Hidden threats — part 2

May 18, 1998

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don’t have film.

Last week, I reluctantly shared with you part one of some of
the hidden threats “We the People” face from our government leaders.
Despite the remarkable response from readers, I want to underscore that
none of this is really new. All this information, and more, has been
circulating in the constitutional conservative community for years. Much
of this kind of documented, factual information is pooh-poohed as the
paranoid ramblings of the radical right- wing wackos by “the
controllers” who would treat us like mushrooms.

I have often noted that some people just don’t want to be confused
with facts which contradict their preconceived opinions. The director of
resource management for the U.S. Army has confirmed the validity of a
memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor
program under development by the Department of Army. The document
states, “Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Army
regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization” and the procedure
to “establish civilian prison camps on installations.” (Chereith
Chronicle, June 1997)

In the wake of Senate hearings in 1975, the steady development of
highly specialized surveillance capabilities, combined with the
exploding computerized information technologies, have enabled a massive
data base of personal information to be developed on millions of
unsuspecting American citizens. It is all in place awaiting only a
presidential declaration to be enforced by both military and civilian
police.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security
Directive 58 which empowered Robert McFarlane and Oliver North to
use the National Security Council to secretly retrofit the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to manage the country during a national
crisis. In 1984 “REX exercises” simulated civil unrest
culminating in a national emergency with a contingency plan for the
imprisonment of 400,000 people. REX ’84 was so secretive that special
metal security doors were installed on the FEMA building’s fifth floor,
and even long-term officials of the Civil Defense Office were prohibited
entry. The alleged purpose of this exercise was to handle an influx of
refugees created by a war in Central America, but a more realistic
scenario was the detention of American citizens.

State of Emergency

Under REX, the president could declare a state of emergency,
empowering the head of FEMA to take control of the internal
infrastructure of the United States and suspend the Constitution. The
president could invoke executive orders 11000 through 11004 which would:

Draft all citizens into work forces under government supervision;
Empower the postmaster to register all men, women and children;
Seize all airports and aircraft;
Seize all housing and establish forced relocation of citizens.

FEMA, with a black budget allegedly provided by the Department of
Defense, has worked closely with the Pentagon in an effort to avoid the
legal restrictions of Posse Comitatus. While FEMA may not have been
directly responsible for these precedent-setting cases, the principle of
federal control was seen during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 with the
federalization of the National Guard and during the siege at Waco, where
Army tanks were involved in the final conflagration.

Government Violence Is “Legitimate”?

The deputy attorney general of California commented at a conference
that anyone who attacks the state, even verbally, becomes a
revolutionary and an enemy by definition. Louis Guiffreda, who was head
of FEMA, stated that “legitimate violence is integral to our form of
government, for it is from this source that we can continue to purge our
weaknesses.”

It is significant to note that the dictionary definition of terrorism
— “the calculated use of violence” — corresponds precisely to
the government’s stated policy of “the use of legitimate
violence.” Hold on, a reasonable person who can read might ask: Who
are the real terrorists? Guiffreda’s remark provides a revealing insight
into the thinking of those who have been charged with oversight of the
welfare of the citizens in this country. Apparently, if one’s
convictions or philosophy do not correspond with the government’s
agenda, that individual may find himself on a government enemy list
thereby making him/her a “target” to be “purged” by the use of
“legitimate violence.”

The stories of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence
are the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were
not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of
means and education. They had good lives, which included security, but
they valued liberty more. Despite the comfort of their life style they
pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on
the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each
other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Honor …
honor is not and should not be an anachronism. Sadly, it is a principle
and concept fading into obscurity.

History books don’t tell us much of what happened in the
Revolutionary War. We didn’t just fight the British. We were British
subjects at that time and we fought our own government! No
wonder our founding fathers had a hatred for standing armies, and
allowed, through the second amendment, for everyone to be armed.

Philosopher George Santayana once noted, “He who does not learn from
history” (Russia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, China, et al.) “is destined
to repeat it.”