Outpost of Freedom blog

Burns Chronicles N^o 28
Public Trial
Mistrial? What stinking Mistrial?

Judge Anna Brown

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 19, 2016

A rather interesting what, and from a lay standpoint unjust, occurrence, happened both in the paper chase (at this point, nearly 1300 docket entries) and in the courtroom. It had to do with the testimony of the government’s first witness, Harney County Sheriff David Ward. It was a Motion for Mistrial.

An interesting note on the Motion is that we obtained a copy shortly before it was “SEALED”. This led to the admonishment that is addressed below.

It all began on the 2nd day of the trial (Wednesday, September 14), during cross-examination by Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Marcus R. Mumford is questioning Sheriff Ward.  Here are excerpts from the Motion, taken from the rough-draft transcripts:

Q.  And you had conducted some investigation, into Bunkerville?

A.  I had.

Q.  And did that investigation come – that was in the process of those meetings that you had with the U.S. attorney, and the FBI?

A.  I had – I had gone on to the Internet and googled it, it’s amazing what you can find on there.

I found videos from the things that happened at Bunkerville. I – I looked at a lot of different – lot of different things that happened, throughout that incident. And the thought that have happening in my community scared the hell out of me, where I saw armed people lined up on both sides, advancing, you know, with – with one side advancing against another.

I had learned some of unstable people who had left that situation, and killed two police officers, while they were eating lunch in a restaurant.

I think that there are – there are a lot of circumstances I was attempting to avoid in my community, sir.

Then, Mumford asked that some of Ward’s testimony be stricken:

MUMFORD: Your Honor, I would move to strike that.

THE COURT: Move to strike what, sir?

MUMFORD: The nonresponsive part of the –

THE COURT: I don’t know what you identify as nonresponsive.

The answer seemed responsive to your question, so be specific.

MUMFORD: Okay. Well – I think it was a yes-or-no question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there another objection?

Mumford, failing to make any progress, is simply abandoned by Judge Brown. However, Ryan Bundy, acting pro se (representing himself), jumps in, once the Judge recognizes that he, too, has an objection.

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Yes, my objection, your Honor, hearsay, there, it alludes to events that were not necessarily related to – to the situation.

THE COURT: The court reporter is not hearing you, Mr. Bundy, because of your microphone not being on.

Would you –

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: The mic is on.

THE COURT: Let’s try again. The court reporter wasn’t hearing, would you please restate your objection?

DEFENDANT RYAN BUNDY: Yes, hearsay.

He’s tying in persons that were not involved it (pause, conferring.)

Prejudicial, I change that to prejudicial.

About the folks supposedly killing people that were not associated with us.

THE COURT: Jurors, I’m going to ask you to disregard the witness’s references to events that occurred in Nevada that had to do with the police officers being killed, and whether they were or weren’t associated with Bunkerville.

The answer generally was responsive, in that it reflected the witness’s state of mind, but you’re not to consider that particular part of his answer in any part of your consideration of this evidence.

Now, the transcript is a “rough-draft transcript”, and we are told that there was an Order made by the Judge, referencing “Court’s Sealed Order 1141”. Then, she goes on to admonish Mumford for using quotes from the “rough-draft transcript” in his Motion.

. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 28 – Public Trial – Mistrial? – What stinking Mistrial?’ »

Liberty or Laws?

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself”

Does the Fifth Amendment Stop at Miranda?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 6, 2016

The principle element in this discussion is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The provision that is of concern is, “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  And, we must begin by understanding that, as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says,

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Clearly, the Fifth Amendment, then, is a prohibition against the government, “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government’s] powers”

To understand the role of the Supreme Court, at least for nearly the past century, we need to review what Justice Brandeis explained in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), in which he explained the “rules” that the Court had adopted to avoid “passing upon a large part of all constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.”  (See About Ashwander v. TVA)

The pertinent rules from that decision are:

2.  The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it… ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless necessary to a decision of the case…

3.  The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied….

4.  The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.

7.  ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided…

To summarize the pertinent rules:

• The Court will not decide on the constitutionality, unless absolutely necessary – rules 2 & 4.
• When the Court does rule on the constitutionality, that ruling will be as narrow as possible – rule 3.
• The Court will, whenever possible, rule on statutory construction to avoid ruling on constitutionality – rule 7.

Now with this in mind, they won’t rule on the constitutionality, unless necessary, and if they do rule on constitutionality, they will make that ruling as narrow as possible.  We will look at a Supreme Court decision that we are all familiar with, Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

In Miranda, which requires that law enforcement officers notice the person being investigated for possible criminal activity be advised that he have the right to refuse to talk and to have an attorney present.  However, in keeping with Ashwander rule #7, the ruling deals only with those in custody.

So, the question arises, why would one’s right only apply to when one is in custody (they narrow ruling)?  If one the right to not incriminate oneself, “to be a witness against himself”, would that not apply once suspicion was raised against him, or does it only apply after he is in custody?.  Wouldn’t it really be a prohibition against government, both before and after one was in custody?

If a law enforcement office, in uniform or plain clothes, with the intent of trying to elicit a confession, or information that would incriminate someone, while in custody, was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and confirmed by the Supreme Court, then why would we assume that that prohibition did not also extend to when one was under suspicion?  After all, when one is under suspicion, the law enforcers are just a small step away from putting someone in custody.  Why would that prohibition only come into play when the actual act of custody was implemented?  Is it possible that those who ratified the Amendment intended for that form of chicanery to be acceptable?  Or, was their intention to prohibit divisive means of acquiring incriminating evidence in apparent conflict with the wording of the Amendment?

Now, we need to visit a little historical background to carry the ramifications of the intent into an understanding of changes in practices between the Eighteenth Century and modern law enforcement, to put a proper perspective on how the intent of the Amendment is circumvented.

In the Eighteenth Century, spying, intelligence gathering, and other such undercover work was carried out in higher levels of government, only.  The consequence for being caught practicing such infamy was death.  Consequently, those willing to lay their lives on the line for the greater cause of national politics carried out such work.  The idea of spying on their own citizens was out of the question.  After all, it is the job of any decent government to protect its citizens, not to treat them as they would an enemy.  The idea that such practices could be used in the lower elements of society, in pursuit of criminals rather than state secrets or wartime intelligence, was not a practice, as honor was conscientiously upheld.  To deceive alleged criminals would be to stoop to the level of criminals. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws? – “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”’ »

Escalation & Fear : Fear & Escalation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 19, 2016   [Originally posted April 27, 1995]

[Note: This is a repost of an article that was published (fax network) shortly after the Oklahoma City Bombing.]

An unknown “bomber” exploded a bomb at the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. More than likely, if the act was performed by someone with a profound belief in our Constitution, the event was an escalation as a result of what occurred in Waco, Texas, just two years ago.

If we look at what might have caused this escalation, it is easy to understand that an absolute denial of justice was the cause. It was not the actions of the FBI and the BATF that resulted in this bomb being exploded, it was that evidence was presented to a Grand Jury, and indictments sought by the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. The objective was to bring to task those guilty of crimes in Waco. Of course, a determination was made prior to the Grand Jury as to whom the indictments would be sought against. The failure of justice was that the Grand Jury was never offered the opportunity to evaluate the actions of government and determine if indictments should be brought against the agents involved in the murder of the church members at Mt. Carmel Center. A predetermination was made that took from the citizens of the country the primary method of control of government — the subjecting of the actions of government to the scrutiny of the people. Continue reading ‘Escalation & Fear : Fear & Escalation’ »

The Bundy Affair – #13
“Gold Butte Impound”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 10, 2016

We are all aware of the events that occurred two years ago, resulting in the recent arrest of 19 people, based upon the government’s allegation of events.  However, what we know is based upon Mainstream Media (MSM), as well as observations by various patriots, of those events.  What we have yet to see is what the government’s side of the story is, at least from the planning of the operation.

The picture, above, is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planner/artist conception of what the BLM base camp would look like.  It is taken from the cover of the Twenty Page “Gold Butte Impound – Incident Action Plan- April 5, 2014” (Plan).

The Plan was implemented on April 5, just one week before American patriots “unrustled” the cattle that had been rustled by the BLM, according to their Plan.  What is even more interesting is the amount of resources the government opted to commit, in order to steal the Bundy cattle.

In the past, a dozen men could handle and drive a herd of cattle to the railhead, many hundreds of miles away.  Now, if it were rustlers, attempting to steal cattle (yes, steal cattle, in violation of state laws (see “Violence Begets Non-Violence”), could probably handle the task with half a dozen to a dozen men.  However, the Plan eloquently demonstrates the inefficiency of government.  They have allotted 26 office personnel, 21 contractors, and 195 agents to rustle a few hundred cattle.  That’s right, about 242 people, primarily from BLM and National Park Service, who were tasked with this project.  Just imagine what the cost of the operation might be, if they had sold the cattle, they probably could not be able cover the cost of more than a couple of days of the operation.  But, then, who has ever expected the government to be efficient?

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #13 – “Gold Butte Impound”’ »

The Bundy Affair – #12
Dave Bundy’s Two Citations

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 9, 2016

As mentioned in “Violence Begets Non-Violence”, Dave Bundy was arrested, taken to Las Vegas, spent the night, never saw a judge, and was cited for Failure to Disperse and Resisting Arrest. Then, he was released onto the streets of Las Vegas, over 80 miles from the Ranch, with no cash in his pocket. At the time that article was written, I was waiting on copies of the citations, to see what light they might shed on the incident. So, now we have the citations, and there are some interesting aspects to them.

First, in the “Place of Offense” box, both citations say “BLM lands on or near SR 170”. Now, if it was on SR 170, it is a state road, so we must wonder where the BLM presumes it has jurisdiction.  I haven’t contacted the Nevada Department of Transportation to determine the actual Right-of-Way (R/W) width of SR 170, however, in measuring the width between fence lines along the roadway, it appears that the R/W width is 66 feet (a common width for older roads). The pavement measures about 26 feet. So there is State Road R/W for about 20 feet off of the edge of the pavement. If Dave was “on” or “near” the State Road, he was probably on state land, not on federal land. So, we must wonder why the BLM can presume to have jurisdiction, first to tell anybody on the road to “Disperse”, and second, to presume the authority to arrest them.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #12 – Dave Bundy’s Two Citations’ »

The Bundy Affair – #11

“Violence Begets Non-Violence”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2016

It was on April 12, 2014, when mostly unarmed supporters gathered at the Toequap (Toquop) Wash, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, between Exits 112 and 120 on Interstate Highway 15, stood down the federal government with regard to cattle been “impounded”, readied for transport, or killed.  However, since the government has brought the matter up, again, we may want to revisit some of the incidents and circumstances that led to the Unrustling of cattle by these supporters of the original American Way of Life.

It was April 6, 2014, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, when Dave Bundy had stopped to take pictures of the 20, or so, vehicles coming off a road from Gold Butte Mountain.  It was rather odd to see so many vehicles in that location, so Dave had decided to record the event.

Other Bundy relatives were present and reported seeing four snipers, one of them about 30 feet away from Arden Bundy.

The men in the vehicle convoy stopped, exited, donned tactical gear (pictured above) and told those present to “disperse immediately”.  The other Bundys began to disperse, or remained in the vehicles to watch what was transpiring, however, Dave continued taking pictures.  Understand that Dave, and the others, were on a public road, simply wondering about, and recording, what was going on.

1. As Dave continued, some armed men approached Dave, grabbing him and throwing him to the ground, then rubbed his face in the gravel as they handcuffed him.  He was then placed in one of the vehicles and they headed toward Henderson, Nevada.  One of the government players, Lisa Wilson (Load/Hold Team, one of the Rustler’s teams, (775) 229-2722, see Government Agents at the Bundy Ranch) began to question/ interrogate Dave, who refused to provide any meaningful answers, as he had done nothing more than take pictures from a public road.

Continue reading ‘The Bundy Affair – #11 – “Violence Begets Non-Violence”’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 16
Ambush – Part 3
As Told and Retold by Government Witnesses

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 27, 2016

On February 18, 2016, the Tri-County Major Incident Team released a report prepared, primarily, by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office.  The publically available version consists of 360 pages, though the page numbering indicates that the entire report consists of at least 714 pages.  The officers involved are identified by assigned numbers, to protect their identity.  There are heavy redactions of experience of officers and substantial portions of their interviews.  References shown thus, {nn}, indicate PDF page numbers from the above linked document.

This article will point out discrepancies, disparities, and other portions that raise a question as to the objectivity of the published version of the report.  The document explains that when they do the interviews, they can use the names of the other officers or personnel, though those names will be replaced by numbers in the documentation.  So, when they speak of “Office #1”, we have no idea who he is, but the numbers remain constant for the various players, throughout.  There will be a distinction between “Officer #4” “DCSO 4”, the latter being on the investigation team, the former being an officer involved from Oregon State Police (OSP).  Italics will be used for direct quotes from the report.

The Cast – All Oregon State Police Officers and present at shooting scene:

Officer #1      Fired two rapid fire rounds into LaVoy’s back, first shooter; also fired three rounds at truck as it approached the roadblock

Officer #2      Fired one round into LaVoy’s back, was second shooter

Officer #3      Officer with taser, approaches LaVoy from tree line

Officer #4      Drove Gray truck

Officer #5      Non-lethal (40mm) single round

Officer #6      Driver of Root Beer Truck (Lead Vehicle)

Officer #7      Non-lethal (40mm) multi-launcher – 6 rounds

Officer #8      Second OSP in Root Beer Truck

Note: Interviews will be presented in the order that they appear in the Report.

Note that all vehicles, OSP and FBI, were unmarked. Dress was “civies” in Burns, change to tactical gear on deployment to US 395. Deployment was staggered to avoid scrutiny by militia. Radio communication was different between FBI and OSP, requiring mixed partnering in vehicles to share communications. There was apprehension that the militia in Burns would respond, if open communication were used. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 16 – Ambush – Part 3 – As Told and Retold by Government Witnesses’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 14
Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 20, 2016

Sorry about the play on words, however, in looking for a title for this article, it seemed appropriate to choose the rooster instead of the chicken, as the rooster has a specific role in the relationship.  The egg, however, is a birth, a creation of something new — that will continue to grow, eventually replacing both the rooster and the chicken, in the scheme of things.

Perhaps a few words from the Father of the Constitution might be appropriate:

[The government] can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.  This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together.  It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.  If it be asked, what is to restrain the [Government] from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the [Government], as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

James Madison, Federalist No. 57

Now, the original, and then only, charge against those in Oregon that participated in the opening of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to the public, was 18 US Code § 372.  This law was first enacted during the Civil War.  It was the 1st Session of the 37th Congress Lincoln had already called for 75,000 and suspended habeas corpus {page 1 of pdf}, before the law was enacted.

The law was first introduced on July 17, 1861 {2}, just over three months after the war had begun), and:

“provides that if five or more persons within any State or Territory shall conspire together to overthrow, Or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States; or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay, the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States, against the will, or contrary to the authority of the United States, or by force, or intimidation, or threat, to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office of trust, or place of confidence, under the United States, each and every person so offending shall be guilty of a high crime.”

The act was supported by Mr. Trumbull {7} when he provides a couple of examples in which this law, being far short of Treason, is to punish those who have committed specific acts against officers of the government.  In one example, he speaks of a case in Missouri where “a number of persons, by threats of violence and intimidation, prevented a postmaster from performing the duties of his office.”  He provides another, more general, example, of “route agents” were deterred from performing their duties.

In both instances, there was a “victim”, either the “postmaster” or a “route agent”, and there were specific acts that kept them from their duties. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 14 – Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 13
Ambush – Part 2
“We Feared for Somebody’s Life”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 14, 2016

Just over 246 years ago, on March 5, 1770, eight British Soldiers shot and killed four colonists.  They and their Captain stood trial, even though they were the property of the King.  All stood trial, even though only two were found guilty of manslaughter.  The people, in a jury trial, determined who was innocent, and who was not.  That is the judicial system we were supposed to have inherited from our British ancestors.  The Revolutionary War may have started even earlier, had not these simple rules of justice been applied — had the King decided that his forces would be judged by the King, or his appointee, rather than by the people.

An overview of the events that led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum was presented in a previous article, “Ambush“.  However, as a result of a press conference given in Bend, Oregon, on March 8, 2016, we have more detail to fill in some gaps in that previous article.  It is worthy of note that the detail is provided by Shawna Cox, one of the victims (Shawna Cox’s video synchronized with aerial footage, complete).  This article will address primarily the information given out at that press conference.

As we continue, you will note the extent of preparation for the event that was planned, probably as much as a week before the date of execution. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 13 – Ambush – Part 2 – “We Feared for Somebody’s Life”’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 9
Civil Defiance or Submission?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 18, 2016

“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass, could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787) [North Carolina Supreme Court]

The unfortunate circumstances of January 26, 2016, which resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Brian Cavalier was a blow to an effort to expose the dishonesty of the federal government in its pursuit of acquiring land belonging to ranchers in Oregon.

In fact, the story behind what happened in Burns, Oregon actually goes much further. It had begun to show the underbelly of the beast we call the US government, its failure in obedience to the Constitution, the very document that created it, and its failure to abide by established judicial “due process of law”. Perhaps most significant is its absolute disregard for human life, and especially so if that life is of one who believes in the Constitution.

Now, many have said that what was happening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was of no concern to them. Some have said, “We (the militia) are here to protect our state. What happens in Oregon is not our concern.” And, they are right, but only to an extent.

In the hours that followed the events at Lexington Green and Concord, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Militia from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, marched on dirt roads to come to the aid of those from another colony. Within days, many more colonies had sent their forces to join those surrounding Boston. Of course, it was not their concern, though they did realize what had happened in Massachusetts would, eventfully, happen in their own backyards.

Many have stated that their greatest concern is that the government will come to take their guns, and that will be the time to act. However, they fail to respond to the slow and meticulous erosion of the Second Amendment, constantly progressing, bit by bit. But, they still have their guns, so there is nothing to worry about.

However, just a week after the Indictments were issued in Oregon, a Grand Jury in Nevada issued Indictments against five people who were involved in events at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada, in April 2014, nearly two years prior.

Both acts, Nevada and Oregon, were acts of Civil Defiance. Let’s be clear about that term. Civil Disobedience is a term applicable to participating in something that might result in ones arrest, or perhaps being assaulted by law enforcement. These activities are conducted with the hope of political change. They are, at best, inconveniences.

Civil Defiance, however, is an act in real defiance against unlawful authority. Whether firearms are used actively, or passively, there is no doubt that Civil Defiance has the possibility for not just incarceration, but death.

During the Bundy Ranch affair, hundreds of armed patriots stood defiant against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and contractors who were trying to arrest cattle for grazing on public lands. The patriot weapons were simply for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. BLM was the aggressor, with force of arms and a “judge’s edict”.

In Oregon, once again, the patriots’ arms were for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. There is no instance of those at the Refuge, or away from the Refuge, ever threatening or intimidating anyone. In fact, they had a policy to let anyone venture into the occupied area, without threat, or harm. Their arms were for self-defense.

The government, in this instance, under the control of the FBI, was the aggressor, however, unlike Nevada, the aggressor chose to shoot and kill LaVoy Finicum. As can be clearly seen in the aerial footage, Mr. Finicum never had a gun in his hand. He was lured into an ambush and shot. He had no opportunity to defend himself, even if he had been armed. Quite simply, the government that he was exposing murdered him.

So, let’s put a little perspective on things. Whether you are in Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, or elsewhere, what you have been reading about is your future, as much as those who have been directly affected by those events. To “reason” that “it didn’t happen to me” is both acceptance of the legitimacy of the government’s proven practice, and submission to it. When it finally gets to you, those who had more courage than you, have already been taken by the forces of government, either to prison, or to the cemetery.

If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted, and you can clearly see your own future.

I was asked the question “Is there anything that we can do about this?” After some thought, I realized that the Indictment from Nevada was a message that the government is in the process of taking control. This raises the question as to whether we can back them down. If more of us begin standing up by occupying federally owned facilities, like the Refuge, or by taking other inspired actions, can we demonstrate that we are not backing down; that we are not willing to Submit to their unconstitutional activities, and that we will retaliate, as they have, by expanding our efforts in response to every unlawful or unconstitutional act committed by the government?

“In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775