Outpost of Freedom
Sentinel
"Truth will ultimately prevail
where there is pains taken to bring it to light"
Geo. Washington


VOL. II, No 1 (Excerpted from) January 31, 1995


The Rapid Deployment Strike Force Act.
HR-97

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be preserved in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold enough or honest enough to apprise his Constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

"If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery.

Alexander Hamilton, FP #26

During the siege at Mt. Carmel Center, Texas, the BATF, within just a few of days, had over five hundred "troops" from around the country sent in to bolster their efforts against all the women, children and the few men inside the church. The FBI also sent over five hundred of their "troops" (some who had just recently returned from Ruby Ridge, Idaho). Within days, the FBI was in charge of the entire operation. A standing army, complete with tanks and sophisticated electronic equipment, was waging war on the American people.

A new bill (HR 97) was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 4th of January, 1995. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee and is titled the "Rapid Deployment Strike Force Act" It"s purpose is to create a "strike force" of 2500 FBI "troops" trained especially for the type of event that occurred in Waco. I"m sure that Lon Horiuchi,. among others, are chomping at the bit to become the charter members of this proposed elite force.

Reading the proposed hill made me think of the consequences of the bill, if enacted, as it would affect the Constitution. Two clauses in Article I, Section 8, might bear on this matter. Clause 12, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than Two year," for example, limits the appropriations of any funding for a standing army to two years. Clause 15, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," provides for a means to deal with violations of United States law. (Read "Constitution: Fact or Fiction," by Dr. Eugene Schroder to understand the difference between law and code).

Understanding what Hamilton said is important in itself. It is even more important to understand that in colonial times, the only government police force was the army. After the creation of the Union, police, sheriffs and the Posse Comitatus became local law enforcement, based upon community needs, desires and laws. National crimes were nearly nonexistent and were to be addressed by the militia, as Hamilton pointed out. At the time there were only three crimes identified in the Constitution which could be considered national laws. There was, and still is no need for any federal "law enforcement". Crime as an affront to the community, not to the nation, unless the criteria defined in the Constitution is met. The FBI is an investigative agency, and the BATF is a tax collection agency. What has lead us to accept, without question, the establishment of them as federal police? If we understood that, we would not tolerate a "federal army" which was directed at us, we might better understand what is happening to us today.

The prohibition against a standing army served two purposes. First was the desire to avoid wars which were motivated by other than self-preservation. Second was to prohibit the imposition of that standing army on the people, themselves, to force submission to arbitrary control by the Executive. Hamilton also gave us the solution to this problem. He went further when he described what manner would be used if this authority were usurped when he continued:

"It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of any army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very source sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretence could he be put in possession of" a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been I created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defence of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamities for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defence.

"But is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that if is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.


Return to Sons of Liberty #16

Return to Sons of Liberty index