Outpost of Freedom blog

The Other (not so) Thin Line

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 5, 2012

There is a very thin line between what we believe to be our rights and what the government believes our rights are.  Unfortunately, that line continues, either by police action or court decisions, to move against us, allowing even greater power and control over our lives by the government.

There is another line that we might want to consider, though this line tends to ‘flow’ in a different direction.  If we look at the Patriot Community as a whole, and then endeavor to define the progression of those who have joined that community, from entry through, well, wherever they might be now, we, perhaps, can understand just what we are dealing with.

Let’s take a line that runs from left to right, with no political affiliation, philosophy, or ideology, in mind.  At the right end of the line are those who have been members of the Patriot Community for quite some time.  Their experience, research, and observations, along with their current mindset, have moved to the point of no return — that “state of Nature” that the Framers understood.  They might easily be referred to as extremists, as were those “Indians” who made tea in Boston Harbor.

On the left end of the line, we have those who have only recently began to see something amiss in government.  To provide a bit more perspective, if we revisit the nineteen-fifties, they John Birch Society had already seen the evil potential of the United Nations.  They, as a group, comprised a majority of those who might first be defined s “Patriots” by our modern understand.

Over the next forty years, those entering the community were few, and most were those how had begin to understand that the “income tax” (3% in the forties) was unconstitutional and basically a theft of personal property.  This activity brought a prolonged surge into the Community, though it extended over many years.  The issues were separate and singular, so there was no adhesive element to the Community.  Basically, there were “Get Us Out of the United Nations” and “Income Taxes Are Unconstitutional”

Then, in 1993, the federal government, primarily the BATF, raided a Church in Waco, Texas, on a Sunday morning.  A siege of epic proportions, under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lasted for 51 days — until the occupants remaining in the Church, with few exceptions, died in the fire that consumed the Church in tens of minutes.  Though there had been a militia element in the Patriot Community prior to Waco, there was a new surge, this occurring over a very short period.  The militia community was rather large; however, there was another large segment of people filled with disgust over the events then occurring.  Waco touched hundreds of thousands of people.  National news and alternative media (fax networks) brought a story to millions, unlike previous events.  This resulted in two more elements added to the Patriot Community, “Militia” and a contingent simply disgusted with the misdeeds of government and the broad assumption of authority that accompanied such an activity.  The Patriot Community had become more diverse (that word is not used in the politically correct context).

The next significant contribution to those who consider themselves to be part of the Patriot Community, though as in the past, many may not have come to that realization, yet, came just a few years ago, as it became apparent that our economy was beginning to collapse.  This infusion, the largest, by far, is also the most diverse.  That diversity is both about issues and means of achieving change (again, not the politically correct definition).  In fact, the apparent disparity might incline someone to believe that there is little, or nothing, in common within, let’s call it the “Tea Party Crowd”, let alone, the Patriot Community.

However, as time goes on, there is a tendency for the issues to merge, or, at least, have a degree of commonality with other issues.  Likewise, the means of achievement tend to focus away from the ineffective.

In these observations, I have intentionally omitted the anti-war groups, though they tend to be consistent with the John Birch Society.  Their omission is based upon the fact that, once the war they oppose is over, they either return to the comfort of the couch, or have, by association, joined in with another of the common causes of the Patriot Community.

Now, let’s stand back and look at this line.  Towards the right, we see a rather narrow but constant thickness to the line.  As we move towards the left, there is a very small bubble, very near the center, that reflects the “Waco” infusion.  Then, way over towards the left end is a rather large bubble that represents the Tea Party Crowd.  Of course, each of the bubbles taper of both left and right, the left being those moving along more slowly, the right, those progress more rapidly.

The problem that we face, however, is that the average will always shift to the left when there is a new infusion of members into the Patriot Community.  It is almost like undoing that which was done before, and the median is constantly shifting away from the fortitude that is necessary to affect real change.  The average is constantly shifting back towards “vote them out of office”, “Support the Republican Party”, or an effort to enact new laws (as if we need any new laws).  And, as those near the left move along to toward the right, they will soon find out that they, too, are outnumbered by the constant flow in on the left.

So, let’s leave the current line behind, for now, instead, let’s look at history.  In April 1775, most of the colonists would have been well to the left on the above-described line.  Any thought of violence would only have occurred in parts of Massachusetts and in North Carolina.  Contentment and peaceful change were the mean, and that was how it was, just as it is, today.  For example, in Albany, New York, word of the “Kings Troops” commencing “Hostilities” was received, via a letter from the Committee of Correspondence, on April 26, 1775.  The response to the letter received indicated that any real threat was “entirely Groundless”.  On May 1, a public meeting was held to determine if the citizens wished to take a position on the matter and appoint people to look into forming a District Committee of Safety and to prepare a plan to deal with the King’s “Ministerial Plan”.  Finally, on May 3, they began enrolling a Militia unit.

Had a role call been made of all of the colonists who were otherwise unsympathetic to the British intrusions into the colonist’s rights, the majority, most assuredly, would have voted against such action.  It was only after events were acted out that made continued “Hostilities” inevitable that the shift in thought — the joining of one side, or the other, was an inescapable necessity, regardless of prior reluctance.

To argue, now, to avoid the inescapable reality, that force will ever be necessary, flies in the face of historical fact, and, reality.  Or, to phrase it in the language of those days, “Load, shoot, or get out of the way”, but don’t attempt to hinder those who have been here longer and realize that there is but one means by which we will achieve our goal of restoration of Constitutional Government.

Until our line hardens sufficiently to keep their line from constantly encroaching, we will remain on the downhill side of achievement of our goal.

Independence Day 2012

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, in the Year of our Lord, 2012, and, of our Independence, 236

As we enter the 236th year of our Independence, perhaps it is time to reflect upon that which was achieved so many years ago, and, what has transpired since that time.

It was just a month before that when the Continental Congress had suggested that all of the colonies create new governments.  Two colonies revised their charters, omitting any reference to the King or England while the others wrote constitutions, forming new government based upon republican/democratic principles.

In 1781, the Article of Confederation were finally ratified, though were insufficient for the purpose of binding the colonies into a cohesive and functioning confederacy.

From 1776 through 1787, many of the original state constitutions had been heavily revised, or replaced, as the process of forming a government based upon theory was much more difficult than was first anticipated. Most importantly, the limitations on the power of the government were insufficient since those early government’s authority was nearly absolute.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, many of the apparent problems with the conversion of theory to practice had become known and were addressed in the new document known as the Constitution for the United States of America.  However, Article V provided for an amendment process, as they had learned from the past decade that theory to practice needed to have some practice to find what did not work according to theory.

Since that time, the deficiencies in the theory have manifested themselves into significant shortcomings as to what was intended when the Constitution was written.  Whether it be the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms; The prolific use of direct taxes that were supposed to be assessed only for purpose of emergency; The subversion of the jury and judicial process; or a multitude of other unforgivable sins, the limitations have been slowly abrogated in favor of more power in the government than was ever intended.  As the states went through that period of learning, the national government has, also. However, the national government has not taken the intended steps to correct those evils that those seeking power have found and utilized, contrary to the intentions of the Framers.

From the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776):

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

“[D]eriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” was the initial offering. That consent was granted, though it only continues so long as we don’t raise objection. Voting is not, by its nature, consent, especially when it is done only with hope that things will change.  Sons of Liberty #14 will explain that matter of consent, as perceived by the Framers.

“[W]hen long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” is the qualifier — the determinant — of when the system has failed for want of proper control.  That deficiency can be caused by omission from, or usurpation of, the original writing (Constitution). It is merely the object that, once perceived, is an alarm that the system and the intent has been subjugated to the authority of those who pursue that despotism. This, of course, leads us to:

“[I]t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”  Is it our responsibility to pass on to our posterity, when we know of the failure of the government? Or, is it our responsibility to, as the Founders did, by whatever means necessary, provide for our posterity, with the intention of a more severe and specific limitation of those powers granted to government?

duty –  noun.  That which a person owes to another; that which a person is bound, by any natural, moral, or legal obligation, to pay, do, or perform.