If you think ISIS is our greatest threat, think again

Private militias have declared war on the US. Should we be worried?

  Still frame from the show Vice of 3/20/2015  Still frame from the show Vice of 3/20/2015
Still frame from the show Vice of 3/20/2015

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE, Md., March 24, 2015 – The HBO show “Vice” recently aired a segment called “We the people,” chronicling the growth of the so-called “patriot militias” and other so-called “sovereign” groups.

The implications of the interviews with militia leaders, an official of the Southern Poverty Law Center and an official from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are chilling.

The segment began with an interview of a militia leader who described how the growth of militias has been triggered by their conviction that the Obama administration wants to take away their gun rights.

Read also: Gun rights hanging in the balance?

This particular militia is named the “Three percent united patriots,” a reference to the percentage of the people who took up arms against the British in the American Revolution.

In their message, they say the attack on gun rights is the first step in the imposition of a tyrannical government.

The segment showed a training exercise in which a group moves like a military unit to take a hill. The members of the group and the reporter that accompanied them moved through a field and at times fired their weapons, mimicking a real military attack. In fact, the reporter disclosed that the instructor and many of the militia members are former military.

The militia leader explains that “… we train for the day we hope never comes….”

The clear implication is that the group is training to up take arms against the United States of America. The militia leader also says casually that there are many people in the country with similar beliefs and there are “millions of us out there.”

The main medium for the diffusion of their ideas is conservative talk radio. However, they also rely on social media and the web to make sure their converts are always fed their message. In a radio show in Colorado, the broadcaster and the leaders of the three percenters discus how the opening of the borders and the relocation of undocumented immigrants to red states is a plot to undermine the conservative vote.

They also name the EPA and Obamacare as parts of the plot. They state that their main aim is to restore this country to “real constitutional government.”

A spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that tracks hate groups claimed that since the election of Obama, the right wing militias have grown by 800 percent. He mentioned that these groups are enamored with weapons and gun fighting and we ignore them at our peril.

An interview with Daryl Johnson, an official of DHS, corroborated that so-called “sovereign citizens” and “patriot militias” may be a threat as great as or greater than ISIS.

Read more 21st Century Pacifist

This is not very far fetched. The confrontation between Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Clark County, Nevada, in April 2014 makes it real.

The BLM and supporting law enforcement confiscated cattle that had been grazing on federal land without permit and or paying fees. Several protesters that tried to interfere were arrested and dispersed with dogs and stun guns. After a video of the melee was uploaded to the web, hundreds of militia members traveled to the site to defend Bundy.

After a confrontation in which each heavily armed party took battling positions, the BLM backed down and, in the words of an ex-Marine in charge of the Bundy ranch security, “they tuck tail and run too….” [sic].

This emboldened the anti-government movement. In one case, Jerad and Amanda Miller killed two police officers in Las Vegas and wrapped them in the “Don’t thread on me” flag.

The couple stood with others in the defense of Bundy in Clark County.

This is not an isolated incident. The segment revealed several other similar incidents.

Daryl Johnson of DHS clearly said that this taking of arms against the federal government will have dire consequences for many years.

Some have already written that this episode was just an example of civil disobedience and that the left is exaggerating its impact.

For those of us who have lived in countries where right-wing paramilitary killer squads operated, this appears eerily familiar. Most of these death squads formed because they believed their central government would not or could not protect them. These same death squads killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Even supporters of Bundy must reluctantly agree that private citizens using weapons to defend unlawful activities and forcing federal authorities to withdraw is scary. What if the cause did not resonate with these supporters?

Can you picture the same confrontation between law enforcement and a group of African-Americans, Latinos or Muslims?

The patriot militias and other so called Sovereign Citizens have already declared war on the US and fired the first salvo.

Should we be worried?”

Mario Salazar, the 21st Century Pacifist, knows when an armed confrontation is almost ready to take place as it did in Clark County. He is in Twitter (@chibcharus), Google+ and Facebook (Mario Salazar).

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • GMN

    On April 12th, We The People will celebrate the one year anniversary of the kicking the federal government off land rightfully owned by the State of Nevada at Bundy Ranch. i would like to invite any liberal who has been misinformed that the “stand off” was anything but defensive by a group of peaceful protestors who were lawfully and Constitutionally backed up by a credible 2nd Amendment. Bundy Ranch is the freest area in the nation, and will remain that way as long as 10’s of millions of peaceful, law abiding veterans and Constitutionalists are alive. Article 1, section 8 paragraph 7 says that the Bundy Ranch supporters are right…and that’s why the Feds never came back. If any left wingers want to try to support taking the land, I dare you to try to come and take it….same rules will apply 24/7, 365 days a year…..the Constitution is not negotiable, no matter how many armed BLM or DHS troops you can have do your dirty work & land grabbing. We will defend our nation & the Constitution , and we will do so on behalf of ALL Americans. The federal government cannot own any more land than the Constitution allows…..if they try to take cattle or land, they will meet the same force if not bigger than they did on April 12, 2014. If they are threatened by that, then maybe they need to read article 1, section 8 paragraph 17….and then read the second amendment, because we will use it to defend the Constitution and our land. We Marines are 10 times more dangerous than ISIS….and we cannot be purchased or supplied by John McCain like ISIS is. Unlike McCain’s CIA ISIS, we are self funded & will never back down or be defeated by the Commies running the US Government

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Under any definition opposing the Federal government when implementing the law of the land and doing it as an armed force is sedition. In any other country in the world the vigilantes at Clark County would have been killed for opposing the legal government of their country. To do so in the tradition of the open land principles of the XIX century is even more odious.

      • GA Patriot

        GLWT. Be careful what you wish for.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Did you read my article? I never wished for anything. Is this a threat? Believe me I have been a lot closer to death.

          • Zoss Arwr

            “In any other country in the world the vigilantes at Clark County would have been killed”.

            Freudian slip.

            Your desires are noted, “sir”.

            Further, your little hit piece clearly attempts to conflate the “threat” of your fellow citizens whom you disagree with to ISIL, a true and evil threat that has committed crimes against humanity.

            In other words, your basically trying to justify the treatment of those you deride as vigilantes as enemy combatants, and you know what enemy combatants get,right?

            In other words, you desire the federal gov’t to murder citizens whom you disagree with.

            Your no pacifist.

            Your a statist.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Take that at face value, not as a subconscious slip. Vigilantes are those that take the law into their hands, If the shoe fits….

          • Dennis

            He is right. Inany other country they would have been called lots of things but here wwe have the right to resist tyranny and the duty. Used to be that way in England, there were several wars that the People started because their “authority” the king just got plain too oppressive.

            Happened in I Kings Ch. 10-12 too. Over oppressive taxation it was. Stoned the tax collector to death and the king tucked tail and fled to a walled city.

            I like Adams words here:

            “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

          • Tim Kern

            Is that why you hide behind a fake name, or are you just a regular coward?

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            I don’t hide behind a fake name. I am a pacifist. Became one after seeing much violence in my native country and being in the US Army infantry (read CIB) in Vietnam. As for being a coward, maybe to somebody like you that probably never served in the Armed Forces and have a complex.
            Typically when a person doesn’t have an argument, they insult. Sorry about that, maybe you should read more.

          • Zoss Arwr

            Your NOT a pacifist, your a sniveling little coward who wants to see the blood of your fellow Americans shed by your government because they don’t agree with your political viewpoints.

            You call them terrorists and try to equate standing up for peoples rights with being worse then ISIL.

            and you really need to stop trying to rest your argument on your military service.

            lots of cowardly sniveling little rats and demented moonbat mental cases manage to get past selection, especially when they were drafting.

            For an example- just look at Bergdahl.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Right on cue. Out of ideas, insult. I don’t want to see the blood of any body. Do you know what 647 dead human beings look like? I have, not a pretty picture. You are the typical right winger that can’t formulate a response to a topic and decide to insult. I am glad I don’t know you. Do you also kick your dog?

          • Zoss Arwr

            First of all, don’t be such a thin skinned little crybaby. You HAVE seen all these horrible things right?

            You’d think that would harden you to the degree that some petty internet insults wouldn’t be something to make you snivel.

            And of COURSE I’m a right winger, I disagree with you, therefore it must be so.

            Funny thing is, I’m actually quite socially liberal- i believe that government has no place dictating the consenting behavior of adults, such as marriage, consuming substances, etc.

            You know, I really liked you dyed in the wool leftist types alot better when you had “question authority” bumper stickers on your cars, vs. “hope and change”.

            something really scary has happened with you.

            You’ve gone from being funny little hippies to being these jackboot types that demand total obedience to government -or else-.

            Ultimately, you really do need to examine your thinking here.

            What your doing in attempting to label Americans you disagree with politically as terrorist is force conformity by fear of government action.

            imagine if you were actually successful and got people in government to actually act on the premise of your little hit piece here, that ISIL is nothing compared to the evil of some of your fellow Americans.

            do you think you’d be seeing a little more then 600 dead bodies in a pile after such a “win” for your side?

            Do you even realize that this is what your doing- that by assigning enemy combatant status to your fellow Americans, you are literally designating them as acceptable military targets?

            and again, you call yourself a pacifist?

            Your inflammatory rhetoric clearly says something much, much different about you.

            Your a monster.

            You need help.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            How do you infer that I am a cry baby? I really have fun when discussing subjects. I do not feel insulted and give as much as I take. I have had experiences in my life that most Americans haven’t, both good and bad. I pride my self in the fact that it hasn’t harden me.
            What scares me is the thought that people living in a free society believe that they are living in a tyranny and say (hopefully that is all) that they are ready to take arms because they don’t like who has been legally elected.
            I question authority and “push the envelope”, but do it without outwards signs of violence.
            I would never like to see a blood bath, but would like to see consequences for those that threatened violence on civil servants implementing the law.
            I don’t want to provoke violence, I am trying to prevent it. I was not in Clark County with an assault weapon threatening (hopefully that is all) to kill.
            I have lived and visited countries where an armed confrontation like that would have ended in blood shed. As a matter of fact the Marine in charge of security for the Bundy ranch indicated that they were ready to fire on the Feds. I take that at face value, you seem to think it was just bravado.
            You sound like a sound individual. To use a cliché, my oldest friend is a conservative Republican. We meet often and argue, always in an objective manner, and we remain friends.

          • GMN

            and cue the Saul Alinski tactic…demean the intellect of your adversary. Here’s my formulated response: No matter how intellectual or ideological you commies are, no matter what court system you corrupt to allow you to obtain unconstitutional rulings, no matter how many armed agents you send to force us to comply…we will absolutely lay our lives on the line to defend our nation. If you consider that insulting or threatening, then I suggest you choose a side which is 100% constitutional and lawful. If my dog threatened my nation & our republic and endangered my liberty and freedom….i would not kick him, I would shoot him — if necessary — to defend myself.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            I don’t doubt it, and that is the problem. Delusional people with guns.

          • GMN

            Another Nazi tactic. Assessing a medical diagnosis in order to disarm or incarcerate your opposition. You are not qualified to issue a medical diagnosis, and I strongly suggest you cease and desist any attempts to gun grab in the near future….you might juts find out how crazy we are about the Second Amendment. Dude. If you were in the military, i would have had a blanket party on your arse. You need to man up & quit talking like a friggin metro-sexual gun grabber

          • Dennis

            Are you refering to yourself??? I didn’t think Marxists like guns unless they are pointed by someone else at their adversaries.

          • Dennis

            WOW pot and kettle now are we??? Kick you dog???

            Do you still beat your wife???

          • GMN

            …a pacifist….who is advocating an unconstitutional land grab by the people running our Constitutional Republic — by force. How are you a pacifist? By this article you are opposing people who defended themselves peacefully (not one shot was fired) and supporting the people who are running our government & stealing land/cattle they do not own, nor can they own per the U.S. Constitution

          • Dennis

            Its the Marxist in him. They are all cowards and want the state to do it for them because they lack the testicular fortitude to do it themselves… Pussies!

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Again, my name is below the title of the article.

          • Zoss Arwr

            Stop resting your politcs on your “being close to death”.

            Nobody cares about YOU when YOU decide to take the path of dehumanizing others so as to make their death more palatable by making them out to be an enemy akin to radical Islamics, simply because you politically disagree with them.

            You need to find a better way of expressing your disagreement with your fellow Americans then ranting about how they’re more of a threat the an avowed enemy abroad- your disgusting, an absolute Joseph Goebbels, and you make me sick.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            It is funny that you mention Goebbels, a right winger. Also, “your disgusting” is not proper English. Why do right wingers always threaten when they don’t have an argument?

          • Zoss Arwr

            So your mad about a perceived threat i made while responding to your overt threat that all “evil right wingers” be labeled terrorists because of what happened at Bundy ranch. So what. You can snivel about it all you want.

            And Goebbels was a socialist..as in NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY….. not a right winger, in any way, shape or form that can be connected with modern American conservatism.

            You just can’t stop trying to equate your political adversaries with foreign enemies, can you?

            then you get all indignant and start sniveling about it when someone returns the favor.

            Aw, whatsamatter?

            Cant take as well as give?

            Why dont you go snivel about it?

          • Dennis

            The difference between rationalization and reason… He hasn’t caught on yet but we may as well let it go it will take many life times to overcome such groping at his agenda.
            As Jesus said; “Let the dead bury their dead.”

          • Dennis

            Why do Marxist always resort to logical fallacy in an attempt to motivate others or discredit their adversary instead of staying on point???
            Goebbles was a Socialist. Deductive reasoning is argument by definition. Since Goebbles was a Socialist he cannot be right wing as this would be converse to the definition of right wing. He may have had Facist tendacies due to nationalism but then again so was Russia and i can say for a fact that they were Communist and thus left wing.
            Your argument sucks dude. Like a bucket with a hole in it you ain’t carrin water your are just going through the motions.
            Inferrential logic does not hold water to deductive logic in anyway you want to try it. Sorry but the rules of reason are against you. you started this fight not so well armed. In fact you are merely throwing stones at mounted calvary, so to speak.

      • alanstorm

        “In any other country in the world the vigilantes at Clark County would
        have been killed for opposing the legal government of their country.”

        So “pacifism” = “support for government-sponsored violence”? Interesting definition.

        “Under any definition opposing the Federal government when implementing
        the law of the land and doing it as an armed force is sedition.”

        What else about the American Revolution do you not approve of?

        You are not to be taken seriously.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          alanstorm or whatever your name is. You confuse a fact with a support of violence. Did you read anywhere that support the killing of the protestors? I only stated what I know from leaving/working in several countries and avidly reading history all my life. Your second statement is actually logical. Cinically, the difference between a terrorist and a patriot depends on who won the conflict. I have read about revolution a lot and believe me this is not a second American revolution.

      • GMN

        In the United States, when the Federal Government blatantly and openly violates the U.S. Constitution, they are supposed to be held accountable. You skipped over that very important part. When it becomes necessary for the people to enforce the law, it’s not called “sedition”. Nice try, but it seems that you are stuck on the wrong side of the internet. No matter what ANYONE keeps telling you, we were peaceful (and proved it on April 12th 2014), lawful, and Constitutional. That’s exactly what gave the authority to the Sheriff who asked the BLM to leave at the behest of the peaceful American people who demanded that the unconstitutional, armed BLM leave the county. Pay close attention: THE BLM NEVER CAME BACK and NOBODY WAS ARRESTED. There’s a very good reason why. Stop defending federal tyranny & start siding with people. We don’t oppose government….we just refuse to allow the people who are running it to (a) mess with us and (b) take our stuff, and we will defend those same rights of the brainwashed who are working for the people trying to hi-jack our government without knowing it.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          First, thank you for reading my article, whether you liked it or not. There is no evidence presented in the media that what the BLM was doing was unlawful. You interpreted that way. So did Timothy McVey and the Millers. The fact that armed people opposed a lawful act is the crucial point. We have due process in our country. If Bundy was right, why didn’t he use that avenue. I don’t think the Bundy Ranch episode is over, at least I hope it isn’t.

          • Quagmire86

            Mr. Salazar, I read your article and I did watch the HBO show (VICE) where they covered the patriot movement as it pertained to the Bundy ranch incident. The show was very well produced but I was uncertain about the director’s neutrality in his presentation. Specifically how they let the head of the SPLC and DHS speak to their position, in an official capacity, but only used the head of one of hundreds militia groups (as an unorganized movement) to express his/their reasons for existence. I am surprised that they did not interview someone like Stuart Rhodes (Oathkeepers) or even someone like Mike Vanderboegh for their insights, because they were at the ranch. Anyway, you said there was no evidence presented in the media, etc… That statement is accurate if you mean the MSM but there were several independent media stories that provided a back-story to the incident. Before any armed supporters showed up there the BLM had snipers pointing their rifles at the Bundy family as they argued their point to the BLM. Not to mention, the BLM was claiming the grazing herd was a threat to the desert tortoise. The same desert tortoise that was transplanted onto the land, where Bundy’s family had been grazing their cattle for a 100 years, due to the solar energy plant (owned by Harry Reid’s son) was built on the tortoise’s natural habitat. The Millers did show up at the ranch and when the people assisting Bundy found out Miller was a felon (who was in possession of firearms) they asked Miller to leave.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Thank you for your information. It is impossible to find everything that has been reported about an episode like the one in Clark County, unless one wishes to write one article every 6 months.
            I have seen and read enough interviews with right wing militias and sovereign citizens to know what they think of the Federal Government, with the possible exception of the military.
            The turtle angle is something I have to research, interesting.

          • VonZorch Imperial Researcher

            There have been several Supreme Court cases that uphold the right to forcibly resist, including with lethal force, police officers that are attempting to make an unlawful arrest, as was attempted at Bundy Ranch. This includes acting as a third party. When operating under color of law, police are merely criminals in distinctive clothing, and may be treated as any other assailliant would be.

          • Aldo Elmnight

            What enumerated power in the US constitution allows for the existence of the BLM or their actions in this matter? If there is no explicit enumerated power they and their actions are unlawful.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Aldo, Google is your friend.
            This forum doesn’t accept links to here you go:
            Go to blm dot gov and add /commsites/AQ/h-2100-1/chapter-II/chap-II-sect-iA.htm
            in the URL box. Press Enter and viola you have tons of legal authority.

          • Aldo Elmnight

            enumerated power in the US constitution

          • Dennis

            For laws to be valid they must have form and substance, legal and lawful. For the BLM to be lawful it must be directly connected to a specific delegated authority expressly stated in the Constitution.

            “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
            James Madison

            Article I Section 8 Clause 17 is devoid of authority for the BLM or any other agency outside these limitations. Rationalizing an expansion of authority through various constructs that are void of any constitutional provision does not create a lawful substantive basis for the form you tout as legal autority. that is an appeal to authority…

            Yo win again!

          • GMN

            We met the Millers at Bundy Ranch….and we kicked them off Bundy Ranch. Nice try in your attempts to anchor them — as Saul Alinski teaches you in your Rules for Radicals commie instruction manual — but that doesn’t work on people who know better. Ask Eric Holder about Timothy McVeigh….Eric Holder was tasked with the coverup of evidence about Oklahoma City, and that’s not a conspiracy theory, so don’t even bother demonstrating your limitations

          • Dennis

            Your continual attempt to discredit using the Millers is telling of you Marxist Ideology and position.
            In fact i know a man who was on the Task Force Against Organized Crime, Fed.
            He went to Oklahoma to recover bodies. What he heard and recorded is all to familiar. Just like Operation Northwoods the Feds are up to their noses here. I do not advocate hurting women and children. That si a taboo i will not cross. McVeigh was wrong. But the ATF was not at home as of 20 minutes before the improvised devise was detonated.
            tha is a fact that no one can dispute, it was even on national news networks. Can’t possibly believe that all ATF were in the field, can you. Who is running the Op, answering the phones, supporting field operations????

      • Kansas Bright

        But that was NOT the “law of the land”. The law of the land MUST ALWAYS BE “IN PURSUANCE THEREOF” the US Constitution to be the “law of the land”.

        That was what is referred to as “color of law(s)”, pretend law(s), it is the pretense of law without the substance of being lawful. it is the misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state when they were never delegated that authority.

      • Zoss Arwr

        Not only does your position fly directly in the face of the very founding of this nation itself, i.e, – armed revolt against government that forcefully imposed its legitimacy upon its subjects, but your idea of the concept of what the federal government actually is doesn’t mesh with what the founders who fought that -in your estimation, no doubt- seditious war against their rightful rulers established when they wrote and ratified the Constitution.

        What they established was not a limitless oligarchical central power, but a federalist system that created a lawfully limited government which is to be the servant, not the master.

        Yet here, you, a “pacifist”, argue for the bloodshed of the master by the servant, for the sake of demonstrating the servants authority over the master.

        you, in fact, argue for the idea of “sedition” as was held by the Adams administration, who imprisoned a congressman for the grave crime of referring to Adams as “his rotundness”.

        Thomas Jefferson has something to say you ought to hear and heed:

        ” Resolved, That the several States composing, the United
        States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission
        to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and
        title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto,
        they constituted a general government for special purposes —
        delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each
        State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government;
        and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each
        State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming,
        as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact
        was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers
        delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not
        the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other
        cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an
        equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and
        measure of redress. ”
        -Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

        And further the police powers of the federal government over We the People are not limitless to the scope of what you desire, a banana republic that kills its own citizens for DARING to assert their rights while armed.

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and
        legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary
        cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by
        representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and
        duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of
        person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the
        press.” – Letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824; “The Writings
        of Thomas Jefferson,” Definitive Edition, Albert Bergh, editor
        (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XVI,
        p. 45

        We are our own masters and owe no allegiance or subservience to any governing entity should that entity not be deserving of such, further, we the people reserve the inherent right of free people to revolt against tyranny, EVEN WHILE ARMED.


        Don’t like it?

        Move to North Korea where such rebellion would assuredly be put down by the sword as you desire.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          I see that you propose armed revolt because you don’t like what the freely elected government does. Be aware that this is not just the US, most of the countries in this hemisphere fought wars of independence. Most don’t think that they are still doing so, you appear to think you are still in the XVIII century.
          You either don’t understand English or purposely add words to my article. I never suggested that the BLM shoot the vigilantes, On the contrary I praise the fact that even under very trying circumstances they abstained. Only in the US would a group of armed officials would not shoot on an armed mob, well almost always.

          • Zoss Arwr

            Why don’t you snivel a bit more about how the BLM was under such harsh, trying circumstances.

            THEY were the ones who put themselves there by thinking it was acceptable to use force that could have subdued a small third world country, over ILLEGAL CATTLE GRAZING.

            and while your at it, stop sniveling words into my mouth.

            I’m not the one proposing armed revolt, the Founders of this nation actually PERFORMED armed revolt, and then they explicitly wrote into our Bill of Rights a provision allowing the private ownership of arms, should it need to happen again, much to your sniveling chagrin.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            It is not sniveling, I have a deviated septum.

          • GMN

            Who freely elected the BLM to come with AR-15’s and point them at peaceful protestors? (a) the BLM is comprised of a bunch of corporations (B) the only “revolt” was caused by the militarized BLM seizing land, cattle and brutalizing citizens. Are you suggesting we should have let them do that? As a “pacifist”, do you recommend we just take the boot on the back of our neck to avoid conflict? Mau Tse Tung should have hired you….your pacifism works perfect for regimes like his

      • VonZorch Imperial Researcher

        “A law repugnant to the Constitution
        is void, courts are bound by this.

        Chief Justice John
        Marshall,Marbury v. Madison, 1803”
        That is why you are WRONG.

  • rpullman

    “Should we be worried?”
    I’m not worried. Laws should be respected and respectfully applied. They should not be twisted to suit ideological purposes. For me, the purpose of the Constitution is to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      I think part of respecting the law is not trespassing on Federal Lands. Do you think that an armed gathering with “snipers” is a proper way to respond to Federal agents doing their job?

      • GA Patriot

        Do you think armed citizens responding to King George’s Regulars was a proper response at Lexington Green? Do you think Col. John Parker respected the law of his rightful King and government?

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Well, they proved victorious at the end. History proved them right.
          Are you trying to draw a parallel between this and the unlawful act of armed vigilantes in Clark County? Not even close.
          What do you think of what Timothy McVey did?

      • Oldfart

        1) Please read that portion of the Constitution which defines which lands the federal government may own.
        2) Study the Nuremburg trials and the weight given the argument that “just following orders” was given in the defense of those accused of war crimes.
        3) Also, be aware of the large (and growing) number of people who have already done 1) and 2) and are preparing to defend the Constitution ‘against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
        4) Look up Julius Streicher and note his profession.
        5) Have a nice day!

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          OldFart, Congratulations on being old.
          1) A pure implementation of an almost 250 year old is not possible. Life is dynamic. The fact is that the specific paragraph has been reinterpreted or changed over the years. BTW there are 50 states now;
          2) Your comparison of this particular episode with the trial to punish people that committed genocide and other atrocious crimes is disingenuous at best;
          3) That is the subject of my article, delusional people;
          4) What does an Nazi ideologue has to do with this?
          5) I always have a good day. I am still on this side of the grass.

          • Tim Kern

            Re #5, you coward: you prove ignorance is bliss.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            You prove that when a right winger doesn’t have an argument, they insult. I bet you weren’t in the debate team in HS.
            Argue the point, not the person. Seems to me that an old person like you should have learned that. BTW, I am also old, but I keep learning. Please clarify why I am a coward. My name is just below the title of the article, maybe you should wear your glasses or get a bigger monitor.

          • Zoss Arwr

            Your concept of the constitution as being a “living document subject to modern interpretation” type nonsense contradicts the very words of the document itself that say it is to be the highest law of the land.

            It means what it says and says what it means.

            And it is THE LAW.

            the federal government is NOT supreme in all matters, as PER THE LAW.

            You DO obey the LAW, don’t you?

            as for your being called a Nazi, well, what did you expect to be called when your trying to dehumanize Americans by comparing them to ISIL?

      • rpullman

        If the agents (federal, state, or local) are following due process of the law then their authority should be respected. Laws should be challenged in court, not by confrontation. Confrontation and rebellion is for extreme situations. Some people feel that Bundy was an extreme case. i do not know enough about grazing rights to say one way or the other. The family has been using the land for 100 years but does not own it so it seems like they should pay for the use of it. I do not see where this is like the Whiskey Rebellion.

        There is too much tension and paranoia online. I drive coast to coast about once a year and most places seem pretty peaceful and friendly to me, big city, hick town and everything in between. Most people are good most of the time.

        • Zoss Arwr

          Personally, I think its pretty extreme for the federal government to send in a military force the likes that could have conquered and occupied a small third world country over the heinous crime of *gasp* illegal cattle grazing…… but thats just me.

          IMHO- those who went ARMED to confront this heavy handed nonsense are to be applauded.

          Much to the chagrin of collectivist boobs like the one responsible for this little article, the federal government itself realized the error of its ways and instead of giving anti-American moonbat libtoons like the author of this twisted little diatribe the blood letting of fellow Americans they hate so much for not following their political dogma, they backed down and proceeded the way they should have done in the first place-

          By knocking on the door with a warrant, peaceable like, during the reasonable hours of the day, to serve to those who were still trespassing.

          • rpullman

            I did not know that a warrant was later served. In fact from reading these comments I see that I did not know very much about this incident. Your opinion and observations are interesting. I will mull them over tomorrow, on my daily walk. Thanks and good luck.

          • Zoss Arwr

            As far as I know, the whole thing was resolved peacefully AFTER the federal gov’t was put back in its place and realized that amassing an army to settle a cattle grazing dispute was just plain dangerously stupid.

            I watched the whole thing build up.

            What happened was the fedgov decided it was time to make another show of force, over the petulance of citizens who DARED disobey its petty laws and edicts as if such laws were of the 10 Commandments themselves.

            It was quite absurd really, watching the fedgov literally swamp that small town with federal cops and swat teams over illegal cattle grazing.

            But thats what they did.

            And this provoked Americans to respond the way THEY did.

            Now, if only we could get Americans to show up for each and every instance where overbearing military force is used by gov’t in enforcement of petty laws that don’t require such a knee-jerk overreaction…….

            The bottom line is that were at a point in this nation where swat teams, once reserved for the most dangerous of situations, are now being used to serve petty warrants over stupid and non-violent victim-less crimes.

            All this is doing is demonstrating that the government is willing to wield a heavy hand in enforcement of laws where a heavy hand is unwarranted.

            And its resulting in some spectacular and gruesomely horrid follies.

            It needs to stop.

            Bundy ranch was actually one of the BETTER outcomes, believe it or not. No one got killed or maimed, no children were put in the ICU with flash bang grenade burns, etc,etc.

            Now, I’m not anti-cop at all, I know theres a reason for swat, and am not against having it. I was on Officer Wilson’s side the whole time over Ferguson because it doesn’t matter what race anyone is, if someone is trying to kill you with your own weapon you have the right to defend yourself.

            But when the government refuses to either respect lawful limits clearly set forth in the Constitution and/or limit its own use of force reasonably, then guess what?

            We The People are most certainly right to stand up to them EVEN ARMED, to REMIND THEM who THE BOSS IS.

            And thats what happened at Bundy Ranch.

            But this articles writer, this partisan hack, this clown, thinks Americans standing up to abuse of force by government somehow makes them terrorists.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Thank you for rational thinking.

  • Tim Kern

    “An interview with Daryl Johnson, an official of DHS, corroborated that so-called ‘sovereign citizens’ and ‘patriot militias’ may be a threat as great as or greater than ISIS.” Well, that depends.

    It depends on whether you think a threat to the government is a threat to the Constitution. ISIS is clearly against American ideals, and is a blunt instrument — it can’t differentiate between America and its ruling class. Fortunately, those patriots closer to America can see the plain difference, and oppose only the enemies of the Constitution.

    Now, if that’s a problem for some in government, well, all they have to do is support the Constitution rather than their own agendas.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      So doing something against the law and opposing it with guns is constitutional?

      • Kansas Bright

        Actually that was lawful action on the part of the US citizens. The unlawful and treasonous action was on the part of the BLM who came armed, with snipers, choppers, etc to steal land and lives that did not belong to them – or else why come armed for war?

        The BLM is an agency of the executive branch. The ONLY lawful thing that they can do is enforce the laws created by those elected to office in the LEGISLATIVE branch (who are not allowed to give away, assign, etc those powers to anyone else – not to another branch, not to those who assist them, not to the states, definitely not to a foreign entity or to a foreign nation which is TREASON. They are NOT allowed to make laws, regulations, etc, nor decide the guilt or innocence of anyone as our type of government requires the SEPARATION OF POWERS of all who participate within our governments – state ad federal.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          So you are telling me that setting and collecting fees for private grazing in Federal Lands is illegal? Or are you saying that BLM didn’t have the authority to command the help of law enforcement (theirs and others) to enforce the law? Next time an FBI agent tells you to freeze, ignore it. The FBI is part of the Executive Branch.

          • Zoss Arwr

            ” Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having
            delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the
            securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies
            committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and
            no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and
            one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the
            powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not
            prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
            or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th
            day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act
            intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United
            States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June,
            1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the
            United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create,
            define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the
            Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to
            create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right,
            appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within
            its own territory. ”
            -Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resoloutions

          • Tim Kern

            Anonymous coward.

          • Zoss Arwr

            So its ok in your esteem for the federal government to use overwhelming military deadly force to enforce……

            cattle grazing laws?

            See,thats the disconnect you types seem to be having here.

            Those armed citizens wouldn’t have bothered showing up the way they did had the FBI decided to show up, peaceable like, at the Bundy ranch and served warrants during reasonable hours for those trespassing.

            I would have actually been very supportive of that.

            But instead, as usual these days,they chose to act heavy handedly over cattle grazing, they sent in everything they had.

            THIS is why the citizens responded the way they did.


          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Well I am glad that the heavy handed BLM only found a few peaceful UNARMED protestors.
            Have you forgotten the peaceful incidents in Waco and at least one other with the FBI?

          • Zoss Arwr

            Have you forgotten how Waco started?

            now you wanna talk about Waco!?!?

            don’t we talk about WACO THEN- about the unsubstantiated claims of
            child abuse that still have no valid proof or convictions resulting
            from them.

            About the ham fisted tactics that ATF and other federal agencies employed that resulted in CHILDREN BEING BURNED TO DEATH.

            But thats ok, cause those were just terrorist kids, right?


            And that “other incident” your talking about was called RUBY RIDGE.

            This is where government SNIPER Lon Horiuchi KILLED AN UNARMED MOTHER HOLDING A BABY.

            thats ok, too, cause those were just evil white separatists who
            decidedto go against the grain -as FREE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO NO MATTER
            HOW ANYONE ELSE MIGHT PERCEIVE THEM- and the mother deserved to be shot
            dead in cold blood by a government sniper while holding her child.

            She was part of an evil domestic terrorist group who got what she deserved.



            and do you know how THAT started?

            got going because the ATF tricked Randy Weaver into sawing a shotgun
            barrel down HALF AN ARBITRARY INCH below the arbitrary 18.5 legal limit.


            to keep at this with me, or are you ready to apologize for being the
            sort of knobhead that cheerleads the mur de r of Americans at the hands of
            government because YOU think said Americans don’t have the right to go
            their own way, apart from the politically correct status quo of the herd
            animals like yourself?

            You can STOP pretending at being peaceful- peaceful you are not.

      • Zoss Arwr

        If the law is not pursuant to the Constitution then its not the law.

      • Tim Kern

        When the law is being broken, protecting the Constitution with individual action is a last resort, patriotic, and necessary. The oath says that we who take it are obliged to protect the Constitutition, even from “domestic enemies” — not to protect the discretion of the authorities.

        You have your countries mixed up — protecting the dictator, when he trashes the basic law of the land, is the rule in some other country.

        And until you use your own name, I’m through with you.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          How many mass murderers have used the same rationale?
          The fact is that unless we resolve to stop solving problems with fire arms, the US will not last another century. I love my country and want my children to have it.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      BTW, how many Americans have been killed by ISIS and how many by right wing extremist?

      • Zoss Arwr

        BTW, stop trying to conflate Americans with ISIL.

        Its all this dehumanizing and degrading your fellow citizens to the level of “enemies” and then you wonder why those same citizens refuse to be disarmed?

      • Tim Kern

        Ridiculous straw man argument. How many have been killed, falling in bathtubs?

        The point is that ISIS is trying to destroy America; most of your so-called right wingers are frustrated that American politicians are trying to destroy America, and, seeing that the mechanism for protecting America through the established channels doesn’t happen, they see their higher duty, and take care of the enemies of America, themselves.

        The fact that they’re mostly misguided doesn’t change the motivations, only the results. ISIS and certain American politicians are enemies of America; most right-wingers (“extremists” and otherwise) love this country.

        • Zoss Arwr

          Also, when is it treason, and a major thereat to America and our citizens to release high level terrorists who go on about their business of actually being enemies of the united states and trying to kill Americans, for one yellow bellied deserter?


        • 21st Century Pacifist

          They love a country that they think is the US.
          If you think ISIS is so terrible, why aren’t the millions mentioned in the Vice episode going to Iraq and Syria to fight them? We vets called them Chicken Hawks.
          Have you ever wondered that if we are so great, why so many people hate us? I have and the answer is not pretty.

          • Tim Kern

            They think it’s the US, because they look at the laws we are supposed to live by, and say, “This is as good as it gets.” Then they get disillusioned, when politicians and lawless authorities usurp power they don’t legitimately have, and start doing whatever the heck they want to, at everyone else’s expense.

            You know why we don’t just jump into boats and go over to Syria to fight ISIS. For the same reason I didn’t jump into a boat and go fight in the rice paddies: no legitimate orders. For all your sanctimony, you obeyed those orders 40 years ago — why would you obey those and fight for the likes of LBJ and Nixon, when you don’t believe in the Constitution, and won’t fight for Madison, Jefferson, and Washington’s ideas?

            Is it because Johnson and Nixon were somehow more worthy of your loyalty, or because your loyalty was to the men in the office, rather than to any principle? Dictators love people like that.

      • Zoss Arwr

        Selective argument.

        Rephrased to be more in line with reality-

        How many Americans have been killed by radical Islam, which is what ISIL represents?

  • “Mario Salazar…knows when an armed confrontation is almost ready to take place…”

    Lol. What? Mario must have a crystal ball.

    I wonder…does Mario know he is a tool?
    Also…does Mario know it’s time to retire?

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      I do know. Two armed groups, one of them with delusional ideas…

  • Bob Nailer

    Ah Mario Salazar…
    You see, the label Conspiracy doesn’t make it not true.
    As you bave proven

    • Frank

      Mario loves seeing his bretherin stream Illegaly across the border in well orchestrated attempt to overthrow the US and US Constitution.
      With help of the Demorats, Obungo and Pimp Daddy Socialist Soro’s Money.
      Mario is a typical Socialist attempting to overthrow the USA with the US Constitutions words.

      • 21st Century Pacifist

        Thank you for reading my article, if in fact you did. Your conclusions are not logical, there is nothing in my article related to what you are talking about. I just stated the facts and did a logical analysis. I bet you were not in the debate club in HS.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      The conspiracy is over, the actions are evident. There are people in the US that are willing to take arms in support of delusional ideas.

  • [email protected]

    First I would like to take the high road and thank Mr. Salazar for his service in the Marine Corps to his country, but, I would be remiss if I neglected to remind Mr. Salazar that the Oath of Service he took when he doned his uniform to protect the Constitution of the United States, from both enemies foreign and domestic, does not expire after you’ve taken said uniform off.

    So good luck in hell, with Benedict Arnold and all the rest of the oath breakers.

    Don’t tread on me, I bite.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      I served in the Army infantry, not the Marine Corps, I was drafted.
      You are the perfect example of what I try to point out in my article. You have a delusion that the US Government is a domestic enemy and you and I have the obligation to take arms against it. The only evidence that you right wingers present is that Obama is in the White House. Maybe your patriotism is more other type of “ism”.
      I hope that with all the patriotic fervor that you think you have, you have also served in the Armed Forces.
      BTW, the last two paragraphs turn you message into an irrational rant. In the future just leave them out so that people take you seriously.

      • Kansas Bright

        Your problem is that you think that the people who SERVE within our governments are the government. That is not so. That is how it is in other nations, but not here. Hopefully you will understand better when you read these.

        Even Theodore Roosevelt said: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.”

        James Madison, Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects,
        which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

        Benjamin Franklin: “In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Any mature thinker knows that things change. While you want to live in the XVIII century, you can’t. Have you heard that the Constitution has been amended? Also that there are 50 states now?

          • Zoss Arwr

            and yet, the constitutiuon is still the law, says so itself, the highest law of the land and is to be obeyed by the federal gov’t.


            right here.

            Right in the Supremacy Clause-

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
            in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
            under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
            the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything
            in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary


            -NOT- your beloved god gov.

            Snivel about it all you want, it doesn’t change the FACT that this is STILL the law, and NOTHING in it has been amended to allow the federal government to use outrageous amounts of force to enforce its laws on the people, NOR has anything been changed to take the right of the people to bear arms PRIMARILY IN DEFIANCE OF TYRANNY.

            NOTHING has changed legally, no matter how you wish it to be so.

          • GMN

            When was article 1 section 8 paragraph 17 amended? It’s still intact. If you want the federal government to be able to steal land and property, then please have your progressive arse amend it before you send armed agents to violate it. A mature thinking US Marine knows that you would all be considered insane if you try the same thing again and expect a different result

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Did you get a general discharge?

          • Dennis

            Yuo imply that I am imature. I think perhaps you are very greatly uneducated in the document you want to throw away on your whim.
            I will not suffer that so give it your best shot.

        • Dennis

          Very good post sir.
          God Bless

      • Zoss Arwr

        you have the delusion that Americans don’t have the natural right to resist tyranny by any means.

        Your wrong, our founding and our history shows you your wrong, and I DEMAND you stop attempting to compare your fellow Americans whom you politcally disagree with to terrorists.

        Its hyperbolic and its dangerous to the point where what your doing, is attempting to dehumanize and “otherize” them to the degree that it does become acceptable for gov’t to stomp them bloody, mr. “pacifist”.

        Its the same sort of evil propagandist hyperbole the national socialists of Germany partook of regarding Jews.

        KNOCK IT OFF.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          No, the Nazi party in its way used pseudo patriotism and old cultural tales to bring acceptance to practices that allow them to use the humiliation of the German people to their advantage. I am sure you know the Nazis were right wingers.

          • Zoss Arwr

            Don’t tell me about the nazi’s you little weasel.

            I’m part Jewish and i know a little sniveling kapo when i see one.

            And actually, there is no correlation between the political left and right of that era in Europe with the left and right here today. THAT is yet another attempt to plagiarize history for the purpose of slandering your political foes, and it doesn’t wash with people who know their history.

            Consequently, however, the Nazis were SOCIALISTS.


            “We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s
            capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically
            weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of
            human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their
            responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy
            this system whatever happens!”
            -Gregor Strasser

            Hitler was a fairly mainstream Leftist of his day. It must be remembered that he gained power by way of a democratic election, not by way of a revolution or a military coup.

            Further, the very idea of the final solution came from Eugenics, which was a pseudo-science practiced by Fabian Socialists and even embraced by the American left here, of its day. Much of the thoughts of Hitlers antisemitism came from Karl Marx himself.

            So again, your wrong.

            Tell you what-

            YOU need to take a remedial class in American history and civics, and while your doing that, you need a class in recent world history as well.

            You really need to educate yourself, before you attempt to slander the entire opposite polemic of your particular political leanings with dirt from your own side.

            It makes you look ridiculous.

            Well that, as well as your sniveling little face.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            I am always surprised how people have reality in front of them, but refuse to see it. Please tell me what ‘Socialist’ government structure the Nazis had.
            Do you know the oldest trick in the book? You name things for what they are not. Do you know what the word Bolshevik mean? The majority, which they weren’t by a long shot.
            The main characteristics of the Nazi party were Nationalism and Right Wing philosophy.
            Again, when will right wingers learn that insulting someone is not a discussion? Get your facts, analyze them, synthesize your thoughts and then present them. This is how you debate.
            ‘sniveling little face’ is not a fact.
            ‘little weasel’ is not a fact.
            “kapo’ is not a fact.
            You appear to have a completely wrong interpretation of history, and that is OK is you can present facts. Saying that Hitler was a left winger will just get you a lot of laughs, before they start thinking you have lost your mind.

          • Aldo Elmnight

            National Socialist Workers Party = Right wing?

            That Nazi=right wing narrative was started by Stalin to discredit Hitler’s nationally based socialist movement vs his global socialism. Nazis were socialists. The diaries of the Nazi leadership confirms this.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            What is in a name? The Nazi party was a nationalistic, racist, right wing socialist party. It was named and created to deter workers from left wing socialism in Germany.

          • Dennis

            Duh you think right wing and socialism are part of the same tree?? I think you mean Facist where the government and corporations run the show.
            You know I was wrong. I thought you were just decieved.
            I am surprised you can dress yourself without doing serious bodily harm. can you type through the long white sleeves buckled to you sides or do your caretakers do it for you. Hell I migh come to visit on visiting days. Of course you will have to take your meds though, can’t be getting all upset. They will put you in the padded room.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Right on cue. When you don’t have an answer you insult.
            Educate yourself, read about what the Nazi party was. It claimed to be Socialist, it was Right Wing and racist.

          • GMN

            …and now the left wingers have become the new Nazi’s….people like you also LOVE to use your gestapo Federal Agent to do your dirty work. Stop being a Nazi minion helping them advance their agenda

          • Dennis

            WRONG! National Socialist Workers Party.
            SOCIALIST or did you miss the term socialist. Maybe you are confused because you have been coopted into blieving the current Marxist propaganda and you are uneducated and misinformed to the truth. That is why russia and Germany were buddies in the first part of WWII…. or perhaps just a parrott.

      • GMN

        I was at Bundy Ranch and personally witnessed the people who are operating my Constitutional government (federal agents) steal cattle, destroy infrastructure, seize land and brutalize peaceful protestors. That is not delusional…that’s living proof that the people who are hijacking our government are enemies of our Republic. If you don’t believe me, then get off your arse; away from the keyboard and stop reading / writing liberally biased articles which support tyranny. YOU sir, are another one of our domestic enemies. Propagandists will not fair well if things continue along this path. US Marine like myself will have you arrested and caged along with the commie masters you serve

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Sorry you didn’t learn anything of value while in the military, I did.
          Like the Nazis before you, you have a delusional view of the world and are taking names so that you can cage them when your side takes over the world. Good luck with that. Semper Fi.

          • Phil Ossiferz Stone

            You’re the one espousing the idea that Big Government has the right to strip our birth liberties from us, and kill or imprison us if we resist. The only fascist here is you.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Phil, welcome to the melee. Fresh blood is always welcome. I think it is better to have big government than anarchy. There are no signs that our current government is Fascist. The authorities for the BLM are a matter of record, just Google ‘BLM authorities’.
            We have a due process of law for land ownership discussions. This process doesn’t include armed mobs ready to shoot Federal Officials. Did I miss something?
            We need more new people, the discussions has grown kind of stale.

          • Dennis

            Docks, forts, arsenals and other needful buildings and the ten mile square area known now as DC.
            Better read your Constitution sir your are way off course.

          • GMN

            “I think it is better to have big government than anarchy. “……..what do you call it when those who are running the government do so LAWLESSLY & UNCONSTITUTIONALLY? It’s anarchy. You can kick and scream all you want to support your “big government”, but when they operate lawlessly, it’s We The People who will hold them accountable & throw them in your own FEMA camps. For you to say that “there are no signs that our government is Fascist” makes you look silly. You must not have been following the NSF’s multimillion dollar funding of the partnership between big corporations and the government to build out the cradle to grave enslavement system known as USIgnite—-bet you don’t know what that it since you are on the brainwashed, liberated, intellectual side of the internet. You will not have “big government” once we strip it from you. Go buy your own big government…put it on your credit card instead of forcing us to pay for your toys & controls. EFF your big government.

          • Guest


          • Guest



          • Dennis

            Nazis were socialists so they were your kin.
            Ad Homeum argument, logical fallacy. Attack the speaker and discredit them. This was Hitlers favorite ploy in his early years.

      • Dennis

        I enlisted. I don’t care if any one is white, black or poka dotted. You serve your oath and the People or you don’t My friend said you know them by their fruits and that I should not be a respecter of persons, I am down with that. My friend, my personal friend the One who is eternal
        The US government is not my enemy, the lawful government abiding by the Constitution without all the elaborations which have been used to usurp the freedom of the people which do not comply with the amendment process. That is the Lawful government. Everything else is smoke blowing up somebodys dairy air.
        And let me be perfectly frank about this. the Constitution is founded upon a set of principles that are timeless. I say timeless because the Framers being men of education in the classical sense read the classics in the original language. They used the correct eytmology of the words and thus the correct meaning, not some marxist polluted perversion. They understood some very basic principles. The main one is that men are corruptable and the more reason you give them to become corrupt the quicker and the greater the corruption.
        Jesus called the experts in the law hypocrites because they subverted the Law that was given to Moses into a system no one could live by (Jesus called it the traditions of men) and they would not live by it themselves, he said the money changers were thieves and drove them from the temple with physical violence and that the tax collectors were extortionists. In nearly 2000 years just what has changed? So you think time changes eternal principles? Or perhaps you see that human nature is a corruptable as every and to trust in the virtue of men is about the dumbest thing you could possibly do.
        Time in a linear accounting does change, human nature not so much. The accounts of the Bible reflect the same thing the Framers saw when the studied the classical systems of government. 238 years ago they set it down to paper with the express provision that it was the express limit of authority delegated to the general government, no more no less unless it should survive the amendment process. I hope you really get the jist of the message here.
        I hope that reason and not rationalization will prevail. The premise that time changes does not support your conclusion that the Constitution is out dated. That is a logical fallacy-confusing correlation with cause and affect. After all we must be reasonable according to the correct eytmology of the words used, in the classical sense of course.
        I do not suffer fools or just plain stupid lightly. So I will allow you this error but please educate yourself so that you may participate in an adult conversation with some sense of aptitude.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Please define “fools”. You ended a very lucid defense by saying something that kind of reveals your hand.
          The Constitution is a great document, it was by far the best of its kind when it was created. Unfortunately nothing is eternal. I also include religion.
          If your are serious about religion read ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins.

  • Sean

    Hey, Salazar, those two murderers who killed police in Vegas were told very quickly to leave the area, when the man told people there he was a felon in possession of a gun. They were no more part of the protest and demonstration than George Soros was. They left, quickly. They were not welcome. It can’t be helped when people like that show up, uninvited, and it is a testament to the ones who stayed, that they behaved well, and did not initiate any violence. But if you’re interested in finding out how far III percenters will be pushed before something does happen, keep pushing, commie.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      This commie was in the rice paddies of Vietnam fighting while your parents were drinking beer and tilting cows. Don’t even think you scare me, I have been a lot closer to death, you p***.

      • Dana King

        Oooo, big talk from a “pacifist”. You obviously are irony oblivious. You can always move to a communist country if you don’t like liberty and it’s “250 year old document”. I’ll buy you a one way ticket to cuba, just let me know.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Typical reply by a person that doesn’t have an argument. What happened with freedom of expression? I guess is only valid for those on the right. Fortunately people like you are in the minority and getting smaller by the minute. I would love to visit Cuba, send me the ticket.

      • Zoss Arwr

        Maybe you would have gotten a better response to your article if you weren’t hyperbolically calling your fellow Americans terrorists ?

        you think?

        dont get upset now, your the one who started this.

      • Zoss Arwr

        Maybe you would have gotten a better response to your article if you weren’t hyperbolically calling your fellow Americans terrorists ?

        you think?

        dont get upset now, your the one who started this.

        BTW anyone can sit there and claim military service, people do it all the time.

        My grandfather actually was in nam, as a com liaison with the 101st. Before that he was in Korea.

        i hardly doubt he’d agree with you on any of the c ra p your spewing here.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Well, people that believe that weapons will solve all problems and are willing to use them on the authorities, are they terrorists?
          Great for your grand father, maybe you should try to do the same. I doubt that he would defend an armed stance against the government of the US.

          • Zoss Arwr

            Who believes that weapons will solve all problems?

            It seems to me that it’s the gov’t who’s knee jerk reaction to ILLEGAL CATTLE GRAZING was to send in swat teams and APC’s might just be guilty of THAT one, you think?

            You ARE aware that the definition of terrorism ALSO INCLUDES a “terroristic method of government”?


            Further, and again, the reaction of Americans to the flooding of the small town where this incident took place with armed federal agents OVER CATTLE GRAZING couldn’t possibly be because of the previous overreactions and outright abuses of gov’t which we discussed earlier, namely being Waco and Ruby Ridge, where children were burned alive and unarmed mothers shot dead while holding their infant children, all because of this ridiculous notion that our SERVANT gov’t has gotten that its ok to over-zealously enforce similarly asinine laws as CATTLE GRAZING laws, could it?


            And you sir don’t know my grandfather, southern gentleman that he was, so don’t try too hard to put words in the mans mouth, ok?

            I’m sure he would know the difference between when its RIGHT to stand up for yourself and your fellow Americans against abusive authority, versus unquestioning obedience to the same while vapidly attempting to paint those with the fortitude and courage to make a stand against such as “terrorists”.

            I bet you snivel alot huh?

            Your picture makes you look like you do.

            You do realize your sniveling about Americans -AMERICANS- being “terrorists” for standing up to a government that thought it was just peachy to send an armed contingent that could have taken Grenada over ILLEGAL CATTLE GRAZING?

          • GMN

            I PROMISE you that the Second Amendment will solve many of the problems associated with the Commies hi-jacking our Constitutional Republic. It’s not only designed to solve our problems in defense of our nation…..it’s exactly what defended the peaceful protestors at Bundy Ranch on April 12th 2014. Ask the DHS and unconstitutional government goons in this article and at the BLM if they intend to test the resolve of the people willing to lay our lives on the line defending our Constitutional Republic. BTW: The government officials were the ones who presented an “ARMED STANCE” by pointing AR-15’s at peaceful protestors……that will never ever work out well for them…..we promise. Semper Fi —-My name is Pete Santilli & I am a United States Marine. Bring it

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Ummhhh, second amendment, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, too many to remember. Good job. You guys are batting 1000.

          • Dennis

            Here is the cause and affect thing again. The premise does not support your conclusion, Logical Fallacy!!!!!!

            Discredit the speaker, divert the issue, introduce a Red Herring Marxist Ideology right out of Saul Alinsky who dedicated his book to Lucifer. Even if Lucifer is a myth why would you praise the apitome of evil, Fatther of Lies, Author of Confusion.

            God Little Marxist

          • The Disciple


          • Dennis

            Apeal to Authority.. Logical Fallacy. Your presentment is unreasonable.
            Also are they the Lawful government of the US or an insurrectionist bunch of politicians attempting to usurp the right and duty of the people to form and maintain their own government expanding upon the limited delegate authority that the People agreed to impliment as their government. It says we the People, not we the politicians, the Marxists or special interests???
            Get it!

    • Downriver

      Yep. Richard Mack, now begging for charity, and Jerod Miller, the Vegas shooter. Birds of a Feather

      • 21st Century Pacifist

        Interesting, the sheriff that so fervently opposed Obama care can’t pay medical bills. When will people wake up and stop big Pharma and Health Conglomerates?

  • Kansas Bright

    Lets start with the lies or outright ignorance within this article:

    “This emboldened the anti-government movement. In one case, Jerad and Amanda Miller killed two police officers in Las Vegas and wrapped them in the “Don’t thread on me” flag.
    The couple stood with others in the defense of Bundy in Clark County. ”

    Actually they came to the Bundy ranch looking for trouble and were asked to leave. Know your FACTS please.

    Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

    James Madison, considered the Father of the US Constitution: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

    Oh, and if you are so Pro America’s legitimate government show me where those who serve within our governments -state and federal – are allowed to create a standing military and/or law enforcement agencies. It is not there, those powers were FORBIDDEN TO THEM so that they could not create a police state as history shows is always done.

    Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
    States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

    (that means that those who serve within government who go beyond the boundaries set for them they then become the domestic enemies that the Oaths refer to that the US Constitution was to be defended from.)

    Alexander Hamilton: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles that that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
    legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

    “Standing” military and Militias;

    George Washington, General and then First US President: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. “

    John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

    Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service]
    a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

    Okay, what does the US Constitution say about them (“Standing” military and Militias)?

    Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

    US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

    The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

    Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised:

    Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

    Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. ”

    This clause is very straightforward also. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias in Clause 16.

    Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
    according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

    Okay, so we know that the state and federal governments are REQUIRED to use the Militias to:
    — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It
    is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions”
    and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

    James Madison: “An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.”

    So who is the Militia?

    Tench Coxe, where he refers to the state and federal government forbidden to bear arms but required to use the people themselves as the Militia: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”

    Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this
    provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon… If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

    Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

    Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the
    facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a
    strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

    George Mason: “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State.”

    Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’
    The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.”

    Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage
    Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of
    the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?”

    Joseph Stalin, 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

    Wow, sounds like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    The Bundy ranch was an attack by the federal governmental agency on the Bundy’s in order to take their land. The federal government is ALLOWED to own Washington DC, and any land that a state is willing to sell them for specific listed purposes “… for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;” per the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States (Washington DC), and to exercise like Authority over all Places PURCHASED by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;” (caps are mine)

    The federal government held in TRUST (legal term even back then) land for when each new state was created after the original 13. Each state entered the Union as equals to the original states. When a state created its borders and republican form of government all land within those borders were to be turned over to the state. Yes, that IS in writing, again within the Constitution of the United States of America.

    You made lots of comments about Militias and referred to the armed (and unlawful under our legitimate government) BLM. The BLM came their with snipers to steal land that the federal government never bought from the state of Nevada, nor could those who serve within the federal government have bought it since it did not meet the LAWFUL criteria under which they are ALLOWED to purchase land from a state.

    “The patriot militias and other so called Sovereign Citizens have already declared war on the US and fired the first salvo.”

    The US Constitution (that document you gave YOUR personal guarantee that you would support and defend it with your life if need by) IS our government. It created and defined the federal government and assigns the authority to each branch. That also is in writing. The people who serve within our government are NOT THE government, but the people put into place to carry out specific duties assigned to the BRANCH in which they serve.

    The structure of the Constitution emphasizes the principle of separation of powers. Article I established the legislative branch with the power to make laws; Article II, the executive branch with the authority to enforce the laws; and Article III, the judicial branch with jurisdiction over legal disputes. “It is also important to note that the Constitution in no way granted the federal courts the power of judicial review, or an ultimate interpretive power over the constitutional issues”.

    “Mario Salazar is a combat infantry Vietnam Vet…”

    This does have bearing on the article. It has to do with our LEGITIMATE government, the US Constitution.

    Do you remember your lawfully REQUIRED Oath when you joined and when/if you were promoted in the US military? Or did you renounce it when you left the military? Let me remind you gave personal guarantee that you would do.


    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I
    will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    National Guard: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.


    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    The meanings of the words in the Oath might help those who go against the US Constitution to understand their role.

    “I”- an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer;
    “do” – perform, accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute;
    “solemnly”- somberly, gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony;
    “swear (or affirm)” – vow, pledge, promise, guarantee;
    “that I will” – a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention;
    “support” – uphold, bear, carry, sustain, maintain; “and
    defend” – protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after;
    “the Constitution of the United States.”

    Notice that the most important is listed first, and that the most words in each Oath concerns the US Constitution and the Oath takers duty to it. Significantly the oath is to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual, leader, ruler, office, or entity.

    How important is that Oath? It is a felony to break it. Many military and others have been imprisoned for following unlawful orders and the reason they could be held PERSONALLY responsible is because of that Oath.

    This indicates how important the Oath is considered -> Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead… The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.

    Revised a few years ago, wonder why? -> Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials – state and federal is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees
    are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law.

    18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    Executive Order 10450 provision specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. According to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other then by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    So those who are defending the US Constitution, our legitimate government are NOT the Domestic enemies of, or TRAITORS to, the United States of America and the American people.

    Where do YOU stand, with your nation, your legitimate government, and KEEPING your Oath? Or are you a felon and a traitor that has not been prosecuted – YET?

    If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are
    domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Thank you for reading my article and taking the time for such a lucid defense of the indefensible. A pure implementation of any document that was done almost 250 years ago is impossible. Believing that all Federal Lands would be returned to states is delusional.
      We have to live with what we have.
      Fact: A rancher violated a law for his own profit;
      Fact: Law enforcement tried to stop him after years of notifications;
      Fact: Armed citizens stopped the enforcement of the law.
      Should you be scared? Will they take over the Antietam Battle park next?
      Sure this is a extreme example, but it follows your reasoning.
      Logic 101.

      • Kansas Bright

        You’re welcome, and thanks for the twofaced compliment /grin.

        So, what youa re saying is that England’s Royalty and parliament is impossible as a government today? Or China’s dictatorship? Or Russia’s, Germany’s, Spain, etc governments since they have been active so long are “impossible”?

        Obviously you are incorrect.

        If the US Constitution was not such a danger to those who are working to destroy our nation from within then they would not LIE, HIDE, use Propaganda, subliminals, medications, Distort, use force to show the people that their option is better.

        Let’s face, if you want to live in a controlled society, this planet is full of them..If freedom, if morals, honesty, openness and responsibility is not your cup of tea – move, there are plenty of places that control their population. But you have not. Why not?

        Color of law is not law. It is another form of lying where it is represented as “law”, enforced as law by either domestic enemies or the uninformed (which is still criminal in action).

        Fact – On Bundy’s mother’s side they have rights under our constitutional laws – you know, the real ones – to that land. Just because it was under his mothers side since the 1800’s does not make it any less his families inheritance and rights.

        Fact: Armed BLM, with MILITARY snipers, armed choppers

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          With all due respect, you are mixing apples and oranges. Documents and forms of government in the countries that you mentioned have changed, completely in some cases. The King of Spain can’t by edict declare that all Jews had to convert or be burned at the stake, thank God. Fortunately most of these governments have changed for the better and they don’t adhere to obsolete documents from the past.
          We have had to presence of mind to change the way our government works when we found out it wasn’t fair, in most cases it took us a long time. Like Churchill said “Americans will try all other alternatives but eventually come up with the right solution”, I am paraphrasing.
          Careful about what you are saying about executive orders. They have preserved our way of life. Technically presidents did not have the legislative authority to invoke the National Guard in the South in the sixties. Truman also integrated the military by executive order.
          The ones that are trying to destroy our nation sit behind their millions and their only purpose is to further enrich themselves. They are not the BLM official that is just doing his/er job.

          • Kansas Bright

            “We have had to presence of mind to change the way our government works when we found out it wasn’t fair”

            It was not our government that was not fair, as in its requirements ALL people are equal. Like today, it was the people who SERVE within our governments that were not “fair”, they did not follow the US Constitution.

            “… official that is just doing his/er job”

            Actually you are incorrect. Have you heard of the Nuremberg Trials? Hopefully you have. There many were prosecuted and given the death penalty for “just doing their job” and for “just following orders” because if they had not “just done their job” and/or “just followed orders” those atrocities could NOT have been committed.

            Today, here in the USA we are having those same problems of people going against what is right, what is the legitimate law here in the name of ” “just doing their job” and “just following orders”.

            Example: Here in America there is NO such thing as “assassination powers”, that is found in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, etc. Here it is First Degree Murder by everyone involved in any way. Yet, once a week Obama meets with his “secret court” (which is also NOT allowed) and decides to MURDER someone based on whatever criteria he wants to use. That is First Degree Murder by a Dictator.

            We are under invasion, and it is an invasion, and he “invoked” authority in the name of the US Constitution to allow and give those people “amnesty” and make them citizens. Neither of those “powers”, “authority” was granted to the branch that he serves in.

            You see, the authority and power belongs to that BRANCH of the Government, not to the people who serve – temporarily – within it. He, and all those that assist him in any way, are TRAITORS to the AMERICAN PEOPLE and to the USA. Color coat it anyway you want to, but you ARE incorrect.

            None of that is lawful, it is actions being taken to destroy our legitimate government from within, and using *terrorist activity against the American people to do so. All who follow those orders, who assist will be arrested, charged, prosecuted; and many want the death penalty for those who committed treason against the USA and her people.

            *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of
            force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

            You might want to rethink your stance as an Oathbreaker, a felony here in our nation. You might also want to read the US Constitution and what the framers and people of that time intended for our nation. Because it is people like you and the corrupt domestic enemies and traitors who worked to get into office to destroy

      • Dana King

        Just because you cannot, or refuse to, fathom that the US
        Constitution is the law of the land whether you want it or not is beside
        the point. Everything the fouders warned us about has come to fruition.
        It is because our government doesn’t follow any of the constitution is
        why we are where we are, not the other way around. What was a sad
        attempt at redirection, but that only works on the ign0rant. Sorry

        You seem to believe that simply because something is law
        that makes it constitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth
        and to assert otherwise is an illustration of just how ignorant you
        really are. In your statist world where law is always just and moral
        then Rosa Parks should have shut the $%^& up and just sat her @ss at
        the back of the bus, right? That cops would have been fully justified
        to choke her out for not getting to the back of the bus, and if she died
        because the choked her out for “violating the law” you would be ok with
        that. Right? It must hurt to be as ign0rant as you.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          It is pretty obvious by the fact that we have had amendments that the Constitution has to change like any other document. To think that the same conditions that existed in the late XVIII century are relevant today is a little “backwards” NPI. Should we believe that all the rights granted in the Constitution, which only applied to White males, should be the standard today? No, we took a step forward and granted right to the rest of all citizens of this great country. This was done by amendments or by different interpretation that met the reality at the time.
          If we were to follow the strict interpretation of the paragraph about lands that can be ceded to the Federal Government, we would not have the best parks in the world. The C & O canal would have been paved over. Instead we all can enjoy a beautiful park that was in part surveyed by George Washington.
          I don’t know the details of how the Bundy family lost its vast possessions, but be sure that there was fair compensation at the time.
          Rosa Parks didn’t have snipers occupying the heights ready to fire on Federal officials. She protested as I have, peacefully.
          If the protestors had not been armed to the teeth and ready to fire, then I would have been the first to condone and support what they would have done.
          I am the first to oppose heavy handed policing. I have written several articles about it.
          You have to agree that protesting while heavily armed and with snipers ready to fire on Law Enforcement is wrong. I think these people should be punished as well as the punk that sniped on police in Fergusson.

      • Zoss Arwr

        I think your comparison of American citizens you have a political disagreement with to Islamic terrorists is a bit extreme, and you need to put on your knee pads and apologize.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Thank you for reading my article. However, I never said that I think those that protest the Federal Government are Tim McVeys. I believe in and have practiced peaceful protest since I became an adult.
          There is a big difference between peaceful protest and snipers taking the high ground. If you fail to see the difference between what Blacks did in the 60s to protest inhumane laws and people armed to the teeth getting ready to KILL Federal officials, you need to check your judgment.
          By your reference to Athens I can see that you think armed conflict against the authorities is OK, or maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote?
          In a civilized society disagreements should not be resolved with fire arms.

          • Zoss Arwr

            You may not be calling them Mcveighs, but you are certainly calling them akin to Islamic fundamentalists.

            This is not acceptable under any circumstances.

            It is not acceptable for you to attempt to degrade your fellow Americans to the level of an avowed foreign enemy.
            As I’ve explained in my NUMEROUS other comments to your twisted little article (funny how the one you address is the one where you THINK you can play semantics over what kind of evil you called the patriots who went to Bundy ranch), this is called propaganda, specifically of the type where one group of people is singled out for dehumanization or degradation, promoting the acceptance of them as being seen as “an other”, and ultimately, “an inferior other/enemy” that needs elimination.

            And for your illumination, armed resistance to -illegitimate acts- of authorities ARE EXACTLY WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT.

            But you probably think its something to do with sporting, hunting, or that the militia clause can be inferred in such a way as whereby you magically manage to turn an individual right into a gov’t power over privately held arms?

            Despite the FACT that multiple English language scholars (please google “the unabridged second amendment” for one such explanation) contest that the militia clause bears no legal burden and/or grants no power of government authority on or over the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is it really that hard for people like YOU to wrap it around your thick skulls that a group of people -our founding generation- which had just used arms to -rebelliously and seditiously, no less- throw off the yoke of a tyrannical gov’t that considered itself quite legitimate in power and authority over them, that these people would actually write into our law an ability for the people of the nation they founded to bear arms in defiance of any possible future tyranny?

            I mean- duh!!!

            Further, I believe you are in error in your timeline or are just plain wantonly abrogating your due diligence to fact in order to sell a narrative, as the first group to come to this particular shindig “armed to the teeth” were agents of the federal gov’t who were grossly overreacting to the ever so heinous crime of ILLEGAL CATTLE GRAZING, and baldly overreacted by amassing a small army in the immediate area to thwart this ever so hideous crime.

            Now, whether you like it or not, the people of this nation most certainly have a right to be armed, and that right is PRIMARILY codified in our laws as being in purpose and intent to deter and thwart -by force if need be- tyranny in government.

            and I don’t know about YOU, but in my book, sending in APC’s and combat ready platoons to arrest the scofflaw nonsense of illegal cattle grazers is just plain overzealous.

            And THAT is why ARMED AMERICAN PATRIOTS responded to this incident, NOT the other way around.


            The federal gov’t, not some evil right wing group of citizens YOU equate to being Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, was the instigator of this incident.

            And how did it end?

            Well, it ended the way it should have started.

            After the federal government backed down, they went to the Bundy ranch in civil clothes, suits and such, in the light of day, and peaceably served warrants.


            Those Americans who went to stand down the federal gov’t from its outrageous and overzealous abuse of force ARE BRAVE HEROS who RISKED THEIR LIVES in the face of overwhelming and unjustified force excersized by a government that is way out of line sending in swat teams for cattle grazing trespass.

            But YOU think that Americans have no right to resist the outrageous use of military force by the government over a cattle grazing issue?

            So I guess our Founders were WRONG to resist the attempt to disarm them by British troops at Lexington and Concord?

            Perhaps they should have had a peaceful march, instead?

            Perhaps they should have tried to REASON with the Hessians and British regulars, and not resorted to defending themselves and THEIR RIGHTS with firearms?

          • Kansas Bright

            See, once again you are pushing the government line, traitor. “people armed to the teeth getting ready to KILL Federal officials” is a LIE. What the American people are doing is DEFENDING them selves from those who are corrupt.

            The founders knew history well. They were the best educated our country has EVER had. No one today is as well educated. They knew that people who are drawn to power, always want more power.

            That is why those that serve within our governments were FORBIDDEN to create a standing military, and a governmental professional law enforcement and were REQUIRED to use the Militias of the several states so that this nation could not be made into a police state. They are always used against the people throughout history.

            Obama, Panetta, Dempsey, Holder etc committed TREASON against the USA and the American people when they tried to give authority over anything in the USA to the UN so that America could be part of the NWQ, the one world government. They no longer have any lawful and valid authority here to do anything in our name.

            I have to say that I had given you more credit then you deserve for thinking, because you have not realized that the NWO/One world government is the same old story – take over and rule the world. Just in less, and more modern words.

            I cannot respect a person who would commit treason. They are worse then a serial killer. Those who are serving within our government have no valid authority the moment they broke their Oaths and committed treason here in America, against the American people.

            Thomas Jefferson: “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted
            with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
            government of others?”

            Obviously these cannot, and YOU assist them.

            Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

            James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

            Our way of government is in writing, and even if they destroy the document itself – we almost all have our own copies. They cannot destroy it. They can only destroy some lives. And that is why Americans are armed – to stop TRAITORS to the American people, to the USA.

            To defend our nation from domestic enemies and foreign enemies as you were supposedly sworn to do.

            No one is “getting ready to KILL Federal officials” unless they way overstep their bounds and start murdering Americans. We will just remove them from office and prosecute them. We are NOT them, we do not murder. We defend, arrest, prosecute as OUR Constitution of the United States of America requires. That makes YOU a liar, but then you are in “good company” with this regime, aren’t you?

      • GMN

        Fact: A rancher violated a law for his own profit… NOT FACT. PROPAGANDA…. HE WANTED TO PAY FEES TO THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Fact: Armed citizens stopped the enforcement of the law.


        Your, sir, are a very misinformed false propagandist

      • Robert Zraick

        There is little logic to your position.

  • Dana King

    Propaganda. Jerad and Amanda Miller were kicked off the Bundy ranch. More hack reporting by ignorant federal supremacists.

  • Zoss Arwr

    If you think your fellow citizens are akin to Islamic terrorists for excersizing their rights, you might be a collectivist boob who’s ignorance of history and willingness to label his fellow citizens as enemy combatants for disobeying government is ways that they politically disagree with are tantamount to attempting to dehumanize their fellow citizens prior to actually getting their wish of gov’t attempting to outright murder them.

    Let me ask the author some things here-

    Are you against the Founders for using arms to revolt against English tyranny?

    Are you against slavery abolitionists who used arms to fight pro slavery forces as in the history surrounding the term “Beechers bibles”?

    Are you familiar with the history of the “Battle of Athens Tennessee”?

    Do you really think you can cloak your desire to see gov’t use violence
    against those whom you disagree with politically -on the same terms as
    gov’t should use force on ISIL, in pacifism?

    Or do you really think others are so ignorant they cannot see you for the COWARD you are,
    who would send gov’t agents to do your dirty work for you?

  • Justsomeguy

    “An interview with Daryl Johnson, an
    official of DHS, corroborated that so-called “sovereign citizens” and
    “patriot militias” may be a threat as great as or greater than ISIS.”

    Wow one official corroborated a loosely worded paragraph that lumps what are dozens of potentially different organizations into one pile and gives absolutely no details on why these people are more dangerous than ISIL. This is trash journalisim at its very finest.

    This article then finishes with more straw man arguments than I’ve seen in one place in years. This author and the SPLC can both stick it in their ear.


    • Zoss Arwr

      All i can say is if the left keeps heading this way it wont be our fault when things get a little far from “peaceable”.

      They keep demonizing those who don’t agree with their version of things and calling them terrorists, and people start actually playing their part in this, it’ll be all on them.

  • Kungfoochimp

    F&U juden

  • imoccupied

    Article obviously written by another government troll trying to make all patriots the enemy and brainwash the steeple that we all deserve the condemned label of terrorist. Anyone who can still think for themselves and remember the REAL AMERICA and be willing to fight for it like our forefathers is now considered an enemy. SAD!!!

  • Pamela

    There is just so much wrong with this I think the author is as out of touch with reality as the fine folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center who believe that following the Constitution is a threat to national security.
    Having recently cast off a tyrannical government, the people that established our government clearly stated that if the government exceeds it’s mandate (Constitution) it is the people’s duty to alter or abolish it. Apparently this concept is foreign to him.

  • Downriver

    Birds of a Feather,,,Richard Mack, now begging for charity, and Jerod Miller, the Vegas shooter

  • Dennis

    “The people-the people are the rightful masters
    of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to
    overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
    Abraham Lincoln; 1859 Election Speech
    There is no threat to overthrow the LAWFUL government of the United States, only those in office who pervert the Constitution. That is why the People have the right to bear arms, Heller v District of Columbia, 2010 straight out of the Supreme Court’s printed decision.
    Salazar your use of a logical fallacy, confusing cause and effect with correllation-where the conclusion is not logically supported by the premises is a very old Marxist trick. So lets talk about subverting the Lawful Government and erecting a Marxist/Socialist government in its place. Article IV Section 4 states that the United States shall (mandatory language) guarantee to the states a Republica form of government (not as in party).
    So what we may have to overthrow is insurrecion by the officials who occupy seats in government and not the government itself. So your logical fallacy may work on the Gruber stupid progressivesliberal AKA Communist useful idiots, but not here. people died so you could speak freely but when you abuse that right and libel as in print or slander us verbally you have just breached the social contract and I have a right to defend myself against the aggressor-you!

  • Robert Zraick

    You seem to confuse the country with the government. To take up arms in opposition to a government which has become tyrannical is not the same thing as taking up arms against the U.S.A. It is quite the opposite. It is taking up arms to protect the U.S.A.

  • Rocketanski

    So Salazar believes ISIS is a lesser threat than legally-armed Americans, that sufficiently ‘old’ laws should be deemed obsolete and void, that armed resistance to government abuse of authority is apocryphal. He is, at best, woefully ill-informed about recent events, hostile to the ideas of individual liberty, and amenable to an all-controlling, all-powerful government micro-managing every aspect of human existence.

    Line forms to the left, Mr. Salazar. Better hurry, it’s getting longer all the time.