The Hutaree Militia Raid


Once in a while, someone writes a column that leaves me
enviously exclaiming,
"Darn! I wish I had written that!" Candidly, I do not often find
myself saying that, but I sure did when I read William
Norman Grigg`s excellent column entitled
"Casus Belli"
(Latin for "Case
for War"
) on Monday, March 29, 2010. Read his column
(even if you don`t read the rest of mine)



here.


I want to try and expound on Grigg`s outstanding
analysis of the Hutaree militia raid. In doing so, I am
going to also expand upon Grigg`s reference to James
Madison`s trenchant treatise in Federalist 46.

Referring to the federal indictment against the Hutaree
militia, that alleged members were making preparations
for potential armed conflict against law enforcement
officers as a
"seditious conspiracy,"
Grigg astutely noted,
"If they were
acquiring weapons and developing appropriate skills in
anticipation of defending themselves against government
aggression, their actions–while possibly conspiratorial
in nature–don`t amount to a crime. This is particularly
true in light of our cultural history, in which
sedition–agitation to change the existing political
order–is our proudest civic tradition."

Grigg then rightly observes,
"Government is
nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of
violence. Everything done by government contains at
least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. Thus the
indictment`s description of Hutaree as `an
anti-government extremist organization which advocates
violence against local, state and Federal law
enforcement` is a product of rhetorical onanism [from
Genesis 38:9--a great analogy, Will]."

As a general rule, government is the most violent force
on the planet. If one wants to get a true perspective on
the historical record regarding who or what routinely
produces the most violence and death, one should pick up
a copy of R. J. Rummel`s book,
"Death By
Government."
Since the end of World War II,
Communist China and Red Russia lead the pack when it
comes to death and brutality; however, the US government
has inflicted its share of carnage as well. For example,
in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the government in
Washington, D.C., has killed over 800,000 civilians (and
this figure is a conservative estimate noting the most
credible resources possible).


See



here.


Also see



here
.
Plus, does anyone remember the violence that our federal
government enacted upon the Branch Davidians outside
Waco, Texas? Does anyone remember the mother shot in the
head while innocently holding her little baby in her own
home by a federal sniper near Ruby Ridge, Idaho (after
her small son was shot in the back by federal agents)?
In fact, the list of civilians who have been killed by
federal law enforcement agents over the years is a very
long one. Granted, many of these killings were done in
lawful self-defense; but others amounted to nothing less
than old-fashioned murder (and never was the federal
agent who committed the murder ever brought to justice).

If one wants to indict an
"organization
which advocates violence,"
then surely the central
government in Washington, D.C., should be indicted!


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.

To charge, however (as the indictment does), that
Hutaree members (all 9 of them!) planned
"to levy war
against the United States, [and] to oppose by force the
authority of the Government of the United States . . ."

will take some doing to make stick. As Grigg points out,
"If Hutaree was
preparing for armed DEFENSE against criminal actions by
government officials, this charge is as pointless as a
broken pencil. If their efforts to `prevent, hinder, and
delay` various government initiatives were confined to
activism, rather than armed conflict, they are–in that
particular–not substantially different from hundreds or
thousands of other groups."


The entire case against Hutaree appears to be based upon
the testimony of an FBI undercover agent inside the
group. Placing agent provocateurs inside groups such as
Hutaree is a classic strategy of federal police
agencies. This part of the story was broken by the Wall
Street Journal.


See the WSJ report here.




Militia Chief`s Mistrust Festered, Friends Say

| Portrait Emerges
of Man Who Despised Authority; Undercover Agent Played a
Role in Probe
, March 31, 2010.


 Using agent
provocateurs is a long-favored tactic of both the
Kremlin and the White House. Joel Skousen`s latest WORLD
AFFAIRS BRIEF contains an extremely trenchant and
insightful analysis of how Russia and the US have
used–and continue to use–this tactic.

Skousen writes, "A related tactic [to false flag operations] is the hiring of agent
provocateurs to infiltrate a group targeted for
destruction and induce radical elements of that group to
perform crimes against innocent civilians that will
justify armed retaliation or arrest. With the sudden
surge in claimed terrorism in Russia and the arrest of
the radical Hutaree group in the US, it is helpful to
review the role of false flag terror attacks in Russia
and the role of agent provocateurs in the US as we
analyze what`s really going on."

Skousen further states,
"As we move on to
discuss the arrest of the radical members of the Hutaree
cult in Michigan, it is important to note that virtually
every prosecution of so-called domestic terrorism in the
past decade is owed to the infiltration of FBI
informants. While none of us in America dispute the need
to gain intelligence on real threats to national
security, we have to question the propriety of training
and pressuring informants (most of which have been
forced to accept the informant assignment in lieu of a
prison term for other crimes committed) to provoke and
induce angry and unstable dissidents to commit acts of
terror.



"All too often, FBI `informants` have been pressured by
superiors to go far beyond informing. They have provided
weapons, explosives, and even acted as the guiding hand
to map out the strategy and tactics for performing the
deed. These things only come out reluctantly during
trial, and even then I suspect that we are never allowed
to know the full extent of these provocations."


To receive a sample of Joel Skousen`s WORLD AFFAIRS
BRIEF or to subscribe to this excellent newsletter (I
highly recommend it), write to:




editor@worldaffairsbrief.com

In addition, Will Grigg states that another major
component of the indictment that is worrisome is the
charge that Hutaree is guilty of
"seditious
conspiracy."
As Grigg writes,
"Whatever is
eventually learned about Hutaree, as things presently
stand the indictment against it could provide a template
for `seditious conspiracy` prosecutions involving
practically any group that endorses the use of defensive
force to protect citizens against government aggression.



"Indeed, the definition of `conspiracy` used in the
Hutaree indictment could make a criminal out of anyone
who reads Federalist Paper 46 in public, thereby sharing
James Madison`s commendably seditious admonition that
the people preserve `the advantage of being armed` in
the event that insurrection against the central
government proves necessary in order to preserve
liberty."


Let`s look a little closer at Federalist 46, written by
Founding Father, author of the US Constitution, and
America`s fourth President, James Madison. In dispelling
the fears of colonists toward a standing federal army,
Madison said in



Federalist 46,

"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."

Madison went on to say, "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."

Could Madison be any clearer? He (and the rest of
America`s founders) emphatically expected the militia of
the "several
States"
to be universally armed against the
potential encroachment on liberty by the central
government, meaning: the citizenry must at all times be
prepared to use their arms against any aggressive nature
of the federal government to trample their freedoms.


This, of course, reinforces the founders` intent, that
the 2nd Amendment protected the right of the people to
keep and bear arms for the express purpose of providing
the citizenry with the capability to repel (with
violence) any assault against their liberties by their
own federal government.

So, pray tell, would today`s FBI categorize James
Madison`s statements in Federalist 46 as
"seditious conspiracy"? If so, perhaps we are closer to tyranny than
any of us wants to admit!


Furthermore, it is not lost to millions of Americans
that this is the same federal government (through



Department of Homeland Security fusion centers
)
that just recently characterized pro-lifers; people who
support the 2nd Amendment; people who oppose the United
Nations and illegal immigration; people who voted for
Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin; and Iraq War veterans as
"extremists" and potential "dangerous militia members."


But, once again, the federal government–along with their
propagandists in the major news media, including its
artificial authority on militias, the ultra-liberal
Southern Poverty Law Center (
SPLC)
in Montgomery, Alabama–is able to



use the Hutaree militia

to demonize militias in general, and even more damaging,
to try and destroy the concept of constitutional State
militias in the minds of the American public.

Did members of the Hutaree intend to carry out
aggressive violence against law enforcement personnel? I
have no idea. Until this story broke in the national
media, I had never heard of this group. I will wait for
the facts to come out–if indeed the federal government
and national media even allow the facts to come out.


I do know this: I do not trust the federal government to
tell the truth about anything! They did not tell the
truth about the

Branch Davidians at Waco;

they did not tell the truth about



Randy Weaver;

they did not tell the truth about



Gordon Kahl;

and, if their track record is any indicator, it is
doubtful that they are telling the truth about the
Hutaree militia. But we shall see.

In the meantime, as William Norman Grigg opines,
"There`s reason
to believe that the Feds have expanded and escalated
this ongoing enterprise to exploit, and exacerbate,
growing public hostility toward an increasingly invasive
and esurient government.



"
Whether
it is ever demonstrated that Hutaree intended to `levy
war` against the U.S. government, this much is beyond
serious dispute: The Homeland Security state is
unambiguously preparing for war with the public–in fact,
it has been doing so for a long time."

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the
pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola,
Florida. He hosts a


weekly radio show
. His
website is


here
.