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) at:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/03/causus-belli.html

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: http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

Also see: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

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 at:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-hutaree

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.”.