable. I would like to correct any misconceptions that the AZ Independent article may have caused, namely, that there now exists a “counter-terrorism alert” for law enforcement at Quartzsite and La Paz County. That claim cannot at present moment be verified, and is probably incorrect.  Please bear that in mind while reflecting on the content of this article over-all. Thank you. More updates as they arrive. — Elias

-

NOTES:

Here is Jennifer Jones on FOX’s Freedom Watch –

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1066252272001/the-whole-world-is-watching-quartzsite

Jennifer Jones’ Desert Freedom Press — http://thedesertfreedompress.blogspot.com/

une 21st, 2011

An Empire Strikes Home  Part Two

Part One: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/16/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-one/

An Empire Strikes Home _ Part Two

Militarizing Law Enforcement / Domestic Military Deployment,

By Elias Alias, May 18 – June 21, 2011

Profiling The Policy

In Part One of “An Empire Strikes Home” we focused on a sad shooting death involving the Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department regional multi-jurisdictional S.W.A.T. team. We also spotlighted several Arizona news articles in which the Sheriff’s Department issued conflicting stories regarding the S.W.A.T. raid. The published statements began by claiming that the suspect initiated and conducted a “standoff” and started a “gun battle” with deputies who had come to his home to serve a warrant.

I think that everyone knows that for any government action involving shooting of a citizen those kind of reports is the proper (meaning, from LE’s perspective) way this sort of operation should be presented to the press and to the public – the cops are the good guys and the dopers are the bad guys.

When SWAT showed up to enforce the law one of the bad guys had the audacity to draw down on the good guys as they were busting in his front door. As the acceptable, just, and lawful scenario was presented to the press, the good guys prevailed and the bad guy failed.

Message done, cut and dried, clean and closed, nothing more to see here, now move along to the next five-second news sound bite and have a nice day.

The public will take that kind of story and say, “Oh well, that ‘bad guy’ should have thought twice before choosing a life of crime, and it’s no loss to society that he’s gone. Too bad about the widow and fatherless children she’ll raise alone now – she married the wrong dude.  The man was associated with marijuana, so he must be a ‘bad guy’.  Live by the gun, die by the gun.”

That is, generally speaking, how a significant part of the public would see this event by reading the first Sheriff’s Department accounting of the death of Jose Guerena. And that is the desired perception which the Sheriff’s Department and higher-ups wished to present for public consumption, for that is the perception which will spare the County the trouble of more extensive damage control. If it works.

Days later, however, the Pima County Arizona Sheriff’s Department confessed that Jose Guerena did not shoot at the officers. Tough luck for Sheriff Dupnik, drat.

In early June, 2011, the cheerleaders for militarized law enforcement are saying “But hey – wait a minute here! We’re telling you the facts as we get them. There are new discoveries coming out of the investigation and we now know that earlier reports were less than factual. It is true that we said Jose fired on the officers first, and that bullets were bouncing off the SWAT shield at the doorway, bullets fired by Guerena.  Yeah we said that, but now we are saying that he did not fire his rifle at the SWAT team, and besides, we now believe that the man was associated with a grouping of family members who constituted a threat to society They are under suspicion of marijuana-related crimes.  So he really was a bad guy and we really were justified in sending a SWAT urban-warfare combat team into his home and shooting him dead. After all, he did have a rifle in his hand.”

They’re saying stuff like that already, not quite a month into this. Jose was shot on Cinco de Mayo, May 05, 2011.

But shouldn’t we ask: Who gave that story to the Sheriff’s Department’s official spokespersons?

Who told the two spokespersons to tell the press and media that Jose fired first, and that his bullets were bouncing off the SWAT team’s shield as they came through the doorway?

It’s a good question, because just asking that question leads to something very sinister, a psychological anomaly which is subtle and very much out-of-sight, very much hidden from the public awareness. We must ask – Is there a purpose in the perception generated by the Sheriff’s Department?

I do not think for one minute that the two spokespersons would dare make-up a story like this on their own. But even if they did make up this story, they would certainly have submitted it to higher-ups in the chain of command for approval before releasing it to the press. I mean, this story has one shot-up dead man, after all. And there were 71 rounds expended in the operation which must be reconciled according to protocol. A dead war veteran and 71 bullets cascading upon the busting down of a front door of an American home needs proper public perception, lest the natives grow restless. Care should be taken in making press releases. Both spokespersons have a chain of command to which they must report and be held accountable. Did some higher-up tell those two spokespersons to tell that story to the media and press? Or did they just make it up and peddle it to the press?

(Like a gelatinous amorphous blob of pulsating undulating mood-bearing omni-directional free-floating mass of unconscious consciousness, the public mind is to be symbolized as a cohesive field of action. We each have a “mind”, and all of our minds together create what Carl Jung dubbed to be the “collective consciousness” of the human race – well over six billion individual minds registering the impulses and vibration-waves from Alpha through ever-how-many frequencies science now knows the brain emits – and all of those minds together constitute the collective mind of mankind. Specific to America, there are over three hundred million individual minds with each being a singular element (like a molecule in your physical body) in the sum total of all American minds. That collective of American minds constitutes what I refer to as the “public mind”. Edward Bernays and his pals of the day back in the 1920s referred to it as the “Group Mind”.)

Remember: The story initially put forth was that the good guys prevailed and the bad guy failed.

That is a perception, and that perception was manufactured using the press and media. The press and media, however, merely reported what the Pima County Sheriff’s Department spokespersons gave them. The spokespersons relating the story to the news people were using the press and media to get a public perception into the public mind or the group mind – the floating resilient elastic amorphous collective consciousness. It appealed to a common meme, and the news outlets dutifully reported it. Some in the news business at Tucson felt the sting when it came out later that Jose had not fired. (Oath Keepers especially would like to salute KGUN9 of Tucson.)

The S.W.A.T. team members fired seventy-one shots in seven seconds to kill the man dead because he had grabbed a rifle as his wife woke him up shrieking and S.W.A.T. broke in his door. It is questionable whether he had a chance to actually know it was law enforcement invading his home.  I mention this because we are looking at something which is a mask, a veil of sorts placed over the public mind. We are looking at a designed, engineered, carefully crafted perception, duly perfected and inserted into the public mind through the regular programming stations and the press. It’s what got into the News. The good guys prevailed, and the bad guy failed. That was the meaning in the initial injection from the Sheriff’s Department into the consciousness of the public mind.

The details of that incident aside, we note that the trend in American law enforcement reveals a large-scale policy of escalation in a process of militarization of local enforcement agencies. And that is a policy with which Oath Keepers has a problem. America’s good cops, the experienced ones who’ve survived many years in law enforcement and know the score through a body of knowledge which only the years can render, know what I am talking about. Such good souls join Oath Keepers as a way to band together with other good cops who also see the larger horror behind the News.

FBI_SWAT

Cops Playing Soldiers?

Our nation is embroiled in much emotional upheaval and wide-spread confusion as the public is being bombarded 24/7 by a compliant media which trumpets Federal utterances on behalf of a desired consensus on Federal policy and issues. Why?

Because Americans are awakening from the somnambulistic sleep states in which for generations they’ve been living the American dream. They are awakening because the oppression coming from a centralized and unstoppable Federal behemoth in Washington D. C.  has now reached outward into all of the several sovereign States, down into the respective Counties of those fifty Republics and right into their own cities, towns, neighborhoods, and even into their very homes. They’re feeling the pinch of bungled Federal governance over the past four to six decades, with emphasis on the last four Presidential administrations. Don’t deny it. We all know it’s true.

Tensions are high and continue to rise. Fear is rampant and is being fanned by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and all the other usual suspects in the Federal array. Our economy is in its death throes and preparations are being made for the U.S. dollar to be replaced as the world’s reserve currency. Home loss is rampant, job loss is rising, suicide rates among civilians and veterans is skyrocketing, natural disasters are pounding, corruption is everywhere, socialism/Marxism/collectivism are on the march through our social and cultural institutions, our Bill of Rights is being held hostage by a belief system based on ignorance of the virtues of personal freedom in a Republic of law, our schools are pumping humanist/behaviorist existentialist immorality into our children’s heads while Wall Street is conquering their souls with hi-tech toys and myriad related distractions. The nation is in a bad way, and the worse things become, the tighter the Federal government squeezes to wring out the last vestiges of personal freedom and liberty for the American people.  And their wealth. Many Americans are feeling such angst now, and the public mentality shifts toward a heightened awareness of the presence of government in everything people do.

Caught up in the middle of everything are our cops and soldiers and firemen, each of whom is an individual, possessed of one subjective mind of one’s own, is one of countless good Americans sent up to their respective posts from the bosom of American society, from families and neighborhoods, communities and towns.

Our men and women with the authority, the badges, the guns, the uniforms are noble Americans who have grown up and lived in tumultuous times just like everyone else. They represent a cross section of America, and the overwhelming majority of them want to make a difference on behalf of the good in life, want to serve for the benefit of this nation, our respective States, and our local communities.

But they are often trained to see things in Govlish terms, and are not often trained to see things in Constitutional contexts. They are taught, trained, schooled, conditioned, programmed, and motivated to follow instructions, to be a team player, to care for one’s career, to succeed by acting as expected and required. To the ‘T’. The best pro-and-con marks bring the best career successes. If not shot in the  line of duty, a nice retirement, graced by public appreciation, awaits the proper mindset in any soldier or cop.

The title of this article suggests an empire striking home. Part One was about a Tucson home which has been struck down horribly. Parts Two and Three will reveal the empire and its tentacular interface across the landscapes of America with an enforcement arm emanating from a centralized governmental structure tied into a global economic balancing act which keeps the power elite jumping and the government pumping and the average cop and soldier humping.

We will note how international, national, Tribal, State, County, and Local government is now interfaced into the same circuitry – and we shall see how this statist madness made it possible that Jose Guerena was gunned down in his home by a militarized urban warfare combat team of Sheriff’s deputies doing the work of would-be soldiers.

The tactic elected by the Sheriff’s Department for the simple serving of a warrant was a military-styled assault with plenty of multi-jurisdictional equipment and personnel. This was an urban combat team operation, and it gave the Sheriff’s Department a little on-the-job training for executing procedures, practice in real time, coordination testing for execution of an official court-sponsored urban warfare scenario.

This militation did not come from the neighborhoods of Tucson or Pima County. It originated in Federal programs and the offices which run them. It did not come from grassroots, where we people live and work – it came from top-down concentrated, designed, choreographed, engineered and focused Federal power.  That fact is part of Oath Keepers’ interest in this case.

In this second installment we will look more deeply into the militarization of our local peace officers, and note the transformation from local-service peace officers who signed up to “serve and protect”, into authoritarian-styled enforcement tools of bureaucratic governmental mechanisms. We will look at both the military side, and the law enforcement side of the military-police paradigm.

Through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) you’re looking at a burgeoning police state apparatus connected across agency lines, across Federal, State, and County lines. This particular home invasion by SWAT under color of law has exposed the thing to public scrutiny.

But wait; did you read Part One?  Understanding of Part Two will be more complete with one’s knowledge of the information in Part One. Thank you for having read Part One first:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/16/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-one/

-

SWAT_Combat

Cohen: Welcome To A Grave New World

Before looking at his infamous speech of 1999, let us first go back in time to the Clinton Administration, where in 1997 then-Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen was giving a press conference which referenced “terrorism” in exaggerated Hollywood fashion.

– William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997 at a news briefing.  The link for this transcript is –

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674

You can trust the link – it’s a dot gov link. While briefing the press as Secretary of Defense, Cohen touches upon the concept of weather wars. The sentence is contained within the paragraph below. Watch for it, when it comes up. Here is the sentence: “Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

It’s that “electromagnetic waves” part. Recall, Cohen said this in 1997 -

“…But as we’ve learned in the intelligence community, we had something called — and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”

-

When Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen gave that press conference in 1997 and listed some of the horrific wmd sciences which he alleged the world of terrorists was even then developing to use against us, his message was echoed down the line of command, outward to the entire nation. Justice Department bulletins spread the word, State-level intelligence and enforcement communities dispersed the message to local authorities and offices, and finally your friendly firefighter down the street saw it in a journal while your next-door neighbor cop got it at roll call. The soldiers? They got it straight down the chain of command. A Secretary of Defense has power over the thinking and perception of the entire military, as well as an influence in the public mind, the group mind, the amorphous, shimmering, oscillating bubble of the collective consciousness.

So cops and firefighters and soldiers who served honorably back in 1997 and since have had a choice to make. Does one conscientiously believe that any rogue nation-state has the technology to “alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves”? Or does one simply accept whatever the Secretary of Defense says without asking the hard questions, such as, “How can any rogue nation-state get that kind of technology and the materials and logistics needed to actually study such science, much less develop and deliver it, without help from our own Defense contracting multi-nationals?” (We’ll go into HAARP in another article, at another time.)

In other words, public servants who do not ask such questions will tend to somewhat-blindly accept whichever new reality our leaders pontificate and announce. And act accordingly in order to get good pro and con marks on one’s record of service. Don’t rock the boat. If Cohen says someone is developing the ability to use ultra-low frequency electromagnetic waves to set off the Yellowstone Caldera or bust loose the San Andreas Fault, then by God it must be true and we’d better start looking out for such varmints wherever we work or are deployed.

It becomes a mindset.

DARPA Mind Control

That basic foundational mindset has surfaced in the visage of one Pima County Arizona Sheriff named Clarence Dupnik. He obviously believes the government’s propaganda. We will look into that here, for it is an altered state of consciousness and it sets in one of the people’s seats of power and authority. And, we should note, it has a SWAT team.

But Oath Keepers firefighters and cops and soldiers are awake, are very reasonable and knowledgeable individuals, can think well for themselves, and they do ask questions. As such, Oath Keepers now offers a look back in time to July 26, 1999, a couple of years after Cohen made his rash predictions in ‘97.

On that day the Washington Post published a speech by then-Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, President Clinton’s go-to military guy.  The speech is entitled “Welcome To A Grave New World”.

< http://www.cohengroup.net/news/op_ed/op_ed072699.cfm >

Couched among all the grave reasons why the U.S. Defense Department should be on call to civil authorities for domestic operations, Defense Secretary Cohen was telling us that there would need to be a chain of command between the Pentagon and the appropriate civilian authorities. He dared not use the words “chain of command”. No sir. He put it this way –

As part of a federal interagency effort launched last year by President Clinton and led by the National Security Council, the Defense Department is doing its part to prepare the nation for the catastrophic consequences of an attack that unleashes these horrific weapons. Because it has long prepared to face this grim possibility on the battlefield, the military has unique capabilities to offer in the domestic arena as well. Several core principles are guiding our efforts. First, any military assistance in the wake of a domestic attack must be in support of the appropriate federal civilian authority — either the Department of Justice or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Second, an unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability for that support must exist.
-

That’s it. An “unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability”.

Is that by any other definition not a “chain of command”? You’re right. But he was speaking a couple of years before 9/11/2001, and at that time any claim by the Pentagon to have any authority to give marching orders to civilian agencies, such as the Justice Department’s enforcement groups or any others, would have been laughed out of court by the American people.  Therefore Cohen also notes in his speech –

Finally, we must not [sic] trample on American lives and liberties in the name of preserving them. Fears about the military’s role in domestic affairs are unfounded, as evidenced by a long history of reasonable and successful military support to communities ravaged by natural disasters, such as fire and flood.
As in the past, any military support will be precisely that — support. Both legal and practical considerations demand it. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Defense Department’s implementing policies are clear — the military is not to conduct domestic law enforcement without explicit statutory authority, and we strongly believe no changes should be made to Posse Comitatus.

-

But of course Cohen was not being genuine. In fact, he was flat-out lying. Consider: It is doubtful that “explicit statutory authority” exists in any body of lawfully written mandate, for Posse Comitatus stands opposed to any ‘explicit statutory authority’ which would place the military on U.S. soil in a policing role. He states clearly that no changes should be made to Posse Comitatus, the old 1878 law prohibiting the use of the Army to police the people of the several sovereign States.  He was preparing the way for George Bush 43 to completely butcher Posse Comitatus, as indeed happened.  But look at this – Cohen continues…

Also clear is that the military’s unique assets are most valuable when used to supplement — not supplant — continuing federal, state or local efforts. This is one of the reasons we are helping to train the local emergency “first responders” in 120 cities under a program mandated by Congress and now being transferred to the Justice Department.
But merely managing the consequences of an attack is not sufficient. We must be vigilant in seeking to interdict and defeat the efforts of those who seek to inflict mass destruction on us. This will require greater international cooperation, intelligence collection abroad and information gathering by law enforcement agencies at home. Information is clearly power, and greater access to information will require the American people and their elected officials to find the proper balance between privacy and protection.

-end excerpt from Cohen’s speech-

Did we notice how slick he was in sneaking that in there? I mean the part about the “information gathering by law enforcement agencies at home”. This speech was published in 1999. Cohen’s drawing-table mentality, like all planning adventures, dealt with abstractions, with concepts which planners use like wishful building blocks of children’s play. Think-tankers and Planners (working groups, etc) get their blocks and Tinker Toys from the U.S. Census, the NSA, the NRO, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, etc, etc.  (More on that in part three.)

DARPA

But as the Guerena shooting shows clearly, the “proper balance between privacy and protection” was anything but an abstract in Jose Guerena’s life. Jose Guerena’s death is sourced to national-level planners who saw, even back in the 1980s and 1990s, some reason to militarize our civilian peace officers. Cohen was pushing that policy in the 1990s.

Before moving along, please note for recall later that Cohen also said, “Information is clearly power”.

From Cohen’s speech in 1999 we can jump now to 2011, just a dozen thrill-packed years later, and find that there exists a Federalized/militarized infrastructure, similar to the 120-City gambit under Clinton’s Administration in which major population centers would become networked in communications and other areas vital to the national intelligence systems required by the Pentagon. There now exists a unifying central hub for all this, and it’s called the Department of Homeland Security. In its outreach, DHS uses for conduits a network of intermediary Intelligence centers called Fusion Centers.

Had Cohen been candid and truthful he would have noted that his announcement of the government’s intent to use U.S. military forces on U.S. soil under whichever exigent circumstances would be deemed worthy, and in conjunction with our local peace officer community, was actually itself predicted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Keeping in mind the fact that Cohen has just told us about 120 centers to be established in as many cities around the nation, and that the 120 centers would exert liaison relationships with local, State, Federal, and Military interface, with that unequivocal and unambiguous command structure of unambiguous authority and accountability etc., let’s look at something else before getting to the fruits of his prophecy.

This is a National Institute of Justice report from 1997, well before Cohen’s Grave New World speech.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/164268.txt

In 1994 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S.   Department of Defense (DOD) entered into a cooperative agreement to develop technologies of value to both. This agreement, codified in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and signed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, formalized and focused a longstanding ad hoc relationship. To manage this technology development program and to direct its day-to-day activities, the MOU established a Joint Program Steering Group (JPSG) that would represent both departments and be staffed with members from several agencies…

Part I: The Partnership Between Law Enforcement and the Military [emphasis EA]

The boundaries separating the functions of the law enforcement and military communities are clearly defined in law. The military’s function is to provide for the national defense, while Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies maintain domestic tranquillity. [Sic] Although performing different functions, law enforcement and the military perform many of the same tasks. Both law enforcement and the military operate their own judicial, police, and prison systems. Within the limits set by law, civil law enforcement and the military communities work cooperatively…. Often law enforcement and the military may also participate in the same missions. Such interagency efforts include waging the war against drugs, countering terrorism and espionage, and providing disaster relief… [emphasis EA]

The potential benefits of a joint development program became clear to officials in DOD and DOJ, as well as to Congress, in 1993. The overlap of technology needs had been noted by a senior working group (SWG) convened by DARPA in 1993 to assist in formulating a program to develop technologies to enhance the effectiveness of U.S. forces engaged in Operations Other Than War (OOTW). These kinds of operations involve providing humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, countering the flow of drugs into the United States, and countering terrorism. This initiative was prompted by events in Somalia and elsewhere. The SWG and DARPA noted many common technology needs between civilian law enforcement operations and OOTW. [emphasis EA]

Congress and senior officials in both DOJ and DOD moved DARPA and NIJ toward establishing a formal partnership agreement. In June 1993, the Attorney General sent a letter to DOD and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) suggesting collaboration on technology development. In July 1993, Congress initiated language directing the establishment of an interagency working group, which included DOJ and DOD, to look to the development of dual-use technologies. This was prompted by the recognition of the effect of defense downsizing on the industrial base and the effort to reduce Federal expenditures and by apparent interest within the administration to “reinvent government” by eliminating unnecessary redundancies. In hearings before the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Research and Technology that year, the DOD Director of Defense Research and Engineering endorsed establishing joint technology development with DOJ. Also at these hearings, key NIJ and industry officials testified about the value such a partnership might produce. [emphasis EA]

NIJ reorganized in 1994 by elevating its Division of Science and Technology to full office status and establishing a Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC) consisting of 85 representatives from Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. At that time, LECTAC identified law enforcement technology needs for NIJ and noted that many of these needs were pertinent to the military. [emphasis EA]

Memorandum of Understanding. The clear benefits of this partnership led to the execution of an MOU between DOJ and DOD on April 20, 1994. Highlighting the importance attached to this MOU was its execution by the Attorney General and the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the presence of the VicePresident, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the signing ceremony. This MOU set in motion the development and enactment of the technology program described in Part II of this report.

[Interjection by Elias – Please note that an unlawful merging of the Justice Department and the U.S. Military was enacted at this juncture and was officially presided over by the Vice President as well as representatives of the Treasury Department and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Also note that this sub-authority grouping of government officials did not include the U.S. Congress. No law was passed in Congress to permit this, the public mind was not advised of this until after the fact and even then only briefly in the back sections of newspapers for a day or two, and therefore no case regarding this merging of two diametrically-opposed civil bodies, DOJ and DOD, would ever involve the Supreme Court, which would undoubtedly have condemned this mischief. They just did it in the same off-hand way that NORTHCOM recently merged the U.S. Northern Command with the Canadian Army. See: http://www.northcom.mil/news/2008/021408.html ]

The MOU calls for the establishment of an extendable 5-year program in which a JPSG, jointly staffed by DOD and DOJ representatives, manages daily operations and a high-level interagency Senior Review Group sets policy. Members of the JPSG have been drawn from DARPA, NIJ, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Army. The JPSG works at any point along the research, development, and acquisition (RDA) spectrum so that it can support demonstrations of existing technology as well as development of totally new and unique technologies. [EA note: When the report mentions that JPSG works at any point along the research, development, and acquisition spectrum, it created the capability of the military and civil law enforcement communities to interchange equipment, technology, science, and logistics, which explains how SWAT teams dash about sporting amazing militarized toys such as APCs and Sound Weapons etc. Recall, this would officially begin in 1994, because a group of visionaries decided to bypass Congress and the American people to build an infrastructure which would be occupied readily under COG or COOP as what General Tommy Franks dubbed “a military form of government”.]

- End quote from 1997 NCJRS  report. Read the whole thing at above link. -

I have saved this document for many years, just as I also saved that Grave New World speech by Cohen back in 1999. These are the kind of documents which the theater-going average Wal-Mart shoppers and the typical American voter will hardly ever read, but the documents are there for those who care, and the documents mean something. For example, it was in this DARPA document that I first encountered  the term, “OOTW”.

Operations Other Than War.

That concept is quite a clever innovation for the pursuit of an ever-growing policy which would empower government. Remarkably, that concept came to us on the heels of our victory in the Cold War, and recall: after we won the Cold War, America had no “enemy” left on this planet who could dare attack us.

This was the case with every major war of the 20^th Century – we won WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, and after each victory there was no conceivable enemy left on this earth who could dare threaten us.  After WWI, Wall Street and the City of London built up the Third Reich in Germany across the 1930s, giving us the second World War by 1939. [See Antony C. Sutton’s books at Amazon] After we won WWII, again there was no credible “enemy”, so Stalin, Churchill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt created the United Nations (1945) and then used Yalta to launch a mutually beneficial Cold War which they could milk for another forty years or so.

Mujahideen_1979_CIA

And when America finally won the Cold War 1989-1991, lo and behold our Defense contracting industry was once again faced with the need for an enemy, so our think-tankers came up with a War on Terror which George Bush 43 boasted would last beyond our lifetime.

That should explain why “Policy” dictates sending massive military incursions into tiny nations to hunt down a handful of “terrorists”, yes? It also explains why, ten years after invading Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden, and finally, allegedly, killing him and conveniently dumping his body into the great blue sea for the bellies of disinterested fish, the U.S. military is still fighting an escalating war in Afghanistan, yes? But I digress.

uav4tf3_DARPA

The point is that the U.S. economy is addicted to Defense contracting and spending big time.  We all know it, and 20^th Century history now shows it – win a war and save the world, and walah, a new “enemy” magically appears.

While it is a stretch to understand how the military can fight a concept employed by surrogates handled  and directed by black-op CIA and other Intel agents, we do admit that “terrorism” is a concept with very real consequences, not the least of which is a tinkering with perceptions in the public mind. That perception is necessary, according to neo-con philosophy as vomited forth by the now dissolved Project For A New American Century…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

…which suggested to the White House, on page 51 of its 2000 report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses …

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

…the following psy-op need –

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the  institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.

-end quoted passages from page 51 in PNAC document-

All planners know that if we dry up the Defense contracts to the Defense contracting industry Wall Street’s bubble will pop pronto. See:

http://www.jeffersonrivercoalition.com/Report_From_Iron_Mountain_2.htm

It is surely no exaggeration to say that a condition of general world peace would lead to changes in the social structures of the nations of the world of unparalleled and revolutionary magnitude. The economic impact of general disarmament, to name only the most obvious consequence of peace, would revise the production and distribution patterns of the globe to a degree that would make changes of the past fifty years seem insignificant. Political, sociological, cultural, and ecological changes would be equally far-reaching. What has motivated our study of these contingencies has been the growing sense of thoughtful men in and out of government that the world is totally unprepared to meet the demands of such a situation. [EA: that situation being the occurrence of global peace]

-

So we see that a War on Terror would be a solution for the Defense contracting corporations which drive Wall Street and the local economies of countless communities around the nation. Peace-keeping forces would engage in very limited police actions such as Korea and Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and much of the new duties for the military would involve “Operations Other Than War”.

But an added benefit would be that in a War on Terror, the U.S. military could also be deployed domestically as a charitable and benevolent service to the Department of Justice and its enforcement agencies as well as State-level and local-level law enforcement offices and departments. This scenario would allow for the U.S. Army’s NORTHCOM to engage in OOTW right here in our own country – and as Defense Secretary Cohen pointed out previously, there is a governmental intent to merge the military with civilian law enforcement for purposes of interdicting domestic terrorists.

I did not say that – Cohen did.

To any Constitutionalist who knows about the Constitution’s references to standing armies, there would be no authority for the standing army to involve itself with police work within any of the several sovereign States. To those who would argue to the contrary, I can pass this along to you from a Constitutional historian named Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.  –

“…the doctrine of ‘emergency powers’ runs afoul of America’s Constitution in particular. Anyone who bothers to read the Constitution will see that it:

1- Delegates to the General Government as a whole – or to Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court separately – no ‘emergency powers’ under that rubric;

2- Delegates neither powers that only an ‘emergency’ can call into existence, nor powers that may be exercised only in an ‘emergency’;

3- Delegates no power even to  declare that an ‘emergency’ exists; and perhaps most decisively of all,

4- Does not even employ the word ‘emergency’, let alone define it as a legal principle relevant to any part of the ‘supreme Law of the Land’.

Thus, constitutionally speaking, “emergency” has neither place nor meaning and therefore by itself cannot serve as the justification for or measure of any power whatsoever.

Even the Supreme Court has recognized, as a fundamental constitutional principle, that: “…emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency”. (HB&LA v Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425; 1934)

-          End quoted passage from Dr. Vieira’s Constitutional “Homeland Security”. [1]

So we now see that back in the 1990s we had a Federal government with agencies eager to assimilate their powers into an interfaced network which could be employed by government authority – in emergency situations – to keep the peace in our communities, towns, and cities nationwide. The military would see this as OOTW.

Not clear yet on OOTW? Here is an example –

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41258569/ns/us_news-life/t/million-mock-city-rises-marine-base/

From that page – “A mock city roughly the size of downtown San Diego has risen in a remote Southern California desert to train military forces to fight in urban environments. The $170 million urban training center was unveiled Tuesday at the Twentynine Palms military base, 170 miles northeast of San Diego… Seven separate mock city districts spread across 274 acres of desert. The fake markets, hotels and other businesses are complete with actors who create scenarios that pose a full range of challenges from humanitarian relief efforts to peacekeeping to police work and direct combat, according to the Marine Corps.”

And there it is. Humanitarian relief efforts, peacekeeping, and police work. Those are three sorts of OOTW.

Let’s quickly sum up. We have seen here that the military is interested in interface with law enforcement at the State, County, and local levels. We have seen that local law enforcement everywhere is vying for local SWAT teams, search and rescue teams, first responder teams, and intelligence gathering by law enforcement on behalf of the DHS. We have seen a bit about the Fusion Centers operated by DHS, and we know that DHS also interfaces with the Pentagon as well as with the Department of Justice, FEMA, the various Port Authorities, the Secret Service, the U.S. Treasury, the NSA and NSC, and all sorts of other fancy agencies wielding Federal power like a wand over the lives of the mesmerized American people.

All of this represents a philosophy of statist authoritarianism. It is a mindset frequently alluded to as a neo-con mindset. It is the ruthless and bullheaded approach to governing an unwilling population. It is force, and as we shall see, it employs remarkable psychological operations involving the media and press and entertainment industry. In part three, coming right up, we’ll look further into the military-police interface and the ADL / DHS / SPLC trinity of tyranny, which will bring yet more clearly to the surface and make more readily seen and comprehended the reality of an unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability. Finally, we will see how that chain of command can transform well-intended men and women from our communities and ultimately send a SWAT team to anyone’s house to kick down one’s door and shoot one dead in one’s own home over a weed which grows wild in Nature, while one’s wife and child hide in terrified confusion and unspeakable horror.

1- To order Dr. Vieira’s Constitutional Homeland Security 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

Constitutional “Homeland Security”: Volume 1: The Nation In Arms by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.; copyright 2007 by Edwin Vieira, Jr.; Bookmasters, Inc., 30 Amberwood Parkway, Ashland, Ohio 44805; International Standard Book Number (10): 0-9671759-2-5; International Standard Book Number (13): 978-0-9671759-2-8.

Elias Alias for Oath Keepers

-

Part 1: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/16/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-one/

An Empire Strikes Home _ Part Three, by Elias Alias

Notice please, for readers who have been waiting for Part Three of this series on Jose Guerena’s SWAT death, it is more than eleven thousand words and is too much for this software, or beyond my ability to get maximum use of the software, this article is being built with multiple uploads. Parts Four and Five will follow quickly now. Thanks for your patience – Elias

-

Part One: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/16/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-one/

Part Two: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/06/21/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-two/

Part Three: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/08/15/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-three/

Part Four: coming shortly

IAO_DARPA

August 15th, 2011

An Empire Strikes Home _ Part Three

An Empire Strikes Home _ Part Three

Psychological Warfare and Operations Other Than War

July 2011

Packaging The Policy

In Part One and Part Two we looked at the phenomenon of rampant use of S.W.A.T. teams across the nation as they are being deployed in routine police work. We looked closely into the SWAT killing of Jose Guerena in Pima County, Arizona, at Tucson on May 05, 2011. We then looked at the beginnings of the military-police state infrastructure as announced during the 1990s. We looked at topics such as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and we intimated the role each plays in establishing the infrastructure for a military-police state interfaced at the Federal, State, County, and Local levels, so as to include every arena of police work on all levels of government in what Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen in 1999 called “an unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability.”

That of course is Govlish for “chain of command”.

National Emergency Chain of Command_20011

But in the first two parts of this series we did not really look closely at NORTHCOM, so let’s squeeze in one little bit about that military bastion…

http://www.northcom.mil/News/2007/083007.html

…and ask, what is going on at Ft. Stewart, Georgia?

http://www.stewart.army.mil/homepage/default.asp

…why, it is of course the training of tens of thousands of combat troops who will operate under NORTHCOM for OOTW (Operations Other Than War) on U.S. soil, as noted in Part Two. They will be stationed on U.S. soil and tasked with doing things which may surprise the American people. (And remember, NORTHCOM is directly linked now to DHS and the entire Top Secret America mechanism, with interfaced databases to implement infallibly Secretary Cohen’s predicted “unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability”.

That is what I am writing about, and why we are noticing the Department of Justice (DoJ) has since the 1990s been working with the Department of Defense in both Research and Development and also through info sharing as well as cross-training. Thusly has derived the militarization of police and Sheriff departments. Keeping Cohen’s chain of command in mind, let’s read it at the Army Times:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

<insert logo>

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys… Beginning Oct. 1 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… But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

-End passages from Army Times –

Secretary of Defense Cohen said it in 1999, “support of civil authorities”, and nobody screamed bloody murder, because it was published in the back pages of the Washington Post and never repeated again, to my knowledge. But I knew even then that a police state would of course use its military in “support of civil authorities”, and you can see that plain as day yourself when you pause to think about it.

So we see that NORTHCOM has a commission to do what Secretary of Defense Cohen predicted in 1999, which is to merge State, County, and Local law enforcement into a chain of command which can answer calls from DHS as well as the Pentagon or the White House.

Our objective in looking at such subjects has to do with that perception which declares that the SWAT killing at his home at Tucson, Arizona, of a young Marine veteran of two tours in Iraq is the logical extension of a policy which emanates from the vortex of Federal power in the hands of a neo-con establishment which actively intends to fuse the military with our local peace officers for the unspoken, but obvious and self-evident, clamp-down on political dissent in America.

Particularly, it has to do with the transition in this country from “protect and serve” to “law enforcement”.

That inner-cultural shift within the peace officer community may be said to have been caused by psychological operations promoted by Department leadership-level influences which come backed by the full force and power of the U.S. Federal government. (For what that’s worth any more, eh?)

To ‘protect and serve’ is of the people; to ‘enforce law’ is of the government.

Could that have anything to do with why many Departments and agencies of Federal government resent Oath Keepers reminding our troops and soldiers that the Oath is sworn to the Constitution and is not sworn to the government? We’ll look at that in Part Four, where we’ll focus on the SPLC and DHS.

The need for the people to regulate their government’s style of administering itself upon the citizenry is self-apparent and obvious when this transition is viewed with an awakened sense of awareness. Clans and tribes derived from Nature’s brute indifference to life’s frailty and rather recently created civilization. The group was a primitive answer to the need for security, dating back to the caves. Social and cultural mores trace back to distant beginnings before recorded history. Our language and our science evolved throughout a span between now and the primitive terror of bygone times. And throughout that history arcs an electric lightning branch which animates the refinements afforded by experience and the remembrance of gained knowledge. It is like a Newtonian mirror of the synapsial firing of neurons in the brain’s electric wave-length fields.

Does the Great Terror of the saber-toothed tiger, seen with dread while circling the camp’s fire as it waned down to embers in interminable night, yet translate today its primordial presence into subconscious archetypal constructs of fright?

Is the instinct for survival yet among mankind? Are there yet hungers and appetites stirring below the surface of society, within the world’s cultures?

Are there subtle, subconscious promptings from bygone forgotten pasts? Is the mind of mankind malleable? Are three tenses really enough? What is a thought? What is “the mind”? Why do we so seldom think about thinking, how it’s done, what it is, what a thought is when compared to a feeling or an emotion or a memory? How is the mind different from the body? What’s the difference between meta and matter? Can there really be a war for one’s mind? In the world of psychological operations (psy-ops) isn’t it all about the mind?

In Part Three we are looking at just a bit of the science and the infrastructure for a bona fide “in-your-face” corporate-backed military-industrial-police state.  We see that the infrastructure is already in place. We see that if the Federal government decides that an “emergency” (such as an economic collapse) should come our way, the Federal government will move quickly into this infrastructure and enact what General Tommy Franks has publicly said would be “a military form of government”. There is another name for that. Some call it “Martial Law”.

Let us begin Part Three by looking at something the military is up to, keeping in mind that now the U.S. military has a dedicated Command with a tactical area of responsibility designated as the North American continent including every square inch of U.S. soil.

Ever hear of “UW”?

*

unconventional_warfare_i

*

Unconventional Warfare

“UW” stands for Unconventional Warfare. UW is the tricky side of warfare. UW is also a major tool which policy-makers and statecraft shapers enjoy using, for UW includes the power of the press and the magic of the media.

Ever hear of Psychological Operations (psych-ops or psy-ops)?

Black Operations?

Irregular Warfare?

All of those and other such are respective parts of OOTW (Operations Other Than War), and it has become a very huge industry, a money-making trough within the military-industrial complex.

What, though, is Unconventional Warfare all about? The best answer is in the Army’s definitive document on UW. I’d suggest going over to the Federated American Scientists’ website and downloading your own copy of this remarkable U.S. Army document while you can. Store it on discs and share copies, but be advised that it is a large file, 248 pages in pdf. This is the U.S. Army’s manual on Unconventional Warfare –

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-130.pdf

I found an article about this document written by a somewhat unabashed author whom I have not met. In a brusk tone he brings forward from the Army’s document on Unconventional Warfare some condensed points, and I offer a taste here as a hint as to the content of the document.

Unconventional Warfare uses as operatives certain types of people. Those types of people are worked by the psy-op warrior in the same way an FBI or CIA “asset” is worked by an FBI or CIA “handler” to accomplish certain things pertinent to a psychological operation. When an underworld criminal type of the sorts listed as potential surrogates is handled by a handler who is playing tricks on the surrogate’s mind, we may say that the psy-warrior doing the handling is performing routine tasks relative to his duties and responsibilities in whichever psychological operation currently deployed. Getting a mentally-controlled surrogate to pull off some stupid crime which can be played in the mainstream media to arouse predictable emotional and mental activity in the collective mind of a nation is a handy trick designed to assist in the implementation of governmental “policy”. It’s psy-ops routine fare, as revealed in the Northwoods Document of 1962 under McNamara.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=92662

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe

N E W  Y O R K, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

-

They were looking for pretexts which would induce the American people to support a war against Castro, in 1962. Read the document itself, just a few pages, at George Washington University’s website –

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

That is one example, but let’s keep our focus as narrow as possible so as to move right along. The key words here are “surrogates” and “UW”. Handlers use surrogates as assets. The Army’s UW document shows how and why. Let us notice briefly:

Irregulars, or irregular forces, are individuals or groups of individuals who are not members of a regular armed force, police, or other internal security force. They are usually nonstate-sponsored and unconstrained by sovereign nation legalities and boundaries. These forces may include, but are not limited to, specific paramilitary forces, contractors, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistance or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political “undesirables.” (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-3)

Please note that UW openly admits using terrorists as “surrogates”. Let that one sink in for a moment.

Psy-ops warriors, Unconventional Warfare ‘handlers’, are expected to manipulate terrorists as surrogates for carrying out psychological operations missions.

There is something else named in the Army’s UW document – “Irregular Warfare” (IW). The two – UW and IW – are not to be confused or seen as varied names for the same kind of mischief. Irregular Warfare is its own distinct psychological warfare system. From the document:

[Irregular Warfare – IW]  also relies on the understanding of such social dynamics as tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores. Although IW is a violent struggle, not all participating irregulars or irregular forces are necessarily armed. People, more so than weaponry, platforms, and advanced technology, will be the key to success in IW. Successful IW relies on building relationships and partnerships at the local level. It takes patient, persistent, and culturally savvy people within the joint force to execute IW. (from U.S. Army manual on Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-5) [emphasis EA]

-end passages from Army’s manual on Unconventional Warfare

Please note with me this gem – Did it say “tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores”? Wow.

Now we’re getting into some spooky stuff, yes? Our government is flat out saying that it’s working on mental stuff, mental warfare as a facet of Operations Other Than War (OOTW) and UW. By the time government psy-ops is focusing on our politics, social networks, religions, and culture, we can pretty much safely say that the human mind is the target. Your mind. My mind. Everyone’s mind. The individual mind and the group mind. And our government is funding its massive psychological operations with tax-payer dollars or black budget dollars.

But of course the government is not aiming its psy-weaponry and mind-power at you or me. No, the power is only focused on America’s enemies – not us. Government tells us that frequently, as they told us when introducing the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001. Like, Echelon would not snoop citizens’ emails while tracking enemies abroad, right? Right.

Yet DARPA and the National Institute of Justice have already told us that assets can be used in common between law enforcement and the military, including, (considering NORTHCOM’s existence now), domestically assigned OOTW.

Oh.

Does anyone wish to dispute that defense industry products are first field-tested in military combat zones before widespread acceptance into military Commands and units? And once the military has field-tested new technology, is it not then accessible to NORTHCOM for beefing up NORTHCOM’s arsenal of handy tools?  And after any science is mastered and applied as given logistics and the demand has been saturated, is said science not called “military surplus”? And does that end of the applied science, the product-in-the-field scientific marvels of DARPA science, not make its way through Federal grants to State enforcement offices and Sheriff Departments? And does it not come with an expected reciprocal interface when asked by Federal or military superiors for the implementation of certain Federally-originating “policies”?

DARPA_50Years

Through DARPA’s relationship with DOJ, of course the latest hi-tech gear invented for the military ends up in Federal programs which furnish same to State and Local law enforcement. (See Part Two)

In the UW document we also learn that psychological operations warriors do many other interesting things. Psy-ops specialists are military soldiers specializing in psychological operations, so they are interfaced at times with Intelligence community black operations on the clandestine battleground. That is one of the reasons why the Army’s manual on UW stresses the absolute need to work through surrogates. (i.e., drug smugglers, money launderers, terrorists)

A surrogate, as we gather, is to have a “handler”. The handler causes the surrogate to be motivated to do certain things which will lead to media and press releases which will influence the perception of the public mind. The handler would be a book-trained sort of black ops specialist of the type who would work in the FBI or CIA. Or – one who would work as an Unconventional Warfare operative, either on active duty within the military or as private sector specialty companies like Blackwater-Xe. But let us certainly note that government’s psychological operations are admittedly focusing on “such social dynamics as tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores.” Let us never forget that.

Our UW warriors (“psy-warriors”) do many other things as well. These soldiers or agents co-mingle with the media and press, for instance. They create tv and radio programming and make up press releases and other beneficial activities such as running columns in newspapers. They may publish pamphlets and fliers, letters to editors, etc. They may call into talk-radio shows, even sometimes run radio stations. They will back factions. Call it “national security” or “advertising” or “propaganda” or call it “UW” – it’s one and the same. And it is interlinked. By design. Look –

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks/print

As we see, they are intent upon data-mining the Internet’s global voice, and they are even now developing software which will allow one psy-op warrior sitting at one work station to manage and operate up to forty different “personas” to be used on various social networks and forums. Their efforts are designed to favor a desired perception within the public mind, or in, as Edward Bernays dubbed it, “the group mind”. Many agencies and departments inside the Federal behemoth are deeply concerned about just how you and I see things.

Like, it’s getting to be quite personal, and the more ‘personal’ it becomes, the less gullible and manipulated the individual citizen becomes. Fifty-thousand to seventy-thousand SWAT raids in America each year make it very personal to as many Americans and neighborhoods. Strike that chord in the sleeping mass mind, the group mind, and the strike shall resonate across the land through grassroots consciousness such as we saw in the Tea Party movement of 2009, which is a high string on the harp of Heaven in the name of freedom. That grassroots energy brought to Washington D.C. the largest protest crowd in American history, and while its message was not acknowledged by the power elite on the Hill, they immediately enjoyed directing our psy-ops agencies to beef up psychological operations in the domestic arena.

“But they can’t do that”, I am told often enough.

Well, maybe they can do that.

Recall Secretary of Defense William Cohen’s “Grave New World” speech of 1999 [see part two] and compare it in conjunction with reading the NIJ/DARPA report on merging domestic law enforcement with the U.S. military and establishing interface and cooperation under a policy called “Operations Other Than War” (OOTW).

The thrust of Unconventional Warfare abroad is translated into the domestic arena by simply lifting a template from one sheet or database to another. The psy-ops used in Syria or Egypt become the learned template of what the United Nations might do in the wake of a collapse of the American economy or society.

The template has been established already, and we find it first in the Department of Defense/Pentagon/JCS. Since the 1990s the U.S. military’s assets are accessible to domestic law enforcement through the good graces of the U.S. Department of Justice. Military Intelligence and independent Intelligence agencies such as CIA or NSA or NRO have an interest in what’s bubbling up in so many State legislatures lately, and so does the Department of Homeland Security and its interface with DARPA and the Department of Justice. Through all of that together we see a now-militarized interface with State and Local law enforcement through DHS’ Fusion Centers.

So, yes, they can do that, and are, as we speak, doing it on a massive scale.

What the Fusion Centers are distributing is psychological warfare Intelligence as concocted by private sector think-tanks friendly to certain discretionary sensitivities in respect to the source of the funding. Allow me to back that statement please, as on its face the statement would appear to be extremely blunt. Does the Mechanism have an Anatomy?

In Part Four we’ll answer that question, and go deeper into Psy-Ops and how UW and OOTW are applied in the domestic arena through a cooperative media and press. Then we will look at the DARPA/DHS/SPLC interface.

Elias Alias for Oath Keepers

Part One: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/16/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-one/

Part Two: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/06/21/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-two/

Part Three: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/08/15/an-empire-strikes-home-_-part-three/

Part Four: coming shortly

Further Reading:

1 – Propaganda by Edward Bernays; copyright 1928 by Edward Bernays; (Edward Bernays: 1891-1995); Copyright renewed 2005 by Anne Bernays; published by Ig Publishing, 178 Clinton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205; igpublishing@earthlink.net ; www.igpub.com ; ISBN: 0-9703125-9-8

See also: Pentagon Investigates Psy-Ops Allegations

http://www.newser.com/story/112812/psy-ops-pentagon-to-investigate-allegations-of-use-on-us-lawmakers-for-afghan-war.html

Cass Sunstein quotations – http://stopsunstein.com/media/pdf/Sunstein%20quote%20file.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Bob Fanning to Light the Fuse in Gubernatorial Debate at MSU Tonight

Thursday, January 19, 2012

And the rockets’ red glare,

the bombs bursting in air,

gave proof through the night

that our flag was still there…

-

The eight Republican candidates seeking the Chair of the Montana Governor’s office will debate in Ballroom A at the Montana State University Student Union Building at 7:00 pm this evening.  There is good reason to attend in person, for Bob Fanning is going to deliver closing remarks which are sure to receive national attention while reviving Montana’s spirit of freedom and independence.

Bob Fanning, of Pray, Montana, is running for Governor on a platform designed to leave all the other candidates grappling in the dust. You won’t want to miss his momentous battle-cry to regain Montana’s sovereignty as an autonomous State determined to stand strong against Federal incursion.

Bob Fanning is here to do battle for the people of Montana. His closing statement will echo  across Montana and the nation. Bob Fanning will fire bold, courageous, and on-target rockets into the political arena tonight. Stand by for press releases on Friday.

Bob Fanning’s running mate is Dr. Chuck Baldwin from the Kalispell area. Chuck Baldwin’s message of righteous Constitutional governance is well known around the nation, as Chuck Baldwin was the 2008 candidate on the Constitution Party ticket for President of the USA. Now Chuck Baldwin joins forces with Bob Fanning to fortify the vision of Montana’s sovereignty and return Montana to prosperity as the Federal debacle implodes and leaves economic wreckage in its wake.

The Bozeman Tea Party and the MSU College Republicans have arranged for live streaming coverage for those who cannot attend the forum in person.

Also, Dr. Ed Berry’s PolyMontana website is offering live streaming of the forum.

Tea Partiers, Constitutionalists, Independents, Patriots – all sorts of liberty loving Montanans are sure to be inspired by Bob Fanning’s message. All Oath Keepers are encouraged to attend wearing your Oath Keepers gear. Check in at the Fanning-Baldwin booth early and prepare to hear the only dues-paying member of Oath Keepers running for Montana Governor this year.

Salute!

Elias Alias

http://fanning-baldwin.com/
–

 Heirs to self knowledge shed gently their fears.

 

.

Fanning-Baldwin 2012: A Manifesto. A Political Platform. A Declaration.

January 27th, 2012

-

Fanning-Baldwin 2012:

A Manifesto.  A Political Platform.  A Declaration.

The Fanning-Baldwin2012 campaign for Governor/Lieutenant Governor of Montana would like to thank Glen Swope (Big Sky Pachyderms) and Carl Graham (Montana Policy Institute) and all others who produced an excellent Republican Gubernatorial candidate forum on the evening of January 19, 2012 at Montana State University in Bozeman.  Included in the preparations and promotion were:

Big Sky Pachyderms, Bozeman Tea Party, Gallatin County Campaign for Liberty, Gallatin County Republican Central Committee, Gallatin County Republican Women and Gallatin County Young Republicans. See list at the Bozeman Tea Party website – http://www.bozemanteaparty.com/archives/2042

A well-planned event, it hosted seven Republican Gubernatorial candidates and one Lieutenant Governor candidate.  (Gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill did not attend, but sent his running mate, Lt. Gov. candidate Jon Sonju, to stand in for him.) All gentlemen contenders rendered with dignity an informative introduction to the voters of Bozeman, the Gallatin Valley and surrounding Southwest Montana communities.

Gubernatorial candidate Bob Fanning delivered an explosive closing statement, the text for which is given below.

We may call the following statement a manifesto. We may call it a kryptonite political platform comprised of stunningly explosive planks. We may call it a shot across the bow of a berserk General government presently calling itself the Federal Government of the United States of America.

From my viewpoint, it is all three, and the three together make a fourth. It is your call to action. A brief explanation:

As a manifesto it richly implies various grievances arising from Montana’s diverse social and cultural strata. It doubles as a declaration of autonomy, in that the sovereign nation-state Republic of Montana recalls her protected relationship with the several States in compact, as clearly worded in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution and other historic documents.

As a manifesto it is a template for the citizens of every respective State in the compact by which “We The People” are to assume the legitimate, lawful, and proper position of ownership over the people’s respective State governments, each and each  retaining their respective sovereignty. As a manifesto it reminds that when the General government operates outside its enumerated powers it has violated and thus voided the compact between the States which created it. As a manifesto it recalls the supremacy of the several States in compact, and reminds people that the States created the General government – and that the General government did not create the States. May we as a people ever bear that in mind.

As a culturally-based political platform the following speech declares recognition that Federal policy has overly encroached into the affairs of Montana’s citizens in ways not authorized by the Federal government’s founding legal charter, and in ways prohibited by the Montana Constitution.

Montana’s lumber mills have been shut down. Montana’s mines are severely restricted in number. Montana’s industries have been harmed. Montana’s access to her lands has been compromised. Montana’s mineral wealth has been denied the people of Montana. Federal dependency is deeply entrenched across the board – farm subsidies, education funding, roads and services, etc., have until now been a problem. The Fanning-Baldwin 2012 campaign has a lawful and profitable solution.

As a political platform it is an expandable sphere of conscious awareness that the Federal intervention into everything from Elk hunting to public schooling has severely offended the average Montanan and depressed our State’s internal economy.

Bob Fanning’s closing statement on January 19, 2012, is a State-level resentment of a questionable Federal taxation which uses a militant IRS to enforce compliance for the funding of un-Constitutional wars overseas while ignoring the taxpayers’ demands that the Constitutionally-mandated U.S. Postal Service deliver the mail. We are told that the Federal government cannot afford to deliver the mail, but can of course afford to operate un-declared wars overseas.

As a declaration Bob Fanning’s speech is a rejection of many Federal intrusions such as socialized medicine and the eugenics inherent in “Obama-Care” within the State of Montana. It is a rejection of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA-2012). It is an embrace of Montana’s willful return to the use of Montana’s natural wealth to fund Montana’s traditional, family-oriented culture and way of life.

All of those things plus many others constitute a political perception, held in the public mind, which not only enumerates basic and common grievances, it also is a perception which carries with it a solution based on Constitutional law. This political platform seeks the peoples’ seat at the Office of the Governor of Montana.  In so doing, this political platform is also providing the people of Montana a foundation braced in the spirit and letter of the highest uncontested law of the land, and declares Montana’s sovereignty and Independence as an actor in the compact, respecting its own as well as the General government’s designated autonomous sovereignties respectively.  Some background on that:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s current statement came in 1997 with the Mack/Printz v USA decision, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority –

“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. … 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 by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, 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 in 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….  As Madison expressed it: ‘The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere’. (Federalist No. 39, at 245)” [Scalia: Mack/Printz v USA, 1997]

So there is this question – Knowing that the Constitution itself provides for Montana’s State Constitution to protect and represent its people, and that Montanans are perfectly within their Constitutional rights to insist all Federal interface with Montana’s society, culture, and self-governance is subject to public scrutiny and re-evaluation at the discretion of the people, why does not Montana right itself and assume its sovereign authority on behalf of her citizens?  To bring that to Montana’s attention, I would like to introduce the Fanning-Baldwin 2012 campaign for Governor of Montana.

The Fanning-Baldwin 2012 campaign is the epitome of the above three types of proclamation – it is a manifesto, a political platform, and a declaration of intent to reclaim our State’s sovereignty as protected by the compact which created the Federal government.  The Fanning-Baldwin 2012 campaign is Robert T. (Bob) Fanning of Pray, Montana, and Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Kalispell area in northwest Montana.

-

Bob Fanning: The Only Candidate

I am Bob Fanning of Pray, Montana. I am running for Governor because I love Montana.

I am the only candidate who has a realistic, workable plan which will lead Montana to rapid economic progress and to independence from the Federal funds which have put Montana out of business.  I have the credentials to lead and restructure our state’s economy in today’s Federally-induced crisis. My 38 years of multifaceted financial experience and business leadership practices have built within me the diagnostic tools to understand, explain, and quantify exactly what caused the fraud-based mortgage crisis and other financial threats to Montana’s prosperity.

Make no mistake about it, Montana – the satchel charges that were placed, that blew up America’s economy, were placed by the 106^th Congress.

Because those threats are coming from Wall Street and the Fed, I have a genuine plan to put Montanans back to work by removing Federal incursions which have impoverished our Counties and communities. I can open up Montana’s natural resources to development, industry, and jobs for Montanans by simply removing Federal blockages.

I am the only candidate who knows how and why to shut down the EPA, BLM, Forest Service, other Federal agencies and Departments, as well as the Department Of Justice enforcement groups such as DEA and ATF, and prevent their operation in Montana. I will use State interposition as Montana’s lawful answer to Federal corruption, and will faithfully and fully nullify (interpose to prevent) “Obama-Care” in Montana.

I will honor Montana’s medical marijuana referendum and protect the will of the people against Federal aggression.

I am the only candidate who will create a system of sound money based on hard assets including silver and gold.

I am the only candidate who is a proud member in Oath Keepers. I will prevent the Federal police state in Montana by shutting off State and County relations with the Fusion Centers of the Department of Homeland Security. My administration in Montana will break the interface between local peace officers and the U.S. military.

I am the only candidate who proactively supports the Fully Informed Jury Association.

I am the only candidate running with former Constitution Party 2008 Presidential candidate Dr. Chuck Baldwin as partner candidate for the office of Lieutenant Governor of Montana. Our ticket reads: Fanning/Baldwin2012. Our website is Fanning-Baldwin.com.

 

I am a proud member in the Montana Shooting Sports Association. I am an avid 2^nd Amendment advocate. I am the only candidate who will establish Montana’s Constitutional Militia, with an office in every County Commission to oversee and regulate militia development. I will support the authority of the County Sheriff by establishing a Montana office for the Constitutional Sheriffs And Peace Officers Association.

I am the only candidate who will shut down the U.S. Department of Education in Montana and return our schools to local control with parallel support for Home Schooling.

I am the only candidate who led the charge to de-list wolves in Montana and, as your Governor I will continue to diminish the wolf problem, rebuild Montana’s Elk and Moose populations while protecting farm animals, and insure Montana’s continued tradition of wild-game hunting. I am a strong believer in personal property rights of the individual as protected by the Montana and the Federal Constitutions.

 

I am the only candidate in the 2012 race who understands and vows to honor the Founders’ intent regarding the system of “dual sovereignty” preserved in the U.S. Constitution. I am the only candidate who understands how rebuilding Montana’s sovereignty under the Montana Constitution can free our people from Federal bondage.

I am the only candidate who will boot the United Nations’ Agenda 21 and related NGO detriments out of Montana. I will shut down ICLEI offices in Montana and expose the lies behind the UN’s use of the term “sustainable development”. I will boot the UN out of Montana.

I am the only candidate who knows how and why it is important to return personal responsibility and personal freedom to all Montanans. I believe Montanans can and will restore their once-proud independence and prosperity as my administration removes the Federal barriers and allows the bountiful treasure which is our birthright to once again flourish. I uphold Montana sovereignty.

I am the only candidate who has the courage and strength to get this done.

I am Bob Fanning of Pray, Montana. My creed is:

Life. Land. Liberty.

-

There we have it. On the record. The closing statement read at Montana State University in the Republican Gubernatorial Forum on January 19, 2012, is exactly what Dr. Chuck Baldwin named “The tip of the spear in the fight for freedom”.  It is a thing of awe. It is

Montana’s Call To Action!

Be part of it. Be proud of it. Join the movement to save State sovereignty for your State by helping Montana lead the way.  Show your support by visiting the campaign website and donating, contributing, and/or volunteering to promote this movement in your County or Town.

http://www.fanningbaldwin.com/

Salute!

Elias Alias

 

Bob Fanning On Agenda 21: Speaking Truth To Power

Friday, March 2, 2012

Bob Fanning is running for Governor of Montana as a populist Constitutional Republican who will fight for Montana sovereignty.

The U.S. Federal government has failed to protect Montanans from United Nations’ encroachment and has failed to protect Montanans from the criminality of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve System. The U.S. Federal government has failed to protect Montanans from Federal corruption.

Early In the 2012 Gubernatorial race there have been thus far three Gubernatorial debates.  At Montana State University at Bozeman, Montana, Bob Fanning read his “Montana Declaration of Independence”. At the Republican debate on campus at Billings, Montana, Bob Fanning exposed the evil of the 106^th Congress as it placed into law the four satchel charges which blew up the American financial system on September 15, 2008. At the Gubernatorial debate at Great Falls, Montana, Bob Fanning read his blistering speech on the relationship between the UN’s Agenda 21 and the Foreclosure Fraud spectacle which is now engulfing the nation and many Montana families.

No other Montana Gubernatorial candidate is speaking up on these topics, for fear of – well, for fear of what? Are they afraid to speak truth to power?  Perhaps they simply do not know how real the threat is.

 

Bob Fanning is not afraid to speak the truth. He knows the truth; he “gets it”. Truth is that we’re now looking at a criminal cabal centered in the Federal Reserve, the Federal government and Wall Street, which has international ties with and is marching to the drums of the United Nations with full-blown intent of destroying America, and taking Montana down along with the other States in the process.

Just why the other Republican Gubernatorial candidates do not know this, or, in knowing, are afraid to speak of it, escapes us. The RNC itself has proposed a resolution to expose the UN’s Agenda 21, yet of eight Republican Gubernatorial candidates only Bob Fanning is speaking out with a plan to shut down the United Nations gambit in Montana.  Here is a section from the Republican National Committee’s proposed resolution against Agenda 21 –

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice….

Okay. Now. The above was composed by a committee within the Republican National Committee. Can it be made more apparent than that? Montana is under siege by the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program which itself is fortified with NGOs such as Yukon To Yellowstone, ICLEI, etc. The State of Montana is not protecting Montanans from this scourge, and Bob Fanning continues to ask where is Steve Bullock, our alleged Attorney General?

This is the Great Falls Tribune coverage of the February 27, 2012, Gubernatorial debate in Great Falls, Montana, with the closing paragraph explaining about Bob’s statement on Agenda 21.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120228/NEWS01/202280304/Montana-gubernatorial-candidates-mix-up-Great-Falls?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

“Fanning repeatedly warned the more than 100 people gathered at the Exhibition Hall about “Agenda 21,” which he said is a United Nations conspiracy to strip Americans of their private property rights. Fanning called on Bullock, as attorney general, to “step up to the plate and start protecting Montana homeowners” from “zombie banks” that are using foreclosures to act on the “communist call to redistribute wealth.”

More: As Bob Fanning pointed out in his speech at the Gubernatorial debate in Great Falls, this international madness is connected with the fraudulent foreclosure phenomenon.  To understand the validity in Bob’s stand against fraudulent foreclosure practices in the wake of the housing market implosion, please read about the Attorney General of New York State, who has initiated lawsuits on behalf of the people of New York.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2012/feb/feb03a_12.html

Here is the headliner for that article on the New York Attorney General’s website –

A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN ANNOUNCES MAJOR LAWSUIT AGAINST NATION’S LARGEST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE & FRAUDULENT USE OF ELECTRONIC MORTGAGE REGISTRY

Complaint Charges Use Of MERS By Bank Of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, And Wells Fargo Resulted In Fraudulent Foreclosure Filings  

Servicers And MERS Filed Improper Foreclosure Actions Where Authority To Sue Was Questionable

Schneiderman: MERS And Servicers Engaged In Deceptive and Fraudulent Practices That Harmed Homeowners And Undermined Judicial Foreclosure Process

Learn more at the above link. And then join Bob Fanning in asking, “where is Attorney General Steve Bullock when the people of Montana need him?”

For your convenience here is the text of Bob’s speech –

Right now thousands of Montana families are losing their homes to foreclosure and many more will face this crisis in the coming year!

 

This was and is a well executed plan by the world elite banksters (here) (here) (here) and the politicians in bed with them to usher in the United Nations’ plan called Agenda 21; which proposes a profound re-orientation of ALL humans unlike anything the world has ever experienced. I quote from their 1976 United Nations Habitat I Conference:

                 “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market… Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

Folks, they are telling you that it is a social injustice to own your own home!  This is the communist call to re-distribute wealth and part of that plan is FORECLOSURE. The Zombie Banks are the intermediary arm of the United Nations and the City of London financial district. Foreclosure is being accomplished at the local level through mortgage fraud, which is the ultimate goal of those who seek global governance! 

• The powerful and their puppets believe that they should tell you where to live, how to live, and their ultimate goal is to move you to an URBAN SETTLEMENT of their design.
• See the RNC’s denouncement of Agenda 21, in which the Republican National Committee’s winter committee resolves that Agenda 21 not only wants your property, but also wants to deprive Americans of private automobile ownership.
• This is systemic financial barbarism done with the flick of a pen; sending documents in the mail to the homeowner, invoking fear to drive you from your homes; and it uses courts to support the theft.
• This is how to have a war without a shot being fired. 
• In the last 12 years, many Homeowner’s across Montana thought they were getting a loan from the too big to fail Zombie Banks of Wall Street.
•  A large percentage of the Mortgage Note’s from these banks were securitized: in plain English, securitization

1)         Is a tax evasion scheme

2)         It is wrongful and improper foreclosure process based on forgery and fraud

3)         It undermines the integrity of the judicial process

4)         Causes mass confusion over property title and ownership

5)         And those Zombie Banks have no standing as many courts are recently affirming!

• These big banks used this elaborate design to take the homeowner’s equity and the investor’s money, knowing full well that very few could unravel this highly engineered plan of FRAUD!

We have given the too big to Fail Wall Street Banks respect that they do not DESERVE!  They and many compromised politicians are taking your taxes and pumping that money into methods of assault against your families, friends, and neighbors.

Again, this is a part of Agenda 21 to steal Montana’s wealth, folks…the LAND is the WEALTH!

All Montana land is under assault! It affects us all, whether you have a mortgage or not, because the EPA, BLM, and USFS are also a part of this wealth stealing plan…

This is a call to the leaders throughout Montana and to my opponents on both sides to address this crisis, to set up a hot line that will help homeowners to stand in this fight. The people need to know that certain papers are necessary for a bank to foreclose on their property, and in most cases those papers cannot be produced.

Do not leave your land, it is your WEALTH, YOUR HERITAGE, and YOUR CHILDREN’S INHERITANCE!

Possession is 9/10s of the law.  Together we Montanans will deal with the other 1/10^th…to make new laws that confront this assault head on. Montana’s antiquated codes and property laws were not designed for this battle and are currently inefficient. 

Attorney General Steve Bullock, of Washington DC’s Step Toe Johnson Law Firm, defender of these Zombie Banks, what are you doing to protect Montana property owners? Why are you allowing the Attorney General of the State of New York stand alone in exposing this? You have an oath-sworn duty to the people of Montana, and the facts are now known. Where are you

As governor, foreclosure fraud will be one of my first priorities

You are invited to read that speech at Bob Fanning’s campaign website where you can donate by credit card to Bob Fanning’s campaign.

Bob Fanning is the only man running for Governor of Montana who has the courage and knowledge to combat the international and Federal-level threats to our well being, freedom, and prosperity.  The other candidates wilt under the magnitude of the threat facing all Montanans today, but Bob Fanning rises to the challenge with Constitutional remedies and courageous implementation.

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote to Bob Fanning on Monday, February 27, 2012, after having read Bob Fanning’s platform, and said that he is in agreement with Bob’s “substantive” planks.

Join with Judge Napolitano in recognizing that Bob Fanning’s Montana Declaration of Independence is valid, truthful, and necessary if we are to save freedom for Montanans and indeed for all Americans. Bob Fanning could use our help.

.

Contribute your support online at http://fanning-baldwin.com/?p=164

Checks and money-orders may be mailed to:

Bob Fanning * FanningForGovernor2012 * Post Office Box 7 * Pray, Montana , 59065

- Friends of Fanning For Governor 2012 -