The Demise of America

Gary Hunt
July 4, 2010 (and the 234th year of our Independence)

 [Note: I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Trey Tasker for review and editing this article.]

Where we began

America!  Just what is America?  Well, for a few centuries, it was the ideal of individual freedom and prosperity.  It was the hallmark of self-government, and it was the ultimate salvation of two major efforts of world conquest.  It was the deciding factor in both world wars, and was the refuge for those oppressed, elsewhere.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a great experiment that had proven itself over all other forms of government and a foundation of moral values, which, un-retarded, had provided a commitment to the rest of the world for aid in achieving similar prosperity, freedom, and moral value.

America is an overreaching name for what is, geographically, just another country in the world of countries, though it was also the name that applied to a Union of countries that had joined, for better, or for worse, to achieve those goals set out by the Founders, some 220 years ago.  America was manifest in the United States of America.  It was and remains that which is otherwise unachievable in other nations of the world.

A thorough study of the history of the United States will demonstrate, to all, that it had, after its inception, surpassed all expectations in establishing itself amongst the nations of the world as a formidable force with which to be reckoned.

Within 36 years of its separation from Great Britain, it had achieved the means of defending itself against the most powerful imperial power in the world.

Within the first century of its existence, it went through a tumultuous period of civil war, though it managed to avoid the separation, or change of government, that would otherwise have been the result of that upheaval.

Within just over a century, it had attained a position of esteemed prominence in the world of industry.

Within 150 years, it had become the economic center of the world whose dollar became the exchange currency most acceptable among the other nations of the world.

Looking back from the challenges of today, the questions that haunt us are:

1.  Has America lost its values — its moral compass — and those many aspects, as set forth by our Founders, that had set it out as a model to the remainder of the world?

2.  Has it outgrown its usefulness both to the people who call themselves Americans, as well as those who look, from afar, and envy that which was?

3.  If so, what has lead to the demise of that image of a better life, or, was it just the imagination of those who proclaimed its nature, for those two hundred years?

Political Correctness

Freedom of Speech is probably the most important and absolutely necessary enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  The ability to express oneself, both to others and to the government, is fundamental in a country that is composed of self-governed people.

That freedom allows us to express ourselves to others, but also to ourselves.

So, what happened when the means by which we express our thoughts, concerns, ideas, beliefs, and, secrets, is curtailed, by any means, at all?

Let’s look at how this works.  Suppose you have had a religious upbringing, and a morality founded upon that belief.  You understand that heterosexual relationships are the only morally acceptable form of relationship.  You were raised understanding that homosexuals were immoral, and the idea of two people of the same sex having relations together was repugnant.  There was another word, a slang word that was used by most people including homosexuals, which was a reference to that type of relationship.  The word was “queer”, yet it was not necessarily derogatory.  After all, it meant odd, curious, or unexpected.  There is little doubt that the definitions fit, when compared with what was presumed to be the proper moral relationship.

Of course, the term “queer”, being odd, was indicative of someone who was not up to par with the morality and, as such, tended to exclude them from the acceptable norm.

Now, what if there was a concerted effort to abolish the terms queer and homosexual, through a policy of what is known as “political correctness”?  The substitute term would be “gay”, meaning light hearted, brightly colored, or carefree.  Under the social, political, and, in some cases, legal pressure, you succumb to the new phrase for what was considered immoral, not to very long ago.  You accept and use the term.  Over time, your mind follows that implied change in the character and nature of the word, and what used to be unacceptable, or immoral, behavior, has, both in the spoken word, and in your mind, attained a degree of respectability that, without political correctness, would never have been achieved.

Before long, you have adjusted your moral values to accepting what you knew to be unacceptable, though you are not sure just how that change occurred.

Another word that has come into common usage, though is now defined differently than it was, just a few decades ago, is “hate”.  Hate is defined a number of ways, such as, dislike intensively, or a strong distaste.  Often, hate is defined as the opposite of love.

Hate, however, need not have, and in most cases, at least in the past had, no connotation of violence.  Violence stood all by itself.

Recently, however, hate has changed from dislike of liver, or distaste from immoral behavior, to an adjective that is applied to certain crimes of violence, with the intention of providing more serious penalties, under certain conditions, usually unilaterally.  We have accepted this definition so that certain portions of our society are afforded more protection, under the law, than others, regardless of the extent, and, often, regardless of the cause of a violent act.  As a result, we have allowed ourselves to believe that crime perpetrated against some members of our society are worse than the same crime being perpetrated against other members of our society.

In both of the above examples, we have withheld our (freedom of) speech to avoid offending.  As a result, we have managed to allow our minds to be manipulated into accepting things that we clearly knew to be untrue.

By subtle manipulation, we are having our fundamental right of freedom of speech transformed into behavioral manipulation, a form of social engineering, and, consequently, a very serious encroachment upon that sacred right.

Education

A number of advocates promoted public Education, early on in the formation of this country.  Probably the most well known advocate would be Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson has given us many quotations of his belief in the necessity of public education, and each will engender the consideration of the effect of the absence of education upon the morality, prosperity (of the community), politics and the necessity for the people to understand, and then, approve or disapprove that actions of the government.

Public Education, however, predates Jefferson.  In the Cape Cod area, for example, an annual tribute of fish was contributed to pay for the services of a teacher, available to all of the children, as compensation for his services.

However, after the formation of the new country, the United States of America, the promotion of public education was left to the county or other entity, at the local level.  It wasn’t until after the Civil War that the idea really took hold and the literacy rates of the population began to increase.

Very probably, the long war, the destruction of property and lives, was instrumental in the desire to assure that the population could consider all aspects of political decisions, so that their affirmation of the actions of government would be based upon being sufficiently educated so as to be able to properly judge those actions.

The following is from the Department of Commerce data, and reflects the literacy rate (of the white population) from 1860 through 1979.

Year                   White Literacy Rate
1870                   88.5
1880                   90.6
1890                   92.3
1900                   93.8
1910                   95
1920                   96
1930                   97
1940                   98
1947                   98.2
1950                   No data
1952                   98.2
1959                   94.4
1969                   99.3
1979                   99.6

Note that there was a continual progression of literacy from 1870 through 1947.  After the creation of the federal Department of Education, in 1953, we see a shift in education from the Public School System, which had achieved so much, over the previous century, to both federal and state entities.  We also see a shift in the upward rates of literacy.

During this period, we were experiencing a rapid growth in population, what would eventually be style the “Baby Boomers”.  These children, the byproduct of the attitude that prevailed after the victories of World War II, did put an increasing demand upon the educational resources, during that period from 1947 to 1952.  It also removed the traditional, and, demonstrably successful, method of education that had brought us what was later described as the “greatest Generation”, all of whom were educated under the former system of Public Schools.

With the intrusion of the federal government, as well as the state governments, replacing the decision making from the local School Board, whose interest was of the ability to educate the children of their own community, to the centralized, political and bureaucratic control of education, by those quite distant from what the needs, abilities, and resources of the community were, also provided a new means of measuring literacy.

Under the new guidelines for the determination of literacy, as it has evolved to the present time, the schools will teach, primarily, that information which is necessary to pass the competence (literacy) test created to measure the ability of the schools to educate our children.  Any education beyond the purpose of proving competence is secondary.

Arts, science, history, and many other areas of discipline have been subordinated to the effort directed to passing tests in which the answers have become the primary curriculum.

It has become abundantly clear that the average product of the government school system is, functionally, illiterate, though the statistics, revised to prove the efficacy of the centralized control of education, will prove to the contrary.

This deals strictly with education, though it does not deal, at all, with the morality, ideology, history, nature of government and the heritage of this once great nation.  Can we assume that the desired effect of the educational system has been achieved when, for the most part, the educational system has become a tool for government propaganda and the reduction of the average education to one of rote and compliance?

Is it in our best interest to put into the hands of those who would enslave us, the education of our children?  Or, should that responsibility be placed back in our own hands.

Religion

Those who first peopled the shores of America in the early Seventeenth Century were fleeing religious prosecution in Europe.  As they established themselves on those hostile foreign shores, they established equally sectarian societies from those that they had fled.  They were, however, more than willing to share the land with others and only endeavored to impose their religious sanctions on those in their immediate communities.

Originally, they were left alone, by the mother country, and allowed to practice as they saw fit.  Over time, however, the Church of England began imposing the tenets of that Church in many communities, effecting the government of entire colonies.  Other religions were allowed to practice, though all paid tribute to the master Church.

A turning point came in the late Eighteenth Century when the ties that had held the colonies to their mother, England, were severed.  The mother Church was allowed to continue, though it was relegated to the same authority as all of the other churches in the country.

Though all religions were allowed to be practiced, even Mohametism, the moral values of the country were firmly established in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  It was the foundation of the laws, the spirit and the prosperity that flowed from the people to make America a symbol of good and righteousness to the world.

It was the moral values that flowed from that religious source that inspired the courage, strength, and commitment, to enter two world wars, which tipped the balance of power and allowed the defensive powers to prevail against the aggressors.

America has, through its entire history, recognized the role of God in its foundations, establishments, and history.  Religious quotations are inscribed on most of the government, both state and federal, buildings built in its first two centuries.  Moses and the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, many times, on the Supreme Court Building.  Prayers open every session of Congress and our currency bears a prominent “In God We Trust”.

More recently, however, those religious virtues have fallen to evil forces that are endeavoring to undermine the moral values and principles upon which that nation was founded.  And, it is coming from an area least expected.  It is coming through education — academia, and being fed to that country’s posterity, without the consent of the parents, and, as insidiously as if the Church of England were back in control of education, morality, and law.

Of course, it is couched in an innocuous term, evolution.  The term, however, permeates that society on levels that most have never even considered.  In ‘public’ schools, which used to utilize the Bible as a means of teaching reading, and, following the example of Congress, opened each school day with prayer.

In 1852, a forty-one year old Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”.  It was, then, a theory put forth by Darwin that all life evolved from a single cell, which was formed by an accident.  Of course, Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or he may have reconsidered the complexity of a single cell — and its chance of creation.

Today, however, this “theory” has had no advancement, yet it is espoused by the academic community, the scientific community, and the courts (who no longer provide a Bible for swearing in).  They accept the “theory” of evolution over the accepted principle of creation, which now, in deference to the campaign against it, goes by the name of “Intelligent Design”.

The proponents of evolution call intelligent design a theory.  They claim that it is unsubstantiated and that no proof exists supporting the existence of God.  They advance their theories on the foundation of scientific proof that evolution is the means by which life, and man, came into being.  They have, through massive campaigns, removed that which was, Creationism, from the classroom, from the government (where it had comfortably resided for two centuries) and the search for the source of life, science.

The Evolutionists can best explain the effect, especially in the classroom, themselves.  Most will proclaim that they did once believe in God and were raised religiously, though upon their study of evolution, they determined that there is no God, so they became atheists.  Though, perhaps, not scientifically provable, they have laid claim to the proof of the lack of the existence of God to be a direct result of their studies.

They have created, by academic denial for those who believe in Intelligent Design, through establishing curriculum absent any mention of Intelligent Design, through refusal to consider Intelligent Design in any scientific research, and by pursuing legislative restriction on the discussion of Intelligent Design, an environment which is void of such teaching, or even the consideration of Intelligent Design, voiding the minds of our youth of any consideration of those sources of Providence to which the people, and this nation, owe so much.

Absent religion, which provides a moral foundation, we can expect that morality will become as individualistic and varied as the number of people in that country.  Situational ethics — doing what feels right — is becoming the morality of America, and, though not scientific, by any means, is best demonstrated by the very obvious changes in morality (out of wedlock birth rates, divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) in recent decades.

The decline in morality and virtue is indicative of the failure of a society.  It loses its moral fiber that binds people together, its commonality, and its very binding sprit, which will, eventually, lead to its demise.

The final point to be made, here, is that the government has chosen to dictate what cannot be said from the pulpit, which has had sufficient impact upon the preaching of immorality.

Immigration

Immigration can be one of many lifebloods of a nation.  In the case of the United States, that lifeblood began flowing more than 350 years before the birth of that nation.  Immigrants from Europe came for many reasons, though most commonly, to practice their Christian faith, without obedience to a state/church government.  This Freedom of Religion, though restricted by community, was not restrictive to the practice of religion, as each saw fit.

Through those first few hundred years, the Anglican Church, from England, held absolute sway, in some of the colonies.  Other religions may have been allowed, by tithes (taxes) were paid to the Anglican Church for distribution only to the Anglican churches.

After the founding of the United States, religious freedom was guaranteed to all, and embodied in the Bill of Rights.  For those, then, and their posterity, the freedom of religion (absence of laws restricting the practice of religion) became assured for generations to come.

Time, however, and the lust for power in government (fear of opposition) generated a subtle change that would begin to diminish this significant right (birthright) of Americans.

It began with the simple gift of tax-exemption for churches.  With the imposition of taxes, which are questioned by many as even being constitutional, any organization requesting exemption from those taxes must file with the government claiming status as a religious, not for profit, corporation.

This, by itself, had no effect on the ability of the church to preach sermons that might favor a candidate, or a policy.  But, over time, those who controlled the purse strings wrote into the laws that the churches, in order to maintain their tax exemption, could not support candidates or policies, unless the government turned their back.  This meant that preaching could include support for anything that the government wanted, but excluded any sermon that would undermine the authority of government, by removing that exemption.

Churches were left to abandon any sermon, regardless of how well founded in scripture that was in opposition to government policy.  Morality had become subject to the approval of the government.  Consequently, church corporations began voting, by whatever form that had chosen, to abandon doctrines that were fundamental to their scriptures.

Few, however, have been willing to challenge the illegitimacy of such incursions into the practice of religion, though most of them are fully aware that sermons preached within the laws of the time (under British rule) offered no such limitation on the exercise of religion.

With banner held high, “Freedom of Religion”, we continue to accept that government is, as required by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, protecting that fundamental element of a person, and a nation’s, morality.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing and other industries were major elements in achieving prosperity, and attaining the recognition as the greatest industrial power on the earth.

In the Nineteenth Century, the availability of natural resources; open land; desire for expansion and settlement of those open lands; and the free market (uncontrolled by government) became the means by which that prosperity was achieved.

Industry was able to find a market place for its goods.  The availability of resources was unlimited, allowing for rates of production to meet demands.  Absence of governmental involvement gave a free hand for the free market to develop plants, seek new markets, and innovate new products, beyond anything the world had beheld before.  Tens of thousands of miles of railroad connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and Canada to Mexico.  Each new mile added additional resources, land for settlement, and profit, which returned to expand the network, even further.

Innovation created new machinery for harvesting of crops, reducing manpower, and increasing productivity in the bread belt, thereby providing more than ample supplies of food to the growing nation.

Innovation also developed new methods of manufacturing, which would continue to lead the way in production, for decades to come.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, war encompassed the world.  The geographic isolation allowed product supplies to be increased to meet the demands of wartime goods.  Though our participation in WWI was not immediate, eventually, the spirit, ingenuity, and individualism that had lead to that prosperity provided an American fighting force that turned the tide of that war.

Just a few decades later, another war encompassed the world.  The productivity of that industrial giant was able to produce goods, and transport them across the seas, at a rate that was unachievable by all of the other countries, individually AND combined.  Once again, the American fighting force was the turning point in the war.

The demands of this second war had produced production lines incomparable to anything that preceded it.  Plants that produced toys were converted to the manufacture of weapons, within weeks.  Means were developed to adapt to any demand, and the production facilities went undamaged by war, providing a prosperity, post-war, that was later defined as the American Dream.

To this point in time, a philosophy of “A Good Product at a Fair Price” was the motivation, both in and out of war, to produce.  America was second to none in industry, and more than willing to share its knowledge and resources to rebuild the damaged countries resulting from that war — even the enemy’s country were rebuilt and their industry re-established, mostly along the lines of what America hand learned in the century preceding.

About this time, and in order to aid another country’s recovery, a practice of contracting foreign industry to produce certain goods lead to the denigration of a product by referencing the country or origin, “Made in Japan”.  These products, for the most part, were low profit, easily made, and required little technical ability to produce.

Over the next few decades, Industry continued to prosper, however, the philosophy shifted from “A Good Product…” to what became known as “the bottom line” mentality.

As a consequence, many of the industrial machines were produced, under contract to foreign nations, and then returned to the United States bearing the name of a United States corporation.  The same foreign manufactures also manufactured the same products for sale through different distribution systems, bearing their name, even though the products were otherwise identical.

Most of the raw materials (natural resources) to manufacture these products were mined in the United States, transported across Canada to Pacific ports, shipped overseas in foreign vessels, processed, manufactured to finished products, and then returned to the United States on foreign vessels.  Amazingly, these products would be for sale at less cost than they could be manufactured here.

One of the reasons for this gross disparity in cost of production was the proliferation of unions, demanding higher wages, more benefits, and job security, and, often, limiting production rates to ease the burden on the worker.

The government, by the end of World War II, legislated in favor of these unions, without regard to the consequences, and by venturing where the Constitution did not authorize them to go.

This fueled the fires of profit, at any cost, to the point that became destructive to American industry.  Quite the opposite of “protective tariffs”, the new course was actually beneficial both by support of unions and reduction of tariffs (e.g. Most Favored Nation status), resulting in the decimation of American industry.

Currently, less than 10% of the manufactured goods in the marketplace are made in this country, though they may well bear American names, such as Ford, General Electric, and Motorola.

Absent foreign imports, whether with, or without American names, our lives would approach third world status, unable to obtain goods for everyday household chores, workplace tools, and even industrial equipment.  Even obscure countries produce more for their own consumption than does America.

In less than one hundred years, we have gone from the apex of industry to a country almost void of industrial production.  We have become dependent for our daily lives upon those who may, at some time in the future, become our enemies.

Dependency

Dependency, by its very nature, makes one subordinate to that upon which it depends.  Children are dependent upon their parents, until they have reached an age and the competence in which they can depend upon themselves — independence.

Employees are dependent on their employers to provide both the wages that they earned, and a marketplace for the product that they provide, so that money is available for such wages.  Employers, in turn, are dependent upon the performance of their employees to provide quality products and services.

Governments are dependent upon their citizens to provide the guidance (by whatever means the construction of the government is based upon), and for revenue (again, based upon those means provided) for the operation of that government.

In turn, the citizens of a nation are dependent upon the government (in the case of the United States) for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

What happens when the government — the society — for which it is obliged to provide the means to protect, becomes dependent upon another government, or country, to assure that the means of daily living can be obtained in order for that society to survive?

If the government, for any reason, especially after having fully demonstrated that these means are readily available within the country, legislates in such a manner as to reduce, or even remove, those means, requiring that the society is now dependent upon another country for its daily means, has it transferred the primary responsibility for its citizens to another country — and government?

Has it, by these means, dissolved its entire purpose — in subordination to foreign interests?

Is it possible that the country which has relied upon its government to secure those means, by abrogating its responsibility, has destroyed the government and relegated its citizens to the mercy of the whims of another country?

We remain fully capable of providing some aspects of life, such as medicine, weapons of war and destruction, and a relentless line of politicians more than willing to reduce us, even further, into dependency upon others.

Catastrophic is an understatement of the effect, both short and long term that this transfer of dependence will have upon us.

Tradition

Every nation in the world is steeped in tradition.  Those traditions, whether good or bad in the eyes of outsiders, are a binding force in that nation’s culture and are necessary so that the longevity, coherence, and perpetuation of that culture to continue.  Absent that background, it is nothing less than a new nation without a foundation, course, or future.

The longstanding traditions of the United States have come under attack, recently, undermining the very fabric of that nation granted, by Providence (yes, that is a substantial part of the tradition), to the people who settled, then fought for the existence of it.

As the traditions are eroded away, under whatever guise might be undertaken to supplant them, so, too, is the personality, the character, the entire embodiment, of that nation.

When those traditions are eroded using the guise of the Founding papers, the Constitution, as an excuse for their erosion, the complacency of those who merely stand by and watch becomes as much of the destructive force as those who, by intent, are striving for the destruction of that nation.

Regardless of the ambitions of the latter, or the absence of objection by the former, the effect is the same.  They both allow a transition of government, as much as if conquered buy military force, though the means are far more subtle.  The intention is the same, and the result is as effective as the alternative.

Taxation

Though only a small part of what lead to the Revolutionary War, taxes, as they have through history, have become the means by which people are most often oppressed.

The French-Indian Wars had taken an economic toll on England.  Generally, the coffers of government are maintained, absent war, by a relatively small tax, intended to replace the debt incurred by war.  This was the case with the Stamp Act, in 1765.  In order to replenish the treasury, taxes were laid on the colonies.  This, along with the removal of charter government (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence) incited sufficient concern in the colonists to begin down the pathway that, eventually, lead to separation from England.

The intention, as had been the practice, even under British rule, was to restore the Treasury and then to remove the taxes, with the need for replenishment no longer being necessary.

That practice served America quite well, during its first nearly two centuries.  The taxes imposed during World War II were in the single digit percentages, and the tax that had been imposed was, originally, imposed only for the duration of the war.

Instead, and by the time the America attempted to accomplish, in Vietnam, what the French had failed to achieve, the government had raised taxes, and they had become a way of life.  Twenty percent of income, or more, was the norm, nearly seven times greater, on all income, than the 3% taxes, only on certain items, that had roused the anger of the colonists.

Government had determined that they could maintain near perpetual war, if they were able to provide a constant and permanent flow of revenue, never allowing the coffers to be depleted.

Their President, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1961, in his Farewell Address, provided insight into what he had seen as a threat to the future of America, when he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

He realized that the “economic favors” bestowed upon those who made weapons of war, by the government who benefited, in one way or another, from perpetual war, was a danger to what our country stood for.

Leadership

The leadership in this country is recognized by that title, but have you considered what the word means?

Leaders are those who lead.  Just how do they achieve such significance that would warrant our following them?

Back in the late seventeen and early eighteen hundreds, there were many who had achieved their positions of leadership through demonstration of their ability to lead, and thereby justify our willingness to follow them.

Over the years, however, things have changed.  Now, the people that we are to follow come from a degree of obscurity.  Their respective parties, somewhere along the line, have decided that they have ‘achieved’ such prominence that they can be cast forth as leaders.  But, what criteria are used to determine that they have demonstrated their ability to lead?

Consider, if you will, that for them to garner the support of the party, they will have had to assure that the party is well satisfied with, well, their obedience to the party.  Let us take the current president of the United States.  He was obscure.  A senator from Illinois, who was nothing more than a yes man for the party.  Virtually all of his votes were on the party line, though he had something going for him:  the party, already satisfied with his obedience, determined that they could promote some aspects for their chosen candidate and convince the voters throughout the country that this man was worthy of the role of leader.  Nothing to demonstrate that he could, it is simply a matter of selling their candidate to the public.  This is accomplished by taking polls; analysis of the results; developing marketing strategies, not unlike those used to sell cereal or drugs; and, determining what people want to hear, in each region of the country, and assuring that their candidate says, in that region, what they have told him to say, in that region, and, likewise, in the other regions.  If you should have any doubts, recall what the candidates have said in the past, such as, “Read my lips, no New Taxes”, or, “I will have a transparent government.”

In the end, better leaders can probably be found by looking in your local community rather than looking at the television, which will bring you exactly what you want to see.

Government is designed to serve the people.  Understanding that it is impractical, and imprudent, for everybody to be involved in every decision required to be made at the top level of government, we have developed a system whereby the will of the people, through their chosen representatives, is made so, on the people’s behalf.

If you would, imagine an inverted triangle.  The base, being at the top, constitutes the people.  Below them are the representatives of the people, and at the very bottom, the point of the inverted triangle, is the President of the United States.  His purpose, according to the Constitution, is the chief executive of the country.  His job, then, is to carry out the will of the people (top of the triangle), as expressed through their representatives (middle of the triangle).  He is the lowest man on the triangle, and his job is to work for us, on our behalf.

For whatever reason, perhaps an inadequacy in the educational system, we have learned to accept the triangle in the wrong configuration.  We have allowed that the President is at the top of the triangle, master of all.  Below him is the Congress, our representatives, making decisions that are both contrary to, and against our will.  Finally, at the bottom, are we, the people, who find ourselves forced into obedience to the government, and, paying all the bills that they can accumulate, while attempting to tell us that what they are doing is in our best interest?

Where does this leave us?

Through a slow and meticulous process, events that are hardly noticed begin to have an effect on the people, and the future, by that same process, is modified in such a way that the people who have thought that they knew what freedom was, eventually, find that they are no longer free, nor are they what they thought that they were.

Those in control will exert their efforts to the point that a substantial majority will accept the conditions that they have imposed.

In time, the acceptability of what has been imposed, through these subtle means, becomes even more accepted, if not in years, in a decades or two, that which was, will be lost among the pages of history.  The newly accepted condition becomes the platform for the next generation of change, which, ultimately, will result in that which the United States was to be lost, and that which it has become to be accepted as that which always was.

When unlawful force or influence are used to undermine the obligations of government, the people subject to that government, are also slaves to that government.

This, unless we accept our responsibility of restoring that which was, will result in the Demise of America.

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

Those who find this interesting might also appreciate Finding Freedom Again

.

.

The Three Boxes

Gary Hunt
May 29, 2010

Often we have heard mention of the three boxes, which are the elements of our steps of assurance of the adequacy of our government.  The first box, of course, is the ballot box.  That box allows us the choice of representation of those who will enter the government, on our behalf, to assure that the government legislates within the confines of the Constitution, and to serve the purpose for which that government was created (protection of Life, Liberty and Property — see Finding Freedom Again and Let’s Talk About the Constitution).

Next, of course, is the jury box.  This box was deemed by the Founders as the ultimate arbiter on the validity of any law.  The determination of both fact and law (whether a law was just, constitutional, and the will of the people) was inherent in this process.  The ability of the jury to overturn laws inadequate to the purposes of the people has a long history from colonial times to early in the last century.

In 1732, John Peter Zenger was tried for seditious libel.  The jury overturned the law that suppressed speaking out against government.

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owners, if found.  Juries refused to convict those who violated that law, which was eventually partially overturned by the same court, and ruled out by the 14th Amendment.

Most recently, during the era of Prohibition (the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1920 through the repeal of Prohibition by the 21st Amendment in 1933), may who were tried for possessing alcohol, or other violations of the Volstead Act were acquitted by juries, who perceived the law as a denial of liberty.

Other instances can be cited, but it is clear that the right of the jury to nullify laws is as much a part of our heritage as the right to jury trial.

The final box, of course, is the cartridge box.  This was the final resort of the Founders when the other remedies had failed to impede the encroachments of government, toward despotic and tyrannical rule.  This box, if you will, is the box of last resort.

So, let us look at the efficacy of the ballot box.  In so doing, we will only look at the election of representatives, though the Electoral College has been tailored into something that only vaguely resembles that which the Founders gave us.

The Ballot Box

George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, Jul. 27, 1795, provides the following insight into the nature of parties in the legislative branch:

“Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it.  This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented.  But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.

We must understand that in Washington’s time, parties were simply associations of like-minded people.  Party had a degree of sway, though it was not so dictatorial that it could decide who would run for office, and who would not.

What we have become, however, is subject to exclusive domination, in the political arena, to the two-party system.

Ex-President Harry Truman, on the event of his birthday, in 1954, gave us the following:

“In the first place, the President became the leader of a political party.  The party under his leadership had to be dominant enough to put him in office.  This political party leadership was the last thing the Constitution contemplated.  The President’s election was not intended to be mixed up in the hurly-burly of partisan politics.

“I wish some of those old gentlemen could come back and see how it worked.  The people were to choose wise and respected men who would meet in clam seclusion and choose a President and the runner-up would be Vice President.

“All of this went by the board-though most of the original language remains in the Constitution.  Out of the struggle and tumult of the political arena a new and different President emerged-the man who led a political party to victory and retained in his hand the power of party leadership.  That is, he retained it, like the sword Excalibur, if he could wrest it from the scabbard and wield it.

So, what has happened is that the two-party system has enacted laws that have allowed the party, not the President, though he is the leader of the party, to determine that course that our country will take.

Similarly, all those within the party must subordinate whatever ideals they may have possessed upon their entry into politics to the will of the party, itself.  This end has been achieved through manipulation of the process of election by two primary methods.

First, to run on the party ticket, one must have the blessings of the party.  Absent that blessing, or in the event that a term in office demonstrates disobedience to the will of the party, the candidate cannot find a place on the ballot.  He might, if he has attained stature in the eyes of the people, run as an independent, or he may even change party allegiance.  Absent one of the two, he will find the possibility of inclusion on the ballot, and election to office, remote.

Second, and as we all know, now, dollars equate to votes.  When a candidate has the dollars behind him, he has far greater potential for election than one who does not.  Now, if all things were equal, a potentially good candidate running for office outside of the party banner might well solicit donations that would provide a fair chance against a party candidate.  Unfortunately, for both for the candidate outside of the party and the people, the party will contribute funds, and, by other means, provide advertisement intended to sway the outcome of the election, thus providing an unfair advantage to their ‘chosen’.

So, it is clear that the two-party system has devised means to minimize competition and assure the election of one of the chosen of one of the parties.  This assures the voter that he will have a very slim chance, if any at all, to elect a candidate who will adhere to the Constitution, regardless of what promises have been made during campaign.

For all intents and purposes (“Read my lips, no new taxes”).  We are given the choice of two liars.  We will take the liar who is a candidate from the party that we have laid our hopes and dreams on, or, in some cases, the opposition.  In the former instance, we have elected “our own liars”, in the latter; we have elected the better liar.  In either eventuality, we may rest assured that the campaign promises made during the campaign were made only to solicit our vote.  They, in no way, are indicative of promises to pursue the ends described.  In fact, more than likely, they will not even be remembered, shortly after the election.

These aside, let’s look at what would happen if we were able to have a choice that included those who really intended to pursue a return to Constitutional government.  Being overly optimistic, let us assume that we could elect, in each session of Congress, 10% candidates who have our goals in common and would not succumb to political pressure while serving us.

In the next five elections (2010-2018), assuming that there were no losses, deaths or conversions, we would have 50% of those in office truly in support of the people rather than their respective parties.  With only a single vote more, we would have the ability to mandate the course of the country, though only on those matters which could be passed by a simple majority.  There are both two-thirds and three-quarters majority requirements on some matters.  These, respectively, would require four and eight more years to return control from the parties to the people.

At that point in time we could begin turning the tide and returning to Constitutional government.

How long, however, will it take to make that return?  We will have the 8 (or 12, or 16) intervening years of additionally burdensome legislation to undo, and then we could take on the task of undoing the past few decades of abuse of government.

If feasible, as presented above, it would be wholly dependent upon whether we could overcome the party politics and maintain the optimistic goal, as outlined.  Any deficiency in that progression simply compounds the problem, which, if not almost beyond redemption, now, most surely will be so with any delays in the above-proposed timeline.  [Note: the above does not even take into consideration the effect of lobbyists in promoting the interests of “special-interest” groups.]

This nearly fatal scenario, then, leads us to the Second Box.

The Jury Box

The Grand Jury and the Petit Jury have centuries of record which demonstrate their purpose and the means by which they serve the people.

First, let us see what Lysander Spooner said about the Petit jury, in an essay, “on the Trial By Jury” (1852):

“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Then, as far as the Grand Jury, here is what George Edwards, Jr., said in a law review essay (“Grand Juries”) in 1906:

“The grand jury is an institution of English-speaking countries, of historic interest by reason of the obscurity surrounding its origin, its gradual development, and the part it has played in some of the most stirring events in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race; of political interest by its effectual protection of the liberty of the subject from the arbitrary power of the government; of legal interest in that its power and action is utterly repugnant to “the experience and theory of English law.” It has been extravagantly praised as the “security of Englishmen’s lives,” the conserver of his liberties, and the noblest check upon the malice and oppression of individuals and states…

So, now that we understand what was intended when the Founders passed on these examples of centuries of pursuing justice, by our forefathers, as an assurance against the tendency of those with power to extend their power and reduce the people to subordination to the will of government, let us look at what has happened to these institutions that were intended to provide such security.

The Grand Jury was intended to look in two directions.  First, it was to assure that no person would be held to answer (stand trial) unless there were sufficient reason to believe that he may have committed a crime (probable cause).  Second, it was intended to be a check on government, for those in power were no less capable of committing crimes than the people, and, without the ability to hold those in power accountable, would allow government to transgress on the rights of the people, without any obstacle to forcing complete submission.

Once probable cause was determined, the charges warranted a trial, by peers, to determine if, weighing all of the evidence, a crime had been committed, and, if the law was just.  This jury was in no way excluded from judging those in power.  The most well known example was the trial of those soldiers involved in shooting, and killing, civilians in the infamous “Boston Massacre” (1770).

So, we have a two tiered box in which charges can be brought only by the Grand Jury, in accordance with the Constitution (Fifth Amendment):

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

This, however, has been subordinated to the current circumstance, that only a district, state, or, US attorney can bring charges against you, with or without a grand jury, and, since they have, contrary to original law, intent and tradition, you cannot present to the Grand Jury a perceived violation of the law by a member of the government, unless, the government, through its attorney, allows such charges to be presented to the Grand Jury.

Once charges are justified (and, in our tradition of law, along with the intent of the Founders, that should include those who work for the government), the trial of the charges is held (as set out in Article II, Section 2, clause 3, and, 6th Amendment, for criminal trials, and the 7th Amendment for Civil trials) by Petit Juries.

As was presented at the beginning of this article, Petit Juries are, by tradition of law and intent of the Founders, judges of both law and fact.  What has happened to Petit Juries, by virtue of enactments by government and rules promulgated by administrative agencies (see Who Makes the Laws?), is that the judge has become the sole arbiter of the case.  He provides instructions to the jury that are ironclad, and assure conviction, rather than allowing the discretion the Jury is supposed to posses, in determining guilt, and the judge absolutely denies the right of the Jury to judge law (as happened to Laura Kriho when she was jailed for holding to her beliefs with regard to the crime, and, punishment associated therewith, while serving on jury duty).

So, the question arises, is there any efficacy to the jury system (box), as intended by the Founders, to be one of our safeguards against an oppressive government, or has the government-usurped authority, which it was never intended to have?

You may also wonder why the supreme Court rules in what appears, quite often, to be contrary to the Constitution, though you may be surprised when you read what that Court has said about making such rulings, as explained in About Ashwander v. TVA.

This, then, leads us to a consideration of that third box, the cartridge box.

The Cartridge Box

As we have seen, and should be quite evident, by now, the government has, by divisive means, corrupted both the Ballot Box and the Jury Box as remedies in safeguarding our freedom,  our Constitution and our way of life.

Can we assume that this third box, that box of last resort, can go unimpaired by the powers that have, so far, managed to make inconsequential the other two?

Let’s begin by looking at what was, some 230 years ago.  Though few were made here, cannon could be bought on the open market, by anyone.  Any weapon available to the military was also available to the citizen.

Over time, however, primarily after the Civil War, the government began “infringing” upon our right to keep and bear arms.  There is no doubt that after the Civil War, they did not want private citizens to own cannon.  The recent carnage and destruction of the just finished war was sufficient, though the government had the additional leverage of near complete domination over the southern states, to begin to restrict ownership of those weapons of war, which were, to that point in time, considered well within the right to keep and bear arms.

In the 1930s, because of the warring between government and anti-prohibition forces (organized crime), laws were passed restricting ownership of automatic rifles (machine guns).  More recently, in the 1990s, prohibition against what the government refers to as “assault rifles” has taken an additional toll on that right which was not to be infringed upon.

Clearly, then, the assault on that final right, that protector of all rights, the Second Amendment, being so necessary to a Free State, is without doubt, being subordinated to the power of government.

It, too, will go the way of the Ballot Box for the election of “representatives of our own chusing”, in favor of selection of the lesser of two evils, laid before us by the two-party system, which now confronts us.

It, too, will go the way of the Jury Box, where the rights that were fought for, and preserved in the Constitution, have become far less than would have been acceptable to those who gave their lives to “secure the blessings of liberty”, by subordination to the government in all aspects of judicial administration.

If we squander our time, hoping that the Cartridge Box will always be available, should the need arise (if it hasn’t, already), we can, most assuredly, understand that absent our commitment to the recovery of those long and established rights, and, the return to Constitutional government, we can only look forward to one more box — made of pine.

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.

 A Problem that Can’t be Ignored

Gary Hunt
November 17, 2009

 One of our greater presidents, immortalized on Mount Rushmore, had some sage advice that he gave to us, 92 years ago. For decades, our immigration policy tended toward what he had so wisely suggested.

Then, in the eighties, the Congress, wishing to secure their own future rather than that of the nation, began granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and lowering the barrier for immigrants to enter the country.

Had we continued to heed his advice, our policy would not be directed to open borders and an ever expanding flow of illegal immigrants, criminals and Jihadists into this country, and, likely, many of those who have immigrated legally, under the two decade old reduction of consideration for our welfare and culture, would still be where they belonged, in their own country.

To put the following in perspective, Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States (1901-1909), He was replaced by William Howard Taft.  President Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1913, just a year prior to the beginning of World War I.  In 1915, a British ship, the Lusitania, was sunk with 128 Americans on board.  Wilson refused to enter the war, saying, “America is too proud to fight”.  Finally, on April 6, 1917, Wilson asked the Congress to Declare war.  Soldiers began arriving in Europe in the summer of 1918. This was written between the Declaration of War and the entry of United States troops into the hostilities.

This is Chapter III from the book, “The Foes of Our Own Household”. I have removed portions of the original, though the entire chapter can be found at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/childrenofthecrucible.htm.

It is important to recognize that War had been Declared by the United States Congress. It was, unfortunately, a task that had to be taken on during the conflict, because foresight wasn’t applied to immigration and assimilation before the war began.

During World War II, the Japanese, as a whole, and many Italians and Germans, with specific cause, were interred in isolation camps. This probably would not have been a concern (as the willingness of many Japanese to fight on the American side proved; and, as the minimal problem of German and Italians who were not interred, also supports), if assimilation had been a major focus of immigration laws.

It is important to understand the necessity of assimilation (1. act of becoming part of something: the process of becoming part of or more like something greater 2. integration into group: the process in which one group takes on the cultural and other traits of a larger group of immigrants — from Encarta) into the American culture. This doesn’t preclude immigrants having pride in where they come from, nor does it mean that they cannot continue to practice elements of their heritage and culture, so long as the recognize that they came here to be Americans, and that their allegiance and primary focus should be on that fact.

From The Foes of Our Own Household:

Chapter III

The Children of the Crucible

We Americans are the children of the crucible.  The crucible does not do its work unless it turns out those cast into it in one national mould; and that must be the mould established by Washington and his fellows when they made us into a nation.  We must be Americans; and nothing else.  Yet the events of the past three years bring us face to f ace with the question whether in the present century we are to continue as a separate nation at all or whether we are to become merely a huge polyglot boarding house and counting house, in which dollar hunters of twenty different nationalities scramble for gain, while each really pays his soul-allegiance to some foreign power.

We are now at war with Germany.  For three years Germany has heaped insult upon insult, injury upon injury, on our people.  We showed a reluctance passing the bounds of ordinary timidity either to resent the insults or to prepare for defense.  We feared to resent wrong in the present.  We did not even dare to prepare so as to be able effectively to resent wrong in the future.  Our supine inaction was partly due to the folly engendered in our people by the professional pacifists.  But an even more important factor was the dread many of our politicians felt not merely of the German Army abroad but of German votes at home.  The cold, greedy selfishness and short-sightedness of our political leaders were indefensible; and were due to the fact that the men who took the lead in the professional German-American movement sought entirely to subordinate the actions of the country of which they were nominally citizens, the United States, to the needs of the country for which they really cared, Germany.

Now we are at open war with Germany; yet many of these persons ‑ supported of course by the professional pacifists ‑ continue to champion Germany’s cause as against the cause for which we are fighting.  This is moral treason to the Republic, and all who engage in it, whether senators, congressmen, editors, or professed humanitarians, are in fact, although not in law, traitors, who have no right longer to be treated as American citizens.  The time has come to insist that they now drop their dual allegiance, and in good faith become outright Germans or outright Americans.  They cannot be both; and those who pretend that they are both, are merely Germans who hypocritically pretend to be Americans in order to serve Germany and damage America.  At the moment, the vital thing to remember about these half-hidden traitors is that to attack America’s allies, while we are at death grips with a peculiarly ruthless and brutal foe, or to champion that foe as against our allies, or to apologize for that foe’s infamous wrong‑doing, or to clamor for an early and inconclusive peace, is to be false to the cause of liberty and to the United States.’

In this war, either a man is a good American, and therefore is against Germany, and in favor of the allies of America, or he is not an American at all, and should be sent back to Germany where he belongs.  There are no stauncher Americans in the country than the average Americans who are in whole or in part of German descent; and all these are as stanchly against Germany now as the Americans of English descent were against Great Britain in 1776, I speak of them with knowledge; for German blood runs in my own veins.  But the American of German descent who remains a German or a half-German is not an American at all; and a large number of the men of this type are dangerous traitors who ought instantly to be sent out of the country.  These men work steadily against America in the company of the native-American professional pacifists, and the pro-German Socialists, and all the anti-English foreigners.  Some of these pro-German and anti-American leaders have been advocating that men of German descent should not be required to serve in our armies against Germany.  This is precisely as if in the Revolutionary War it had been proposed that men of English descent should not serve against England.  Such a proposal should be regarded as treasonable, and all men making it should be treated accordingly.

Many of these German sympathizers, of these foes of the United States (including not only men of German descent but men of Irish descent whose blind hatred of England makes them disloyal to America, and men of native origin, who are conscienceless politicians or who are. pacifists or denationalized and therefore thoroughly unpatriotic) fear openly to assail our country; and therefore they serve our country’s enemies effectively by assailing England, by endeavoring to keep us from effective cooperation with the allies, or by condoning and defending such acts of barbarity as the Zeppelin raids on English cities and the murderous assaults on ships crowded with innocent non-combatants.

In the Revolutionary War France was our ally.  Fifteen years before she had been our bitter enemy.  Therefore certain Tories endeavored to harm the American cause by reviving the old anti-French animosities.  They acted precisely as the men act who to-day seek to harm the United States and help our ruthless and bitter enemy, Germany, by reviving the old anti-British enmity.  Any man who during the Revolution stated that although he favored the United States against England nevertheless he also favored England against France, was really a traitor to America.  Any man who now announces that although he favors the United States against Germany yet he favors Germany against England is a traitor to America.  There can be no half and half attitude in this war, and no honorable man can afford to take such an attitude.  We are now bound by every consideration of loyalty and good faith to our allies, and any opposition to them or any aid given to their and our enemy is basely dishonorable as regards our allies, and treasonable as regards our own country.

Weak-kneed apologists for infamy say that it is “natural” for American citizens of German origin to favor Germany.  This is nonsense, and criminal nonsense to boot.  Any American citizen who thus feels should be sent straight back to Germany, where he belongs.  We can have no “fifty-fifty” allegiance in this country.  Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.  We are akin by blood and descent to most of the nations of Europe; but we are separate from all of them; we are a new and distinct nation, and we are bound always to give our whole‑hearted and undivided loyalty to our own flag, and in any international crisis to treat each and every foreign nation purely according to its conduct in that crisis.

This is a new nation, based on a mighty continent, of boundless possibilities.  No other nation in the world has such resources.  No other nation has ever been so favored.  If we dare to rise level to the opportunities offered us, our destiny will be vast beyond the power of imagination.  We must master this destiny, and make it our own; and we can thus make it our own only if we, as a vigorous and separate nation, develop a great and wonderful nationality, distinctively different from any other nationality, of either the present or the past.  For such a nation all of us can well afford to give up all other allegiances, and high of heart to stand, a mighty and united people, facing a future of glorious promise.

This nation was founded because the Americans of 1776, although predominately English by blood, fought their own kinsmen to establish their liberty and to make this nation the hope of the world.  Again, over a century ago, our forefathers once more fought England; and the men in this country who were of English blood stood with absolute loyalty, by America and against England.  It is not merely our right but our duty to insist on exactly the same full-hearted loyalty by all Americans of other descent, whenever we are at war with the countries from which their ancestors came.  We are now at war with Germany.  The offenses committed against the men of 1776 by King George and the England of his day were as nothing compared to the crimes committed against us and against all civilization and humanity by the brutalized Germany of the Hohenzollerns during the last three years.  There must be the same unhesitating loyalty shown now, by every American fit to call himself an American, as was shown in the days of our forefathers, when Paul Revere’s ride and the fight of the Minute Men at Lexington called the country to arms.

The obligation of single-minded Americanism has two sides ‑ one as important as the other, On the one hand, every man of foreign birth or parentage must in good faith become an American and nothing else; for any man who tries to combine loyalty to this country with loyalty to some other country inevitably, when the strain arises, becomes disloyal to this country he who is not with us is against us.

On the other hand, if a man in good faith, in soul and in body, becomes an American, he stands on a full and entire equality with everybody else, and must be so treated, without any mental reservation, without any regard to his creed, or birthplace or descent.  One obligation is just as binding as the other.  It is both weak and wicked to permit any of our citizens to hold a dual or divided allegiance; and it is just as mischievous, just as un-American, to discriminate against any good American, because of his birthplace, creed or parentage.

*****

We should provide for every immigrant, by day schools for the young and night schools for the adult, the chance to learn English; and if after say five years he has not learned English, he should be sent back to the land from whence he came.  We should have a system of labor exchanges and employment bureaus which will enable us to distribute the immigrants to the places where they are most needed and can do most for their own advancement.  We should protect them from fraud and rapacity.

And having thus protected them we should demand full performance of duty from them.  Every man of them should be required to serve a year with the colors, like our native born youth, before being allowed to vote.  Nothing would do more to make him feel an American among his fellow Americans, on an equality of rights, of duties and of loyalty to the flag.

There is no truth, more important than the truth that it is the performance of duty, toward the commonwealth, and not the enjoyment of unearned privilege from the commonwealth, that breeds loyalty, devotion, patriotism.  In a family, the father and mother who fail to rear their sons and daughters to  perform their recognize an duties neither receive nor  deserve the loyal devotion felt for the heads of the household where the whole household is I trained to put duty, ahead of pleasure.  It is the same with a nation.

We have believed that we would get devotion to our country from immigrants who came here merely to make money and escape meeting obligations.  The belief was ill founded.  The man who feels that the country owes him everything and that he owes the country nothing, will pay the country just what he thinks he owes nothing.  It is a curious fact that many Germans who came here to avoid military service, and who while here have had to do nothing they did not care to do, yet as soon as the strain came, felt all their loyalty toward the country which exacted much from its citizens, and none at all for the country which expected nothing from its citizens.

The wisest and quickest way to Americanize the immigrant is to make him understand that here in America we have at last waked up to our needs, and that henceforth every man, whether born here or abroad, owes this country the fullest service of body and of soul.

A Prima Facie Story
Or, Manipulated By The Government, And Its Press

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2000

While I was in Waco, during the siege on a Church, I was able to witness, first hand, many of the tactics of government in its manipulation of the press. Now, don’t get me wrong, the press wasn’t really duped. They had a job to do, and they did it – as effortlessly as possible. If all that needed to be reported was, so conveniently, provided by the government – along with coffee and donuts – at the press conferences. All they had to “put up with” was motels, restaurants, lounges and expense accounts.

The tactic that I want to talk about is what I call the “prima facie story” tactic. It is a rather encompassing tactic. It can be applied in little pieces, yet it will have a cumulative effect. It can be applied in medium sized pieces, which will serve to enhance the whole. Finally, the entire story can be “prima facie” and it can be “proved’ with the little and medium sized pieces.

The beauty of the tactic is that, once it is found out, the residual of the tactic will be in place for years to come. It will be used by ‘shills’ in Internet discussions, it can be used in newspapers, radio shows and television, and no fault can be found for believing something that had been “prima facie” back when the event under discussion first occurred.

It must also include elements of ‘befuddlement’, where variations of a specific are changed, from time to time, so as to cause those following the story to throw their hands of in befuddlement, and leave the decisions as to what is true to the ‘experts’.

To be most effective, the “prima facie story” has to have some doubt interjected. So, let’s look at a recent event that has all of the earmarks of a Prima Facie Story:

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

On October 12, 2000, we began to hear of an event, off the coast of Yemen, just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, scene of another military disaster just a few years ago, which would soon cause many to become extremely outraged. Of course, outrage would have probably been an appropriate reaction, even if the truth of the event were presented at the time — but the government has become so engrossed in the manipulation of the populace that they plied their trade on this one, too. It will be used even more to demonize certain people. The effect of the prima facie story will simply add substantial acceptance to the hate mongering that will, in a short period of time, evolve from the ‘story’.

The first details of the blast came through the Department of Defense. The blast, which tore a gapping 20-foot by 40-foot hole in the USS. Cole (DDG67), a 505 foot long, 8,300-ton Aegis guided-missile destroyer, occurred as the Cole was docking for refueling at the Port of Aden. The blast occurred at 12:15 a.m., local [Yemen] time, as a rubber speedboat, which was assisting in the mooring of the Cole, came alongside. The destroyer, part of the George Washington Carrier Battle Group, was on its way to the Persian Gulf after transiting the Red Sea. The ship was due to join the Maritime Intercept Operation in the gulf.  (DOD press release, 10/12/00, 2:30 p.m. EDT)

Just half an hour later, in a press briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen told us “the blast occurred when a small boat that was participating in the mooring approached the USS Cole. I want to repeat that we do not yet know the cause of the explosion.  If, however, we determine that terrorists attacked our ship and killed our sailors, then we will not rest until we have tracked down those who are responsible for this vicious and cowardly act.”

During the course of the briefing, a reporter asked if “this [is] an example of asymmetric warfare that you’ve warned about as in our future?”

Cohen replied “Well, the answer’s yes.  This is precisely the kinds of threats that we face where countries are unwilling to take us on head to head, but will resort to acts of terrorism in order to achieve their goal.”

Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, then took the briefing over. He gave the time of the blast as 5:15 a.m., East Coast Time (EDT) [12:15 a.m. Yemen Time], “as she was mooring.” Clark went on to explain that when a ship visits a port, it must “submit a [force protection plan] for every port visit that they are involved in. Such was the case here.  The planning was done, it was approved by the immediate superior in command, and they executed the plan as it was specified.” We were told that they were on “Threat Condition Bravo”.

Clark explained how the fueling operation proceeded:

“… This small boat, by report, was involved in the mooring evolution. This was not a conventional pier, if you will.  Rather, it was a fueling — it’s called a fueling dolphin, but it is, in effect, a fueling facility out in the middle of the harbor.”

“The mooring evolution, instead of being alongside of a pier, there are several mooring buoys that the ship attaches lines to.”

“Small boats come to the ship and the lines drop down to them and the boat takes the line to the mooring buoy.  This is what happened in this circumstance.  And the report I have is that this small boat was involved in that activity, and when returning from one buoy came alongside.”

When Clark was asked why a decision was made to refuel at Aden, a known headquarters for Hamas, and other terrorist groups, he explained the decision.

“I can just say this: We have been working to improve our relations with Yemen for some time.  And I’m sure that that was at the heart of the motivation of the unified commander as they are improving our relations in that part of the world.

And, in a subsequent series of questions, more specifics are provided:

Question: “And the fueling hadn’t started yet, right?”

Clark: “No.  They were still tying up when this happened.”

Question:  “So the fuel couldn’t be exploding because it didn’t leak from the line?”

Clark:  “That’s correct.  No, that’s right.”

The next day, Cohen, in a press release, was quoted as saying, “that while the United States could not definitively prove terrorism, “If … [ellipses in original press release, for emphasis] we determine that terrorists attacked our ship and killed our sailors, then we will not rest until we have tracked down those who are responsible for this vicious and cowardly act.”

Later, in an October 13 press briefing, Rear Admiral Joseph G. Henry, Director, Military Personnel Plans & Policy Division, who was providing information from the Commanding Officer of the USS Cole, provides us the following:

Q: Did the CO say anything about what he thinks happened? Did he explain his view of what –

Henry: I think — I think it’s been explained that there was a ship that originally handled one of the Cole’s lines and that that tending ship then came alongside and while it was alongside, the explosion took place.

Q: Did he add anything to the understanding of what happened?

Henry: No, he didn’t. That’s a very normal occurrence, when you pull into port, for a tending ship to come up and take the lines and take it over to the dolphin, so —

Q: Admiral, yesterday the Pentagon asked the news stations not to put — use Yemeni television footage showing wounded sailors.

Henry: Sure.

Q: Was the effort done in time, or did you get feedback from families saying, “Jesus, I saw my son on CNN,” or one of the stations —

Henry: We have not gotten personal feedback, although we know there were a number of pictures on the TV where you could identify a sailor from. We certainly prefer to get to the family first so they don’t see it on TV before we’ve seen it. That’s why we have preferred not to have those pictures shown.

Q: But you haven’t got any outraged families at this point?

Henry: No, not that I know of.

During this same briefing, Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, gave us some more insight into the government’s position on the matter:

Q: Going back just for a moment to the eyewitness yesterday, the Army major with the State Department, with the embassy over there, can you clarify what he says he saw? As we understand it, two men stood up in the boat shortly before the explosion. Did they stand at attention, did they put their hands in the air, do we know if two men did stand up and if so what they did? And were they the only two men aboard the boat?

Bacon: I don’t have anything to add to the reports on that yesterday. Obviously, one of the things the FBI is going to do is talk to everybody in a position to have seen what happened and try to put together the best possible report. There’s a — I’m not casting any aspersions on the major, but there are a lot of data points that have to be checked, and the information has to be correlated before we can make a — give a full picture.

By the October 17 briefing, Rear Admiral Craig R. Quigley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, began to back away from the now planted seed:

Q:  Among the initial reports was one that this small craft assisted the USS Cole in attaching the mooring line to a buoy.  Is there any reason now to think that — is there any less confidence in that account at this point, after all the people on the ship have been interviewed?

Quigley:  Another great question to ask the FBI.  I’m sorry, I can’t provide that.

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

So, now we have the foundation which was set by the government, and which became the basis for the proliferation of news stories about the event. This is the Prima Facie Story. We can probably summate the initial entire series in this way:

Just after Midnight, October 12, 2000, the USS Cole, an electronic destroyer, arrived in the Port of Aden to take on fuel. As she was mooring, a rubber speedboat came alongside. The speedboat appeared to be one of the many vessels necessary to moor a larger ship, like the Cole, so that she could be fueled.

As the speedboat approached the Cole, the two men aboard saluted as they rammed the Cole with explosives. The explosion ripped a 20-foot by 40-foot hole just above the waterline, and killed a number of sailors. The carnage is not fit for American television (since the DOD decided that it should not be aired).

The Cole was in the process of mooring, and was still under way, so the security that would normally protect the ship had not been in place. This may be an act of terrorism.

The reason given for the Cole fueling in Aden is that we are trying to improve our relations in that part of the world. This does not increase the risk to the sailors, as a force protection plan would have been implemented as soon as the ship was moored.

This scenario leads us to feel that every precaution that could be taken had been taken. Under the circumstances, it appears that a couple of men conducted a terrorist attack at the only moment that the ships guard was at a reduced level. A very dastardly deed, indeed!

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, having spent a little time in Vietnam, it is safe to say that if a position did not properly protect and defend itself, then what happened, if the enemy attacked against the unprepared defense, was their own fault. When you know that you are in hostile territory, you are – must be, prepared, at all times. The press briefings made clear that the ship knew that it was in potentially “hostile waters.”

Regardless, the image that is presented is one of absolute innocence on the part of the Cole, and her sailors. Conversely, absolute guilt is implied for the modestly suggested “possible terrorists” (as if there were any other possibility).

There are, also, occasional references to potentially inaccurate sources. This plausible deniability is a mainstay in this sort of story. It is clear that, in this age of advanced communications and cell phones in every pocket that the accurate description of the events would be easily obtained.

Now, Cohen did suggest that, “This is precisely the kinds of threats that we face where countries are unwilling to take us on head to head, but will resort to acts of terrorism in order to achieve their goal.” Now, I suppose that he is suggesting that a country of just a couple million people and a budget comparable to a large American city, if she should have disagreement with the US government, or has been subject to destruction of her cities and population, by smart bombs and not so sanitary remote electronic destruction – maybe even attempts at assassinating her leader, or using covert means to achieve removal of same, and should she have cause to, she should be open and up front about it. His suggestion appears to be that she should challenge the US government to a duel, each using the weapons available to them – and see who wins.

Now, it is ludicrous to suppose that any more than, perhaps, two countries in the world would be in any position to ‘take on’ the US government with any hopes, at all, of prevailing. So, the obvious conclusion is that, with the exception of those two, anybody who has a grudge against the US government has no choice but to submit to its overwhelming power – and its demands, regardless of their nature – or, be deemed a terrorist.

As subtle as this all seems, in time even those dupes of the US government, the press, especially the foreign variety, through persistence in the pursuit of a story, begin to uncover the truth.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By October 23, The London Times was able to piece together a more plausible picture of the events. Their reporter in Washington, Ian Brodie, along with a few other sources, provide us the following information:

The bombing occurred two hours AFTER the ship was moored to the fueling dock, which was actually October 11, 11:18 p.m., Yemen Time. This was sufficient time for the force protection plan to be fully implemented. The force protection plan and Threat Condition Bravo required that observer teams, including an observer and a rifleman equipped with an automatic rifle be on constant patrol. A number of these teams would be posted around the perimeter of the deck.

It also means that the small boat did not approach the Cole under cover of a flotilla of working boats, but was probably the only moving vessel in the area – a conspicuous target, to say the least.

The boat was, apparently fiberglass, which would be much more capable of carrying a concealed load of explosives than a rubber boat. It is estimated to have had about 500 pounds of plastic explosive on board.

As it circled the bow, and then came alongside, the two men on the boat waved to the crew. The crew, apparently, waved back, as boaters (not fighting men) usually do. Then, the two aimed the boat amidships, stood at attention and saluted, probably to Allah, without any effort to stop them, and then delivered their ordinance — in a very effective manner.

It also appears that the Cole had sufficient fuel to reach Bahrain, its destination, aboard. It appears that 250,000 gallons of the total capacity of 480,000 gallons, was still in the tanks. This would indicate that the vessel and its crew were put at risk “to improve our relations in that part of the world.” Not a very nice message to deliver to the family of those injured, or killed in this political expediency. But, this may be the key – this may be what necessitates the “prima facie story”, so that the blame can be placed on others. Unfortunately, the American press failed to pick up on this line. Or, was it left out of the evening news for a reason?

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

Suffice it to say that the ‘prima facie story’ has established a conclusion in the minds of most. There will not be an enquiry into what effect decisions made by bureaucrats had, instead, ALL blame will be directed at those who, using initiative, were able to inflict so much damage on such a sophisticated weapon of war as the USS Cole. The prima facie story has detracted from what should be the real focus of the story – and allowed the US government to continue on in the same manner that it has – propagandizing the American people and lulling them away from any criticism of the government.

Subtle though it is, the effect of the prima facie story tactic provides an edge that can change the balance of the conclusion come to by the majority of the American people. Though we know, after time, what the truths of the events really are, the seed has planted itself, germinated and grown. The reaction that we should have as a result of the events has been moderated away. The US government, once again, has duped us.

And, their means are, at least, contemptible. Deceit, fraud and guile are the tools of politician, not statesmen; the tools of dictators, not true leaders.

I hope that we all remain unconvinced that it is proper to pay officials in government to use these means to achieve THEIR end. If you had an employee that, intentionally, lied to you so that you did not know the true circumstances of what he did, as your employee, would you not be fully justified in firing him – on the spot?

As time goes on, more and more of the truth will, slowly, be exposed. It will be presented in much less limelight that the original, sensational Prima Facie Story. It will be there for the critical student of government, but for the average voting American, the Prima Facie Story will always be the ONLY TRUTH.

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

prima facie – at first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.

deceit – A fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or more persons to deceive and trick another, who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. To constitute “deceit’, the statement must be untrue, made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless and conscious ignorance thereof, especially if the parties are not on equal terms, …

Fraud – An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

guile – deceitful, cunning

 

P.C. (Popping Cops)
An interview with John

July 5, 1999

 

John is an old friend. He is a combat veteran and well versed on our country’s heritage. He was last interviewed by the Outpost of Freedom (OPF) in September 1995 (Sons of Liberty #18). Our discussion, then, was about the Murrah Building bombing and McVeigh’s choice of targets.

I was talking with John just a few days ago and we were discussing the events in Kosovo. I asked John if he would do another interview, which we completed this evening.

OPF: Well, John, Welcome! And, it’s good to talk with you again.

JOHN: Thanks, Gary. Good to be able to discuss things, again.

OPF: John, the other day, when we were talking about doing this interview, you mentioned that there might be some things that we could learn from the KLA. Why don’t we start there?

JOHN: Okay! Well, a couple of years ago we talked about McVeigh targeting the federal building. As I said, then, we should target the sources of the problem. Although the government is the problem, the Federal Reserve System is the source of the power and influence that directs the government.

We should also look at the front line soldier in the war. You realize, I know from your writings, that you believe that we are at war. I think that McVeigh made that same sentiment very clear. Gary, you are a veteran. When you were in combat, was your target the government buildings of North Vietnam?

OPF: No! In my role, the target was the person trying to shoot me. I wasn’t really a combat soldier. I was an airplane crew chief. We conducted no offensive actions, except by aerial/radio support or targeting. Risk generally came from when the aircraft or the airfield was attacked. Maybe even in convoy. So, any target I had presented himself.

JOHN: Well, I think you have the idea. Whether you were an offensive or defensive soldier, your primary target is the front line enemy soldier. Now, I mentioned the KLA on Kosovo. As you have pointed out in some of your articles, the KLA was assassinating policemen in Kosovo for nearly two years. The Serbs attempted to retaliate, but were looked on as the bad guy — at least by people like Clinton. But, face it, for nearly three years the KLA continued to kill police at every opportunity. The also killed the paramilitaries and Serbian Army, whenever the opportunity presented itself. The had the government frustrated to the point that the government had to start attacking people even remotely suspected of being KLA or harboring them.

OPF: John, I think that if that happened here, many would claim that it was the government doing it just to encourage public support to pass more laws against guns.

JOHN: Yes, I’ve read a lot of that recently. The High School shootings seems to have really fueled that fire. But, think about it. Is there any patriot that couldn’t be charged with a crime? Is there any person that couldn’t be charged with a crime? Passing those laws is just feel good sort of thing. You’ve written about how you still have all of your rights. As you said in your articles, you pity the cop that thinks you don’t still have the right to bear arms. Those friends of yours, George and Lynda, they weren’t willing to give their rights up. They knew they still had them, but the government, with the power they have behind them, will deny those rights whenever they want. So, what good does another law do? I’ve often wondered if the naysayers that constantly espouse not acting to restore our lawful government are working for the unlawful one. Do you think that the Founders would have submitted to such illogical arguments? Where do you think that we would be, today, if they had?

OPF: You’re right. The hard core of the Founders were Sam Adams, John Hancock and James Otis. The rest, even Washington, had constantly plead for negotiated solutions. There was, always, opposition to any form of force. But, if I remember correctly, the Sons of Liberty and other small gangs, even in the Southern colonies, would take more aggressive action — especially against tax collectors.

JOHN: That’s right. The tax collectors could call the King’s soldiers to seize property, if taxes weren’t paid. The soldiers, however, worked only under the direction of the civil authority. They didn”t make decisions, use their rifles, or any force, unless directed to by the Governor or an agent of the King. It was those agents who directly affected their lives that were the front line troops — the enemy which was first sought out and slain.

OPF: But, wait a minute. There weren’t that many killings. Most of the activity was against property, houses, offices, etc., wasn’t it?

JOHN: Yes, it was, but there was little regard for life. If they were going to burn someone’s house down, they usually vandalized it and then set it afire. They didn’t make anyone leave, or physically remove them. If they stayed in the house, it was at their own risk. And, many died in those fires. Also, many died of the tar and feathering they received. But, times have changed. Very few colonists were killed by the King’s forces. Quite a bit different, today, wouldn’t you say?

OPF: Yes. But, well, do you really think that there will be support for killing cops?

JOHN: There was in Kosovo. The Albanians were willing to put up with quite a bit, and seldom, if ever, turned in a KLA member. That’s why so many civilians were killed by the Serbs. If they had a group of people and knew that at least one was KLA, if the others didn’t talk, they killed them all. It didn’t seem to break down the fortitude of the Albanians. It seemed to strength their resolve.

OPF: So, do you think that it would have the same effect in this country?

JOHN: Gary, you know that there are still some who want to blame everything on the government. You know that there are a lot of people who think that things will change through the voting process. I’ve seen many articles on the Internet where people still believe that if they can circumnavigate the judicial maze, they can get justice. Are you asking me if those people will support the kind of action that is necessary to get our country back? To them, the answer is, No!

But, remember that two hundred years ago only a small handful believed that force would remove the burden the King had put on the people. Once the reality struck home that force would be method of change, they reconsidered their old ideas — and supported the cause. But, remember, too, that it was a very slow process. It never was a majority then, and it will never be a majority to effect this sort of change.

OPF: What sort of people would look favorably on this sort of action?

JOHN: The people that I know look favorably on action. You don’t read about all of the bombings and events that are going on, every day. It is only when the press can play something up that they do. You’ve read about the hundreds of bombings that occur in this country, each year. Do you read about them on the Internet? There is probably at least one bombing every day in this country, but nobody finds out about them, except maybe those that live in the same town. They know that these bombings and attacks against police are going on. Nobody seems to get caught, unless they make a stupid mistake. But, that’s not the real point of this type of action.

OPF: Yes, I’ve read the annual reports that point out how many bombings there are every year. I’ve wondered, but, I guess I realize that the press doesn’t cover it unless it serves a purpose — and, the police and FBI don’t want to know how many unsolved bombings there are. It seems like when they can ID [identify] someone, then it hits the press. But, you say that this is not the point. What is the point of this?

JOHN: Well, from a tactical standpoint, let’s suppose that you are a policeman. What happens when policemen start getting shot in random attacks?

OPF: I would guess that they would probably start putting two officers in a car to protect against it.

JOHN: Right! And, many places have put two men in every patrol car. But, what happens as it continues, and becomes even more common?

OPF: I think that I’m beginning to get the picture. If I took the job cause it paid well and gave me power, I would have second thoughts if the risk became too great.

JOHN: You got the idea. If people were to start Popping Cops, then cops would start to think twice before they continue don the force. Of course, there would probably be an over-reaction to this, at first. They might be more aggressive thinking that would protect them. But, then, maybe that is what s happening now. I think, though, that they are just under-qualified for their jobs. The government has put so many cops on the street that they have got to be running out of qualified people. Just like any profession — You’re a Surveyor. Could anybody be a surveyor with proper training?

OPF: Well, they could probably pass the exams, but there are a lot of people who have passed the exams, gotten registered and still aren’t very good surveyors,

JOHN: Do you think that the same is true with cops?

OPF: Well, some of the cops I know seem to have a good attitude for their work, but, they are arrogant and stick together. They will stick up for a friend, whether he is a cop, or not. I guess, though, that there has got to be a limit, like you said, as to how many people are qualified to be good cops. But, then, you know that I don’t believe that there is any such thing as a good cop.

JOHN: How many of those you know are really willing to risk their lives to help people?

OPF: Heh! I don’t think that I know any that would match the mold that existed years ago.

JOHN: So, do you think that they might find other work if the risk became too great?

OPF: I would think that that would be very likely. You said “Popping Cops”. That comes out to “PC”. I just realized the irony of it.

JOHN: Can’t think of a better way to describe it! But, back to where we were. What would happen, then, if cops were getting taken out, one at a time, here, there, all over the country? One in Detroit, a few days later, one in Chicago, a few days later, one in Miami and one in Dallas, each time, different bullets, different MO [Modus Operandi], nothing similar except the result — another dead cop? Any cell could do one job every six months. The likelihood of getting caught would be almost non-existent.

OPF: You heard about this guy, Benjamin Smith, in Indiana, didn’t you?

JOHN: Yes. He was a [loose] cannon. There have always been people like that. It seems like they have a death wish, and no sense.

OPF: Wouldn’t Popping Cops have the same consequence?

JOHN: No! The difference is targeting. That’s what we were talking about. Everybody would know, whether they admitted it, or not, why it was happening. It wouldn’t be murder, it would be killing. Killing the enemy, just like in war. That is the objective, isn’t it?

OPF: Yes. But, if the enemy is the government.

JOHN: Did you read Jack McLamb’s Vampire Killer 2000?

OPF: Yes, a number of times.

JOHN: Who is always there if there is an IRS seizure, a federal service of process, and even around the perimeter at Waco? Cops are the tools, the front line, the cannon fodder for the government. If they seize the rifles in California, who will seize them? Should we concern ourselves with them just because they haven’t participated in a direct action? Should we not shoot enemy soldiers who haven’t, yet, shot at us? Are troop trains of raw recruits military targets?

OPF: I se what you mean.

JOHN: Gary, remember, a long time ago, you told me that you used to look at cops and wonder if there family would miss them? Then, after Waco, you told me that you didn’t care, anymore. What their families would feel?

OPF: Yes, and I think that I still feel the same. But, then, I’m supposed to be asking the questions!

JOHN: Okay. Ask away!

OPF: Well, I guess I’m sort of at a loss, right now. This is a lot to digest. I guess that most of it has been there, all along, but I’ve never really thought it out like this.

JOHN: I think that most of us who really want the country back have all of those pieces inside. Our conversation the other day got me going on it, again. I think that time, you know, in history, in life, has a part of what makes sense, or not. Our conversation brought up the same thoughts I’d had before, but hey came together in a different way. Kept trying to resolve it, but it kept coming out the same way. I think that is how man and history is supposed to work.

OPF: John, I’m going to have some more questions, I’m sure, as time goes on. Are you gonna be willing to answer more about this, later on?

JOHN: Sure. I don’t know if I’ll have answers to all of your questions, but I’ll try. Same rules.

OPF: Okay. John, Thanks, very much. Again, you’ve provoked a lot of thought. Thanks! Stay safe!

JOHN: You, too!

Unlike any other Government

explaining where we came from; What happened along the way; and, What we need to do to get back to where we belong

by

Gary Hunt
July 4 (Independence Day
In the Year of our Lord 2009
and
In the Year of our Independence the 233rd

Preface

If you accept that we are currently governed by a government established under and by the authority of the Constitution, you may wish to stop reading, now. The intention of what follows is to bring to light only some of the many misdeeds of government. It also is intended to help the reader to understand what thought process the Founding Fathers used, when they created a government unlike any other government every before seen on Earth.

The Constitution was written as a set of guidelines for the operation of the government. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Let the Constitution be the chains that bind the Government”.

We will explore where government has gone astray by violating that very document which created it, and in violation of the sacred oath they took on assuming their office of public trust.

We will also enter the realm of Administrative Agencies, perhaps even more destructive of our Liberty and Freedom than the violations of the Constitution.

When I was young, I recall the many political cartoons in Life, Look and the Saturday Evening Post  magazines. There were some that ridiculed the Soviet Union, regarding its bureaucracy and hero worship. A cartoon might show a long line of people standing before an administrative building. A passer-by asks the woman at the end of the line, “what are you standing in line for?” To which the lady responds, “I don’t know, but with this many people in line, it must be something I need!” We now find ourselves standing in line, we know not what for, more often than ever before. Waiting for something to happen that will improve our condition.

The Soviets were very prompt to create heroes out of the multitude of government personnel. In honoring a “hero” for is work, the citation might read, “For rescuing a dead cat from a fallen tree.” The idea, quite simply, was to establish in the people the fact that all government employees are, somehow, superior because they just they do their jobs — those jobs which they applied for and were given, knowing that the everyday duties of those jobs included such risks that are now rewarded, by both government and press, with accolades of “Hero”. If a non-government person is the recipient of such an award, it is, most often, a child.

Firefighters who , fifty years ago, entered burning homes and brought family members and dogs out, alive, received only a paycheck on Friday. Today, we have entered that realm of hero worship.

This happened during the period of the McCarthy Hearings of the 1950s. Every effort was made to expose those who wanted to destroy the fabric of the self-governed nation, and replace it with Communistic, share the wealth, equality for all; to each based upon his needs, from each based upon his abilities.

Perhaps it was a form of Eugenics — to try to expel those who would tear down what the Founding Fathers sacrificed so much for to build. If so, it is one that I can agree with.

People who come to this country with the intention of ignoring, or even eliminating, its culture, heritage and way of government, do not belong here. They are, at best, misguided into thinking that what was earned so dearly will be abandoned so lightly. This is America; This nation used to be a beacon to the world. The government, by submitting to whatever evils which have swayed them from what was intended, have betrayed the people of this Great Nation. The Founding Fathers, in their foresight, have left us instructions on how to right that wrong. It is our obligation; It is our duty, to return to and preserve — the United States of America.

Gary Hunt
July 4th
In the Year of our Lord, 2009, and,
In the Year of our Independence, the 233rd.

Our Tumultuous Beginnings

First American Tyranny

Shortly after the close of the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), the British, in order to pay the cost of the just ended war, decided to impose a tax on the colonies. The Parliament enacted tax laws that were only for the North American colonies, and did not even attempt to discuss the taxes with the lawful governments (colonial governments). Instead, without regard for the laws of England and the Rights of Englishmen, bypassed the established methods of taxation

Various efforts by the colonists to gain a voice and be heard occurred between 1765 (the Stamp Act) and 1773 (the Tea Act), and, although effective to some degree, never did achieve the desired goal of representation.

On April 19, 1775, Capt. John Parker, Commander of the Militia in Lexington, lined up forty to seventy Minute men on the Lexington Green. Standing ready, they faced a few hundred of the British under the direct command of Major Pitcairn. Pitcairn ordered the Minutemen to put down their arms and disperse. As some of the minutemen began to move away, a shot was fired. Moments later, eight colonists lay dead on the Green. According to John Adams, this was the end of the revolution and the beginning of the War for Independence.

During those early years, a revolution was taking place in America. As John Adams said in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (August 24, 1815):

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution, it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies, …

Perhaps Mr. Adams was correct in that the revolution was the change of ideas rather than the war, itself.

The acts of tyranny transcend the mere concern over taxes. Governors were removed and replaced with Royal appointees; Assemblies were suspended; Writs of Assistance (warrants without affidavits or knowledge of a crime — fishing expeditions) were issued,  without judicial scrutiny; Accused individuals were transported to England for trial (where they were denied the benefit of witnesses and evidence); soldiers were quartered in homes and private property ransacked; guns, cannon, ball and powder were seized; and, the Rights of Englishmen were trampled in the dust.

During the course of these events, the colonists did not stand idle. Sons of Liberty organizations sprang up through most of the colonies. The Sons of Liberty, most often, took their orders from the Committees of Safety (an English tradition dating back to the 17th century, in the colonies), which were rapidly establishing themselves throughout the colonies.

Committees of Safety and Militia

Prior to the War for Independence, Committees of Safety were being organized throughout the colonies. Committees (an English tradition and right), made their appearance in the colonies in the 17th century. In 1692, a Committee of Safety jailed and expelled a Royal Governor (Andros) of New England. Prior to the revolution, Committees formed their militia, primarily to protect from Indian attack and provide night watchmen to give alarm in emergencies, such as fire or raids.

As the events that lead to the War continued, Committees made a return, in every colony, so that local government could deal with local problems, regardless of the ability, or inability of the Crown’s government to deal with necessary functions. In 1774, Committees appointed delegates to the First Continental Congress (the Stamp Act Congress).

Militia were, by custom, subordinate to the Royal governor, should he call for them. Otherwise, they were subordinate to the Committee of Safety. The condition of subordination of the militia (military) to civil authority has roots back to the Magna Carta (1215).

This relationship would serve, though to a lesser degree as time went by, through the War, and would provide the foundation for the subsequent Articles of Confederation and the state constitutions.

The Magna Carta

The authority for bearings arms, in the Magna Carta, is a common sense interpretation of the document. Item #1 provides that “all of the underwritten liberties” are retained. Though the Charter does not say, “the right to keep and bear arms”, it does show that even those who were tenements on the land were able to posses the weapons of the day. Their obligation was to the next master in line (next higher level of government), which, in a present sense, would be the equivalent of the community, since serfdom is no longer practiced.

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight’s service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight’s service. [Note: serjeancy, as used herein, is the obligation to provide either service to the Crown, or to provide material, such as knives, arrows, a bow or lance, or other implements of war – Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

What way to go?

Though John Adams perceived the revolution to be over by April 19, 1775, others were less inclined to separate from the Crown.

Though violence had preceded the events at Lexington and Concord, it had been isolated events, seldom with significant loss of life. From that day forward, the violence escalated, drastically. Fort Ticonderoga; Bunker Hill; Ninety-Six; South Carolina; Montreal. Canada; Norfolk, Virginia; Great Canebreak, South Carolina; Quebec City, Canada; Moore’s Creek Bridge, North Carolina; Providence Island, Bahamas; Three Rivers, Canada; Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina; Fort Moultrie, South Carolina; and hundreds of lesser contests between loyalists and patriots, throughout the colonies. All of these fought with the intention of convincing the Crown that the Rights of Englishmen belonged to the Colonists, and seeking that recognition from Parliament. All of these battles fought to demonstrate the sincerity of the colonists with their demand for change.

Thousands of lives lost, while committed only to a resolution of the grievances that had been repeatedly sent to the government to be addressed. Constant prayer that resolution would be found and arms set aside — returning to the warm arms of Mother England.

Though there were few colonists who believed that there was no recourse but to separate, forever, from English rule, it wasn’t until nearly fifteen months after the beginning of the war that the colonial government realized that too much had occurred to every believe that reconciliation could ever be achieved.

Declaration of Independence

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was formally signed. This magnificent document provides an insight into the thinking of the Founding Fathers. For example, it provides their explanation of the purpose of government: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Those rights therein mentioned are enumerated as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clearly, they have provided us an understanding the government was instituted to serve the interests of the people, not to serve the interests of the ruler, which concept was so prevalent in Europe.

They also provide us the reason that they had taken on the formidable task of separating from England, “that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

They also explain the difficulty in coming to the point of separation with the explanation that “ 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.”

Next, they explain the obligation that they impose upon the future, should events demonstrate that the government has deviated from its proper purpose.

“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.”

They then proceed with a list of grievances to reveal how the government of England has failed to serve the people, amongst which are:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance…

He has obstructed the administration of justice…

He has made judges dependent on his will alone

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and acknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts or pretended legislation:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For imposing taxes upon us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of a trial by jury:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Perhaps we can see some parallels, here:

State enacted laws are superseded by federal enactments

Congress has established FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts

The independent judiciary, on many levels, has succumbed to administrative handouts funded by the federal government

The established bureaucracy (alphabet agencies) have become burdensome both in their imposition on our lives, and the costs of their maintenance.

Most every federal agency has been authorized to carry firearms, and some agencies have resorted to military equipment (tanks) to conduct their investigative duties.

Military forces have served in combat roles without declaration of war by the Congress, and have been directed to serve under the command of foreign officers.

Administrative agencies have been provided rule-making powers that are clearly imposed upon us outside of the protections of the Constitution.

Federal and state enforcement agencies have committed murder, with impunity, including the murder of women and children and the burning of churches and homes.

The government has, arbitrarily, determined that it can spend itself out of debt, that debt being imposed not only on us, but also on our posterity, for many generations to come.

By denying us the fundamental right to jury nullification, which had been prevalent throughout our history.

State laws and state initiatives have been made moot by federal agencies ignoring state law and punishing people who were acting totally within the laws within their respective state.

Thoughts of the Founding Fathers

The thought process of the Founding Fathers was unconventional, for the times. Monarchy was the form of government, with few exceptions, in Europe. Never before had such a group of people been in a situation where what was being cast off did not have a replacement in the wings.

Political theory had abounded, the century before the revolution, but there had never been an opportunity to put such theory into practice.

One of the major theorists was John Locke. Locke was one of the Enlightenment philosophers, venturing into ideological arenas seldom entered before, by man. He challenged Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, which had become the primary justification for the continuation of monarchal rule in Europe. Filmer explained the monarchy as rule by descendancy to the eldest son — from Adam to the then present monarch (George I), as the authority by which the sovereign right came.

Locke argued to the contrary. He felt that man could establish government and govern, not rule, himself. The above-mentioned quotations on government contained in the Declaration of Independence are a paraphrase of portions of Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. A more extensive presentation of Locke’s theory will be included, after some other considerations.

The First governments of the United States

The Articles of Confederation

During the early days of the War for Independence from British Tyranny, the colonists realized the need for a common entity; a consolidation of the colonial effort was necessary. Each state, large and small in both area and population, had to find an expedient means that allowed them to, jealously, protect their newfound ‘state’ governments. The result, hastily prepared and entered into, was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (March 1, 1781). Though the term “united States of America” had been used in previous documents, the first document to create such an entity was the Articles of Confederation.

Each state, regardless of size or population, was given one vote in the Congress of the Confederation. States were not allowed to raise their own standing armies (though militias were allowed). The Articles also provided that it was created , ” … for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them…”

The problem with the Articles

The Articles provided that the debt incurred for the War would be acknowledged, and would be the obligation of the United States of America, though there was no provision that could force compliance of the states to contribute their share for the payment of such debt. Similarly, there were no means to force any state to contribute funds necessary for the obligations of government, or of manpower to continue the War.

After the War was concluded, a dilemma was created by the inability of the Congress to obtain sufficient support for other purposes of government. The government was foundering; unable to pay its debts; unable to sustain order within it realm; and, a multitude of other obstacles which kept it from performing its intended function. It was in a crisis.

The Articles, when formed, were done so hastily. It was an experiment that had no models, only theory, to follow. Through its first six years, the problems became apparent — to a point that amendment was necessary, if the United States of America were to survive. It was with this in mind that the states came together with the intention of making amendments to address the problems that had been exposed by practice

The Constitution

As with almost any creative enterprise, or product, there is seldom success with the first venture. One of the major disparities in the Articles was that of representation. The states with larger populations felt that each man should have his vote. This idea found support in those colonies that were not so established, but had land areas sufficient to allow substantial growth to their respective populations. On the other side, smaller states, very dense in population, argued that since the government was a Union, each state should to be equally heard in Congress. After all, this was what composed the existing government — created by the Articles, with equal representation to each state. The final solution was attendant to both arguments. The House of Representatives would be based upon the number of people within a state; this was the Republican form of government. The Senate would give each state equal say in the operations of that body; this was the democratic form of government. However, within each state a subsequent article in the Constitution guaranteed the Republican form of government

Next came the Executive. Many proposals were set forth, and finally a single executive, with the authority to carry out the will of the Congress, and to make recommendations to that Congress in an annual State of the Union address.

The judiciary was intended to remain impartial by not making the judges subject to changes in compensation, during their tenure.

The extent of the authority of the federal government was limited. Article I, Section 8 laid out the limits of authority granted by the people, for the government.

When the details had been ironed out, the Constitution was sent to each state for ratification, or rejection. A few states refused to ratify unless a Bill of Rights were adopted as a part of the Constitution. Eventually, the required nine states ratified the Constitution (June 21, 1788).

The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, and was ratified on December 15, 1791.

The new government of the United States, which evolved from the Articles of Confederation was now the law of the land.

Though a brief explanation is provided, above, it is necessary to understand that a Preamble in a document is as much a part of the document as the text. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The purpose is clearly laid out, and is consistent with what was discussed, earlier, that the purpose of government is to protect Life, Property, and Liberty. Justice serves to that end; domestic Tranquility also serves to that end; providing for the common defense, serves that purpose no less; and, Promoting (not providing) the general Welfare is the final purpose, toward that same end.

Further, it should be noted that, for the first time in the history of the world, the People, even though done through representation at Constitutional ratification conventions, were the authority that created this new government. It was not created by the Articles of Confederation, nor was it based upon the descendancy from Adam, or a grant from God. It was the sovereign authority of the People (which was considered a grant from God) which created this government and to soon be a great nation, as described above.

Seldom acknowledged is that the Bill of Rights was also ratified with a Preamble. The Preamble anticipated that some of the concerns not addressed in the Constitution should be addressed to assure that the proper role of government be observed. It read:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

There can be little doubt, especially upon reading this Preamble (purpose) of the Bill of Rights, and Articles in Amendment number 9 and 10 that the authority of government is limited only to those powers enumerated therein.

Article 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These two articles are instrumental in tying the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence.

Sacrifices Betrayed?

Violations of the Constitution

During the course of the history of the United States of America, operating under the authority of the Constitution, there have been many violations of the Constitutions and unlawful usurpations of authority, which were not granted by the Constitution.

Though not intended to list all such violations, some significant ones will be addressed here:

West Virginia

Article IV, Section. 3 of the Constitution provides that: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Virginia seceded from the Union on April 17, 1861.

West Virginia was comprised of lands within the existing state of Virginia. It was made a state on June 20, 1863

The legislature of Virginia never gave the Consent, as required by the Constitution

Lincoln, as President, and in his proclaimed ‘desire to uphold the Constitution and retain the Union’, allowed the Congress to circumvent the Constitution in order to provide a Constitutional quorum in the legislature. A bit of a contradiction, which was never resolved by obtaining the “Consent” of Virginia, even after the Civil War was concluded.

The 14th Amendment

The Congress proposed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution on June 13, 1866.

The ratification 3/4ths of the states, or 28 of the then 37 states), by states, is as follows:

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)

New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)

Tennessee (July 19, 1866)

New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*

Oregon (September 19, 1866)

Vermont (October 30, 1866)

Ohio (January 4, 1867)*

New York (January 10, 1867)

Kansas (January 11, 1867)

Illinois (January 15, 1867)

West Virginia (January 16, 1867)

Michigan (January 16, 1867)

Minnesota (January 16, 1867)

Maine (January 19, 1867)

Nevada (January 22, 1867)

Indiana (January 23, 1867)

Missouri (January 25, 1867)

Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)

Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)

Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)

Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)

Nebraska (June 15, 1867)

Iowa (March 16, 1868)

Arkansas (April 6, 1868)

Florida (June 9, 1868)

North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)

Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)

South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

Throughout our history, this is the only instance where, when a state had rejected ratification, it was later allowed to withdraw that rejection. Similarly, when Ohio*, on January 15, 1868, attempted to withdraw its ratification, and, on February 28, 1868, New Jersey* attempted to withdraw its ratification, both were rejected in their withdrawals. Prior to, and since the 14th Amendment, once a state ratifies or rejects a proposed amendment, that action is unchangeable.

The Constitution is clear on the ratification process. It can be submitted through the Congress or through a Convention, convened by the State legislatures. That if proposed Amendments are submitted to the States for ratification, and “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

It does not create a Turkey Shoot, where second shots can be had. The State Legislature, or the State Conventions, by “three-fourths vote”, determine if the Amendment is ratified as a part of the Constitution, or not.

Pressure was brought to bear on three states, and, subjecting themselves to that pressure, they changed their vote. Two other states, absent pressure (a voluntary act) had second thoughts about the consequences of the Amendment, chose to change their vote. The three were granted, the two were denied.

Though the Constitution does not make clear whether ratifications can be retracted, or, when rejected, whether that first decision can be changed. Therefore, we must look to common sense, and, common sense dictates that only one or the other can apply. Histories of ratifications prior and subsequent to the 14th Amendment have not allowed the practice of change of the first choice.

So, though not clear in the Constitution history, common sense must prevail, and we must consider what was done with the 14th Amendment to be as much a violation of the Constitution, due to the double-standard, as was the creation of West Virginia, as a state. That the 14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve

In 1913, the Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act. Though there are many arguments respecting the unconstitutionality of the act, only one will be addressed here.

By establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, a consequence of the Federal Reserve Act, the authority to ‘coin’ money and ‘regulate the value thereof’ was granted to a private entity.

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 provides that congress has the power to:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

It is clear that the Congress abrogated its responsibility, under the Constitution, “To coin Money”, by allowing a private entity to “coin” money and set “regulate” its value (by giving the Federal Reserve Note the same value as the Gold and Silver coin, and to remove the Congressional Responsibility and to pass it on to a private interest.

Congress abrogated its responsibility under the Constitution. Regardless of the arguments to the contrary, common sense, again dictates that the Constitution was violated.

Gold removed

In 1917, Congress passed the Trading with the Enemy Act to primarily, which, under conditions of war, gave extraordinary powers to the President. World War I ended on November 11, 1918.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view of the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . ” (emphasis mine), and he declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB, established by the Federal Reserve Act, see above) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt: “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition]

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 provides that congress has the power to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”, and, Article I, Section 10, clause 1, reads, in part: “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”

In 1933, Congress set the value of gold at 32 dollars per ounce. Since that time, the value of gold has fluctuated based upon worldwide demand. The dollar, at present, based upon the value established indirectly by the Federal Reserve Bank (purchasing power) is over $900 per ounce. Clearly, Congress has given up its responsibility to “regulate the value thereof, and has removed it from the public, prohibiting the states from fulfilling their obligation, under

Ashwander v. TVA

Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution reads:

Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.  

Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…

All judicial power is vested in the supreme Court. That power extends to all Cases arising under this Constitution. Remaining provisions must be subordinate to those mentioned.

The protection of the People, and the assurance that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution, then, is clearly the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

In 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority. Judge Louis D. Brandeis, in an opinion concurring with the Court, provided us some insight into why we could no longer expect the Constitution to provide the restraints on government, as intended by the Founding Fathers. His opinion, in part:

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals…

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

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

4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained.

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

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

It would appear that a public servant, who felt that his duties violated the Constitution, could not get the Court to make a determination as to the Constitutionality of that duty. For example, if one of Hitler’s SS troops felt that he was being told to do something that he perceived as a violation of the Constitution, he would have no standing to ask the Court for a determination. He would be compelled, by law, to “just do his job”. (Number 5)

Once a person seeks a benefit from an agency (Social Security, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Motor Vehicles, Welfare, Child Protective Services, etc.), he is no longer protected by the Constitution, for the supreme Court will rule that, since he has availed himself of its benefits, he is bound by that agency’s rules (number 6)

The First Amendment, Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In effect, the Court has removed itself as a means of ‘redress of grievances, by allowing itself to ‘rule’ that they will not answer questions regarding the Constitutionality of laws, enactments, or rules promulgated by agencies (whether in violation of the Constitution, or not).

The supreme Court has, throughout our history, been the last resort for the determination of the Constitutionality of any law or enactment. The distinction between legal and lawful has, historically, hinged upon that final determination by the Court.

When the Court, by itself, can subordinate that important function, based upon rules promulgated by themselves, the Court has removed the common people from the protections of the Constitution.

They have provided a superiority to the administrative agencies of government, and an inferiority to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Vietnam

Korea came and went, at the tail end and under the emotions of World War II. It is often referred to as “the Forgotten War”, so we will leave it forgotten, for the purpose of this current work, though it does fall into a category similar to Vietnam.

Article I, Section 8, clause 11 provides that Congress shall have the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Nowhere else in the Constitution is there any provision for the declaration of war. The Founding Fathers felt that the power to declare war was too awesome a power to give to one man (the President). There can be little doubt as to their intentions, and we can look back, historically, and see that whenever war was declared, the reasons why the war was declared, and who the enemy was, were clearly stated.

Some will try to compare what Thomas Jefferson did when he sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast to deal with the Barbary Pirates, and their supporters. Jefferson, however, was acting under a true emergency. He declared his objectives and sent forth the powers of the United States to release those taken prisoner; to retrieve the lost cargoes, if possible; to recover the American ships seized by the Pirates; and, to set forth to the world that the United States of America was not to be messed with. He went in, did the job and moved out. The Barbary affair was over.

In Vietnam, we saw an advisory venture — an effort to train the native Vietnamese to control their own destiny. There was no defined enemy, as the enemy, for the most part, was South Vietnamese citizens, with aid coming from their allies in the North. We did not enter (until much later) the territory of the perceived enemy of North Vietnam, nor did Congress ever declare war and state the cause and the enemy.

After gradual escalations in forces, and after a rather controversial ‘attack’ on American military surveillance ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress enacted “the Southeast Asia Resolution”, Public Law 88-408. This law authorized President Lyndon Baines Johnson, without a declaration of war, to use military force in Southeast Asia. Congress had abrogated its responsibility, under the Constitution, to provide that safeguard against the power of one man.

There was no legally defined enemy. We were fighting insurgents who were simply in rebellion against their own government (involved in a civil war of another nation), and we were fighting well outside of the authority granted by the Constitution,

Eight years later, after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of over 58 thousand young American men, we withdrew, in defeat, from a war that was unlawful and unwinnable.

The Congress abrogated its responsibility, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, by allowing the President to have the effect, by his commitment of millions of soldiers to foreign soil, where tens of thousands of them died, of conducting a war on foreign soil, without the requisite declaration of war.

This is a violation of the Constitution by both Congress and the President, and denied the protection of the Constitution to those who fought and/or died in Vietnam.

 

Silver removed

After a one year notice, requested by the United States Treasury Department, on June 24, 1968, the Treasury Department, and banks across the nation would no longer redeem Silver Certificates for silver coin. Silver had gone the way of Gold, in violation of the requirements of the Constitution, and without amendment thereto.

Just as with Gold, the Congress had allowed the value of coin to be established by a private entity, though in this instance, there was no longer any coin of the realm to compare values to.

The last means of paying debt, in accordance with the Constitution were completely removed by this act.

Again, the Constitution was twice violated.

Proliferation of bureaucracy

We have frequently heard that our Constitutional Rights are being violated. Ironically, it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights. It has to do with Bureaucracy — A proliferation of Bureaucracy.

Ashwander v. TVA lays out for us just how this next step in creating a Police State occurs. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits you from contracting. In fact, Article I, Section 10 sates: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” So, if you contract for anything (privilege of driving, entering into marriage, build a house, open a business, receive anything from the government, etc.), you are bound by the contract. Moreover, since you receive something in return, your contract has the requisite ‘consideration for consideration’, which means that you have not gone into involuntary servitude. You are just plain stuck with the government as the overseer of all that you do.

Somewhere, the talons of Ashwander have ripped into your chest, and you cannot remove them. The result is what amounts to no less a Police State than Hitler had in 1930s Germany. In fact, the art has been so perfected by the existing government that it may be more powerful than that of Germany.

It is an insidious form of control, for the deception is such that you are lead to believe that it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights (“don’t bring that Constitution into my courtroom”), when, in fact, it has everything to do with the subtle destruction of those rights. Do we lose our rights just because the government says that they are there, but don’t apply, in this case? Or, is it the obligation of government to “secure” those tights, and protect us from encroachment of them? If it was intended by the Founding Fathers that the latter is the case, then the police state that has evolved in this country is as much a violation of the Constitution as those mentioned above.

Some examples, though there are many more, follow.

Police state

Prohibition

In 1917, the Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment was ratified 2 years later and became known as the 18th Amendment, or, “Prohibition”. The Amendment reads as follows:

Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It should be noted that the Amendment did not prohibit consumption of alcohol, it only made it difficult to obtain. Congress, back then, knew that they could not pass a law that worked directly on the people — only on the commerce. The Amendment was needed because there was no other means, under the Constitution, to deny free men access to alcohol, except by an amendment to the Constitution. Meanwhile, cocaine and marijuana were dispensed at the corner drug store, without the need for a prescription from a doctor. Your health was in your own hands.

The Amendment was repealed, in its entirety, by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. During its tenure, a number of things happened in the country that are significant. First was that juries would nullify the law by refusing, in many locations, to convict those who had been charged with alcohol related crimes. This right of “jury nullification” was fundamental to our sense of justice and that the people are the final arbiter of all laws. Just as had occurred after the supreme Court had decided, in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case (that a slave must be returned to its legal owner), where juries failed to convict those who ran underground railroads. Ultimately, the unpopularity of the Amendment, as attested by the jury nullification resulted in repeal.

During Prohibition, the groundwork was laid for the extraordinary growth of organized crime. The demand for ‘illegal’ alcohol was such that control of the trade yielded millions of dollars of profit. What had been small business had become so large that it covered most of the country and into parts of Canada. The diminishing remains of organized crime are still with us, today, many years after the end of Prohibition.

It also provided groundwork for the proliferation of administrative agencies, and the granting of extraordinary (extra constitutional) powers to these them.

The Great Depression, just a few years later, provided even more means for agencies to begin controlling our lives. Social Security began in 1935, though it was limited, then, only to people who worked for a corporation that had contracts with the government.

Ashwander v. TVA (above) provided the nexus for the proliferation of the police state that has evolved with those agencies.

Prohibition demonstrated that: it would require a Constitutional Amendment to control commercial production, sale, or transportation of a drug; that even with an Amendment, the government could not prohibit you using that drug; and, that an Amendment was required to grant the states the power to enforce federal laws.

With the advent of the police state, and supported by the refusal of the supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality, agencies can now promulgate rules which we are bound by, without recourse to the Constitution.

Local agencies, by virtue of receiving federal funds (yes, your dollars) have been ‘greenmailed’ into obedience to federal law, regardless of the Constitutionality of that law (Ashwander, #5).

Your ability to question a law would require that you first prove that you have not sought a benefit from the agency whose rules you have violated (a very expensive process, to go to the supreme Court).

Because of the foundation laid by Ashwander, we have become subject to bureaucratic rule. Following are just a very few of the inflictions imposed upon us by this police state:

Waco, Texas – February 28 – April 19, 1993

During the morning press conference in Waco, Texas, during the siege of the Branch Davidian Church, Louis Beam asked a question. He asked, “Is what is happening here, in Waco, indicative of the coming police state? The speakers at the press conference (FBI and BATF) never responded to Mr. Beam’s question, though after some whispering, we saw the Waco Police Department remove Mr. Beam from the press conference, at the point of a gun.

Again, at Waco, after the final reports were presented, we found that, perhaps, the BATF was a bit overzealous in conducting the raid that resulted in the deaths of more than a hundred men, women, and children. Yet, no federal agents were ever tried for a crime that cost so many lives.

In Waco, Texas, April 19, 1993, the FBI was armed with tanks, grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons and has its own team of snipers. This would appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military against the people, but instead is merely the providing of military uniforms, fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers, sniper teams, tanks, and other military equipment to both tax collectors (BATF) and investigators (FBI).

It needs to be understood, also, that the police state provides protection for its agents.

After the Boston Massacre, Captain Preston and seven soldiers were charged with Manslaughter. Preston and five others were acquitted, because they acted to defend their lives. The other two were found guilty, but, through benefit of clergy, were branded and released.

So, the King’s soldiers stood trial for killing civilians. They were acquitted because they had a right to defend their lives. They did not have immunity from prosecution, but they did have a right to defend themselves (a very fundamental right, without which, any other right has no meaning).

Eight of the Branch Davidians stood trial for numerous charges. Though there is no doubt that they were defending their lives, since all, except Paul Fatta, who was not in Mt. Carmel at the time, were charged with use of firearms on February 28, 1993, the day of the initial raid. All of them were convicted of the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. They were not, however, convicted of a crime in which they used the firearm in the commission of.

The ‘soldiers (BATF and FBI agents) were never tried to determine, by a jury, whether they had committed any crimes.

Clearly, the police state that exists in this country, today, is far more protective of those who support it (agencies and agents), and far less protective of the people within the country, who were protecting their very lives from an assault by tax collectors (BATF).

Ruby Ridge, Idaho – August 21 – August 31, 1992

Months earlier, 14-year-old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back, and killed by US Marshals who were trespassing on the Weaver property at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Later, his mother, Vicki Weaver, was assassinated by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. Vicki was unarmed and holding her newborn child in her arms. No federal agents were charged with a crime by federal authorities. Later, however, an Idaho Grand Jury indicted Horiuchi for involuntary manslaughter. Horiuchi petitioned to have the case transferred to federal court. US District Judge Edward Lodge ruled that, since Horiuchi was a federal officer acting in his official capacity, he was exempt from prosecution under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

The supremacy clause (Article VI, paragraph 2) reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Further, during the siege, the Hostage Rescue Team Commander, Richard Rogers, amended the FBI standard rules of engagement to:

1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.

This was not an enactment of law by the Congress of the United States; it was made by a field commander of a bureaucratic agency of government. He authorized his people to KILL Americans for having a firearm on their own property. It does not require that a subject be pointing his weapon in their direction, nor that the agent would have to feel that there was a direct and immediate threat to his life. It was all a charade to give justification, in writing, to kill the Weavers and Kevin Harris, if the opportunity arose.

Weaver and Harris stood trial, but were acquitted of any charges related to the incident at Ruby Ridge. Two of the Sate Attorneys were fined for falsifying evidence (since the case could have had capital consequence, they were actually trying to kill Weaver and Harris, again). Moreover, none of the agents who killed Sammy or Vicki Weaver was brought to trial. They were protected by the same agencies for which they work.

Malibu, Californian – October 2, 1992

Donald P. Scott, age 61, owned and lived on a 200-acre property known as the Trails End Ranch in the Ventura County portion of Malibu, California. Based upon a sworn affidavit by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Gary R. Spencer, stating that with aerial surveillance it was determined that there were between 50 and 100 marijuana plants growing on the property, a search warrant was issued.

On Friday, August 2, 1992, 30 law enforcement officers (13 from Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, 5 from Los Angeles Police Department. 3 from the National Guard. 3 from the National Park Service. 2 from U.S. Forest Service. 2 from California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, and 2 from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency) gathered at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Malibu Station for briefing.

About 8:30 AM, the team forced entry into the home of Scott. Scott, who was awakened by the commotion, did not have time to dress before the entry was made. Frances Plante, who was already up, was hustled outside to other officers. Scott, responding to the commotion, came to the doorway to the living room with a gun. As described in the official report, “Scott was holding a gun in his right hand, with his palm and fingers around the cylinder rather than the butt. Scott’s elbow was at his side with his forearm straight out or slightly up, his hand turned up with the barrel of the gun pointing at a 45-degree angle toward the ceiling. Scot was holding the gun with the barrel upward, as if he were going to hit someone rather than shoot it.”

Spencer, then fearing for his life, he and another deputy fired three shots, at point blank range, killing Donald Scott in his own home. No evidence of marijuana or any other drugs were found in the home or on the property.

Ventura County, although they were never notified of a raid within their jurisdiction, did conduct the final report on the shooting. In their conclusions, the report states that:

… Because it cannot be proven that Spencer knowingly lied in the affidavit, there is an insufficient basis for a perjury prosecution,

It is the District Attorney’s opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. …. This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant.

The evidence does not establish that Donald Scott intended a shoot out with the deputies. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the deputies went to the ranch with the hope of killing Scott. When Deputy Spencer ordered Scott to lower his gun, Scott did so in a way that Spencer says caused him to fear for his life. …The invalidity of the warrant does not form a sufficient legal or evidentiary basis for a homicide prosecution.

It becomes apparent that the police state mentality, asset forfeiture, and nearly absolute impunity for law enforcement officers has become detrimental to not only our property, but our lives, as well.

Nobody was charged, to be tested by a jury of people, to determine if Donald Scott’s life was taken as the result of criminal activity.

Agency State

Children

Child Protective Services is known by different names in some parts of the country, but there is little difference in the policies and activities of these insidious government agencies.

One event, which occurred about 1986 involved, separated parents. The mother, living with a child from the current marriage and two from a former marriage, lived on Ocala, Florida. The father lived in Orlando. One day, the father received a phone call from the hysterical mother. “They came in the house and told me to go to a room, and they took the children and terrorized them”, she said. The father told her that he would be there, shortly, to see what he could do.

When he arrived, the mother explained that Child Protective Services had come to her door and said that they wanted to speak with the children; they said that they had received a report that the mother had abused the children. They demanded that she go into a bedroom and close the door while they asked the children some questions, and looked for signs of child abuse. They would not answer any questions, and they continued their ‘examination’ of the children for over half an hour. Finally, they allowed her to come out of the room and informed her that they found no evidence of child abuse. Again, they would answer no questions, though they did leave a business card.

The children were frightened, even after the CPS people had left. The oldest, a girl asked her mother if they were going to take her away from her mother. The mother had no idea what the answer to the question was.

The father arrived and the mother told him what had happened. He was irate, and took the business card and drove to the offices of the CPS. He demanded to see a supervisor, and, after repeated demands, was finally led to a room occupied by a woman who appeared to be a director. He explained what had occurred and insisted on seeing the report that had been filed. She denied his request, and the conversation continued. He explained that he was not going to leave the office until he was able to see the report. Finally, the women relented, left the office, and returned with a Xerox of the report that was filed. The father read the report and noted that there were a couple of items ‘blacked out with a marker’. The obscured items was the name of the person filing the report and their address and phone number. The report, however, made clear that the report was called in over the telephone.

The father then insisted that,” in accordance with the Constitution, we have a right to meet the accuser. You have provided nothing along the lines of what I requested. I want to see the report that caused your people to terrorize my family.” After a very heated discussion, the women, again, left and returned, this time with a complete copy of the report. On this copy, which claimed that the person had personal knowledge that the mother abused the children, was blank in both the address and the phone number, however, in the box for the name of the person filing the report was written “anonymous”.

Florida, when they adopted the child abuse database, determined that if ever anyone’s name were entered in the database, it would never be removed. Consequently, the mother’s name will, forever, be listed as a possible child abuser.

The father informed the CPS that if they were ever an investigation, again, into that family, that he be notified and be allowed to be present. The woman made some notes and assured him that he would be notified. Thus ends this story, but not the knowledge that someone who was an excellent mother will, forever, have her name on the rolls of those who have abused their children

There are many occurrences of CPS taking children away from their parents. Usually, when this occurs, any court proceedings come after the children are taken. The children have become the property of the state, which is provided substantial funds by the federal government, leaving families destroyed. Very few have had such a fortunate outcome as described above.

Administrative agencies have managed to, somehow, bring the children into their web. In most cases, welfare, or some other program advertised to help parents with their children, are the means by which the ‘benefit’ is sought, thereby binding the parents to the rules of the agency.

Property Forfeiture

There are so many cases of property seizure and forfeiture that it difficult to know where to start. We have all read accounts of someone travelling with large amounts of cash in their car, or their purse or pocket. They are stopped by local law enforcement. They are asked to give permission to search the vehicle. Most often, the unwary driver says “yes”.

The officer then searches the vehicle and finds a large amount of cash. He will probably let the person go, perhaps with a ticket, though sometimes with a simple, “you are free to go”. The cash, however, is confiscated by the officer as “presumed to be the byproduct of criminal activity”.

The cash is turned over to the court and a proceeding takes place, styled along the lines of “Acme County v. $9,378 dollars in cash”. Then, if the owner of the cash has the wherewithal to pay an attorney to represent the “cash” in the suit, they start watching the value of the cash reduced proportionate to the cost of the legal proceedings.

The ‘court” is operating under the premise that the cash is a byproduct of criminal activity, therefore, the due process required by the Fifth Amendment is moot. Here, we come to a matter of interpretation of our contract with the government. The court assumes that the owner of the property has not been deprived of the property, even though the due process had been preceded by the confiscation of the property.

The Fifth Amendment:

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

So the complex legal question of whether you are deprived of your property when the officer takes it from you, or you are deprived of your property, which the officer deprived you of, only after the court finalizes the theft of your property. Thank God for attorneys because this is such a difficult  interpretation of the wording of the Fifth Amendment.

However, maybe there is another “presumed right”, of which we have all been told the existence of. That being you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If that is true within the American judicial system, then the presumption of innocence applies both to you and to your cash. How can “byproduct of criminal activity” be assumed if there is no crime with which to associate the activity?

Finally, in what country in the world have we ever heard that you can be presumed to be criminal if you have lawful, or legal, coin of the realm in your pocket?

Motor Vehicles

Did you ever wonder why the lender (lien holder) can reposes someone’s car, without a court order? Quite simply, the person who thinks he owns the car doesn’t really own it.

It starts when the car is bought. You fill out a neat little package of forms so that the dealer can take the package down to the Motor Vehicle Department (DMV) and get a temporary tag until the real tag arrives in your mailbox.

One, or more of the little cards that you fill out is called a “Power of Attorney”. The Dealer takes the Power of Attorney and a piece of paper that he got when the car was delivered from the manufacture. That piece of paper is known as the Manufacture’s Statement of Origin (MSO). You could say that it is the “birth certificate” for the automobile. When the dealer takes your Power of Attorney and the MSO, and, of course, some of your money, to the DMV, he asks them, under the authority of the Power of Attorney , to make the automobile a motor vehicle. The DMV will then issue a Certificate of Title. Now, this is where it begins to get interesting.

Let’s go to Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition) to see how your car becomes a vehicle:

“Certificate of title. See Insurance (Title insurance)” [page 206]

It seems rather strange to have to look under ” insurance” for ” certificate of title” , but, let’s try it:

Insurance **** {page 721][deep into the many paragraphs, we find:]

Title insurance. Insurance against loss or damage resulting from defects or failure of title to a particular parcel of reality, or from enforcement of liens existing against it at the time of insurance. This form of insurance is taken out by the purchaser of the property or one loaning money on mortgage, and is furnished by companies specially organized for the purpose, and which keep complete sets of abstracts or duplicates of the records, employ expert title-examiners, and prepare conveyances and transfers of all sorts. A ” certificate of title” furnished by such a company is merely the formally expressed professional opinion of the company’s examiner that the title is complete and perfect (or otherwise, as stated), and the company is only liable for want of care, skill, or diligence on the part of its examiner.

So, what does that say? It says that the state, through the DMV, insures that the one loaning money is insured as to the title of the car. That is the lien holder, not you. Until the lien holder is removed from the title, it is their car. It also makes it commercial, it is being insured as a “motor vehicle”.

So, what is a “motor vehicle”?  For this, we have to go to the US Code, TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Section 31. Definitions. There, we find:

” Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo

and,

” Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit

So, by getting a Certificate of Title, in exchange for a Manufacture’s Statement of Origin, you end up with a commercial vehicle that belongs to the lien holder, not you. And, you paid for it.

Since it belongs to them, they can take it, if you have breached the contract.

To make this charade as effective as possible, everybody keeps very quiet about it. So, unless you pay cash for a new car, and, ask for the MSO, you can expect to drive a commercial “motor vehicle” rather than a car.

Home  Building Permits

Did you ever wonder why, in a free country, you had to get a building permit to build a home? Even if you want to add a room, you must get a building permit.

Imagine, if you will, a covered wagon travelling across the vast plains of the Midwest, venturing out to California or Oregon, in search of a new life. They arrive as the winter snows begin to fall. They have been living out of their wagon for the past eight months, and are anxious to begin their new home.

As the father is cutting down trees, preparing them for cabin logs, a stranger walks up and says, “Sir, where is your building permit? You will need to have plans prepared by an architect. You will, if you want indoor plumbing, the work will have to be performed by a licensed plumber. Then, you will need a septic tank, so you will have to get a soil engineer’s certificate of suitability of the soil for the septic tank. Thank God, there was no electricity, then.

Surely, they would have repacked their wagon and reversed their trek.

Under the guise of “for your own protection”, agencies have grown out of the woodwork to assure that you don’t endanger yourself by building a home of sod, logs, dirt, or even bricks.

Back in 1968, a Vietnam Veteran found an old house, in the hills south of Watsonville, California. The “Condemned” sign was still hanging on the door. He looked in the tax assessor’s roll and found the owner, who lived in Southern California. He called them, made an appointment, visited them and left with an agreement to buy the house and property.

Back at the house, he replaced fallen plaster with sheetrock, dozens of broken windows, water heater, submersible well pump, cleaned the cistern for water storage, sanded and varnished floors, painted or papered walls, and rewired some of the electrical system, which had been installed in the house long after it was first built in 1929.

Being otherwise self-sufficient, he needed only to get the electricity turn on to make the now restored house a home.

He called the electric company and told them that he needed to get the electricity turned on. When the man arrived to turn the electricity on, he asked for the building permit. The Veteran said, “I don’t have a building permit. I’ve only restored that which was.”

“Well, do you have anything from the electrician who did the work?”

“I’m not an electrician, but I did the work.”

‘Well, you are supposed to have a building permit and it is supposed to be signed off by a certified electrician.” As the electric company man was saying this, he was looking in the master electric panel. He then said, “Well, the work looks good, and, since you are going to be living here, I’ll go ahead and turn the electricity on.” which he did.

It seemed that there was a commercial tie to getting electricity in a house. Building permit, certified electrician, all of this just so he could turn his lights on? Would the government rather he live without electricity — for his own safety?

So, how does this work? Well, if you contract any portion of the house to be built by someone else, the state has ‘regulated’ their trade — for your safety. In that regulation, they have told him that he will lose his license if he does work without the proper permits.

Then, they tell all of the utility companies that they have to ascertain that there was a building permit and that any work performed under the permit has to have been done, and signed off by a licensed professional, or the utility services cannot be turned on — or, the utility company will lose its license.

As with Prohibition, the government cannot act on us, but can act on commercial entities. Once you have submitted an application for the building permit (remember Ashwander), you are bound by the rules of that agency. You have ‘volunteered’ to seek a benefit. And, you have been force to volunteer because the commercial enterprises have been coerced into participation of the game that denies you their services unless you have the permit.

To add insult to injury, once the Building Permit is completed and signed off, the agency acknowledges that you have improved your property, and increases, based upon your ‘admission’, the value of the property tax assessment.

Borders

What is an illegal immigrant?

The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits non-nationals from entering, or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place that has not been designated by an immigration officer. It also prohibits non-nationals from eluding immigration officers. Inspection and/or authorization are required for entry.

The U. S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and its mobile division, The U. S. Border Patrol are responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Even with these laws and agencies, it is estimated that over one-half million illegals enter the United States, each year.

There are three types of illegal immigrants: 1) entering without authorization and inspection; 2) staying beyond the authorized period for entry; and, 3) violating the requirements for legal entry. The first type accounts for over half of the illegal immigrants in this country.

Who enforces immigration laws?

Illegal immigration is classed as a misdemeanor and subjects the person to extradition.

Under The United States Code, Title 8, Section 1103, the Powers and Duties of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States have the authority to extradite illegal immigrants

There are an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants

Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has over 60 agencies within its department, with over 179 thousand employees and a budget in excess of $28 billion, it is difficult to understand why the growth in numbers of illegal immigrants in this country continues to climb.

It has become apparent that the DHS is not interested in supporting local law enforcement in attempting to stem the flow of illegals or to identify them for extradition. In fact, there are a number of large cities in the United States that have enacted laws protecting illegal immigrants within their boundaries (Haven Cites).

Not only illegal immigrants, who flood the job market, even though they are criminals by being here, but drugs, weapons and possible terrorists, with intentions of death and destruction, are nearly guaranteed entry because of the negligence of the DHS and other responsible agencies.

The abrogation of their responsibility, under the law, creates risk to the citizens of this country, and provides a welcome mat for the continuation of illegal border crossings.

Often, employers are charged with a crime for employing illegal immigrants. The government and the agencies assigned to protect the borders, however, are immune from consideration of their failure to enforce the law of the land.

Though there are many causes for concern over what is happening in this country, only a few have been addressed, here. Surely, your concerns would fit into the above descriptions as nicely as those that have been included.

The Nature of Government

Returning to John Locke, and his philosophy of self-government, that which the Founding Fathers modeled much of the founding of this nation after, is worthy of understanding, if we are to know enough about our government to understand what is necessary to return it to its proper role.

Dissolution of government

We begin with the question, can government be dissolved?

Governments can be dissolved by a number of means. What history shows us, as the most common, was forceful encroachment by a conquering Army. The effect was dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of the society, for every nation is composed of both government and society. Generally, under these circumstances, society was disrupted and scattered to the winds. This form of dissolution has not existed for quite some time.

Another form is when an enemy force dissolves government, and replaces that government with a government of their own choosing. The result, in this instance, is dissolution of government by non-violent means, and subsequent dissolution of the society, which is replaced, through a slow transitional process, by a society unlike the one that was the source of the original government. We must not assume, in this circumstance, that the dissolution of government will, necessarily, take a forceful effort. The likelihood, in modern times, is that the dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of society will go unnoticed until history is revised and the transition is lost from existence, without a notice of its demise.

If the form of government within a nation has any form of representative capacity, the means by which dissolution may occur will take one of three forms. First, the executive may begin to arbitrarily impose his will on the elected representatives and the people. Slowly the rule of law deviates from its original intent, and slowly the dissolution process occurs.

There is also dissolution of government by delivery of the people to the influence of a foreign power. Eventually, the legislative body finds themselves subjected to a set of rules not of their making, but to which they must adhere, which, again, results in the demise of the government, as was originally intended, and the society as it becomes subject to that foreign power.

Finally, there is dissolution when the trust bestowed upon the existing government is betrayed, by whatever means. That trust, generally in the form of a constitution, forms a set of rules by which the government is empowered, with the belief that it will abide by such contract. Faith is necessary because there is a need to pass power to government so that it can conduct its business thus the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution). When that power is directed in violation of the trust, ultimately it will be used to dissolve the society. The question here is, is the government dissolved as well? That answer shall be forthcoming.

How is a government dissolved?

Governments, of the nature of legislative authority, are created by, and subject to the will of the people. They are creatures of the will of the people, and their purpose for existence is only to protect the rights of the people, to the extent delegated, for the preservation of property and the protection of the life and liberty of the people. There is no other purpose for government whose authority is from the people, than the preservation and protection of the People’s lives, rights and property.

Once it is recognized that government has begun to deviate from its intended purpose, and the delivery to a foreign power is apparent, the people are more likely to presume that there is nothing that can be done to change that course. Many will accept that those chosen to legislate and administer are far wiser than they are, and willingly subject themselves to the change that results in the conversion and dissolution.

Within any society, it is far easier, especially so long as there is sufficient bread on the table, to allow the trend to continue, accepting that this is the evolution of government as it should be. Little do they recognize that what they are experiencing is tyranny in the same form that has imposed itself upon people throughout history. The despotic nature of government will advise them that they are freemen while they are, at the same time, wrapping the chains of slavery gently around their lives. This is a form of mockery that is little understood by most. What is understood even less is that they not only have the right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

The protection of property being the most significant purpose of government, the power given to government must be limited to preclude any theft of property. When government, in an artful and crafty manner, begins the slow and meticulous theft of the property of the people, it has violated the sacred trust granted to it at its inception. Regardless of whether that theft is direct, or indirect, the outcome will be the same.

Government, then, when it does begin this process of conversion (dissolution of the intended government), has breached the trust of the people. The people, however, have not lost their right to the fundamental liberties, for the preservation of which the government was first formed. Instead, they have a responsibility to revise that form of government, to correct the errors and to rewrite the contract to provide for the protection of the property and the rights of the people to be secured.

Government imposed  dissolution?

What can be done to prevent this form of dissolution? Surely, a resort to the force of arms against those who have been granted the authority to use force of arms in the preservation of property is not an easily undertaken measure. What would rouse the people to return their government to that place and to those ends for which it was first erected?

Rebellion is the term that applies to those who seek to dissolve government, and society, from within. The determination of who the rebels, the usurpers, truly are is the question that must first be asked. If the government has drifted from the course first intended, and, after due notice, continues to deviate even further therefrom, and in that process imposes force of arms against the very people it was created to protect — then that government, and all within it, have become the rebels, they are the ones that have sought to undo that which was first intended, and they are the ones that have resorted to armed force to impose their will upon the people. It is they who are guilty of rebellion. It is they who have created a state of war.

Who is it that would suggest to the populace that any who would denounce the actions of government, under the circumstances presented, as being the rebels? Those very people who had been selected as our representatives for the purpose of protection of property would proclaim that those who have found the need to protect their own fortunes are the usurpers, the “rebels”. They would denounce them and accuse them of crimes against the state and against the people themselves. They would argue that these rebels must be subdued. Yet, who are the pirates, the robbers, and the thieves?

If the innocent, honest man must quietly quit all he has for the sake of peace — to those that would impose violence upon him for protecting his own property, what kind of peace will we be subjecting ourselves to? Violence would be maintained only for the protection of the robbers and oppressors.

The end of government is for the good of mankind, and what is best for mankind is that they not be subjected to this form of tyranny. The duty of government is to resist these evils, and protect the people from them. The exorbitant use of government’s power, when used for the destruction of that very society, and not for the preservation of the property of the people, is the worst form of tyranny that can befall mankind, for it came of trust, and results in slavery.

When does one act to stop the tyranny?

Most of the people will not be willing to believe all accusations made by those who proclaim the evils of government. Those who first recognize the tyranny will be scorned. When only a few stir against this tyranny, they are looked upon as mischievous, and, likely to seek their own ruin.

Until the design of the despots has become apparent to a sufficient number, the greater numbers will be content to suffer rather than to right themselves by resistance to tyranny. Who, then, assumes responsibility to correct the problem before the goal of dissolution of both government and society has been achieved?

That determination is not one for earthly consideration. Simply, if the matter were cast before a court of the government, the ruling, without question, would be that those who support the dissolution are mistaken in their thoughts, and criminal in their nature. Under these circumstances, the course is set, and the goal of tyranny will be achieved. Those who oppose the course of government are incarcerated, or killed.

The only recourse that can allow a just consideration of action is the ruler of the universe, who speaks to each individually, but sets no mandate from which we can seek guidance. The judgment will come, not in our lifetimes, but when the final determination as to our destiny is made. History will tell a story and the evidence of the actions must stand on the merit of the arguments presented and to the actions taken.

History is as likely to condemn those who sat idly by as to look favorably upon those who sought to restore the institutions for which they have cast their lot for the protection of their property. Each of us must make his own decision as to what course must be taken, though we must remember that those who would usurp the faith and trust granted them are the worst criminals that can exist on the face of the earth, and should be treated accordingly — punishment for crimes committed not only serves as a deterrent for future occurrence, but is just reward for those that commit those crimes.

Whoever uses force without right, who does so without true law, puts himself in a state of war against those against whom he so uses it — and in this circumstance all former conditions of consideration cease to exist, all ties are canceled, all rights cease and each retains the right to defend himself as he sees fit, and to resist the aggressor. Moreover, he who resists, by the very nature of resistance, must be allowed to strike. Resistance only when backed into a corner is as cowardly as it is unsuccessful.

We all understand that an inferior cannot punish a superior, at least so long as he is the superior. When the state of war comes into existence, all former relations are canceled, and all respects and reverence for the superior ceases to exist. Since the original superior was the citizen who provided for the existence of government — for the preservation of property — that condition returns, and it is the superior who now comes forward to subdue the inferior, the usurper.

What then may happen that the people may, of right, and of their own authority, take up arms and set upon the government? Nothing can ever justify this form of action, for then, truly, the aggressor would be the rebel. Not, at least, so long as the government remains the government. The people can never come by power over the government unless the government ceases to be a government and divests itself of its authority. Only when the people must revert to the state of private man, and bear the responsibility for the protection of his own property can they become free and superior.

Each must judge for himself whether government continues to serve as government, or ceases to be that government to which his allegiance is owed. Each must resolve — in his own mind — in his own heart — and seek advice from heaven. Those who gave it can never remove the authority that each person gave as his share of the collective authority of government. It is the nature of community that requires that we all abide by that shared authority. Without that trust, that commitment, there can be no society, no commonwealth, no community, for that would be contrary to the original agreement, and a violation of the trust of our neighbors. The government can never revert to the people while the government lasts, nor should it divest itself of that authority. It is assumed that government will last forever, for that is the purpose for which it was first created.

When the miscarriages of those in authority have achieved a point so far removed from the original purpose, the government has forfeited its existence, and upon forfeiture, divests itself, and returns to each of us his respective share of the cumulative authority. Government reverts to society and the people have the right to act as the supreme, to continue to legislate as they see fit — to erect a new form, or to repair the old, assuring that what has been learned has also been corrected. It is that state that we are currently in.

What can we do to restore the Constitution

Disobey the Constitution – as Lincoln did

Abraham Lincoln felt no compunction when he decided to ignore the Constitution to save the Union. Perhaps we need to enter our venture to restore the Constitution with the same sense of necessity. The Constitution sets out safeguards to protect us from government. The government has failed to abide by the Constitution, The Constitution sets forth what the government is. It is that portion of the Constitution that we need to consider, in its present administration. Is it complying with the dictates of the Constitution in the performance of its duties?

If not, are we bound to recognize it as the lawful government of the United States of America? Though it may be the legal (de facto) government, is it the lawful (de jure) government? If it is the latter, then there is nothing that can be done, it is in compliance with the Constitution. However, if it is the former, then it is, without doubt, the usurper of power that was never intended to be within its authority.

The Constitution still stands, but absent the government instituted by the Constitution, we have little choice but to regress to the Declaration of Independence, and regain the lawful government by the means outlined by the Founding Fathers — to regain the rights of Englishmen (Americans).

Suspend judicial process

How can this be accomplished when we realize that the judicial system has become a major player in the commandeering of power beyond the scope envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

We must consider the judicial process as suspended. That no judicial action regarding any and all efforts to regain a Constitutional government is valid and of force. This would mean that any who attempt to enforce judicial actions is outside of the law (constitutional), because the Court is acting outside of the law. During the War of Independence, all civil matters were suspended and only criminal actions heard, if conditions allowed. Those with enmity toward the cause were jailed, and had their arms taken from them. Their property could become forfeit, if their actions were such as to be destructive of the cause.

Committees of Safety were empowered by their communities to deal with judicial matters, when necessary. There is no reason to believe that this expedient could not be restored.

The circumstances as they existed then, and as they exist, now.

We need to look at the playing field that exists, today. It is not like that which the Founding Fathers played upon.

Then. there were spies and informants. Dr. Benjamin Church was a member of the Massachusetts Committee of Safety and on the examining board for surgeons, for the army. He was also a spy for General Gage of the British Army. He was found out and removed to Connecticut, and later released to sail for the West Indies.

Other spies roamed the countryside gathering information for the Crown.

Messages, back then, had to be transmitted with paper and ink. Even with code and disappearing ink, evidence was usually easily found, once suspicions were aroused.

Today, with electronic bugs, cell phones, and countless other electronic devices, transmission of information was considerably easier, and safer, then.

Informants that have infiltrated groups have been known to be the prime motivator of illegal activity; entrapping their fellow members and testifying against them (consider the suspension of judicial process, above).

Long-range eavesdropping equipment and long range visual capabilities provide even greater risk to endeavors that might have been easier for the colonists.

Though acts of violence, some resulting in deaths, and acts of destruction of property, were not uncommon, they were not looked upon with distain, as they are now.

We need to look at the playing field and determine that it cannot be allowed to defeat us, by its nature. Improvising and adapting are necessary to be able to play on the field.

Where does this all lead to?

The Process

A question was raised, the other day, in a conversation. The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?” At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task,

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world. Its navies were masters of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world. It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies. The colonies had few things working for them. They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; They had to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned certain tactics used by the Indians; They had local knowledge of the topography; and, They had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land which had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: numbers of highly trained soldiers; unlimited supplies and resources, although many of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported; a multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies, mastery of the waterways; and, many of the leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were. They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face to face on the battlefield. They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British. They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle. One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with the persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today? Perhaps they learned that politics should have less to do with officer selection than the competence of the man who would be chosen to lead them into harm’s way. Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants. There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins

The Beginning

Open confrontation would be out of the question. A degree of psychological warfare would probably serve best at the onset. Small teams composed of people who have known each other for years and who have never been charged with a crime would provide the best security. — since plea agreements would be a logical means to force infiltration or of gaining an informant — Communication between various teams should be limited and comparable to the information of those within a single team. The more you know, the more you can give up, if caught.

Joint operations can be conducted with two or more teams participating, and can lead to bigger, better and more successful operations.

Each team should have at least one person whose job includes dissemination of information about targets. Targets can be objects or individuals, though any target should have obvious and describable characteristics, which can be publicized.

Developing sympathetic focal points within the press is very important and information should be provided as soon as possible following an event, substantiating the necessity of the action taken. This would result in minimizing the government/press’ ability to demonize your cause; For example, a police officer know to abuse people, whether prisoners, or civilian, is a likely target and one which sympathy for the action can be developed; A building that is used primarily for government communication can be disruptive of the government’s efforts to conduct unconstitutional operations.

However, there will never be a single target that can develop sympathetic reactions from all of the public, there are thousands of targets that can result in a neutral if not a positive effect on a portion thereof. In target justification, your actions can never be random, nor can they be indiscriminant. Always maintaining a higher moral ground than that of the government will enhance your ability to sway people to the cause.

As styles and tactics are developed, they can be shared with others — to enhance their operations. As public knowledge of what is occurring grows, more people who have concerns about government will realize that they will soon have to decide which side they are on.

What characteristics should a target have to be justified? Many people in positions of power or authority are among those who support the continuation toward tyranny in this country. If allegations exist that demonstrate a possible pattern to the actions of someone, then there is potential for that person to be targeted. If a person holds a position that is among those that will be utilized to ‘enforce’ the edicts of government, they are front line soldiers in the war against the New Patriots. However, attacking them without some ‘dirt’ that can be exploited carries a risk of disenfranchisement of some of the people. If these people are targeted, it is best to catch them in an act that demonstrates the need to deal with them — such as making an unwarranted or ridiculous arrest of, or seizing property without a warrant.

What structures are potential targets? Many insurance companies have reneged on their obligation to compensate policyholders for losses. This is especially true of homeowners insurance companies that have failed to make whole the people who suffered from natural disasters, or opted out of their responsibility and encouraged the government to take the responsibility off their backs. There are communications facilities (long lines systems; microwave communications, etc.) that are targets that will have disruptive effects on the governments communications. Though this will also impact the public to some degree, the effect on government will be substantial and may be well worth the effort, if properly targeted.

Power is a necessary element for all of our lives, but even more so for the operation of government. Hospitals have back up power generations systems, as do most government facilities. If a power system that supports a government facility is to be targeted, it is probably more effective to take out their emergency system, first. When targeting power systems, the most desirable target is the transformer stations. Generating plants have standby generators, and can be readily replaced. Transformers are much more difficult to replace; each incident will reduce the availability of replacement transformers. Transformer sub-stations can be targeted based upon them providing service to government or other targeted operations, minimizing the effect on the public. At this point, transformer stations are relatively unsecured. Because they generate massive amounts of heat, they are set in arrays and enclosed, usually, only by security fencing.

Buildings, themselves, if they are headquarters for agencies, corporations are other entities that can be identified as oppressive, are good targets. Take heed from the misunderstandings in Oklahoma City, that they should be targeted for minimal loss of life.

Other possible targets would be those who have questionable practices that have been accepted as American for over a hundred years and have filed lawsuits to remove crosses, the Ten Commandments, Nativity displays and other Americana from public places.

Advocates of immorality, contrary to the morality that has been recognized by this country for nearly two centuries, might also be targeted.

What will be the effects of this Beginning effort?

Many who have jobs solely because they pay well, provide great benefits, give them authority to assert themselves, or are just plain immoral to begin with, are peopled by individuals that are inclined to take any job which provides them a comfortable existence and a regular paycheck. Generally, those jobs are either without risk, or the odds are stacked in their favor, if elements of risk might arise. What happens if all of a sudden unanticipated risk creeps in to be a part of the job description? The greater the degree of risk, the sooner that person will find another place to work. If those positions cannot be readily filled, they begin having an impact on the reliance on that part of the system by the government.

The same is true in many of the businesses that are supportive of government actions, or otherwise potential targets. Even if there was no risk to life, the fact that the ‘office’ is no longer there will cause the employees to reconsider the benefits of working for that company. What if, the next time, the building isn’t empty, they ask themselves. As the risk increases, the availability of workers diminishes. It will not take long before that business is not operating as usual.

During this entire phase, the Beginning, operations should continue, as practicality and safety allow. Every event should have information disseminated so that the explanation behind each target can be justified, at least to some degree, in the eyes of the public. The government, in outrage over what is happening, is more likely to assert brutality, whenever they think that they have captured a person or people they believe are ‘perpetrators’.

As public anxiety over events increases, the media coverage will also increase. It will be necessary for both targeting events and retaliations by government to be disseminated, as widely as possible. Find your line of communication, and keep it flowing. Those in the communications lines should follow how the information goes out into the mainstream. If it is twisted toward the unfavorable, the line that is being fed the information should be reconsidered. What you get out of what you do is totally under your control. Make the best if it.

Some Obstacles in the Beginning

In most cases, there are things that must be dealt with before any activity takes place. One obstacle will be knowledge as to where the tens of thousands of cameras are located. If your people are properly disguised, and identification of vehicles is obscured this may not pose a problem. It doesn’t hurt to begin anticipating being tracked, even in a disguised vehicle, by those many cameras. Some cameras can be destroyed, or temporarily disabled with a red laser. The problem is, you have to be in the line of sight of the camera to be able to have an effect on the electronics. Another option is a well-sighted 22-caliber rifle. A long rifle bullet may be sufficient, in most cases, though magnum loads might be more reliable for the desired destruction of the camera. This can be done from any position where a clear view of the camera can be had. In normal daytime activity, chances of the shot being heard and identified as a rifle shot are very slim. Since most of the cameras are now radio operated, destruction of the camera is the only solution. There are no wires to cut.

There is always the possibility that someone will be identified during an operation. Or, there may be something in his past that has made him a “person of interest” and subject to ‘detention’. If you are aware of the possibility of one of these occurrences, it might be wise to take advantage of the situation, even if it means spending weeks in an ambush mode. If you can anticipate their avenue of approach, where they would be likely to set up a command area, where they would be likely to store equipment and park vehicles, you might have the upper hand. You need to understand, as in all military tactics, that they may anticipate such an action. Your planning has to be made with that in consideration. When one side thinks that it is superior to the other side, it is more prone to mistakes than the side that recognizes that it needs to make itself superior.

If the SWAT team cannot get out of their truck (alive), they cannot be an opposing force.

Expansion of the effort

As the New Patriot organizations increase in size and competence, they will increase their ability to conduct larger operations. Small armies of New Patriots can encircle and force surrender of government bodies of armed men (police, sheriffs, National Guard, and military bases), forcing surrender, and then administering loyalty oaths or incarceration.

Over time, the ease of operation will become greater and greater. Still larger operations can be planned and carried out. Like a transfusion, new lifeblood will flow into the Constitution and the Great Experiment, which began in 1788.

Nationalizing the effort

As the first phase continues, a network of active New Patriots will communicate over broader areas, bringing communication into a larger network, as time goes on. During these early stages, many who are not in complete sympathy with the Rebel cause will expose themselves and be removed from the system. As the New Patriot successes blossom, more will join the cause. Eventually, semblances of state governments (Committees of Safety) will appear in the underground level. Current politicians sympathetic to the cause, will leave their government positions and adhere themselves to the New Patriot side. Similarly, members of the establishment press will see the writing on the wall, and opt out of their current obligations to promote the cause of the New Patriots.

As the network enlarges, the means of conducting even larger operations will present itself. Slowly, as did during the American Revolution, the balance of power will shift away from the usurpers and pass to the New Patriots. They will be able to operate more openly, and will be able to convene for conducting the common business.

The will also be able to reach out to other countries in the world and seek assistance in the form of financing and equipment, perhaps even soldiers, navies and air force capabilities. Can you imagine how many countries would love to see the current US government displaced? France and Spain sure were desirous of seeing the British government displaced in 18th century America.

As local groups reach out and communicate with other groups, a form of underground government will evolve. A network will establish itself much as the Founding Fathers did, and each state will re-establish itself with a true (not corporate) government of the people.

It is quite possible that fear, by those who have usurped authority, unwarranted by the people or the Constitution, will flee, as Tories did during the Revolution. Eventually, they will be displaced, whether by flight, or by indictment for crimes committed and trial by a jury comprised of people who have taken an oath of loyalty to the true United States of America.

The strength of the effort, as it grows in popular support and acceptance by true Americans, will begin a scourge of those who had held power. Once displaced, their positions will be filled by those chosen by the people, and not filtered through political party structures.

The future of the United States of America, is in your hands

Given the understanding of the real circumstances of the country that we live in, today; can there be any doubt that something needs to be done to correct the problem?

Consideration should always be given to peaceful means of resolution. However, when those means are effectively removed from the means of achieving results, are we forever committed to beat our heads against an impenetrable wall?

We can continue to demonstrate our displeasure with government by marching in the streets. This will give us a sense of doing something, but, as we can see by the past, it will effect no change in the course that the government has set.

We can support candidates of our choice, but if they are of one of the two political parties, they have earned their position by obedience to the party, not to the people.

If it is a candidate of another nature, then there is hope, though the odds are against election, However, if he were to succeed in getting elected, he would be just one voice screaming in the darkness of that pit called Congress. And, though you might hear him screaming, those in Washington will not even flinch for the noise that he makes.

What choice do we have that has any chance, whatsoever, of success? Is there anything that can be proposed which might have even a slight chance of success?

The Tea Party of Boston was an element in the revolution. It is time to understand that the revolution is over, and, that the time has come for the action that follows that change in thought. That is the action that brings about change. It is not irresolution; rather, it is an absolute commitment to do our duty, in accordance, not with the Constitution, but with the Declaration of Independence.

Mice? or Men?

The Boston Committee of Correspondence met at Faneuil Hall on the evening of June 27, 1774. Samuel Adams was elected moderator, but stood down from his position after a Tory announced that Boston should censure the committee. The British had begun raising their complement in Boston, and the Committee, just a few weeks earlier, had approved sending a delegation to what would become known as the First Continental Congress.

“A Grecian philosopher,” Adams said, “who was lying asleep upon the grass, was aroused by the bite of some animal upon the palm of his hand. He closed his hand suddenly as he woke and found that he had caught a field mouse. As he was examining the little animal who dared to attack him, it unexpectedly bit him a second time, and made its escape.”

“Now, fellow citizens,” he continued, “what think you was the reflection he made upon this trifling circumstance? It was this: that there is no animal, however weak and contemptible, which cannot defend its own liberty,

if it will only fight for it.

 

Download a PDF version of this article: Unlike any other Government (PDF)

 

What if I’m arrested?

by Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1995

This question is one of the more frequently asked questions in the Patriot community. It is an issue that is becoming more prevalent and worthy of addressing for it is the future for many of us who seek to resurrect the Constitution. It is also one that I have become familiar with over the past few years, by experience, by study and as a result of what I have seen occur in the community.

To put the subject in proper perspective, it is necessary to understand what the Founders have said on the matter, what the supreme court has said and what experience has shown to best serve us under that circumstance.

First we will discuss what it meant to the Founders. The initial additions to the Constitution for the United States of America known as the Bill of Rights were adopted as a condition to ratification of the Constitution. Whether the amendments were a good idea, or not, has been argued for over two centuries. The question at the time was whether the adopting of amendments specifying certain protections might lead subsequent generations to believe that only those rights were ~ protected. As a result of this concern the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted to assure that future generations would recognize the existence of Individual Rights and States Rights. The Tenth, we are all familiar with, is the amendment that is being asserted by state after state in an effort to curtail the proliferation of usurpation of unlawful authority by the federal government. The Ninth, however, was adopted with the intention of clarifying the issue of rights beyond those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Little need be said to understand that the people retained anything not addressed and not falling in the realm of those enumerated. Not even the state would ascend to jurisdiction in certain matters. I bring this up now, but we will discuss the Ninth in more detail later. What we are primarily concerned with at this point is the Fifth Amendment, or at least the portion underlined below: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Let’s break that first portion down so that we might better understand exactly what the Founders meant. No person (this includes people and persons in the modern concept) shall be held to answer (held to answer, quite simply, means arrested – held, or detained until they are made to answer) for a capital or otherwise infamous crime. (Capital crimes are those punishable by execution, infamous crimes are those that we now refer to as felonies) unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury (Grand Juries are made of people, not of government. a presentment or indictment is the result of a true bill issued by the Grand Jury). It is clear by this amendment that ONLY the people could decide that one’s liberty could be taken away. The government was never endowed with that authority to make the decision to arrest anybody, except under the condition stated in the Amendment.

Perhaps this is best understood if we look at what Liberty really is.

liberty 1. Exemption from slavery, bondage, imprisonment, or control of another. 2. Freedom from external restraint or compulsion (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) .

LIBERTY Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. (Black’s Law Dictionary – Third Edition)

It might then be said that Liberty is the freedom to live life without fear of restriction or Limitation, except to the point that this expression can not be of a nature that would cause injury to another. Liberty, then, is our very life.

Let us consider that most states might allow you to use force to retain your property, say, money. We might look at why the Founders perceived Liberty in the way that they did. Money is simply a conversion of your time into a more readily exchangeable form. Money is the result of your energy, time and life, being expended. Money, therefore, is the very byproduct of the productive portion of your life. Any goods that you exchange your labor or money for is then property that has resulted from that same sort of exchange. Life, or time, is the very raw form of all property. Isn’t it, then, perhaps more valuable than the commodity it is exchanged for? If so, then the loss of the time that can be exchanged for money or property is equal, or more valuable than the byproduct itself.

If the right to protect property is existent, then the right to protect life, or time, must be equally existent. If that right extends to the use of force for property or money, then it must be equally so for Liberty. Even if that right does not extend to the right to use force in protecting property, surely it would extend to the protection of life in the basic form of Liberty. For example, if a kidnapper were to enter your home intent on taking the Liberty of you or a member of your family, surely the right to use force exists in this circumstance. Most states, and the federal government have even allowed that kidnapping may be capital in nature. If the state has the right to take a life for stealing that “commodity” (life, time or Liberty) then surely that right extends to the People of this great nation. What the Supreme Court says

This would explain the decision that was rendered by the United States Supreme Court in John Bad Elk v. United States (177 U.S. 529). In this case, three law enforcement officers threatened John Bad Elk with arrest. The officers had been sent by their boss to arrest John. The officers were acting in good Faith, but their boss had no warrant and the arrest would not meet the legal criteria. The initial court, based upon the instruction from the judge, found Bad Elk guilty of murder for shooting and killing one of the officers, John Kills Back. It was merely the threat of arrest that forced Bad Elk to action. The charge to the jury was as follows: “The deceased, John Kills Back, had been ordered to arrest the defendant; hence he had a right to go and make the attempt to arrest the defendant. The defendant had no right to resist him… In this connection I desire to say to you, gentlemen of the jury, that the deceased, being an officer of the law, had a right to be armed, and for the purpose arresting the defendant [John Bad Elk] he would have the right to show his revolver, He would have had the right to use only so much force as necessary to take his prisoner, and the fact that he was using no more force than was necessary to take his prisoner would not be sufficient justification for the defendant to shoot him and kill him. The defendant would only be justified in killing the deceased when you should find that the circumstances showed that the deceased had so far forgot his duties as an officer and had gone beyond the force necessary to arrest the defendant, and was about to kill him or to inflict great bodily injury upon him, which was not necessary for the purpose of making the arrest”

What appears to be the way that we understand things today is not the way they should be perceived. The instructions to the jury were in error. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the trial courts verdict, and stated as follows: “We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policeman had the right to arrest the plaintiff [John Bad Elk] in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff had no right to resist it. “At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without a warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.

Clearly, then, the Supreme Court recognized that our right to Liberty, Life and Pursuit of Happiness was protected by the Constitution, and the right to protect them was conveyed to us by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, or, at least, this was the way that it was. Today, however, we have seen the encroachment upon that right to the point that many are arrested at the whim of a law enforcement officer, and Liberty has been reduced to a mere word on our valueless currency.

It is important to understand the difference between a lawful arrest and a legal arrest. We are told that the government can do no wrong. The forces that went to Waco, Texas, on February 28, 1993, had full legal authority to do so, or, so said judge Walter Smith. There was no lawful authority for the warrants that were issued to the BATF. This was clear to students of the Constitution from all across the country, and has been understood by many more since that time. What constitutes a lawful (as opposed to legal) arrest is defined in the Fourth Amendment, to wit: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shah not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons”, is the protection of that Liberty we speak of. The specificity of describing the “persons,” he seized’ is another criteria. As was stated in Bad Elk, “at common law”, sets the criteria for those lawful arrests. At common law there must be an injured party. This aspect will be discussed in greater detail, later. Suffice it to say that for there to be a “capital, or otherwise infamous crime” there must also be an injured party. Basically, if the “crime” is a misdemeanor or a breach of contract, there can be no justification for arrest. If the “crime” is a felony, then you must consider whether the act resulted in the injury to a party, and whether that party initiated the complaint and subsequent warrant. A “violation” of the rules (statutes) does not meet these criteria, regardless of the wording of the rule. The words do not satisfy, the intent of the Founders, and the gift of the Founders is what we seek to restore. Punishing behavior that is not consistent with what the government believes to be “antisocial” subjects us to a morality established by government, not by the people. For all intents and purposes, if we allow government to establish moral values (rules of behavior) we have allowed government to establish a church state, although by a different set of words. This is not to say that moral rules are wrong, only that the Constitution did not empower the federal government to enact such laws.

Let us consider what has been made clear by the Founders and the Supreme Court. If an attempt is made to arrest you, there are two choices that you have. The first is to resist the arrest if it does not meet the criteria of the Constitution, as outlined above. The second, recourse, is to submit to the arrest. I will add, at this point, that the old adage that discretion is the better part of valor” comes in to play here. If the result of resisting arrest is going to, without question cause the death of the person to be arrested, or the deaths of friends or innocent bystanders in close proximity, then discretion becomes a necessary tool to the evaluation of what to do. On the other hand, we have learned from the experience in Waco, that discretion also plays a part in the actions of those who would usurp our Liberty. For fifty-one days the forces of evil were held at bay by those defenders of Liberty at Mt. Carmel Center. If a similar event were to occur, I think that those defenders would find a ready force assembling in their defense within hours of the initial assault.

We now know that the objective of government is to kill those who would resist their force and refuse to submit to their unlawful assertions of authority. This was made quite clear by the subsequent actions of government on April 19. It would seem, then, that, if resistance: to unlawful arrest could be maintained for even a few hours, and word gotten out, that the type of rally outside that we all wish we had conducted in Waco, would occur wherever that resistance became known. Even if, after initial resistance, arrests were made, the rally outside for the protection of all of our rights would surely come.

What is absolutely necessary for an unlawful arrest to garner support from the Patriot community is that every effort must be made to defend against that unlawful arrest. We might consider the circumstances of April 19, 1775, at Lexington and Concord to understand what is necessary. Had the colonists at Lexington and Concord not been willing to take the risk of opposing the force of the British, then they could not have expected the militias of the other colonies to muster and send their forces to the aid of those at Concord and Boston. Had the men at Concord simply thrown up their hands anti let the British take the guns and powder, then surely the militias would nor have participated in the beginning of our War for Independence. It was Imperative for those involved in the initial confrontation to place themselves in harms way to expect others to risk their lives in defense of the former When you are arrested

If, after due and proper resistance is made to arrest, and arrest becomes the outcome of the event, and you are the object of that arrest, it is desirable to have no identification on you. One of the first questions will be, are you ________?, or, “who are you? Now, we all know what Miranda means. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything that you say may be used against you in a court of law.” Well, if this is true, why should you even give your name? REMAIN SILENT, that is your right. If they have a problem with that, point out that they just read you Miranda and you believe them.

I have been arrested twice since going to Waco. The first arrest came when two Casselberry, Florida police officers came under warrant, without same, to my office. This was shortly after I had returned from Waco. They broke in the front door and had pistols aimed at my head. After informing me that I was under arrest, they allowed me to empty my pockets of anything I wished not to go to jail with me. I removed my wallet as well as some other things. I never admitted to being Gary Hunt, nor did I ever sign my name, until it was on the agreement to appear and was a condition of my release on bail. When I arrived at the jail, the remainder of my property was taken, even some of my clothing. An officer inventoried the objects taken and then offered me a copy of the inventory with the request, “sign here.” I replied that I would sign nothing. He Offered, “if you want your stuff back when you get out of here, you had better sign.” I responded, “You are stealing my property. You want me to sign to honor that theft. You gotta be kidding me.”

I was then taken to the booking area and asked to sit. I did. I was then asked my name, to which I responded, “I will answer no questions, nor will I sign anything.” They placed me in a holding cell and tried again a few hours later. After about three rounds of the same, I was finally booked without my signing or answering anything. I might add that if you were to sign the “fingerprint card” they would eventually write in the charges against you. By not signing, you never acknowledge the charges. I also made a point of stating that I was not volunteering my fingerprints willingly, I did not resist, nor did I cooperate. Discretion may keep your fingers and/or arm from being broken. Just hang limp, and let them “steal” your fingerprints without resistance. As a result of this “practice” on my part, I was not booked until nearly ten hours after I was arrested. Those that came to bail me out, that first evening, finally left to return the next day. I spent overnight in jail as a result of my actions. But I judged the experience to be well worth it. When I was released, I refused, again, to sign for the return of my property and only signed the appearance notice, “with explicit reservation” (similar to “without prejudice”).

I might add, at this point, that, as a result of having been in Waco during the siege, I considered very carefully whether I wanted to be arrested, or to resist. When the officers came in to the office, there was a pistol within inches of my right hand, and a loaded semiautomatic rifle within just two feet of my left hand. The issue, which I knew to be the “failure to appear” warrant, was not worth, nor worthy, of concern to the Patriot community. I had already participated in their court proceedings, even though under duress to do so. If resistance to arrest is offered, then the issue must be clear. That is to say, it should not be an issue that was provoked by your actions, or one that might properly be construed as a crime and of issue to be determined by a jury. If, for example, the issue is unknown to you, then an assumption can rightfully be made that there is no lawful cause for your arrest. If we are the government of this great nation, then surely we can be trusted to know when valid charges are pending against us. It seems rather safe to assume that if you have no knowledge of any crime with which you may be charged, the charges must be as scurrilous as the people who brought them against you in secrecy.

Regarding bail, do not use a bondsman if you are going to argue status. A bondsman is an “officer of the court,” just like the attorney. He is given extraordinary authority to arrest you, even in another state. His extension of the court’s authority is obvious. And by you participating with any officer of the court you admit, or submit, to jurisdiction.

The arrest just spoken of was the result of a “ticket” and subsequent “failure to appear” which was the cause for the warrant being issued. I had been charged with “driving without a license and no tags (license plates) on my motorcycle back in July, 1992. My appearance was to have been in March and I was in Waco. I had contacted the court to seek a continuance, but they refused to grant it. During my first appearance, and at all subsequent appearances, I always declare that I am there in my own person, that I am there by special appearance and under fear of bodily harm or even death. Although it makes little difference to those usurpers of authority, it is probably very important for your fellow patriots, as well as yourself, that you declare your position in all proceedings in their court.

Some thoughts about court

At the first appearance, or as nearly as possible there after, I read the following to the court and record (this was provided by Don Mitchum, Safford, Arizona), “Comes now the defendant who is sovereign Citizen, also a non-resident alien of the United States. I, Gary Hunt, take exception pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 46, of the following:

“1. This courts venue over the defendant, I am a non-resident alien of the United States and a non-resident of the State of Florida, Therefore, both the State of Florida and the United States are foreign countries and their military tribunals have no venue over this defendant. Whereas, I take exception of same.

“2 The United States has assumed that they have given the defendant a title of nobility (debtor), The United States of America Constitution states that there will be no tides of nobility among the people of the fifty states. Whereas I rake exception of same.

“3. This is a court of martial law proper and is conducting this proceeding as a court of bankruptcy as evidenced by the display within the room used to convene said court of the American flag with a gold fringe or border added to three sides of said flag (See 34 Opinion Attorney General 483-485). Whereas I take exception of same.

“4. My appearance in this court is pursuant to my fear that this court may cause the Sheriffs of this county to inflict bodily harm or even death upon me for failure to appear’. Whereas Z take exception of same. I, Gary Hunt, am an American Citizen, non-government and thus not within the purview or venue jurisdiction of martial law within whose authority this court is conducting this proceeding. I, Gary Hunt, am a non-resident alien with respect to the venue/jurisdiction of the United States which is defined in the statutes as the District of Columbia, it’s territories, possessions (i.e. Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Northern Marianna Islands, American Samoa),

Some might argue that use of the federal rules might submit you to jurisdiction. This point should be debated by those more qualified than I to determine its validity. The point to be made is that you understand that you are not subject to their jurisdiction, that you recognize that the United Slates is bankrupt, and operating it’s courts under maritime (bankruptcy, or, as a military tribunal) jurisdiction, that the flag displayed in the court is proof of said jurisdiction, and that you are not there because you want to be, rather under fear of force of arms.

In all subsequent appearances I assured the court that I needed no representation, and that I appeared under fear that the court might direct the Sheriff to inflict upon me bodily harm or even death, were I not to appear. The others statements are of record, this assurance that my relationship with the court has not changed is affirmed by the fear of force (duress).

During the second arrest, which occurred this past December shortly after I returned to Florida, I found that there is an easier way to avoid signing or saying anything. I was first arrested in Orange County, and transferred to Seminole County three days later. In Orange County it took eleven hours to process me because of my refusal to violate Miranda. When I was transferred to Seminole County I had to be booked all over again. I had thought, however, that there might be a better way. I explained to the booking officer that if I were to answer any of his questions, I might jeopardize my legal status and my case. I asked if he would please help me to avoid this jeopardy. If he would, I would tell him if he had a wrong answer, by one means or another. I also explained that signing anything would also create jeopardy to my case. By asking for his help, I found a cooperative officer and was able to be booked in a reasonable period of time.

Back to court – Never let an attorney be “provided” for you. Once you accept the benefit of a court appointed attorney, you have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. This also extends to any attorney who comes in as an officer of the court on your behalf, even if retained by you. If an attorney, or any other counsel, does not “represent” you, but merely advises you, whether he be a bar attorney, or not, you have not submitted to jurisdiction. It is necessary that only you speak to the court and that any advice from the “counsel” should be directed only to you.

Also, if filing a motion, it is, I believe, in your best interest to not follow nor fight the rules of the court, for to do so might create the appearance of receiving a benefit of the court. The Aschwander doctrine holds that if you receive a benefit of an administrative agency, you have submitted to the jurisdiction thereof. If you file any motions with the court, make sure that a statement is contained somewhere in the document that says, “without submitting to jurisdiction.”

Is Habeas Corpus suspended?

On my final appearance (over two years after the initial offense), I followed a different course of action. Richard McDonald’s bulletin board (BBS – (818) nnn-nnn) had been a source of a lot of good information. I had downloaded a file some time before, and the evening before court I was going through a number of the files. One had information that resulted in my preparing the following statement to be presented to the court after the normal refusal of jurisdiction and notice of appearance under fear of injury or death.

First, object to the proceedings. Then, DEMAND Habeas Corpus, not by motion, petition or any other manner described in their rules, but orally. This can be accomplished by stating:

“I am the moving party today, and I am the plaintiff and I set forth a demand for Habeas Corpus for the record, I cannot find an injured party to summon for trial and J want an order for the Sheriff to bring the injured party before the court. I need an order from the court to tell the Sheriff to bring forth the injured party.

“If this charge is criminal then the injured party must present himself with a sworn statement of the injury.

“If the nature is civil, then the original contract to which I am alleged to be a party to and have violated must be brought forward”

During the hearing that lasted nearly twenty minutes, I was threatened with contempt at least five times. Every time I tried to DEMAND Habeas Corpus, the judge would threaten me with contempt. After fifteen minutes the judge had already set the date for jury trial, and was still trying to get me to submit to jurisdiction of the court. He said that if I chose to ‘represent myself that I had to answer some questions to prove my competence. I told him that I was not seeking to represent myself that I stood on my own behalf, but that if he wanted to ask me any questions, he could. If felt like answering I would. Finally, I made one more effort to complete the oration above. Although I had to raise my voice over his threats of contempt, I was finally able to complete the statement, or demand. The judge then attempted to continue on with his agenda, where I interrupted and asked, “Mr. Marblestone, are you suspending Habeas Corpus?” He seemed somewhat taken aback by this question. Within just a couple of seconds, he looked to the prosecutor and asked him to Nolle Prosse (not prosecute) the case. I walked out of court after over two years and over one hundred hours of court and/or jail time, finally relieved of the “yoke of justice”.

Now it is always difficult to know exactly why a case is won. I am convinced, however, that on this occasion, even though I had filed a motion for dismissal and a judicial notice based upon the true Thirteenth Amendment, that the actions of the judge indicate that he was unable to deal with an oral demand for Habeas Corpus.

Whatever course you choose to take, you are facing an enemy that will do all within his power (so long as he doesn’t flagrantly disregard his own rules) to “win” the case. There is no guarantee of justice, nor can we expect any change in the near future regarding justice. Remember, those in Waco, Texas who defended their Liberty in accordance with the laws of Texas and the decisions of the Supreme Court and who survived are spending up to forty years in prison. Perhaps resistance to unlawful authority is worthier of consideration than the alternative. We would not have the opportunity to resurrect the Constitution today if the Founders were not willing to put their lives on the line against the might of the British and fear of death.

“The perfection of liberty therefore, in a state of nature, is for every man to be free from any external force, and to perform such actions as in his own mind and conscience he judges to be rightest; which liberty no man can truly possess whose mind is enthralled by irregular and inordinate passions; since it is no great privilege to be free from external violence if the dictates ~ are controlled by a force within, which exerts itself above reason.

Samuel Adams

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

For the current status of the Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court, see Habeas Corpus Suspended

de facto, de jure and Sovereign

Gary Hunt
April 1, 2010

A question arose, the other day, as to what is the difference between de facto and de jure.  Both are legal term, though seldom used in normal circles.  However, by their very definition, we can understand that there is a need to understand what they meant.  After all, they have made it into our lexicon because the practices that needed defining existed, and, perhaps, have not yet left us.  So, let’s begin with some definitions:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

de jure  [no definition, see de facto]

de facto.  Actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

de jure.  Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law.  Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title.

de facto.  In fact, in deed, actually.  This phrase is used to characterize an officer.  A government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.

As you can see, de facto is what you see, though there may be underlying difficulties with the legitimacy of what you see.  Though we are not speaking of kings, we can apply the definition to the US government.  It is de facto because it is there, it is in place, and, it claims its legitimacy.

The question as to whether it is de jure is as easily determined.  Is it in obedience to the Constitution, which created it?  If so, it would be de jure.  If not, it would be de facto.

Now, in any situation where there is a question of whether it is de jure or de facto, we must consider who can make the determination as to which answer is correct.

It must be supposed that any king, ruler, or, government in power would presume that it was de jure, whether it knew it was de jure, or, in fact, de facto.  This pretty much precludes the existing from the determination.  To serve itself, it must publically recognize and claim that it is de jure.  Obviously not the right means of determination of which it is.

So, in this country, where the government was created by the people, it must be that source of authority that makes the determination to create such a nation.  That was the case 230 years ago when some of the colonists decided that, since the Parliament had not abided by the British Constitution, it had moved from a de jure government into a de facto government.  At first, to a small few, it was de facto.  As time went on, more and more people realized that the nature of that government was de facto until the breaking point of the recognition of its authority was removed by proclamation (the Declaration of Independence).

Likewise, today, there are many who recognize that the US government, by virtue of its abandonment of the Constitution, is de facto rather than de jure.

Is there any wonder that the government discourages common usage of the terms?  Surely, they would not appreciate our delving into whether a government that has the appearance of legitimacy to be thought of otherwise.

Having enhanced our understanding of de facto and de jure, let’s see what role these words might play in our relationship to government.  we will begin with a visit the definitions of sovereign and sovereignty

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Sovereign, a. 

1.  Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion

2.  Supreme; superior to all others; chief.

4.  Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation.

Sovereign, n 

1.  A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control.

2.  A supreme magistrate; a king

Sovereignty, n.  Supreme power; supremacy; the possession of the highest power, or of uncontrollable power

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Sovereign.  A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested

Sovereignty.  The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived.

Now, this can be perplexing because of what we believe to be and what, by definition, can, or cannot, be.

First is the assumption that “We the People” must be sovereign if we possessed, at the time of the Constitution, the authority to create a government that would take its place in the world of nations, and be recognized as such as any monarchy or other form of government (see “Let’s talk about the Constitution“).  Less than sovereign, we could not have taken so bold a step, nor would we even have the authority, to be recognized as such by the rest of the world, including England.

There can be little question, then, that at the time of the Constitution, we were the Supreme Authority, we were the collective supreme ruler or lord.  Moreover, in the act of creating the Constitution, we subordinated only a portion of that supremacy — only as much as was necessary to conduct the duties of government — to that government that we had created.  The remainder of the supremacy remained with us by virtue of the fact that it was not granted to the federal government, specifically (and therefore cannot be assumed) in the Constitution, and, in clarification, was specifically reserved in both the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

However, something happened along the way that wrested from us an authority that was not intended.  It occurred at the end of the most devastating war that we have ever been involved in, and those divisive ‘representatives’ of the people, some elected and some appointed, foisted an Amendment to the Constitution, under one pretext, to serve another purpose, which has had a far more profound effect, and was intended by the government, but otherwise unknown by the people.  That Amendment is now known as the 14th Amendment, and it created a class of citizen hitherto unknown and unrecognized in this country.  That a new class of citizen was referred to then, and henceforth, as a US citizen (a citizen whose allegiance was to the country, not the republican state that they had previously been allied with).  Prior to that time, any citizen was a citizen of the state of his birth, or of his allegiance, should he remove from that state of origin.

Now, these first citizens (we shall refer to them as State Citizens) were of that class known as “We the People”, while this second class (US citizens) were now subjects of the federal government (see “Two Classes of Citizen“).

So, what happened to the Sovereign nature of those who have accepted the condition of being US citizens?  Well, quite simply, how can one be the master of his own master?  If you have subordinated yourself to the federal government, by the distinguished title of “US citizen”, it is not possible that you can retain the title of Supreme over that government to which you have become subordinate.

On the other hand, if you have retained, or returned to the status of a State Citizen, you have retained, also, that Supremacy, absent only that which was relinquished with the formation of the government by the Constitution, just as those who elected to create such government in 1789.  In this case, you are still the master over the government.

Conclusion

Now, if we put the two elements together (de jure/de facto and Sovereignty), we can develop some rather obvious conclusions.  When we look at the relationship between the government, and ourselves we can determine that if we accept the government as master, then we must also accept the government’s determination of its nature, de jure (legitimate)

On the other hand, if we are sovereign, and have not submitted to that subjugation, and have retained, or returned to, that status as a State Citizen, we can clearly see that the government, by its disobedience to the Constitution that created it, has moved itself into the status of de facto (illegitimate).

Thought Crimes!

What have we come to?

Gary Hunt
March 30, 2010

 

The recent arrests of the members of the Hutaree Militia pose a perplexing dilemma for all of us.  Many have reacted; if they were going to do that, then they should go to prison.  Well, perhaps so.  After all, that comes under the heading of “law and order”, and though it does not come under the heading of “crime”, we have been conditioned to accept the conclusion that laws lead to order.  In addition, this, of course, leads to a well-ordered society.  In fact, it is the epitome of a well-ordered society.  Anybody who even thinks against the order established by the government, the Constitution notwithstanding, is guilty of a crime.

Now, many will contest that thinking is not applicable here.  They argue that they played out their scenario, in a practice run.  I don’t know if all of the facts are in, yet, though we will, most surely, hear the government side (only) of what has occurred, and we will see (have already seen) the rush to judgment.

Perhaps this points out the need to understand what real “law” and real “crime” really is.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Crime, n.

1.  An act which violates a law, divine or human; an act which violates a rule of moral duty; an offense against the laws of right, prescribed by God or man, or against any rule of duty plainly implied in those laws.  A crime may consist in omission or neglect, as well as commission and transgression.  The commander of a fortress who suffers the enemy to take possession by neglect, is as really criminal, as one who voluntarily opens the gates without resistance.

But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offense against any law made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c.  The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.  Crimes and Misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured.  But, in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.

2.  Any great wickedness, inequity; wrong

And, if we extend our search to include Tort, we find:

Tort, n.   In Law, any wrong or injury.  Torts are injuries done to the person pr property of another, as trespass, assault, battery, defamation and the like.

Now, within the Constitution, we find the following, in reference to crime in Article III, Section 2, clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

As you read the above descriptions and portion of the Constitution, you might note that “committed”, “act”, “wrong”, “injury”, and, “offense”, are used to denote that which is construed as a crime.

Yes, that’s it!  An action must be taken, it must be committed.  Conjecture is not used, even once, the describing what a crime is.

Let’s suppose that your neighbor sneaks over at night and chops down your rosebush.  You know he did it, but you cannot prove it.  You talk this over with a friend and discuss what you could do to stop it.  You agree that force is the most productive form of reason and that strong steps should be taken.  Based upon this discussion, you expound, even further on what to do.  Based upon that meeting, you go to the gun store, get a rifle, and intend to use it on your neighbor, if he chops down another rose bush.  Of course, this thought goes through your mind, and, you have even taken actions, thought they are, to this point, legal actions, to prepare for an illegal one.  The, one evening, you catch him chopping done your rosebush.  You grab your rifle, with the intent of blowing his brains out.  You point the rifle at him, and then your conscience takes over and you order him to remain and your wife to call the police.  Well, you had the intent, you may have been voiced your intentions, you acted, you went to the scene, but, at the last minute, you did not “do the deed”.  Have you committed a crime?

Now, in the present state of our country, people yell “foul” and “treason” in their condemnation of the government’s actions regarding taxes, healthcare, war, executive orders, and all manner of evils, most of which are, without a doubt, violations of the Constitution as we perceive them.  Well, Treason, and, perhaps, violation of their oaths, when the consequences are as severe as the will be on our posterity, are, without a doubt, crimes that we, as jurors, might perceive as attaining the necessity of capital punishment.  Yet, we simply yell and shout.

However, when a group of people plans for an eventuality that we all see as well within the range of possibility, we are quick to side with that government, regardless of whether a real crime has been committed, or, for that matter, even planned — as the government suggests.  Was it to be carried out, or was it a plan that required some outside circumstance to initiate action?  In addition, even if it was planned, without outside influence, is it a crime unless committed?

If you wish to propose that playing the plan out, in practice, is an act that should be considered a crime, just why Hollywood would be exempt from such allegations.  They play out crimes against government, crimes against people, and even crime against non-existent entities.  In so doing, they play, the refine, they play out, each of which is a training tool for us in the real world.  Well, that is for entertainment, but, once we see it, does the idea, the concept presented, every really leave out heads?

Ironically, there used to be both laws and standards that prohibited much of what you see on television and in movies, today.  At the same time, we have seen federal authority flex its usurped power and make a crime of something that was beyond the conception of criminal, when our Constitution was written.

So, just how does this serve the government?

Let’s revisit the past.  In 1972, eight Vietnam Veterans were charged with conspiracy to disrupt the Republican Convention.  Another veteran, Bill Lemmer, was an undercover agent for the government.  He encouraged the group to expand their thought process and think of more violent means to achieve their objective.  In trial, the fact that the defendants were Vietnam Veterans and were accustomed to violence, was an element of the prosecution’s case, though the fact that Lemmer played such a significant role lead the jury to acquit.  The trial broke most of the defendants, and they had spent months in jail awaiting trial.  The government, which encouraged, acted out, conspired (both within the group and in the FBI offices), and even provided some illegal materials to the group, was not indicted, nor did the stand trial.

Years later, in the nineties, the Viper Militia in Phoenix, Arizona, and the West Virginia Militia were infiltrated by government agents.  The laws had been refined, and the fact that in both cases, informants were provocateurs and provided both material and planning, was inconsequential.  Convictions were obtained by the government, except, of course, the conviction of the informants, and, those who conspired with them.

For an understanding of how some informants are “recruited by the government, you might wish to read “Informants Amongst Us?”

The government, then, by changing the nature of what is considered a crime, and, by influencing those who might pose a greater threat to their usurpations than others to step over that fine line, even though encouraged by those who will not be charged, serves quite well in reducing those who might act, someday, against the government, and, at the same time, garner sympathy for those who have the same goals, though by different means, of restoring the Constitution, from going anywhere beyond the ballot box.

And, the most damning aspect of this whole practice (law?) is that it presumes that which cannot be proven — that a crime will be committed.  Unfortunately, though adhered to by the Founders, only when the damage has been done can a crime have been committed.

If we allow anything beyond that simple fact, we have submitted to domination by government, albeit through very divisive means, the subordination of our rights, principles and our Constitution, to the whim of those in power.