Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

William B. Fox Archive
Mission of Conscience Book I Contents

Still putting heat on the Prime Turkey at the Crawford Peace House in Nov 2008.  Where it all began in summer 2003.

Chapter 6

The First Crawford, TX Protest,
the Angry Letter Campaign,
and “Why We Fight”


In August 2003, Captain May drove about 160 miles northwest from Houston to meet fellow protest activists at the Crawford Peace House near the Bush “Texas White House” in Crawford, Texas.   He also met some foreigners who provided additional confirmation of the Battle of Baghdad cover-up.
This was two years before Cindy Sheehan achieved national fame by setting up “ Camp Casey ” in the same area, named after her son killed in action with the Marines in Iraq .  May was at Crawford and openly anti-Bush before it was cool.
Nevertheless, w
ith his martial arts and military background, he felt uncomfortable with the leftist pacifism expressed by certain anti-war demonstrators. He wrote:

Saturday I was a bit busy at the Peace House.  They don’t know what to do with me, because I’m a black-belt running an anti-war campaign against the suppression of the First Amendment, while they’re a peace movement.  But they listen to me,  I’ll say that for ‘em.  They listen and listen and listen – and they laugh.  I gave a talk for the cameras and crowds and had dozens of ‘em rolling at how much you Yankees think you can hide.  It was the best show since Will Rogers, let me tell you.  I read an op-ed to all 125 of those glorious patriots (it’s attached) that the Houston Chronicle doesn’t have the balls to run even though the piece is nothing but the restatement of the last three op-eds I’ve published in the Chronicle.  They articulate the following thesis:  Iraq is quicksand.  The reading was a good performance, I have to say.  You could learn a thing or two about moral conviction, junior:  Moral conviction means you step out into the broad, hot heart of Texas and take issue with your leader, even denounce him as I did, do and shall continue to do.  People follow that kind of moral conviction.  Man, I’ve got more geeks sending more of my stuff around the Internet than I can keep up with.  There are spray-can artists painting RIP 3/7 CAV on railroads, road signs and overpasses.

May demonstrated alongside Candance Robison of Military Families Speak Out. She was the wife of Lt. Robison in Iraq , who had stood up to Sean Hannity on the Fox Television Network.
Earlier, on August 26th, May had sent an email to Hannity and Colmes:

I write to defend the honor of the Army wife, Mrs. Candace Robison, whom you - Mr. Hannity - insulted and threatened on the air last night as you and Mr. Colmes sat and watched without rising to her defense.
She wasn’t there to grind a media axe, and she’s not a pro.  She was just concerned and sincere.  She said it seemed like things in Iraq were in disarray.  She said that she had opposed the war from the start because the Bush arguments hadn’t convinced her.  She said that her husband, like me, had served for decades in the military forces of his country, that he was a patriot, but that he thought we were amiss in Iraq .  She reminds me a lot of Melanie in Gone with the Wind, who tells Scarlet that even though Ashley is a patriot doing his duty, he believes that the Confederacy is amiss in fighting….

In his 14 Aug 2006 Iconoclast interview, May explained why certain folks at the Peace House were uncomfortable with having him around, but for very different reasons than his ideological differences with them:

“Kay (Lucas) remembers seeing me here, at the Peace House, for the first time. I came to Crawford when Bush was in town back in August of 2003, and sat there at the burger joint with a protest sign about Baghdad , one man in my dress blues. I just wanted to see if they would kill me for trying to blow the whistle on the Battle of Baghdad cover up, because I was so mad at them. I figured it was dangerous, since Bush was in Crawford for his summer break then, as he is now, and the Bush administration has a reputation for being Mafioso. But I was so angry that I didn’t care. I didn’t get bushwhacked – all I got was a criminal trespass citation and a threat of jail. Kay and some of the other Peace House folks were afraid that my luck might not hold, so she made me leave town after a couple of days.”

May had hoped that Bush would pass the burger joint so that he could create a confrontational scene.  At the time, he knew Bush was a jerk for covering up the Battle of Baghdad, but he still did not view him as a killer.  Nevertheless, he sensed his life was in danger.
When Capt. May returned to his home in Houston , he continued his protest campaign by email.  This sometimes meant sending angry letters to prominent individuals in an effort to try to shame or embarrass them back to honorable behavior.  
Captain May’s metamorphosis from an apolitical soldier to a cyber radical was nearly complete.  He paid a heavy price, becoming virtually unemployable. Looking back four years later, May commented in his 15 Oct 2007 interview with talk show host Carol Brouillet, he commented:

Capt May: …It amazed me that by 2003, writing substantially the same thing [I had written in 1992], I came under universal attack. You know, not only civilians who didn't have a clue what they are talking about when they talked about invading a Middle Eastern country, but even military people. The same people who a decade before had been sounding high praises for being a good boy in writing up a realistic military picture, were now attacking me. So that is the point where I began to break pretty much with my old Republican, red neck buddies, as someone who earned a living writing with the Houston business community, the oil industry in particular, Compaq Computers in Houston to some degree. Most of my buddies were Republicans, hoity toity. But I began to break with that whole crowd and by the time the war started going sour, and I continued to publish op-eds and analyses talking about what a lousy deal it was, they broke with me. So you could say on the one hand I would like to say that out of patriotic principle I gave up all my positions, my salaried positions or money-making opportunities, but a truer way of saying it was that I kept talking truth to power, so power fired me. (laughter). I wound up not able to get work. So I have been losing money for four years now. I got a gig teaching Latin for a school out here in North Houston for a while until they found out who I was, and I got fired from that. You know there is a kind of McCarthyism going on, and if you speak and write against this regime, your name gets on a list. And I can say with some pride my name was on the White House list as far back as 2003 because I was writing op-eds busting the Bush war plan in his hometown Houston Chronicle. You know Houston is the de facto hub of the Bush empire. So that was not appreciated. So I got pulled by steps and degrees over away from being a largely self-interested, self-motivated writer who was trying to cultivate the power elite of Houston, who happen to be Petroleum princes, the neo-cons, towards being what I am now, which is a self-mobilized Captain who is really kind of a cyber renegade.

Captain May explained the origins of the phrase “mission of conscience” with interviewer Frank Whalen (23 Feb 2006):

….I filed reports with the military up to the Department of Defense. With the Department of the Army Inspector General, with the Department of the Army Public Affairs Inspector General, III Corps,  Inspector General at Fort Hood, and the Fort Stewart Inspector General which is the home base of the Third Infantry Division where all the losses were sustained and covered up. I filed official documents and followed those up by actually calling in the summer of 2003 the Department of the Army Public Affairs where I talked to a few public affairs officers. A Col John who I spoke with. They acknowledged the Baghdad cover up. They basically said you are going to get killed doing this. And I said, "That is the mission." It sounds stupid, I guess it sounds stupid, you are right, I took an oath to defend the country and to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Once I ascertained that we are in the grip of domestic tyranny --lies -- illegal propaganda conducted against the American people --psychological warfare-- I had no choice but to take the view of it that I was going to continue with the mission. When I said that I was going to go through it all the way, what the people at Public Affairs --these were the people who were doing the cover ups-- what they themselves told me is that proclaim it as a mission of conscience. That is your best chance. I had never thought, like so many people who do things, they never think to label the things they are doing. But what I am doing is a mission of conscience. That being the case, I always go by my military rank. Because I am not a person, I am an officer, Captain May. It is a lot harder being an officer than a person. You are holding yourself to a code. The way I view it, you know at the site you show the second pictures which show me in military dress uniform, but I also show my dress uniform as a martial arts instructor. I teach under a grand master Yu Yong Kyu. The view that we take in the martial arts is that once you commit to an action, you have to be fearless and without hesitation. And the perfect example we have of that is breaking a brick with your hand. It is not something the average person can do because they say “Oh man, I am just going to break this brick with my hand.” It takes a lot of focus, and it takes absolutely forgetting about the consequences of failing to break the brick. If you are worried about not being able to break the brick, you can't break the brick. So Info War, as we are doing it in Ghost Troop, means being utterly committed to our principles and our cause to whatever length that takes us. To whatever result that takes us. And that is what makes us a powerful unit. Much more powerful than our rank and connections. We also have some high ranking and connected people. It makes us like a David to the Bush team goliath. They are a goliath operation. But the first year Ghost Troop was totally involved and working on the Battle of Baghdad cover up. Our introduction into Info War is that current government is lying about specific major details of the war that should have been in the province of public discussion. Because after all the American people are sovereign by virtue of a free press, and free distribution of information. Absent those pre-suppositions, there is no sovereign American people. We live in a dictatorship.

After returning back home to Houston after his two day Crawford foray, May went back underground until late September by staying inside his home.    
A combination of factors caused him to come out in September 21st.   Bush made a speech in which he said that assassination was the kind of thing only done in the former Soviet Union .  In addition, Bush came under indirect media attack from the Plame affair outing, which incidentally, Capt. May thinks was set up by Bush advisor Karl Rove to position Valerie Plame and her husband for assassination by alleged “terrorists.”  Bush also came under attack in Congress from war spending.  It looked like Bush was now on the defensive.
In retrospect, May realizes that he was very naïve.   The next day, less than fifty miles from his house, Margie Shroedinger died from a gunshot wound to the head.  This black woman claimed that she had an affair with George Bush since she was age 16,.  She sued Bush, hoping to cash in like Paula Jones had also filed a suite against President Bill Clinton.
Capt. May believes she was “suicided.”  As mentioned in Chapter 1, the American national media refused to touch the story.  It was only carried in Pravda, of all places.   In other words, the national media situation has deteriorated in America to the point that Americans now have to resort a former flagship paper of the “global communist conspiracy” to get truth.
May commented about this period in his 23 Feb 2006 Whalen interview:     

Afterwards [following the July Jumble], I believed that I had caused a fair amount of anger in the White House with my words and deeds, because my editors carried no letters to the editor in response to someone who had called George W. Bush a liar, avoided my calls, and stopped publishing my op-eds — even going so far as to take sudden vacations to be away when my essays arrived for editing.

On Sunday, October 26, 2003, multiple rockets slammed into the Al-Rrasheed Hotel in Baghdad very near where US Deputy Secretary of state was staying on the 13th floor.  He was one of the main Zionist neo-cons who created the “Project for a New American Century” document and orchestrated the Iraqi invasion.
According to “Contractor Suspected for Baghdad Hotel Attack” by Press Trust of India/AP, one U.S. Army Colonel was killed and 17 others were wounded. The rockets impacted just a tad off Wolfowitz’s location.  The article states:

"It's obvious that only an insider could have told the attackers that Wolfowitz was in the hotel, and that he was on the 13th floor," [an]  informant claimed.
Brig. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey of the 1st armored division, Baghdad 's effective military commander, said that he believed "the attack had been planned for two months and that the rockets had missed their targets because of an inaccurate propulsion system".

This attack is significant to both Captain May and the author of this work because they independently heard that it was a deliberate U.S. military “push-back” (a euphemism for rebellion or insurrection) from completely different sources.  This is a theme we will visit repeatedly later in this work.
Capt May thinks that Thom Shanker, Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times, told him that disgruntled members of the U.S. military planned or allowed this to happen to “frag” Wolfowitz. 
When this author visited Col Donn de Grand Pre at his home in Virginia in summer 2006, prior to his first contact with May in summer 2007, the former high level Pentagon insider and author of expose books such as Viper’s Venom and Rattler’s Revenge told me that according to senior-level Pentagon contacts, this was a counterstrike planned or permitted by U.S. military personnel who view 9/11 was a neo-con coup against the U.S. Government and Constitution.
Even if in fact this was not an actual example of “push-back,” nevertheless the currency given to this kind of rumor at senior levels says something about growing disillusionment within the ranks.
In stark counterpart to May’s mission of conscience or any actual cases of U.S. military “push-back,” was the ominous General Tommy Franks warning that came out in November 2003:

According to Time magazine, on November 21, 2003, Tommy Franks said that in the event of another terrorist attack, American Constitutional liberties might be discarded by popular demand in favor of a military state. Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."

Both May and talk show host Fank Whalen rebutted Frank’s comments in an interview (23 Feb 2006, 3rd hour)

Capt May: He bet that the Constitution would not survive another attack.
Frank Whalen: No [the Constitution would not survive]. And he said mass casualty event on U.S. soil or on one of our allies. The American response to Sept 11th was such grief that the focus was not on the ball, but it was really an emotion rather than a logical reaction. But you did see the surveys. 70-80% of people said that they would sacrifice their civil liberties to be safe. So what you have under those circumstances is basically people who are just numb. Their brain is numb because their emotions are so raw. We know that if something like that were to occur, the same thing magnified tenfold, people would welcome a police state. They would welcome concentration camps for Muslims or whomever deemed to be enemies of the state. They would welcome shows like this to be shut down because it is too painful to hear stuff like the truth.

Later in a Jeff and Mike show interview, Capt May said that the Gen. Franks warning sounded more like a veiled threat of dictatorship rather than a genuine concern about preventing such a possibility.  Franks probably intended this talk to help condition the public to accept dictatorship as inevitable.  
May suspected that Franks could be descended from
Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union , and that he is very much a part of the Zionist neo-con cabal waging Info War against the American public.
Imagine, said Captain May, if you and your wife are sitting at a table, and someone comes up and starts facetiously talking about how he would like to have an affair with your wife, and wonders aloud when the next time will be that you will be out of town. That is not the kind of thing you would find funny, or would ever forgive or forget.  And that is exactly his attitude regarding the Tommy Franks and George Bush talk about the prospect of dictatorship in America .
Later in Chapter 27 of this book, we see a similar pattern repeated when former Navy Commander Brian Klock ran for Congress in the Houston area in Spring 2008, putting up billboards that depicted a mushroom cloud explosion incinerating Houston. The caption read “The Threat is Real.” 
Once again, Capt May and his talk show hosts agreed that this is the wrong kind of fear-mongering.

One of the most significant accomplishments for May during fall 2003 is that he wrote one article a day, and created a web site where he posted his articles and letters. 
May hoped Congress would use his work as part of an official investigation.  He named it the “April Fool’s” Collection, from the nickname given to him by his Houston Chronicle associates for daring to oppose the Iraqi invasion back in April.  He divided his work into four sections:

Part 1 - Ghost Troop   23 Feb to 28 July 2003
Part 2 - Shake-n-bake   29 July to 31 August
Part 3 -
Deep Fried    1 Sept to 25 Sept
Part 4 -
Relief Column  1 Oct to 31 Dec  


Despite his impressive output of additional well-written articles for The Lone Star Iconoclast from 2006 through 2008, plus an editorial by the Iconoclast publisher for a Congressional investigation, May has only been met with silence by Congress.
This is the same Congress that abrogated its Constitutional responsibility to challenge President Bush’s unilateral decision to invade Iraq .
This is the same Congress that ignored the popular mandate in the 2006 elections to get out of Iraq, and then to add insult to injury, went on to authorize Bush to unilaterally attack Iran.
This is the same Congress that passed the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other highly repressive forms of legislation with very little deliberation, and then to add insult to injury, passively accepted executive orders from Bush authorizing dictatorship under self-declared national emergencies.  
Even worse yet, Bush kept certain annexes to his executive orders such as NSPD-51 hidden from members of Congressional oversight committees.  This prompted Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon to remark on 20 July 2007 “"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right.".”
This is the same Congress that Dr. Kevin R. C. Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (co-authored with Dr. Thomas Woods) claims that Congress has ignored the Constitution about 90% of the time in the last 100 years (cf. his interview on the Political Cesspool with James Edwards, 23 Nov 2008,  hr 1).
All of this presents another intellectual rabbit hole.  Why are so many people in the Federal government ignoring the very document they are sworn to protect and defend?  How did this trend develop in American history?  What parts of the Constitution are being upheld, what parts are being ignored, and why?
These questions are central to Captain May’s mission of conscience.  In his talk show interviews, he talks about how the Bush administration is moving towards dictatorship and tyranny.  He also describes how it seeks to reverse the American Revolution, reflects a silent coup de etat (particularly after 9/11, as we will discuss in the next chapter), uses prostitute national media (“prestitutes”) to suppress and distort the free flow of information, serves the specially privileged Zionist elite, and robs the common citizenry of their right of self-determination. 
On an ideological level, Captain May is basically making a libertarian protest.  Libertarianism is concerned about excessive centralization of power.   
In his classic work Conceived in Liberty, Dr. Murray Rothbard observed that the American Revolution was fundamentally a libertarian revolution, which supports May’s contention that Bush is out to reverse that revolution.
May frequently refers to Bush as “King George,” since he got his position from his father, and furthermore his main goal has been to become a “unitary executive” or monarch.
As I will explain in greater detail later, it is probably more accurate to categorize Captain May as an advocate of limited republican government and popular sovereignty along early American lines rather than as simply a “Constitutionalist.”

But how does all of this specifically relate to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution?
One of the first points made by Gutzman and Woods is that if you really want to understand the Constitution, it is critically important to study its foundation.  This involves not only the original document, but also the study of the notes created by the participants at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and also the state ratifying conventions.  It is also very important to understand the historical and political context behind the decisions that shaped the original Constitution.
Surprisingly, these authors claim that most courses in Constitutional law taught in law schools today ignore most of this foundational analysis.  Instead they focus upon precedent piled on top of precedent, usually involving Supreme Court opinions. 
Unfortunately, quite a few Supreme Court opinions considered keystones of “Constitutional law” are totally subjective.  They are totally decoupled from any serious foundational analysis of the Constitution.  Instead, they hang on “feelings” about an abstraction called “social policy.” 
Worse yet, many very important historical and philosophical points about the original Constitution have been thrown down the memory hole not only by law schools, but also by our federally-funded education system at large.
Therefore, if you confine your analysis just to the evolution of “Constitutional law” in the last one hundred and fifty years, it can get very Byzantine, confusing, convoluted –even “Talmudic”-- in a hurry. 
To intellectually resolve this mess, one needs to not only study the foundation, but also engage in “outside the box” analysis.
I think that before one can even begin to intelligently discuss Constitutional case law, we must address deeper questions.  They are as follows:

What is “republican government” and why is it important? I already addressed this question in Chapter 5. Republican governments have historically originated as a political remedy to avoid the dangers of tyranny. A tyrant can become a highly destructive parasite on society.
Since republican government implies taking concentrated political power out of the hands of a single individual and spreading it around to other people, this in turn implies other things such as an honest and open flow of information (so that other people are competent to help shape ultimate policy), rational group decision-making processes (forms of “parliamentary debate”), and limited powers and accountability (to prevent any one individual from grabbing all the power chips).  
Historically, the same types of people who try to make government more rational tend to apply reason to other endeavors.  In many respects, republicanism is nothing more than an attempt to adapt elements of the scientific method to the governmental process.  Not surprising, many American revolutionaries such as Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were also accomplished technological innovators and self-taught scientists.  
To continue the analogy, consider how criminally dishonest people, idiots, ignoramuses, and people with alien (anti-scientific) objectives are incapable of productively working within a scientific community.  Similarly, people with these kinds of deficiencies are also incapable of being useful citizens in a republic.
King George W. Bush’s misrule through arbitrary executive orders, his penchant for waging aggressive war without genuine Congressional debate, and his other deficiencies clearly demonstrated that he was incapable of useful citizenship within the very republic he pretended to lead.
What is “sovereignty” and why is it important?  “Sovereignty” means who has ultimate control.  It can be exerted by any type of centralized or decentralized leadership, ranging from dictators to democracies.
We are interested in a broader concept called “popular sovereignty,” which is essentially the capacity of a group of people to determine their own destiny.  People who have “popular sovereignty” enjoy the advantage of living in a society where their social and political leaders share their core values and support their survival and prosperity; conversely people who lack sovereignty are very likely ruled by an alien people who seek to exploit them.  They stand a better chance of getting marginalized, impoverished, and even genocided.
Currently the main focus of the U.S. government is to support the sovereignty of Israel and the Jewish people.  According to many studies, total wealth transfers to Israel, both directly and indirectly, have amounted to well over three or four trillion dollars.
In contrast, the U.S. Government acts like it could care less that the white population is dropping by about 1-2% of the total population every year, as observed by Thomas Chittum in his book Civil War Two: the Coming Breakup of America.  To put it bluntly, the white population is getting slowly genocided, despite the fact that the U.S. Government was originally founded by WASPs. 
That fact that most U.S. Government leaders would probably denounce anyone openly concerned about white survival issues as some kind of contemptible “racist,” despite the horrible trend documented by Pat Buchanan’s Death of the West,  means that they support genocide against America ’s majority population. This is not exactly an expression of “sovereignty.”  In fact, it is a form of treason. 
Nor does the Federal government seem to care that the privately owned Federal Reserve system steadily debauches the currency, or that the Wall Street Zionist elite can soak the tax payer to cover their speculative follies (for example the Oct 2008 $700 billion bailout), or that outsourcing most of America’s manufacturing industry over the past several decades principally benefits Third World countries and has impoverished the general American population.
The elements that political leaders must pull together in order to achieve sovereignty on a national level are analogous to the McKinsey “7-S” factors for small company success detailed in the bestseller In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman.   They involve a combination of intangible as well as tangible elements that must reinforce each other in order for a group to function effectively in a competitive world.



Components of the famous “McKinsey 7-S” paradigm; and a comparison of corporate and nationalist applications

·         Strategy:  Game plan for building a competitive advantage over competitors.   Nationalist version:  Coordination of foreign and domestic policy to optimize economic growth, military strength, citizen prosperity, and national self-sufficiency. 

·         Structure:  Degree of centralization vs. decentralization in management hierarchy, importance of staff vs. line officers   Nationalist version:  Degree of government size and intervention in economy compared to the size of entrepreneurial infrastructure and private ownership.

·         Systems:  Standard operating procedures, incentive systems, and the use of data processing automation   Nationalist version:   Political, business, military academic processes for selecting and promoting talent and systematically handling operations

·         Shared Values:   "Superordinate goals" that transcend immediate profit-loss concerns and provide unifying long term vision and long term loyalty Nationalist version: Interplay of shared religion, culture, heritage, and ethnic-genetic interests that promote patriotic sentiment.

·         Style:  Personal leadership qualities that typically combine some combination of personal charisma, management by objectives, and decentralized approaches.  Nationalist version:  Heroic archetypes, customs and folk traditions 

·         Staff: Special problem-solving capabilities and degree of leadership depth provided by broader management team Nationalist version:  Various form of institutionalized excellence, degree of globally competitive brain trust

·         Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working for the company.   Nationalist version:  General educational level and competencies offered by work force.

A good thought experiment to understand how the pieces of the “sovereignty” jigsaw puzzle must come together in order to achieve success might involve a scenario where you are part of an oppressed group that suffers under an intolerably evil imperial government.  How does one go about organizing a separatist movement and alternative government that eventually forms an independent state that is liberated from the evil overlords forever?
Obviously one needs money and other forms of economic power to buy weapons and supplies.  One needs a shared culture and values to motivate fellow patriots to work together and risk their lives for the cause. One needs to control ones borders to keep imperial troops or spies and infiltrators out.  One needs like-minded people manning the strategic bases of ones rebel society, such as major media, major corporate positions, and ones shadow provisional government.  One will probably need supplies from foreign powers, just like when Americans went to the French for aid during the American Revolution.  (Conversely, the Confederacy failed in large measure because if failed to gain the support it expected from France and Britain , and was further defeated by Russia ’s fleet support of the Union Navy).
Another approach besides using thought experiments is to examine historical examples of viable “resistance communities” and try to deduce their characteristics.  Here are some examples:

a) New Englanders at the time of the American Revolution, pure WASP’s, descended from Puritans and pro-Parliament side of English Civil War.  Most able bodied males were members of local militia (“Minutemen”). Long historical ethnic memory, extensive family ties.
b) Watauga settlement, eastern Tennessee , during the American Revolution.  Provided “over mountain man” militia that played key role in defeating British at King’s Mountain.  Simultaneously defeated Cherokee tribes and produced first governors of Tennessee and Kentucky . Most able bodied males were members of local militia and had long historical ethnic memory and extensive family ties.
c)  Mostly WASP settlers in Texas who beat the Mexican Army and ran the Lone Star Republic in the 1840’s.  Strong pioneer culture and militia tradition.
c)  Sunni and Shiite Moslems fighting Americans in Iraq , Pashtuns fighting Americans in Afghanistan .  Very strong tribal, ethnic, and religious bonds. Long historical religious and ethnic memory.  Extensive family ties.
d) Irish who fought the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921). Very strong tribal, ethnic, and religious bonds. Long historical religious and ethnic memory.  Extensive family ties.

We might ask, what are some of the characteristics that make these groups effective in resisting a foreign invader, infiltrator or occupier?
First, the fact that they have strong ethnic, racial, and cultural ties and a long shared history is a huge plus.  After all, one of the rules of Right Wing 101 is that the more people have in common on these levels, the more likely they are to work together as mutualists and altruists; conversely the less they have in common, the more likely they are to feed on each other as predators or parasites.  Mossad-CIA has tremendous funds to buy people off plus an impressive assassination capability.  A community needs all the cohesion and sense of joint purpose it can muster to handle this unique threat.
Second, viable resistance communities tend to have strongly conservative values. This supports the self-discipline required to avoid taking bribes and the vision required to invest in the long term survival of ones family and future generations. 
In this regard, political leftism and pro-open homosexuality activism are negative indicators, since these viewpoints typically promote self-indulgent lifestyles that disrupt normal procreation, family ties, and long term loyalty to an ethnic community.  
Think it through, and I think you will agree that achieving full blown popular sovereignty rights implies the right to (a) to issue your own currency (b) raise your own military forces and decide when and where to make war (c) control your own borders (d) put your own people in charge of the strategic bases of your society (e) engage in separate diplomacy and alliances (f) run your own police and courts so that you are the territorial monopolist on force within your own territory (g) control adequate wealth and other economic power to be competitive in the world and (h) maintain core values, to include an indigenous culture and religion that supports the cohesion, distinctiveness,  and will to survive of your society.
The process of trying to pull (a) to (h) together so that outsiders can never again put their boots in your face is called “nationalism.”  This is what America’s internationalist Zionist power elite has been working so furiously behind the scenes to destroy for the average American –while helping themselves like pigs at the troth to further Jewish nationalist (or criminal Zionist) objectives.  “De-nationalization” is what they have been trying to do to us when they have erased our borders with Mexico and other Third World countries, subordinated our foreign policy to Israel , outsourced our main industries, attacked white heritage and ethnic consciousness, and undermined family values.
Historically, nations tend to evolve out of fighting forces whose members have strong racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious similarities.   Any group of people willing to risk their lives to support each other for a higher cause are usually, on a de facto level, at least about 60%-80%  home free towards achieving all the elements of (a) to (h) above.  This is one reason why home-grown militia movements frighten Zionists who control much of America today, despite the fact that the U.S. Government was originally born on the backs of militia.
In talking about sovereignty, we have to be careful not to confuse symbols with substance.  For example, some central American “banana republics” have all the symbols of sovereignty such as their own flags, postage stamps, national anthems, official borders, distinctive currency, and unique army uniforms,  but none of the real substance. Behind the scenes they are controlled by foreign entities such as American fruit companies or the CIA-Mossad team.
In contrast, the Jewish people prior to the formal announcement of the state of Israel in May 1948 were at the other extreme.  While they certainly had “nuclear megatonnage” of the financial component of sovereignty, most of this was invisible to the man on the street.  Most of the external symbols of sovereignty were camouflaged and concealed, with the real substance tucked away inside synagogues, Jewish community centers, and bank accounts around the world.  Zionism lay coiled and ready to strike,  much like Hitler’s panzers that lay camouflaged inside the Ardennes Forest prior to Battle of the Bulge.
In the late 19th century it was often said that the Rothschilds and other elite Jewish families in Europe were more powerful than many European governments, even though they remained in the shadows. 
Of course once the state of Israel was declared, Zionists leaders quickly parlayed raw Jewish financial power into all the overt manifestations of sovereignty.  The Israeli army immediately engaged in combat operations against Arabs.  The Israeli flag, Israeli postage stamps, the Israeli national anthem, definable borders, and other over sovereignty manifestations quickly sprang forth.  
It almost reminds one of the rapid build up of combat power out of nowhere on D-Day, June 1944, when the Allies went from zero ships, zero planes, and zero boots on the ground in Normandy, France to where, within a few days, they had two army groups ashore, the skies were filled with planes, and silhouettes of naval vessels blanketed the northern coastal horizon. 
The story of America in the last century and a half has basically involved an evil hat trick on the American public.  While America ’s prostitute politicians and national media have continually paraded the rhetoric and symbols of sovereignty before the American public, the actual substance of sovereignty has been gradually eroded out from under them.  Today the U.S. government cares more about protecting Iraq ’s border with Syria than the U.S. border with Mexico .  Politicians are more concerned about fulfilling globalist agendas than practicing the ethic that charity should begin at home.   
This brings us to the “popular sovereignty” concept, which means that one tries to decentralize control of the government in order to make it as responsive and accountable to the grass roots as possible.  Most Americans today do not even have any real plain vanilla sovereignty, not to mention the deeper concept of popular sovereignty.  
What is “federal” government and why is it important?  The “federal” concept originally meant a political system consisting of a central government and regional governments where the central government is deliberately kept weaker than the regional governments.  Probably the best longstanding historical example is the Swiss cantonal federal system.
The reason for keeping the central government weaker is to prevent it from becoming a tyrant over the regional governments.  When you crush regional power, then power tends to gravitate and concentrate towards the center.   
This is, of course, what happened after the Abraham Lincoln dictatorship crushed States’ Rights during his war against Southern Independence .  As mentioned earlier, government was kept at around 5% of GDP up until 1861.  Most of the time there was no central bank, and there were no personal or corporate income taxes.  The Feds raised most of their money from tariffs and land sales.
The Lincoln period marked the beginning of the growth of the unlimited Federal government “predator” following the destruction of “States’ Rights” as a counter-predator.  Today, total government consumes 50% of GDP and  invades all aspects of American life.  It inflicts upon us heavy personal and corporate taxes, and never runs out of foreign crusades and adventures (and lying propaganda and rationalizations to justify all these things) to perpetually drain us of our manpower and prosperity on behalf of alien interests.
In following chapters we will talk about 9/11 as a silent coup de etat against the Constitution.  In actuality, there have been quite a few silent coup de etats in American history, and 9/11 has actually been part of a much larger historical trend.  I think that it is very important for the reader to grasp this, so let me provide some specific examples.
As good starting point in our analysis of American history is to recognize that through much of American colonial history, many of the colonies acted like de facto independent nations.  The mother country was often “out of sight and out of mind.”  On many occasions, colonies like Virginia and Massachusetts made independent decisions to issue their own money, make war, and keep people from other colonies outside their borders.
They often independently assumed responsibility for projects involving Westward expansion. For example, in 1774 Virginia independently mounted out a militia force of about 1,000  men who crossed what is now the state of West Virginia to defeat Indians in the Battle of Pleasant Point (or “The Battle of the Great Kanawha”) as part of a campaign for control of the Ohio Valley .  This was in defiance of British Crown orders for colonists to stay on the eastern side of the Appalachian Continental divide.
Dr. Thomas Woods, author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, has observed in his Mises Institute lectures that on three occasions during over 140 years of American colonial history, the colonies deliberately resisted efforts to form a central government in North America  They did this to  protect their own sovereignty.
When the colonies morphed into states in 1776 and subsequently formed the Articles of Confederation, they surrendered a few – but not all --of their sovereignty rights.  They surrendered their right to independently make war and make alliances. The idea was to not only present a united front against the British, but to also convince the French that they meant business in order to qualify for French aid.  They achieved their objective, since the French ended up paying for most of the costs of the final years of the war. 
It is important to note that all the states already had their own constitutions. Also, the WASP population could trace parliamentary experience, common law, and human rights traditions going back to very ancient times.  
Neither the Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution “gave”Americans any rights.   The citizenry already had their rights.  These documents describe the limited powers given to the central government by their citizens.  They also describe what their central government could not take away from them.
Americans were already mostly self-governing on a local level.  It is worth emphasizing that they could have prospered without any central government inside North America , as they had already done for themselves through much of the colonial period.  I might add that the proposed “State of Franklin” of eastern Tennessee and the Texas Lone Star Republic are two colorful historical examples of very self-sufficient communities that functioned extremely well without the Federal government even after the U.S. Government was created. 
Over and over I hear self-styled patriots on talk shows blather about how the Constitution and Founding Fathers “gave” us our freedom.  This is not true.  The colonists already had their rights and freedom within their own sovereign colonies before the so-called “Founding Fathers.”  They already had their own colonial charters followed by their own state constitutions.  Their rights had already been protected for ages under the English common law and indigenous Nordic and Celtic tribal traditions.
In old Norse society, free men owned their own land and were expected to carry their own weapons as part of “being a man”. Northern societies always had a relatively large middle class of free men with a high degree of social and political autonomy.  Freedom was preserved within the context of tribal folk traditions and the code of personal honor.
Let us repeat: The U.S. Constitution gives us nothing. It actually describes the reverse.  It describes what the states and their constituent peoples gave to the newly formed central government.  It also described what this newly formed government cannot take away from us. 
When Gen Tommy Franks talks about ending our “experiment in democracy,” it may be an “experiment” to him, because as he is probably part Jewish.  As explained in the prior chapter, Jews have been historically predisposed towards totalitarianism and collectivism.  They have very different innate sensibilities compared to Anglo-Saxons.   
However, for those of us whose ancestors evolved the Anglo-Saxon common law, or who participated in the ancient parliaments of Scandinavia and other forms of participatory and limited government in other parts of Europe , democracy is in our blood. 
Frank’s (probable) Jewish ancestors fled from the shtetls of Eastern Europe and came to America to participate in the dynamic prosperity created by WASP society.  Now that he and his co-tribalists are in the cat bird’s seat, they make veiled threats to impose in America the same forces of repressive authoritarianism and stagnation that their ancestors fled or that Israelis inflict on West Bank Palestinians today. Fine way to repay your hosts!
In the peace treaty of 1783, the King of England recognized each former colony as an independent sovereign state.  Indeed, most Americans agreed with the anti-Federalist viewpoint that the central government merely reflected a compact of states that had given up a few sovereignty rights to promote common defense and prosperity, and not a consolidated union in which the states had surrendered all their sovereignty rights.  This kind of thinking permeated the ratifying conventions within each state for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Under the compact theory, the federal government is at root supposed to be a “government to government” entity between the states, similar to the way NATO or the United Nations reflects a compact of separate nations today.  
A primary reason for the original electoral college system, in which each state legislature selected two senators as representatives to Congress, is that this had the same government-to-government representation character as government-appointed representatives to the UN or NATO.  The governments of sovereign nations typically select representatives to meet with representatives of other countries, and do not hold popular elections.  Since the states still viewed themselves as sovereign, they saw no need for popular elections to select senators.
An important feature of a government-to-government relationship is the right to withdraw from alliances.  Virginia , Maryland , and Rhode Island specifically reserved the right to withdraw from the Union as a provision for ratifying the U.S. Constitution.  In 1814-1815 New England states held the Harford Convention and came close to seceding from the Union , because they felt as sovereign states they always retained this right.
According to former lawyer and Confederate captain of the C.S.S. Alabama, Admiral Raphael Semmes, Northerners decided to rewrite history books around 1830.  In the first few chapters of his book Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States, he describes how Southerners paid three quarters of the tariff income for the Federal government, even though they comprised only a third of the population. To make matters worse, most of this tariff revenue was spent in the North. 
According to Semmes, the Yankees rewrote history to come up with a new theory of the “consolidated union” to replace the historically accurate “compact of states” theory.  They were motivated by selfish economic interests and sought to subvert the legal basis for any possible Southern secession following South Carolina ’s threat to secede during the “tariff of abominations” episode.
Another important factor that enabled the Federal government to ultimately end-run  Southern secessionism was the role it acquired when it assumed responsibility for Westward expansion.  This enabled the Feds to maintain a large standing
Army with professional officers who felt more allegiance to the central government than towards any individual state.  It created constituencies of settlers in the Mid-west who felt that they acquired their land and enjoyed protection thanks more to the Federal government rather than any state authority.  It conditioned many Americans to think that adding land to create a de facto inland empire from sea to shining sea was a desirable end in itself, and hence losing any of that land through secession would be inherently bad and unacceptable.    
The mania to expand across the continent and build the economy as quickly as possible ultimately opened up the floodgates of immigration to people from all over Europe , altering the original WASP composition of the original underlying population.  This meant the U.S. essentially became a latter day version of the Roman Imperial model, which also embraced conquest and incorporated multiracialism and multiculturalism.  The Roman Empire tried to retain remnants of original Roman Republican ideology as window dressing, while becoming increasingly centralized and corrupt at the top.  The U.S. empire has done the exact same thing with the ideology of American Revolutionary leaders.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts uses the word “neo-Jacobin” to describe the  leftist, authoritarian government that the Federal government has effectively become today.  The term “Neo-Jacobin” invokes the memory of Napoleon Bonaparte’s government, which preached the rhetoric of “liberty, fraternity, and equality” to make  people think they are free.  In reality, Napoleon controlled all the major newspapers and kept a secret police spy on every Paris city block.
It is Orwellian for a strong central government to claim that it enforces “liberty,” since “liberty” originally meant the absence of government.
The alleged great “liberator” Abraham Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to invade the South, but nevertheless ended up destroying half the wealth of the South and fomenting a war that caused more casualties than any of America ’s other wars.  Former libertarian candidate Neil Smith wrote the article “ America ’s Lenin” and Georgia Lawyer Sam Dickson wrote “Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln,” both of which are important works online to help the reader understand how Americans created a train wreck out of their own country.   See also the The Real Lincoln by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, and other works in the “King Lincoln” archive at 
All of this took place a few decades before Jewish supremacists swarmed into America by the millions to eventually create a much bigger mess. 
Most Americans are so brainwashed by enthralling “Glory Hallelujah” background music and other propaganda embedded within “documentaries” about the War Between the States that they fail to see the obvious.   The Lincoln dictatorship permanently destroyed the limited republic of the Constitution.  It set horrible precedents and “mainstreamed” evil principles.
The first evil principle “legitimized” during this tragic era was the idea that the Federal government has a right to preserve itself and the “ Union ” at all costs, no matter how corrupt or tyrannical it becomes.  Lincoln ’s “Glory Hallelujah” armies remained “holy” in the eyes of their neo-Jacobin worshippers even after they burned down half of South Carolina just for kicks.  
Therefore, whoever runs the Federal government has an inherent right to declare martial law and liquidate millions of Americans inside FEMA camps if they feel this is necessary for “national security,” that is, the self-anointed right of the Federal government preserve itself and the “Union” at all costs.   It also has a self-anointed right lie like hell and conduct false flag operations if the power elite thinks this is required to “keep the country together” or “serve the nation.”  After all, what is the loss of 3,000 lives on 9/11 compared to the 600,000 deaths caused by the Federal government’s campaign to save its own empire during the War Between the States?  From a purely cold-blooded utilitarian perspective, sacrificing 3,000 fellow Americans was actually a pretty cheap bargain compared to the 1861-1865 fatalities.
The second evil principle is the idea that Federal government is not only some kind of supreme embodiment of moral righteousness, but also has an unlimited right to engage in unlimited social experimentation to fulfill whatever socially self-righteous agenda is on the plate at the moment for the power elite.   
The same Federal government that filled Southern Reconstruction legislatures with illiterate former negro slaves, while disenfranchising Southern whites from voting, can now also “righteously” subordinate American citizens to the needs of Israelis, destroy meritocracy through “affirmative action,”  replace the white middle class with illegal alien Mexican immigrants, and  perhaps some day even bring in ten million Chinese troops as U.N. “peacekeepers” to help the Federal government preserve itself against whatever is left of irate native born citizens. 
Consider also the book titles  Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace used by both the historian Harry Elmer Barnes and best-selling political commentator Gore Vidal.  They describe a Federal government that finds it convenient to continually fight wars to feed its military industrial complex and create a state of fear to promote citizen allegiance. 
Add in the works of Dr. Murray Rothbard, who described the “welfare-warfare” state, where pork politicians create social programs to buy votes and the loyalty of future soldiers for overseas wars which in turn bolsters jingoistic patriotism.  As the libertarian writer Randolph Bourne famously put it “War is the health of the state.” 
An accurate name for the U.S. Government today might be “The Orwellian, Zionist-Dominated, Neo-Jacobin, Yankee-Unrepentant, Multi-Racial, Multi-Cultural, Global Super State that wages Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.”
This is a bigger mouthful than “Jabborwocky” in Lewis and Carol’s Alice and Wonderland.  It sounds just as hideous.  It is certainly much more dangerous, because it is real.  And it is emphatically not a limited republic with genuine popular sovereignty.
This monster has very little to do with the original Constitution.  Paradoxically, the underlying need for a limited republican government and popular sovereignty that motivated American patriots during the American Revolution is more urgent today than any other time in American history.  The original Articles of Confederation and Constitution were originally intended to help preserve liberty, not act like camouflage for power elites bent on actually destroying it.
On a personal mission to counter this great evil before him, Captain May was prepared to risk his life.

On Saturday Dec 14, 2004, Fox News reported Saddam Hussein captured near his home town of Tikrit .  “Hours later, when President Bush addressed the nation, he declared that `a dark and painful era is over.’ 
As we will see in Chapter 11 regarding the first Bin Laden tape that came out since the Iraq invasion, there was probably more than meets the eye with Saddam Hussein as well.
On Jan 1st May decided to go underground again.  This was prompted by bellicose talk by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Adding to the excitement, Captain May was about to enter another rabbit hole that would turn his world even further upside down.  



Forward to Chapter 7
Back to Chapter 5
Return to Contents
Books I-III Summary Table of Contents

Short URL for this web page:

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.