Posts tagged ‘sovereign’

“We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part I

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 18, 2011

In some research for another article (The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution), I ran across a rather enlightening revelation.  It was, just 60 years after the Constitution, a clear and concise definition of just (and only) who the “We the People”, in the Preamble to the Constitution, really are.

Now, most of us will assume that any citizen of the United States is one of, “We the People”.  I must admit that until recently, I, too, believed this to be the case.

Regardless of the (political) correctness of this assumption, we must understand that the law is what it was intended to be, not what we might want it to be.  There is only one means by which that can be changed, and that is the amendment process defined in Article V, of the Constitution.

So, here is what was revealed to us, by the Supreme Court of the United States, with regard to a definitive answer to the question.  The case is Dred Scott v. Sandford  -  60 U.S. 393 (1856)

As recently as ten years before the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted to the States by the Congress, an historical, and often referred to, case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Scott was born a slave, in Missouri.  As such, he was not a citizen.  His “owner” laid hands on Scott, his wife and 2 children.  Scott sued Sandford for assault.  Scott was awarded his freedom by a Saint Louis County, Missouri, Circuit Court.  The case was appealed to the State Supreme Court and reversed.  The Circuit Court then reheard the case.  Scott made exception to the instructions to the jury.  The jury then ruled against Scott.  Based upon the “Exception”.

The case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.  In its decision (below), the Court pointed out that Scott had claimed to be a citizen of Missouri, which would give him standing to sue Sandford.  It found that though Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, or, of the United States, that standing for the Court to hear the case was based upon the Courts acting on the fact that the question of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court.

You will see that even though Scott had no standing, the Court decided to hear the case, anyway.  If you do not challenge jurisdiction (Sandford’s obligation), the Court may assume jurisdiction, the laws of the land notwithstanding..

Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Excerpts are from that decision.

“That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States, for the reasons therein stated.  If the question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming a citizen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed.  It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us; and that as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error; and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court.

Since the matter of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court, the Court will not rule on Scott’s standing.

However, the Court now finds that it has a forum to define just what a citizen is — a point that had only been addressed in rather ambiguous terms in the Constitution, and not since addressed by the Congress, or the Court.

Taney goes on to ask this important question:

Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?

Further defining the question, he says:

The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States.

While the decision covers many aspects, and many ways, of addressing the question, I will provide only those that are concise and indicative of the sense of the Court and the decision held to.  Remember, as you read, that this decision predates the 14th Amendment.

The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.  The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

Well, there is an interesting phrase, used in the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate, “remained subject to their authority”.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union.  It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.  He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State.  For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights.  But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States.  Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States.  Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.  The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.  The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.  Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States.  It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own.  And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endow him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.  And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.”

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

Well, that makes pretty clear who could not be a “citizen of the United States”.  So, let us look, from the other side, at who was a “citizen of the United States”.

“It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.  And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations.  We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Now, clearly, it is those who initiated the fight for independence that are of the class recognized by the Constitution as “citizens of the United States”.  Many have pointed out that one of the first to “die for the cause” was a negro named Crispus Attucks, who was shot to death in the “Boston Massacre”, in 1770.  This, however, in the eyes of the Court, does not qualify him as one of the people — for which the country was intended.

Though the decision of the Court continues to give examples of just how the Court perceived this relationship, I would prefer to not include too many more of the over one-hundred and ten thousand words in the Decision.  There are some words, however, that warrant our attention in fully understanding what was intended by the founding of this nation, and so I will provide these few additional paragraphs:

“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.  They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.  The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection.  It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.  It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.  It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary.

Therefore, an attempt to apply the standards upon which this nation was founded to the morality of today, or, even, of 1856, when this case was heard, would be to deny the intention of the founders.  This does not preclude the utilization of the Fifth Article (Amendment Process) of the Constitution to effect change, which was to be partially achieved eleven years later.  It simply explains what a “citizen of the United States” was, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, or not. That will be the subject of the Part II.

* * * * *

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V

Committees of Safety and the General Association

Committees of Safety and the General Association

The Committees of safety were best described as an Executive Committee, perhaps equivalent to a mayor, county board, or governor.  In Agnes Hunt’s book, “The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution“, she explains the colony level Committee of Safety as an Executive Board that often shared that responsibility with the governor, if the governor had taken the colonist’s side of the dispute with Great Britain.

Though no “instruction manual” has been found, various writings about the Committees, and records left by them, provide a pattern that can be reestablished, at least to the extent that the Committees operated, in some locations.  It is probably safe to assume, also, that other locations operated in a similar fashion.

What has come to light is that a community had a General Association, to which each family who chose to subscribe was subscribed by the signature of the head of the family.  In some instances, if the head of the family was a Tory, or had questionable allegiance, another male in the family would subscribe to the General Association.  It also appears that the term, Committee of Safety, applied to both the General Association and the executive board known as the Committee of Safety.  Tories were excluded from participation, however, once hostilities broke out, they, along with everyone else in the community, was assumed to be under the jurisdiction of the Committee of Safety (a de fact subscriber).  This would subject them to judicial control of the Committee, which, in the case of Tories.  Might result in “house-arrest, taking of long arms, or even imprisonment, unless and until an oath was taken to the cause of the colony.

From the General Association, members were elected to serve on the Committee, as representatives of the entire Association.  In Albany, New York, where a count can be made, approximately 10% of the General Association (by family, not total census) served on the Committee of Safety, at any given time.

There was frequent turnover within the Committee.  Chairmen appeared to serve for six months, and names change, in the composition of the Committee, fairly often, though some members served the entire period from 1775 to 1781.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities.  Most General Associations, and their respective Committees of Safety, existed only to fill in where the British government failed to provide necessary services.  Often the Association and Committee were described as the “town meeting”, which was an authority granted under the Royal Charter, converted to strictly General Associations and Committees of Safety, as the disagreement between colonists and British Rule devolved into conflict (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence).

By April 12, 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress requested that all communities within Massachusetts form Committees of Safety (See document at  After the outbreak of hostilities, just a week later, every colony put out similar requests for the creation of Committees.

Much of the record of evidence demonstrates another aspect of Committees.  Committees were formed in communities.  Within a County, those communities would form a County Committee of Safety, and, though, much independence of action by the local Committees was retained, they subordinated to the County Committee of Safety, as a senior body.  Similarly, the Provincial Committees (as par Agnes Hunt, above) subordinated to the State Committee of Safety, though they, too, retained independence in many areas.  The ascending levels of authority appear to be only to the extent necessary to achieve cooperation and coordination of efforts.

The extent of the “legislative authority” of the Committees, at all levels, seems to be limited with enacting laws to deal with Tories (those inimical to the cause of American Liberty”) and establishing requirements for service in their respective militia units.


For more information about Committees of Safety, go to



The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution

Fourteenth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution

From the Ratification of the Constitution through today

What affect has it had on the concept of government intended by the Framers of the Constitution; on our Liberties and our Lives; and, is it really what we believe it to be?

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment
and its effects

Gary Hunt

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

For nearly thirty years, I have attempted to resolve a series of questions that are common to the patriot, or constitutionalist, community.  These questions relate to what has happened to the legal system that we were supposed to have adopted, at the time of the formation of this country, based upon both the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776, and, a concept of justice that removed us from the arbitrary control of government.

Over the years, I have listened to what others had to say I have watched their actions to see the results.  I have read cases that seemed to bear on the subject, and, I have “experimented”, when the opportunity to do so arose.

Over time, as will be explained in the following, the pieces seem to fit a pattern.  Rather than trying to wrap the facts around a theory, I developed a theory that fit all of the facts that I could find.  However, in finding that some of the facts were, inexplicably, unwilling to fit any theory, I realized that there must be two theories, and it was a matter, then, of determining which theory fit which facts.

The two outstanding theories, neither of which will recognize the other, are:

  • We are subject to all laws enacted by the government, unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
  • We are subject to no laws enacted by the Congress; instead, we are only subject to the common law.

The two sides (theories) have advocates who faced off with the other side, each insisting that they are right and the other is wrong.  While, in fact, both sides are partially right, and, partially wrong.

* * *

It does, however, appear that many of the intermediate jurisdictions (other than courts), institutions, and even private corporations, believe that the nexus is there, and, that they are bound by such laws they are told to abide by.  They assume that you, too, are bound by such laws.  To argue the point with them is fruitless, and, at best, will only create dissension.  They, too, have been duped, along with most of the people in this country, into believing that which is not true.

It is for the purpose of exposing that deception that the following has been prepared, for your consideration.

* * *

This Essay will provide insight into the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution; the effect that the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination; Court decisions and Congressional enactments have had on our relationship with the government.

You may be sorry after you have read it, but you will understand how the subversion of the Constitution has been achieved.

The entire Essay can be found on line at:

The PDF file can be download from The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – Essay (PDF)


Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation)

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court

Unlike the common law courts that you hear about, so often, usually in a bad light — as trying to “bring justice” to government officials, the Committee of Safety — Common Law Court (CoS-CLC) is to bring balance to the patriot community.

The Division in the patriot community has, for decades, been our most serious problem.  Perhaps a means to resolve those disputes that lead to division will substantially reduce the problem of division.  This is the idea behind the CoS-CLC.  Suppose there is a name-calling going on between two people.  Others are bound to take sides; generally, it will be the side of a friend or someone who has “your ear” more than the other does.

Unfortunately, such controversy can wreak havoc in portions of the community, often resulting in the disruption, or even dissolution, of an organization.

So, just how can such a problem be avoided?

Let’s suppose that both sides to such controversy are given an equal platform to “air their grievances”.  A platform that will moderate the “debate”, allow evidence to be submitted, both sides being heard, even allowing testimony from witnesses, without any prejudicial intervention.  After all of the evidence is submitted, witnesses heard, and statements made, by both parties, it is turned over to a jury of 12 peers (members of the patriot community) to deliberate and come up with a verdict.

Once the verdict is presented, it will be available for all to read, along with the pertinent portions of the trial.  It will remain as reference, for all who might have questions about either, or both of the parties.

The same can be held for questionable organizations or programs.  All that is required is that someone file a Complaint, and the other party answer.  The CoS-CLC will then begin the process for the “trial”.

All that is needed for this invaluable tool to become available for us it to have members of the community, from as diverse a sampling of Patriots as possible, from all walks of life, from all parts of the country.  This is your chance to have your say, to make your voice be heard, to help rid the infighting, and to provide justice, and vindication or validation for those who have been harmed.

* * *

You can learn more about the Court, and volunteer to serve at

You can visit the Forum where you can discuss Committees of Safety or join in conversation at the Green Dragon Inn (need not be registered), or, see the Courtroom (must register), at

We need volunteers to be judges, jurors, and grand jurors.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see  Committee of Safety - Common Law Court (introduction)]



Introduction to Committees of Safety

Introduction to Committees of Safety

Committees of Safety, or like elements, existed throughout the history of colonial America.  Though known by various names (Committees of Protection, Associations, or, as the case in Plymouth Colony, an unnamed civil body politic, and, in Jamestown, simply governing council), they had the characteristic of being a civil government absent a government established by the sovereign.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Mayflower CompactIn ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,
the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James
by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,
defender of ye faith, &cHaueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente
of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to
plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe
by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and
one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a
ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=
therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,
constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,
Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie:  vnto
which we promise all due submission and obedience.  In witnes
wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=
Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne
Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth
and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·|

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


In the early eighteenth century, Committees of Safety were quite common, especially on the frontiers, where the possibility if Indian attacks were likely.  The Committee would appoint watchmen, hog reeves, fence reeves, and, militia officers.  These are functions that were taken on by more organized governments, in some towns, though were common through most of the colonies, leading up to the War of Independence.

Committees served, primarily, to fill in gaps that were left by existing colonial and county governments, providing services that were otherwise unavailable.

As tensions grew between the colonists and the Crown government in England, the need for Committees increased, especially in western Massachusetts and South Carolina.  After the Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774), which revoked the Massachusetts Charter and replace the locally elected governments with appointments by the King, the farmers in western Massachusetts began forming Committee to assure a continuity of government and to take charge in expelling courts and judges who were not abiding by the original charter, and replacing them with their owns courts, though primarily only for criminal matters.

There were sufficient numbers of Committees in most of the colonies to call for the First Continental Congress, in 1774.  These Committees were not subject to Royal governance, because, quite simply, to call for such a Congress would have been a contradiction of their authority granted by the various charters.  Subsequently, the Second and Third Continental Congress were called by the Committees, which by this time, had evolved to the point where sufficient numbers of participating Committees established a Provincial Committee of Safety.

Committees of Safety continued to operate as functions of local government throughout the War of Independence, until each state adopted a Constitution, or otherwise revised their form of government, absent any Royal control.  Once the Article of Confederation were instituted (1781), the need for the Committees, except, once again, in the frontiers, diminished, as did the Committees.

Their next occurrence was in 1835, when President Santa Anna abolished the Constitution of 1824, granting himself enormous powers over the government.  Colonists in Texas began forming Committees of Correspondence and Safety.  A central Committee in San Felipe de Austin coordinated their activities.  This de facto government waged the revolution against Mexico, directing and supplying the militia, until independence was won.

What role could Committees of Safety play in today’s world?

Events such as Katrina, as well as the possibility of man caused disasters, are potential threats to the security, safety, and well-being of our families.

If a Committee existed in your community, and you were a member, then your family is also a member.  Suppose there was some sort of event that affected food supply, utilities, water, or otherwise threatened your safety.  You have in place, through the Committee, a cooperative with which to share needed resources.  Though short lived in Plymouth Colony and Jamestown, this “cooperative” served quite well for survival in a hostile land, for the first few years.

It also allowed the sharing of crops in the frontier towns and agricultural communities, in later colonial times, when Indian raids, or weather, destroyed crops, which would leave those affected short of food, had their neighbors (fellow Committee members) not shared with them what food was available.

In the aftermath of Katrina, if a Committee existed in a consolidated area (a community), and sent a representative to the local law enforcement with the message, “we will provide our own protection in our area”, describing the limits of the area protected by the Committee, it would make sense the law enforcement would be relieved that their job was made easier based upon the Committee relieving them of a substantial area that might otherwise require their patrolling.

The Committee would be a resource for such eventualities, and would be an ideal place from which to gain recognition by launching programs to help those in need.  Roof repairs, painting, yard maintenance, etc., for those unable to care for their own property.  This would encourage friendship, appeal to potential members, improve the quality of the neighborhood, and set the Committee out as supportive of the neighborly attitude that prevailed in this country, many decades ago.  This would result in reduced crime, safer streets and communities, and, a reaffirmation of our rights, freedoms, and liberty.

Committees of Safety are quite able to fill in where government fails to provide, at least for those who see the need, join, and, participate in, Committees of Safety.

Nation #1 – What is a Nation?

Let’s Get Real! – Nation #1

What is a Nation?

Gary Hunt
June 7, 2009

 Though I usually shy away from Wikipedia as a source, I will, in this instance, begin with their definition: “A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.”

 Next, we will quote Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, “A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and, generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty”. [Montoya v. U.S., 180 U.S. 261, 21 S.Ct. 358]

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that a Nation is a people with a common heritage and a common culture.

In the past, there were nation-states. Though they may have had nearby nation-states, which contained people with a common heritage and a common culture, only location tended to separate them, and each was its own distinct nation-state.

When Europeans first began settling the new world, there was, in the area known as New England, a group of native people who were known as the Five Nations (later, as the Six Nations). They became such after the Great Peace. Each nation had very similar cultures and heritages as the other nations, however, the distinctions were sufficient to separate them as nations. Each Nation, then, was composed of was various tribes and sub-tribes. Many of the Founders recognized the sophistication of the Six Nations, and, there is reason to believe that some of the concepts that were learned from the Indians were incorporated into the though process during the Constitutional Convention.

That Constitutional Convention was the beginning of what was to become a great nation. It had all of the elements of a nation, and it was that commonality which allowed the design of the form of government to evolve into the United States of America. It also recognized the part played by and obligation to preserve, intact, the Indian population. First, it provided that the Indians would not be taxed (Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3), then it gave Congress the power to regulate commerce with the various Indian tribes (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3), and, finally, made treaties the supreme law of the land (Article III, Sec. 2).

So, in 1787, a new nation was created. It was based upon a common heritage and a common culture, with the exception of the Indians. They were, however, accounted for and given a place to exist within the new nation (subsequent violations of treaties notwithstanding).

 Continued at:

Nation #2 – What is not a Nation?

Let’s Get Real! – Nation #2

What is not a Nation?

Gary Hunt
June 9, 2009

From Babylon to Jerusalem (at the time of the Crusade), and, through the history of the world, countries have aspired to be nations. When they had not the commonality of heritage and culture, they invariably failed.

 Some will argue that the Romans made a great nation that comprised major portions of Europe and Africa, because they allowed the local populations to continue to exist, with their languages and cultures. They were, however, subservient to the Romans, and were only allowed to exist so long as the paid tribute to Rome. They were second-class citizens, to say the least.

 England, the Great Britannia, subjugated many nations, allowing the locals to live as they had, but required submission to the authority of the Crown. The extent of subjugation even included colonies comprised of once British subjects (especially Australia and America).

 It seems as if history has taught us that a nation has to have the common elements. Those who have tried integration have been short lived. Those who have avoided the integration have survived much longer.

 One aspect of integration is that it leaves a potential source of disruption. As culture and heritage are divergent, there is the potential for disagreement, if not conflict, which will, forever, remain a festering sore within the nation.

 It was with this understanding that the American Colonization Society was established in 1816. By 1820, a stipend, along with transportation to and land in Liberia, were provided to freed slaves and born free Negroes.

 Time has removed the option of continued colonization of Liberia, and time has provided a means for US citizenship for Negroes, and later, for Asians and other previously excluded races. So, today, we (the United States) are a nation outside of the proper definition, and the problems that are inherent with a country composed of many cultures and many heritages continue to plague as and sow seeds of discontent.

 We are a country, though we are not a nation.

 Continued at:

Nation #3 – Can We become a Nation?

Let’s Get Real! – Nation #3

Can We become a Nation?

Gary Hunt
June 9, 2009

Given the present circumstances in this country, we are faced with only a few choices with which to deal with the obtaining of the common elements necessary for us to be, truly, a Nation, once again.

Given the present circumstances in this country, we are faced with only a few choices with which to deal with the obtaining of the common elements necessary for us to be, truly, a Nation, once again.


1.)  Of course, we could accept the mixing of the varieties of cultures and heritages, though if we do so, we will continue down the road that we see before us, every day. We will have the Sharptons and the Jacksons, we will have La Raza in the Southwest, claiming that our country belongs to them, and, we will have the “tong” attempting to establish Chinese authority in parts of San Francisco. We will have religious groups, such as the Muslims, who will not abide by our laws because they believe that they have the right for their women to cover their faces, and to behead disobedient wives. I am sure, as time goes by, that we can add many more to this list, especially considering the liberality (political correctness) of the court system.

2.)  We could reject all of those who are not of traditional European (not the new mix that is creating problems similar to our own, today) decent, except North American Indians, native to the soil. This poses a dilemma in that there are many of mixed blood in this country, today. Do we review ancestry and require a minimum percentage of Europeans decent blood? Or, do we reject, outright, anyone with any non-European or Indian blood, outright? This solution poses a logistical nightmare, and would wreak with an air of supremacy.

3.)  We could follow the path similar to that of the Founders and allow all to stay who profess to be Americans. If anyone seeks to precede “American” with any other descriptor indicating a mixed allegiance, they would no longer be considered an American. No Hispanic-Americans, No Chinese-Americans, no African-Americans, no Mexican-Americans, etc. Their allegiance must be singular and to the country which they have chosen to be a part of. They must speak English as the National Language, they must learn American History, as the history of their chosen country. They must reject the nation from which they have fled, or which they refuse to return to. They must take a Loyalty Oath (excepting those who had proven ties to their original heritage and culture) to the country they have chosen to call their own. Absent that oath, or in violation of that oath, they must no longer be considered Americans. This does not preclude their maintaining ties to their past. In their own homes, or in social clubs, they can express their heritage and culture, but in the workplace, in schools, on the streets and in their lives, they must strive to be as American as those who ventured here from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. They must want to be Americans.

Given the choices, which would you prefer to, once again, become a nation?

Continued at:

Nation #4 – What has to be done to Again Become a Nation?

Let’s Get Real! – Nation #4

What has to be done to Again Become a Nation?

Gary Hunt
June 19, 2009

 Those who chose to leave, or refused to take the loyalty oath should be given a stipend and a ticket to the country of their choice. They can take with them any moveable property they own and the knowledge that they acquired in this country to provide them the mean to make the country of their choice a little better off than it is, now. Any real property would be bought from them at current market value. To assure that the integrity of the nation is maintained, entry into the United Sates must be with permission and in accordance with the laws. Anyone caught violating the entry laws will be impressed at hard labor (building fences and legal entry points along the border) for 6 months, as a deterrent, and then removed to the country from which he came. A second violation would double the hard labor, and a third would assure 2 years of fence building.

Any guest to this country would be by permit (visa) with a limit of 2 years stay. After returning to their native land for no less than 6 months, they would become eligible for another visa.

Corporations created in this country would be required to do business in this country. Employees must be Americans (no visa guests to be employed) and all manufacturing would be in this country. Importation of goods should have tariffs imposed that were just short of protective. They could only be imported by American corporations licensed to import foreign products. Americans would have to hold 75% of the ownership stock of American corporations. Foreign corporations would not be allowed to operate in this country. All land in this country could be owned only by Americans. Absolutely no foreigners should own land in this nation.

Most significantly, an evaluation of current voting rights should be considered. It would appear that we have learned from our mistakes. If the vote is given to those who contribute little or nothing, in the form of taxes, it could be that they are not the best choice for making decisions regarding who will deal with the allocation of those taxes. Quite simply, those who own land (equity in 50% of the real property) are those who have made the foundation upon which the nation will survive, or fail. It is to those who have made such a contribution, whether by effort or inheritance, that the determination of representation should be made. Each household should be limited to one vote. Nullification (2 or more adults in one household, voting at odds with each other) makes no sense, therefore, and since the foundations of this country are patriarchal, the oldest male or female family member in the household has the vote, unless they choose to relinquish it to another.

Since this country was formed as part Republic and part Democracy, it should be returned to that nature. The 17th Amendment should be repealed so that the states have a vote in the democratic portion of government (equal say for each state), as a state, by its legislature. The Republic portion (Representation of households) to be continued, as above.

The Constitution is sacred. It is not a living document, rather it is ‘the chains that bind the government’. As such, any person holding public office who violates that oath to uphold and defend the Constitution will be removed from office and never allowed, again, to serve in any public office.

This is intended to present some ideas on what needs to be done to recreate the once great nation, The United States of America. Under the guise of progress, and political correctness, we have lost the integrity of government that is so necessary for its continuance as a model, rather than a master, to the world.

On dealing with a part of the Immigration Problem

On dealing with a part of the Immigration Problem

Gary Hunt
May 23, 2010

 Let’s just look at what might effectively solve just a part of the immigration (invasion) problem in this country.  This will deal with only a single aspect (source) of the problem, though there is little doubt that with a bit of modification, it can be applied much more broadly.

This is the result of a conversation with a friend (whom I have done a number of interviews with, in the past, but did not have my tape recorder set up for the interview, this time).  The question was, is there a way to deal with the proliferation of Muslims in this country, without the government playing footsy and political correctness — which has resulted more in encouragement than discouragement?

Well, first, to identify the problem.  Islam is a religion.  It is also very political in its application, since the requirement for Sharia Law is as much a part of it as prayer rugs.  True, some do not practice Sharia, though you can never know if that is simply an accommodation to the host (the American People), or is ignored to provide cover for their true beliefs.

As far as true beliefs, from all that I can find on the subject, and, this dates back to Marco Polo’s writings, an infidel was one who has not accepted the faith.  An infidel can be lied to; he can be stolen from; he can be enslaved; and, he can be killed without remorse.  Well, if he can be lied to, then how can we possibly know whether any Muslim believes in Sharia, or not.

Understanding what the religion has been known for, for at least 750 years, it is probably safe to assume that we can judge Islam to be more than a religion; that we can judge it to be a way of life, government, and, morality, that is contrary, in all three aspects, to that which is the culture of America.

That being the case, we must consider whether it is, ultimately, destructive of our own culture to welcome, with open arms, what professes to be a religion, though it carries baggage inherent to it that is destructive to any other religion.  If it is simply a matter conversion, or its purpose is to force its beliefs upon the host who is foolish enough to not protect its own household.

So, we shall proceed on the assumption that it is a worse case and that the goal of Islam in the United States is the forced conversion, or, if necessary, the disposal, or subjugation, of all infidels.  To assume any less severe a possibility may be destructive to our nation and our way of life, and, with that in mind, we must proceed under the worst-case scenario.

Where to start?  Well, ascending order might be best.  First, we need to identify the potential enemy.  That, to a great extent, the government has already done, but, at best, they keep that information to themselves, to the extent of denying us the privilege of know just how many Muslims there are, in this country, including illegal, visa guests, work or student visas, and those who have obtained citizenship by birth (anchor) or naturalization.

In that order, we should find each of those who fall within the category of practicing Muslims, or any absence of an indication of having renouncing Islam.

Once identified, an anonymous letter should be delivered to them providing them fair warning that they have, in the case of all but those with citizenship, until July 4, 2010 to settle their affairs and remove themselves from this country.  Failure to do so may result in them being treated as infidels, and enemies, who have invaded our country.

Those who have attained the status of citizen should be provided the same warning, though having established themselves on a more permanent basis, must exit by July 4, 2011.

So, what happens on July 5, 2010?  Well, a good start would be the destruction of property, including owned businesses, absent the citizenship.  But, how do you know if the person is a citizen, or not?  A call from a pay phone, ask them, and if they claim that they are citizens, taking their word for it (we are honorable, though they have no qualms about lying to us).  This will give them 365 more days to settle their affairs.

Those that are not citizens are, well, open game for destruction of property, life, or limb.  Much like the Vigilantes did in San Francisco (along with many other instances in our history), when the law refuses to enforce the law, then it is the obligation of the people to uphold the law.  However, when the people are forced into that capacity, the luxuries of trial by jury, and other amenities, are not safely, or readily, available.  (Daniel Pearl was otherwise innocent (he was an infidel)) .  The action must be taken in such a frequency as to bring the awareness of the severity of the situation to the forefront.  In the long run, a massive commencement of such activity will provide sufficient warning to those not directly impacted by these actions to realize that they are, until such time as they settle up and remove themselves, subject to the same retribution.

There is another aspect that warrants our consideration, as well.  That would be their houses of worship (and administers of Sharia Law).  It is evident that a Mosque will not entertain its worshippers with a query as to whether they are here legally, or not; whether they have a visa, or not; or whether they are citizens, or not.  Suffice it to say the destruction of such potentially threatening institutions will be seen as a word to the wise, with regard to the sincerity of our demands.

Understand that the conversation had a lot more detail, but it is nothing that you couldn’t figure out, yourselves.

Once again, thanks to my friend John for a lively discussion.