Author Archive: T.J. McCann

Nuclear Event Off South Carolina

Nuclear Event Off South Carolina Coast?

Background: In November of 2013 rumors were spreading from sources, namely Dr. James Garrow, that three nuclear weapons had been taken from Dyess Air Force Base near Abilene,  Texas, without proper security signatures, and by major breach of protocol and safety regulations.  The narrative was that the Obama administration arranged for the misappropriation of these nukes  for nefarious purposes, involving use against the American people, with the suspected target being the people of South Carolina, and the intent  being  a horrific false flag event to justify further totalitarian controls of this country.

As related by Garrow in a Facebook post on November 18 2013, somehow these nukes changed hands, and at least 2 Army Generals and 1 Navy Admiral, whose duties included the safeguarding and oversight of the nuclear arsenal, are to be congratulated for saving  America from horrific outcome.   The Admiral reportedly was responsible for directing the Navy nuclear weapon to be taken some 350 miles off the coast of South Carolina,  and detonated deep in the Atlantic Ocean,  beyond the continental shelf,   in the evening of Monday October 7th, 2013.

In the week following the alleged October 7th detonation, 3 high ranking officers in charge of the nation’s nuclear arsenal were sacked, including  Major General Michael Carey and Vice Admiral Tim Giardina.  The causes for their discharge were reported to result from misbehavior involving alcohol and gambling.

Upon hearing this story in November, I found what I believed to be the seismic charts from the event, and after review, came to the conclusion that these did not resemble the signature from such an explosive detonation.  Apparently I was not viewing the correct data.

Current:

Today I began more detailed research with this issue,  intending to corroborate information offered in my appearance  on Mark Connors’ “Free America” stream-cast program last night,  Sunday June 1st, 2014, in which I indicated that the event off South Carolina’s coast did not appear to be nuclear in origin.   Unfortunately that is not what I’ve done.  Instead, to my distress, I have corroborated reports that it was very possibly,  perhaps even likely, a nuclear detonation.

Below is a graphic differentiation of two North Korea nuclear tests compared to an earthquake seismogram:

Image

(Click to enlarge)
Seismograms of North Korea’s May 25, 2009 nuclear
test (top, in red); October 2006 test (middle); and natural
earthquake from same region.  Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, Columbia University

The Nuclear explosions demonstrate a prominent initial P-wave (primary wave) SPIKE, with the signature abruptly decreasing amplitude and only minor s-wave (shear/secondary wave) in  evidence.   Of note, is the strong amplitude difference between the initial P-wave spike and the lesser subsequent signature.

South Carolina Event of Concern:

Here is the recorded data from the seismic event off the coast of South Carolina which occurred on October 7, 2013:

4.5 Mag Quake
2013-10-08 01:58:11  GMT/UTC Time  (October 7, 2013 20:58:11 ET )
Depth (Hypocenter)  : 10 km
Epicenter Coordinates: 30.180°N 74.158°W

Here is a post on a forum that cites an article, stating in its first sentence,  The “earthquake” off the East Coast wasn’t an earthquake. There were no “P” waves.”   This article is misleading because  a nuclear explosion, or any sort of explosion is notable for having a predominant P-wave spike, not the absence of P-waves, with the relative absence of secondary s-waves.

Volcano Discovery Report: http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/quake-info/461285/M4.5-Tue-8-Oct-Off-the-east-coast-of-the-United-States.html

USGS Report:   http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usb000k8bw#summary

South Carolina Seismic Network – SEIS:
http://rev.seis.sc.edu/earthquakes/?eq_url=earthquakes/2013/10/08/01/58/11
Image
As is evident from the signatures at the four different seismic stations, above, the event off the coast of South Carolina on October 7th bears strong resemblance to a nuclear signature.

ImageKURSK DISASTER

The Russian submarine Kursk was sunk in August of 2000 while participating in war games in the Barents Sea.  Kursk was a large sub at 18,300 tons submerged displacement; length: 505 feet; diameter 60 feet. Compliment: 107-118 men. Max speed 28 kts submerged.

There were two discrete explosions separated by about 2 minutes 15 seconds.  As is evident below, this Kursk explosive seismic event (but non-nuclear)  shows the same predominant P-wave spike.   If the October 8th Event off the South Carolina coast was not a nuclear event, then it was likely a very large explosive.

Image

References:
Forensic Seismology :  http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge342/forensic%20seismology-revised.pdf
Seismogram Analysis (Tutorial):  http://www.learninggeoscience.net/free/00092/SeismogramAnalysis-MX.swf

Our Daily Beck …

Glenn Beck’s “TheBlaze” has a new story reporting on OAS turnout, but it’s not much meat and a lot of bread.

Beck’s reporter allows the impression that the expected turnout was to be 30 million,  3 times the actual idealized desire. This was almost as much of a dishonest hit-piece as Beck trying to railroad Cliven Bundy as a Sovereign Citizen, when Bundy really had no idea what Beck was talking about, and had said nothing remotely similar to the sovereign citizen ideology. However when Beck himself manages to spend week after week on Founder’s Fridays, and yet cannot manage to teach the Constitution in any sort of real, applied manner, instead implying it was some sort of idealized mystical scroll imbued with magic, then this is not all that surprising.

The reality is that OAS was infiltrated and co-opted by Government people who were pushing for a massive turnout, and instigating an angry and scared citizenry to be armed, because this was to be the false flag incident that was intended to scapegoat conservative constitutionalists, the religious, and ex-military, just as indicated in the infamous 2009 DHS document, to plunge this country into martial law and cast down the last vestiges of that mystical Constitution. Aware Americans should be relieved that more people were alert to what was going on, and didn’t actually show, rather than maligning the movement overall.

I guess God just didn’t send Harry Riley’s  Geese flying in Beck’s proper divine formation.  Instead the heavenly host was reduced to a maritime flotilla.

But Beck can be proud he attracted such large numbers with a feel-good stage show, and that he hired reporters who can count, and recognize the weather while standing in it. (double entendre)

America can now sleep soundly indeed, and if it should die before it wakes…

(For those not paying attention, Beck is now hemorrhaging listeners due to repeatedly showing himself to be a less-than-honest hypocrite.)

Image

 

O.A.S. is in D.C. !

Image

Bundy Ranch Standoff

Bundy Ranch Standoff

Bundy Ranch Standoff Compared to famous Tiananmen Square photo

How The Bill of Rights Enslaved Us

How the Bill of Rights
Invited Government
to Enslave Us.

Subtitle: “How A Colonel (Riley) Would Destroy American Freedoms in Lincoln’s Name”

This is a portion of  what RPMckinely (Ron), a “second in command” of O.A.S,  wrote in his thread “A Little information and knowledge about our Constitution and the Bill Of Rights”

This is when they decided that in order to protect the people themselves from their own government, and to restrain that government from becoming too restrictive and abusive towards the people, then it would be wise on their part to make sure there were certain rights and freedoms of the people that the government could never regulate or remove. These rights and freedoms would be protected against any kind of government abuse. These certain rights and freedoms that were written into our Constitution are what we refer to today as our Bill of Rights.

In the beginning the government was regulated to only those eighteen enumerated powers and authority, while the people were restricted only by their own levels of regulation and moral retrains.

The founders had to make sure that of all the freedoms and liberties assumed by the people there would also be a certain few of those rights that the government could never regulate or remove.

And as history now shows our founding fathers were right, certain rights and freedoms had to be protected from any potential government abuse……

Actually Ron’s description is quite  inaccurate, probably to the surprise of many. And the oversight by so many  in understanding why this is inaccurate,  is a part of the cause of the predicament in which we find ourselves today.   Ron is the poster child as to why “little knowledge” is dangerous to our freedoms, and history stands to refute his Elementary School rendition of the Constitution.

The fact of the matter, and the Constitution itself, is those rights were already protected in the Constitution by the strictly enumerated powers that bound the federal government, as well as the rest of federal government’s design in that document.  If government has no authority to deny rights under any of its specified powers, then there would be no real need to specify those rights.

Not a one of government’s enumerated powers even allow the creation of ANY LAW whatsoever that might be applicable within the States themselves.  If anyone doubts this, go ahead and read Article 1, Section 8 “Powers of Congress” and see if any of those enumerated powers even hint at the ability to write laws applicable within the States, that might allow the government to impair freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, due process, or allow that personal papers and effects on our persons and within our property might be subject to unreasonable search and seizure.  The power to violate those things is nowhere present in those legitimate powers of the federal government, and the States themselves were each recognized to be sovereign, also immune to federal intrusive dictate.

Alexander Hamilton discusses those Rights at length in Federalist #84, at a time before they were yet included in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.    To the dismay of those who now read Federalist #84 today, Hamilton argues at length why those rights should NOT be included in the Constitution.  Many interpret Hamilton’s statements as cause to condemn him as a statist having no regard for those Rights, but in doing so they ignore Hamilton’s own words, as well as a great portion of this country’s more contemporary history.

Hamilton not only indicates why a Bill of Rights should be unnecessary, but  beyond that, why the inclusion of such would even be “dangerous”:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

To paraphrase what Hamilton indicated in #84,  the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would serve as a “colorable pretext”, or an excuse,  for government to claim as powers those Rights actually stipulated in the Bill of Rights, and indeed Hamilton has been vindicated because this is precisely what our own history has shown.

Even we ourselves have been trained to reference that Bill of Rights as if it were actually a vital grant of those rights, when in truth it only recognizes rights that exist even outside it, even as indicated in the 9th Amendment. Our own reference to the “Second Amendment”, rather than directly referencing our unalienable right to keep and bear arms in our own defense, without caveat or infringement, shows the degree of our own brainwashing in treating the 2nd Amendment as if it were the actual provision of that right.

Here is another contemporary example of which I speak,specifically regarding the right to keep and bear arms, showing how screwed up even our own mental concept of our rights are, even from their listing in the Bill of Rights.

http://t.co/p8aipHNgu9

Caravan To Midnight Host John B Wells asks U.S. Marine Major (Ret) Bill Donahue, “What about in furtherance of disarming [Americans]…?” Donohue replies “… in a Representative Democracy, if the House and Senate voted to outlaw arms, and changed the second amendment, and voted a law to outlaw arms, that is a law we’d have to abide by… that’s the way it works”.

obeying-orders-laws

This is scary stuff, particularly coming from our military! The right to keep and bear arms is NOT a grant from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but rather only a right recognized therein. Furthermore, no “law” is able to change the 2nd Amendment, nor is even any amendment to the Constitution able to change that fundamental right, which again is not a provision from the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not “allow for” the Right to keep and bear arms, but rather recognizes the existence of that unalienable right, and phrases it in the Second Amendment in context of the terms for the federal government. Furthermore, we are also deliberately NOT a “Representative Democracy”, but rather a Constitutional Republic. The people’s “representatives” have no authority to remove unalienable rights, no matter how large the majority may be that elected them.

Unfortunately Major Bill Donahue has previously sullied the Constitution and our freedoms, and this was shown in events demonstrating a clear tie between Major Donahue and Colonel Harry Riley of Operation American Spring.   In 2008 Harry Riley engaged in a vocal campaign condemning 33 Senators who he alleges voted against a bill making English as the Official language of these United States.  Major Donahue posted an article on this matter entitled “Colonel Harry Riley USA Speaks Out”,  consisting of an email letter written by Harry Riley, in which Riley himself apparently gave the email the subject title of “The Colonel and Mr. Lincoln.”  By this title, Harry Riley evidently imagines himself in esteemed company, standing beside Lincoln.   Riley concluded that letter with a quote of Lincoln’s: :

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:‘Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!!!

(I will ignore that Riley was sloppy and wrong, and Lincoln never actually said these words, but rather they are the result of a misrepresentation by J. Michael Waller. I will likewise ignore the fact that Riley was again sloppy and wrong about the terms of the English language vote, however the audience should be detecting a persistent trend here.)

It should be rather disturbing to every American that these words attributed to  Lincoln would be revered by anyone, but particularly by those in the U.S. military, given that Lincoln was the President who single-handedly chose to make war on the sovereign States, who had lawfully chosen to disengage themselves from a federal government that had repeatedly abused its own constitutional obligation to the South over decades, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 Americans, the devastation of the entire country, and the arrest without trial of anyone critical of the war. (See Habeas Corpus, “Writ of Liberty”, and Copperheads  and also Clement L. Vallandigham)

It should be even more chilling that Harry Riley, a U.S. Army Colonel,  would revere these words, especially since Riley himself has set up in his 3-phase plan for Operation American Spring, the institution of a “Tribunal” to consist of hand-chosen persons sitting in judgment without regard to law, obviously entirely outside and in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, but quite in agreement with the institution of military martial law.  Colonel Harry Riley has far more in common with the totalitarian ambitions of one Barack Obama  than he admits to, and his blind supporters care to recognize.

The sole purpose of the government is not the Union itself, and most certainly the purpose of that government is NOT to  protect the U.S. military, even from only criticism.  The singular purpose of government, any and every form of government, even as clearly identified in the Declaration of Independence,  is stated to be:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,…

Lincoln’s abolishment of Habeas Corpus, a fundamental right to challenge the reason for one’s imprisonment,  so as to promote the unhindered warfare upon his own fellow Americans and impose his tyrannous dictate on the entire country, does not make Lincoln a person to be revered, but rather reviled.   Colonel Harry Riley quite clearly needs to review the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution itself, … unless of course his actual intent is as his actions repeatedly show, and not actually involving the restoration of Constitutional governance.

Our government was meant to be shackled by those limited enumerated powers, and never meant to be allowed into the business of “Rights”, as those rights specifically and implicitly are recognized to protect us from government itself, and never intended to be used as any sort of “demand license” to be used against our fellow citizens, as it is abused now. For example, the idea that a community must accept a Mosque in its midst, along with the repeated call to prayer, simply because of the 1st Amendment’s “Freedom of Religion”, should be utterly ridiculous. Similarly the idea that our schools must be turned into litigation battlegrounds for expectant “free speech”, should be equally ridiculous, but then neither should those schools be zones of compelled indoctrination. What happened is the government used the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a “colorable pretext” to imply it was in the business of policing rights, and by government’s selective choosing, the provision of rights, when rights were designed to specifically protect from that government, and to prohibit just such actions!

From those rights, we see the federal government taking that “freedom of the press”, and believing it might even now, recently, just as Hamilton warned, have a “power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it”, to define who and what constitute that press, so as to limit that protection, and afford the federal government protection from it, giving the law the Orwellian title of “Media Shield law” (Hamilton seems prescient here); or cherry-picking what is not an undue “infringement” on the right to keep and bear arms, with the Court even arguing in  current precedent that these 2nd Amendment rights do not apply to the  States. All of these acts, and more, use that very Bill of Rights as just such a “colorable pretext” to provide excuse that those rights can be further defined, and even might be Amended as indicated in Article V, even to be entirely annulled!

This all involves the federal government believing its job is to police those Rights, from the “colorable pretext” of the Bill of Rights itself, when those rights are specifically to protect against that federal government.  How far we have allowed this country to be dragged from our Founder’s vision.

The federal government really began policing rights, and by their recognition, both creating and denying those rights, in the aftermath of the Civil War, which itself represented the oppression by force of the rights and legitimate authority of the sovereign people of the southern States.   This corruption began with the adoption of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and the forced ratification of the 14th Amendment to be re-admitted to the Union (which those states allegedly never left, and never could leave), and the 15th Amendment with its protection of suffrage.   Yet there was no need for such an Amendment to abolish slavery, as no one was ever enslaved by anything in the Constitution! However We, the people have continued to be enslaved by the government’s entry into rights distribution.

Somehow, in the recognition of blacks as free persons, government entered into the rights policing business via the back door of Civil Rights, and our freedoms were lost in the process.  The founders wisely rejected the idea of the Constitution directly dictating the emancipation of blacks, because allowing such  power to be vested in government would create the very sort of tyrannous government able to dictate the terms of society,  precisely what this nation’s founders fought to free themselves from. Yet this dictatorial government is what the corruption of “rights” has allowed in preset times.

This corruption then escalated with the first Progressives jn the early 20th century. This corruption of the government’s role, and the function of the Constitution itself, is nowhere seen more clearly than in the  18th Amendment and Prohibition, dictating to the citizenry what they could, and could not, imbibe.   The purpose of the Constitution is nowhere to grant rights, nor limit them,  but rather to define government itself, so that inclusion of an Amendment dictating what the citizenry cannot imbibe, is indicative of the Constitution’s intent and government’s authority, both being radically corrupted.

If not for such corruptions,  Civil Rights could never provide an excuse for government to compel within the states school integration, and even mandate busing, violating the very freedoms of those being bused, and inappropriately using the force of the National Guard to uphold such tyrannous overreach. Sure, we can all recognize an integrated society as being a positive thing, however the means of achieving this came about through tyrannous abuse of government force, justified under the pretense of doing something good and positive, just as is being done with Health Care.  The ability of government to dictate the subjective “good”, became the entree for a limitless array of unsavory dictatorial actions, all oppressing Freedom.

Unless we return government to its “box”, only exercising those specifically enumerated powers, then we will be continually battling on a slippery slope of our own allowance, in which government is repeatedly usurping authority over rights specifically intended to protect us from that government, and sacrificing our freedoms on the process.  To allow government reach beyond that box, is to provide government the excuse and opportunity to enslave us, and this is what we’ve seen with the EPA, FDA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, ObamaCare, and most recently, from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Nevada this past weekend.

No, the Bill of Rights itself does not provide us the vital grant of our rights, but its existence within the Constitution became the means by which we are  enslaved.

 

America’s Midnight Hour

This post is not having anything to do with the Operation American Spring directly, but rather an “idea” that some of the “sprung Springs” (unhinged membership) of OAS are repeatedly promoting.   What is offered here is not just opinion, but rather is grounded in inescapable fact.

In such discussions as  The Posse’s “Universe Shattering Evidence”,  comment is made in support of Sheriff Arpaio’s “posse” investigation of Obama’s digital release of his  birth certificate, an entirely irrelevant and false “affidavit”, and a frenzy over the much  anticipated release of new “bombshell” evidence. .

First,  I recognize that Obama is undeniably, by known facts, unable to hold the Office of President; he’s absolutely not an Article II natural born citizen.  See “Natural Born Defined” (PDF).   That’s not the issue here.

However Arpaio’s investigation of the layered digital document served no purpose, and did not establish fraud, nor forgery.

The fact is that the Hawaiian Dept of Health (HDOH) is entitled BY LAW, under Hawaiian Revised Statute (See HRS §338-13 below), to produce birth information in whatever form it deems necessary, which is reasonable.  Can you imagine if a Dept of Health were not able to produce vital birth information  in whatever form as necessary, and provide it to, say, court hearings, judges, or other authorities whose business is to consider such issues?

HDOH might literally put the birth information on a cocktail napkin, and along with appropriate certifications, it would be valid.  The released Obama digital birth document is rather obviously the result of a digital compilation of at least 3 separate documents: 1) a photocopy of the bound ledger information,  2) the certification page, and 3) the digitized security background, which can be seen to not conform to the curved ledger book page, making claims that it is  “tampered with” considerably oblivious.  Of course it’s been “tampered with” – it’s a digital compilation! Beyond that, the document could be loaded with all sorts of conflicting font types, and hidden smiley faces, and none of this would undermine the fact that it is (still) a legally valid, legitimate document.

Not Forgery

Furthermore that Obama document did not attempt to mimic any sort of official document form, but was a distinct document unto itself, therefore incapable of being “forgery” of some other document form.  If one sets out forge something, it would be something with its own distinct form, like a Picasso, or a $100 bill.  Being a compilation of other documents,   the Obama digital birth document is obviously not any sort of pre-established  format, and thus cannot be a “forgery” of anything! Those who imagine that a birth certificate must have things such as doctor signature,  parent’s signatures and addresses, and even an inked baby footprint, really are not aware of what such documents are. Such documents are not final birth certificates at all, and rather only the hospital’s application for a birth certificate – notifications of birth.

Not Fraud

And to be “fraud”, the  birth terms indicated in that document must themselves be shown to be false, and deliberately false, but Arpaio’s investigation did not even attempt to establish this.   The “posse” affidavit  offers no statements to undermine the birth data on  Obama’s birth documentation, so the Posse’s claim that it proved fraud is just utterly irresponsible nonsense.

On a larger scale, what bothers me about this still ongoing Arpaio investigation is that, even at this late date, it continues to focus attention on the “birth document”, as if being a citizen, or “born citizen”, were sufficient to meet the Article II requirement of natural born citizen, when it is not.   This focus on the “birth certificate” is entirely distorting the terms of natural born citizen, and corrupting the issue in the public eye.

In fact this whole investigation is doing exactly what Obama himself wants, even as demonstrated on his early FightTheSmears page, because it continues to reduce the issue before the public and media to involving mere “citizenship” status, rather than the actual terms of natural born citizen  — “birth on U.S. soil to parents who were citizens”, even as recognized repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Harry Riley has consistently made supporting statements of Arpaio on programs such as the “Birther Report”, which makes my discussion of this issue appropriate here.   (In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that Birther Report recognized my own writing on Natural Born Defined.)  The sort of “inexact thought” evidenced in the Arpaio investigation seems to proliferate throughout the OAS movement, and is particularly evident in Riley’s 3-phase plan, and glaring absence of demands justified in terms of the Constitution.  Normally such sloppy thinking is not a problem, but when our nation’s future is at stake, and lives are on the the line, with the distinct  possibility of indefinite incarceration in federal prison,  then this sort of “rank” stupidity cannot be indulged.

With such vital issues at stake involving this country’s very existence, it’s time to stop with the “stupid people tricks”.  This ain’t Ringling Bros, and Harry Riley is no Ring Master.  If Riley is even any sort of “C.O.” (Commanding Officer), as they love to refer to him, then one has to question  what exactly he is demonstrating command of.

Seriously, wake up, my fellow Americans.  Dear God, wake up now; it’s America’s Midnight Hour!

Footnote: U.S.N. Commander (Ret.) Charles Kerchner also cited my article “Natural Born Defined” on his personal blog.  . Kerchner sued Obama in 2010 in Kerchner vs Obama, represented by Mario Apuzzo. wethepeople-s[1] Hawaiian Revised Statute (HRS):

     §338-13  Certified copies.  (a)  Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

     (b)  Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

     (c)  Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

Riley Backtracking …

Riley Backtracking on OAS …

In emailed OAS “Update 24” and “Update 25” Harry Riley is backtracking on his expectations for OAS, and showing first signs of recognition that the movement, as planned and executed, will fail.

Update 24 indicates:

 Demands/Grievances –  Many have been asking “what if Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, Holder don’t resign?”  We will present a package to each member of Congress (535) including Demands/Grievances; Provable Articles of Impeachment; record of millions of signed petitions; and validated/verified by millions of boots on the ground, also a plan to keep tens of thousands in D.C. beyond May 16, 2014. As a team we’re doing all we can to right the ship in a peaceful, non-violent, unarmed operation.

Note that the “tens of thousands” to remain in D.C. after May 16th is an enormous reduction from the million originally indicated by Riley to remain in D.C.  This is a tacit admission of Riley’s recognition that the movement is failing to garner the numbers hoped for.

Riley’s Phase-2 specifically states, “One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes..”  The reduction of this number to tens of thousands, not even hundreds of thousands, is at least a HUNDRED fold decrease of those anticipated to remain in D.C..  That’s a big change.

In Update 25, released on March 23,  Riley trumpets an OAS Petition to Congress for redress of grievances, regarding which Riley indicates, “It’s all laid out for your folks”.   Well, that petition does anything but “lay out” grievances.

There are in fact no demands, nor grievances, stated anywhere in that petition!  However, remaining true to form, the only portion of the constitution referenced is the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances!  (Does it get any more inane than a petition about the right to petition?)

What’s curious is that Riley has previously stated on more than one occasion that petitions and protests get no results, and are a waste of time.

Would you sign on to support an organization that does not state its demands?  Would you sign a contract whose terms you do not know?

What that petition does do is provide one other list —  a list of names supporting OAS,  … and by whatever terms that might be created in the future, which is certainly convenient for the federal government!

“I am petitioning the government to fund navel lint fishing rods for all those signing Riley’s petition.”

Of further note, the first page of that petition uses a motto that I came up with early on,  to promote OAS, but got no positive feedback whatsoever from Riley on: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”   It’s a shame that Riley is not equally inclined to rely on the Founder’s terms lain out for him in the Constitution.

Now-Is-Time2[1]