Monday, April 19, 2010

From Chuck Baldwin concerning the Hutaree Militia Raid

The Hutaree Militia Raid

By Chuck Baldwin

April 6, 2010

This column is archived at

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:

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).


Also see:

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:

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
To receive a sample of Joel Skousen's WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF or to subscribe to
this excellent newsletter (I highly recommend it), write to:
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
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
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."
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and
pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America
was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution
Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3
children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at:
This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida, 32526. When responding, please
include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all
respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck's web site at

From Chuck Baldwin

No comments:

Post a Comment