Burns Chronicles No 11 – What are the III%?

Burns Chronicles No 11
What are the III%?

Committee of Safety MusketImage from “The Minute Men“, by John R. Galvin

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 25, 2016

First, we must understand the significance of the oft-used expression, “III%” or “3%”. It is intended to suggest the percentage of the population who fought against the British during the Revolutionary War. Now, keep in mind what you just read. They fought in the Revolutionary War, whether they were militia, or Continental Army; They Fought!

Why would I bring this up? Well, a number of comments have come to me regarding my article, “Civil Defiance or Submission?” Many have suggested that they are III%er, and their duty is strictly defensive.

In a discussion with one of them, I asked if he was III%. He boldly told me that he was. Then I asked him if he was ready to fight, to do something. He said that his job as III% was strictly defensive. I asked him what he intended to defend. He told me that he was going to defend his bug-out location, his family, and his team.

My next comment was that his first stand would also be his last stand. When they come to get him, and they will eventually find him, he will fight and die, defending, or he will end up in the gray-bar hotel, for a long time.

There is little doubt that the first of the III%ers were militia. It was months before the Continental Army was formed, but the war had begun. People fought, and people died, on both sides, so the first few thousand were none other than Militia.

So, the first eighty-some men where under arms were, perhaps, defensive. Under Captain Parker, the Lexington Militia were gathered on the Green, though they were lined up along a side road that led to Woburn, the same route John Hancock and Sam Adams had taken when they left Lexington, once alerted by the alarm riders. The road to Concord was not obstructed, in the least. It was merely the presence of armed colonists, which led to the events that have now become a part of our heritage.

As the British continued to march toward Concord, word spread rapidly to the nearby towns, villages, and counties of western Massachusetts. It is what happened next that tells the tale of what the real III%ers were. As word spread, that the people of Lexington had become involved in a gunfight with the British, they did not ask why, they grabbed their muskets and headed in that direction.

There was no internet, nor telephone, radio, or any other means of notification other than the alarm riders. They did not stop to answer questions, they simply called to arms. It was sufficient that those who would soon be recognized as “Americans” had come under fire of the British.

The Militia, including that of Lexington, had transferred their “subordination to civil authority” from the Royal Governor to their local Committees of Safety. This had occurred during the previous years, as explained in “The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence“. Those Committees then gave orders to their respective Militia to march to Concord, as that was known to be the objective of the British.

Within hours, several thousand had arrived near Concord. They had come from other towns, from other counties, and some were on their way from other states. There was no consideration of the fact that those in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, were not from Massachusetts; had not been invited to take their arms and go to Massachusetts. They responded solely to take on the common enemy, the British. They didn’t hesitate, they were not concerned for their “bug-out location, family, and team”, rather, they were concerned for their Liberty, and their fellow colonists.

Within weeks, people from all of New England, all of the middle colonies, and some of the southern colonies had amassed around Boston, laying siege to the military might that then ruled the world. They had come to fight! They made no excuse as to why they should not go to Boston, because they were the beginning of the III%.

There were some Active Patriots (See “Active Patriots v Passive Patriots“) that came to aid those who had taken a stand in favor of the idea that public lands should be public, not treated as the private property of the government and the bureaucrats. There were Passive Patriots, those who might, as time went on, become Active Patriots and join the ranks to fight the common enemy. There were some False Patriots, whose work, while claiming to be in support of those in the Refuge, was more of a hindrance, and often served to provide more benefit to the government side than the patriot side.

Most importantly, however, was the absence of those who wear the badge of III%. Sadly, many who do wear the badge do so without due respect for its meaning, and who will find any excuse to avoid becoming involved, as only defensive, as was described above.

As I reflect on those who wear that III% badge and otherwise do not intend to serve the cause, rather, only to serve themselves, their families, and their team, I am reminded of those who receive an award simply for being there, not realizing that to wear the III% badge calls for the courage, conviction, and commitment — that which the real III% of 240 years ago had.



  1. Andrea says:

    Gary – I have been reading your material since first seeing you comment a few weeks ago at Conservative Treehouse and have been most appreciative of your pieces as you filled in blanks that were and are quite difficult to fill in – namely – what was really happening on the ground with the people of Burns (and surrounding area) and the men/women at the refuge. I thank you so much for this. Each article has been thought provoking and educational from both a current and historical perspective. Again, thank you!

    May 1, 2013, I put up on my site excerpts (“defy, resist, evade, smuggle, if you wish to stay free”) from a speech given by Mike Vanderboegh a few days prior to that. In my opinion it was a touchstone for all needing clarity and encouragement to keep doing whatever it is we do to try to stop this tyrannical march by our government.

    Fast forward to – January 2, 2016 – MV – “Perfect timing for the regime. Federal provocateurs, sociopaths and idiots with a John Brown complex are writing checks that they expect the rest of us to cash in our blood.”

    Mike was probably one of the very first to call for those at the refuge to stand down. And there were how many other influential groups that followed suit? My own comment at another website (which I wish I had posted at MV’s) – “Can’t help but wonder if Mike plans on telling us what the right issue will be and when we are to take a stand.”

    When the “big boys” of the so-called liberty movement stood down, dot gov knew they had carte blanche to move in. Lavoy Finicum died. Good families will be bankrupted. Men/possibly women will be jailed for as long as the regime sees fit.

    I have preached till I am blue in the face that the people of this country are responsible for allowing us to get in this situation and it is only the people who can possibly put a stop to it and it certainly won’t be by pulling a damn lever once every four years!

    Someone I have often called a living member of the Devil’s Brigade wrote – “NONE of the reasons NOT to get off the boat change the fact that if I don’t, someone else will have to.” I am attaching the link because of the picture he used. Canadians. I don’t remember the war… https://twitter.com/flippinth3raya/status/431565139066617857

    Depending on anyone else for our own security is a mistake and that is fact, but as you point out, this is bigger, much bigger than we individuals and our clans.

    We have long believed that when the time came we would be able to depend on our military and the III’s to be there first and foremost. Perhaps that was all psyops. We let “the time” pass us by on this one, IMHO. And so, the question begs to be asked Gary – if the III’s are not going to get off the damn boat – who will?

    Please pardon my rant. Who am I to criticise. I am just a woman, an American citizen, most importantly – a grandmother horrified for the future of the grandchildren of this nation. All I can say is that the murder of LaVoy Finicum – this whole soon to be forgotten moment in American history, has thrown me into a spiral I am finding difficult to recover from.

  2. […] 9: Civil Defiance or Submission? Burns Chronicles No. 10: Is There a Peaceful Solution? – Redux Burns Chronicles No. 11: What are the III%? Burns Chronicles No. 12: Jon Ritzheimer and the Grand Jury Burns Chronicles No. 13: Ambush – Part […]

  3. AZRanger says:

    I agree 100% Gary with your underlying premise. The problem is when no local organization steps up, and the surrounding population appears to be hostile to the intent!
    We made a conscious decision NOT to go to Burns, because the local Militias DID NOT step up, and the local citizenry came across as hostile to the effort!
    Since the locals were too afraid to put their own asses on the line to defend THEIR rights, none of us could see why we should risk our own asses to save theirs! Not when we have the border invasion going on in AZ!

    The Hammonds made it clear that they DID NOT have the courage to stand-up to the feds, and the only intel coming out of Burns indicated that there was very little, if any, support for those who had occupied the refuge! Therefore, other than a few individuals from AZ, everyone decided that this was an ill-conceived action, and we would not support those who were NOT willing to defend themselves! We agreed that the Militia is NOT a well-fare program! If people are not willing lift a finger to defend themselves, then we are NOT going to do it for them. The reason so many flocked to the aid of those in the Mass Colony, was that they were willing to stand up for themselves; and did ask the others to do it for them!!!

    At Bunkerville, NV, the local residents were already standing up to the jack-booted thugs of the BLM, and being assaulted for their efforts! This is why thousands of Americans came from all over the country to show up there, and help them defend what was theirs.

    I agree that there is a time and a place for offensive actions, but it cannot be done to protect those who will NOT try or participate themselves!! I will NEVER put my folks in that position!

    Sorry if that makes others angry, but I don’t give a rat’s ass!!! When the militia is sent out to do a job, then that is what we will do! What happened in Burns was utterly stupid and ridiculous! The fact that a truly fine man was killed there, was a colossal failure of leadership, both on and off site! A small group of men made a train of very bad decisions, because they did not have enough respect for the numerous others who they had worked with previously, to council with them first! They committed themselves to a doomed course of action, and then expected others to come and bail them out! Sorry but that is NOT a reasonable expectation! This was a Custer move! And had basically the same results!!

    it is time for those in the Liberty Movement to man up, and quit acting like school children! Start working with others, and not just your friends and yes men! There is Wisdom is=n the COUNCIL of Many! We must start using our heads for something other than to hold our ears apart! No more knee-jerk reactions! No more going off the deep end! No more trying to do everything ourselves, because leadership does not want to share power or the limelight! Grow the hell up; and plan something in advance for once!

    Every State should have a militia council which can then be in communication with the other State Councils! This is NOT rocket science! Lets get this done, and then there can be successes!

    • ghunt says:

      I see where you are coming from, and I hope that you won’t take offense at what I have to say. I will address three points, in the order that they occurred as I read your comment.
      1. There was a lot of discussion (yes, I was involved in some of it) concerning an invitation. Obviously, the invitation could have come from the Hammonds, though, as you said, it did not. The other possibilities were the Governor (slim chance), the County (still slim), or a Committee f Safety. After all, it was Committees of Safety that called the militia to Lexington and Concord.
      The Harney County Committee of Safety was formalized on December 12, 2015. They did invite those who wished to come, to go to Burns to support the Hammonds. So, the presence of the patriots was due to that invitation.
      Now, your objection seems to come more from what nine people chose to do by going to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and making it “public”, as it should be. That was a secret, and alternate, plan that had been worked on for over a month prior to being acted out.
      You seem to think that since it is in Harney County, Oregon, that it is an Oregon problem, or perhaps only a Harney County problem. However, you fail to recognize the government’s role in thinking that they own, rather than being just trustees, of the PUBLIC lands. Tat being federal PUBLIC lands, where does that leave you out? Are you going to wait until it is your backyard (isn’t the bastard president talking about millions of Arizona acres that he wants to make into a national monument?) before you become concerned? If so, what if only a few hundred people object? Even a few thousand would be less percentage of the population of Harney County that supported the action at the Refuge. So, you method of exclusion is, at best, destructive, more likely fatal, to restoring the Constitution as the law of the land.
      Think, too, that if one man loses his rights, you, to, have lost yours. By failing to support others, we discourage hat same support, when we want it.
      To judge, by your standards, especially lacking a full understanding of the circumstance of others, you have simply abandoned the possibility of an effective action against government’s overarching authority. You have held others to your standards, and provided them an easy way out when your standards think that they should act.
      Finally, you speak of a “militia council”. What leads you to believe that the militia can act independent of a civil authority? Have you learned nothing of our history and heritage? Were you not paying attention during the days of the Arizona Committee of Safety?
      I have often stated that there are no Militia in this country, as the Militia must subordinate to civil authority. I have written providing historical and legal effect of the requirement. Until a group joins together under civil authority, I will continue to declare that none exists.

  4. Andrea says:

    If I may – a little to add to this conversation as I contend the issue is blankety-blank government theft, and murder in this particular case. My continual question is – when/what circumstance is going to be the right one?

    So, a few days ago Harry Reid makes his case for Hussein Obama to take more land in Nevada. Any guesses what area? I’ll let you read it but an excerpt that is so offensive –

    “Most Americans are familiar with what happened earlier this year in Oregon. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon was taken over. A dangerous group of militants staged an armed takeover of the refuge, they came with their canvas shirts and their camouflage pants and their guns and their all-terrain vehicles to take over the federal property. And they did. They damaged the refuge to the tune of about, maybe $20 million: defecating on some of the ruins in the facility and stopping the Native Americans from being able to do their annual fishing.
    This particular episode of domestic terrorism has roots in Nevada, I’m sorry to say. They were led by the sons of Cliven Bundy. Cliven who, as we speak, is where he should be – in jail. Two of his sons are in jail, too, having participated in the unlawful takeover. Cliven Bundy is a Nevadan who has been breaking federal laws for decades.

    ghunt if you have already posted this link my apologies – I am woefully far behind on my reading.


    • ghunt says:

      I will address your question.
      Each incident brings more to our side. Often such an incident also shows us who would should not rely upon (#7). However, when, and where, is the subject of the will of One far greater than you or me. I just know that I have to expose what I can, about Burns, the Hammonds, and the Bundy Affair (I will be writing on that subject, again, soon).
      The more we understand what is being lost, the sooner the time comes when we will take it back.

Leave a Reply