Posts tagged ‘factions’

Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?

Can Muslims fit into our society?
Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2014

 The question is rather simple, though the answer may be a bit more complex. However, with the current situation, both here and in Europe, an answer must be sought. If not, we have no means of understanding the severity of the problem, nor can we formulate a solution to the problem.

My observation has been that the “Moderate Muslims” allege that they do not support the “Radical Muslims”. Perhaps not overtly, however, if you listen, they never really create any distance. On the other hand, the “Radical Muslims” are killing some “Moderate Muslims”, but, then, there is justification to what they do, and we will discuss that, shortly.

What we don’t see is the Moderates endeavoring to impose sanctions, or even criticize, the Radicals. The extent of their interposition in the discussion is to claim that all Muslims should not be looked upon as Radical, while vociferously defending their “peaceful” position in the matter. They don’t want to be involved in a solution, and suggest that we have no right to judge them — we can only go after those who have proven to be Radical. They have distanced themselves and desire that we deal with the problem, even though the problem is with their religion. And, our government willingly defends that position, making us “own” the Muslim problem, though distancing themselves from any solution, except the government solution of violence in the Middle-East. They won’t even consider profiling Muslims as potential threats in this country.

As I understand Islam, there are a number of sects, as there are in Christianity. The largest sect appears to be the Sunni Muslims, so if we want a model to evaluate, the Sunni is the most logical subject.

In May 2013, there was a conference held by Sunni Muslims in Scandinavia. One of the subjects was Islamophobia, and that is exactly where we want to go. Below, you will find a link to the excerpted portion of a talk by one of the speakers, Fahah Ullah Quereshi. To make clear the point that is to be made, we have transcribed that portion of Quereshis’ talk that is pertinent, and demonstrative of the point that is to be made.

Note: The entire YouTube video of “It’s Not the “Radical Shaykh” it’s Islam” (6:39), by Fahah Ullah Quereshi
The transcribed portion (3:22) (Emphasis in red text is pertinent parts)

[begin transcription]

Quereshi: Can we have the camera focusing on all the audience there? Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they always come with the same accusations – “This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports death penalty for this crime or that crime, or that he is homophobic, they subjugate women,” etc. etc. etc. It’s the same old stuff coming all the time, and I always try to tell them that, “Look, it’s not that speaker in that writing who has these extreme radical views, as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has, every Muslim believes in these things, just because they are not telling you about it, just because they are not out in the media does not mean they don’t believe in them.”

So I will ask you, everyone in the room, how many of you are normal Muslims, you are not extremists, you are not radical, you are just normal Sunni Muslims, please raise your hands?

[most of the room raises their hands]

Everybody, masha’Allah, Subhan Allah. Ok, take down your hands again. How many of you agree that men and women should sit separate? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Everyone agree, brothers & sister, subhan Allah. It’s not just this “radical shaykh” then, Allahu Akbar. Next question – how many of you agree that the punishments described in the Quaran and the Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it is, if it is from Allah and His Messenger, that is the best punishment possible for humankind and that is what we should apply in the world? Who agrees with that?

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row & a different man in the fifth row, raises their hands]  

Allahu Akbar! Are you all radical extremists? Subhan Allah. So, all of you are saying you are common Muslims, you all go to the different mosques. Are you a specific sect? Please raise your hand if you belong to an extreme sect.

[no one raises their hand]

No one, allahu akbar. How many of you just go to the mosques just to a normal Sunni mosque? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Allahu akbar! So, what is the politicians going to say now? What is the media going to say now? That we are all extremists? We’re all radicals? We need to deport all of us from this country? Subhan allah. Allahu akbar! Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: May we have the next question, please?

[end transcription]

Though he only gets specific concerning women sitting apart from men, in his next question, he incorporates the penalties imposed by the “Quaran”; death, stoning, etc. So, though he only mentioned the one crime and referred to adultery, he is completely inclusive of all crimes listed in the “Quaran” and the “Sunnah”. That would include the loss of a limb for theft, beheading for other crimes, anything that is written would have the appropriate penalty — regardless of the law of any country in which those crimes might occur, and where the penalty is dispensed.

Now, back to the original question, Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”? Well, he provides the answer in the very next question, when he asks if anyone present belongs to an extremist sect. No hands are raised, so none of the attendees — those who agree with the punishments provided for by Islam — is a member of an “extremist sect”. Yet they have agreed that they hold to values that are extreme in our country and culture.

What we can easily conclude form the above is that though they do not consider themselves to be “extreme”, there can be little doubt that when they bring their ideology to our country, our legal system, and our culture, they are nothing but “extreme”.

Organizational Plan for Militia Response

Organizational Plan for Militia Response


Prepared by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom

Additional input by Joe Martino, author of “Resistance to Tyranny” (jm)

Date of this version, April 29, 2014

 This will be updated as additional input is provided or changes are required.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Organizational Plan for Militia Response

 

Introduction

Based upon contributed after action reports from some who attended the Bundy Ranch Affair, and with discussions with the Militia Liaison at the Ranch, the following has been prepared to provide assistance to those who venture into harm’s way in subsequent events.

Lessons were learned, though through the Hand of Providence, nothing occurred that jeopardized the defense of the Bundys, their ranch and property.

The week prior to the Cattle Unrustling, on Saturday April 12, 2014, had its difficulties, all of which were surmounted. After that day, some command problems arose, and were quickly resolved by agreement with all the parties thereto. The concept of “shared command”, based upon Councils of War, prevalent in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, were adopted for the purpose of diversifying command and creating a coordinated effort.

In the future, as events unfold, we may arrive at a point where a command structure, based upon performance of someone who has truly demonstrated his abilities, in conflict as well as in peace, may ascend to the position we have learned to understand as “supreme commander”. Until that time, we must wait and watch, trusting that someone will demonstrate his abilities to take that position. Until that time, we should be able to successfully defend our rights and Constitution, in an organized manner, as outlined herein.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Initiation of Plan

This plan will be initiated upon acknowledgment, by any participating units or individuals, based upon their recognition of a need to respond to a situation to which they have been apprised.

The person requesting a response from militia must be the individual, or group, expecting imminent attack by Government Thugs (GT), or a clearly authorized representative thereof.

The requesting party will be known as the Host. Once a request is responded to, a liaison will be established between the host and the militia units, subject to the approval of the Host. From this point on, the Host will not be involved in strategic discussions, though he can object to any decision regarding issues that do not compromise the safety and security of the on ground personnel.

As soon as possible, when personnel become available, a Press Liaison will be established. Like the Militia Liaison, the Press Liaison will be the only contact with the Host, with regard to their respective areas of responsibility.

All liaisons are subject to acceptance by the Host, who can request, from the Defense Coordination Council, the replacement of a liaison, subject to the approval of the Council.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Militia Structure and Command

Defense Coordination Council

The Defense Coordination Council will be comprised of:

  • Company Commanders, as elected by the Militia Companies
  • The Militia Liaison.

Each will have a vote in any decisions made.

Advisory members to the Defense Coordination Council will include the Press Liaison and the leader or designated representative (with written authorization of the leader) of patriotic organizations, provided that members of those organizations are responding to the call. This will not apply to militia units, who will participate only through their Company Commander. Advisory members may participate in discussion, but shall have no vote. Any threat of withdrawal or act of intimidation by any advisory member will be cause for his immediate removal from the Defense Coordination Council.

 

Militia Companies

Militia units arriving on scene, will sign in with the Militia Liaison. The militia unit leader will sign in with:

  • Name
  • Unit identification
  • Number of individuals in the unit
  • Basic armament
  • Qualification of personnel.

Independent militia members will sign in with the Militia Liaison with their name, home location, armament, and qualifications.

The Militia Liaison (until such time as the Defense Coordination Council is established) will assign units to alphabetically defined companies.

Ideally, Companies will be comprised of between 50 and 100 individuals, however, in smaller numbers, it is desirable to have at least 3 companies to provide for diversity on the Defense Coordination Council. Companies will be supplemented by additional volunteer units until the minimum of 50 members is achieved. Independent militia members will be assigned, likewise.

To avoid personality conflicts, any militia unit or individual can request from the Militia Liaison reassignment to another company, one time only. If that unit or individual requests reassignment to a specific company, it will be approved only if the receiving company approves the transfer. Otherwise, reassignment will be at the discretion of the Militia Liaison.

Once the requisite 50 member company is achieved, or the 3 company criteria met, an election will be held. Each individual within a company will have one vote to elect a Company Commander (to be rated as Captain), who will then become a voting member of the Defense Coordination Council. After said election, should the manpower of the company increase by 50% or more, a re-election may be called for by a majority of the members.

The Captain of any company may designate Lieutenants, within his command, as platoon leaders, subject to approval of the majority of those within the platoon. Platoons may be of any convenient size, and will take the role in the command structure as subordinate to the Captain.

Militia Company Designations:

Headquarters Company will be comprised of platoons identified as, and responsible for:

  • Administration
    A log of daily “incidents” will be kept. A daily tally of militia units and members present should be maintained. Arrange procedure and control of monetary donations, including disbursement. (jm)
  • Communication (within the militia structure).
    Allocate frequencies and call signs, and record all communications. Develop non-radio communications (runners or couriers) for secure communication, including receipted delivery. Daily newsletter informing members of current status, information of interest, etc. If rumors begin circulating, endeavor to identify source and quash by positive information. Source of rumor propagation should be the subject of a report to intelligence.       Arrange for ham radio communication with family of those without cell phones. Log all incoming and outgoing communications, to be a part of the final incident report.
    A wireless Local Area Network (LAN) should be established to facilitate communication, report filing, record keeping, and other necessary functions, and should be available to all volunteer personnel; secure (passworded) communications to be provided for official uses. (jm)
  • Logistics
    Establish communication with Press Liaison, to provide information regarding needed supplies, equipment, food, etc, and instructions for delivery. It will not be the responsibility of Logistics Platoon to communicate outside of camp for donations, unless an alternative is not available.       Arrange with Administration Platoon for funding necessary Purchase Requisitions. Determine distribution procedure for new volunteers and replacement (DX). Assure that material is available for camouflage purposes, as required by the Intelligence Platoon. Endeavor to keep minimum equipage to all volunteers on site. Upon completion of event, arrange for DCC or Administration Platoon to accept remaining equipment and supplies. (jm)
  • Intelligence
    Operatives from the covert company (explained below), as well as Operatives from this Platoon, are to determine what organizations are represented in the Opposition Force (OpFor), number of personal in each organization, equipage, armament, communications equipment and frequencies, call signs, and passwords used, if any. This information should be continually updated.
    Analysts will compile and evaluate the information obtained and provide reports to the DCC, daily, if not more frequently based upon information obtained between regular reports.
    Requisition and assure installation of camouflage and other protective measures to minimize information available to the OpFor utilizing drone surveillance techniques. Institute measures against infiltration and prepare reports of questionable participation in the Free Force (FreeFor) encampment. Maintain dossiers on all known participants of the OpFor and FreeFor personnel. Publish, for the use of guards, Company commanders, and other necessary personal, a loose-leaf binder with pictures and basic information of identified personnel of the OpFor, to be updated as additional identifications are made. Establish a protocol for protection of individual’s identities of the FreeFor personnel, to include license plates, photos sent, email messages to etc., based upon the needs determined by the DCC. (jm)
  • Mess
    Store and distribute rations.       Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) will probably be the primary source of food, though consideration should be made to provide for normal meals, where possible. At least one prepared hot meal should be provided per day. Occasional local purchases of meals, including Subway, Burger King, KFC, etc., may serve until equipment and supplies are readily available.
    A Mess area should be provided, with sanitization and washing facilities available. If necessary, nominal charges to personnel for meals as an interim until funding becomes available.
    Water sanitization (Lister Bags and other means) must be provided and continually replenished. (jm)
  • Medical
    Many militia units will not have doctors or medical personnel with them. Those who have should detach their personnel to the Medical Platoon, with the right to recall them for specific duties. Likewise, if a company without any medical personnel has a duty that warrants having medical support, they should be temporarily assigned for that duty. Primary medical facilities and supplies should be maintained in a central facility, and “medic bags” should be kept on hand for use of patrols or other situations where the availability of medical treatment is likely. Arrangements should be made to be able to transport, if conditions allow, seriously injured or those needing specialized medical treatment to existing public medical facilities.
    Small individual first-aid packets should be made available to all personal with field duties.
    Daily sick call should be held to deal with minor injuries or medical problems. (jm)

Remaining companies will be designated, sequentially, “A” thru “Z”

Ideally, assignments to these companies should be made with consideration to individual capabilities. For example:

  • Those equipped with sniper equipment and training should be, where possible, within a single company so that they can, depending on current Defense Coordination Council strategy, be within a single unit to develop tactics.
  • Those with special operations training should be included in a one, or more, specific units for special operations, based upon equipment and training.
  • Those more physically fit should assigned to companies that will have patrol duties.
  • Those with physical limitations should be assigned to Headquarters Company, unless special skills warrant assignment to a regular company.

Remaining companies, unless the Defense Coordination Council determines a need for other specialization, will be infantry companies. One example might be designated as Military Police (MP) Company.

 

Enrollment of Participants

Each person assigned to any militia unit, duty, or other capacity, who will have access to the bivouac area or within the defense perimeter, will be required to “Enroll for Temporary Service in the ______ Militia”. That enrollment will include an agreement to abide by officers of his designated company, or, if none, the Headquarters Company; he agrees that if ordered, by an act of the Defense Coordination Council, to remove himself from the premises, he will obey, or be subject to further discipline. All visitors falling outside of this description will be properly escorted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Press Liaison

The Press Liaison, and assistants, if necessary, will be the only contact between the volunteer forces and the press.

He will:

  • Work with the Host to develop answers to questions, in advance when possible, assuring consistency and positive structure in the responses.
  • Prepare press releases, addressing difficult or complex concerns, or frequently asked questions.
  • Aid in establishing authorized on-line web presence concerning the event, as the only source(s) of authorized information.
  • Review any releases submitted by any units or individuals within the volunteers for content and acceptability. He may censor such submittal so as not to compromise security, or from misleading or incorrect statements.
  • He will assist the Host in determining qualifications of those requesting interviews, and will assist, as necessary, in the preparations for any such interview.
  • He will establish an appointment calendar of scheduled interviews and maintain a log of all press events. (jm)
  • He will establish a Press Center for printing and distribution of Press Releases and other information, as well as a call center, to communicate with outside news source. Preferably, the host will provide such facilities. If impractical, then a van or trailer should be set up for such purpose. (jm)
  • He shall establish a camera corp to record events, OpFor activities and personnel, hostile’s actions, events within the command, and other activities, creating a photographic/video record of the event for the historical record. (jm)
  • He shall prepare an after action report, with the assistance of the DCC, at the conclusion of the event, to be distributed to militia units for instructional purposed, to be approved by the DCC prior to release. (jm)
  • Liaison with the Defense Coordination Council to disseminate requests for additional personnel (volunteers), so as to keep such requests under control and not exceed the ability to absorb an excessive influx, greater than can be handled.

General provision regarding media:

  • The Press Liaison position should be assigned to someone with news media and/or PR experience. (jm)
  • Each arriving unit should be instructed to refer all news media inquiries to the Press Liaison. Each arriving militia member will be given a card with a standard response to anticipated media questions, and they should refrain from making any statements that might be construed to represent the whole rather than their own personal convictions. They should direct all inquiries to the Press Liaison. (jm)
  • The official position is to be presented only by specifically assigned personnel.       (jm)

 

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014

In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.

From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.

Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.

At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.

I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?

The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.

Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.

Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.

Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18”) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.

Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?

The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?

Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.

Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.

So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.

First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.

The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.

Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.

Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.

Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.

Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.

 

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 24, 2014

Oathkeepers is a national organization founded by Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009. By 2011, they had a reported membership of 12,000, though no current membership figures are readily available. Their stated Purpose:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.

Interestingly, they say that they will not “conduct warrantless searches”, though those in law enforcement do so every day. But, then, that is not the point of discussing Oathkeepers, so, on with the story.

They declare that “THEY will not obey unconstitutional orders”. Otherwise, they did not explicitly state, since they refer to their “oaths”, that they will “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, though that is not their primary purpose, only incidental. Nowhere do they make that their purpose. Only not to obey unconstitutional orders. This needs to be emphasized as this is where the rubber meets the road.

Though we have no current numbers, the membership structure consists of both Full and Associate memberships, with Full being $40 per year and Associate being $7.00. Associates are supporters that don’t meet the criteria defined in the “Purpose”.

We must ask ourselves why Oathkeepers are even on the scene. They have taken an oath not to violate their oath. That is well and good, but let’s look at how that fits into the current situation. Oathkeepers (not associate Oathkeepers) are current, ex, or retired law enforcement, etc., and military. So, we’ll look, first, at Law Enforcement.

Active Law Enforcement are currently paid by the enemy (government), just as the Redcoats were 230 years ago. If they were on our side and acted in conjunction with Constitutional Militia, they would, in essence, be fighting themselves or their brother LEOs). They may still be on the side of their brothers. However, if you look at almost any state, Law Enforcement Officers are specifically excluded from the militia — check your own state statute under the militia section. So, on to ex-LEOs. This would presume that they did not get the time in for retirement, leaving the question as to, “Why?” Sort of reminds us of the guy charged with a crime and then the charges are, mysteriously, dropped; or, the guy that has an assignment that requires that he shed his Law Enforcement identity. Finally, we come to the Retired LEO. He is receiving a very substantial paycheck. Many larger cities have salaries for these full-term officers in excess of 100 thousand dollars per year. That would prove to be a tidy sum, which, surely, the retiree would not be willing to relinquish because he participated in an event that was an action against his brothers in Law Enforcement. We must judge based upon what we can use as a benchmark to measure the probability of actual concurrence with the efforts of the militia.

With regard to LEOs, since 1967, law enforcement training has focused on a “them or us” mentality. That means that though they are sworn to enforce the law, that policy is inapplicable if the offender is a brother law enforcer, except, perhaps, in extremely egregious circumstances, likely comprising a very small fraction of a percent of all LEO offenses. Will he ever be willing to disassociate himself from an aura of superiority that had become a mainstay of his life?

On the other hand, their disdain for the public safety, as demonstrated so often by “policy” of “Officer Safety” resulting in hundreds of killings per year of innocent, unarmed citizens. If an officer is involved in such incident, he gets administrative leave, with pay, pending investigation — yes, paid vacation, not taken from his contractual vacation time — for killing someone. If by some chance the victim’s family prevails in a lawsuit, then the taxpayers pay the damages and costs. What a deal! But, I digress, though that digression is also important to the story.

In addition, perhaps we should consider the proliferation of Fusion Centers, where various federal agencies interface with local law enforcement officers. Can we reasonably expect that there is not a degree of encouragement for the locals to infiltrate, or at least, ingratiate, the various patriot groups to obtain intelligence on their operations? If so, the simple next step is to attempt to gain influence to be able to direct, or at least influence, those groups’ activities, in support of their federal comrades.

Now, let’s look at the Military side of Oathkeepers. Active military can be of no assistance, as he would not go AWOL, or risk his leave, to do something that might get him an early discharge, at less than honorable. We’ll jump to Retired, and we will recognize the same problematic relationship with the pension of one who takes on the federal government. As well as his obedience to the government controlled environment for at least twenty years of his life. Though perhaps extreme, remember, Timothy McVeigh, recipient of a number of medals and an honorable discharge, was denied the burial rights that were guaranteed as a condition of enlistment. Surely, they can yank pensions on almost any grounds that they reasonably justify.

This leaves us with those who chose not to career, and since 1973 there has been no conscription (draft), so we needn’t address those who didn’t volunteer and deal only with those who volunteered to serve their country, did their duty, served their time, and got out to reenter civilian life. They have nothing to lose by participation with the militia, and they are not excluded by statute. Therefore, they are the only possible contingent of the Oathkeeper element that can relatively safely be assumed pure in their motivation.

With that one exception, they all have a conditioning in their lives that would suggest that they would tend to be inclined to a sort of special duty — infiltration of the militia — than they would to have of the pure motives of participation in the militia.

The Oathkeepers, by their oaths, only intend to “not violate their oath”. There is not provision in their corporate bylaws that provides for them stopping another person from violating his oath. The militia, on the other hand, having both helped in wresting control from England, and current situations, have been a mainstay, and by tradition as well as intent, are bound to support and defend the Constitution and their State’s constitution.

That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers, but only as a member of a militia, which the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of each and every state, recognizes as a lawful and protected right — a right of united self-defense. They should be relegated to duties without access to privileged information or command. And, as such, are subordinate to the command within the militia structure, not to the patriarch of the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers may, by choice, be militia. However, militia members, who have taken the same oath, absent the requisite requirement to join and pay the dues, may not be Oathkeepers. So, which of the two MUST be the subordinate?

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair -Is Anybody in Charge Here?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 23, 2014

There are events currently unfolding in Bunkerville, Nevada, that aren’t apparent to most, and especially not of interest to Mainstream media, however, they are extremely important to the Patriot Community, as you will see.

Let’s revisit this past Saturday, April 12, 2012. The Bundy family, friends, and supporters, numbering in the hundreds, massed in a wash, not far distant from the cattle that had been “arrested”, in conformity with a Court Order, for those cattle trespassing on government land.

Then comes Jerry DeLemus, US Marine Corp veteran (circa 1973), and leader of a Glenn Beck 9/12 Project group, but no known membership or contribution to the militia. Quite interesting that Beck has ridiculed the plight of Cliven Bundy, though Jerry seems to hold Beck in high esteem. According to reports that I have received, he arrived, after a nearly 3,000 mile drive, with 2 vehicles, one driven by his son, Josh, in an exhausted state, and has remained in that state (of exhaustion) since. His hyperactive state (an indication of exhaustion and lots of coffee) can be seen in this rather emotional interview by Stewart Rhodes – Bundy Ranch: We Came Risking Never Coming Home Jerry DeLemus.

Though he was absent from the event that might be deemed the Bundy Cattle Unrustling, which was attended by protestors, some militia members and, of course, the Cowboys. A reserve militia unit was standing by at the Ranch, ready to respond if the call that things were getting bad came from one of the Bundys who was a principle in the events then unfolding at the BLM camp 3 or 4 miles north of the Bunkerville exit on I-15.

While others were calling for additional assistance form volunteers around the country, DeLemus had other ideas. In the Nashua Telegraph, his hometown newspaper published the following from their April 18 edition (an excerpt – http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/1034411-469/nh-man-takes-prominent-role-with-armed.html):

Thursday afternoon, DeLemus was warning others not to come to Bunkerville because “we don’t want an escalation.”
DeLemus said, if a confrontation was to unfold, they would likely be obliterated by federal firepower. DeLemus said he is concerned that more people would enter harm’s way if the number of activists keeps swelling at the Bundy Ranch.
“We’d be able to bloody their noses a little … but we wouldn’t stand a chance,” DeLemus said.

A rather interesting lack of confidence for someone who has just taken charge, and assumed control, over all personnel except the Bundy family.

DeLemus didn’t arrive until well after that event, though upon reporting to the Militia Liaison, and he was delegated to assist Bill Keebler in maintaining organization within the militia camp. DeLemus then “relieved Keebler of “command”, asserting his authority over the entire militia contingent. In subsequent efforts for the Militia Liaison to work with, and pass direction on, from the Bundys, he was responded to with, “These are my guys, you must go through me if you’d like access to them”; “This is my camp and this is my command”; and “Just stay away from here.” Clearly, this late comer, who arrived after the Saturday event, has no known militia ties, had wrested control of the militia operation, even to the point of ignoring the Militia Liaison, which had been the means of communication and of the Bundys means of seeking assistance or requesting any activity of the militia contingent. Rather scary that what had functioned so well, all the way up to and beyond the Saturday event, was now being taken over by someone that had no dog in the fight, and was unwilling to relinquish any “power” that he had assumed, if to the extent of the previously fluid communication between the Bundys and the militia.

Now, to understand the role of the Militia Liaison, first established and approved by the Bundys. The Militia Liaison arrived at the ranch on April 8. He met with Cliven Bundy and explained that Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) had sent requests for militia to come to the ranch, and he had come to coordinate their activity. It was agreed that he would be the interface (liaison) between the family and the militia, and he agreed that a force of volunteers would could serve in the capacity of a Security Team (Personal Security Detail – PSD), to provide immediate protection for the family. These, however, would be detached for the militia contingent, while serving in that capacity.

As members of the PSD returned to their homes and replacements became necessary, efforts to secure replacements were met with the belligerent assertions of control quoted above, leaving securing additional person for the PSD difficult, and based upon DeLemus’ selection rather than that of the Militia Liaison, so rather than easily dealt with, now sometime requiring off-site visits to interview potential replacements.

To demonstrate the problem, let me provide a quote from a report concerning such difficulty, from an occurrence on April 19:

“I requested 3 men from Jerry’s [DeLemus] contingent for temporary ranch security while I vetted and approved a new PSD leader and personnel. I personally vetted and briefed the personnel that Jerry sent to me before I left to vet new PSD staff, which has remained a decentralized element from militia contingent, While I was gone from the ranch vetting a possible volunteer, Jerry came down to the ranch and found his men on the PSD at the house and proceeded to chew their asses, then he left the house and returned to the ranch entry checkpoint just before I arrived. When I arrived Jerry started yelling at me in front of 5 other men while I was still in my jeep. I exited the jeep and told Jerry we should have the conversation elsewhere in an attempt to not reveal a dissension in the ranks to the men. He followed for about 30 yards and then re-engaged the yelling. His complaint was that I had not informed him of what duty the 3 men I had requested were to perform (which is untrue, he was informed they were for temporary PSD), and that PSD at the house was so important that he had to personally vet all PSD personnel, to which I replied that I had vetted and briefed the men as they reported to me, I felt comfortable with all 3 as I had contact with one for the last 2 years and the other two made no triggers in my interrogation style vetting process. He continued yelling and making aggressive gestures, accusing me of a condescending tone, trying to own the entire situation and he was going to beat my little punk ass.”

So, from chaos brought to order by the Militia Liaison, we then come to a pompous “Napoleon” who must have absolute and complete control over all, though he has no demonstrable ability or prior relationship with militia, and a now disgruntled command.

Though there may have been others, I have received a report that a contingent of six militia members who arrived from the Phoenix, Arizona area, who, upon meeting the new Napoleon, determined that they would not “put up with his shit”, and began their 370 mile return trip, shortly after their arrival.

So, from what began, and succeeded, with a degree of controlled chaos, which should have evolved into a highly organized and cooperative effort has become the ‘command’ of a pompous, self-aggrandizing, untrained (since 1973, and no idea of what rank he held), Glenn Beck advocate (Do you wonder what Beck would say to them having guns, let along supporting Bundy), who is belligerent, abusive, uncooperative, hyperactive, exhausted, unable to demonstrate any leadership qualities, pusillanimous, and otherwise, a totally unqualified individual, who has assumed command, leaving the Militia Liaison in the ticklish position of having to be manly, polite, courteous, and to maintain his distance as not a part of the militia, deal with an insubordinate SOB, and try to reestablish a coherent defensive force in order to continue the operation begun by OMA to provide protection for the Bundys.

As a final thought; as resistance to government intrusions into our rights escalates, perhaps it is time to look back into our history at the militia of both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, where men who were volunteers fought better when they elected their own leaders, rather than having someone, not of their choosing, either by assuming or being appointed to command.

 

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Merry Christmas 2013

Merry Christmas 2013
Duck Dynasty as a wonderful moral Christmas present

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
Christmas Eve, 2013

 

Just a week before Christmas, the Spirit of the Christian Faith has arisen to a degree unseen for decades.  It began when a reality program personality, in an interview, made observations about his faith and the Bible, principally directed at queers – those who have aberrational lifestyles.

In just a few days, the forces of the oppressed people of Christian Faith, or simply, Christian moral values, have come together by the millions to denounce those who would use social, political, or economic pressure to suppress what has been foundational to this country, and land, for nearly four centuries.

Under the guise of political correctness, “tolerance”, and verbicide (the changing of the meaning of a word to effect a social or legal change), our country has been chicaned (past tense of chicanery) into a submissive state, in terms of moral values.

Let’s look at how verbicide works (See Freedom of Speech).  We take a perfectly innocuous word, having a meaning that is readily accepted and has a positive connotation, such as:

Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary (1978)
gay:  1.) happily excited; MERRY, 2 a.)  BRIGHT, LIVELY, b.)  brilliant in color, 3.)  given to social pleasures; also, LICENTIOUS

Now, that third definition may border on immorality, though it is the least significant, and most often referred to the “gay blades” of the aristocracy.

Merriam-Webster on line (2013)
gay:  1 a.)  happily excited: merry <in a gay mood>, b.) keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits <a bird’s gay spring song>, 2 a.)  bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>, b.)  brilliant in color , 3.)  given to social pleasures; also : licentious, 4 a.)  homosexual <gay men>, b.)  of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

In just over thirty years, we have a fourth definition, that, though in fourth place in Merriam-Webster, has become, in common usage, the only remaining definition of the word, as any other definition would tend to assign an improper connotation to the use of the word.

An example would be, say, the old “Donna Reed Show” (1958-1966), where, on occasion, the Stones would be invited to a “gay party” (actual expression in a number of the series episodes).  Of course, it was not a party of queers, rather, it was a party where the atmosphere would be jovial, and there would be humor in the telling of clean jokes.

However, if one were to say that they were going to a “gay party”, today, some would be excited, however most, being those of Christian moral values, would look askance at the person who made such claim.

What has happened is that a change in definition has had the affect of changing the moral and social acceptance of a lifestyle that might best be left in “the closet”.

Once the structure — the verbicide — has come into play, the next step is a demand for tolerance (how can you demand tolerance, isn’t that, in itself, intolerance?).

This call for tolerance came out because of the interview, mentioned above, when GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) responded to what Phil Robertson said, when explaining his religious beliefs.  He explained that there is a logical fit between certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a “not logical” fit.  He then paraphrases Corinthians, in the Bible, when he lumps “the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers” into one lot, those that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

GLAAD spokesperson, Wilson Cruz, condemned his Robertson’s words, saying that “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.”  I do find it interesting when a spokesman for queers asserts his understanding of the Bible and its moral values, contrary to the wording in that Bible.

But, wait, GLAAD admits, by their organization’s name, that they are “Against Defamation”.  So, they, then, defame Robertson for paraphrasing an ancient source of moral values, when they, GLAAD, have probably never taken the time to read, let alone understand, that book that was fundamental to the origination of our country and moral laws.

Instead, he reverts to a one-sided attempt at “tolerance” (the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with), which in his statement, is demonstrative of intolerance.  Cruz continues, “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”  Interesting that the presumption of what the majority believes is coming from one that is desperately seeking acceptance, and presumes to speak for those who have, as a result of both verbicide and “tolerance”, simply remained silent (tolerant) for the sake of “political correctness”.

Perhaps, however, the greatest gift that Providence has given to mankind, in recent times, is this demonstration of the deviation from holding moral principles and values, and the necessity to begin to stand, once again, for those values that are at the very heart of this great nation.

Like fireworks bursting forth, to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ, the rebirth of moral values, and against political correctness, is now bursting forth in a brilliance, and with a magnitude, that will propel us forward an return us to the moral nation that was once, and will be again, the greatest nation on this earth.

 

With that in mind, let me wish to all,

A Merry Christmas

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

“None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
Understand what went wrong, forty years ago, and lead us to what we see, today.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2013

 

In 1971, Gary Allen wrote a book, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”. And though there are, currently, many who continue to yell “conspiracy”, the true conspiracy is laid out for us in explicit detail in this book. You will recognize much of what is discussed, and, you will see the beginnings of much of what you see, now.

First, some quotes from the book:

“We… most emphatically disagree with this network’s aim which the Professor [Carroll Quigley] describes as “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” In other words, this power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. As Professor Quigley observes: “… his (the individual’s) freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.” It wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system.”

Well, there it is, the stated objective of the conspiracy.

Now, to understand how we have, so often, failed to comprehend just what was happening, because we only had a part of the story:

“Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the way through? Confusing wasn’t it? All the evidence made it look as if the butler were the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out, surprisingly, that it was the man’s wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.”

With this in mind, we are near the end of the story, however, the insight provided by this book will take you back to the beginning, so that you can understand without doubt, just what the whole story is.

In telling us about then President Nixon, a well respected conservative (Republican), and the beginning of “decentralized” government, we see the beginning of a process I often refer to as “Greenmail”, where our money is used to buy favor from the state government — to our detriment.

“The second major segment of the President’s “New Federalism” is revenue sharing with the states, touted as a step in the decentralization of power from the federal government. Actually, the program does just the opposite. The money must first go from the states to Washington before it can be shared.”

We can also see the seeds of the many government funded institutions whose objective is the denial of our form of government.

“John Gardner, a “Republican” and member of the C.F.R., has established a grass roots proletarian organization called Common Cause. This may become the biggest and most important organization in American history. Common Cause’s goal is to organize welfare recipients, those who have not voted before, and Liberals to lobby for Socialism.”

The examples given above are just of few of the insights provided within the book. As you read, you will find that many of the concerns that you have, now, had their seeds planted long before you became aware of the misdeeds that have lead us steadily down the course that we now find ourselves enslaved by.

If you cannot find time to read this book, you will simply have to remain without foundation, only conjecture, to explain the evils that beset us, today. However, armed with the knowledge presented therein, you may better be able to formulate a means of extricating us from the subjugation we find ourselves submitting to.

If there is no PDF attached to this email, the PDF can be downloaded at “None Dare Call It Conspiracy – PDF

For those who would prefer a Kindle (PRC) version of the book, it is available at “None Dare Call it Conspiracy – Kindle

Appeasement

Appeasement
Giving in, inch by inch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2013

 

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

Appease
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

So, what does appeasement have to do with anything?  Perhaps pacifying or placating someone would avoid potential problems.  It can’t be a bad approach, can it?

Perhaps a brief history of appeasement, as applied from a political standpoint, just about seven decades ago, will give us a better understanding of the consequences of appeasement.  So, let’s look at a brief history of appeasement leading up to the beginning of World War II.

Appeasement and World War II

At the close of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles set certain conditions on the losers, especially Germany.  Among those was a limitation of 100,000 troops in their army.  It also limited the size of their Navy in both manpower and ships.

In 1935, Germany began rearming beyond the limitations set forth in the Treaty of Versailles.  After discussions between Italy, Britain, France, and Germany, nothing was done to force Germany into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles.  This was appeasement.

In 1936, Germany, under Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, sent military forces into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty.  Though protests were made by Britain and France, nothing was done to stop this violation of the Treaty.  Britain claimed to lack the forces to back up France, leaving Hitler unopposed, and establishing a powerful strategic position.  This was appeasement.

In 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain.  The following year, Hitler sought the reunification of Germany and Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and sent German Wehrmacht troops into Austria to force the reunification.  Chamberlain’s reaction was to state, “The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force.”  This was appeasement.

In 1938, Germans, who found themselves living in the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, because of the boundaries drawn up in the Treaty of Versailles, under instruction from Hitler, sought autonomy.  Chamberlain warned Hitler that Britain might intervene if Hitler ordered an attack on Czechoslovakia.  Chamberlain went to Germany to meet with Hitler and Hitler demanded the Sudetenland be absorbed into Germany.  He convinced Chamberlain that refusal would result in war.  Chamberlain, with agreement from France, told the Czechoslovakian president that he must hand to Germany all of the territory with a German majority population.  This included over 800,000 people, substantial amounts of industry, and substantial portions of the Czechoslovakian mountain defense installations, thus providing an insecure Western Czechoslovakian border, ripe for subsequent invasion.  In late September, Hitler, Chamberlain, the French Prime Minister, and Mussolini of Italy, met in Munich, Germany.  They agreed that Hitler could complete his occupation of Sudetenland.  This was appeasement.

On September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland.  France and England were forced to enter war against Germany.  The policy of appeasement had only encouraged Hitler, and in May 1940, Chamberlain stepped down and Winston Churchill, who had consistently opposed appeasement, became Prime Minister.

During the years of appeasement, Hitler increased his military and armament, increased his strength, increased his access to natural resources and food supplies, increased his industrial capacity, and increased the size of Germany.  While other nations apologized for Hitler’s actions, he continued on a course that compounded the difficulty of dealing with the problem, when the appeasers finally recognized the error of their ways.

Had appeasement not been the practice of the day, and a firm position taken in 1934, the problem could have been dealt with and would probably have been but a minor incident in history.  As each step of the appeasement progressed, the magnitude of the problem became greater.  After a mere five years of appeasement, the solution to the problem resulted in deaths of many tens of millions of people and many trillions of dollars both in fighting the war that followed and rebuilding after the destruction of that war.

Appeasement Today

One of the elements of the greatness of America was an immigration policy that, until the Civil War, limited citizenship to those of European ancestry.  Even after the war, immigration was based upon quotas and other educational or experience criteria, and, for the most part, was open to any that chose to come to America, assimilate into the American way of life, and contribute to its greatness.

In the past three decades, immigration standards have been reduced to an open door policy.  The quotas that provided for limited immigration, resulting in assimilation, were dropped.  We began becoming a relocation destination for refugees who stood on our side in the wars that we continue to start, and to lose.  These newer policies have allowed entire communities to retain the heritage, culture, and lifestyle of their country of origin, and have effectively nullified the concept of assimilation.

Under the guise of multiculturalism, we have also opened our doors to just about anybody, regardless of their motivation, allowing floods of people who have no aspirations of assimilation, rather who come here for what they can get without effort, or, perhaps, with even more devious intentions.  However, to pacify world opinion created by our support for multiculturalism, and, to placate those who wish to come here, we have developed a policy of appeasement on immigration.

What might be the consequences of this policy of appeasement?  Perhaps we can take an American city and evaluate the consequence of this rampant immigration.  So, we will look at Dearborn, Michigan.  Of the estimated population of over 98,000 people, 40,000 are either Muslim or from Muslim countries (Wikipedia).  At this point, it is safe to say that they constitute 40% of the voting potential, regardless of the makeup of the remaining population.  Considering normal voting turnout, with a little motivation, the Muslims would have a majority in local elections.  The consequence would be that rather than assimilation into the American lifestyle, we would see a conversion of Dearborn into a Middle Eastern city and could eventually expect that local laws would be changed by that majority into laws foreign to the nature of America.  Putting it bluntly, they would, by utilizing the mechanism of democracy, convert Dearborn into a city ruled by Sharia Law.  As those laws change so, too, will the culture of a once American city.

That was one American city.  Let’s look at a county.  The population of Los Angeles County is 9.9 million people (LA Times blog).  The Hispanic population is 4.9 million people (Pew Research).  That constitutes over 49% of the population.  Based upon estimates (Los Angeles Almanac), the illegal immigrant population of Los Angeles County is over 700,000.  This would raise the number of Hispanics to 53%.  La Raza and other Hispanic organizations, asserting that California was stolen from the Mexicans, may soon be able to vote Los Angeles County out of the United States and into Aztlán.

Presumably, in the former, the population is a result of the lax immigration laws and open door policy.  In the latter, many are “old Mexican”, whose families have been here for generations, however, the remainder, except as noted, are comprised of those who became legal immigrants as a result of the 1986 amnesty, or, anchor babies and their associated families.

As these demographics continue to change, we can expect more cities and more counties to succumb to such consequences as we see in these two examples.  Appeasement, supported by court decisions, providing a spurious sense of blanket equality — even allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections (USA Today – Justices: Arizona voter registration rules go too far) — allows the growth of a problem that, as time goes on, will, as we saw in World War II, compound itself to the point that the solution becomes almost insurmountable, and will result in a hodgepodge of many pseudo-nations within the United States.

We have addressed to geopolitical aspects of appeasement and how they might affect the future of our once great nation.  Now, we can look into more subtle aspects of appeasement and the effect that they are having on our society.  You will note with both the above and those that follow, that one side (the appeaser) gives ground and weakens, while the other gains ground and strengthens.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on our children

ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a relatively new disease.  It has resulted in the drugging of hundreds of thousands of juveniles with psychotropic drugs.  Those same drugs appear to be associated with nearly every school shooting by a student.  If we look at the statistics, we will find that community referrals are 3 to 1 more likely to occur in boys than girls.  In clinic referrals, we find that the ratio extends to 10 to 1 (NIH/National Center for Biotechnology Information).  And in the female occurrences, it is defined as “inattentive type”, being less severe.  These numbers suggest that either the male is far more susceptible to ADHD than the female, or, perhaps, it is a consequence of the male tendency to be more active, and less passive, than the female.  Since our educational system has, by various means, endeavored to feminize the educational process by prohibiting physical contact sports, suggestions of guns or violence, and forced the male to participate in activities that were, just a few generations ago, considered to be in the realm of female passiveness.  Is it possible that the observation and determination of ADHD is a consequence of the depression that is a result of leaving the football field and having to participate in activities that are more feminine?  When you remove the “slugs and snails and puppy dog tails” and forced the masculine gender into “sugar and spice and everything nice,” can you expect the consequences to be other than what is described as ADHD?  Is acceptance of the government’s explanation appeasement?

Appeasement on militarization of police

“To Protect and To Serve” has been the motto of most police departments, for at least the last half century.  Recently, however, we have seen a marked movement towards that “protection” being redefined as “officer safety” (WSJ / Rise of the Warrior Cop).  As a consequence, and as the equipment becomes militarized, where officers are far more protected than they were decades ago, we see an increase in the level of violence directed at citizens, quite often in the comfort of their own home.  In 2005, there were 364 “arrest related deaths” (DOJ / Arrest-Related Deaths in the United States,).  In that same year, only 162 officers died in the line of duty, of which only 60 were shot (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial).  The government provides semi automatic and full automatic rifles to law enforcement, they provide military style helicopters to law enforcement, they provide military style armored vehicles to law enforcement, they have assigned drones to support law enforcement, and, they continue to provide additional military level equipment and training to law enforcement.  At the same time, many elements of government are attempting to restrict our right of self-defense, making us absolutely submissive to the law enforcement community.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on Christianity

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian moral values.  From courtroom to the executive office, the Bible has been the device upon which oaths were taken.  Christmas time and Eastertide have been celebrated throughout our history.  The United States Supreme Court building contains at least six depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments.  Recently, however, we have seen rejection of Christmas displays and Easter celebrations in our schools and other government locations, under the guise that the First Amendment prohibits them, though they had been celebrated openly on government property from the founding of our country until just a few decades ago.  There can be no doubt as to the role of Christianity in our history and heritage; however, as they are pushed out, we find that we have laid a red carpet out for Islam.  Many minarets, with speakers, loudly announce prayer early in the morning.  Muslims are allowed to lay down their prayer rugs and pray in streets, sidewalks, airports, and other public areas.  We are told that we are not to offend their practice of their religion.  Is this appeasement?

Conclusion

Appeasement, like any other disease, if treated early, lessens the damage.  Like cancer, if caught soon enough, total remission is quite possible.  However, if untreated, it will continue to grow, leading ultimately to the demise of the host.

Its introduction, like the Trojan Horse, is subtle and accepted.  If not recognized before introduction, where it can be denied admission, then as early as possible, as soon as it is recognized, remedial action must be taken.  Absent such treatment, the objectives of the interloper, instead of the host, will be achieved.

Its introduction is usually preceded by the utilization of “Political Correctness”.  Under the guise of Freedom of Speech, the host tends to drop its guard, often under the fear of ostracization, or even judicial punishment.  Political correctness is foundational to creating an air of acceptability, where ones true thoughts are suppressed – under the guise of being for the “common good”.

Appeasement is nothing less than the creation of an advantage for the opposing side.  Unless and until recognized, it serves none other than the host.  Once recognized, remedial action is absolutely necessary, at the earliest possible moment, to avoid the consequences that will ultimately follow.  Acquiescence to appeasement has only one conclusion — the social engineering of a society, contrary to its very nature.

Some thoughts on the Zimmerman Verdict

Some thoughts on the Zimmerman Verdict

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2013

For those who have decided that George Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, consider whether Trayvon Martin would agree with your advocacy of beating or killing whites. If Trayvon Martin would not support your advocacy, then that verdict was in error. If, however, Trayvon Martin would support such advocacy, then that justifies the actions of George Zimmerman and proves that he acted in self-defense.

So, what you have proven is that the verdict was correct, since those not involved in the events in Sanford, Florida, now must fear for their lives, as George Zimmerman feared for his.

 

Vortex

Vortex

The threat that keeps us apart

 

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 24, 2012

 

Vortex

Noun:   1. a mass of whirling fluid or air, esp. a whirlpool or whirlwind.
2. Something regarded as a whirling mass.

So, why Vortex?  Well, when something goes down into the bottom of a vortex, it is spun around and emitted in a different form than when it went in.

Background:

A recent discussion brought up an issue that has been close to me, for quite some time.  I have seen many succumb to entrapment, or, just plain deceived, by agents, informants, infiltrators and other such ilk.

It seems that many think the government is squeaky clean, or, that issues, not being of national security levels of interest, don’t warrant the effort that would be necessary to ‘move in’ on the patriot community.

A few years ago, I learned that as many as fifty percent of the members of Richard Butler’s Aryan Nation Church (Randy Weaver country), and of the old Posse Comitatus, were people who, for whatever reason, had changed sides, or were not quite honest in their dealings with the respective organizations.

I had read the following memorandum, which is included in the Appendix of Congressman George Hansen’s book, “To Harass Our People”, while traveling through the Washington, D.C. area, after Waco.  I met with an associate of George Hansen.  He gave me a Xerox copy of the memorandum, and I have no doubt as to its authenticity.

As you read the excerpts from the memorandum, take note of the extent in which the government is willing to ‘get involved’ in the “Tax Rebellion Movement” (see note 5 to District Directors).  Remember, also, that this memo was written nearly 40 years ago.  It would be ludicrous to think that they have not enlarged and perfected their program. [Emphasis, mine]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Memorandum
FEB 26, 1973

to: Participants in Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement
from: Western Region
subject: Tax Rebellion in California

I am sending you the minutes of our meeting of February 9, 1973, on the Tax Rebellion Movement.  These minutes enumerate action items for the Los Angeles and San Francisco District Directors and for Regional Office officials.

I appreciate your past attention to this serious matter, and feel confident that all of us working together can successfully overcome this challenge to our tax system.

/S/
Homer O. Crossman
Regional Commissioner

Mr. Howard advised he has been conferring with state tax officials who are anxious to cooperate with IRS in the attack on tax rebels who also do not pay state taxes; often the state can move quickly to close up a tax rebel’s business or revoke his license; that we should see that the State uses its enforcement machinery on those cases which are not our targets.

Mr. Crossman reported on his discussions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Courts and Judge Crocker, Fresno, and of their interest in enforcement of the law in tax rebel cases.  Mr. Hansen commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on a belief that IRS is “highhanded”.  Mr. Howard reported on a change of attitude in federal judges in San Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents.

There was a general discussion of the importance of meeting with U.S. Attorneys and federal judges to acquaint them with the full picture of the tax rebellion movement.  Mr. Crossman pointed out that after his meeting with Mr. Couris and Judge Crocker, they requested background information on the Movement which was furnished them.

Mr. Kingman suggested the possibility of requesting religious leaders to warn their following against participation in the movement, pointing to the beneficial effects of Mormon Church President Lee’s message.

***

Mr. Krause pointed out the importance of close planning on common targets by the tax rebellion project supervisors of the Los Angeles and San Francisco districts with planning meetings as needed.

Action items for District Directors:

1. Maintain the initiative in the attack on the tax rebels.
2. Know their plans before they arrive at our door to execute them.
3. Identify the leaders of the Movement and concentrate on them.
4. Have a plan of action in coordination with the Region rather than hit and miss defensive reactions.
5. Continue to step up the infiltration in-depth of the Movement.
6. Use all available federal, state, and local laws.
7. Use civil penalties on Porth-type cases.
8. Wage a campaign to educate U.S. Attorneys and federal judges with the importance of prison sentences on cases.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At the same time that the IRS was acting out the above to deal with what the termed “tax rebels”, the federal government also had to contend with the anti-war (Vietnam) movement.  In dealing with what was going on at the time, infiltration into that movement was also a part of the government’s program.

One of the larger groups that were active in the anti-war movement was a broad based group known as Student for a Democratic Society (SDS).  They were of so much concern to the government that the government actually started some of the SDS chapters so that they had a degree of control, and, received intelligence from other SDS chapters.  If they didn’t start them, they, at least, had agents and informants join the various chapters.

Another target of the government, during the anti-war movement, was Vietnam Veterans against War (VVAW).  Some of the VVAW members were from Gainesville, Florida.  Among them, however, were informants and agents.  The agents fed them information that the 1972 Republican National Convention (Miami Beach) was being set up to set up the anti-war demonstrators.  They were told that the police would shoot some protesters.  This would lead to sealing off Miami Beach by raising all of the drawbridges, trapping the protesters, and making for shooting fish in a barrel.  To counter this tactic, the Eight made plans to attack government buildings, police and fire stations, and then force the lowering of the drawbridges.  This was to draw the police away from the Beach and allow the demonstrators to leave the Beach, avoiding the catastrophic scenario that had been fed to them.  Of course, the informants and agents testified against them, however, their correspondence (which was seen by the jury) said that their plan was “for defensive purposes, only”, which lead to an acquittal.  However, it does demonstrate that forty years ago, the ability, means, and practice, of infiltration and entrapment were standard government tools.

For a detailed study of the infiltration of the anti-war movement, see http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/provoca.pdf

 

Who are the agents and informants?

There are any number of reasons and means by which some people will become agents of the government, or informants for the government.  Though there are variations of each of these, we will cover the more general types of people and what their relationship to government is.

Agents

Starting at the top, we have undercover agents.  They can be undercover agents for nearly any branch of the federal or state government.  Most often, they are very well trained, to include psychology, so that they can get close to the people they are supposed to encounter and infiltrate.  They generally receive very explicit instructions when they go on an operation, though they can also adjust, quite well, when a “Target of Opportunity” arises.  They are full time agents (Type I) and will become very close to those in leadership.  They will engross themselves in their work, often living a life outside of what would be normal for an FBI agent.  They have “handlers” that are often, for months or years, the only contact they have with the parent organization.

There is second type of agent, Type II, who is called in for support; for example, the FBI agent who alleged to have explosives and other material for sale in the Georgia Militia bust.  Often they have desk or other duties and are called only when needed.

A good example of the Type I is FBI agent Steven Haug.  Haug, who went by “Jersey Steve”, had infiltrated the Hutaree Militia.  He got so close to the Hutaree leader, David Stone, he was asked to be the best man at Stone’s wedding.  Later, he would testify against Stone.

Another was a man, back in the nineties, who went by the name of Bob Chapman.  Later, when he testified against the Florida Common Law Court, he identified himself as Robert Quigley, “IRS deep undercover agent” and instructor at the IRS undercover school. (See “Let me tell you about a man named Quigley”)

These agents are often ‘wired’, and the recorded conversations are transcribed to be used for evidence, when their task is completed and they have turned witness against former ‘friends’.  A partial transcription of such a recording can be found at “Record of Activity“.  BC = Bob Chapman = S/I Quigley is the agent.  You may note how he tries to blend in but does ask some questions attempting to entice information that can be used against the parties, later.  This is from the 1995 investigation of the Florida Common Law Court that sent all but one of the defendants to prison for 12 years.

These paid agents, regular employees of the government, on special duty, are a blight on our concept of self-government.  Though such agents go back to the Revolutionary War, where Washington had a staff of agents that mingled with the British to gain intelligence information, they did not join the British army or other government forces.  It wasn’t until early in the 20th century that the practice became common, to deal with organized crime.  However, currently, the government claims to have thousands of agents working within various patriot or political groups.  Must we assume that political activism is now criminal?

The other form of agent is the paid agent of a private organization.  These are best described as “infiltrators”.  One such organization using this tactic is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that claims to have many infiltrators within the various patriot groups, from militia to Tea Party groups, and everything in between.  Their primary purpose is strictly information gathering, though if given the opportunity, they will exploit a situation.

 

Informants

Informants come in different varieties.  Some are induced into informing on friends and associates when they are charged with a crime, themselves.  They will sign a “plea agreement” (plea agreement informants) and exchange their efforts for, most often, a “withheld adjudication” — meaning that so long as they provide good information (not necessarily truthful), and testimony, if required, they will not be prosecuted for the crime that they are alleged to have committed.  See “Informants Amongst Us?” for an explanation of this process.  In desperation, these informants are capable of lying (since they have already given up their integrity) and participate in entrapment, to ‘save their own skin’.  They are, by nature, weak and unwilling to stand up for their convictions.

A lesser version of this is the “states evidence” witness that will tell all to save his own neck.  Though not an agent, active informant, or infiltrator, he is often the source of conviction of patriots because he does not have the fortitude to be a true patriot.  An example of this is one of Schaeffer Cox’s fellow Alaska Peacemaker Militia members, Michael O. Anderson.  Cox, Lonnie Vernon, and Coleman Barney are currently (May 2012) on trial.  Anderson, who was arrested, along with the other, in March 2011, has had his charges dropped and will be testifying for the state, against the other three. (Reference: Alaska Militia Trial Opens With Former Defendant as Key Witness)

Others might become informants in custody (jailhouse informants), seeking favor, or reduction of sentence.  These jailhouse informants will usually testify to anything that is requested of them, to bring “jailhouse confessions” to trial.  They are often used to ‘enhance’ the evidence against a defendant to assure conviction.

Volunteer informants come in two categories.  First are those who have been charged with, or know that they have charges pending, for a crime.  They will contact a government agency and offer their services, hoping for a reduction, withheld adjudication, or dismissal of charges.  This is the probable scenario in the Joe Sims involvement with the Georgia Senior Militia, this past year.  Joe, according to an Esquire magazine article, was in jail pending child abuse charges.  He contacted the FBI and volunteered to provide information about members of the Georgia Militia.

Other volunteer informants are often James Bond wannabes or government employees seeking beneficial treatment by freelance work to aid law enforcement.  There was the Viper Militia, Phoenix, Arizona, in 1996, where about a dozen concerned patriots prepared for a Red Dawn type of event.  An aspiring firefighter joined the group.  In his John Wayne machismo, he began suggesting more active pursuits.  Later, he brought in an undercover Sheriff’s Deputy, and both encouraged testing bombs, often made with materials provided by the informant or agent, and making plans to attack government buildings.  Prison was the outcome for those that followed the lead of the informant and agent.  What bright future lay in store for the informant, we do not know.  Presumably, however, he was rewarded favorably.

Another type of informant, though not always intentional, is the “easily swayed informant”.  These sort don’t usually have any idea that they are an informant, though they are, just the same, because they pass on information that might have destructive ends, or, they are duped into passing information that is erroneous and, potentially, destructive to the patriot community.  They have, usually,  been contacted by a law enforcement agent (often FBI Special Agents), or even others down the chain, including others who have been easily swayed,  who convince them that they are really good guys, and an asset to their country.  They are then beguiled, and act in concert with agents against the best interest of the patriot community, most often thinking that they are doing right to the community.  Often, they will sway others (usually larger numbers) away from any activity that is not easily controlled.  If the person is susceptible to the charms of the agent, he can go beyond that easily swayed and become a de facto agent, and never realize that he is being used.  It is the psychological training that the agent uses to manipulate the person and use him to influence others, most often away from a professed course.  He is, in essence, a sleeper, and can always be put to greater purpose, if the need arises.  These relationships tend to be long-term, and quite congenial between the parties.

Of these last, a friend refers to them as “useful idiots”.  However, I think it more appropriate that they should be referred to as “guess what I know” types.  Often, they pass on information just because they have found it and think that everyone should be apprised of this “wonderful;” or “dreadful” information.  Rumors of foreign troops across the Mexican border, for example, have been circulating for twenty years, each time, with new adherents and a new life, with only minor revisions to the original story, and, most often, without any identifiable source.

All of those described above are contrary to the Framers concept of government.  They are, by their very practice, violating the concept of the Fourth Amendment, the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

 

How do they function in the patriot community?

All of the above identified sources of benefit to the government enter the patriot community, though they do so in various ways.

First is the coward who turns state’s evidence, but began by believing in a cause.  Once the chips were down, he cowers and turns against those that do hold the principles highly.  The turncoat, in a sense, is the worst of those who find themselves on the wrong side of the battle.  There is nothing, except his nature, that would lead one to believe that he is not really on the right side — since he was on the right side until imminent threat to his future freedom caused him to turn against those who had every reason to believe that he was as sincere as they were, and had nothing to hide.

Next, are those who become paid informants.  Often, they have joined with a true belief that something is wrong; however, somewhere along the line they change ideologies.  It may be the result of less conviction toward the cause; the fear of doing something ‘illegal’ (as the Founders did); or simply a change of heart.  However, they are in and, perhaps, they can make a little money by offering their services to the government.  This sort is as bad as the first; perhaps even worse, for he continues to gather and pass on intelligence, and may even go further, acting against the best interest of the Patriot Community and those he has gotten to know.

Next are those informants who have been charged with a crime and decide to “cop a plea” and become an informant for the government.  Like the first, those that turn state’s evidence, they are cowards and will send others to prison to avoid their own stay in the “gray bar hotel”.  However, since they continue to “play along” with you, they can pass on even more information, and often will set traps for you to fall prey.

Finally, in the informant category, are those who have joined in hopes of increasing their “job opportunities” with the government.  Most often, they are already employees of government, as noted above, but they are playing the “spy game” in hopes of enhancing their resume. (Reference: My Life as a White Supremacist)

Now, we get into the realm of professional spies.  These are the agents whose job is to invade your privacy, get dirt on you, and even more, which will be discussed later.  We’ll begin with the Type II agent.  His job is to be available and act the part, when the need arises.  Otherwise, he is just an employee with other duties.  He will be a witness only to what transpired during the course of his brief interlude with the subject of the investigation.

Next comes the Type I agent.  His dress, his manner, his whole life, revolves around his active participation in the group that is the target, or contains the target, of an investigation.  Since his job is playing spy, he will do whatever is necessary to obtain the accolades he will get for obtaining a conviction and getting the job “well done”, regardless of what techniques he uses to achieve that end.

Often, this person, let’s call him the Vortex, will use others to insulate himself from exposure, if things don’t go smoothly.  He will also use others to achieve specific ends.  He is, however, the point of contact between the government and the patriot community, hence, Vortex.  The information swirls in and out, on the patriot side of the Vortex.  His job is to sort out, manipulate, control that information, and pass it thorough to the government for their nefarious purposes.  He is also the source of misinformation, coming from the government side, and then thrown into the swirl on the patriot side, though more about this, later.

Often, the Vortex will never even see a patriot, though he could be directing the operation from a distance.  This is common with certain types of informants, where the Vortex is most often referred to as the “handler”.  However, for any such investigation, there will always be a Vortex; the agent or other government employee who passes information in both directions; plans, or passes on plans, for the control or expansion of the operation; and is the person, who, if exposed by the patriot community, damages or defeats the government’s operation.

These agents have a plan when they go into their job.  That plan can be revised to meet the exigency when circumstances warrant a change, or an expansion, of an investigation.  They will also know who most of, if not all of, those who are lower level informants involved in any case they are working on.  However, the informants will seldom, if ever, know who the agents are, until both find themselves on the witness stand.  (Reference for Type I and Type II agents: Patriot Games)

Agents, especially Type I, will seldom be used to testify, if informants can became the “fall guys” and provide sufficient testimony to obtain a conviction.  Once an agent testifies, he has probably blown his cover and will have to retire to some other duties.  His effectiveness is lost, so he is a commodity that has to be protected, unless exposure is absolutely necessary.

Often, these agents will create an organization to give itself legitimacy within the patriot community.  In so doing, they have established their “credentials”, though you may have never heard of the organization before meeting the agent.  If he can demonstrate that he has created a following, you will drop you guard, as he has apparently, achieved what all are trying to accomplish.  (See Patriot Games link, above)

In all cases, if the abilities of the individual, in whatever capacity, are such that he can move up the chain of command of an organization, he will do so.  This allows him to obtain access to information that others might not have access to.  It allows him to obtain information from individuals in casual conversation, when that individual doesn’t suspect that anything he says is going beyond the two of them.  It also allows him to move upward in command, and perhaps, replace the existing command, once it is taken out because of his efforts.

 

Objectives of infiltration – Surveillance, profiling, disruption

We must begin to understand just what capabilities the government’s has to keep track of patriots.  They have an identification program that includes anybody who is likely to read this article.  It will include most militia members, even those who have never gone on line, through use of informants and other means.  It will include almost any attendee at a Tea Party gathering, and, probably, anybody who had gone to a Ron Paul rally, if the participant gave a name, by any means.  Intelligence gathering is the source/foundation of the entire government verses the people program.

Once they get the information, they have to retain, store, manipulate, and provide access, to that information.  They also have to sort that information into meaningful data.  So, we’ll begin by looking at what the sorting aspect entails.

The government has developed a program for categorization of everybody in this country (except, perhaps, illegal immigrants).  The program is called “C3CM“.  It defines three major categories, though we will only concern ourselves with the first one.  That is those who have, to some degree, expressed their disenchantment with government — the patriot community.  This doesn’t require disobedience, or even advocacy.  It only requires that you don’t believe that the government is working the way that it should be.

If you are among this group, you will be categorized into one of three sub-categories.  Those who are simply dissatisfied, those who are prone to act because of their dissatisfaction, and, those who are capable of leading others into exerting effort to effect change.  It doesn’t matter if those leaders are of a violence oriented militia, or a group that encourages voter registration and voting outside of the mainstream agenda.  The fact that they are leaders and can obtain followers poses a problem for government, though the government may direct more resources at the more militant.  This does not mean that the peaceful sorts are beyond efforts of government to affect their ability to lead.  On the contrary, each of us has entered the patriot community rather naive, and has learned, as time went on, which can  move us, inevitably, toward the more extreme means of dealing with the despotic government that we find in control of our country.  If someone can influence large numbers, he is more of a threat than a few isolated die-hards.

Where would the government be able to store and manipulate such a large amount of data?  Well, that goes back to a story from the past.  Inslaw, Inc., had a contract with the Department of Justice to develop some tracking software — “Promis” could be plugged into the 12 petabyte (if you were wondering about the next level, a petabyte is 1,024 terabytes) database that Sybase (the company that developed SQL for Microsoft) is developing.  So, once all of the pieces fall into place, there will be little that you can do to keep from being tracked, along with almost everything that you do, by the government.  (References: see http://www.profoundstates.com/promis.htm)

Now, as they take out any leadership, if they have moved their resource up into the upper echelons of any organization, they have attained a position that may soon leave the government resource in charge of the organization.

We began this article with a memo from the IRS Western Division, nearly forty years ago, about a tactic to be used to disrupt the “tax rebels’.  Not that this was the beginning of government efforts to manipulate both people and truth, only to demonstrate, with a provable piece of evidence, that influencing, by whatever means, including judges and churches, is and has been a part of the plan for total control of the people and their actions.  Would we be doing ourselves any favors to think that they would not use these same tactics, today, enhanced by both technology and experience?

Methods of Disruption

So, now, let’s look at objectives that the government might pursue through their various types of informant, agents, and infiltrators:

  • Discredit, or, take out, leadership or those who pose a threat to the continuation of the government’s effort to gain absolute control over the people, removing them from their means of influence over those who might follow them.
  • Discredit those who might bring attention to government tactics by suggesting questionable behavior, or, accusations, that will occupy them and remove them from any effective contribution to the patriot community.
  • Move those who are within government control or influence into positions of influence within the patriot community
  • Create division, wherever possible, any organization that begins to grow and may become effective.  If possible, splinter the group into two, or more, factions, so that they don’t flee elsewhere, and the government can retain controlling interest, or at least positions of influence, within each faction.
  • Use of a group the government has control of to create conflict with another group, creating doubt, disenchantment, and, perhaps, dissolution of the targeted group.
  • If a group has a structure (rules) that would make it more difficult to create disenchantment, challenge, ridicule, or ignore the rules, to create as much disturbance as possible — hopefully to disrupt any group that might really organize into a cohesive and effective group working together for a common goal.
  • Stimulate discussion of controversial subjects (Waco, Oklahoma City bombing, 911, Birth Truthers, etc.) to bring division and, perhaps, conflict, oral or physical, between adherents of each side of the issues.
  • Promote identification of theoretical enemies (Rothschild, Illuminati, Free Masons, etc.) so that members pursue un-provable resolution, thereby creating endless squandering of time on insignificant objectives.
  • For those with legal pursuit as means of attacking the government, direct them on fanciful flights with erroneous objectives such as Admiralty Law, Maritime Law, Uniform Commercial Code, United States government is a corporation, etc. (reference for the last three items: Divide and Conquer)
  • Use of “trolls” on Internet discussion groups and other forums to detract from discussions that  might cause some to think; includes ridiculing opponent, specious arguments, diversion from the subject of discussion, and other tactics intended to discourage active participation in what might otherwise be productive discussions.

 

Consequences

The consequence of the government meddling in our affairs, if we are truly self-governed (We the People), is that the government manipulates us to achieve an increase in power and control over us.  It is not our disenchantment with government that is the problem; it is the government overreaching its authority that has caused us to be concerned as to the direction of the government and its impact on us and our posterity.

To achieve their goals, they must devise means for keeping the will of the people from being manifest and force them into compliance with that will.  By their efforts to fragment the patriot community, they have achieved their goal and will continue to do so.

When their efforts have identified targets of any effort at political change, outside of the two controlling parties (Democrats and Republicans), and have manipulated the others into ineffectiveness, they have effectively created a one party system, not unlike the Soviet Union’s Communist Party where all power was granted only to party members.

Effectively, the government has become the master and we have been subjected to their will — through the divisive means explained herein.

Solution

The solution to this otherwise overwhelming problem is to resist the infiltration, by whatever means necessary.

To begin with, look in to the background of all who join your organization.  In the modern world that we live in, we are obliged to provide a Social Security Number (SSN) to arrange for utilities to be turned on, to borrow money or establish credit, and for many other purposes.  If we wish to get a job, we are obliged to provide background information regarding previous work history, education, criminal and military records.

Why should something as important as our Liberty not require at least such evidence of background and personal history as our daily lives do?  After all, there is far more at stake than whether I can buy something when I don’t have the money, or even having electricity at my home.

Thorough background information should be required of all who wish to join any patriot organization, even those currently members.  If someone is reluctant to provide such information, then you must wonder if they have something to hide from you that they don’t have to hide from their employer or bank.  If the position they are seeking might have potential risk to others, then not only the background information, but a review of records* would be in order.  If any questions arise that are not properly addressed, then realize that absent satisfactory answers, you may be subjecting yourself to influence that is not in your best interest, or, worse, being set up to take a fall..
[*There are a number of sites on the Internet where court, criminal, and other records can be purchased for very nominal fees – perhaps a good investment for the security of your organization]

If someone has been charged with a crime and adjudication withheld, then they may have worked a deal with the government.  Don’t put them in a position that would allow them to work a deal with you.

If someone demonstrates any characteristics that lend to the possibility that they are pursuing any of the “Objectives” listed above, there may not be an indication that they have someone else’s interest at heart, though the method by which they pursue such objectives should be carefully considered.

Disagreement can be resolved through reasoned discussion/debate.  It should be organized and open to all, or many, of the existing members.  It should be void of both personal attacks and unsubstantiated (with real evidence) accusations.

Any organization would be wise to adopt some rules and methods of evaluating all of its personnel, including existing officers and members, as well as recruits.  They should be based upon the above information as well as interviews with the individual concerned.

Any organization should include within their structure a means to evaluate new members, investigate any member who comes into question, and, establish a review procedure that includes a review board, composed of already approved members, to evaluate any information, conduct hearings, and, proscribe remedies, including removal of membership.

There is no doubt that on occasion, someone may have the appearance of having the characteristics that would lead one to believe that their interest is elsewhere, though it may only be that the person’s personality brings about such suspicion.  However, is it better to exclude someone by error rather than allow a potential risk to the entire organization.  Weigh the risk against the lesser objection to hurting someone’s feelings.

These are the times that try men’s souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and women.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain to cheap, we esteem too lightly — Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Tom Paine, The American Crisis (December 19, 1776)

 

Absent our policing ourselves, our groups, and, our own patriot community, we only leave ourselves open to the disruption that the government has desired to create.

 

Conclusion

At this point in time, we have many thousands of people being deprived of their productive time and participation by “chasing ghosts” created by the government to do just that — deprive us of time and confuse us with distractions.

 

At the same time, they have addressed and attacked many who would be useful to our purpose by accusations of crime, as explained in the IRS letter, in violation of federal, state, or local laws.  The have, thorough seminars, advised judges to “throw the book at” patriots charged with made up crimes, removing them from any active participation in our cause.

The time has come for us to change the game.  They laugh at us, now, because they are far more in control than we want to recognize.  We don’t recognize it because we have faith in the government — we just want some changes that return us to the Constitutional government that is our birthright.

They, however, are playing a serious, and often deadly, game, with every intention of winning.

We fear them, yet they have no reason to fear us — because they have subverted most elements of our movement, and have at least some influence or control on the reminder.

It is time for us to change the game around and get them to fear us.  Not through violence, rather, through exposure and removal of those who would seek to undermine our ability to function productively.  It is time for us to be as serious about ridding ourselves of these subversive elements as we are about our individual causes, for all are doomed to failure unless we regain control of our own activities.

-END-

 

A PDF version of this article: Vortex PDF