THE TWENTY NINE PALMS (UNOFFICIAL) SURVEY

(updated 30Dec08)

I AM LOOKING FOR IMMEDIATE CONFIRMATION OF THIS AS BEING AN

ACTUAL SURVEY!! THIS SURVEY IS ENTRAPMENT IN TREASON AND IS
AN ILLEGAL AND A NON-BINDING PIECE OF TRASH!! THE LAST
STATEMENTS/AGREEMENTS REQUEST IS AGGRAVATED COERSION INTO
AN AGREEMENT TO COMMIT TREASON!!

THE ARTICLE BELOW INDICATES THIS OFFICAL LOOKING DOCUMENT

WAS ACTUALLY A MASTERS RESEARCH PAPER SURVEY AND WAS
GIVEN TO A GROUP OF SOLDIERS IN AN UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY…THE
ARTICLE DOES HOWEVER ADDRESS SOME VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES
AND TRENDS IN THE DECIMATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT
USING A MISSION CREEP AND TRAINING INDOCTRINATION APPROACH
TO MOVE GENERAL ENLISTED WARRIORS INTO A CULTURE WHERE UN
LEADERSHIP OF US TROOPS IS MORE ACCEPTABLE ALONG WITH
MILITARY POLICING OF US CIVILAINS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE
POSSE COMITATUS ACT!!

DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96)

JOINT SERVICES TRAINING COMBAT ARMS SURVEY

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel
with regard to non-traditional missions. All responses are confidential and official.

Write your answers directly on the form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for
your response.

Date:_____________

Part A (Confidential when filled in)

Part 1. Demographics.

1. Branch of Service:
Army [ ] USAF [ ] Navy [ ] Marines [ ] ANG [ ] NG [ ] USCG [ ] Other:[________]

2. Pay Grade: (E-6, O-4, etc): [_____________]

3. MOS, AFSC or Specialty Code and Description: [_____________]

4. Highest level of education: Less than 12 [ ] 13 [ ] 14 [ ] 15 [ ] 16 [ ] More than 16 [ ]

5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield? [___]
6. How many months did you serve in Somalia? [___]

7. Where did you spend most of your childhood? City: [____] County: [____] State:
[____]

Part II. Attitude.

[Strongly Disagree] [Disagree] [Agree] [Strongly Agree] [No Opinion]

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the U.S. and bordering
countries for any of the following missions?

8. Drug enforcement [SD D A SA NO]

9. Disaster relief - e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes [SD D A SA NO]

10. Security at national events - e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl [SD D A SA NO]

11. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear [SD D A SA NO]

12. Substitute teachers and school workers in public schools [SD D A SA NO]

13. Community assistance programs - e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up, road

repair, animal control [SD D A SA NO]

14. Federal and State prison guards and auxiliary police [SD D A SA NO]

15. National emergency police force/international security force [SD D A SA NO]

16. Advisors to SWAT units, the FBI, or the BATF [SD D A SA NO]

17. Border Patrol - e.g. prevention of entry of illegal aliens into U.S. territory [SD D A
SA NO]

18. Drug enforcement and interdiction [SD D A SA NO]

19. Disaster relief in bordering countries - e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.
[SD D A SA NO]

20. Environmental disaster clean-up in bordering countries including toxic and nuclear.
[SD D A SA NO]

21. Peace keeping and local law enforcement and internal security forces [SD D A SA
NO]
22. National building - reconstruct civil governments, develop public school system,
develop or improve public transportation system, etc. [SD D A SA NO]

23. Humanitarian relief - e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing
and domestic care [SD D A SA NO]

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries, under
command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the U.N. for any of the following
missions?

24. Drug enforcement. [SD D A SA NO]

25. Disaster relief - e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes [SD D A SA NO]

26. Environmental disaster clean-up including toxic and nuclear [SD D A SA NO]

27. Peace keeping including local law enforcement and internal security forces [SD D A
SA NO]

28. Nation building - reconstruct civil government, develop public school system,
develop or improve public transportation system, etc. [SD D A SA NO]

29. Humanitarian relief - e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing and clothing
and domestic care [SD D A SA NO]

30. Police action - e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm but serving under non-U.S.officers
[SD D A SA NO]

31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve
in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control [SD D A SA
NO]

32. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and
control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises [SD D A SA NO]

33. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U. S. combat troops should serve under U.N.
command and control [SD D A SA NO]

34. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N.missions as long as the U.S. has full
command and control. [SD D A SA NO]

35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under U.N. command and
control [SD D A SA NO]
36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non-commissioned
officers at battalion, wing and company levels while performing U.N. missions. [SD D A
SA NO]

37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team. [SD
D A SA NO]

38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company or squadron
commander. [SD D A SA NO]

39. I feel the President of the U.S. has the authority to pass his responsibilities as
Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General. [SD D A SA NO]

40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier. [SD
D A SA NO]

41. I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing

humanitarian and peace keeping missions for the U.N. [SD D A SA NO]

42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the
command and control of the U.N. [SD D A SA NO]

43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N.
commander. [SD D A SA NO]

44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the
soldiers necessary to maintain world peace. [SD D A SA NO]
45. I would swear to the following oath: [SD D A SA NO]

"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world
peace and every nation's way of life. I swear and affirm to support and defend the
Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense."

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and
transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for
these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a
number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their
firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: [SD D A SA NO]

"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned
by the United States government."
 I VERY SELSOM ATTACH A CAVIOT TO AN ARTICLE SO WELL
WRITTEN AS THE FOLLOWING, HOWEVER I AM THIS TIME
BECAUSE THE ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED IS TOO IMPORTANT
TO MISUNDERSTAND ANY PIECE…..SO, BASICALLY I TAKE
EXCEPTION TO THIS STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR:

Acknowledging and welcoming the end of the American Empire would be a singularly
healthy development; it would bring about a legitimate revolution in military affairs, and
could foreclose the possibility of martial law in the immediate future.

I WOULD NEVER WELCOME ACKNOWLEDGE OR ALLOW THE

END OF THIS GREAT NATION AND ITS CONSTITUTION!!! IN MY
HEART I BELIEVE HE WAS REFERRING TO THE EMPIRICAL
SHANANIGANS THAT CERTAIN EMPIRICAL LEADERS HAVE
ENGAGED IN AGAINST OUR WILL AND BEHIND OUR BACKS!!

NOW, HAVING SAID THAT PLEASE READ THIS!! IT IS

IMPORTANT!!

"Question 46," Revisited

William N. Grigg
December 18, 2008

Policing the world, from the outside in: A US soldier deployed under UN command in
Bosnia frisks a civilian at a weapons confiscation checkpoint. Military personnel are now
taking part as "observers" at sobriety/driver's license checkpoints here in the US; could
firearms checkpoints be in our future as well?
(Photo courtesy of Comeandtakeit.com.)

“Hey, Will – we just got a letter from a Marine saying that he was part of a project
dealing with civilian arms confiscation by the military. Are you interested?”
It had been a fairly slow morning up until the point Dave Bohon, at the time the
managing editor at The New American, came down to the research department with the
aforementioned letter clutched in his hands and a puzzled expression inscribed in his
aquiline features.

Practically leaping out of my chair, I grabbed the proffered letter, a handwritten missive
attached to a multi-page document called a "Combat Arms Survey" (scroll down). I read
both the letter and the questionnaire with a sense of mingled dread and excitement.

As students of the federalization and militarization of law enforcement, my associates

and I knew things of this sort had to be happening, but proving it was somewhat difficult.
Here was a letter that seemed to provide the dreadful confirmation. While it would be
useful to see our suspicions confirmed, we couldn't exactly take pleasure in the
knowledge that one of our worst fears appeared to be taking tangible form.

The letter's return address was Twentynine Palms Marine Base in California, and the
author – a Marine Lance Corporal – had provided contact information. After reading the
letter three or four times, I called the phone number and contacted the Marine. We spoke
for about a half hour, during which time he described the incident in greater detail. Of
particular interest was the final question in the survey, which -- as we will see anon -- did
indeed ask about the willingness of Marines to seize firearms from Americans, using
lethal force to do so if necessary.

In that pre-Blogosphere era, we had to wait several weeks for the story to see print, but
within hours of the first copies of the July 11 issue reaching subscribers our research
department was dispatching fax copies of the letter and the survey - of which we had the
sole original copies -- to curious and outraged people across the nation. Many of them
had exactly the same reaction we did: A joyless sense of dreadful, unwelcome
vindication.

The Marine was one of several hundred who had combat experience in recent
deployments abroad. The conversation took place in late May 1994; accordingly, the pool
of combat veterans included those who had served in Panama, the first Gulf War, and
Somalia. They were assembled in a mess hall and given a 46-question survey composed
by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest “Guy” Cunningham, who was working on a Master's
Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part
of UN-supervised missions abroad.

While there was much in the survey that a Constitutionalist would find objectionable –
for instance, Marines were asked about their willingness to swear an oath of allegiance to
the United Nations – the final question was positively thermonuclear:

“The US government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer
of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these
firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of
citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I
would fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the
US government.”

As it happens, Lt. Cmndr. Cunningham was not promoting civilian disarmament, or the
cession of the US military to UN control. He was using his survey to determine the extent
to which such policy choices would have the support of military personnel who had
served in combat abroad.

When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the
Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under
any circumstances. Many of them took the time to expand upon their answers through
comments in the margin of the survey, often written in language that would bring a
maidenly blush to the gnarled cheeks of Deadwood's Al Swearengen..

Paving the road to serfdom with the remains of destroyed civilian firearms: A US
soldier presides over the destruction of confiscated guns in Bosnia.
(Comeandtakeit.com.)

Of course, it was gratifying as it is to know that most of the combat veterans surveyed by
Cunningham emphatically rejected the concept of domestic civilian disarmament by the
military. However, the study did suggest the existence of a sizable pool of military
personnel willing to carry out that mission.

In that particular group, 79 Marines – a little more than a quarter of those surveyed --
replied to Question 46 in the affirmative, a response Cunningham said “showed an
alarming ignorance of the Posse Comitatus Act ... and of how to treat an unlawful order.”

Now, roughly fifteen years later, it's hardly clear that the order to gun down American
civilians defending their innate right to armed self-defense would be considered unlawful,
at least in a positivist sense, by a majority of service personnel.

In September 2006, on the same day the Bush Regime effectively dismantled the habeas
corpus guarantee it inflicted what may be lethal injury to the Posse Comitatus Act as well
by providing the president with the means to make the National Guard units of all 50
states into his personal army, to be deployed domestically in any way he sees fit. At least
three combat brigades are now assigned to domestic duty as a homeland security force
under Northern Command.

Those troops would supposedly be used for the sole purpose of dealing with catastrophic
events, such as terrorism involving the use of non-conventional weapons; however, the
initial report indicated that these combat veterans, during their domestic deployment,
would be equipped and train to deal with crowd control and other population
management tasks. This is why the unit would be outfitted with “non-lethal” weaponry, in
addition to the conventional variety.

As I've noted in previous reports, active-duty military personnel were deeply involved in
hands-on law enforcement (including the use of satellite and other surveillance
technology) during the 2008 political conventions in Denver and St. Paul. Last Friday
(December 12) brought another ominous expansion of the role of active-duty military
personnel in routine law enforcement when elements of the California Highway Patrol
conducted a joint “sobriety/driver's license checkpoint” alongside the San Bernadino
County Sheriff's Office and a contingent of Military Police from the US Marine Corps.

Of particular interest to me is the fact that this troubling venture involves the Twentynine
Palms Air Ground Combat Center. This may be completely insignificant. But it is an odd
and unsettling coincidence, at the very least.

"We Are the World": John Richter, center right, is a participant in the UN's
International Police Task Force in Bosnia. Originally from Illinois, he is seen here taking
part in a multinational mission with several British officers and a Nepalese soldier.
(Comeandtakeit.com..)

Sobriety checkpoints are a perfectly mundane (but by no means harmless) law

enforcement function; they don't involve catastrophic circumstances, either natural or
man-made.
Most importantly, highway checkpoints are a martial law exercise, since they involve
temporary detention and scrutiny of an entire population by armed enforcement
personnel. Last Summer, police in Washington, D.C. used checkpoints to restrict
movement into and out of entire city blocks; this initiative was modeled on security
practices used by occupation forces in Iraq. Integrating military personnel into a sobriety
checkpoint is a different but even more troubling refinement of this martial law tactic.
Attorney Lawrence Taylor, whose specialized practice deals entirely with those caught in
the Constitution-free zone of DUI enforcement (a form of plunder disguised as a public
safety exercise that is itself sufficiently outrageous to justify widescale insurrection)
reports that his inquiries with a local USMC public affairs sergeant “resulted in
assurances that the Marines would be there `as observers.'”

“Hmmmm.... military observers,” mused Taylor. “Isn't that how it all starts?”

Indeed it is, and if the Regime ruling us wants to get serious about civilian disarmament,
the process will at some point involve the deployment of military personnel at
checkpoints and roadblocks.

Furthermore, as anybody who recently has endured the indignity of a traffic stop can
attest, police in most jurisdictions routinely inquire as to whether there are weapons in the
car. (In my most recent traffic stop, the officer asked, “Are there any weapons in your car
I need to know about?” “No, none that you need to know about,” was my immediate
response.)

With the police increasingly taking on the aspect of a fully-realized military occupation
force, it may seem redundant for the regular military to assume a more active role in
“homeland security.” The fact that such efforts are not only underway, but accelerating, is
highly suggestive of very bad intentions on the part of those who presume to rule us.

As the depression deepens into the economic equivalent of a quantum singularity, and
fear is finally transmuted into public outrage over the redistribution of wealth to protect
the Swindler Class, a spark will be struck somewhere, and a population center of some
size is going to go up in flames. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Regime's huge
population of informants and provocateurs include people eagerly spraying accelerant of
some kind wherever promising examples of social friction can be found.

When the fire erupts – whether through spontaneous combustion or through the
ministrations of the Regime's paid incendiaries – the script will call for the government to
deploy occupation troops, on the assumption that the best way to battle a social
conflagration would be to suffocate liberty, rather than extinguishing the source of the
fire.

The possibility of full-scale domestic military mobilization to suppress insurrection is one

of several scenarios limned in the recent, widely publicized US Army War College paper
“Known Unknowns: Unconventional `Strategic Shocks' in Defense Strategy
Development.”

The report examines several ongoing and potential sources of “strategic dislocation” for
the empire (an entirely appropriate term not used in the report, even though it should have
been) both abroad and at home. The Iraqi insurgency was cited as a key example of an
unforeseen “shock” that set back the course of the empire; this despite the fact that any
reasonably intelligent person with a particle of human understanding could have
predicted that Iraqis would organize to resist foreign occupation.

There are at least two kinds of “strategic shocks” described in the report. One is the
“Natural Endpoint” of a given trend-line; another is referred to as a “Dangerous
Waypoint” or a “Discontinuous Break” that interrupts an otherwise positive trend-line.

Curiously – or perhaps not, given that this was a paper produced by an arm of the Regime
– no thought is given to the possibility that ongoing difficulties both at home and abroad
are auguries of the “Natural Endpoint” of the imperial trend-line that began – well, let's
say with the closing of the Western Frontier (and the related massacre of Lakota at
Wounded Knee) in 1890.

Acknowledging and welcoming the end of the American Empire would be a singularly
healthy development; it would bring about a legitimate revolution in military affairs, and
could foreclose the possibility of martial law in the immediate future. But once again,
such possibilities simply don't exist, as far as the author of this War College study is
concerned.

Accordingly, beginning on page 31 of that document we find a brief and remarkably

candid (and, curiously, completely un-sourced) discussion of possible “Violent, Strategic
Dislocation Inside the United States.”

In the event that “organized violence against local, state and national authorities” were to
materialize – that is, if the long-suffering productive people finally have a surfeit of
armed parasites and start fighting back – it might “exceed the capacity of the former two
[that is, local and state governments] to restore public order and protect vulnerable
populations.” (The “vulnerable” in this case being the soft-handed tax feeders who cower
behind the armed people wearing State-issued costumes.)

In such circumstances, the military “might be forced ... to put its broad resources at the
disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility,”
the report continues. “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the
defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and
human security.” (Emphasis added.)

Now, I have no way of knowing if the author of this report is aware of the fact that the
phrase “human security,” as used by the exalted beings employed by the United Nations,
refers to a condition in which disarmed populations depend entirely on government for
their protection.

It was the objective of “human security” that

was being pursued in Rwanda in 1993 through a peace treaty that required the
disarmament of everybody but the government's armed enforcement personnel. This
made it quite simple for the Rwandan “Hutu Power” Junta to slaughter roughly 1.1
million Tutsis (and moderate Hutus) during the 103-day orgy of genocide that began in
April 1994.*
Civilian disarmament is integral to any military occupation, whether it's carried out in the
service of “peacekeeping,” colonialism, or genocide (and those categories do tend to
blend at the margins). Since 1994, the US military has been involved in a series of
occupation missions – in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and
elsewhere. Nearly all of them involve some large-scale disarmament initiative. Recently
in Iraq, US military personnel have been confiscating toy guns from Iraqi children.

Many of those military personnel are Guardsmen and Reservists who will return to jobs
in “civilian” law enforcement well-versed in the logic of civilian disarmament as a
necessity for “force protection.” Others are military personnel who will be fast-tracked
into law enforcement careers once they come home and look for work in an exceptionally
bad labor market. Still others will serve “dwell-time” missions stateside as part of
Northern Command's homeland security force.

It would be immensely useful – and probably quite horrifying – to have those personnel
take Guy Cunningham's “Combat Arms Survey,” and examine their responses to the
notorious Question 46. How many of them would be willing to shoot Americans in order
to confiscate their guns if ordered to do so?

Obviously, I can't provide an answer to that question that is anything other than
speculation. I do recall an incident in late 2001, during a speaking tour in support of a
book dealing with the subject of civilian disarmament.

The tour took me to Memphis, Tennessee, where I addressed a large audience who had
gathered in a very well-appointed hotel. Just down the hall from our meeting, a ballroom
had been rented for a formal event involving recruiters for the various branches of the
military.

The hallways were full of young officers and non-coms in formal military attire. At one
point I spied two of them – one of them a Marine – examining a poster advertising the
subject of my speech, “Civilian Disarmament.” The Marine turned to his buddy and, with
what appeared to be an approving smirk, commented: “Sounds like a good idea.”
---
*For those interested in a more detailed account of how the UN's lethal doctrine of
“human security”played out in the Rwandan Genocide, please see chapter five of my
book Global Gun Grab, particularly pages 70-75. Anyone interested in getting a copy
directly from me can send $6.00 (which includes postage and handling) to 1318 3rd
Avenue South, Payette, ID 83661.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/12/question-46-revisited.html