No products in the cart.


Santilli Prosecution a Tyrannical Assault on Free Speech and Press

ScreenHunter_08 Feb. 11 19.36
Love him or hate him, if the government gets away with its prosecution of Pete Santilli, freedom of expression and freedom of the press will be effectively quashed. (The Pete Santilli Show)

“Is Pete Santilli a free speech champion or just another loud mouth?” Kevin Harden of the Portland Tribune asks. “The 50-year-old Santilli was arrested Jan. 26 in Burns for what federal prosecutors say was his part in a conspiracy of threats and intimidation preventing federal employees from doing their jobs during the five-week occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.”

The answer to Harden’s question is that it doesn’t matter.  The First Amendment is not there to ensure only inoffensive and approved speech is lawful.  And Santilli’s case raises a concern of equal importance: the government presuming to define who is a “legitimate” reporter/commentator.

I’ve been sensitive to that distinction ever since I was threatened with arrest for asking a question at an anti-gun public media event. Since that time, appalled by the outrageous state of today’s “agenda press,” with routine sins of omission, commission, ignorance, and flat-out lies, I’ve logged untold posts and articles on a phenomenon I started out calling “Authorized Journalists,” but in many cases more appropriately refer to as “Fourth Estate Fifth Columnists.”

Jealous of losing their role as information gatekeepers — and thus as controllers of the narrative the public hears – “progressive” defenders of returning to the old ways (every day for them is Opposite Day) – have gone so far as to propose an internet tax “to limit the avalanche [of alternative news sources, and] make the technologies that overproduce information more expensive and less widespread.”

That’s desperation. And funny thing about “social justice” types – when it’s their rice bowls going empty, they suddenly find a capitalist streak.

Grousing by “real reporters” aside, the actual threat comes from government, and I’ve experienced that firsthand as well.  Back when I was reporting on ATF harassment of a gun shop, accusations were leveled that reporting on the doings of agents and inspectors posed “a credible threat,” and amounted to “harassment and intimidation.” ATF actually complained to the judge ruling on the case that a citizen taking photographs of their activities, and blogs reporting on them, were not journalists, attempting to get a ruling to shut down scrutiny.

When that didn’t work, a U.S. Marshal sent a warning to me via the gun shop owner that my reporting was prosecutable as a felony under the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007.

This is very similar to the legal crap the feds are throwing at those they arrested in connection with the Malheur occupation, which the always-excellent William N. Grigg provides background perspective for:

The federal statute under which Ammon Bundy and six other members of the CCF have been charged, 18 USC section 372, offers no protection whatsoever to the persons and property of U.S. citizens. That measure, enacted in 1861, is designed to protect “officers” of the federal government (including administrative personnel and other bureaucrats) as they prey upon the Regime’s subjects. It originally targeted actual and suspected sympathizers with the Confederacy, which in practice meant anybody who respected and defended the right of states to withdraw from the Union, even if motivated by an ignoble cause.

I’ve also gone beyond reporting and writing opinion pieces in my capacity as an advocate for the right to keep and bear arms. I’ve routinely encouraged civil disobedience against unjust edicts. And I’ve defied those edicts and risked arrest on occasion myself.

Now think what would have happened to the public cognizance of Fast and Furious “gunwalking” if mere bloggers had been arrested for “preventing federal employees” from doing their jobs of suppressing information, stonewalling and lying. Go ahead and count/look at all the reports Mike Vanderboegh and I had filed before big boy media said word one about it.

That Santilli is facing any charges, when he was clearly acting within his rights as a citizen and in the capacity of an independent journalist — bringing original information the mainstream press could not about a vital public interest story — is an Intolerable Act against the First Amendment. That’s not gone unnoticed by others, even those opposed to much of what the Patriot movement stands for.

“While many people might disagree with statements made by those involved in the Malheur takeover, Americans have a fundamental right to freedom of speech,” the ACLU of Oregon declared in a position statement on charges against Santilli. “We can all agree that we should not hold members of the media or protesters in jail without bail simply because they have shocking or abhorrent views. These are principles that we must stand by, even when we disagree with the message of the speaker.”

Anyone familiar with his work knows Santilli can be a polarizing figure, and that includes within the liberty movement. I’ve never met the guy or even to my recollection corresponded with him, and hold no special personal connection to him or to the way he does things. In the interests of full disclosure, I’m on good terms with several people who can’t stand him. I’ll be surprised if we don’t see the same divide in comments, with some condemning him and others rushing to his defense.

That’s the price of putting your name and your beliefs out there. And it’s irrelevant.

We don’t have to agree with the guy, we don’t have to approve of his way of doing or saying things, we don’t have to believe him, and we don’t have to like him. But if he’s guilty, I’m guilty, and so are a lot of people I know. By going after him, the government has declared war on freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and war on citizen oversight of government activities. It has set itself up as a totalitarian ministry of information and the final arbiter of what is acceptable, with all the potential for great evil that implies.



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.


  1. Write on, Bro!

    I personally view Santilli as a loudmouth with an overly-active imagination, and as one who leaps to unproven conclusions for the sake of sensationalism.
    That said, I also feel that Americans everywhere should heed your message and strongly oppose his arrest. Many things about the nature and character of our now-militarized government indicate that several million Americans are being scrutinized by some very sick, perverse, even pathological individuals working at various DOD, DOJ, and Intelligence community offices. Almost the entire federal government is in complete disconnect from the American people and their Constitution. We simply cannot allow fedgov or its minions at State or Local levels to suppress our right to speak.
    Thank you for another great article, David. I will go now to make it into an email and send it to our full list.

    Elias Alias, editor

    1. I found Pete to be very informative, I especially enjoyed watching him call out the guy who was with the group, as an FBI agent. I think his intentions were good, and he kept us posted on daily activities, giving us a glimpse of the dedication of these patriots who sacrificed everything to stand for all citizens. The ultimate outcome is a tragedy.

      1. At that specific time you mention about calling out the FBI agent, he actually grabbed a bullhorn if you recall, and yelled into it to the effect ” Im the biggest activist here” at that point he relinquished his imunity of press and became a activist there.
        He was a instigator and the bioggest loudmouth there, he is bad juju and a trouble maker.
        Whenever he is at a place it turns bad, he is not a journalist he is only pretending to be one.

      2. Immunity of the press? Where exactly in the US Constitution is that stated? And that means he loses the rest of the rights in the 1st Amendment, including speech, assembly, right to redress grievances? Are you saying his 9th Amendment rights are also surrendered? I don’t want to sound like a dick, but I don’t think you know what it is that you’re opining.

        Now if you’re simply repeating what some black robe wearing high priests opined that our rights are then that’s something all together different and can and should be dismissed outright if it is contrary to what is written in the US Constitution, of which many times it is.

      3. I’m sure the crown thought Sam Adams a troublemaker too, as well as all his patriot poets. I know you have heard it before, but resistance to tyranny obedience to God.

      4. “he is not a journalist he is only pretending to be one.”

        While the members of the main stream media ARE??? Their gushing over Obama and willing support of administration talking points is NOT “activism”???

      5. Santilli isn’t a very good journalist. He pushes unproven and unverified information as fact and revels in sensationalism.
        Although he shares my particular viewpoint , as a journalist he has failed. He forgets journalism 101 is to report the facts as they are, NOT how he wants them to be perceived.

        Of course he isn’t alone as there are many within the so called MSM that do the same thing, but they are shit journalists just as he is.
        Journalists report the story they do not make the story or become part of the story

      6. Lackluster would have us believe that journalists have some special immunity to report whatvthey see and that the First Amendment only applies to them
        Freedon of speech and of the press apply to all of is no matter what we say or what we print, or in this day, put up on a blog or message board. There are no specail credentials mentioned in the First Amendment that magically grant rights to journalists that individuals do not hsve.

    2. I agree. However, we have allowed, for so long now, agencies of government to trample the rights and privileges that were “endowed by [our] Creator”. The majority has simply lost sight of the realities of the origins of our law, and in fact subscribe to the many criminal acts of government agents.
      The U.S. Constitution recognizes that only the body of the People in the form of Militia can “execute the Laws of the Union”. Yet, we have a myriad of agencies that are neither beholding to the will of the People, nor a precise method for discipline that can reign in questionable acts under color of law.
      The saddest part of this is that when informed of the corruption of law, most will turn from you as if you are the plague seeking to destroy the veil they’ve come to adore.

      1. “The U.S. Constitution recognizes that only the body of the People in the form of Militia can “execute the Laws of the Union”. ”


        The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties 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”.

        No governmental agency has that lawful authority. It is important to consider these words below from those who knew what the US Constitution allows, and it is NOT an armed BLM, or any other governmental agency for exactly the reasons of what we are seeing happening around us today. This is nothing new, the framers were very aware of what armed “governments” end up doing to their people, history is filled with such actions.

        Tench Coxe: “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.” (caps are mine)

        Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.

        Samuel Adams: “Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people… entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
        And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.

        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.”

        William Rawle, whose work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions, and was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:
        “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

        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”.

  2. Well stated David. Seems like free speech is only tolerated from a certain perspective these day. It disturbs me that the folks who disagree with what the government does in regards to disregarding the constitution are quickly labeled “anti-government”. I’m not sure how being pro freedom and pro constitution translates to “anti-government”. It’s about suppression and control by demonization.

    1. And so what? What of one is against the government? Is America turning into the New China? Is free speech only to be if it supports and favors those who are in government? Free speech is not something that “is allowed” – it IS because IT IS INALIENABLE, same as the second amendment. What the government giveth, the government taketh. The rights of We The People are not “given” nor “granted” nor “permitted” by the government, its institutions or its minions. They are birthrights because this is AMERICA and that’s what makes this country different!

    2. Navvet73 – you hit the nail on the head, and apparently didn’t realize it. The reason that pro-freedom is ‘anti-government’ is because freedom is anti-government by its very nature. Stated differently, pro-freedom is anti-government precisely because government is anti-freedom. Anywhere that men are governed they are not free.

      1. But Rev, please consider this additional nuance — the Constitution for the united States of America was a novel attempt to actually use the process of governance to protect citizens’ freedom. It was to be a form of collective “self-governance”, and self-governance is itself the act of exercising individual freedom. I suggest that although it is obvious that “to govern” is antithetical to “freedom” on its face, our particular form of government, as envisioned in the Founders’ “Original Intent”, was an effort to preserve freedom for the people while at the same time serving to protect the people and their nation. That original intent has, as we all can see, been turned on its head by the idiots swarming like maggots in the sewage of Washington D.C.
        So, to my view on this, our true government, the one preserved as the written word and will of the American people, would not be anti-freedom. And as such, it was (until we lost it) the first time in the history of mankind that the people themselves, through the democratic process under a Republic of law, established a government to protect their freedoms. I am an Agnostic and a philosophical Voluntaryist who would have no problem with government at all if it operated within its confines as laid out in Article 1, Section 8, but now that it’s wildly outside those enumerated powers I oppose the criminals who are debauching our Founders’ intent and the letter of the highest law of the land. As I said in another article today, I’m not “anti-government”, but instead I am “anti-criminality-in-government.” What is facing us today is not our government, but instead is an impostor government.

        Elias Alias, editor

      2. Agreed, Elias. Wholeheartedly. And lest we forget, when they come for one, they can come for all. Liberty is at risk and our hickup in history may be coming to a close.
        Thanks to you, David, Stewart and OKers may we inform enough to form a useful resistance.

      3. Well said, Elias. I agree.

        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?

        Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

  3. Pete was clearly the press secretary for the Bundy group. A reporter does not blast a bullhorn into a counter protester. A reporter does not attend a town meeting, where no other member of the Bundy group is, and become so strident they get thrown out. Pete was not objective. He was a cheerleader, an inciter, very much a part of. A reporter is an observer. Pete observes the way an arsonist looks at a fire he made.

      1. When did “Who, What, Where, When and How ” become irrelevant to a reporter and a predetermined opinion agenda piece become “news”?
        Not pointing fingers at any one individual, actually painting with a very large brush, the ENTIRE “NEWS” industry!!

    1. Honest question… What makes you think that your definition of a reporter is THE definition? You have an opinion, a belief, a perspective. What you describe sounds like a “talking head” to me. By your line of thinking, you are walking straight into the Feds’ next move –> government-defined and -licensed “reporters”.

    2. This government considers YOU anti -government or a domestic terrorist, IF you do not agree with what they say or do………and since they have thousands of ‘federal laws’…of which no one knows about…YOU are always ( in their eyes) a criminal……And if you believe in our founders Constitution..and the Bill of Rights….then you are absolutely on their many ‘list’s…to be dealt with when ever they want to….imho

      1. I have no doubt I’m on their lists. Coming to this website, veteran, CCW, other blogs/websites…. Got pulled over by a state patrol today after slowing down and taking the other lane because he had someone stopped. “Thought” he noticed I didn’t have a current vehicle registration sticker on my car. It was there, but he stopped me because he could. No ticket and on my way. Thanks I get for being courteous….

      2. May God Save this Great Nation,And bring her back ,to her once splendor,
        God Bless America,And her TRUE Meaning Of Freedom!!!

    3. So in short you’re saying “He’s acting just like the Progressive Media and movie moguls?” Say like Rachel Madcow or Michael Moore?

    4. @ ED

      Pete was a CITIZEN first and entitled to HIS free speech and he also was a reporter entitled to his free speech …..SO he was hit with a double penalty while expressing his right to question and/or be heard…………Your entitled to your point of view just as much as he is..Do you think you would like to be silenced as to this remark you make becaused someone might disagree with it…I think not…Semper Fi.

    5. There is no such thing as an unbiased reporter. Pete Santilli did not do things the way many of us would have liked but that does not change the fact that he was reporting from the ground in Oregon. He is a reporter and whether you like him or not is irrelevant. He is now a political prisoner and this could not be any clearer an assault on the 1st article of the bill of rights. In fact because a lot of people don’t like Pete or the way he says things he is entitled to even more protection!

      I will tell you this much I am not willing to act as a reporter for people like you Ed. You obviously will throw me right under the bus if you don’t agree with what I have to say or how I say it. In fact Ed if you were the one in charge of the OK’s or the PPN I would not have offered my “reporter” services at all. Frankly I can’t trust that people with your attitude have my back.

      In my opinion EVERY SINGLE REAL AMERICAN should be absolutely outraged by the arrest and imprisonment of Pete Santilli. If you are not you have not read the bill of rights or you have not understood what you read.

  4. Not a bonfide journalist? They level the same argument to try and limit what type of “arms” citizens should be able to have. I dare say the flyers and broadsides printed by the patriots of the day were probably considered “alternative media” as well. Free press isn’t about your credentials…it’s about accountability. The people have the right to hold their government accountable whether that’s an individual citizen with a blog, or a major regional paper, the purpose is to not let the Fed hide in the shadows but expose its doings to the people so that they in turn my practice their duty to assemble, speech and redress of grievances.

  5. It doesn’t matter if I like Santilli or not. It doesn’t matter if I like his style of reporting or not. Unless I missed it somewhere, nobody appointed me as judge over what is “reporting” and what is not, nor what is reported or is not reported, nor in what manner it is done.
    Last time I read it, the constitution guarantees ALL OF US the right to free speech. Unless someone is yelling “FIRE” in a crowded building or something of that nature, I have to stand up for that person’s right to say it!
    Even IF what that person is saying makes my blood boil. Even if I believe that person is dead wrong, or is a “nut-job-whack-a-doodle”,(In my opinion), unless I take the same measures, to defend that person’s right to speech, as I would someone’s speech whom I agree with entirely, then I have no right to claim to defend the constitution that codified free speech and free press for all of us!
    In fact, if I don’t defend someone’s right to free speech, no matter who it is, or what they are saying, then I am nothing more than a hypocrite!
    I may loathe the creature that is often referred to as a “Libtard”, and I might rail against them by using my right to free speech, (I often do), but I’m still going to stand up for that person’s rights. No matter what!
    Why? Because I took an oath. That’s why!!!

    1. The way I feel is, there is going to take someone very different to change the way things are in this country. Everything has gone so far out of control. Pete may not be handling things in a way people approve of, but he is putting himself out there to try to change the way things are. I don’t think anyone really knows what to do about the mess, this country is in. Go Pete! Thank you for caring!

  6. The thing I’m getting sick of is everyone agressively typing everytime these tyrants show a glimpse of their agenda. At this point if we know the people who’ve unlawfully kidnapped Santilli are oath breakers saddle up…. So sick of all this talk. By the time the Feds are the clear aggressors and are actively disarming and silencing in mass it will go off without a single shot being fired because all you tuff patriots will have carpal tunnel from typing and scratching your ass.

    Sincerely Oscar

  7. Have you done ANY RESEARCH on Santilli? He is a hack and most likely a government plant. This “arrest” is also probably a ruse. DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!

  8. Loudmouth and abrasive – YES. Though I do not like him, I do respect that he brought the Burns/Hammond’s story more to my attention than any of the multiple conservation web sites. IMO he is charged and held d/t bringing the story to us, not that he physically IMPEDED any federal actions……………..

  9. As a retired (25 years) member of the military I absolutely agree. I may not like or agree with what is being said but I will and have defended anyones right to free speach.

  10. I personally don’t care for Santilli,

    But, I do care for the 1st Amendment! His arrest was to shut him up, and that’s wrong.

  11. The Federal government is at WAR against the Constitution.. Only an illusion for the liberty movement. Even if Santilli is a Agent provocateur??

  12. Don’t forget about those “free speech zones” like the ones the BLM set up at Bunkerville. I guess that one should only speak their mind when standing in one of those “zones”. So with the fCC taking more control over the internet…we will be allowed “Free Speech” in in limited areas which are approved by the Government…beginning to sound lie some other countries, whose political philosophy most of us reject!

    1. Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

      Understand that the FCC was supposed to stop monopolies, etc. Those serving within the FCC are Traitors and the like, and I cannot wait until they get taken to court. They work against the US Constitution be it deliberately or by “just doing their job”/”just following orders”; both are dangerous to the American people.

  13. Pete is a great guy. His show is factual and more truthful than fox news or CNN.

    Me and Pete met in person at the October 3rd 2015 white house protest over the irradiation and remote torture of citizens.

    Here is the live stream :

    All Pete did was insult the officers and ask them a nice question, if they would “spare” the women and children.

    As a citizen you have every right to ask the police questions and liberty to try to arrange things like what Pete did. The officers wanted him dead – so they arrested him.

    Pete is who he is because our government is honestly loaded with criminals. The cops there who arrested him for example aren’t real law enforcement. They are rapist cold blooded murderers.

  14. If Pete Santilli or ANY of the protesters, at Malheur, are found guilty, then ALL OF US, who stand and speak for our Constitutional rights are guilty as well. Seriously, do those “federal offenders” honestly believe they can charge, arrest and imprison 65% of the US population?? From what I have read and observed (news articles, videos, it is the “federal regime” that needs to be arrested, charged and imprisoned. There IS an “exception” – -it appears the BLM is NOT a federal agency, but a “foreign entity” altogether; so how about treating that outfit as “foreign spies”, right along with the recent influx of French “mercenaries” we’re just beginning to hear about!!

    1. Please bring forth your proof that would show that the BLM is not a federal agency. It would be helpful if you would show readers here the incorporation papers for BLM outside this country. Also, where is the actual proof that any French “mercenaries” were at Burns? And please don’t offer me proof from anyone going by the name “judge Anna” — I need actual documents. I’m not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that before I can believe your claims I’ll need to see actual documentation.
      Thank you.

      Elias Alias, editor

      1. Elias Alias- with all due respect it is obvious you have not done your homework– or you would know these answers immediately. For your own sake study and do not be spoon fed. You might start back with Abraham Lincoln- turning the us govt into a corporation without the people’s knowledge. Yes we won the war but the bankers and politicians sabotaged the American people.

      2. Well, thank you for the “all due respect”. I’ll extend that right back atcha.
        However, I have noticed that you did not answer my question. I asked you to bring forth your proof that would show that the BLM is not a federal agency. You did not do that — but maybe after you read this you will do so.

        Now about my homework, I must disagree with you. In fact, I may have done my homework and yours as well. I hope so, because it appears to me that you yourself have been lax in doing your own homework.

        How can I say that, I’m sure you will ask as you read this. I shall explain in a very brief way.

        My “homework” has to do with the meta-tactics of MindWar. I deal with psychological operations (psy-ops) full time. It appears to me that a lot of folks right now are waking up to the fact of that Act of 1871. I’ve known about it for years. But many folks catch on to what it means, and go off half-cocked without properly introducing it to listeners. I see that error often right here in the comment sections under articles. Here is the deal, my friend. It is not “the message” so much as it is “how the message is communicated”. The collective consciousness of America is in a sleep-state of sorts, is hypnotized by Madison Avenue, creature comforts, entertainment, and myriad distractions. That group mind, the collective consciousness of America as it stands right now, operates on “perception”. To reach the individual minds which comprise the group mind, one must consider the tolerance levels of the receiver of one’s communication. Most people I know who are waking up to the repercussions of the Act of 1871 are running off half-cocked and doing more damage than good because they blurt out weird-sounding (to the mass mind) hyper-ventilating absurdities about some alternate constitution which has replaced our organic Constitution of 1789. That does no good service to the truth — not because these exegetes are wrong, but because they do not couch their message in terms that the general population can relate to.

        Now let me show you something. I’m only guessing, but I’ll guess that you have seen this video on YouTube, along with over five million other Americans.

        Did you see that video? If not, please go view it right now. It’s only eight minutes or so, but it’s gone viral on the Net with more than six million views on just two channels, and other channels also racking up views. The link above is showing at the moment more than five million two hundred thousand views. That’s fairly huge. So here is what you should know about that video.

        I am the dude who filmed it. That’s right. I went into the court that morning and asked the judge for permission to video in her courtroom that morning, and she granted me permission. What followed is history, and I got it on film. The dude in the video is “ernie”. I’ve been videoing the man for years, and in fact am making a movie about his battle with the Gallatin County Court system in Montana. That video is still several months away from being completed, but is moving ahead nicely.

        I mention that, but I also want to mention that I’m personal friends with the man who put this website up for “Judge Anna”.

        Both he and ernie live near me in northwest Montana, and I speak with them regularly. I have known them both for quite a number of years. I have other friends around the nation who also are working on similar approaches to awakening the American people to the corruption, and the depths of that corruption, of the federal government. I’ve had access to ernie’s “homework” for years, and I greatly respect the man’s work. He has volumes of hand-written information and research compiling a number of large note-book binders which are thick. He researches and writes daily and I would submit that he could give you some angles you may not have yet discovered. “Ernie” is my “homework”, as you will see this summer when my movie about him goes public.

        So in the meantime, I’ll repeat my simple request of you — that you bring forth your evidence, as documentation, that the BLM is not a federal agency. Readers here would like to see that documentation. Just consider it to be another task inherent in you doing your own “homework”, yes? 😉

        Thanks for reading here. Think of ways to spread your message which will be acceptable to the vast unwashed masses, and refrain from blurting out things which raise barriers in the minds to which you are trying to communicate what you know, right?

        Elias Alias, editor
        PS: I’ve not proof-read over what I just typed, so may edit this comment after I post it – not to change anything, but rather to add whatever clarity I see as an after-thought.

      3. Elias, I have not really researched this, but for a quick search this is what I found. I will go after this after I finish my Constitution answer to Technocracy article – taking much longer then I thought.

        Also, anyone know if it is true that the gold fringe means an admiralty court? That is not a “normal” American flag in every courtroom I have seen in the last few decades.

        Found, but at this time cannot say is true or not:
        “BLM is actually a sub-corporation of UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, a private foreign owned off-shore corporation since its last incorporation in 1925, copyrighted, trademarked and registered in Puerto Rico).Under the Reorganization Act of Washington District of Columbia, by it’s own private business charter, neither the BLM, nor any other federal/corporate agency has lawful/legal authority, jurisdiction or interstate nexus within the 50 state geographical landmass.

        *BLM, is actually classified as an: “Agent of Foreign Principle”, under the intergovernmental Personnel Act.

        *In other words, they don’t represent the Constitutional Republic or the interests of the American People but rather, a foreign owned principle
        i.e., the international banking/military corporate cartel of London City, England known as Crown Corporation as their supreme authority.

        *This has been openly admitted and exposed through Supreme Court cases since and even before 1938.”

        But we all know, or should know, that the BLM is not a constitutionally authorized agency.

  15. We do not get our Freedom of Speech from the First Amendment. That Freedom was inherent and Unalienable by the fact that we exist period. The words of the Declaration of Independence says we were endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable Rights. Regardless of anyones belief in where the Right originates from, the Founders recognized it as a Non-questionable Right. Just like the other 9 Amendments in the original Bill of Rights. The opposite of that is you can not say anything in opposition because you are a slave and have No Right to question anything.

    I don’t personally know Santilli nor have I verified any accusations about him from any side, so any personal thoughts are useless without valid information.

    Those that have information please come forward with facts that are documented proveable so the People can make a well researched and factual response as to who he claims to be.

    1. Back in Spring of 2014 I posted at my personal site a lengthy article in which I noted that one Colonel Vallely and one Major Aquino, both from the 7th Psychological Operations Group of the U.S. Army, created together a document in 1980 called “From PSYOP To MindWar” (sic, regarding “MindWar”). I went to the trouble of explaining in my article that although both men co-wrote the paper on MindWar, they were each different individuals with different beliefs. I pointed out that in fact, the Army engaged then-Colonel Vallely to investigate allegations that then-Major Aquino was indeed a member in the Church of Satan, which Colonel Vallely did. Colonel Vallely had Major Aquino transferred out of his outfit.

      I mention all this because apparently someone sent my article around on the Internet and Pete Santilli picked up on it, or on the info in it, and decided to announce to the world that Colonel (now retired General) Vallely was a Satanist. That was flat out wrong, but Santilli parroted it all over the place, to the point that retired General VAllely posted on his own website that he was preparing lawsuits. Santilli inflated in his imagination that Vallely was a Satanist simply because Aquino, who worked under Vallely, was a Satanist, and Santilli misled a lot of people with that fantasy. Yes, Vallely wrote that paper with a known Satanist, but it’s quite a leap to claim that Vallely, who transferred Aquino out of the 7th Psychological Operations Group, had to be a Satanist also.

      That is one example why I have no respect for Santilli’s sensationalizing brand of “journalism”.

      You can google around and find the broadcast in which Santilli accused (wrongly) General Vallely of being a Satanist, and when you do, please note the date on which Santilli made the claim. Then compare it to the time-stamp on my article –

      All that said, I’m totally with David Codrea on this — the arrest of Santilli is a huge encroachment against our Bill of Rights and everyone involved in arresting Santilli is guilty of serious wrong-doing. Our Constitution is under attack by people working in seats of governmental offices, across the board it would appear. There needs to be expedient investigation into who fabricated charges against him and ordered his arrest. If his arrest is allowed to stand we’re all in deep trouble.

      Elias Alias, editor

  16. Santilli was not just being a reporter at the refuge, he was being a activist. He was actually the worse activist there, he stirred up people and caused a ruckus,. I specifically remember in one of the videos he grabbed a bullhorn, when he thought he recognized a undercover FBI agent in the crowd and started yelling “im the biggest activist here”
    So, once he did that he relinquished his immunity as a journalist, and became part of the activist movement that “illegally” took over the Refuge.
    Do I like Santilli? No I think he is and was the biggest instigator there. Do I think anyone at the refuge should of been arrested, no I dont.
    And I absolutely do not think there should of been bloodshed and death. There was NO reason whatsoever for that, and Im am sickened.
    However do I think Santilli should of had immunity from the rest ,No way, he involved himself as a activist at the refuge, and he should be right where he is, not that any of them should be there.

    1. Activism doth not a terrorist make.
      Don’t like Santilli myself, but he pointed no guns at anyone, made no threats, and in my opinion broke no laws. Activism has got to be free to proceed so long as it does not damage persons or properties. Call it “street theater” or whatever else one will – it is “speech” and is protected by our founding documents, and for good reason. Santilli’s arrest must quickly be undone and an investigation launched into who issued that arrest order and made up the charges against him. And btw, in my own opinion a journalist certainly can be an activist while on the job. Dissent, and the acceptance of dissent, is a must in any free country. This is a travesty, and a very grave one at that. It is hugely more important than Santilli’s personality traits and/or his methods of expressing himself. If the government can get away with arresting Santilli over this, we’re all cooked!

      Elias Alias, editor

      1. The cooking has already been going on for more than a decade, very possibly in your own communities.

        Domestic counterintelligence organized stalking and harassment operations have been doing ‘target practice’ for more than a decade now and have remained relatively off the radar by selecting and targeting mostly ‘outliers,’ people with little-to-no support structures (family & friends) in place, to test out and to hone well-camouflaged population control methods culled from groups as diverse as the KKK, the KGB, the East German Stasi, and our own alphabet soup agencies. A big part of this program even uses the concept of ‘anchoring’ from neurolinguistic programming.

        The goals of this program are to develop and to hone different techniques to ‘neutralize’ any target and to quell dissent, as quietly as possible, by destroying the psyche of each ‘targeted individual.’

        Our government learned from COINTELPRO and CHAOS that obvious targeting, discrimination and harassment of well-known dissidents leads to government scrutiny, like the Church Commission. So, this program is attempting to stay as far in the shadows as possible (hence the use of a lot of contractors), while also effectively destroying a target, utilizing conspicuous (to the target) surveillance, black bag jobs, even computer hacking, and other harassment.

        This current domestic counterintelligence program is essentially COINTELPRO 2.0, and it borrows heavily from the East German Stasi’s program known as ‘Zersetsung.’ The following link is to an excellent “Ted Talk” presentation about the Stasi’s Zersetzung protocol by someone who was targeted by the Stasi:

        As you all are well aware, there are dozens of different data-bases and information sharing platforms that have information on most U.S. residents. The FBI’s main criminal data base — that they acknowledge having — has 77.7 million people on it, which is nearly 1 out of 3 Americans, with 10,000 new names added daily, according to the Wall Street Journal. I’m guessing a lot of you already know this, but just in case.

        The list of people getting what I call the ‘full court press,’ which is virtually 24/7/365 conspicuous surveillance and harassment is a much smaller list (under 10,000 would be my estimation), but is growing and growing, as even well-meaning, once decent citizens, law enforcement, other first responders, and a ton of contractors stalk innocent, often helpless people under the guise of “keeping the streets clean,” or “fighting the war on terror.”

        Are there any Oathkeepers who know what I am talking about? Can you leak the information and still cover your @#$? I know The Intercept has a lot of anonymous ways of getting information out to the public. You may not agree with the slant, but this program has to be stopped. It will devour our Republic, if someone with the goods doesn’t come clean.

        Perhaps some of you know the details of the program a lot better than I do, but are looking the other way, perhaps rationalizing that the people getting chased around by neighborhood watch vigilantes, first responders, and private contractors must have done something wrong, which of course is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and antithetical to everything Oathkeepers stand for.

        I have committed no crimes against another person, and have absolutely no criminal record. However, I have exercised my First Amendments rights vigorously but peacefully for three decades; and my ‘targeting’ started more than a decade ago, while I was researching all DECLASSIFIED government projects related to interrogation, like MKUltra. My research or my free speech may have initially drawn attention, perhaps; but I believe it is the fact that I am isolated from family and friends (thanks to vindictive, psychopathic family insiders) that has really ramped up the harassment and abuse, which is why I am reaching out to Oathkeepers. I really am asking for help. This is no game, and I have no agenda but to help end this program.

        I know many of you are indeed strong defenders of the Constitution and would help to expose this evil program, if you did indeed know about it. Start asking around, please.

        ANY insight would be greatly appreciated. The following website has a wealth of good information on the program, perhaps the best single source I’ve found. But given the nature of disinformation, the info could change overnight:

        And be forewarned, there is an incredible amount of disinformation from paid sock puppets on the internet and a lot of misinformation from people who are indeed dealing with mental illness (some of whom may indeed be true targets who are trying to figure out what is going on). The sheer amount of disinformation should be a sign to perceptive folks that something big is being covered up.

        Question is, what is it?

  17. I agree with you 100% Mr Alias. I personally can not stand Pete Santilli either. He might just as well have one of those stupid TV shows like Maury or Geraldo but he is entitled to free speech as all of us are. He should not be in jail and I would sincerely hope that if he gets out, He will find something else to do because I do not believe our movement will survive much more of his idiotic antics.
    The man makes us all look like a bunch of fools….!!!

  18. There is a huge issue with the USC under which all of them are being charged…18 USC, section 372.

    It is being wrongly used and has been wrongly used for decades against the people. And, it is a basic judiciary manipulation that has been going on for even longer. It was used against the first Bundy and the Hammonds, too.

    For a better understanding, three key things are necessary.

    1) USC applies to government and/or government employees (including military)
    2) Common Law applies to the people
    3) The Constitution Article III, Amendment V and Amendment VII must be adhered to

    The charges are not following ‘due process’ and are in the wrong jurisdiction. Among other things, the Grand Jury indictment was wrongly applied and there needed to have been a probable cause inquiry with an injured party whereby the accused faces the accuser before the indictment. Basically this process is called ‘common law’ and it is what applies to the people.

    What the government is trying to do is use ‘statutory law’ under Article I instead of common law under Article III.

    None of the refuge folks were properly arrested or charged. The government charges are un-constitutional I hope someone on the ground in OR is filing counter charges against the government actions.

  19. This Sintilli PERSECUTION is just another bead on the necklace that the traitors and oath breakers are stringing across America. Recently others have been persecuted for their speech and thought crimes such as Wolfgang Halbig and James Tracey who both rightfully question the Sandy Hook Massacre narrative. Halbig had his donation page shut down, and Tracey, a tenured professor, was fired from a Florida University. ( One word from Jeb Bush could reverse that action, but don’t hold your breath waiting for that). And think back a few years to those who doubted the 911 story. Barrett and Ryan quickly come to mind. And just a few weeks ago a student at Duke wrote some screed proclaiming that free speech should be done away with. Folks, we are in serious trouble, and I think a lot of it has to do with the Marxist professors who have infested our institutes of learning for the past decades. Many of them have diarrhea of the mouth when they get up in front of their classes and divest from the curriculum and proceed to dump on the impressionable minds before them. This country needs a nice cleansing enema if we are ever to get back on track. The universities would be a good place to start. They need to be re-educated about the old saying that said ” I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with my life”.

  20. Regardless of what anybody thinks about this guy he has a constitutional right to say and wright what he wants. This should not and cannot be tolorated. If we as an organization let this stand then we are guilty of complicity. This is not any different than the 2014 activities at the Bundy Ranch . It’s a violation of our constitutional rights. Either we step up to it or we turn our back,disband and go home. We may not like this Loudmouth however he did nothing wrong and should get our full support.

  21. What really amazes me is this. All the bashing of Santilli. Was anyone holding a gun to your heads to watch him. Ifyou don’t like the guy turn the channel. O ya thats right he braved the 17 below weather to report on the goings on . While most everyone sat at their key boards in the comfort of their homes. Don’t like him go do a better job or shut up!!!

  22. Linda, thank you for your clarifying words. I hope someone out there in Oregon territory is aware of what you point out.
    And, as always, thank you Elias Alias for your sound reasoned input. The arrest of Pete, like him or not, is the arrest of ALL of US!
    And for those of us who pray for Divine Intervention, let us all remember ….. God doesn’t show up out of the clouds, He works through US, through individual human beings standing forth FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS! If we want God’s help, let us stand forth and BE that help, to the best of our ability. Being TRUE to that which we know is GOOD is BEING OUR PART of God-in-Action!
    I thank you Elias for keeping this line of communication up and running.
    May you take time to rest and nourish yourself!!! We need you to be healthy!
    With gratitude to all who are participating,
    Robert D. Gubisch

    1. Robert D.,
      I must correct your ‘euphemism’ about The free State of Oregon. I’m sure you know OR is a state, but calling it the ‘The Territory of’ is giving legal credence to federal gov intrusions and illegal activity. I don’t want to be the ‘word police’ but words have real meaning, and we all need to plug that back into our brains. If OR were still a territory, then everything perpetrated by fedgov agents would be perfectly LEGAL.
      Please, all read your dang Constitutions, especially if you want to make a difference!

  23. We are seeing this too Media is controlled by the Government that is A SAD DAY IN AMERICA………… WE ARE FAMILIES being violated by CPS FAMILY COURTS ETC., CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY many of us have attempted to get investigative journalist to take our cause to the front lines sadly there are none or I should say very few that will even consider speaking out against this CORRUPTION RICO FEDERAL RACKETEERING ………………. #TAKEN #OPEXPOSECPS read all about it ……………. There cannot be this many victims if what we are saying is not TRUTH LAWSUITS DAILY PEOPLE WAKE UP ONE DAY this could be your child your grandchild

  24. Back in 2012, Marine, Brandon J. Raub was taken into custody over some FaceBook posts, hauled off to a psych ward, with no charges, and held for some time, all against his will. The Rutherford Institute successfully represented him, but there are still evil people in high places that try to rule over us with violence. As created beings, accountable to a Righteous Judge, we have a duty to our fellow man to treat him as equal. In some circles, you might say, don’t grab a tiger by the tail.

  25. The thing to remember here is the intent of the Amendment is to protect all forms of communication. These communication, except when they can be attributed to inciting a physical confrontation or a breach of the peace, are to be protected from government restriction. the intent is to protect political speech, speaking about your beliefs in the Almighty and to actually publish that speech if your little heart desired it.

    You are still restrained from slander and liable if you do those things and the only defense from either is the truth. Beyond that government has no business restraining speech and the Framers left it open ended intentionally. If they wanted it restricted they could have proposed it. Of course the People were the ones who ratified in their state conventions and if they did not want it they would not have voted it in.

    The problem is that we have been indoctrinated into the concept that government has the right to remediate our liberties because it has been going on so long. As Madison said. “… powers delegated are few and defined”… Federalist 45. If they ain’t writ in the Constitution they ain’t brother…

  26. I found this on the BLM Elias, although I do not believe that they have been re-authorized by congress for a very long time, this agency does receive funds from somewhere though;


    Established: In the Department of the Interior by Secretary’s Order 2225, July 15, 1946, implementing Reorganization Plan No. III of 1946, effective July 16, 1946.

    Predecessor Agencies:

    In the Department of the Treasury:

    Office of the Secretary of the Treasury (1789-1812)
    Register of the Treasury (1789-1812)
    General Land Office (1812-49)

    In the Department of State:

    Office of the Secretary of State (administration of land patents, 1796-1812)

    In the War Department:

    Office of the Secretary of War (military land warrants, 1789-1812) Ordnance Department (supervision of lead and copper mines, 1821-46)

    In the Department of the Interior:

    General Land Office (1849-1946)
    Division of Grazing Control (1934-35)
    Division of Grazing (1935-39)
    Grazing Service (1939-46)

    Functions: Classifies, manages, and disposes of public lands and their resources according to principles of multiple-use management. Administers federally owned mineral resources on nonfederal lands.

    Finding Aids: Preliminary inventory in National Archives microfiche edition of preliminary inventories.

    Related Records: Record copies of publications of the Bureau of Land Management and its predecessors in RG 287, Publications of the U.S. Government. Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, RG 48.
    Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75.
    Records of the National Park Service, RG 79.
    Records of the Forest Service, RG 95.
    Records of the Bureau of Reclamation, RG 115.


    History: The Federal Government inherited a substantial public domain from its predecessor, the government under the Articles of Confederation. By Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, Congress was empowered “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” In the act establishing the Treasury Department (1 Stat. 65), September 2, 1789, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized “to execute such services relative to the sale of the lands belonging to the United States, as may be by law required of him,” and the Office of the Register of the Treasury was designated the agency for the collection and dispersal of Treasury revenues. The Secretary of War, in the act establishing the War Department (1 Stat. 50), August 7, 1789, was made responsible for granting military bounty lands (lands to which veterans of the Revolutionary War were entitled by virtue of their military service). Treasury responsibility for administering the public lands was defined initially in the Land Act of 1796 (1 Stat. 464), May 18, 1796, which provided for the orderly survey and sale of lands northwest of the Ohio River. This responsibility was extended geographically and amended procedurally by additional land laws of 1800, 1803, and 1804. The act of 1796 required the Secretary of State to record and issue patents (titles) to public land. The General Land Office Act (2 Stat. 716), April 25, 1812, created the General Land Office (GLO) in the Department of the Treasury to “superintend, execute, and perform, all such acts and things, touching or respecting the public lands of the United States,” including those functions formerly vested in the Secretaries of War and State. GLO transferred to the newly created Department of the Interior under provisions of its establishing act (9 Stat. 395), March 3, 1849. GLO and Grazing Service (SEE 49.6) consolidated to form BLM, 1946. SEE 49.1.

    The last authorization made by congress that I could find was made in 1976.
    Public Law 94-579-Oct. 21, 1976.

    Here is some good outside information on the BLM;

  27. Freedom of speech is as dead as the 2nd… least that’s how our government and its slave class citizens view things.

    Not sure how we change that misperception.

  28. the united states has been operating as a corporation- Obama is the ceo of a corporation. They are now broke.Ever wonder why every court case that has challenged him comes back-“No Standing” why? Do your homework. Pete Santilli said something on his way from Ohio that was a little puzzling to me (as I have always had the utmost respect for oath keepers ) He said ” I do not need a membership to be an oath keeper! It is now at this late time that I understand what he meant. I believe that would be politics,lawyers and fencesitters.

  29. Thank you Psychokat for your clarity! I should have said it differently.
    And Cal, thank you for your comments!!!
    This forum is VERY healthy and I appreciate ALL who participate!!!!
    And ESPECIALLY the very FEW men behind making this site available.
    With warm regards and much gratitude,
    Robert D. Gubisch

  30. Yet another extremely complicated topic. Condensed to a minute portion of this complexity I think of the unholy alliance between big business and big government and that a handful of huge corporations control the media outlets that have an incredible amount of influence upon the masses via what information is disseminated and how it is conveyed.

    We, the People have to counter that corporate influence when and where it removes wealth and power from the common folks. This is the war for hearts and minds that I fear the militia movement as a whole is failing to confront.

Comments are closed.