Richard Anatone
Activist Post
October 12, 2010

(NOTE: In light of recent events with CPS taking the newborn child away from a couple merely because the father was affiliated with Oath Keepers, which the affidavit incorrectly labels a militia, it is all the more clear that the Second Amendment is the target of the Ruling Class.  It is important to understand why the Second Amendment was written, as this essay will discuss).

Although Oath Keepers is not a militia, this is another attempt to make the 2nd Amendment, along with rest of the Constitution, look like a manual for terrorists.

In part 1 and part 2 of this exploratory essay, we learned that the Federal Government’s Department of Justice has issued a glossary to be distributed to law enforcement officers throughout the country — a glossary called “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts,” where we find definition after definition of terms used by people who they categorize as “Domestic Terrorists.”

We were not only shocked to find terms like “Constitution Party,” “Precious Metals,” “Council on Foreign Relations,” “Patriot Movement,” “Gold and Silver,” and dozens more in this glossary of terrorist terminology, but that the definitions were misleading and ill-defined at best.  In this last of three parts, we explore the Government’s attempt at portraying gun owners and the “militia movement” as arms of domestic terrorism, and how we can peacefully return sanity to our Government.

Aside from the Constitution, the Constitution Party, and the Patriot Movement; the Department of Justice attacks members of militias (and militias in general) in their giant glossary of terms supposedly used by domestic terrorists.  This is evident with the recent Child Protective Services abduction of a newborn because the father was affiliated with Oath Keepers, which the affidavit calls a “militia.”  This sets the tyrannical precedent that if you are a militia member, your baby will taken from you.

Although Oath Keepers is not a militia, this is another attempt to make the 2nd Amendment, along with rest of the  Constitution, look like a manual for terrorists, and it is another attempt to make our Bill of Rights illegal.  Not only does the Constitution state in the Second Amendment that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, but that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Members of the militia movement freely exercise their rights to keep and bear arms, which is perfectly legal.

Here’s how the DOJ defines Militia Movement: “An extremist movement based on armed, paramilitary groups that emerged in the mid-1990s using the rationalization that the United States’ people needed armed force to help defend themselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that was becoming the puppet of the ‘New World Order.’”

The term “Unorganized Militia” is also defined in this glossary  The definition is entirely too long to reprint here, but interestingly, it ends with, “In the 1980s, Posse Comitatus leader William Potter Gale came across the obscure passage in U.S. Code that mentioned the unorganized militia and decided, incorrectly, that the ‘unorganized militia’ was a legal armed force which was not controllable by the government and indeed was designed to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.”

What part of the U.S. Code is the DOJ referring to?  Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, §311, which states,  “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” (emphasis added).

But the DOJ doesn’t mention this because they don’t want you or the law officers for whom this was written to know that the U.S. Code mentions “unorganized militias,” or that the unorganized militia according to our own U.S. Code is defined as those not members of of the National Guard.  This means that the Unorganized Militia is not controlled the Federal Government.  Remember, the Second Amendment states that the militia is necessary for a “Free State.”  How can a State be free if its militia, which is necessary to preserve its freedom, is controlled by the Federal government?The militia is different than the Military, and the unorganized militia is a militia made up of non-Guard members according to our own U.S. Code!

And what’s more is that it does not matter whether the Militia movement is training to defend themselves against anything; whether criminals, serial killers, terrorists, or, yes, a tyrannical military take-over, because preparing to defend oneself is not a crime. Training to defend oneself is not a crime, and yet the DOJ likes to pretend that it is, putting these people in a glossary full of terrorists and criminals.

As a matter of fact, our Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment only to allow people to defend themselves from foreign invasions — they wrote it to ensure that people could protect themselves against any invasion, foreign and domestic.

While most people argue and bicker about the use of commas in the Second Amendment, one need look no further than Federalist 46, written by James Madison.  Although this excerpt is long, it clearly indicates that the militia, as conceived of by the Father of the Constitution, is a defense mechanism against an encroaching Federal Government:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. (emphases added).

James Madison states clearly that the militia is separate from Federal Control and that the main purpose of a militia is to protect the States from Tyranny in Government. Madison aims to calm the worry that the Federal Government might militarily take over the States by reassuring those still weary of the proposed Constitution that the States and the People that make up the States will be able to defend themselves — not attack, but defend themselves — with the militia.  He even goes on to say that the People should not be insulted by taking away their rights to defend themselves and have them be part of the experiment of not being able to protect themselves and their States.  He then concludes by saying that if the Federal Government tries to usurp the powers of the States and infringe on the freedoms and liberties of the States and their respective citizens by militarily taking them over, then they will be defeated by the States.  This, incidentally, is why the Feds have called the Founding Fathers the “first terrorists of the United States.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • {openx:49}

For those of you that believe that this is all far-fetched, and that our Beloved Federal Government would never consider taking on the States with Federal military personnel, you’re only fooling yourself.  Remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina? The Feds went door to door and illegally disarmed the Public. How about when FEMA illegally confiscated weapons from people after a tornado hit Kansas?  How about when Big Sis Janet Napolitano said that “Domestic Terrorists” (that means you if you’re still reading this) are “more dangerous than international terrorists! We see Boy Scouts of America being military trained to take on Terrorists! – meaning you! And now, with the Health Care Bill, we see a “ready reserve corps” under the direction of the Surgeon General with a ranking equal to a 4-Star General (that’s NPR trying to debunk this, mind you) ready to “help” in an emergency, like a hurricane, or an epidemic — just like every other time the Feds “helped” disarm the Public.  Maybe they’ll “help” round us all up so we can be forcibly vaccinated in case of another “swine flu hoax.”

We clearly can see that this was the reason that the Second Amendment was written.  And, again, with the writings of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, we are told about the true intention of the militia:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people (emphases added).

Joseph Story is clearly explaining that our Second Amendment rights (owning weapons and having a well-regulated militia) are more than just protecting ourselves from foreign invasions.  It is about protecting us from any and all abuses of power in which our very lives and safety are threatened.

This is not to say that the militia movement is a movement made of people preparing to attack the government, nor am I advocating such actions.  On the contrary — I have advocated nothing but peace in all of my writings.  The militia movement is merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms, honoring our Founding Fathers’ suggestions, which for some reason makes the Department of Justice look at these people as though they are terrorists.

The DOJ’s response to this would simply be to look at the Hutaree militia, which was arrested for “conspiring to attack the government.”  Expounding upon this, let us read what libertarian Chuck Baldwin has to say:

If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone–in the government or without–they deserved to be stopped. If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government overreach or abuse–and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful self-defense–they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.

And this is being determined in a court of law, as we speak.  If they were truly breaking the law and conspiring to carry out illegal acts of violence, they were rightfully stopped, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  But, as Chuck Baldwin points out, if they were simply preparing to defend themselves, then they committed no crime — unless preparedness is a crime.

But wait!  Apparently those that want to prepare are terrorists according to the DOJ.  Preparedness is somehow a terrorist act!  Let us look at the DOJ’s definition of Survivalist: “The survivalist movement feared a coming collapse of civilization, generally as the result of nuclear war, and tried to prepare themselves to survive it. Survivalists typically stockpiled food, water, and weapons, especially the latter, and instructed themselves on topics ranging from first aid to childbirth to edible plants.” (emphasis added)

One can’t help but wonder what in God’s name this word is doing on a list of terrorist terminology.  All the talk from the Pentagon about Iran preparing for nuclear war, or manufactured computer viruses that can wipe out “the grid” — but if you happen to prepare for what might come, you’re a terrorist . . . people who are interested in becoming self-sufficient, mainly regarding wild edible and storable food, storable and purified water, weapons for protection or hunting — that for some reason is equivalent to domestic terrorism! Folks, you can’t make this up!  How many of you have grandparents that lived through the Great Depression?  And how many of them have the motto of, “Pray for the best, prepare for the worst” to this day? If you have an Italian grandmother, I guarantee there is a ten-foot-tall closet in her basement filled with jars of preserved food.  But for some reason, if you prepare, you’re a potential terrorist in the eyes of the Department of Justice.

Is this far-fetched?  The term “Genetically Altered Crops” is on the list too, defined as, “One target of environmental terrorists who believe that any effort to alter the genes of a crop is wrong and potentially damaging to the environment.”  Of course they leave out the fact that independent studies have linked GMO food to cancer!And yes, genetically tampering with nature’s food supply is wrong not just morally, but because it results in unhealthy food that has also been linked to sterility!  But, again, if you’re against GMO food, and are stockpiling healthy and normal food, or non-GMO non-hybrid heirloom seeds, just like the Global Elite are doing, then apparently you’re a terrorist.

Does this upset you like it does me?  Are you a little uneasy about the fact the the Federal Government defines you as a domestic terrorist merely because you happen to disagree with certain Unconstitutional acts that have taken place over the past century, or because you’re angry that we have not legitimately declared war with a foreign country since World War II, or because you see your taxes raised day by day while tax cheats get promoted to Treasury Secretary?  Or that everything our Founding Fathers  warned us about is happening, and if you talk about them, you get labeled as a “domestic terrorist?”  Does it bother you that the Feds are hiring Mossad (Israeli Intelligence Agencies) to spy on the Tea Parties— illegally, I might add?  Does it bother you that the Federal Government has bought 500 vans with X-rays to illegally search your cars and homesto look for weapons without you even knowing it?  Or that “Conservative” FOX News tries to legitimize this violation of your 4th Amendment rights?  Does it bother you that Supreme Court decisions regarding your monetary compensation for your hard-earned physical labor are being ignored by the IRS, which according to the Federal Government in the case “Diversified Metal Products Inc. v T-Bow Co. Trust, IRS, and Steve Morgan” is NOT an agency of the Federal Government?Oh, and if you try to visit that website, Google will tell you that the site “might harm your computer,” and interestingly, it is the only website online that actually has a PDF of the National Archives and Records document that has the signed copies of the admission on behalf of the Feds that the IRS is not a Government Agency.

Are you beginning to get this now?  The lies?  The disinformation?  The spying?  The blatant disrespect for our Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and our freedoms?  The Government hates you!  Otherwise they wouldn’t pass legislation that legally defines you as a terrorist in Section 802 of the PATRIOT ACT, and they wouldn’t have Google spy, censor, or block websites that provide information — information, by the way, that shows even more of an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes!  If they didn’t hate you, they wouldn’t be spying on American citizens through their e-mails, social networking sites, and phone calls to ensure that they don’t have “resentment toward government.”  If they didn’t hate you, then they wouldn’t be patrolling the streets in vans that x-ray you, spray you with radiation, and violate your 4th Amendment Rights! If they didn’t hate you, they wouldn’t have CPS take your children away for visiting the Oath Keepers website! If they didn’t hate you, they wouldn’t be openly trying to introduce legislation like the “Enemy Belligerent Act,” where the Congress is allowed to secretly arrest you, detain you indefinitely, classifying you as a Terrorist Suspect! The government hates you!

But it is important to remember: this is not an American Government — the term “American” is vague when talking about our Government.  The Federal Government is American only in the sense that they legally live and reside in this country, but that’s about it.  They are working against the best interest of the American citizens, as admitted by David Rockefeller in his autobiography Memoirs. The true power structure — those that do not relinquish power when presidents and congressmen leave — they are the true Government, because they are the ones that Govern us from behind-the-scenes even after our politicians’ terms expire. They remain from term to term, and so there is a “continuity of agenda” from year to year — decade to decade — and the agenda is one that lies to you, destroys your freedoms, and then lies to you about your destroying your freedoms, and then labels you a terrorist for pointing out the lies about the freedoms being destroyed.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The only way to fix this is to join the anti-establishment movement — the true anti-establishment movement (i.e. the movement not endorsed by a political party or a Cable News channel) — and to elect ourselves into office. We are not outnumbered — we can peacefully Take Our Country Back (and that term, of course, is capitalized because it is a term listed in the DOJ Glossary as a term used by terrorists).  Join the movement.  Speak out, and be louder than ever.  Attend meetings.  Talk to your neighbors, don’t spy on them.  Listen patiently to those who you know disagree with you, and try to find common ground — you’ll be surprised.  Hang up fliers.  Call talk radio stations, and bring up your own issues. Get involved. And of course, run for office — run for office, run for office, run for office.  It does not matter what office: town council, State Rep, sheriff, school board — any office.  As I said in my previous work, it has taken these monsters almost 100 years to infiltrate our government, destroy our dollar, and centralize everything that should be local — education, police departments, energy, environment — now we must elect ourselves and take the power back.  Once we elect ourselves into our cities, towns, and States, we can finally nullify these illegal actions taken by the Feds, and Take Our Country Back, as well as our States.

In the meantime, don’t you dare even consider waiving an American Flag upside down to show that you feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction — because the term “Flag of Distress” is also on the Department of Justice’s glossary for Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism.



The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!

Related Articles