Patel Patriot (Jon)
The Devolution Series, along with my interviews and Devolution Power Hours can be found on my website:
You can find me on Truth Social: @patelpatriot
Find me on Telegram here: https://t.me/patelpatriot
In this article I’m going to be examining a recent series of articles that have come out with a hypothesis against devolution. As you all know, I never shy away from a discussion of the facts and I’m always open to those questioning my theory. I will present their thesis and how it lines up against devolution and then do my best to show you why I believe they are wrong.
Faulty Conclusions
The “Reconstitution Series” by 17 SOG certainly provides plenty of research and vivid writing showing the history of our government and special forces. I know that a detailed history lesson with the heroics of the past can make us all feel good, but it doesn't change the fact that these history lessons do precisely nothing to support the foundational claims that their series puts forth.
These authors set out with a goal to create a scenario in which devolution couldn’t be possible. I’m going to paraphrase but this is the gist of their argument:
Bush enacted COG plans after 9/11 and never rescinded them. Because they were never rescinded, Trump couldn’t have initiated COG himself. Instead, what Trump was actually doing was reconstitution out of those COG plans. .
Here is another quote they used to present their argument:
Again, their entire theory is based on the idea that we have been in COG since 9/11 and we have never been reconstituted. They claim that what Donald Trump did with executive order 13961 was just a simple continuation of COG policy as every President before him has done.
Who is the source of the above quote claiming the COG plans “have never been rescinded"? Is it some government official who took part in the COG operation? Is it somebody with any insider information at all?
Let’s find out.
Clicking on that hyperlink takes you to the following website:
Here is proof from their substack at the time of writing this article that it is indeed the same website:
A closer comparison just to further cement the link.
When you go to the bottom of the article to find out who wrote it, this is who you will find as the author:
Yes, an Antifa blogger is who they used as a source for their primary argument that we’ve been in COG since 9/11. Here is further proof of his Antifa affiliations from the “Antifa Info-bulletin” he contributes to:
I think where this series really struggled was in their interpretation of how continuity of government works. Instead of using common sense and going where the facts led, their tunnel vision clouded their writing and obfuscated the reality of what Trump actually did. Here are a few things I’m going to cover.
I’m going to skip number one because it’s obvious and I’m really not sure why they claim that as a “new discovery not found anywhere else.” The two main topics I will be breaking down for you are numbers 2 and 3.
Our government has been in Continuity of Government (COG) since 9/11/2001.
The title of this whole series is called “Reconstitution.” Let’s look one more time at their theory:
To suggest that the COG plans initiated by Bush have never been rescinded is “patently false.” These are strong claims for anybody to be making. It’s true that Bush initiated COG in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Where I definitely disagree is their claim that those plans were never rescinded.
When you really think about it, they were smart to choose this theory because it is something that can’t be proven wrong using an official document because that isn’t how these things work.
What I’m saying is there is no piece of paper out there saying anything along the lines of “COG is over, let’s reconstitute.” .
Back on March 29th of this year, I wrote an article titled “Does Devolution Require Trump’s Return?” Within this article I discuss the reconstitution phase:
http
So, reconstitution begins immediately after the event concludes. I examined every possible COG document I could get my hands on and not a single one says anything having to do with reconstitution beginning after some sort of official declaration or issuance of a document or order. Again, that isn’t how it works. .
Even so, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the COG plan that was initiated on the morning of 9/11 was ended that same night. I think it would be important to read a key definition directly from NSPD - 51. I’ll explain NSPD-51 in more detail later. .
So keep in mind that COG is reserved for “Catastrophic Emergencies.” This is important to understand. Continuity of Government is designed for a worst-case scenario in which our government leaders can no longer lead the nation. It is a contingency plan to allow our country to preserve some semblance of our form of government.
Here are a few more explainers on “Reconstitution.”
“The process of reconstitution will generally start immediately after an event concludes.” “Reconstitution may continue for an extended period until normal operations are resumed from the original or replacement primary operating facilities.” .
Here is the White House draft of the events from 9/11:
9/11 was interesting in terms of COG because it was implemented even though none of the primary operating facilities were destroyed and none of our government or executive branch leadership was taken out or unable to continue leading the nation.
The COG plan was implemented at 9:55 AM. The “event” concluded when the final plane crashed in PA around 10:06 AM. Obviously, at the time, they likely didn’t know it was the final event, so they took precautions and left the COG plan in place for a little while but the primary heads of our government were back to business by that afternoon.
At 3:30 PM, President Bush chaired an NSC meeting from Offutt AFB, Nebraska. That night, President Bush was back at the White House addressing the nation. The government was back to normal operations at their normal operating facilities.
It’s true that they left their COG contingency plans in place with teams of people waiting at the COG facilities - but they were no longer active. Here is an article from the Washington Post dated March 1st, 2002. Note the language here as it is very important:
The “shadow government” was left in place as a “indefinite precaution.”
Again, this means they weren’t active. They were there in waiting in case of another attack - one that would cripple our government. Since they were not active, that means the government had already reconstituted. Just because teams of people were in waiting at COG facilities in case of a worst case scenario, doesn’t mean that COG was still in operation.
Here is a hypothetical situation for you. My parents own a back-up generator. Their primary source of electricity comes from the city. One day a storm hits and their normal source of power from the city goes out. They pull out the generator, turn it on, and use it until the city is able to get the power back on and functioning normally. Once the power from the city is restored, they shut down the generator and put it away. .
Just because my parents own a generator and have it ready and waiting, that doesn’t mean it is generating any power. The generator is a contingency plan exactly like the teams of people at the COG sites were for Bush after everything was reconstituted back to normal operations. .
So again, none of our government leadership was taken out and as of that same afternoon, all of them remained active and publicly running our government. None of that would be the case if a genuine COG plan had still been activated and “never rescinded.” .
Having a COG contingency in waiting is not the same as actually being in a state of COG. .
“The use of persistent states of emergency to maintain COG and grant unconstitutional powers to the Executive branch” There is no doubt that all Presidents have abused the use of “national emergencies” to take advantage of the powers that come with it. The 17 SOG series draws faulty conclusions in their belief that the “national emergencies” which grant the Presidents those broad powers have anything to do with Continuity of Government.
We are talking about two completely different types of emergencies here.
• “National emergencies,” which grant the President numerous yet specified emergency powers. There is a distinct process to declare a national emergency to get those powers. You will see shortly that the authority to declare these national emergencies must stem from either an act of Congress or the Constitution.
• “Catastrophic emergencies” which would kick off continuity of government are no-notice emergencies. They do not need to be declared publicly in an executive document.
Further information on national emergencies can be found here:
Like I said earlier, there is no doubt that Presidents have long taken advantage of the National Emergency Act to broaden their powers.
I’m going to show you here shortly why they are wrong about national emergencies and COG. First I need to show you what they said about EO 13961.
They have this very wrong. EO 13961 is not a “continuation of the COG Bush initiated in 2001.” The claim that “since 2001, Executive Orders have been issued by every single administration to detail their structure for COG” is a false claim. Directives and Executive orders are two different things. Even stating that every single administration issued its own policy related to continuity of government is wrong. Trump didn’t issue his own COG policy, he implemented and executed a previous one - I’ll show you that here shortly.
They go on to show history of continuity of government. Here is their so-called “bloodline.” This gets the point across even though some of the “revisions” and “in alignment withs” are not accurate.
What they are trying to do here is tell a story that what Trump did is no different than every President before him. They also claim that the state of emergency issued by Bush was used to justify the COG he put in place:
How could a proclamation issued on September 14th, 2001 be used to justify a COG plan implemented on September 11th, 2001?
Anyway, I want to continue by proving to you that 13961 was different. I’m going to focus on the last 4 continuity related documents mentioned here:
First we need to understand exactly what NSPD and PPD are - types of National Security Directives.
These directives are used to tackle foreign policy issues and national security matters. Each President has their own title for these directives. You are probably most familiar with Trump’s “National Security Presidential Memorandums”:
NSPD 51 was implemented by GW Bush in 2007 and contained our nation’s National Continuity Policy until it was replaced by Obama’s PPD-40. PPD-40 is still the policy guidance for continuity to this day because Trump never issued his own continuity policy (I’ll explain what Trump did shortly). After being replaced, NSPD-51 was unclassified and as I showed you before, this is where we can get some key information and definitions about COG and “catastrophic emergencies”.
9/11 was certainly a “catastrophic emergency” which I believe justified the implementation of COG. They didn’t know at the time if any more attacks were to come. COG is designed to safeguard our government from total collapse due to the loss of its leadership, so it makes sense that they took the precautions to initiate these plans. But again, by the time the evening rolled around, the threat had dissipated and therefore the catastrophic emergency was over. Our government remained intact and resumed normal operations. None of the primary operating facilities or heads of those agencies were taken out. As a contingency, they left their COG teams at the various sites in case any further threats presented themselves.
Let’s continue.
As it currently stands, PPD-40 holds our nation’s National Continuity Plans. It was not revised by FCD 1 & FCD 2 as claimed by the 17 SOG. FCD 1 & 2 were used by FEMA to implement the requirements set forth by PPD-40. The two directives actually detail that fact for us themselves.
Executive order 13961 is an entirely different ballgame. 13961 is not a policy or a continuation of anything prior as claimed by 17 SOG here: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1a854f4f-8895-4276-a9c0-4d6df11b8be1_1087x273.jpeg Let me show you why Executive Order 13961 is different. Recall what I wrote in Devolution - Part 13 and how the entire executive order was based in the context of War and National Defense. This is not typical for a continuity of government order or policy:
So now I’m going to once again break down Executive order 13961 but this time I’m going to do it a little differently than I did in Devolution - Part 13. This is meant to really prove to you that this order was no simple policy continuation. I want to hammer home the fact that this executive order was actually implementing and executing a continuity of government plan.
I won’t go through the entire order in detail, for that you can go back and read Devolution - Part 13. I’m just going to break down the relevant parts to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. When you see a red line crossing something out, it’s because I don’t want that part to confuse you about what is going on. It should help keep things clear for us. I will also provide bullet points as we go to keep us organized.
The order starts by telling us what the United States’ policy is as it pertains to continuity programs. These programs are meant to ensure (make certain of) two things.
Here is the definition of “ensure:”
So far, we have:
• It is the policy of the United States to maintain comprehensive and effective continuity programs that ensure (guarantee):
o National Security
o the preservation of government structure under the United States Constitution and in alignment with Presidential Policy Directive-40
• Executive order 13961 and the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy are to be implemented to achieve that policy Let’s continue with section 3:
Let's continue.
Again, the policy they are looking to achieve is the policy we just discussed above.
Here is the definition of “implement:”
Let’s use our definitions to reword what is happening so far:
Trump signed the FMR strategy which is to use concrete measures to guarantee the actual fulfillment of the continuity policy detailed in section 1.
Now let’s update our bullet points:
• It is the policy of the United States to maintain comprehensive and effective continuity programs that ensure:
o National Security
o the preservation of government structure under the United States Constitution and in alignment with Presidential Policy Directive-40
• Executive order 13961 and the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy are to be implemented to achieve that policy
Let’s continue with section 3:
This executive committee was created to coordinate the development of the implementation plan for the aforementioned policy and facilitate execution of said plan.
Let’s turn back to our dictionary once more:
Now let’s add this definition to our previous one.
The FMR committee is to carry out fully (or put completely into effect) the FMR strategy, and that strategy is to use concrete measures to ensure the actual fulfillment of the continuity policy detailed in section 1.
And a final update to our bullet points:
• It is the policy of the United States to maintain comprehensive and effective continuity programs that ensure:
o National Security
o the preservation of government structure under the United States Constitution and in alignment with Presidential Policy Directive-40
• Executive order 13961 and the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy are to be implemented to achieve that policy • The established FMR committee is to develop a plan to implement the FMR Strategy and facilitate execution of that plan
Trump created a committee tasked with the implementation and execution of a continuity of government plan.
Let’s go back and look at the claim made by the 17 SOG group:
I will say it once more - executive order 13961 was not simply a continuation of the COG Bush initiated in 2001. Rather, it is an implementation and execution of the existing National Continuity Policy (PPD-40), and it was done in the face of a stolen election - an act of war if there ever was one.
Remember the definition of “catastrophic emergency” from NSPD 51?
Wouldn’t a stolen election (act of war) be considered a “disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Executive order 13961 is an implementation plan necessitated by the fact that we are at War from a stolen election.
The Biden administration is surely taking its toll creating extraordinary levels of disruption “severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions".”
Also, recall what Trump directly told us in his introduction letter to the Federal Mission Resilience Strategy. I won’t post the entire thing but I really feel like he was indirectly telling us the situation:
It’s being issued to address long-term challenges from near peer adversaries.
Those adversaries are competing below the threshold of armed conflict (think irregular warfare from Devolution - Part 22)
This strategy will “fully implement” the National Continuity Policy so we can preserve our constitutional form of government.
We the people (individual citizens) need to do our part to preserve, protect, and defend our way of life. This part right here is the Devolution Sandwich I always talk about. Closing "width=500>
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbcabd896-bbb7-4dc6-963d-f3be607bcae3_1328x268.jpeg "width=500>
No matter how lovely a line of reasoning may be, if it is based on a completely false premise, then it’s just the fruit of a poisonous tree, and that is what the “Reconstitution Series” is. There are really two false premises we are dealing with here.
• The first false premise is the one put forth by the Antifa blogger and used by the 17 SOG stating that Bush’s COG was initiated and never rescinded.
• The second false premise is that Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13961 was just a simple policy continuation as done by his predecessors.
History lessons and vivid writing aside, I believe what they presented in their series did nothing to support their conclusions and there are plenty of available facts to the contrary.
I didn’t even mention the hundreds of pieces of circumstantial evidence that I’ve presented throughout the Devolution Series pointing to Trump implementing and executing a Continuity of Government plan.
The “Reconstitution Series” would have you believe that Trump simply walked away from a stolen election and actually handed over the office of the Presidency to Joe Biden and the CCP.
I’m sorry, but that is not the Donald Trump I have come to know and love.
THE BEST IS YET TO COME
Patel Patriot
