The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2014

Before I get to the meat of this article, I am going to present my assessment of the well known videos/articles asserting Sheriff Richard Mack laying claim that, as at least one of the headlines states, “Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women ‘Up at the Front’ During Bundy Ranch Standoff”.

When I first read of this proclamation by Sheriff Mack, I had two thoughts. First, if that was the strategy, and was implemented, what made him think that he should divulge the tactic in a public proclamation? The only answer I could come up with was self-aggrandizement.

Second, if the women “were up front”, what would make him feel a need to go public with why they were up front, unless he thought that he could bolster his reputation by laying claim as the proponent of it, again, self-aggrandizement.

In viewing the pictures of the Saturday rescue of the cattle, I didn’t see women at the fence while the discussions were going on, nor was I able to discern women in a ‘risky’ position in any of the footage, however in some scenes, the distance was too great to discern male or female, and I was also limited to the tunnel vision of the camera operator. This, however, was insufficient, by my standards, to make an assessment and go public with it.

Then comes Kelly Townsend, of the Phoenix Tea Party, who I have spoken with in the past. I received what follows from another source, so I called Kelly to verify the veracity of what will be made clear, below. Kelly confirmed that she had made contact and received the two responses that are contained therein.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the participation of certain people within the Patriot Community, at least as to their motives. Not to suggest that they are not patriotic, rather to ascertain just what their priorities are in their involvement. There is a phrase that was commonly expressed in the nineties to describe many who “sold” information, plans, even ideologies, for a price. The were called “Patriots for Profit”. Now, can we doubt that some of those players in these recent events haven’t benefitted financially (contributions to their respective causes), substantially, by their support of the efforts of those on the ground in Bunkerville, Nevada? However, I think that we need to also ask, is what they raised as a consequence of their participation going back to the ranch, to sustain the continuing effort, providing food, supplies, and perhaps some token payments, to those who have freely, often solely at their own expense, and put their lives on the line?

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

Folks,

We need your help to dispel a terrible rumor that was started by one of our own.  Sheriff Mack thought it would be a good strategy to put women and children up front in the confrontation between the Bundy family and Federal agents.  Because he said that, it has now become the narrative that the Bundy family actually did do that.  I have had two of the women send me statements that they are trying to get out in order to undo the damage caused by this unfortunate miscalculation on the Sheriff’s part.  Please help the ladies right the wrong and send the statements out to everyone you know, asking them to do the same.

Thank you,
Kelly Townsend

As a woman rider on Saturday I can confirm that the statement made was untrue. In fact it was opposite. We were told to stay at the rear. If a shot [was] fired, we were to ride as fast as we could for safety. The women did not approach the gate until BLM had dispersed and metro had arrived. These were officers of our community that we knew and trusted, otherwise we would have remained where the Bundy men told us to stay. The Bundy men are protectors and would not have allowed any harm to come to us. We were there on our own accord for the freedoms of our children.
Briana Bundy

To whom it may concern
I would like to put an abrupt stop to the rumor concerning the speculation that women and children were strategically placed at the front of the protest against the BLM on Saturday April 12th. I was one of 5 women that was horse back that day, and never once was I asked or told to stand at the front of the pack. The cavalry of horses was stopped by members of the Bundy family that were also riding, before we dropped off the hill into the wash in order to have a prayer. There, we were asked once we entered the wash to spread into a straight line and stand as a united front. We were asked to be Christ like and reverent. We were asked not to taunt or yell obscenities. As a woman, I chose to stand with the Bundy family. I chose to ride into that wash, along side my husband and my friends in order to stand for something I believe is right. And contrary to current rumor, I was instructed that if anything were to go wrong, I was to turn my horse around and get somewhere safe as fast as possible. I think I can speak for most of the women in that wash on Saturday, when I say that standing along side the Bundy family, not in front of or behind them, but with them, was a choice me made that day and would make again.

Thank you,
Haley Crandall

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

 Then ponder, who did stand in front at Lexington Green?

           “No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time through fear of giving offense I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings.

            Mr. President it is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775 (Liberty or Death speech)

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

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

The Bundy Affair

The Battle Continues

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 16, 2014

Late yesterday early evening, I received a message and link to on on-line article about the events at the Bundy’s Ranch.  I was asked if the article was accurate.  The article is at National Report and is titled “Multiple Militia Members Arrested at Bundy Ranch, Charged with Domestic Terrorism.”  The article, though no time stamp, appears to have been posted yesterday (April 15) at about 3:00 PM PDT.  It has no byline.

I have been in contact with people who had been at the ranch, and I have spoken with Ryan Bundy, as my point of contact at the ranch.  Realizing that they have had their hands full, dealing with the events and after the events, I had minimized my contact with Ryan (a 45 minute interview on April 8, and a 5 minute conversation a few days ago), but this article warranted attention.

I called Ryan, yesterday evening, and asked if they were aware of any arrests.  He affirmed that there had been no arrests.  There is little doubt that had such arrests occurred, the Bundys surely would have received information to that effect.

So, why would someone want to publish an article that was such a blatant lie, and easily refutable?  Well, let’s look at some aspects of the article, and then I will conclude with what appears to be the reason behind this article, and perhaps many more that are circulating on the Internet.

The article begins with this assertion, “The standoff in Nevada reached new heights this afternoon as armed federal agents began arresting militia members gathered to protest in support of Cliven Bundy.”  Considering the time that it was published, early in the afternoon, it does raise suspicion.

Next, it claims:

In total, 16 protesters taking part in the rally are reportedly in custody and being held without bail on domestic terrorism charges, resisting arrest, creating a public nuisance, and trespassing.

Interestingly, they were charged with “domestic terrorism” and “creating a public nuisance”.  The former, probably quite severe; the latter, usually treated with arrest and then release; a rather strange assortment of charges.

Then, for whatever reason, the following conclude that paragraph:

Early reports indicate that protesters were verbally and physically abused prior to being arrested.

I would suggest that this sentence is intended to garner sympathy from, and credibility to, the patriots, for reasons that will be addressed, later.

Now, the next paragraph gets even more interesting.  In a single sentence, a warning is put out to instill fear in any who attend the protests going on outside of the Bundy Ranch:

Federal agent Paul Horner, a 14-year veteran of the force, spoke with National Report by phone and had this to say: “Under direct orders from the FBI and the DOJ, on behalf of the BLM, we have infiltrated the crowd with armed undercover agents.  The agents are collecting intel and coordinating that information with drones that are also overseeing the disturbance.  In addition, we have positively identified approximately 85% of the crowd and are running background checks for previous violations, warrants, etc.  License plate numbers of protesters are being collected and entered into the national database as well.  These right-wing extremists pose a serious threat to the safety of the operation and we have orders to make arrests and confiscate firearms.”

Now, I don’t like windmills, so I will not joust with one to see if Horner is real, though I doubt that he is.  However, within his statement, he “admits” infiltration by armed undercover agents, who we must suppose came out from their cover when they made the arrests.  Then, the subsequent threat of identification and inclusion in a “national database” sort of completes the effort of intimidation.

There is more to the article, however, what is above presented is sufficient for us to begin to look at, perhaps, is the purpose of this blatantly false article.

After the events of Sunday, where the BLM stood, stoically, for a few minutes, and then cowered away, in what appeared to be mortal fear, the government had lost the upper hand.  This was, without a doubt, a defeat of the worst kind for the government.  They had been publically humiliated, even in Mainstream Media, in having the will of the people asserted over their presumed authority.

If we look back at both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, we know that when there is victory, enlistments increase and public support excels.  However, with defeat comes the opposite — not to mention the psychological effect on the participants.

Embarrassment in conflict often has rather bizarre consequences.  For example, in Waco, on the first day, the BATF suffered defeat.  They were shown  with their tails between their leg, dragging wounded comrades away from the battlefield for medical treatment, with the grace of the Davidians, who were not afford such medical luxury.  Their humiliation resulted, eventually, in the childish destruction of the property of the Davidians, after the fateful fire of April 19.  This was the result of an arrogant attempt to restore the superiority of the government forces over an enemy, the Davidians.

It is the psychology of defeat, and the psychology of victory, that instills, in each side, a mental framework that is either destructive, or brings enthusiasm.

This National Report article, and many other articles that detract from the truth of the events of the past week in Bunkerville, Nevada, appear to be an intentional Psychological Warfare (Psyop) operation by the government, their shills and supporters, to endeavor to reduce the moral effect of our victory, and enhance the believe of superiority in theirs.

Before I conclude this article, I want to bring to your attention a rather divisive tool implemented in the distraction of the article.  Many know that I have been in contact with the Bundys.  As I pointed out, above, I wanted to ascertain the veracity of the article.  Once the truth was known, I posted in the comments section.  There is no logging in required (strange) and I did check the box to receive notice of follow up comments, giving my email address, though I have, since, received none.

This morning, I received a message form a friend who had run across the article, and seeing the following comments, contacted me, saying that he believed it to be true, since the comment appeared to have been made by me:

Well, that would be about the time that I posted, though my last name, which I always use, was omitted.  So, what about the wording?  Well, what I wrote was, “This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.”  (This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.)  Rather interesting, and extremely deceitful.

This is to deceive, intimidate, discredit, or otherwise attempt to use Psyop to change the nature of the game, and it is in full force.  For those interested in the mechanics of such subversive tactics, they are explained in Vortex.  Understand, however, that though the first battle has been won by the People, it is not over, and the nature of the game can be expected to change.

We must remain vigilant, and retain momentum, and not allow a denigration as a result of their tactics.  We have prevailed, and we will continue to prevail — until Constitutional government is restored to our land.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

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

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 12, 2014

Though I have been in touch with one of the Bundys, I haven’t been reporting on it.  Surely, there is more coverage of this event and activity than any in recent memory.

That, however, brings up something noteworthy.  At Waco, a call went out, early in the siege.  Less than a hundred people showed up.  Later, in April, another event was called by local Texans.  That had a bit better showing of perhaps 200-300 people.  That, however, was the extent.

Since that time, a number of organizations came into being, though many fled after the Murrah Building Bombing.  Some, however, stayed, quietly prepared for such an event as has just occurred.  It is that preparation , and subsequent new entries into the patriot community that were far more prepared to deal with, by whatever means necessary, the Bundy affair.

So, what is the outcome?  Well, BLM says that they are backing down out of concern for the safety of government employees, government contractors, and the public.  However, they failed to mention that they had bribe inspectors and an auction house in Utah to ignore laws requiring cattle health certification and branding laws — to avoid rustling of cattle, which is exactly what they were doing — as each of these (safety and branding) would have required Cliven Bundy to sign the certifications, as the owner of the livestock.

They also ignore the fact that the patriot community has, for the first time, responded, in large and growing numbers, to the VR Ranch, in opposition to the government’s activities.

The foundation for the government’s claims rests with the desert tortoise.  They wanted to designate this as a preserve that would protect them and allow them to safely prosper.  However, that is a load of, well, cattle poop, as cattle poop, in itself, is one of the best things that can happen to such critters.

In the past, nature had wildlife that roamed, and pooped, in this area.  Man has moved most of them out into other realms, leaving little to supply the wants of the tortoise.  However, in a recent article on Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62380) that argument is made for what it is — cow poop.  A study demonstrated that cattle poop is salvation for the tortoise, and that it can prosper because of it, and will struggle to survive without it.

Probably most important, however, is the fact that patriots responded.  Cliven Bundy put out a call.  Unfortunately, the patriot community, in many instances, chose to implant their conspiracy theories into the story, explaining that the reason behind the government actions had to do with _____ (fill in the blank).  Simply put, it had to do with the government taking control over as much of the public lands as possible, thinking that the public is the government, not the people, themselves.

The efforts of the government to misrepresent, and to utilize means described in “Vortex” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=642), they could not sway the distaste of government intrusion in our lives from the concern of so many who answered the call.

Most important of all, however, is the fortitude of Cliven Bundy and his family, who really were willing to put their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” on the line for a cause they believed in.

Second, those who did answer the call deserve our profound respect, as they took from their time and resources, and responded when the call was given.

And, finally, to those who supported the Bundys, by others means, believing that the government was wrong and devoted their time and energy to support, as best they could, those who were in need.

Related articles:

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

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 National Straight Beer Boycott

In an article on the “gothamist” (Brewers Pull Out of St. Patrick’s Day Parade), it is reported that Guinness, Heineken, and Sam Adams, have decided to boycott both the New York and Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parades. The reason is the banning of participation by “gay (queer) groups marching openly” in those parades.

Now, there have been many efforts to impose an economic impact on certain products, in the past. Most notably, they gasoline industry with the “don’t buy gas on Saturday” type campaigns. However, these had little, if any, impact, because you would buy gas on Friday or Sunday, have no impact, at all, on the industry. After all, there was no alternative. Gas is gas, and wherever you buy it, the cooperation between the various suppliers, doesn’t allow an appreciable impact on any single producer.

Beer, however, is different. There are many different brewers, some of whom will not attempt to social engineer you, or a Parade, into political correctness.

It is up to you, the beer drinkers, to turn the tables on the insidious practice of 6% of the population imposing their morality upon us, by such threats from their community to intimidate other industries to support their cause in this manner.

Let’s hit these people where it hurts — in their bottom line. Patriots should never put another dime in the pockets of these transgressors, and they should encourage their friends to do the same. Boycott the boycotters and drink beer only from those brewers who don’t attempt to impose their will on us — only to provide good beer.

Taxation without Representation

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2002

Early this past year, we were still being told how gracious President George W. Bush (George III) was in allowing the taxpayers (American citizens) to keep the surpluses created by a healthy economy. After all, it was their money, wasn’t it?

The current estimate for the cost of a war (police action) in Iraq is set at $200,000,000,000.00 (two hundred billion dollars), and that is assuming that a government project falls within its original budget.

So far, defense spending, in normal budgetary terms, is at its highest in many years. Though it doesn’t appear that this extremely high budget is any part of the estimated 200 billion.

Two-hundred billion dollars! Just how much money is that? Well, it is over $765.00 for every man, woman and child in this country. A family of four will be contributing over #3,060.00 dollars to a ‘war’ that, we are told, is to protect us.

Early in this century, the mobs ran protection rackets in major cities. For a few dollars here and there, the mob would assure you that you would be protected from the violence that occurred, from time to time, to those who had not chosen to participate in the protection ‘racket’.

Has the government learned from the mob? If so, they are doing far better at it than the mob had ever anticipated. First, the mob numbers, even accounting for inflation, would never amount to over three thousand dollars per household.

Secondly, the mob only sought protection from people who were involved in a business. In the current situation, every taxpayer is going to have to participate, whether an employer or employee, and his participation will have to be increased proportionate to the ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Loosely, he will have to pay about four times what his “fair share” really is. Yes, that’s a whopping $12,000.00 for each and every taxpayer.

But, don’t be discouraged. The government, you see, is much easier to work with than the mob. First, you needn’t anticipate immediate harm, if you fail to pay. In fact, the threat that is the cause for the “protection racket” is rather speculative, to say the least. It is best upon conjecture that Saddam Hussein: has weapons that can cause great harm in this country; has the means of delivering those weapons; has the motivation to deliver them (which, we are trying desperately to provide); and, finally, that he would be willing to deliver them.

Secondly, the government, has much better credit than the mob, is willing to allow your obligation to be carried, from year to year, until satisfied. Realizing that there is no way for each taxpayer to come up with his “fair share”, in addition to the regular protection money that he has been paying, regularly, the government will just “mark up” the debt, and chisel away at it, in years to come (perhaps, many, many years – hopefully, slightly faster than interest will increase the burden).

I’ll bet that you are wondering what this has to do with taxation. Well, let’s see if we can pull the pieces together. First, we must have an understanding of “representation”. I know that we all know that we think that we know what it means. After all, we all know who our “representatives” are, both in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C. They are there to “represent” us.

Let’s begin with a few definitions. First, from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (considered the language of the Founders):
” Representative… 2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. An attorney is the representative of his client or employer. A member of the house of commons is the representative of his constituents and of the nation. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation. ”

From Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth Edition): “Representative. A person chosen by the people to represent their several interests in a legislative body.”

So, it appears by Webster’s (as the Founders would have understood it) that a representative, with the exception of passing “laws” in the interest of the nation, is bound by the instruction of his constituents. The time has passed whence instructions were given, specifically, to the representatives. This process has been replaced in what has become known as “campaign promises”.

In campaign promises, a candidate tell the constituents what he will do when he is elected. The candidate that seems to best represent, ideologically and specifically, the interest of the greater number of voters is elected – and, sent to represent the “several interests” (Black’s) of the people.

I

Now, if your candidate had campaigned under “no new taxes”, he would have to carry that “campaign promise” as an indication of the “several interests” of the people.

So, the question arises, “Does an elected representative, once he violates his campaign promise, cease to represent his constituents?”

II

Congress has specific responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution. One of those, and one which is very significant in the limitations of power which were desired and inherent, when the Constitution was written and ratified, is the “Power … To declare War”.

So, the question arises, “Should an elected representative shirk his Constitutional responsibility, does he cease to represent his constituents?”

III

There is little doubt that real war (declared in accordance with the Constitution), which without might cause a failure in the governmental obligation for “common defense”, is a situation which warrants incurring debt. Like any family, it is the duty of the head of that family NOT to incur such debt as to force his children, and their children into debt before their lifetime begins. The Constitution even assured that a means of bankruptcy would preclude the necessity of burdening posterity with debt of which they had no part.

It should be evident that our representatives in Congress, likewise, except in cases of necessity, cannot burden those yet unborn with obligations to repay debt of which they had no part. To do so, without extraordinary cause, would be to tax those who one could not possibly represent.

So, the question arises: “Should an elected representative impose a tax on someone yet unborn, except under extraordinary circumstances, is he taxing without representation?”

IV

The government of the United States of America exists ONLY because the people caused it to exist. Unlike any government that preceded it, its source is the people, and the people, only.

All other governments, prior to the founding of the United States, were lead by people who had acquired leadership (ownership) of the country by either force; or, divine right (from God).

The creation of that government was under certain conditions. The authority of the government to govern was first granted by the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient authority for the federal government to be able to maintain itself sufficiently to conduct its business.

The Constitution, in order to provide a “more perfect Union” of independent and sovereign states, was created with very specific powers, authorities, and limitations. It was endowed, by the people, with authority and RESPONSIBILITY. As such, it exists ONLY at the will of the people. It represents (stands in the place of) only those to whom it has kept its promise.

To think that we could walk away from government; abolish it by our consent, especially in a representative form of government, is, without question, impossible.

On the other hand, if that contract is breached by the government, they, by their very act of violation, have removed themselves from the contract. The have divested us from that government.

If any of the questions above are answered in the affirmative, the government has violated your consent to be governed by them. They have ceased to have any authority over your life, except that which they can impose by force. Similarly, the only effect you can have on them is by force. You are without (proper or lawful) government, and they are without authority to govern. They could only do so if you were to, again, give your consent to be government under a new contract (whether written, or not).

Have you given your consent?

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

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

What is Habeas Corpus?

There is only one Right embodied in the Constitution; the remainder are found in the Bill of Rights.  For the most part, the Constitution created a government and granted it only certain powers and authorities.  So, what right is so significant as to be included within the Constitution, while the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 2 years later?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.  [Article I, §9, cl. 2]

What?  That says “Privilege”.  Well, a “Privilege” is a right that can be suspended, under certain circumstances.  Those circumstances are only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”, and, being in Article I, of the Constitution, the authority to suspend that right lies only with the Congress.

If you were old enough, or fortunate enough, to have been taught about Habeas Corpus in your early schooling, you would know that it is the “sacred writ” and that it means, “produce the body”.  Well, that doesn’t tell you a lot, though it does demonstrate that even in school, the assurance that you had a rudimentary understanding of what Habeas Corpus was a part of the educational process.

So, what is Habeas Corpus?  We can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, to find what a modern definition is:

habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent. 

This is the well-known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ in the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the Courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Perhaps we can look for a more specific explanation of just what it means by “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment.”  Detention, of course, would be simply “arrest”, while imprisonment is a consequence of conviction.  This is important to understand, as we proceed.  Now, we can see what some legal scholars, in the era of the framing of the Constitution, have to say.

First, we will look at the very foundation of Habeas Corpus in the Magna Carta, from 1215 A.D., which states, in Article 39, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Now, as you continue to read, you will see reference to “ill nature [or] mere inattention of government“; “repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors”; and, that it is “the great bulwark of personal liberty.”  Understand, regardless of what you have believed, that the Framers were concerned, as they understood human nature, and provided for, not in the Bill of Rights, but, in the body of the Constitution, this single means, this right, to challenge unconstitutional laws, giving the people, themselves, the means to nullify such enactments that were contrary to the powers and authorities granted by the Constitution.

In 1768, William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, says of the writ, “A remedy the more necessary, because the oppression does not always arise from the ill-nature, but sometimes from the mere inattention of government.”

In 1829, William Rawle, in his “A View of the Constitution of the United States”, tells us that it “is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors.”

Finally, in 1833, Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, provides that, “At the common law there are various writs, called writs of habeas corpus.  But the particular one here spoken of is that great and celebrated writ, used in all cases of illegal confinement, known by the name of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum...  It is, therefore, justly esteemed the great bulwark of personal liberty.”

There is another aspect of Habeas Corpus that is not addressed in any of the above descriptions, though, as we will learn as we continue down this road, the Supreme Court of the United States has also ruled that since there is both a federal constitution and a constitution within each state, jurisdiction is a consideration of Habeas Corpus, as well.

Demand for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is two things; first, it is the demand for a writ of habeas corpus.  It is not automatic, and absent such request, there is no reason for the courts to even consider it.  Second is the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which, in past practice, required that the party incarcerated be brought before the court to determine if his imprisonment is legal.

So, we can look, once again, to the legal scholars, to see what they say about the demand.  However, before we do this, there is another source from which modern Habeas Corpus emanates, and we shall consider it.

In 1679, the first Habeas Corpus Act was enacted in England.  From that Act, we find:

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the returns aforesaid… shall for the first offence forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of one hundred pounds; (2) and for the second offence the sum of two hundred pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said office…

So, we see that punishment for failure to respond to a writ of habeas corpus has penalties.

And, from Blackstone, we find, “it was, and is still, necessary to apply for it by motion to the court,… [that] if a probable ground be shewn, that the party is imprisoned without just cause, and therefore hath a right to be delivered, the writ of habeas corpus is then a writ of right, which may not be denied, but ought to be granted to every man that is committed, or detained in prison, or otherwise restrained, though it be by the command of the king, the privy council, or any other.”

So, the question arises, can the court not issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus, without showing cause why it should not be issued?  To answer this, we must first understand just what “suspend” means.  From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Suspend – To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

Is Habeas Corpus Suspended?

Habeas Corpus, being a “writ of right”, as explained above, has a status similar to an “objection” during a trial.  Once demanded, it must be answered, prior to proceeding, as the objection will be “sustained” or “overruled” before proceeding.  Habeas Corpus, once demanded, is treated equally, in that it must be answered, prior to proceeding.  That answer can be either a refusal to grant the writ, based upon grounds expressed by the opposing party, or it must be granted and the writ issued.

It is significant, in terms of timeliness, to understand that when the writ is demanded, from 28 U.S.C. § 2243:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith [immediately] award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.  It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The judge or justice must respond to the demand immediately, and then the person having custody has three days, except for cause, which extends those three days up to twenty.  That is a requirement for a timely response, by the judicial branch, to a demand for habeas corpus.

So, we must begin at the beginning to understand that Habeas Corpus has been not only suspended, but has been blatantly ignored by the Judicial Branch of government, at every level; absent any lawful suspension by the Congress.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was served on the jailers of Larry Mikiel Myers on January 27, 2012, direct to the Court.  This Demand was also mailed directly to the Sheriff, who should have forwarded it to the District Court Judge.  Mr. Myers received no response and was tried in the District Court beginning February 9, 2012.  The trial should not have commenced until the Habeas Corpus was answered.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was prepared and sent, Certified Return Receipt, on February 10, 2012, to the District Court, the Sheriff, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, the Florida Supreme Court.  It was received by all parties on February 12, 2012.  The Sheriff and the District Court never acknowledged the service.

The 11th Circuit replied by returning the Demand for Habeas Corpus and saying that it must be filed with the District Court, and referenced FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) 22, which states, “Application for the Original Writ.  An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the appropriate district court.  If made to a circuit judge, the application must be transferred to the appropriate district court.”  So, even though their rules state that THEY must transfer it to the District Court, They chose to pass it back to the Petitioner, avoiding dealing with their obligation to justice.

The Florida Supreme Court returned the Demand claiming that they had no jurisdiction — contrary to the record in which Wisconsin, in fulfilling its obligation to its citizens, twice, granted habeas corpus so that it could be taken to the United States Supreme Court.

So, the lower courts have failed to answer and return habeas corpus, effectively denying it, or, perhaps, since their own rules establish procedures, they “suspended” habeas corpus, arbitrarily and capriciously; and permanently.

This left only one recourse to assure that Mr. Myer could get a fair ruling on the constitutionality of the laws he was charged under.  If the Constitution still had standing in the government of the United States, original jurisdiction was forced, by inaction of the lower courts, to the United States Supreme Court — which is obligated to assure that the people of the United States have justice.

On November 26, 2012, the Petition for Habeas Corpus was submitted to the United States Supreme Court.  It was directed to Justice Antonin Scalia as the designated Justice for the Fifth Circuit, where Mr. Myers is currently incarcerated.  The Rules provide that the appropriate Justice may hear a habeas corpus, and in a review of Supreme Court decisions where the original jurisdiction (first hearing) of a habeas corpus was before that Court, it was always heard and decided by a single Justice.  However, the Clerk’s office, through seven rounds of correspondence, refused to direct it to Scalia, changed the caption from “In Re Larry Mikiel Myers” to “In Re Gary Hunt”, where the record shows that the incarcerated person is the proper name for the caption, not the “attorney of record.”

In an effort to correct these errors, on September 22, 2013, an “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus” (a Mandamus is an order for an official to perform his duty)  (Exhibits to Mandamus) was served on the Court.  Receiving NO response, whatever, to that Petition, a follow up letter was sent on October 12, and no response has been forthcoming regarding the Mandamus.  It would appear as if they can’t respond to something with legal authorities, they just don’t respond.

The final effort at disposing of the original Petition by the Clerk’s office was a claim that I had no right, as a non-attorney, to file a Petition of Habeas Corpus on behalf of another party, Mr. Myers (See Mandamus and Exhibit 9 to Mandamus, linked above).  A 1990 Supreme Court decision dispelled that claim (you would think that the Clerk’s office should know what decision the Court had made in that matter), wherein the decision did allow one in my position to file on behalf of Mr. Myers.  The Petition was finally put on the Docket on June 29, 2013, to be discussed in Conference on September 3, 2013.  That Conference then DENIED the Petition.  Subsequently, a Petition for Rehearing was filed, within the requisite time frame, for a November 26, 2013 (exactly one year after the first service to that Court — so much for being timely) Conference, and this, too, was subsequently DENIED on December 2, 2013.

Who can Suspend Habeas Corpus?

“Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ.”

“The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article.  This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.  It begins by providing “that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.”  And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress “the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The above from Ex Parte Merryman, Circuit Court D, Maryland, April Term 1861, Decision by Supreme Court Justice Robert B. Taney.

Now, there may be some ambiguity in just what is meant by “suspend”, so we will refer to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

However, if Congress were to suspend Habeas Corpus, it would have to be an enactment, by them, stating what the cause was, rebellion or invasion, and other matters that would advise us that they had temporarily, suspended habeas corpus, and when the “suspension’ would be concluded.  Any other denial of that right would be a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.  On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has simply done away with Article I, Section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution — they have simply removed it from the Constitution — a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.

The Petition for Rehearing

Some of the arguments presented in the Petition for Rehearing include:

A court has a legal and constitutional obligation to answer and return a Writ of Habeas Corpus, when demanded.  When the District Court refuses to answer and return, the next step is the Circuit Court.  When the Circuit Court refuses, in violation of their own Rules, to send the Demand for Habeas Corpus to the District Court, and refuses to answer and return, that leaves only this Supreme Court in which a citizen may find remedy, by answer and return.

To Deny this Petition [for Rehearing] is to Deny the obligation on government created by Article I, § 9, clause 2.

To Deny to answer and return the Demand for Habeas Corpus is to Deny the Constitution, itself — and the government created thereby.

This last argument is based upon a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1787, they being cognizant of the relationship and responsibility of the government to its constitution.  The case is Bayard v. Singleton (1 N.C. 42):

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

That is the consequence of a government failing to abide by its responsibility under a constitution.

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

From: Supreme Court Docket 13-5008

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

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty”, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

 A PDF of this article, suitable for forwarding to contacts or representatives:

Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution

There is more to this story at Another Story Behind the Story

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
Another Story Behind the Story

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

[Note: This is the second part of the article, “Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court – The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution” and deals with the impact on the Petitioner/author, as a consequence of filing the Habeas Corpus.]

I had often wondered if the Habeas Corpus would pose a serious problem within the government if what appears, by my research, to be a means of nullifying “unconstitutional laws”.  I had been doing some research on the subject of the “sacred writ” prior to the current case.  However, it was in December of 2011 that I received a phone call from the sister of the last member of those indicted as the “Florida Common Law Court“, who was going to stand trial after over 15 years from the first trial.

At that point, my serious research on the subject of Habeas Corpus began.  The first three-page Demand (Habeas Corpus, February 2012) was rather meager, however, anticipating our “day in court”, the hearing on Habeas Corpus would allow light to be shed on what I had, at that time, discovered.

When that first Habeas Corpus was ignored by the Sheriff and District Court (assuming that the Sheriff had send it to Judge Merryday), it became apparent that the Petition, itself, would have to contain the argument that the laws that Mr. Myers was being prosecuted under did not apply to him, as all of the actions alleged were already covered by state law.

My receipts show that the Sheriff, the District Court, the Appellate Court, and the Florida Supreme Court all received their “service” on February 12, 2012.

Just a few days before, I had set up a webpage — the first time that Larry Myers’ name and mine were ever associated together on the Internet — to post the progression of the pursuit of justice under the “sacred writ”.

The next day, February 13, 2012, I found that there were at least forty hits to that webpage using the search term “Gary Hunt Larry Myers”.  I only briefly looked, as it didn’t strike me so much, at the time, what was happening, though I do recall that four of those addresses that did the search and went to that page were domain “uscourts.gov” and were from Rochester, Seattle, and San Diego (2).  The remainder of them, in that short period that I checked, were from phones and personal computers from various locations around the country.  In hindsight, I should have followed those visits through the remainder of the day, and, captured images of the “hits” on my statistics page.

At that time, I had no idea of just what this might be the beginning of, though the surprise would be forthcoming.

In November 2008, I retired, applied for, and began receiving Social Security benefits.  I had not paid income tax since 1984, so within a month of receiving my first Social Security check, I was notified that the Internal Revenue Service has taken a portion of my benefit — that should I have any questions, to contact the IRS, not the Social Security Administration.  I discussed this with my wife and she asked me not to challenge the IRS (the most feared government agency in the United States); that we could do well enough with the amount that remained.  So, I relented, and, for the next three years received the reduced “benefit”.

In Mid February 2012, an IRS agent visited me for the first time in well over a decade.  We had a conversation over the fence, with my dog looking on, and I refused a service from him.  In a letter from that agent, dated February 24, 2012, after nearly four years of not working and having no taxable income, I find that they have found that I owe them $188,489.41.  Not to be bogged down in the details, since 1985, I have dealt with various agents.  They always relented, and nothing came of any effort to collect what they might think I owed them, nor did they even attempt to garnishee my wages.  However, this attack, so timely made, was unrelenting.

I had begun checking my site visit stats a bit more regularly and I ran across this one from February 24, 2012 – a visit from the Treasury Department.

In a letter from the Social Security Administration, dated March 1, 2012, I was informed that they were increasing the benefit reduction, though they assured me that I would continue to receive the residue.  The amount was that I received was reduce to $812, but they assured me that I would continue receiving payments on the third of each month, thereafter.

In April 2012, I was again notified by the Social Security Administration that the IRS was to receive all of my Social Security Benefit, and I was to get none — after contributing to that system for 45 years.  This is also contrary to the IRS’ own rules that require that they exempt me from levy for a portion of my benefit (IRS form 1494).  Well, there goes forty-five years of contribution (full faith and credit in the government), down the tubes.

I had been involved in a few other patriot activities, during this time.  Two of them had rather interesting potential.  One was the Arizona Committee of Safety (ACOS), which was modeled on the historical example of the Revolutionary War era.  Though it was unnoticed, at first, by March 10, 2012, elements within the groups had created disturbances that became downright disruptive, eventually leading to the resignation of the Chairman.  Increasing turmoil resulted in the organization being taken over by parties who had completely lost sight of its purpose (as per the by-laws) and making it impossible for the group to remain viable.  By May, the Arizona Committee of Safety had fallen into ruin.

Another organization, the Patriot Unity Coalition (PUC), which came into existence in December 2011, was formed to discourage its members from participating in activities that disparaged other patriots or organizations, unless through a proper forum, such as the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court.  Internal turmoil, violation of the by-laws by some members, and total disruption of the PUC, resulted in its demise by April 8, 2012.  This resulted in starting over, again, with the Coalition of American Patriots (CAP).

Both of these organizations had been proceeding along constructive courses until all of a sudden, out of nowhere, disruption came on with such force that it could not be countered, resulting in both efforts being totally destroyed.

Now, it is possible that they would have followed the same course, absent any outside influence, however, if we look at the timing, and the fact that I was a principal player in each, perhaps there is more to their demise than meets the eye.

We can go one step further.  Back in 1995, Bill Cooper, a well-respected patriot, claimed that I was John Doe #4, and in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.  That allegation, which first found its way in fax networking, began floating around the Internet, though never to any significant degree.  From time to time, a discussion would be brought to my attention where the allegations of John Doe #4 arose.  I would join the discussion and ask the group to pick one of their members, who I would direct to a well-known patriot who was with me, in Florida that morning.  I chose this method in lieu of going public with the witness to my whereabouts, as it might have been disruptive to his business, if everybody wanted to call him to verify where I was.  So, the selected party would contact the witness, verify that he was who he claimed to be, and report back, thereby quashing one source that was perpetuating the allegation.

Frankly, that allegation problem wasn’t that serious, until sometime in March 2012, when many of my friends and contacts reported that the John Doe #4 story was proliferating on the Internet.  So, after 17 years, the time had come where I was to take the matter on, or succumb to the falsehood, which would result in a “no credibility” attachment to anything else that I wrote, or might write in the future.

Prior to the show, a Google search was done by at least three of the people I was working with.  The search “Gary Hunt John Doe 4 OKC” gave over 46,000 results.

On March 3, 2012, Randy Mack, host of “You Have Tread On Me”, aired an Internet radio show entitled “Gary Hunt Exposed as John Doe #4 at OKC“.  The show appeared to be quite effective, and a subsequent Google Search, same criteria, resulted in less than 4,000 hits — more than 40,000 hits removed from the search engines.

Now, it would be easy enough to write these occurrences off as “coincidence”, if it were just one or two.  However, in light of the timing, and the disruptive effect on my finances, reputation, and the efforts of others to come up with viable means to pursue a Restoration of Constitutional Government, that is a very hard pill to swallow.

This, then, leads to the final image from my stats.  On November 13, 2013, just one day after my Petition for Rehearing was docketed for conference, we get a visit from a DHS Fusion Center.

Note that in the Fusion Center (the information at the bottom comes from a government Fusion Center listing), the email address is to the local Sheriff’s Department, not a federal agency.

Habeas Corpus would stop such extension of authority over our local governments.

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty“, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

“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“

Which Constitution Am I Protected By?

Do you really want the Federal Government
to protect you from your State Government?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 19, 2013

“We have Constitutional Rights!”  “They have violated the Constitution!”  We hear such exclamations on a regular basis.  However, have we ever really stopped to consider just what we are saying?  Just what we are supporting?  Just what we have represented by those exclamations, which are really contrary to our best interest, and the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and government?

Recently, there was a Rally in San Antonio, Texas.  The rally was called because a few weeks earlier, some “Second Amendment” advocates had settled down, armed in accordance with Texas law, on the sidewalk in front of a Starbucks coffee shop (Open Carry Texas harassed by SAPD).  Subsequently, a Come and Take It – San Antonio Rally was called, with no reference to the Second Amendment, though it did emphasize a phrase from that Amendment, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.  Such a rally, however, will draw national attention, as it did.

The Rally drifted toward the Second Amendment, as a result of speakers such as Alex Jones, who went so far as to include other cities, around the world, in his desire to protect Second Amendment rights (Gun Owners Defy Tyranny, Defend Constitution at the Alamo).

To me, it was simply amazing that so many people came out in support of a “Federalist” form of government.  Yes, that’s right!  They came out asking the federal government to intervene in, and take control of, their right to keep and bear arms.

“Well”, you say, “Isn’t that what the Second Amendment is all about?”  So, I will answer that question — “Yes”, and, “No”.  Yes, if it is the federal government that you are dealing with.  However, a distinct and definite “No”, if you are dealing with the state, and subordinate, governments.

Darn, that is tough to grasp!  I thought the Bill of Rights was to protect us from government assuming away those rights.  Well, yes, it is, but which government are we talking about?  The federal, or, the state, government?

Why would I go and say such a foolish thing?  We all know that we have Second Amendment rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, this poses a rather interesting question.  So, let’s look at the Texas Constitution.

Article I – Declaration of Rights:
§23.  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

That sure doesn’t read quite like the Second Amendment, it says nothing about “”shall not be infringed”.  So why do we not accept the limitation imposed by the Texas Constitution?  We may not like it, but that is the way it is in Texas.  The federal Constitution was written only with regard to the relationship between the people and the federal, not the state, government.  The concern, and the reason for such separation, was that the Framers, and those that ratified the Constitution, did not want to relinquish any unnecessary power or authority to the federal government, except that which was necessary to allow that government to conduct the business of governing — only — the federal government.

Let’s venture back to 1833, when the country was still young, and some of the Framers were still alive.  Chief Justice Marshall, in a Supreme Court decision [Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243], gives us an explanation:

The [U. S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own [federal] government, and not for the government of the individual states.  Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.  The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.  The powers they conferred on this [federal] government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument.

So, each constitution, federal and state, creates a government and then binds that government to the provisions, as judgment dictated, granting power and authority, and reserving rights, to the extent of what was determined, at the state level, to be consistent with the will of the people of that state.

Going further in his explanation as to why the federal Constitution was limited, Marshall says:

Serious fears were extensively entertained, that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those unvaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.  In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended.  These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments.  In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states.  These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.

A review of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights will bear this opinion out:

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

Are we beginning to get the picture, yet?

Now, the Fourteenth Amendment provided a foundation for change, at least to some extent, though that is not the object of this discussion.  However, for those interested, there is an extensive study of the Fourteenth Amendment at The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – an Essay.

We can, however, see an instance of the conversion of authority from state to federal from a well known, though this aspect is too often overlooked, 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113].  The decision hinges on the right to an abortion, though Justice Rehnquist, in his dissenting (disagreeing) opinion, provides insight, not to abortion, rather, to the limitations of federal power, when he says:

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”.  Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.  As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature.  By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.  1)  While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.  2)  Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.  The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

Since the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, we have heard one side call for the decision to be overturned, while the other side praises the “wisdom” of the Court.  What the Court did was legislative in nature, contrary to the intention of the Framers and the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, neither side objected to the Supreme Court’s authority in dealing with the matter of abortion (have you found any mention of abortion in the Constitution?).

So, by acquiescence — by projecting this un-granted power to the Supreme Court — we have supported not the Union of States, under and by the Constitution, rather, we have agreed to make the federal government supreme in all matters concerning our lives (even our flush toilets).

In 1789, when the U. S. Constitution was ratified, it was the concern, in the states, that the Constitution would give the federal government too much power.  It was the state governments that insisted that there must be a limitation on the power granted to the federal government.  Those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment), cannot be sustained, except by the will of the people, and their perseverance and support of their respective state and its constitutional power and authority.

Does this acquiescence, to such federal authority, by those who so support it and seek a reversed decision from the Supreme Court, make them Federalists, at heart?  After all, they have moved away, as far as possible, from any proposition that states, too, have powers protected by the Tenth Amendment — the few that still remain.