Archive for May, 2010

The Three Boxes

Saturday, May 29th, 2010

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

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

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

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

 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

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

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

 

Popping Cops

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

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!