April 29, 2014

Obama's Litmus Test to U.S. Military: Will You Fire on American Citizens or Not? Those Who Will Not are Being Removed (an Ideological Purge of the U.S. Military)

Obama to top brass: Will you fire on American Citizens? - Gary Franchi of WHDN Boston Interviews Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Jim Garrow

Obama placing fellow America-haters in the US Military

February 19, 2013
NextNewsNetwork - Will you fire on American citizens if the Commander in Chief gives the order? This is the question being asked of America’s top generals by the Obama administration.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new litmus test in determining who will stay and who must go [among] his military leaders,” begins the post of Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Jim Garrow, originator of the Pink Pagoda project that rescues baby girls from “gendercide” shortly after their birth in China.

Garrow goes on to say: “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not. Those who will not are being removed!”

Now a video is showing narrator Gary Franchi interviewing Dr. Garrow, who is calling the ‘Fire on US Citizens’ order a “serious breach of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.”

“Watch what Barack Obama does, not what he says. . .his patriotic words are in conflict with his actions... he treats the Constitution as a faint relic,” says Garrow.

Every patriotic American who cares about our land needs to see and study this important video(above). Whether or not you care about gun ownership, take heed because Garrow gives an account of the discrepancy between the opinion an average Chinese citizen “in the street” has of President Obama and that held by Chinese Communist leaders. 

“He’s a traitor to his own country,” is the prevailing attitude of the Chinese man in the street.

Giving the command to fire on one’s own citizenry is beyond the pale of acceptable presidential governance.  The “OathKeepers” website has posted its “ten commandments” of allegiance concerning the Oath to the Constitution all warriors must take, and the main emphasis is on refusal to fire on average American citizens for owning guns, an inherent right granted to them by the Second Amendment!

“China wants America to be disarmed,” Garrow continues on the Franchi video.

He reports that the Bank of China evaluation team came into America recently to evaluate our coal and gas reserves, which they could take over in exchange for our enormous debt owed to China.  The Chinese bankers are attempting to equate that debt with the value of America’s natural resources!

The Kansas area was of special interest to the Chinese team as it attempted to set prices on our clean coal and oil reserves. The team allegedly told Obama they want American citizens disarmed.  After all, having to shoot average residents of the world’s last Republic would make the Communists look bad on the world stage!

“We have a president that has such a deeply rooted hatred of America that it separates him from all other tyrants and who is allowing infiltration by Islamic influence at all levels of government,” says a patriotic poster.

John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director would clearly solidify Islam in the Oval Office as Brennan has been called a recent convert to the Muslim faith.

This Gun Control and Confiscation agenda of the Obama White House may very well be the line in the sand which the President himself has drawn against United States citizens. It must NOT be permitted to succeed.


April 28, 2014

U.S. Advises Avoiding Internet Explorer Until Bug Fixed

U.S. Government Suggests that You Switch from Internet Explorer

UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security advised computer users to consider using alternatives to Microsoft Corp’s Internet Explorer browser until the company fixes a security flaw that hackers have used to launch attacks. The United States Computer Emergence Readiness Team said in an advisory released on Monday morning that the vulnerability in versions 6 to 11 of Internet Explorer “could lead to the complete compromise of an affected system.”

April 27, 2014

Reuters - Microsoft is rushing to fix a bug in its widely used Internet Explorer Web browser after a computer security firm disclosed a flaw over the weekend, saying hackers have already exploited it in attacks on some U.S. companies.

PCs running Windows XP will not receive any updates fixing that bug when they are released, however, because Microsoft stopped supporting the 13-year-old operating system earlier this month. Security firms estimate that between 15 and 25 percent of the world’s PCs still run Windows XP.

Microsoft disclosed on Saturday its plans to fix the bug in an advisory to its customers posted on its security website, which it said is present in Internet Explorer versions 6 to 11. Those versions dominate desktop browsing, accounting for 55 percent of the PC browser market, according to tech research firm NetMarketShare.

Cybersecurity software maker FireEye said that a sophisticated group of hackers have been exploiting the bug in a campaign dubbed “Operation Clandestine Fox.”

FireEye, whose Mandiant division helps companies respond to cyber attacks, declined to name specific victims or to identify the group of hackers, saying that an investigation into the matter is still active.

“It’s a campaign of targeted attacks seemingly against U.S.-based firms, currently tied to defense and financial sectors,” FireEye spokesman Vitor De Souza said via email. “It’s unclear what the motives of this attack group are, at this point. It appears to be broad-spectrum intel gathering.”

He declined to elaborate, though he said one way to protect against them would be to switch to another browser.

Microsoft said in the advisory that the vulnerability could allow a hacker to take complete control of an affected system, and then do things such as viewing, changing, or deleting data; installing malicious programs; or creating accounts that would give hackers full user rights.

FireEye and Microsoft have not provided much information about the security flaw or the approach that hackers could use to figure out how to exploit it, said Aviv Raff, chief technology officer of cybersecurity firm Seculert.

Yet other groups of hackers are now racing to learn more about it so they can launch similar attacks before Microsoft prepares a security update, Raff said.

“Microsoft should move fast,” he said. “This will snowball.”

Still, he cautioned that Windows XP users will not benefit from that update since Microsoft has just halted support for that product.

The software maker said in a statement to Reuters that it advises Windows XP owners to upgrade to one of two most recently versions of its operating system, Windows 7 or 8.

Editor's Note: I recommend you download the free internet browser Mozilla Firefox.

"Ah, yes. Another day, another hole in Windows. Don’t kid yourselves: this isn’t just IE. Thanks to the way that Microsoft integrated IE into the Windows operating application as part of their monopolistic business model back in the ’90s, they can’t just fix IE. That’s why people still using XP are in trouble – Microsoft won’t provide the OS fixes for XP, only their later versions of their operating application. If Windows was a real operating system, like Unix, you could just fix IE and everything would be fine." - majkmushrm, Reuters, April 28, 2014

April 21, 2014

Neurologist Warns Aluminum in Chemtrails Could Cause Neurodegenerative Diseases

Neurologist Warns Aluminum in Chemtrails Could Cause “Explosive Increase in Neurodegenerative Diseases”

Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. - The internet is littered with stories of “chemtrails” and geoengineering to combat “global warming”; and, until recently, I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have noticed a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern, and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many – dozens every day are littering the skies.

My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.

This is your brain on Chemtrails-sm

Nanoparticles of aluminum are not only infinitely more inflammatory, they also easily penetrate the brain by a number of routes, including the blood and olfactory nerves (the smell nerves in the nose). Studies have shown that these particles pass along the olfactory neural tracts, which connect directly to the area of the brain that is not only most affected by Alzheimer’s disease, but also the earliest affected in the course of the disease. It also has the highest level of brain aluminum in Alzheimer’s cases.

The intranasal route of exposure makes spraying of massive amounts of nanoaluminum into the skies especially hazardous, as it will be inhaled by people of all ages, including babies and small children for many hours. We know that older people have the greatest reaction to this airborne aluminum. Because of the nanosizing of the aluminum particles being used, home-filtering systems will not remove the aluminum, thus prolonging exposure, even indoors.

In addition to inhaling nanoaluminum, such spraying will saturate the ground, water, and vegetation with high levels of aluminum. Normally, aluminum is poorly absorbed from the GI tract; but nanoaluminum is absorbed in much higher amounts. This absorbed aluminum has been shown to be distributed to a number of organs and tissues including the brain and spinal cord. Inhaling this environmentally suspended nanoaluminum will also produce tremendous inflammatory reaction within the lungs, which will pose a significant hazard to children and adults with asthma and pulmonary diseases.

I pray that the pilots who are spraying this dangerous substance fully understand that they are destroying the lives and health of their families as well. This is also true of our political officials. Once the soil, plants, and water sources are heavily contaminated there will be no way to reverse the damage that has been done.

Steps need to be taken now to prevent an impending health disaster of enormous proportions if this project is not stopped immediately. Otherwise we will see an explosive increase in neurodegenerative diseases occurring in adults and the elderly in unprecedented rates as well as neurodevelopmental disorders in our children. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in these neurological disorders and it is occurring in younger people more than ever before.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Wants to Rewrite the Constitution, Especially the Second Amendment

Justice Stevens: Make 6 changes to Constitution

April 21, 2014

AP - In the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens began thinking about ways to prevent a repeat.

The result is Stevens' new book — his second since retiring from the court at age 90 — in which he calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, of which two are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.

His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented.

The book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.

Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again."

He said he was bothered by press reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.

One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."
Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.

But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.
"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."
A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.

Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."

Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."

Transcript of Public Hearing, Joint Committee on Regional Government, September 26, 1978, Edwardsville, Illinois, Norman Dodd, page 51, page 53

Devvy.com - "Now, the second experience that I would like to share with you, oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation's grants which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government, and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and accept and agree to a totally New Constitution which has already been drawn up, as was mentioned just a few minutes ago."
[Editorial note: Let me leave Mr. Dodd's testimony for a moment. I have a copy of the New States Constitution, developed many, many years ago and refined in 1978 by the Center for Democratic Studies, a Rockefeller funded operation. This New States Constitution is to replace ours. Ask former Senatorette Nancy Kassenbaum, now married to Howard Baker - she helped draft this document. However, first a Constitutional Convention must be called and the globalists are desperate to pull a con-con.
They tried and failed in 1994, they will try again. Did you notice during the 105th Congress, each session these people continued to call for a Constitutional Amendment for virtually every major piece of legislation, i.e. a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment [another meaningless, phony ploy], an amendment to the Constitution for school prayer, for victim's rights, to fix the IRS? This is unprecedented in this century.
The last Constitutional Convention was in 1787. We've passed 16 Amendments to the Constitution without a con-con, so why all of a sudden do we need one for all the legislation listed above? We don't, but it's the only way they can throw out our Constitution and replace it with this Communist doctrine called a New States Constitution.]

Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America (Excerpt)

SweetLiberty.org - This transcript of the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America was transferred from Col. Arch Roberts' website at Committee to Restore the Constitution.

A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell, published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite. "A Constitution for the Newstates of America", is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a team of social experimenters at the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, Fund for the Republic (Ford Foundation), Post Office Box 4068, Santa Barbara, California 93103.
The Center, its first objective accomplished, has appointed socialist-oriented University of Denver Chancellor Maurice B. Mitchell as its new head and may merge with the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, a Colorado-based world government policy promotion agency.
Aspen Institute Chairman is Robert O. Anderson, chief executive officer, Atlantic Richfield Company; member, Committee for Economic Development (laid ground work for regional government), and advisory board member, Institute for International Education. Anderson is the principal figure in campaign aimed at seizing control of the National Rifle Association.


So that we may join in common endeavors, welcome the future in good order, and create an adequate and self-repairing government - we, the people, do establish the Newstates of America, herein provided to be ours, and do ordain this Constitution whose supreme law it shall be until the time prescribed for it shall have run.

Rights and Responsibilities

A. Rights
  SECTION 1. Freedom of expression, of communication, of movement, of assembly, or of petition shall not be abridged except in declared emergency.
  SECTION 2. Access to information possessed by governmental agencies shall not be denied except in the interest of national security; but communications among officials necessary to decision-making shall be privileged.
  SECTION 3. Public communicators may decline to reveal sources of information, but shall be responsible for hurtful disclosures.
  SECTION 4. The privacy of individuals shall be respected; searches and seizures shall be made only on judicial warrant; persons shall be pursued or questioned only for the prevention of crime or the apprehension of suspected criminals, and only according to rules established under law.
  SECTION 5. There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, origin, or sex. The Court of Rights and Responsibilities may determine whether selection for various occupations has been discriminatory.
  SECTION 6. All persons shall have equal protection of the laws, and in all electoral procedures the vote of every eligible citizen shall count equally with others.
  SECTION 7. It shall be public policy to promote discussion of public issues and to encourage peaceful public gatherings for this purpose. Permission to hold such gatherings shall not be denied, nor shall they be interrupted, except in declared emergency or on a showing of imminent danger to public order and on judicial warrant.
  SECTION 8. The practice of religion shall be privileged; but no religion shall be imposed by some on others, and none shall have public support.
  SECTION 9. Any citizen may purchase, sell, lease, hold, convey, and inherit real and personal property, and shall benefit equally from all laws for security in such transactions.
  SECTION 10. Those who cannot contribute to productivity shall be entitled to a share of the national product; but distribution shall be fair and the total may not exceed the amount for this purpose held in the National Sharing Fund.
  SECTION 11. Education shall be provided at public expense for those who meet appropriate tests of eligibility.
  SECTION 12. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No property shall be taken without compensation.
  SECTION 13. Legislatures shall define crimes and conditions requiring restraint, but confinement shall not be for punishment; and, when possible, there shall be preparation for return to freedom.
  SECTION 14. No person shall be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
  SECTION 15. Writs of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in declared emergency.
  SECTION 16. Accused persons shall be informed of charges against them, shall have a speedy trial, shall have reasonable bail, shall be allowed to confront witnesses or to call others, and shall not be compelled to testify against themselves; at the time of arrest they shall be informed of their right to be silent and to have counsel, provided, if necessary, at public expense; and courts shall consider the contention that prosecution may be under an invalid or unjust statute.
B. Responsibilities
  SECTION 1. Each freedom of the citizen shall prescribe a corresponding responsibility not to diminish that of others: of speech, communication, assembly, and petition, to grant the same freedom to others; of religion, to respect that of others; of privacy, not to invade that of others; of the holding and disposal of property, the obligation to extend the same privilege to others.
  SECTION 2. Individuals and enterprises holding themselves out to serve the public shall serve all equally and without intention to misrepresent, conforming to such standards as may improve health and welfare.
  SECTION 3. Protection of the law shall be repaid by assistance in its enforcement; this shall include respect for the procedures of justice, apprehension of lawbreakers, and testimony at trial.
  SECTION 4. Each citizen shall participate in the processes of democracy, assisting in the selection of officials and in the monitoring of their conduct in office.
  SECTION 5. Each shall render such services to the nation as may be uniformly required by law, objection by reason of conscience being adjudicated as hereinafter provided; and none shall expect or may receive special privileges unless they be for a public purpose defined by law.
  SECTION 6. Each shall pay whatever share of governmental costs is consistent with fairness to all.
  SECTION 7. Each shall refuse awards or titles from other nations or their representatives except as they be authorized by law.
  SECTION 8. There shall be a responsibility to avoid violence and to keep the peace; for this reason the bearing of arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law.

Court Orders U.S. to Release Memo Justifying the Government's Targeted Killing of Americans Deemed to be 'Terrorists'

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

April 21, 2014

Reuters - A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government's targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.

In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.

These included a Justice Department "white paper," as well as speeches or statements by officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and former Obama administration counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, endorsing the practice.

The Times and two reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, sought the memorandum under the federal Freedom of Information Act, saying it authorized the targeting of al-Awlaki, a cleric who joined al Qaeda's Yemen affiliate and directed many attacks.
"Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the DOJ White Paper," Circuit Judge Jon Newman wrote for the appeals court panel in New York.
He said it was no longer logical or plausible to argue that disclosing the legal analysis could jeopardize military plans, intelligence activities or foreign relations.

The court redacted a portion of the memorandum on intelligence gathering, as well as part of its own decision. It is unclear when the memorandum or the full 2nd Circuit decision might be made public, or whether the government will appeal.Allison Price, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department had no comment on the decision.

David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said the newspaper is delighted with the decision, saying it encourages public debate on an important foreign policy and national security issue.
"The court reaffirmed a bedrock principle of democracy: The people do not have to accept blindly the government's assurances that it is operating within the bounds of the law; they get to see for themselves the legal justification that the government is working from," McCraw said in a statement.
Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have also been seeking the legal rationale, and Grassley on Monday urged the Justice Department to start preparing to turn it over.


Monday's decision largely reversed a January 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan.

She ruled for the administration despite skepticism over its antiterrorism program, including whether it could unilaterally authorize killings outside a "hot" field of battle.
"The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me," she wrote.
Civil liberties groups have complained that the drone program, which deploys pilotless aircraft, lets the government kill Americans without constitutionally required due process.

FOIA requests at issue in the 2nd Circuit case also focused on drone strikes that killed two other U.S. citizens: al-Awlaki's teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan, who was an editor of Inspire, an English-language al Qaeda magazine.

McMahon ruled one month before the Justice Department released the white paper, which set out conditions before lethal force in foreign countries against U.S. citizens could be used.

The conditions are that a top U.S. official must decide a target "poses an imminent threat of violent attack" against the United States, the target cannot be captured, and any operation would be "consistent with applicable law of war principles."

In a March 5, 2012 speech at Northwestern University, Holder had said it was "entirely lawful" to target people with senior operational roles in al-Qaeda and associated forces.

The Times has said the strategy of targeted killings had first been contemplated by the Bush administration, soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On April 4, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington dismissed a lawsuit against the government by the families of those killed in the drone strikes, saying senior officials cannot be personally liable for money damages "for conducting war.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed its own lawsuit over the government's disclosure practices, said it plans in light of Monday's decision to return to the lower court to challenge the withholding of other documents related to targeted killings.
"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.
The case is New York Times Co et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 13-422, 13-445.

April 20, 2014

BLM Had NO Legal Authority at the Bundy Ranch

Speaking on the House of Representatives floor on September 17, 1997, then-Rep. Ron Paul warned of the “massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators.” Paul, the chairman and founder of RPI, proceeded to comment in his speech that, with the number of armed federal employees approaching 60,000, the Secretary of the Interior was pushing for even the Bureau of Land Management to be armed. With the continuing rise of SWAT over the following 16 years, the number of armed US government employees continued to grow. According to the bulletin Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, by September of 2008 “federal agencies employed approximately 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States,” with 255 of them working for BLM. [Adam Dick, Ron Paul Institute, April 28, 2014]

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was created as a way to prevent government or anyone else from removing the God-given right of self-protection: "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 Founding Fathers of our country new that this was a requirement of the new government, and placed it at a high priority, just behind the freedom of speech. [Source]
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference.” -- George Washington

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.“ – Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

Why BLM Had NO Legal Authority at the Bundy Ranch

April 20, 2014

TLB - This is a detailed analysis from one of our information gatherers within the Coalition of Western States. It addresses in detail why the actions of the BLM were lawless and unconstitutional. This may not be a sensational read, but it’s important the facts get out and this covers it well.

Many have attempted to share that the BLM acted in a capricious and unconstitutional manner, and the administrative agency was well outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. See below for additional insights offered by U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX). I highlighted the U.S. Federal Statute that is salient.

After the federal Bureau of Land Management agents backed down from their intimidating stance at the Bundy Ranch last weekend, ample evidence has surfaced indicating the standoff between the government and the Nevada ranching family is far from over. Throughout the week long stalemate, members of the Bundy family were physically assaulted by armed officers, numerous cows were shot dead, and protesters faced threats of gunfire for merely expressing their outrage.

Immediately after what many considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this family will continue.

In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution.
“Because of this standoff,” he wrote, “I have looked into BLM’s authority to conduct such paramilitary raids against American citizens, and it appears that BLM is acting in a lawless manner in Nevada.”
He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point.
“When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”
In the case of the Bundy Ranch, he continued, “the relevant local law enforcement officials appear to be the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie.”

Gillespie, however, conspicuously took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff.
“Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials.”
The stated purpose of the correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into compliance with 43 U.S.C. section 1733.”

Absent a full investigation into the agency’s actions, he concluded, “the federal government must not only stand down, but remove all federal personnel from anywhere near the Bundy ranch.”

Legislators and law enforcement personnel have stood alongside state militia members and the Bundy family in opposing the excessive force employed by the BLM. Stockman’s letter adds even more weight to the growing sentiment against the federal overreach.

April 18, 2014

37% of American Voters Fear the Federal Government

37% of Voters Fear the Federal Government

April 18, 2014

Rasmussen Reports - Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Likely U.S. Voters now fear the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) do not, but another 17% are not sure.

Perhaps in part that’s because 54% consider the federal government today a threat to individual liberty rather than a protector. Just 22% see the government as a protector of individual rights, and that’s down from 30% last November. Slightly more (24%) are now undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
As recently as December 2012, voters were evenly divided on this question: 45% said the federal government was a protector of individual rights, while 46% described it as a threat to those rights.

Two-out-of-three voters (67%) view the federal government today as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Just 17% disagree, while 15% are undecided.

Only 19% now trust the federal government to do the right thing most or nearly all the time, down from 24% in June of last year. Eighty percent (80%) disagree, with 44% who trust the government to do the right thing only some of the time and 36% who say it rarely or never does the right thing.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters believe that if America’s Founding Fathers came back today, they would regard the federal government as too big. Just three percent (3%) think the nation’s founders would consider the government too small, while 21% say they would view the size of the federal government as about right.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 15-16, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Just 19% of voters believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.

Men and those 40 and over are more likely to fear the federal government than women and younger voters.
Democrats, as they do in most instances, have a less critical view of the federal government than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. Most GOP voters (53%) and 43% of unaffiliateds fear the federal government. Just 18% of voters in President Obama’s party agree.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters view the government as a threat to individual liberty, a view shared by only 34% of Democrats. GOP and unaffiliated voters are twice as likely as Democrats to believe that the federal government rarely or never does the right thing.

Majorities of all three groups, however, agree that the government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests.

Forty-two percent (42%) of voters with a gun in their household fear the federal government, compared to 30% of those who do not have a gun in their home. Fifty-two percent (52%) of union members share that fear versus 35% of those who are not unionized.

Sixty percent (60%) of all voters favor a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with the party’s base throughout the nation. By contrast, 63% of Democratic voters believe Democrats in Congress have done a good job representing their party's values.

Just six percent (6%) of voters nationwide now rate Congress’ job performance as good or excellent.  Seventy-two percent (72%) say it would be better for the country if most members of the current Congress were defeated this November.

Obama’s daily job approval rating remains in the negative mid- to high teens where it has been for most of his presidency.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

April 15, 2014

Republican Jewish Coalition Undertaking Concerted Efforts to Undermine Rand Paul's Political Ambitions

Rand Paul has a plan to win over the country

But he needs to convince his own party first
April 14, 2014

Yahoo News - There’s an obnoxious game that politicians play around the halfway point between presidential elections. They dangle the possibility of making their own White House run with a wink and a nudge — not to mention a steady diet of airplane pretzels — as they zip between early primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Then they brush aside political reporters who ask them if they’re considering a presidential bid, quizzing them as to why they’re always so obsessed with politics.
“What I’m doing is very simply thanking and encouraging grassroots activists,” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said innocently in Manchester Saturday when asked if he was testing the presidential waters during a weekend swing through New Hampshire. 
While there, he met with state party officials and spoke at a conference of conservative activists.
Cruz may very well choose not run for president in 2016, but let’s get real. The guy’s not test-driving New Hampshire for a joy ride. Those Live Free or Die tires are feeling the swift kick of a pair of black Texas-made ostrich-skin boots.

Not to pick on Cruz. His finely tuned answer is the descendent of a long line of genially vague quotes from aspiring presidents who’ve said the same sort of thing over the years. But Cruz's answer contrasts sharply with the way Rand Paul, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky and son of failed three-time presidential contender Ron Paul, is approaching his own possible run. 
“I’m seriously considering it,” Paul regularly tells anyone who asks. 
Aides who work for him are equally up front about his goal in private. His travel schedule, which regularly includes stops in Des Moines and Manchester, suggest that he’s working toward a White House run.

In New Hampshire right now, it is a period of calm before the storm. Party activists here from both major political parties are focused intently on winning the midterm elections this November, although they don’t mind a little titillating presidential foreplay in the duller moments. Potential presidential candidates aren’t yet intensively locking down field reps, although they are window shopping with the intent to buy when the time is right. Two aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Matt Mowers and Colin Reed, recently started working in New Hampshire politics — Mowers as the executive director of the state party and Reed as an aide to Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown. In Iowa, Paul recently picked up the state's Republican Party chairman, A.J. Spiker, to work for his PAC. It was a coming home of sorts for Spiker, who co-chaired former congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign in Iowa in 2012.

For now, Sen. Paul’s focus is on expanding the appeal of his party, which has had branding problems of late, particularly among single women, minorities and young voters. He has taken a cue from his father, an unimposing little man in his 70s with a baffling knack for attracting university arenas full of students, by speaking at colleges across the country. In the wake of revelations of the federal government’s domestic spying program, he sees a unique opportunity for Republicans to reach young people who don’t want the feds snooping on their iPhones.
“It’s an area where we can connect with people who haven’t been connecting. Obama won the youth vote 3 to 1, but he’s losing them now,” Paul told a gathering of New Hampshire Republicans in Dover on Friday. 

“Hillary Clinton’s as bad or worse on all of these issues. It’s a way we can transform and make the party bigger and win again. But we have to be as proud of the Fourth Amendment as much as we are the Second Amendment.”
Other Republicans seem to be taking notice. On Saturday in Manchester at the New Hampshire Freedom Summit, a conference for conservative activists hosted by Citizens United and Americans for Prosperity where Paul, Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and several other well-known Republicans spoke, most speakers devoted sections of their remarks to the National Security Agency’s spying program.

While Paul strives to reach young voters, his travels have taken him to historically black colleges, where he has spoken out against the ongoing federal drug war and imprisoning of millions of young black men for nonviolent crimes. It is through this message, Paul says, that Republicans can find an opening with a constituency that has largely voted as a bloc for Democrats since the civil rights era. Some of this push is also reactive: Paul has previously come under fire for making controversial comments about the Civil Rights Act, and Democrats think he is extremely vulnerable on racial issues. But that doesn't mean Paul's views are insincere or will have no impact on GOP thinking longer-term.
“I truly do care about the injustice and what it’s done to voting,” Paul told me when we met Friday at a pizza place in downtown Manchester. “Everyone’s talking about voter ID. Voter ID is one-one thousandths of the problem compared to felony disenfranchisement. I think there’s 150,000 people in Kentucky who can’t vote because of a felony conviction. Probably half or more are black.”
A number of high-profile Republicans have begun to explore Paul’s ideas about prison reform, albeit cautiously. In the Senate, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn and Utah Sen. Mike Lee have teamed up with Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin on a bill to reduce minimum sentencing requirements. In the states, Republican governors around the country, particularly outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, are re-examining their own state laws on how the government handles drug cases.

Changing or reforming these laws, of course, won’t transform the GOP into a less white and less old party overnight, but it does give Republicans something to talk about with new constituencies.

And Paul isn’t just interested in growing the party by wooing people of color. He wants the party to move beyond calls for ideological purity, even if it means giving party blessings to members who stray from the official platform.

When asked by a reporter on Friday in Dover about Republicans who support same-sex marriage, Paul replied: 
“I think the party’s a big party and can include people with a variety of opinions. I think that in some ways we need to agree to disagree on some of these issues, in the sense that the party needs to be bigger, we need to understand that people have somewhat of regional attitudes towards the issues. … I think there’s an arrogance to having an absolute litmus test.”
Paul's call for openness reflects a growing understanding that the party will need to present itself differently if it hopes to win at the national level again. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist conservative who opposes allowing same-sex couples to marry and who recently questioned President Barack Obama’s commitment to faith because the president changed his views on the matter, also called for more ideological room within the party when asked similar question in Manchester on Saturday.
“There’s room in the party for people to have different viewpoints, there always has. I don’t know why we would suddenly have this moment where we would start acting as if there’s only a few viewpoints that are valid,” Huckabee said. “As far as in the general election, I think it’s nonsense that people would vote against someone because of an issue that a president would probably not have a lot of input on anyway.”
So what does all of this have to do with Paul’s presidential ambitions? Plenty. Paul is steadily working to carve an important niche among Republicans as a voice in the ongoing effort to remake the party at the national level. To win a general election, presidential candidates need to appeal to broad swaths of voters — not just hardcore conservatives — and Paul, who on many issues is a hardcore conservative, is crafting a plan that he thinks will do just that.

And yet Paul’s most skeptical audience may well be inside the Republican Party itself. Much of what he emphasizes is new territory for members of a party who have long embraced the mantle of being “tough on crime.” The party has also celebrated surveillance measures enacted under President George W. Bush that some members now decry as overreach when carried out under Obama.

Conservatives who embrace the party’s traditionally robust foreign policy stance have severe reservations about Paul's quest for executive power and views that the U.S. should play a more limited role abroad. Republican donors who gathered last month at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas, Nev., expressed concern over Paul’s rise, telling Time magazine that they may have to undertake concerted efforts to undermine his political ambitions over such positions as cutting off all U.S. aid to Israel and other countries. Republican mega donor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Time reported, is considering spending massive sums to keep Paul from becoming the GOP nominee.

In response, Paul insists that those concerned about his foreign policy views just need more time to hear him out. Paul plans to discuss these issues with Adelson himself in the future, he said.
“When he gets to know me, he’ll like me too,” Paul told me.
I asked Paul about the time Christie called his foreign policy “dangerous” and when former U.S. ambassador to the U.N John Bolton described Republicans like Paul as “unfit to serve.” (Both men, particularly Christie, harbor presidential ambitions of their own.)
“The people who are saying that are the dangerous people,” Paul said. “The people who wake up at night thinking of which new country they want to bomb, which new country they want to be involved in, they don’t like restraint. They don’t like reluctance to go to war. They really wouldn’t like Ronald Reagan if they read anything he wrote or were introduced to it.”
So it goes, and so it will go with greater intensity the closer these aspiring politicians get to presidential primary season. In these intervening years, party members will snipe and engage in acts of friendly fire as they skirmish over the soul of the Republican Party. All that will come to an end once Democrats choose their own nominee, at which time Republicans will, for a brief period of months in 2016, suddenly agree on everything until the second week of November.

April 14, 2014

Fort Meade Maryland Internment Camp

Today, Fort Meade is the headquarters for the NSA and other intelligence and cybersecurity agencies. The 8-square-mile campus is also home to 10,000 military personnel, some of their family members and 'civilians'. The more than 8,000 contractors who work on the post must go through checkpoints, including dogs sniffing.

"Fort Meade is home to more than 90 support organizations from all four armed services, ranging from the National Security Agency to the renowned U.S. Army Field Band. Centrally located between the major metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington, D.C., Fort Meade, MD has grown over the years into a military and social destination, serving every possible need of modern military personnel." [http://meade.corviasmilitaryliving.com/]

Fort Meade's forgotten history: Japanese, Germans and Italians interned there during World War II

August 20, 2013 

Capital Gazette - The stone ashtray marked “Seagoville” was a place to throw paper clips in the family home — and John Heitmann’s first clue his father had a secret he took to the grave.

Heitmann’s quest for the truth led him to the National Archives, where he discovered Alfred Heitmann’s secret: He spent World War II in internment camps, including one at Fort George G. Meade, and also a family camp in Seagoville, Texas, a suburb of Dallas.
“When I was at Johns Hopkins University, we even drove past Fort Meade. He never said a thing,” says Heitmann, now a university professor in Dayton, Ohio. Neither did his mother.
Heitmann’s story is a common one among the descendants of European immigrants labeled threats to national security after the United States entered World War II.

Fort Meade Prisoners of War
Fort Meade Prisoners of War
Prisoners of war sewing clothing in an internment building on the grounds of Fort George G. Meade.

Many are stories of shame and fear.

For seven decades Fort Meade’s internment camp has been kept a secret, both to many of the families of those imprisoned there and to the public.

The Army post’s website doesn’t mention the 30-acre facility that housed hundreds of Japanese, Germans and Italians, most of whom had built successful lives in this country but had not yet become citizens.

The National Archives, however, records the stories of men pulled from their families at gunpoint and denied due process by local Alien Hearing Boards that sentenced them to prison camps.

They were not given a trial, informed about their accusers, presented with the evidence against them or afforded legal representation. When the hearing boards met, the FBI unveiled often-preposterous claims originating from disgruntled business partners, angry neighbors and jilted lovers.

It didn’t take much to convince these local boards that 120,000 Japanese, 11,000 Germans and 3,000 Italians were a threat to the country they called home. Some — more than 2,700 Germans alone — were returned to their native countries against their will in exchange for Americans imprisoned abroad.

Others were sent to camps like the one at Fort Meade.

Fort Meade Prisoners of War
Fort Meade Prisoners of War
A sketch of the grounds drawn by German internee Paul Lameyer during his confinement at Fort George G. Meade. The water tower is still standing.

Allowed only what they could carry, they ended up inside confined quarters, still professing their loyalty to the United States. File after file at the National Archives reveals their attempts to be reunited with families and their frustration at being branded traitors.

One such story is told in memos by Iwajiro Noda, who immigrated from Japan to New York City in 1917 and married an American woman. He owned a profitable business, Japan Cotton and Silk Trading Co., and had fathered a daughter who was attending Goucher College in Baltimore when the United States joined the war.

He was handcuffed and taken to Ellis Island — the East Coast processing center for internees, and, ironically, the place where many of the same immigrants had gotten their first taste of democracy.

Noda ended up at Fort Meade, where he wrote of his “loyalty to the United States of America, I being a firm believer in American way of life, and also because I owe a great deal to this country ...
“I have been a strictly law-abiding resident of this country, always having never engaged in any activity whatsoever inimical to the interest of USA, and further it is my earnest desire to remain so all through the future.”
He begged to be released because “the present state is undermining the health of my wife, who has been forced to receive constant medical care.”

His plea fell on deaf ears. In April 1942, Noda was forced to liquidate his trading company after his bank account was frozen.

Nonetheless, he initially declined repatriation to Japan. But one year later he gave up his dream of living in America and sought to return to his native Japan without his family.

The attention given to the plight of Japanese-Americans during the war has overshadowed the similar plight of German and Italian immigrants, something Randy Houser and Cornelia Mueller are beginning to understand.

Their families kept secret the story of relatives who were in the internment camps — a story they are uncovering only now, through extensive research. They and others are pooling their resources to finally share the story with the public.

  Fort Meade Prisoners of War
Courtesy of Randy Houser
Fort Meade Prisoners of War
A line of tents that housed internees or prisoners of war at Fort George G. Meade during World War II.

Mueller, who lives in Catonsville, says her father’s last words to her on his deathbed started her search for the truth.

At the National Archives, she discovered that he was drafted into the U.S. Army at the start of the war, but declared an enemy alien when he said he couldn’t fight the Germans.
“He had family there,” Mueller says. “But it was the wrong answer.”
The files, she says, show he was threatened by government authorities who told him to never speak of his experience in the internment camps — a promise he and others kept to their deaths, out of fear of being re-imprisoned.

Mueller thinks the threats were intended to keep the information from reaching the enemy, who held American prisoners. But former internees refused to talk about their experience even long after the war ended.

Houser’s grandfather, Paul Lameyer, who immigrated to the United States in 1925, had been disowned by his family.

A successful architect, he had lost his job during the Great Depression and split up from his wife. When the FBI began to round up immigrants, his family, according to what Houser dug up at the National Archives, eagerly provided false information.

Houser, a former Annapolis businessman who now lives in Charleston, S.C., says his mother remembers that when she was 13, her father returned to their house after the war ended. “He had a suitcase full of drawings, but she (her mother) wouldn’t take him in,” Houser says.

Lameyer returned alone to Germany, where he died at age 61.

Fort Meade Prisoners of War
Courtesy of Randy Houser
Fort Meade Prisoners of War
A sketch of the internee dining hall drawn by internee Paul Lameyer during his confinement at Fort George G. Meade during World War II.

Many of the drawings in his suitcase were of internment camps, such as the one at Fort Meade, Houser says.
Bob Johnson, Fort Meade’s historian, thinks the internees were treated worse than prisoners of war because they knew the language and were more of a threat if they escaped. Most of the POWs couldn’t speak English and couldn’t easily blend in with the civilian population.

The Japanese internees were allowed to wear civilian clothes, but the Germans and Italians were issued tea-green khakis with “P.W.” on the back.

Many of these internees had been affluent. Now they had to make do with one winter coat and two pairs of military boots. They were assigned to five-men tents — or “hutments” — reinforced with wooden walls. A Sibley stove in the center was the only source of heat; a 40-watt bulb the only source of light.

The camp was guarded by soldiers on 30-foot towers who were armed with shotguns and Thompson submachine guns. An internal memo raised concerns that any gunfire could easily hit the well-traveled road on the west side of the fort, but the soldiers won the argument and got even more firepower.

One document in the archives reveals that an internee was wounded by a stray bullet fired by an American soldier on a nearby firing range.

Internees were allowed to send two letters a week to five people they designated. All letters were censored and had to be “clear in meaning” and not of “inordinate length.” Censors arbitrarily edited “ambiguous” language and delayed delivery for weeks.

If visitors could afford the long train ride to Fort Meade, they were allowed 25-minute meetings twice a week. They had to speak in English. Few came.

Doctors found that nine arriving Japanese internees had syphilis, but there was no isolated infirmary in which to treat them.

The internees were incarcerated until the end of the war. It wasn’t until 1948 that the last ones — Germans — were released from a camp on Ellis Island. Even then they were on probation for a year and prohibited from owning radios and weapons.

Homes and businesses were lost and families separated. Some of the former internees died as paupers or returned empty-handed to their native countries.

Only the Japanese were given reparations: $20,000 each.

In 1988, Congress and President Ronald Reagan formally apologized for how the Japanese had been treated. Nothing, however, was said about Germans and Italians who had suffered the same injustice.

More photos

Maryland's World War II POW Labor System

In Maryland, the POW camp program was initially developed in three overlapping phases: planning for security and escape prevention, how to benefit from the work of the POWS, and later, developing a program of political rehabilitation.

Development of Maryland’s POW Program

In the first stage, which lasted from December 1941 to the end of 1943, the provost marshal’s office of the War Department, which was in charge of the national POW program, established that one guard would need to supervise every two or three prisoners. The office was largely concerned with escape attempts and prisoners becoming hostile towards guards and each other.

It was during this stage that the provost marshal’s office established its Maryland installation at Fort George G. Meade, located at the juncture of Anne Arundel, Howard, and Prince George’s counties. Fort Meade received permission to start holding prisoners on September 15, 1942, and initially held Axis-country civilians who were trapped in the U.S. after the war erupted.

POW Camp at Fort George G. Meade

 Starting in September 1943 until July 1946, Fort Meade served as the main POW camp in Maryland with a capacity of 1,680 prisoners. When it officially began holding prisoners in 1943, Fort Meade held mostly Italians and a few German POWs, until May 1944 when it officially became a German POW camp. Most of the POWs captured and brought to Maryland were Wehrmacht (army) personnel, though there were also some soldiers from the Luftwaffe (air force) and the navy.

Around 1943, pressure began to build on the War Department to loosen up some of its POW security policies. Local farmers, businesses, and manufacturers—due to extreme labor shortages—began to suggest that the POWs be allowed outside of Fort Meade to work for them.

Maryland POWs as Local Laborers

 As a result, in June 1943 authorization was given to Fort Meade for limited agricultural employment, but the War Department was unwilling to allow the soldiers outside of the camp. Five months later, as desperation for workers continued to grow, approval was given for the establishment of new German POW camps in Maryland.

In February 1944, at a military-civilian conference held in Dallas, Texas, the War Department formalized the change in its security policy and the construction of 18 additional POW camps began. These camps would employ workers in various agricultural and industrial activities in Maryland under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which according to Richard E. Holl in “Axis Prisoners of War in the Free State, 1943-1946,” stated that “captured enemy officers could not be compelled to work and that non-commissioned officers could only supervise," and that enlisted men could work any job except one “demeaning, degrading, or directly related to the war effort.”

According to Charles P. Wales—who served as a guard at Camp Frederick in Frederick, Maryland from September 1945 to spring 1946—in “P.W. Branch Camp #6: A Photo Essay,” many of the prisoners who decided to work outside the camp were prompted by boredom.

By August of 1945, over 4,000 POWs in Maryland were laboring for the army or navy, and 6,000 for civilian contractors. Most prisoners worked within the camps at camp bakeries, canteens, hospitals, or laundries. Others dug ditches, built roads, and managed lawns. Farmers could apply for extra prisoners through the Department of Agriculture’s War Food Administration, while manufacturers had to go through the War Manpower Commission to receive prisoner labor.

Benefits of POW Labor in Maryland

Not only did the Maryland treasury benefit from POW labor, but prisoner labor created a 35 percent increase in Maryland’s tomato crop in 1945 alone. A 40 percent increase in Maryland’s overall agricultural productivity during the war years was also attributed to the work of German POWs. From June to December 1945, German and Italian POWs in Maryland saved the U.S government about five million dollars.

POW Camps in Maryland during World War II

Kathy Kirkpatrick, Gentracer.org - The POW Camps in Maryland during World War II included:

•Edgewood Arsenal (Chemical Warfare Center), Gunpowder, Baltimore County, MD (base camp)
•Holabird Signal Depot, Baltimore, Baltimore County, MD (base camp)
•Hunt (Fort), Sheridan Point, Calvert County, MD (base camp)
•Meade (Fort George G.), near Odenton, Anne Arundel County, MD (base camp)
•Somerset (Camp), Westover, Somerset County, MD (base camp)

Enemy alien internment camp:
•Howard (Fort), Baltimore County, MD (German, Italian)
•Meade (Fort George G.), near Odenton, Anne Arundel County, MD (held German, Italian, Japanese and Misc. from June 1942 to December 1943)

•Fort George G. Meade Post Cemetery, Ft. Geo. G. Meade, MD, active military installation.

There were 5 base camps, 15 branch camps, 2 internment locations, and 1 cemetery in MD. More details in my latest book titled Prisoner of War Camps Across America. It is available in Kindle format on Amazon and in .epub and .mobi formats at the GenTracer Shopping Cart.

Stories from Camp Frederick: German World War II POWs in Frederick, Maryland (Part 1)

This is the first of a five part series that will be appearing on German Pulse over the next five weeks.  Many of the primary sources in this work come directly from the archives at The Frederick County Historical Society in Frederick, Marlyand.

February 23, 2012

GermanPulse - During World War II, the United States established its largest prisoner of war (POW) program in its history. By May of 1945, over 425,871 Axis prisoners were being held in POW camps across the country. Of these, 372,000 were German.

There were two POW camps located in Frederick County—both exclusively holding Germans—Camp Ritchie and Camp Frederick. Camp Ritchie was located in the northern part of the county and no more than 200 prisoners were held there at any given time, having little contact with county residents. There is little information printed in the media about that camp, but there are plenty of newspaper and magazine articles, personal letters, and firsthand accounts concerning the men who lived and worked at Camp Frederick, officially PW Branch Camp #6, which was located just outside of the city.

It is known that prisoners at Camp Ritchie were mostly employed by the military as carpenters, shoemakers, firemen, medics, orderlies, and cooks. At Camp Frederick, prisoners were primarily employed in agriculture, on privately owned farms, mostly as apple pickers. Some were also contracted out to commercial companies, such as the Oxford Fibre Brush Company, where they loaded and unloaded lumber. In essence, the POWs performed the tasks that no one else could do, due to the severe labor shortages as a result of the war.

This series of posts will focus primarily on the lives and experiences of the men at Camp Frederick, and although the information available is mostly one-sided, and most of the viewpoints are American, the idea that Camp Frederick was not an unpleasant place for a POW to be, and ran relatively smoothly with little unrest or injustice, is accepted here. Perhaps not all German POWs across the Unites States had a similar experience, but Camp Frederick truly appears to have been a humane and relatively agreeable place for a POW to be held captive during World War II.

The stories and experiences of both the prisoners and members of the Frederick community are varied and surprising. It appears from their descriptions that several of the POWs in Frederick left the country having had a positive experience and even some good memories.

The citizens of Frederick felt undoubtedly afraid of and ambivalent towards their enemy guests, but nevertheless, many of them found friendship and even lifelong relationships with some of the prisoners. Meticulously collected and continually revisited by the media over the decades, the articles, letters, and firsthand accounts of the prisoners and those that lived in Frederick reveal a very real, human, and personal side of the war, in many cases breaking down both German stereotypes and misconceptions about American nationalism.

Fort George G. Meade and the Maryland POW Camp System

In Maryland, the POW camp program was initially developed in three overlapping phases: planning for security and escape prevention, how to benefit from the work of the POWS, and developing a program of political rehabilitation. In the first stage, which lasted from December 1941 to the end of 1943, the provost marshal’s office of the War Department—which was in charge of the national POW program—established that one guard would need to supervise every two or three prisoners. The office was largely concerned with escape attempts and prisoners becoming hostile towards guards and each other. This explains why it spent so much time deliberating on this phase and creating a tight security policy.

It was during this stage that the provost marshal’s office of the War Department established its Maryland installation at Fort George G. Meade, located in the juncture of Anne Arundel, Howard, and Prince George’s counties. Fort Meade received permission to start holding prisoners on September 15, 1942, and initially held Axis-country civilians who were trapped in the U.S. after the war erupted.

Starting in September 1943 to July 1946, Fort Meade served as the main POW camp in Maryland with a capacity of 1,680 prisoners. When it officially became a POW camp in 1943, Fort Meade held mostly Italians and only a few German POWs, until May 1944 when it officially became a German POW camp. Most of the POWs captured and brought to Maryland were Wehrmacht (army) personnel, though there were also some soldiers from the Luftwaffe (air force) and the navy.

Around 1943, pressure began to build on the War Department to loosen up its harsh POW security policies. Local farmers, businesses, and manufacturers—due to extreme labor shortages—began to suggest that the POWs be allowed outside of Fort Meade to work for them.

As a result, in June 1943 authorization was given to Fort Meade for limited agricultural employment, but the War Department was unwilling to allow the soldiers outside of the camp. Five months later, as desperation for workers continued to grow, approval was given for the establishment of new German POW camps in Maryland. In February 1944, at a military-civilian conference held in Dallas, Texas, the War Department formalized the change in its security policy and the construction of 18 additional POW camps began.

These camps would employ workers in various agricultural and industrial activities in Maryland under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which stated that “captured enemy officers could not be compelled to work and that non-commissioned officers could only supervise.” Enlisted men could work any job except one “demeaning, degrading, or directly related to the war effort.”

Not only did the Geneva Convention not allow forced labor, but prisoners at Camp Frederick were considered Class A prisoners, meaning all work was voluntary. According to Charles P. Wales, who served as a guard at Camp Frederick from September 1945 to Spring 1946, many of the prisoners who decided to work outside the camp were prompted by boredom.

By August of 1945, over 4,000 POWs in Maryland were laboring for the army or navy, and 6,000 for civilian contractors. Most prisoners worked within the camps at camp bakeries, canteens, hospitals, or laundries. Others dug ditches, built roads, and managed lawns. Farmers could apply for the extra prisoners through the Department of Agriculture’s War Food Administration, while manufacturers had to go through the War Manpower Commission to receive prisoner labor. In Frederick, the Frederick County Agricultural Cooperative Association was formed in 1944 to “tap into the pool of available prisoner labor.”

Read more from this 5 part series:
Part 1 (current) | Part 2 | Part 3  | Part 4 | Part 5

I have been posting this on numerous websites in hopes of getting an answer. I work for a construction contractor at FT Meade MD. We have been installing metro shelving units in a huge underground warehouse at FT Meade.I was curious about the work for the selves are used to hold bikes and the large doors we enter say FEMA. I always thought they did something with hurricanes. We are almost done and now army officers are loading the the shelves with bikes. So far I would guess that number at 10,000 - the selves when finished will hold close to 100,000 bikes. What do they need with all these bikes. Another odd things - the different sections are labeled with months starting with July 07. Anyone have any idea what this means?