Foreword
Typically when reviewing a topic, I’d prefer to review materials in a chronological fashion from start to end. However, I think it’s a fair assumption that if you’re here to follow my initial series of writings on the topic of Continuity of Government (COG), that you’re likely somewhat familiar with the Devolution series as it’s been ongoing for a little more than a year and has had a fairly wide reach in the ‘patriot community’.
Therefor I’ll be focusing this article on the more recent series on COG by 17th Special Operations Group (17SOG). Still a popular enough series in its own right, just perhaps not with the advantage of time on its side. I’ll be making my best attempt to sort of bounce back and forth between each series, moving chronologically (as best as possible or reasonable) through each series in a bit of a direct comparison.
If, by chance, you’ve found your way to this series and have not read or in any way previously heard of Devolution series or Reconstitution series, I’ll take this opportunity to invite you to click the links above and read each. They are worthwhile.
Reconstitution: Prologue
This initial article of the series serves as an introduction for the group’s works, the topics they’ll discuss and the conclusions their research has lead them to. At times it seems written in a manner to directly counter the Devolution series. In regards to setting the stage for the series, it accomplishes this task quite effectively - though perhaps rather boldly - by indicating their interpretation of historical events and clearly states what they intend to address throughout the series.
While there are a number of quotes, links and cited courses in this introduction, most of it largely is used as historical context to set the stage for upcoming works. Here are the key statements and topics from this initial piece I find particularly notable:
What [DJT] actually did
This statement concludes the introductory paragraph of their very first article. This is a rather bold statement that seems to convey that 17SOG undeniably knows ‘what [DJT] actually did’. I question how they could possibly know the facts well enough to state this so undeniably - and in bold font no less - but time will tell if they provide enough evidence to support such a strong statement so early on.
It was never about Trump maintaining… control
Here is the lead-in from the very next paragraph…
While Donald Trump himself has made statements which support the first two sentences, I’m not aware of any statements on his behalf that support the claim in regards to what his plan was ‘never about’. While this statement isn’t so boldly stated as others, without some direct statements or documentation it’s somewhat presumptive. Perhaps they’ll support this statement in a later article.
Who is 17th SOG?
Here the authors share a bit about themselves with some quick statements about what they represent and describe their journey of research that has lead them to write this series. Note that again they make some pretty definitive statements (highlighted above). We’re noticing a pattern here…
CIC & EOP
I’ve created a summarized table below which covers what I feel are the key points presented by the author(s) which distinguish between the Executive Branch and/or President’s roles of Commander in Chief and Executive Office of the President:
This section is rife with sources, information and context regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Executive Branch and some historical context to its expansion over time. This is the first segment which provides adequate resources.
I would have liked to see some mention of Article II of the US Constitution, which defines the roles of the President, in order to support the claim that the EOP is ‘not constitutionally afforded’ - which is true in a literal sense, as the EOP was neither created nor mentioned in the constitution. Here’s a link to Article II, if interested.
In my own research of Executive Order 8248 I identified some interesting tidbits within it that they may have missed an opportunity to address, but perhaps they’ll reference this document in more detail later. Here’s a link to EO 8248, if interested.
Permanent Government & Deep State
The image above is somewhat of a conclusion to the information, quotes and context provided previously about the creation of the EOP. This section does give some helpful quotes, sources and links; So I won’t go so far as to say that the highlighted portion is a definitive statement since they provide some supportive evidence to defend their perspective. I’ll presume it’s in bold for effect.
New discoveries not found anywhere else:
Be sure to read the list above perhaps more than once. The authors list some key ‘new discoveries not found anywhere else’ which they will be addressing throughout their series. I take no issue with the list so long as they provide the requisite supporting evidence to convince the audience, or prove, that these are indeed facts as they state. Perhaps the ‘new discoveries’ statement could be better worded so as not to presume that these discoveries have not been found anywhere else, but again I’m willing to presume this is for effect to gain interest and readers. However, as Carl Sagan famously stated… ‘extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence’.
Biden & President-King [Biden & his expectation to be President-King]
The paragraph from the closing portion of the prologue seems to set the tone for a few things to come, while also continuing the theme of bold statements. The first example being ‘demonstrating with historical facts, not conjecture nor theories, but with documented proof’. I don’t expect to see all of the detailed ‘facts, not conjecture… with documented proof’ in the initial article, but hopefully the rest of the series lives up to this statement. However, I might argue that no matter the facts or proof provided that any interpretation of them is to some extent a theory or hypothesis as we likely can not ever know the whole picture definitively, so there is some amount of interpretation.
The second highlighted sentence, which mentions PEADs, seems directed at Devolution, however, not necessarily in a derogatory manner. Devolution makes mention of PEADs and suggest they may have been used to declare a state of war to support ‘devolving’ the authority of the government. While some may interpret this as taking a shot at Devolution, it seems more likely that they’re simply stating there ‘is no need to guess’ whether a PEAD was used. This just appears to be suggestive that they feel that some other evidence exists that wouldn’t require the use of PEADs.
Additionally they mention that DJT did not ‘remain the Commander in Chief’ and clearly state that ‘Biden is… fully the Commander in Chief’. This too seems to be distinguishing their research from that of Devolution - again not necessarily in a demeaning fashion. While I don’t recall any time that Devolution or Patel Patriot has claimed that DJT is our active Commander in Chief, it does at times suggest that Biden may NOT be.
47 Ronin: Reconstitution Part 1
The first official part in the series - rather than just an introductory prologue - focuses mostly on continuing to set the tone and engage the reader through narratives.
Part 1 is not particularly heavy on providing facts and sources but rather provides some brief stories and additional themes that will support the story, as they see it, of how COG played or plays a role in current events.
Story of 47 Ronin
This article begins with a very well told story of conflict between Lord Kira and Lord Asano in feudal Japan. This conflict ultimately leads to Lord Asano’s demise, leaving his 300 Samurai without a master. The leader of these Samurai, Oishi, promises to avenge their Lord’s death and informs his men that he will call on them one day. That day would come exactly two years later, when Oishi calls upon the Ronin (previously Samurai) to assemble and extract their vengeance. Only 47 men - including Oishi - respond to the call. Ultimately this would be a sufficient number to complete the task.
This is a well written and engaging intro involving a story likely to be familiar to some. This seems to hint at a theme of a select few men executing a long awaited plan when striking at the most opportune moment and… 47 returning to complete the mission. Perhaps someone may return as the 47th POTUS to complete his mission, aided by a few men, executing a long awaited plan at an opportune moment…
17SOG emphasizes the following lessons to be learned from this narrative:
Operation Eagle Claw
The very next segment tells a very different narrative. One focused around the monumental failure of a United States military operation known as Operation Eagle Claw. The emphasis here seems to be the tactical failures experienced on that day which lead to a drastic shift in how such operational missions would be carried out in the future. The authors list the following military groups which they state came to be as a result of the failures experienced on that day:
160th SOAR (Special Operations Aerial Regiment)
FOG (Field Observation Group)
US Navy SEAL Team 6 (later DEVGRU)
JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command)
USSOCOM (U.S. Special Operations Command)
I have a feeling they’re mentioning these groups with a purpose and that this likely won’t be the last time we hear about them throughout the series.
A Story of Betrayal: Military Oath vs Orders
This segment details the oaths and promises that members of the military units listed above undertake in order to dutifully serve their country and defend its constitution.
I want to bring attention to a particular section which again mentions the term President-King - which we saw at the end of the first article.
This section seems to continue the stories above about 47 Ronin, Operation Eagle Claw and the conflicts of honor, duties, oaths and orders. Additionally it foreshadows that JSOC, in particular, and this conflict of duty will play a pivotal role in their future writings and interpretation of events.
Game Theory
This section is rather brief but will be revisited in detail in a future article of the series. Therefor presumably this just touches on the topic to get the reader familiar with the term and how it was used by DJT and a certain 17th letter of the alphabet.
The US military’s response to an internal threat
The segment begs the question ‘How do you fight the President-king?’.
The upper portion of the image above includes an excerpt of post #14 from the 17th letter of the alphabet. This post asks a multitude of questions but only three are seen in this excerpt. 17SOG addresses the first two and states that ‘obvious[ly] - Yes’ Trump was asked to run. Now, I’m confident they’re not alone in that assessment but stating the answer as obvious without any clarification as to why it’s obvious leaves an uniformed reader wondering why or how it’s obvious. I would have loved to see some supporting information that suggests such an obvious answer.
Their answer to the question of why he was asked to run is rather straight forward but what is note worthy to me is there is no mention of ‘by who?’. Not in a direct manner anyway. Given the title of this section and the attention they bring to the military earlier in this article I can only assume that they’re alluding to the fact that Trump was asked to run by members of the military. Again I’m confident they’re not alone in that assessment as these questions were posited by Q nearly 5 years ago, and I’m certain anons have done diligent digging on the topic since. Still, I think it benefits their point to support these statements directly rather than assume they’re understood.
Into The Shadows: Reconstitution Part 2
In this article 17SOG begins to delve into the history of COG plans and describe what they are, where they originated, what documents have supported them over the years and when COG has been implemented.
After the first two articles vividly set the stage with some narratives, themes and claims, this article attempts to get into the documented details that seemingly support some of 17SOG’s prior claims.
COG & Bloodline
The first portion of this article gets into some brief description of COG and then jumps into some bold and definitive statements yet again.
The highlighted statements from above reiterate similar claims made in the Prologue regarding the activation of COG and whether Trump - via EO 13961 - activated a state of COG or whether COG was still active as a result of Bush era responses to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The first highlighted statement is not nearly as bold as the others and depending on your interpretation of EO 13961 and the lack of any other publicly identified reports that Trump activated COG plans, this statement may be correct.
The other two highlighted statements are very bold and declarative - in now seemingly typical 17SOG fashion. The claim again is that President Bush is the only documented President to implement COG plans.
They go on to state that those plans ‘have never been rescinded [and] to suggest otherwise is patently false’. Claiming that the ONLY time something has EVER been implemented, that it has not been rescinded and to suggest otherwise is patently false are bold, declarative and unambiguous statements. Let’s see if the rest of the article (or future articles) support these statements being made in such an explicit way.
Speaking of EO 13961 they go on to make a statement regarding this EO as ‘a continuation of the COG that Bush initiated in 2001’. I think this may be poorly worded as I don’t think the intent is to express that EO 13961’s purpose was literally to issue or declare a continuance of Bush era COG plans but rather the implication is that COG was active and that EO 13961 was adjusting current COG plans and policies to restructure the active state of COG.
They further clarify the history of Presidential documents such as EO 13961 that address COG plans by providing a history (bloodline) of prior such documents:
Here is the “bloodline” of Executive Order 13961:
1955- NSC 5521, Revised by:
1962- NSAM 127 & NSAM 166, Revised by:
1969- NSDM 8, Revised by:
1973- NSDM 201, Revised by:
1980- PD 58, Revised by:
1982- NSDD 47 & NSDD 55, Revised by:
1988- EO 12656, Revised by:
1990- NSD 37, Revised by:
1992- NSD 69, Replaced by:
1998- PDD 67 (The one that Bush enacted in 2001), Replaced by:
2007- NSPD 51 (assigned sole power to the Executive branch), Replaced by:
2016- PPD 40, Revised by:
2017- FCD 1 & 2, In alignment with:
2020- EO 13961 & Federal Mission Resilience Strategy
I highly recommend researching each of these documents, however, be forewarned not all of them are publicly available and some can be rather lengthy. I may revisit these documents in the future and provide some of my own analysis and research on these documents.
Now that we’ve seen this ‘bloodline’, I want to revisit a statement made in one of the images above:
Since 2001, executive orders have been issued by every single administration to detail their structure for COG.
I want to call attention to this statement as the way it reads seems to suggest one of two things. 1) They inaccurately stated ‘executive orders’ but more broadly meant Presidential documents - as it is true that each subsequent administration (Bush, Obama, Trump) issued documents related to COG policy but only EO 13961 was by definition an executive order. 2) They’re referring to other executive orders issued by the Bush & Obama administrations that are not included in their bloodline.
I tend to lean toward #1 being the more likely case but we’ll need to dig for other EO’s from the Bush & Obama administrations to make a better conclusion.
Brownlow Committee
This next segment of the article revisits the Brownlow Committee and their findings that lead to the creation of the EOP through the Reorganization Act of 1939 and it’s five subsequent Reorganization Plans - links to these will be provided later.
Largely, this segment covers the impacts of the Reorganization Act and the continued history of expanding the agencies and departments within the EOP since. It provides a detailed list of all of the agencies too long to provide here.
One particular segment I’d like to call attention to can be seen here:
I’ve highlighted this particular statement as it claims the committee was quoted as recognizing potential abuses that could result from the very act they created. I actually interpret this quote differently. The quote mentions the commissions created ‘over the past 50 years’ and warns ‘that they threaten in time to become a headless fourth branch of government’.
Keep in mind that the Reorganization Act lead to exactly that, reorganizing the Executive Branch. It wouldn’t seem to make sense for the Brownlow Committee to warn against the very recommendations it’s suggesting be taken to restructure the Executive Branch. If so why bother recommending them at all?
Which is why I read this quote to warn against the very structure of the Executive Branch which was in place prior to the Reorganization Act as a result of the First & Second New Deals and their predecessors. Now perhaps my interpretation is incorrect here. I’m open to input that suggests 17SOG’s interpretation is more accurate.
While I may dispute whether the quote is aimed at the Reorganization Act, I do find it a bit ironic for the Brownlow Committee to be warning about the threat the previous organizational structure of the Executive Branch posed; Given the expansive numbers and power the Executive Branch holds today, which they helped create. This is a frequent theme in recent events - labeling your enemy as the very thing you represent.
Unsourced statements
Following the segment above the article makes some statements I’d like to review.
Stating that ‘the EOP was deliberately created to be outside of the constitution…’ strongly suggests intent. Now while it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there are or have been long standing plans to slowly corrupt and erode our constitutional form of government, stating that it was deliberate suggests evidence exists that indicates such. I’d like to have seen that cited and sourced. Or perhaps this is alluding to the potential misinterpretation of the Brownlow Committee quote I discussed previously.
Additionally they state:
What we have today is an EOP that exceeds 1,800 employees and an operating budget over $700 million dollars. The EOP exist with in the Executive branch which now consists of over 425 agencies and tens of thousands of unelected professional civil servants. This was planned and deliberate.
Perhaps these figures of employees, budgets and agencies are alluding to they screenshots provided within the article that detail all of the agencies and departments included in the EOP, but all the same I would have preferred to see cited links and sources to this information. Not that I necessarily question it’s authenticity.
Reagan Shadow Government
This segment touches upon some of the history surrounding the Iran Contra scandal of the Reagan administration and highlights how a ‘parallel government’ was involved.
This segment is chiefly well sourced and quoted and gives historical context to how this scandal directly made mention of individuals in the Executive Branch operating beyond the oversight of the President. It distinctly mentions Oliver North, Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfield, who will be mentioned again later.
Bush COG
This segment devotes itself to detailing the implementation of COG plans in response to the 9/11 attacks during the Bush administration.
While this statement directly mentions Devolution, and could perhaps be better worded, the intent seems only to be to distinctly differentiate each theory’s perspective on the matter of the by whom and when COG was activated.
As we continue with the article, following the statement above, we are provided a few quotes and excerpts from The 9/11 Plan by Paul Schreyer as well as a few additional links and sources. All of which indicate that COG plans were initiated on the day of 9/11/2001.
I’m glad to see 17SOG suggesting the audience do their own research - in the first highlighted statement - and I don’t believe this is the only time they’ve done so. I strongly agree with the suggestion. The objective remember is to… Trust, but verify.
The red highlighted portion, again, mentions ‘COG executive orders’, and as I’ve previously suggested, I think this may be misstated and should rather say something like ‘Presidential documents’ as not all COG related documents are EOs.
I’ve highlighted the last sentence of the section only because I would have preferred a link to the proclamation since we’re suggesting the audience do their own research.
As the article continues, a multitude of screenshots are provided (which aren’t shown here for brevity) that primarily indicate:
Upwards of 30 National Emergencies are currently in effect
One of which is Proclamation 7463 (9/11 Terrorism Emergency)
Proclamation 7463 has been extended every year by every President since
The image above shows statements I want to bring attention to that in general state:
Continuing to extend Proclamation 7463 allows COG to be used at any time
States of emergency suspend the constitution and grant special powers
The first statement seems to represent a central foundation to the Reconstitution series supposition that COG has been active for 20+ years. It indicates that COG can either be continued (remain active) or be initiated at any time so long as the state of emergency (Proclamation 7643) remains active. As this is so ingrained in the nucleus of their prospective theory, this should be adequately sourced & cited to show why they believe COG can be used in this way, whilst the emergency remains active. Yet… to this point in the series I’ve not seen any sourced materials to support this claim.
The second statement should also have supporting evidence or cite sources. While I feel, that to some extent, this may be fairly widely accepted knowledge - that emergencies allow expansive powers and may ‘suspend the constitution’ - this idea is also a core foundation to the hypothesis and should be sufficiently supported.
After some brief segments regarding the signing of the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - which FEMA would now fall under - we are shown some quotes from an Asia Pacific article:
These quotes and other materials provided in this article support the claim that COG was in fact initiated in response to 9/11. These quotes also bring attention to a key player previously mentioned during the segment regarding Iran Contra… Dick Cheney.
These quotes immediately precede the closing paragraphs of the article which state:
Now while it’s incredibly reasonable to be cautiously concerned about potential for abuse of governmental power by the means mentioned above, and the series thus far has dedicated some efforts to explaining this ‘trifecta’ of means; It is still declarative and bold to state ‘we know what was really happening’.
I think rather we have a picture of how the potential for abuse and expanding powers in these three areas all point to a possibility which would be foolish to ignore. A possibility that runs core to their perspective. A possibility that plans have long been in place to expand executive authority, erode or otherwise circumvent constitutional check & balances, and implement plans under the guise of emergency powers that create a perfect storm for a few select tyrants to seize control of a nation.
Now do ‘we know what was really happening’? I certainly don’t yet, and I’m sure very few are even in such a position to make such a statement. Perhaps as the series continues we’ll discover more information that makes these claims seem less bold and more true.
Cognitive Analysis
In summation, as we conclude the review of the first few parts of the Reconstitution series, I feel there are some areas where it really excels and others where I hope to see some improvements or more supporting materials in the remainder of the series.
What the series does well
Engages the reader and leaves you in anticipation for more
Sets the stage for their hypothesis through well written narratives
Distinctly identifies how their conclusions differ from Devolution theory
Suggests readers engage in continued research on the topic
Supports some of their claims early on through sourced material regarding:
COG being activated in response to 9/11
The history and roles of the CIC & EOP
The history and creation of military groups after Operation Eagle Claw
Providing a historical lineage (bloodline) of COG documents
Detailing how COG or parallel government was involved in Iran Contra
What could stand to be improved
The series, thus far, has frequently made bold and declarative statements that leave little to no room for flexible interpretations
What [DJT] actually did…
It was never about Trump maintaining… control
facts, not conjecture… with documented proof
but we know what was really happening…
[these] plans… have never been rescinded. To suggest otherwise is patently false…
Certain aspects and core statements could use more (or any) source materials to support them
With the extension of emergencies the Continuity of Government plans that resulted from 9/11 can still be used at any time.
Continuous states of emergencies… suspend the constitution and grant enormous and special powers to the executive branch.
the EOP was deliberately created to be outside of the constitution…
Some statements could have been more clearly written. Especially so as not to be misinterpreted by proponents of the Devolution series as slights against it.
What could use some clarity
I called out some references to ‘Executive Orders’ which I think may have been misstated and likely more broadly refer to various Presidential document types
Interpretation of the Brownlow Committee quote. I take this quote to be critical of the current organizational form of the Executive Branch at the current day of the quote, which resulted from the New Deal and others.
Additional Resources/Links to provide
Here are some additional links I obtained during my own research - some of which are provided above - which may help support further research into these topics:
Encyclopedia entry about The Reorganization Act *
Encyclopedia entry about The New Deal *
* these links relate to my interpretation that the Brownlow comments are made regarding The New Deal era of Executive Branch structure
General Conclusion
Overall, what we’ve read and reviewed of the series thus far is engaging and presents some intriguing new perspectives on COG and how it may be an active tool being utilized by our government currently. While it does make some rather strong statements at times - some of which have yet to be sufficiently supported - it’s still early in the series and I find it likely that some of this is for dramatic effect to gain interest.
The series has admittedly made me consider new information that may lead to new perspectives on the matter and I strongly align with the authors pleas to the audience to engage in further research or verification of their own.
I look forward to continuing to analyze this series and hope you’re just as interested & engaged as I am as we continue to apply scrutiny and cognitive discipline in order to:
Trust, but verify!
If you’ve enjoyed this article and series thus far please feel free to share, subscribe and comment!
My writings will be available at no cost, but if you feel the research & writings are engaging enough to warrant a paid subscription it would be gladly welcomed.
Trump, like the conquerors of old, did something ****crazy****. To find that ***crazy** thing he did to upset the balance we have to follow these trails back to the source and realize that things that should NOT be used together have been used together to solve the problem. Trump has, in effect, "crossed the streams" to use a Ghostbusters reference. The question is what those streams are. This kind of examination is a good first step to finding that out. Bravo.
This is a great analysis fren!!!