FCD 1 and 2 is Not Military Directives

Derek Used the Wrong Directive.... FCD 1 and 2 is Civilian not Military

The Legal Framework of National Continuity and Its Implications for Military Control in the United States

Introduction

In this discussion, I aim to remind everyone of the core principles of our truth movement. My understanding was that our goal is to seek factual truth, not to fabricate narratives for profit. Unfortunately, many people I respect are influenced by two particular theories, which I hesitate to even label as such since a theory typically undergoes peer review. These claims haven't been properly reviewed – except by me. I have scrutinized each one, and I encourage others to do the same for a clearer perspective. It's one thing to have a theory. I obviously don't have a problem with that in any way, shape or form. But when a guy bashes veterans, has meltdowns because someone has a different opinion, blocks you and then starts to say bad things about you when you can't respond, I think it's just a huge flaw in character. So I want to make one thing clear. I'm extremely open-minded. I don't care what people's theories are. But there are a few, a couple actually, that parade around as patriots when they're actually extremely socialistic and act like communists. Anyone that knows me knows I'm open-minded to anyone's theories. I'm respectful. I don't attack people, but I do protect myself. And I'll never change that.

Despite my criticisms, I share many beliefs common within our community. Having been an ardent Q follower from the beginning, I recognize the significant actions Trump took during his presidency. My background includes 20 years in the Navy, serving in special operations with a top-secret SCI clearance. While I don't claim insider knowledge, my experience has given me a deep understanding of the system, its processes, and certain programs. I assert this viewpoint because of my understanding of the security surrounding special access programs. I believe that these highly secure programs are the platforms from which President Trump and the Patriots are operating. This belief aligns with what I interpret from Q's statement that "the only way is the military." In my view, this suggests the utilization of military intelligence to circumvent traditional three-letter agencies, indicating a strategic approach outside of conventional channels.

Specifically, the continuity of operations program is not a platform for implementing or executing any plans attributed to Trump. This program, along with the continuity of operations policy, does not involve the military in the ways these theories suggest. If more people dedicated to this movement researched these topics, they might uncover truths obscured by these misleading theories.

My current rigidity stems from my familiarity with military policy, processes, procedures, doctrine, regulations, and directives. Unfortunately, these two theories have caused considerable harm to our community, diverting our focus and hindering our objectives. Going forward, I will no longer devote time to refuting these baseless theories. I've provided ample evidence, doctrine, and policy references, yet there seems to be a reluctance to examine this material closely. This reluctance is not reflective of the principles of our movement or the Anon ethos. It's time for us to reorient and return to our foundational commitment to truth.

Laws associated with Continuity of Operations

National Continuity Policy

The United States has established an extensive legal and administrative framework to ensure government stability and effective response during emergencies. Central to this framework are the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the National Continuity Policy, which are pivotal in the governance of the nation. This article delves into the subtleties of these policies, addressing common misconceptions about their potential for military control and highlighting the constitutional measures that maintain civilian supremacy, even during declared national emergencies.

The National Continuity Policy requires meticulous planning and preparedness, primarily executed by the federal government, especially the executive branch led by the President. This involves issuing directives and policies that guide various departments and agencies in achieving readiness. Agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense play unique roles within the government. Consequently, their training for preparedness and the nature of their continuity operations vary, reflecting the specific responsibilities and functions of each agency in the broader government context.

This differentiation in roles and responsibilities underscores the complexity and thoroughness of the United States' approach to emergency management and governmental continuity. It highlights the intricate balance between maintaining national security and upholding constitutional principles, ensuring that in times of crisis, the nation is well-prepared yet firmly grounded in its foundational values of civilian governance and liberty.

The Constitutional Foundation

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the National Continuity Policy are deeply entrenched in the principles of the U.S. Constitution, which distinctly delineates powers and reinforces civilian authority. These measures are crucial in preventing military dominance over civil authority, even during emergencies. The Posse Comitatus Act serves as a further safeguard, limiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement and thus bolstering civilian control. The roles these entities play within the National Continuity Program must align with constitutional mandates.

At its core, the National Continuity Policy is designed to uphold and perpetuate constitutional governance. Every facet of the National Continuity Program is strategically oriented to ensure the Constitution remains effective during disasters, emergencies, wartime, and periods of peace. This approach reflects the foundational principle of our society: adherence to the rule of law as established by the Constitution.

The occasional violation of laws and constitutional provisions does not imply a failure of the government system. Rather, it indicates a need for enhanced enforcement of accountability and corrective measures. Such a perspective underscores the resilience and adaptability of the U.S. governance structure, emphasizing the importance of maintaining constitutional integrity in all circumstances.

Restructuring for Military Control

For the military to assume a governing role or to impose martial law under the Continuity of Operations (COOP) framework would necessitate substantial legal and constitutional revisions. Such a transformation would involve profound legislative measures, possibly even requiring amendments to the Constitution, fundamentally reshaping the American legal and governmental framework. Additionally, any move towards military governance would demand explicit congressional authorization, a scenario that is highly improbable considering the historical precedent of civilian control over the military.

In addressing prevalent theories, two notable ones have been widely debated and debunked over the past year. The first, "Devolution" by Jon Hareld, and the second, "The Law of War Manual" by Derek Johnson, both suggest that the military is engaged in clandestine operations under the Continuity of Government program. These claims are implausible within the existing framework and laws governing the National Continuity Program and policy. The degree of restructuring required for these theories to hold true is considerable.

Both theories allege that the continuity of operations and government was initiated, allowing for specific missions or actions. However, this is not feasible in the manner they propose, primarily because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DoD) have distinct and separate roles. The DHS and DoD, each with their specific mandates and responsibilities, function within a well-defined legal and operational structure that does not support the scenarios outlined in these theories. This distinction in roles further invalidates the possibility of such secret military operations under the guise of national continuity.

Distinguishing FEMA and DoD Roles

To properly examine the National Continuity Policy, it's essential to understand the distinct roles and directives of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Achieving clarity in this area is particularly crucial for dispelling misconceptions about continuity of government claims, such as those related to martial law and potential alterations to Article 2 of the Constitution, as proposed in theories like those of Derrick Johnson. This article aims to provide a thorough and detailed analysis of both the DoD and DHS programs, demonstrating the implausibility of such theories.

It's important to clarify that the purpose of this analysis is not to create a competing theory or to discredit existing ones for personal gain. Rather, the intention is to address the ways in which these theories, by suggesting certain actions, can be detrimental to our community and movement. They are not only factually unsound but would also be illegal if attempted. This examination seeks to bring a factual and legally grounded perspective to these discussions, contributing to a more informed and rational discourse within the community.

Presidential Directives and Policies

The National Continuity Policy is shaped by various executive and security directives, including Executive Orders, National Security Decision Directives (NSDD), and National Security Directives (NSD). A key element in this framework is Presidential Decision Directive 67 (PDD-67), which is centered on ensuring constitutional governance and the continuity of government operations during crises.

Further detailing the operations of the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) are the National Security Presidential Directives (NSPD) and Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD), particularly NSPD-51/HSPD-20. These directives offer a comprehensive set of guidelines for the implementation of COOP, encompassing a range of scenarios and responses.

The robustness of the National Continuity Policy and Program lies in their legal structure and the specific processes they outline, enabling the mobilization of significant capabilities and resources. Presidential directives and policies play a crucial role in this structure, informing every level of government about their specific responsibilities, methods of operation, and ways to collaborate across various government tiers in response to emergencies.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumes a specialized role within this framework, concentrating its efforts on emergency management, disaster response, and civilian operations at all government levels. This includes coordinating with state and local agencies, as well as private entities, to ensure an effective and unified response to crises.

In contrast, the Department of Defense (DoD) focuses on national security aspects, ensuring the safety and security of the nation during the mitigation of disasters or emergencies. The DoD's role is pivotal in safeguarding the country's borders, airspace, and territories, as well as providing support to civil authorities when necessary.

Together, these directives and departmental roles form a cohesive and comprehensive system designed to maintain government functionality and national stability during times of crisis, ensuring that the principles of constitutional governance are upheld even in emergencies.

DoD and FEMA Distinctions

Derek Johnson and Patel Patriot fundamentally misunderstand the intricacies of military operations and the National Continuity Policy, rendering their theories untenable, particularly regarding military involvement as they describe. Their misconceptions extend not only to the continuity of government policies, procedures, and processes but also to Derek Johnson's erroneous claim about the distinct roles of the President and the Commander-in-Chief. The National Continuity Policy and Program, crucial to every level of government and our overall safety, rely heavily on specific directives, policies, and the unique purposes of individual government agencies.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) operate under distinct sets of directives. For instance, the DoD follows directives tailored to its military needs, such as:

• DoD Directive 3020.40 (Defense Continuity Policy): Establishes the policy for maintaining continuity of DoD operations and government functions in any disruptive situation.

• DoD Directive 3020.42 (COOP Program for Mission-Essential Functions): Provides guidance for maintaining mission-essential functions at all times, a key aspect of USNORTHCOM's role in homeland defense and support.

• DoD Directive 3020.26 (Defense Continuity Plan): This directive governs the DoD's continuity planning, ensuring that essential functions continue across various emergency scenarios, critical for USNORTHCOM's operational capabilities.

These directives are specifically designed to address the military's unique requirements. In contrast, FEMA adheres to the Federal Continuity Directives (FCD 1 and FCD 2) issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which focus on continuity program plans and capabilities.

These distinctive directives are crafted to provide targeted instructions, policies, and procedures, reflecting the specific purposes and capabilities of the two agencies. Derek Johnson's reliance on FCD 1 and 2 in the context of military operations is fundamentally and irresponsibly incorrect. The Department of Defense maintains its own set of directives, as does the DHS. While these directives may complement each other during certain aspects of national emergency mitigation, they remain distinct. This distinction is clear evidence of Derek Johnson's misunderstanding of both military operations and federal agency emergency management operations.

Hierarchy of Directives

Directives, including Presidential Policy Directives, agency-specific directives, and circulars, operate within a hierarchical structure. Presidential Policy Directives set national policies, while agency-specific directives offer tailored guidance. The principles outlined in these directives are realized through detailed planning, training, exercises, and response procedures.

Distinct Roles of DHS and DoD

DHS, including FEMA, concentrates on domestic security, border protection, immigration, and disaster response. In contrast, DoD handles military forces and national defense. Their roles remain separate, with collaboration during national emergencies when necessary.

The United States' legal framework for national continuity is comprehensive and firmly grounded in constitutional principles. It safeguards civilian authority and prevents military overreach during emergencies. Understanding the distinctions between FEMA and DoD roles is essential in debunking misconceptions, ensuring a harmonized approach to crisis management, and upholding the nation's commitment to civilian governance.

Essential COOP Functions

Central to the continuity of operations (COOP) is the identification and prioritization of essential functions. These functions, crucial for executive branch agencies, must be maintained without significant interruption, as stipulated by Homeland Security Council guidance. The activation of COOP plans ensures that these agencies can continue to provide vital services, uphold civil authority, guarantee public safety and welfare, and sustain the national economic base during emergencies.

Level of Essential Functions

COOP planners within the executive branch classify essential government functions into three levels for continuity planning: National Essential Functions (NEF), Priority Mission Essential Functions (PMEF), and Secondary Mission Essential Functions (SMEF). In emergencies necessitating COOP or COG activation, NEFs are the foremost concern of the President and national leadership. PMEFs are those departmental and agency activities that directly support NEFs, while SMEFs are responsibilities within departments and agencies that generally aid in supporting either the primary mission essential functions or, in some cases, national essential functions.

National Essential Function

The Homeland Security Council delineates national essential functions as critical for leading and sustaining the nation during an emergency, necessitating support through department and agency continuity capabilities. These functions, which form the core focus of the President and national leadership during and after an emergency, include:

1. Preserving the constitutional form of government.

2. Providing visible leadership nationally and internationally, maintaining American public trust and confidence.

3. Defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing future attacks.

4. Maintaining effective foreign relations.

5. Ensuring rapid and effective domestic incident response and recovery.

6. Protecting against homeland threats and bringing perpetrators to justice.

7. Safeguarding and stabilizing the nation’s economy, ensuring financial system confidence.

8. Delivering critical government services addressing health, safety, and welfare.

Primary Essential Functions

PMEFs, as identified by respective departments and agencies, are crucial functions performed to support or implement NEFs before, during, and immediately after an emergency. These functions are expected to be maintained or swiftly resumed, typically within the first 24-48 hours post-emergency, continuing through the complete resumption of all government operations.

Secondary Mission Essential Functions

Secondary Mission Essential Functions, defined by each executive branch department or agency, are necessary for the full resumption of normal functions but are not classified as primary mission essential. The timeline for resuming these functions varies based on the agency’s mission and the disruption's nature.

FEMA's Federal Preparedness Circular 65 asserts that identifying and prioritizing essential functions is foundational for COOP, setting the stage for all subsequent planning and preparedness activities. The Homeland Security Council provides guidance on identifying executive branch department and agency-essential functions, with resources including agency strategic plans, business reference model materials, submissions under the Government Performance Results Act, critical infrastructure protection plans, presidential decision directives, executive orders, and legislation.

This framework, shaped by specific directives and the clear delineation of essential functions, illustrates the U.S. government’s intricate planning and preparedness to ensure uninterrupted functioning and resilience in the face of emergencies, maintaining the sovereignty and stability of the nation.

Emergency Support Functions (ESFs)

Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) are a key component of the National Response Framework (NRF), which is the United States' guiding document for responding to all types of disasters and emergencies. The ESF structure provides a standardized approach to disaster response, organizing resources and capabilities into functional areas that are most frequently needed in a national emergency. Each ESF is headed by a primary federal agency, which has specific capabilities and resources in that area, and is supported by secondary agencies that provide additional expertise and assistance.

There are currently 15 ESFs, each focusing on a different aspect of emergency response:

ESF #1 – Transportation: Coordinated by the Department of Transportation, this function manages transportation infrastructure, regulations, and services during emergencies.

ESF #2 – Communications: Led by the National Communications System, this function ensures the provision and restoration of communication systems.

ESF #3 – Public Works and Engineering: Overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers, this function involves infrastructure protection and emergency repair, and the stabilization of public works.

ESF #4 – Firefighting: Managed by the U.S. Forest Service, this function provides support for the detection and suppression of fires.

ESF #5 – Information and Planning: This function, coordinated by FEMA, involves data collection, analysis, and dissemination, along with incident action planning.

ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services: Also coordinated by FEMA, it addresses housing, human services, and mass care needs during disasters.

ESF #7 – Logistics Management and Resource Support: Led by the General Services Administration, this function provides logistical and resource support to emergency operations.

ESF #8 – Public Health and Medical Services: Coordinated by the Department of Health and Human Services, this function manages public health, medical, and mental health services.

ESF #9 – Search and Rescue: Managed by FEMA, this function includes life-saving assistance and urban search and rescue operations.

ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Response: Led by the Environmental Protection Agency, this function deals with environmental hazards and oil spill response.

ESF #11 – Agriculture and Natural Resources: Coordinated by the Department of Agriculture, this function addresses nutritional needs and natural and cultural resource protection.

ESF #12 – Energy: Managed by the Department of Energy, this function involves restoring and maintaining power and fuel systems.

ESF #13 – Public Safety and Security: Led by the Department of Justice, this function focuses on public safety, security, and law enforcement support.

ESF #14 – Cross-Sector Business and Infrastructure: Managed by the Department of Commerce, this function supports the stabilization and recovery of business and infrastructure.

ESF #15 – External Affairs: Coordinated by the Department of Homeland Security, this function manages external communications, public affairs, and international assistance.

Each ESF plays a crucial role in ensuring a coordinated, effective, and comprehensive federal response to emergencies and disasters, facilitating collaboration among various federal agencies, state and local governments, and private-sector organizations.

Final Thoughts Before I move on

The Department of Defense, an agency within the Executive Branch, has a clearly defined and distinct purpose. This has been demonstrated through multiple analyses, particularly in relation to the theories proposed by Derrick Johnson and the concept of Devolution. Derrick Johnson's specific claims about the Military Justice Act, where he suggests a separation between the roles of the Commander-in-Chief and the President, misconstrue the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution. This misinterpretation conflates Article 2, which designates the President as Commander-in-Chief, with Article 3, pertaining to the Judicial Branch. Such a separation already exists as a core concept of the Constitution's separation of powers and system of checks and balances.

The assertion that the Commander-in-Chief role is distinct from the President's responsibilities is a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional principles. This isn't merely a matter of opinion; it's about the core tenets of our Constitution, which, if misinterpreted, could have significant governmental repercussions. There is no legal basis for such a separation, as the Constitution clearly defines these roles.

My stance against the Devolution theory and Derrick Johnson's interpretations has been challenging within certain circles, particularly among some supporters of the Make America Great Again movement. It's one thing to have political disagreements or differing views on military operations, but it's entirely another to subscribe to theories not grounded in our laws and Constitution. Such beliefs, which often involve selectively interpreting laws and constitutional provisions, can be dangerously misleading.

I have a different perspective. I believe Donald Trump is a staunch supporter of the rule of law and the Constitution and would not resort to tactics used by what some call the "deep state" or unscrupulous politicians. The military operations during Trump's administration, in my view, were conducted under different, long-standing programs, such as special access programs that have been part of the U.S. military and governmental operations for centuries.

For example, the ConPlan from Northern Command shows the legal role of the military in various scenarios. I posit that the military has been involved in gathering intelligence for over 80 years, initiating special access programs around the time of Kennedy's assassination to counteract a covert part of the government. Everything Trump did before leaving office, including the establishment of the Space Force, was legal and constitutional, despite the challenges he faced.

The final element of this long-standing plan, as I see it, always involves and currently depends on "we the people." The military's actions, even if not apparent in 2020, have been legally and constitutionally executed. However, further action is necessary, and it must come from the public. My disagreements with the majority in this community are limited to theories like Devolution, Derrick Johnson's interpretations, and the U.S. incorporation theory.

Finally, in discussing the importance of truth and consistency, I maintain that I have consistently adhered to a thorough understanding of the law, policies, and procedures. I don't claim insider knowledge but base my arguments on the laws, policies, and directives I have studied, which I believe many have not. My commitment to these principles remains unwavering, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate inconsistencies in my approach.

Facts that I've proven throughout my articles against these theories.

1. The way in which Derek described how Trump became the Commander-in-Chief through the Military Justice Act is false. You can find it on page 3 and 4 of the Act itself, where it details the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. Out of all the text of that whole document, there was only two mentions of the Commander-in-Chief, and both of those verified that the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

   Reference: Military Justice Act Page 3 and 4.

2. Derrick's claim that the Article 2, the President and the Commander-in-Chief was separated from Article 3, the federal government, is also false. They are already separated. The federal government is not Article 3. Article 3 is the judicial branch of the federal government. That you can find in the Constitution. And again, I found nowhere in the Military Justice Act where it says that.

   Reference: Military Justice Act Page 3 and 4.

3. Derek's claim where the Military Justice Act separated civilian law with military law is also false. It's been separated since the UCMJ was written. The Military Justice Act just reaffirmed that fact. Reference: Military Justice Act.

4. Derrick's references with federal continuity directives 1 and 2, everything and anything that he says about those directives, does not apply, they are not military directives. The military directives are mentioned in this article. Continuity of government does not suspend the constitution as per its definition. Enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations and continuity of government, is designed to endure constitutional government. Nowhere in the Federal Continuity Directive does it mention the military in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the following directives and instructions and policy are what applies to the military.

   1. DoD Directive 3020.40 (Defense Continuity Policy): Establishes the policy for maintaining continuity of DoD operations and government functions in any disruptive situation.

   2. DoD Directive 3020.42 (COOP Program for Mission-Essential Functions): Provides guidance for maintaining mission-essential functions at all times, a key aspect of USNORTHCOM's role in homeland defense and support.

   3. DoD Directive 3020.26 (Defense Continuity Plan): This directive governs the DoD's continuity planning, ensuring that essential functions continue across various emergency scenarios, critical for USNORTHCOM's operational capabilities.

If we're going to rely on the military for things, we should understand their capabilities within our borders.

Written By SpartanAltsobaPatriot