Archive for January, 2015

Questionable Character – Christopher Nathaniel Blystone

Monday, January 19th, 2015

Questionable Character

Christopher Nathaniel Blystone

mugshot smith county

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 19, 2015

The entire Report on Christopher Blystone can be read at Christopher Blystone. The facts, evidence, and other information will be found at that page. Any discussion or comments regarding that report can only be conducted below. What follows is only the Summary of the Report.

 

Summary:

We have a criminal record spanning eight years, with the most serious crime being the last, which result in a Plea Agreement. We also have one that was terminated, probably to clear the record for Military Service.

We have direct violations of the probation requirements, unless Blystone can produce an order from a Judge granting him permission to go to Washington, D.C., for Operation American Spring.

We have a Military Service record that indicates no “Combat” service, an incomplete service based upon a four year enlistment with only 1 year, 3 months served. His DD 214 does not have a “Character of Service” line, as they used to, which would show if his service was honorable, less than Honorable, Dishonorable, etc., though under the circumstances, it would appear that Dishonorable would be the applicable “character”.

We have someone who speaks of Stolen Valor, while practicing the same.

These are the facts. The judgment of his character, trustworthiness, and whether he is someone you would want to knowingly associate with, is up to the reader.

 NOTE: An Addendum has been added to the full report, at Christopher Blystone.

Questionable Characters Within Our Ranks

Monday, January 19th, 2015

Questionable Characters Within Our Ranks

OPF Logo

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 19, 2015

 

For over twenty years, I chose not to make accusations against patriots (or self-proclaimed patriots), with the sole exception of Linda Thompson.  She put out faxes, went on radio shows, and later, had her own radio show, and frequently made accusations against me. She did, however, introduce me into the world of intrigue within the Patriot Community, which was the beginning of my education in this current subject. I wrote “Linda Thompson – The Big Lie” in response to some of her accusations against me. This was followed by a rebuttal to her video “Waco – The Big Lie”, with “The Big Lie Continues“, and a series called “Miz Market Reports“, in response to her radio show.

I held that same standard when Bill Cooper accused me of being John Doe #4, in the Oklahoma City Bombing. When he was killed, I wrote what some consider a fine tribute to him.

After April 12, 2014, when the People unrustled the cattle that had been rustled by the BLM, I realized that we had reached a turning point. We had moved from Civil Disobedience, where one might get arrested, to Civil Defiance, where guns were drawn, on both sides, and one might get shot.

Recent events, including the arrest of Robert Beecher, in which someone provided access to the friend’s side of his Facebook page (See “No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher – Search Warrant section) to obtain pictures of him with a rifle, leading to his arrest on charges of Felony Possession of a Firearm, and the informant (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey and Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey) that was exposed at Camp Lone Star, which led to a similar arrest of K. C. Massey, have forced a reconsideration of the prohibition that I had imposed upon myself. I will not be stooping to name calling and pissing contests, though I will be exposing information that will suggest that the people exposed in this series have questionable backgrounds, making them susceptible to being turned into informants by government agencies. Some information will also include questionable actions that are further suggestive of cooperation with government. The conclusion will be left to the reader, and I will provide, a forum open to anyone named in this series, to rebut what I present.

There is no doubt that the information, which can be readily obtained, will very seldom result in conclusive proof regarding the nature of these people. After all, only government records, most likely sealed, or a confession, would meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

The answer to why am I doing this is one that I recently pondered, in light of the two arrests mentioned above; in my over twenty years of participation in the Patriot Community; Having met an IRS undercover agent, though it was three years before I discovered this when he testified against some patriots; I was interviewed, allegedly for an article, and the article, when published, was not truthful, which I found out about a couple of years later, when the author of that article testified as government agent, then essentially disappeared. Further, I have covered stories of militia members who have been arrested and the informants have been identified, by acknowledgement in court; And, by working with other patriots to root out these cancers within our movement.

I have also studied numerous publications, such as “Provoca“, and written about various experiences that have provided insight into such activities (“Informants Amongst Us?“, “C3CM” and, “Vortex – The threat that keeps us apart“). The insight that I have acquired has resulted in my being a bit ahead of the curve on this subject. Further, my standard of requiring proof, not hearsay, before I commit words to paper, do come together in this current effort. So, when I present information, I will disclose as much detail as possible, without exposing sources, unless they have given their consent. I can assure you that those words will not be committed to an article, unless I have a record of that source, in writing, and retained in my files.

If you choose to continue to associate with these people within your circle, I suggest that you remain observant. If you develop suspicions, you should remedy the situation, or you may find yourself “rolled up”, like Massey and Beecher.

I am always willing to discuss these matters with anyone interested, and appreciate credible contributions that will add to the presentation, and to bring more of these characters to light.

Note: To see the characters, got to the main page at Questionable Characters

Illuminati, or, simply out of their minds?

Thursday, January 15th, 2015

Illuminati, or, simply out of their minds?

Hollande

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 15, 2015

 

On January 9, 2014, French President Francois Hollande made a statement regarding those who conducted the attack at Charlie Hebdo, a weekly newspaper known for ridiculing religion, including Islam and Muhammad.

I have only been able to track this back to Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart where he uploaded it to zeeklytv.com. He, or whomever the original source is, has generated an outlandish story about the French President, Hollande, claiming that that the Illuminati was behind the terror attack on the newspaper’s office. France was concerned about the Illuminati back in the eighteenth century, since that organization was a major player in the French Revolution, where members turned against follow members, often removing their heads at the Guillotine. (See Proofs of a Conspiracy, by John Robison – probably the only authoritative source of information about the Illuminati)

So, let’s look at what President Hollande really said. In French, it reads”

“Ceux qui ont commis ces actes: Ces illumines, ces fanatiques n’ont rien a voir avec la religion of musulmane.”

The video at zeeklytv has a voice stating that the President said that the Illuminati was behind the attack, proof positive. However, it is easy to jump to conclusions, without research. A simple Internet translation shows that “illumines”, in French, interprets to illuminate or lights up, in English. However, in French, the term, as in the context of the speech, interprets, especially when used what the word “fanatiques”, would be light-headed, crazy, out of their mind, or something suggestive of a lack of intelligent thought. If he wanted to speak of the Illuminati, he would have used the proper form of the noun, “illuminatis”.

I contacted a lady who speaks French fluently to interpret Hollande’s statement into English, based upon the words and idioms that the French would apply to the statement. She also watched the zeeklytv video and provided the following translation, along with an observation, “The people that made this video are nuts and obsessed with the illuminatis. They need to find anything to put on their site.”

Here is the correct translation:

“Those who committed these acts; these out of their minds, these fanatic people have nothing to do with Islam”

Well, that’s not very sinister. It simply addresses, rather politely, that the people who conducted the attack were, in his view, crazy fanatics. The reason I say “politely” is that if you read what Hollande said, he attempted to separate the acts of the Muslims, from Muslims, even though the perpetrators were Muslims. So, he stands by his politically correct Multiculturalism — regardless of what his people have determined as a result of the attacks.

Before we end the discussion on this subject, I think that there is something else that we should consider. What sources have credibility, and which ones do not? The Internet has created an environment in which anyone can be a videographer and claim to be an “investigative reporter”, simple by calling themselves such. That doesn’t make it so.

However, as a friend learned recently, investigation requires more than grabbing something and going with it. It can take many hours, perhaps hundreds, to do proper research — as opposed to regurgitating something that has already been “gurgitated” hundreds of times. Those might best be described as “Googlers” rather than researchers. So, let’s look at just how I became aware of the Illuminati claim. Lacovara upload the video to zeeklytv on January 12:

Lacovara Illuminati FB image 00

Ironically, there are some in the Alternate Media who are claiming that no one was killed in Paris, based upon their “review” of the “video evidence”, showing that the first cop shot didn’t bleed to the author’s satisfaction. Others claiming that nobody died in the Kosher grocery store, an assertion also based upon “video evidence”

The point is, there are many sources on the Internet that make claims as to their authenticity, yet those claims can only be as valid as the product that they produce.

As Bertrand Russell said, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves…” So, you must consider whether you wish to follow those fools, or find more reliable sources for your information.

 

This article can be found on line at Illuminati, or, simply out of their minds?

 

 

Escalation – What’s Next?

Monday, January 12th, 2015

Escalation – What’s Next?

join or die

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2015

 

We need to get a perspective on the patriot community that has been overlooked, probably because most of the people within our community are, although sincere, focused only where they stand on the “progression of involvement” (See The Other (not so) Thin Line) within their own community. Quite simply, many have still maintained that the election process is able to effect the change that we seek, while ignoring the failure of that process over the past many decades. Next, we have those who have recognized the failure of that process, but don’t know where to go. Then there are those who realize that nothing will change without violence, though they are not motivated, for whatever reason, to pursue that objective. Finally, there are those who are ready to act, though they are constrained by their fear of other patriots as much as their fear of the government.

Let’s put another perspective on the relationship between various groups of people who are known to commit violent acts. First, we have the Muslims. They are, by Mainstream Media (MSM), divided into two categories, Extreme and Moderate. The Extremes perpetrate violent acts such as the well-known beheading of Westerners, directed attacks with rifles, as in Canada and Paris, France, and many other activities such as the Boston Bombing, that have cost the lives of innocent people without any justifiable targeting of those killed. The moderates, however, sit quietly by, acting as if nothing is going wrong, yet they won’t object to the actions of the extremes. (See Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?)

Next, let’s look at law enforcement in our own country. Most tabulations of the number of unarmed people killed by law enforcement, this past year, approach or exceed 1,000. This doesn’t count those with serious, even lifetime, injuries, damage, or loss of a family pet that “threatened” the officer. Let’s call those cops that conduct these activities, even if only one, or many times, “extreme” cops. The remaining “moderate” cops, even though their job is to enforce the laws of the land, state, etc., do not arrest or charge their fellow officers, they do, however, offer support, if only by inaction, and will readily defend those officers who have, “for their own safety”, committed such acts. Not much different from those moderate Muslims, are they? (See To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop)

Finally, we get to the Patriots who realize that things are getting worse with each administration of government. Within that group, we have both “moderate” patriots and “extreme” patriots. The extreme patriots are those who are ready and willing to act, and often those contemplated acts, though directed, might result in the loss of innocent lives. A example of this would by the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. (See below)

Where the moderate patriots are making a mistake, to use the words of Chief Mark Kessler, is that we all “have an obligation to turn in to the government anybody who is going to do something that will cost innocent lives”. That quote is from a recent conversation I had with Kessler. What happened resulted in the arrest of three men in Georgia is explained in Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3. The FBI promulgated the suggestion that innocent lives would be lost when they interviewed “Blood Agent” This theme was carried on by Kessler and the MSM, that their acts would be random and would take innocent lives. However, recently the government has, in their official Indictment, made clear that “The three men were being monitored by the FBI in an online chat room where they discussed launching attacks at an Atlanta police station and other government agencies.” Initial MSM reports did not detail the limitations that the FBI placed upon the acts that the three had intended, making their plot to be far more sinister than it really was.

Mainstream Media often plays an important role in demonization. An example of this is the Hutaree Militia (2012-13), as explained in Thought Crimes, where the media, probably at the instigation of the government, laid out a story that was, well, fabricated. Otherwise, the Court would not have eventually dismissed the charges.

Our susceptibility to these divisive means of splitting our ranks is a result of “propaganda” and our willingness to judge those within our movement, turning against them if what they may, or may not, have planned is beyond our current (where we are along that Thin Line – linked above) conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

So, Muslim moderates and Law Enforcement moderates both support their extreme elements. Patriots, however, turn against our extreme elements, and, we turn them over to the government — our enemy, in our efforts to restore proper constitutional limits upon the government.

We will have to visit the past to get a better understanding of what I mean. In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed a government building. Outrage was the response of the patriots, since there were innocent women and children in the building. McVeigh explained why he targeted a government building when he wrote “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“. Now, where could he possibly get the idea that it was a “retaliatory strike, and that federal agents had become soldiers… it was a preemptive or proactive strike… against their control center.”

In a Philadelphia Enquirer article, dated April 9, 1999, during NATO’s Yugoslavia (Kosovo and Serbia) War, declared, with full support of the Pentagon, that,

“In the air war, Pentagon officials said NATO’s warplanes would increasingly target government buildings, industries and state-run television relays in an attempt to shake the foundation of President Slobodan Milosevic’s regime [5th paragraph in the article].”

This practice has been carried through in all subsequent “wars” that we have been involved in, unless the government buildings were deemed friendly.

Let’s suppose that anybody that is a patriot can find the point on this list where they would feel comfortable. Go ahead, pick your number. Now, think back. Where were you a year ago? Two years ago? Presumably, you have progressed, as you realize the failure of your earlier position.

  1. Voting for a political party
  2. Voting for individuals (based upon their record)
  3. Mass meetings to discuss problems (Tea Party, or other participation)
  4. Street demonstrations (Overpass, etc.)
  5. Trips to Washington for demonstrations (OAS, Veterans, truck drivers, tractors, etc.)
  6. Civil disobedience (subjecting yourself to arrest by expressing yourself – Freedom of Speech)
  7. Civil defiance (willing to retaliate with force, such as Bundy Ranch or the WWII veterans memorial)
  8. Sabotage of government property (vehicles, etc.)
  9. Breaking into government facilities (intelligence information, equipment, & supplies)
  10. Sabotage of government property (destroying electronics, communication towers, etc.)
  11. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in injury or destruction of property
  12. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in death/serious injury of unarmed people
  13. Targeting individuals who work for government
  14. Sabotage of government property (destruction of facilities)
  15. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities (Primarily serving Government facilities)
  16. Prison breaks (selectively releasing political prisoners)
  17. Ambushes (of targeted government vehicles or convoys)
  18. Destruction of a Government Building (night time)
  19. Raids (police stations, fusion centers, etc.)
  20. Destruction of a Government Building (day time)
  21. Prison breaks (releasing all prisoners)
  22. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities – Primarily serving general population

Just for kicks, now suppose where you will be if Hillary becomes president, or the police kill another thousand unarmed people this year, or, well, use your imagination as to what events may change you position — move higher in the numbers of the list. That should bring to light what was explained in “The Other (not so) Thin Line“.

We should be able to understand that each of us has, through our own experience, found that we continue to move into a greater sense of necessity, if we are to restore constitutional government. The problem arises when we insist that others cannot go beyond where we are.

Unfortunately, if we continue to pursue this course, we chop off the experienced head, those who have, by their experiences, moved further along that line. Does it make any sense, at all, to have such a detrimental effect on our community, just because we want to constrain them to what we impose upon ourselves?

Think very hard before you do anything that sets us back rather than moves us ahead.

 

The Declaration of Independence Has Been Outlawed

Friday, January 9th, 2015

The Declaration of Independence Has Been Outlawed

Declaration SWAT in line

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2015

 

“[W]hen 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.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

With those words, the War for Independence from British Rule began, in earnest. That Declaration of Independence is the premier founding document, for, absent the fortitude of those who supported it, with their lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and their willingness to die in the battle to contest the overreaching authority of British Rule, in violation of the British Constitution, the United States Constitution would never have been conceived. Instead, for the first time in the history of man, the people were the source of the authority that created the government.

Murder and theft, crime against people and property, are broken down into degrees of severity. That is the means by which certain crimes are graded, and punished, based upon the people assembled in a jury — so that the will of the people is supreme, and the government simply carries out the administrative function of the process of Justice.

What happens when the government enacts laws that make it a more serious crime to kill because of an emotion? They call them “hate crimes”, though they seem to be applied in only one direction. The result is that only a certain class of people can have harsher penalties applied, because the government says so, than if the killing was for money, jealousy, rage, or even random. Simply, the idea is to outlaw certain forms of thought (See Freedom of Speech and Thought Crimes). It is a form of social engineering, or more accurately, reconditioning to comply with the dictates of government’s control of not only our speech, but also our thoughts and actions.

Every state constitution, as well as the United States Constitution, recognizes that the creation of their respective governments, grants of authority, and limitations of power, are sourced from the people, themselves (“We the People”). It was presumed by the Founders that the authority of the people was such that they could, as so stated in the above quote from the Declaration of Independence, abolish a government that violated the limitations, and usurped authority, at the discretion of the people, not the discretion of the government. In fact, if you read closely, they even imposed the responsibility as a “duty”, to assure the perpetuation of the Great Experiment that they had initiated.

The FBI recently (August 20, 2013) published as an FBI Press Release, a description of the United States Code definition of Terrorism (Definition of Terrorism in US Code).

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

  • Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
  • Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines “international terrorism” in a nearly identical way, replacing “primarily” outside the U.S. with “totally” outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

* * *

So, just to get you thinking about the ramifications and the authority presumed by the government, but not granted by the Constitution, let’s look from the other side. If police use force to “influence or affect the conduct of [people] by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against [people’s] conduct”, then they, too, should be guilty of terrorism, especially when they are armed as an army, and protected against most means of assault by use of armor far more invincible than knights of old.

However, like hate crime laws, terrorism is a one-way street. The government cannot be guilty of terrorism, whether around the world, or within the States of the Union, any more than a White person can be the victim of a hate crime.

Despotism (as understood by the Founders – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Absolute power; authority unlimited and uncontrolled by men, constitution or laws, and depending alone on the will of the prince; as the despotism of a Turkish sultan.

If we simply replace “prince” with “president”, and then evaluate whether we have reached that definitive point in our history, then we understand that there is a mandate from our source documents (the Declaration of Independence) that has, in effect, been outlawed by a despotic government.

To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop

Monday, January 5th, 2015

To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop

 Cops then and now

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 5, 2015

 

Recent events have resulted in increased random shootings of police officers, around the country. Though the practice might not be deemed contemptible in one set of circumstances, it might be considered unjustified in the current situation.

Perhaps if we can separate what is acceptable and what is not, we can get a better grasp on what the variation in circumstances might warrant, as opposed to what is not warranted.

The shooting of police officers is a necessary consequence, when done with the proper circumstances, of forcing the government to submit to the will of the people, rather than the people submitting to the will of the government.

In light of both Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, circumstances were different than those of today. Police force was exerted on the branch Davidians in Waco, resulting in the death of nearly a hundred men, women, and children — at the hands of law enforcement.

The Oklahoma City Bombing, conducted by Timothy McVeigh, was in retaliation for what he had experienced in Iraq and what he observed in Waco. Though we may not agree with his method, surely, his actions were directed at the source of the problem — an overreaching government.

Examples of the circumstances, in the nineties, are explained in two interviews I did at the time, Popping Cops and Breaking the Bonds of Slavery, the latter being more demonstrative of the justification of such actions.

However, the current circumstances, including both the events that lead up to the current furor and the significant change in the nature of law enforcement, have created a bit of a quandary. For example, if a cop is shot, the assumption, in both Mainstream Media (MSM) and the alternative media, will be that it is an act of retaliation for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. This based upon the outrageous calling for killing any, and all, cops. Not that it would be outrageous under the proper circumstances, though that is lost in the current media hype, and there is little possibility of extracting an act against government from the story, if that were the motivation. Surely, the cops, if they caught the shooter alive, would sequester him so tightly that any story he had would never see the light of day. In addition, the presumption of retaliation would become the Prima Facie Story.

The perspective then would perhaps be “the right thing to do, for the wrong reason. It would place the patriot community in a position of supporting the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, without regard to the fact that black cops have shot both unarmed black and white people, and that most crimes, and killings, of blacks are by blacks.

During the sixties, the anti-war movement was intertwined with the black rights movement, placing the strictly “end the war in Vietnam” crowd with the mantle of black rights support or Women’s Liberation, though untrue to significant numbers of the anti-war crowd. They were stigmatized, by the press, into what they were not.

The same consequence is likely to occur, today, by tying the “restoration of constitutional government” group inextricably, to the “don’t shoot me, I’m black” crowd, which will co-join the two in the press, and might likely become a damper on, or destroyer of, the patriot movement.

However, there may be a solution — one that would provide a distinction, and also bring to light the fact that cops don’t discriminate because of color, when they kill unarmed people. They also kill unarmed whites, as well as other races, with the same impunity that they do when they kill blacks.

This past March (2014), Albuquerque Police Officer Keith Sandy shot and killed James Boyd, for illegal camping. Boyd was white, as was Sandy. However, there is complete video footage of the event, and leaves, without a doubt, the guilt on both Sandy, the other officers on the scene, and the entire police department that justified what can be called nothing but “murder”.

There are many that believe that Darren Wilson, who shot Brown, may well have been justified, as there had already been aggressive physical contact while Wilson was still in his patrol car.

When NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo used a chokehold, or other restraint method, resulting, directly or indirectly, in the death of Eric Garner, the justification for Pantaleo’s action and the cause of death are not so clear.

Of these three events, the clearest, in terms of justification of the officer’s actions is Wilson/Brown event. Next, we have the murky events surrounding the Pantaleo/Garner incident, though this seems to be the motivation for the current outrage. Finally, we have the Sandy/Boyd event, where clearly there was no justification for the action resulting in Boyd’s death.

However, the motivation for the “kill the cops” effort stems from the event that seems to have the most justification (Garner), and is supported by the questionable, though newsworthy story (thanks MSM, Mayor de Blasio, and the Executive Branch). This is founded upon the Brown event (thanks MSM and the Executive Branch), and used to support the resulting attitude. While Boyd’s death, the least justifiable, is lost to MSM and the Executive Branch, and seems to only have recognition in the patriot community.

What would bring this into an acceptable realm for the patriot community? Surely, supporting the “kill all cops” attitude can only bring discredit upon us. It might also lead to a race war, as the black verses white issue is predominant.

What if we supported the police position? Well, would we then be supporting those who, by their nature, are not fulfilling their sworn duty to enforce the law, and would also be giving implied support for their killing James Boyd. This, too, might lead to a race war, as the cops are perceived as white — against the blacks.

Is there a position that we can, and should, support? There are two things that can be done to promote both by social/political action and by force that can have a positive effect for the patriot community.

First, we can hold the position that cops are not above the law, and only the people can determine what those limits will be. This can be accomplished by requiring that any time a person is shot, or otherwise physically abused, by a police officer, or any law enforcement officer, unless there is an active gunfight involved, that the matter go to a jury trial, so that the people, of the nation supposed to be governed with the consent of the people, determine whether the act was criminal, or not. That jury determination (not a grand jury where it is at the will of the US Attorney, State Attorney, or County Attorney) will set the standard for what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, in the eyes of the local community — the local We the People.

Second, that any officer shot be one that is easily identifiable as having abused his authority (as in Sandy/Boyd), and warrants, without jury trial, as the evidence is so clear that guilt can only be ignored by obfuscation. The Internet provides many resources for the gathering of evidence sufficient to make such a determination (See Bad Cops and Targeting). This will have a two-fold effect on law enforcement. It will put those on notice who have not yet crossed the line, that there will possibly be consequences if they do cross that line. This might also lead them to want to distance themselves from those who have crossed the line. And, it will serve the effect suggested in Breaking the Bonds of Slavery.

Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

Monday, January 5th, 2015

Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 1998

NOTE: This interview was conducted over 16 years ago, and times have changed. It must be read in conjunction with “To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop”, which will put a perspective of on this article, based upon circumstances today.

* * * * *

 I had a conversation with a friend the other day. It turned into a hypothetical scenario, and I decided that it might make a good interview. John agreed. So, what you are about to read is a scenario developed around what COULD have happened in Germany in the mid to late thirties, when some of the German people first began to suspect that Hitler’s Reich was a little bit different than what it was set out to be. Only portions of the interview are included.

OPF: John, how are you, today?

JOHN: Fine Gary, and ready to go.

OPF: Okay, John, why don’t you lay out the basis for the scenario, first.

JOHN: Okay, it is 1938 and some of the people have begun to realize that the government has continued to expand its power, increase its revenue from the people, and imprison those who defy the rules established in this progression of what amounts to a submission to slavery. Now, when I speak of people, I intend that to mean only those who have begun to understand the existence of the problem. The rest of the people I will refer to as “the rest of the people”. The scene, however, is not very much different than the conditions that currently exist in America, except that America has not chosen a scapegoat race to direct negative emotions at. America has selected a portion of the people to direct their negative emotions. But, that is not the story line, so, back to Germany.

* * *

OPF: So, suppose the people of Germany wanted to protect their country from what was, apparently, a step in the wrong direction?

JOHN: Well, I think it was more than apparent. Work forces of citizens, paid from the common treasury, were put to work with shovels, building the Autobahn, and other public works projects. Having been denied the right to build an Army after World War I, the government realized that they could build an army with shovels, and then replace the shovels with rifles. Close quarter drills, maneuvers, bivouac, the workforce practiced every type of military function. Nobody did anything about it. Most realized that the workforce was training to be an army. Once trained, and given the guns, the government had a police force sufficient to control all of the people. Of course, the local officials were brought in as a part of the military force, and took their orders from the central government, enforcing whatever laws the government passed. It was at this time that the people should have acted. The prosperity for the few who were willing to submit to the government, and enforce their laws, at the expense of the rest of the people, placed them in a position of power. This power was abused, in many cases, but the rest of the people took it, without question — or, at least, not aloud. This, though, would have been the time to strike. Many people still had their rifles and some may have had explosives. Heavy equipment had not been developed for smaller jobs, and so it was not uncommon for farmers and others to have explosives. Had they used these explosives on the government force, random hits by small groups, they would have had an effect.

OPF: You mean that they should have killed the soldiers and the police?

JOHN: Had they killed soldiers and police, in random acts, they would have created more than what was then just a reward scenario for the soldiers and the police. They were acting with impunity, and were fed and paid better than the average worker.

OPF: That would have been dangerous. Wouldn’t they most likely get caught and executed?

JOHN: Many were killed, anyway. Most, eventually, as soldiers in war. Others that resisted were captured and imprisoned, many to die in prison. I suppose that the difference is whether you want to die fighting, or just die. I believe that some of the Germans that I met years ago really regretted what they allowed to have happened. I think that they would have, had they thought that it would get as bad as it did, done something about it.

OPF: Well, what would be the desired result, had they done these random acts of killing?

JOHN: Probably. Most importantly, is that they would have created fear within the government. Kind of like when the Oklahoma City bomb went off. I remember that you had written an article (Escalation & Fear: Fear & Escalation) about how the government had reacted to the bombing. They were scared. From what I have read, very few of those who were in the building have been willing to go back to work for the government. Then, others, like Bob Ricks, from Waco, retired shortly afterwards.

OPF: You mean, the idea of killing people would have been to get them to quit their jobs?

JOHN: That would be fair to say. You know that burglar alarms are as effective as burglar alarm stickers. The burglars see the sticker, and they decide that there may be too much risk and move on to the next house. Likewise, if they think that there is an angry dog inside, they go elsewhere.

OPF: So, killing them is just to scare them?

JOHN: Not exactly. It has a number of other effects, as well. As soon as it started, there would be very few, if any, individual soldiers or policeman doing anything. They would change their uniform before going home, and whenever something had to be done, they would travel in large enough groups to affect their safety. This would reduce the number of active units that could be imposing on the people, or breaking in doorways. It would also have the effect of reducing, or culling the herd. Each dead or injured soldier or policeman would have reduced the force by one. His death would also have a greater impact on his friends, and cause them some concern for what they were doing. I’m pretty sure that they knew what was happening, and this might have just moved them enough to refuse to go along with it. But, this never happened.

OPF: What about the political leaders?

JOHN: Well, there is no doubt that they could have been targets, as well. Had, say, Goering been killed, then much of what he did might never have happened. Just think about the world today. Didn’t we try to kill Gaddafi and Hussein? Didn’t we kill Diem and then plant our man as leader of South Vietnam? Taking the political leaders out is, definitely, a political tool.

* * *

OPF: What about the Deutsches Bank and other institutions that supported the government?

JOHN: Well, there is a lot of support of any government by many institutions in a country. Some may already be influential and others may be seeking influence. They do so on the premise that if they favor the government, they will be favored by the government. The government realizes that it needs all of the support, both financial and industrial, to achieve its purpose. So, each is scratching the other’s back. If something was done to create a risk greater than the benefit, then I think that they would think differently. After all, they, like the government, need employees to do anything. Can you imagine how effective a government would be if nobody worked for it?

* * *

OPF: Now, you have suggested that small groups of people could do this and get away with it. Do you really believe that they could get away with it?

JOHN: There is always a risk. If they were to operate properly — say, a group of two to five people, like they call cells nowadays, planned everything, scoped the job, wore rubber gloves, kept their “work clothes” somewhere else, set up alibis, and really did their homework, I would think that only chance or bad luck would keep them from safely doing their job. The more groups there were, the more thinly they would spread their opposition. And, they would have been wise to have established escape plans, and means to communicate with their families, once the had to flee.

OPF: Given the Gestapo tactics, wouldn’t there be risk of being infiltrated?

JOHN: Yes, there is always that risk. There is also the risk of having someone that is not an infiltrator get caught at something else and turn against his friends to reduce, or remove his punishment for another crime. Remember, you wrote about Don Bunds in Waco, and then there was Michael Fortier. That guy Marshall in West Virginia, and many other cases where informants or infiltrators caused the destruction of even innocent activity — like the Viper Militia. To protect themselves from something like this, they should watch for a change in the nature or actions of one of their members. You’ve seen the old black and white movies where someone gives himself away by having to make a call, or sneaks out, or some other activity. Every caution would have to have been taken to keep Gestapo informants from infiltrating, and if suspicion existed, plans would have to have been changed, or, maybe, the member taken out. No trial, but the possibility of error rather than the risk of losing the cell. If cells had to communicate, only one member of any given cell would be known to any of the other cells. Only one man could go down that way. This guy would have to be chosen by the others as the most stoic. The Gestapo could be pretty cruel when they wanted to be. Eventually, as successes were achieved, I think that it would have become more open, just like in France. Major operations were conducted after the cells were tried and hardened. Their communication became more wide based, even to the point of the BBC broadcasting instructions to various groups via the radio. By then, the cells were hardened and the chance if infiltration was almost non-existent. Had that happened in Germany, there would not be nearly as many American graves across the European countryside.

* * *

OPF: When should the people have begun acting in this way?

JOHN: It probably never would have been too early — once Hitler gained power. I would think, though, that, depending on where you lived and what you had experienced, that the time to begin would vary based upon your experience. I would like to think that as soon as you knew where things were going, like so many do today in this country, that you would form your cell and act. As each cell began acting, it would motivate others to do so. Soon the risk would have become so great that the Reich may never have even begun its attempt to conquer the world. But, starting could never have been considered too late. If cells began when the Germans were being pushed out of France, it still would have been effective.

* * *

OPF: Well, John, thanks for your time. I suppose, if people do act when they know something is wrong, like the Founding Fathers did, that they can achieve what they want. Perhaps World War II could have been avoided. It is something to think about.

JOHN: Your welcome, Gary. I think you are right. Many will probably, like those Germans I told you about, regret that they did not act sooner. I only wish I was younger and, well, if I had been a German…