Outpost of Freedom blog

Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014

The government and Mainstream Media tell us that there is a massive immigration going on at our southern border. Massive, however, is, in any historical context outside of active warfare, a gross understatement. Is it possible that what is happening at that southern border should be more appropriately described as an invasion?

First, we’ll look at immigration. It is defined as — immigration n. The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. (from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — In the United States, it assumes compliance with 8 US Code §1101.)

There is no doubt that the United States is a nation formed from immigration, even though many of us have generations going back to prior to the Revolutionary War. However, whether an immigrant, or one born here, the purpose is to become a citizen. With citizenship, there must also be allegiance to the country. Can it be expected that the country protects its citizens, yet the citizens have no allegiance to the country?

Theodore Roosevelt discussed A Problem that Can’t be Ignored in explaining some of the requirements of citizenship, and solutions for those who did not seem to desire to assimilate (To bring to a likeness; to cause to resemble; To convert into a like.) into the host nation. To assimilate into an industrious nation, one must work, participate, and contribute, to at least maintain the nature of the country, if not to improve it.

So, with the above given, are these multitudes crossing the border, intending to assimilate, or is their purpose otherwise? Or, are they deceived into believing that there is one purpose, when, in fact, there is another purpose? Let’s look at what another possible, perhaps plausible, purpose might be.

First, let’s, once again, look at history. In 1775, some farmers and mechanics decided to take on the greatest military force in the world, the British Empire’s army and navy. The didn’t hesitate, even though Hessians, vociferous fighters themselves, were added to His Majesty’s forces.

The colonists, from the first battle, fought in what is now known as asymmetrical (having parts that fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry) warfare. They fought like Indians; they avoided a major battle, unless there was a hope of winning; the fled to fight another day; and, they conducted completely unanticipated actions. They did so with financial aid from other countries, and, eventually, military and naval forces from France.

The story of the “Trojan Horse” is well known, so, perhaps we can learn something about asymmetrical warfare by reviewing what may have happened, or may merely be mythology. The people of Troy were lovers of beauty. When the Spartan army was unable to defeat them, they devised a means of playing on the weakness of beauty to gain access to the walled city of Troy. The built a beautiful wooden horse, believed by the Trojans to be a token of homage paid by the defeated. We all know what happened, next. However, it was the weakness of the worship of beauty that led to the downfall of Troy.

The United States has a weakness, as well. That weakness is the failure to grasp the nature and the severity of this threat, due to the constant barrage of misdirection and propaganda spewing from mainstream media acting as government proxies, disguising the problem as a “humanitarian crisis” and relying upon the world renowned generosity of the American people to “resolve” a crisis created, funded, and protected by the federal government. The American people are being held hostage in a sense, by their moral principles of giving humanitarian aid whenever and wherever needed, without a firm foundation build upon full disclosure of the nature of the issue. It is called “humanitarianism”, and though our coffers are bare, we will spend our posterity’s future in providing humanitarian aid.

Agencies of government are relying upon that moral mandate so well depended upon by the world at large, humanitarianism, to be the means by which this invasion can be facilitated, using children to force open the gates to this once fair country. ? The outpouring of sympathy for the wretched children, being accompanied by parents or sent unaccompanied through the most violent country in the Western Hemisphere, surely plays on the heartstrings of the humanitarian nature, especially when embellishment and omission, by press and government, divert our attention away from practical considerations while attempting to smother us with our own ignorance of the facts, using the ploy of “humanitarianism.”

Meanwhile, while the attention is directed at the children (paraphrasing Hillary Clinton, “it takes a nation to raise a child”), some unconfirmed, yet quite plausible, reports of increased border crossings, at least in Arizona, perhaps 4 time previous numbers, have been occurring since the current “children’s crusade” began.

Diversion is a masterful art of war. Every effort was made, for two years, to convince the Germans that Calais was the point of invasion. While the German High Command was so sure that they had good intelligence, their resources were directed to the wrong location. This was a fatal error, as they were watching, and relying upon the left hand, while the right hand was ignored.

Now, an “invasion” was defined, in the time of the Framers (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) as:

A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.

Well, it seems that the definition just about covers the current situation. It is an entry into the possessions of Americans. It is hostile, as so often displayed by MECHA, AZTLAN, and other groups supportive of the invasion — and the rights of foreigners to our possessions and whatever plunder they can realize. And, according to those same groups, conquest is clearly a part of their professed plan.

Now, let’s look at weapons. The Spartans had their spears and shields with them. Surely, the Trojans would not have provided the means for arming other than those so designated. However, if someone wants to buy a gun in this country, they only have to prove that they have no criminal record, in this country. The sole exception being those veterans who have recently fought for this country and have been determined to be domestic terrorists, and those with mental disabilities.

If “Fast and Furious” had not been exposed, and cut short, how many weapons by those who were able to purchase huge numbers of weapons would have been acquired? Could those weapons have been stockpiled for future use?  How many weapons were supplied to foreign entities before Fast and Furious came to light?

The Soviet Union, during the “Cold War”, established arms caches throughout Europe and Great Britain (Soviet agents placed weapons caches across Europe during Cold War). Wouldn’t that be even more easily done in the United States, today? Caches, ready to arm those soldiers who have come across the southern border, apparently peacefully, simply waiting for the call to arms — to continue their invasion — this time, from inside of the gates?

A final consideration, which weighs very heavily on the side of invasion, is the cost of ‘immigration’, under the current circumstances. Reports indicate that the cost per person ranges from $5,000 to $50,000. Those in the $5,000 class are from a country with an average household income of $2,000. Who are those willing to pay $50,000 to sneak across the border? Who has the economic resources to pay such prices? It isn’t the everyday person looking for a better life, most certainly.

This leaves us to contemplate whether this is a massive immigration, which doesn’t, at all, resemble normal immigration, at any time in our historical past, or an invasion, using the concepts of asymmetrical warfare described above.

If the former, then they, and our government, should be abiding by the laws. If the latter, then we should be abiding by our rights. The final questions, however, and the most important aspect of this entire debacle, are:

• Should we prepare for the least offensive, or the most offensive of the possibilities?
• If we prepare for the least offensive, will we be able to deal with the more offensive, if it is the case?
• If we prepare for the most offensive, have we caused any harm by sending people back to where they came from, until they follow the law, and have we provided assurance that we are protecting the birthright of ourselves, and our posterity?
• What are the consequences of the wrong decision?

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Liberty or Laws?
Militia in Aid of Our Neighbors

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 26, 2014

In the previous article (Militia in Defense of the State), we discussed the right of the People to defend themselves, if Congress, the President, and the governor of their state, all abrogate their responsibility to protect us from invasion. If the need therein suggested arises, we must first question whether the Congress, the President, or the governor of the state, by abrogating responsibility, allowing a foreign invasion, without challenge, have become “enemies, domestic”, along side of the “enemies, foreign”.

Regardless of how we perceive those in government who have failed in their responsibilities, the question will arise whether a person from one state has the right to go to another state, in aid of the militia of that second state. Given the current nature on the ongoing invasion, along the southern border, it would make sense to recognize that Ohio is not in need of immediate aid, though one of the border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) is. If someone from Ohio decided that he wished to aid his neighbor in Texas in dealing with the invasion, has he a right to go to their aid, either as an individual, or, as a member of a militia organization?

In a strict sense, and probably also in a lawful sense, the militia organization cannot go as an organization. Texas Government Code, § 437.209

FOREIGN TROOPS. A military force from another state, territory, or district, except a force that is on federal orders and acting as a part of the United States armed forces, may not enter this state without the permission of the governor. The governor may delegate the powers granted by this section to the adjutant general.

specifically forbids a militia unit from another state to enter, absent the permission from the governor or under federal orders.

However, if the members of the Ohio militia organization do choose to go to Texas to aid their neighbor, there is nothing that would prohibit their traveling together to visit the host, whether a property owner or a Texas militia organization, as long as they were going to Texas as individuals. Well, by what authority, or form of reasoning, do we come to that conclusion?

When the Framers wrote the Constitution, they provided something that had not been true, before that document was ratified. Had you gone from one state to another, you did not have any of the rights enjoyed by the citizens of that state, unless they gave them to you. However, the Framers, wishing to assure that any citizen could feel comfortable and safe, while traveling to another state of the Union, made provision so that citizens in one state, while traveling, would enjoy all of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the citizens of the host state. The authority can be found in the federal Constitution at Article IV, § 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Now, if you were visiting Texas, and chose to assist that neighbor state in resisting the invasion of aliens, would it not afford you the “privilege” of joining the militia; and, “immunities” provided by law as a member of that Texas militia — the same as afforded a Texan?

Your right as a citizen provides the lawful authority to aid your neighbor in repelling an invasion, so long as you enter the host state as a guest, or a visitor, and then decide to enroll in a Texas militia. The Texas laws and Constitution notwithstanding, the nature of the Union of States under the federal Constitution afford you that protection.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Liberty or Laws?
Militia in Defense of the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2014

Prior to the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, each State (nation) had a right to defend its borders. The Articles created a collective pursuit of defense of borders against the British.

With the ratification of the Constitution, there was a greater consolidation of the collective into a Union. It also imposed upon that Union an obligation to protect each State against invasion, first, within the Powers of the Congress:

Article I, § 8, clause 15– The Congress shall have the Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Secondly, a guarantee (the only guarantee in the Constitution), with the mandatory “shall”:

Article IV, § 4– The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

It is apparent, then, that protection from invasion warrants the attention, and cooperation, of the federal government. However, we must consider whether the States lost their right to repel invasion, absent the federal government fulfilling their oblation and guarantee. This, then, leads us to the 10th Amendment:

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

Congress was given the Power, though nothing makes that Power exclusive. If it had been exclusive, surely a prohibition against the state protecting its borders would have been written as a prohibition in Article I, Section 10.

Well, that all makes sense; however, can that right to protect a State’s borders be affirmed by example? Answer: Most assuredly. Though the incidents being used to demonstrate this “Right of the State” to protect its borders were from the early part of the 19th Century, there have been no changes to the Constitution that would eliminate that right.

* * *

The Toledo War

In 1835, based upon an incorrect map of the region, two lines were established between the boundaries of Michigan and Ohio. The land within this disputed area comprised about 486 square miles. Ohio had become a state in 1803, though the boundary in dispute was between Ohio and the then territory of Michigan.

Beginning in late 1834, Michigan’s Territorial Governor Stevens Mason sent the Militia to the disputed line and claimed that he would not use force, so long as Ohioans stayed out of the disputed area. Ohioan responded by sending their Militia to the same area. Michigan’s militia ended up arresting some Ohio Surveyors and Officials, firing some shots into the air to scare off others from the survey party.

The dispute was finally settled where President Jackson and the Congress redefined the boundary between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, give each portions of the disputed lands. Finally, in 1837. Michigan was granted statehood.

The extent of federal authority was limited to resolving the dispute politically. There was no federal armed intervention.

* * *

The Honey War

Missouri became a state in 1821. The boundaries of the state were defined in the Constitution adopted at statehood. The description of the Northern boundary, however, was unclear and lay in Indian lands. At the expiration of the Indian’s usage of the land, in 1836, Sullivan surveyed the boundary. The future Iowa was then a part of Wisconsin Territory. The land, based upon subsequent review of the description of Missouri’s boundary, and a correct interpretation, created an overlap of up to 12 miles.

When a Sheriff from Missouri entered the disputed land to collect taxes, the locals (future Iowans) disputed his jurisdiction and he was arrested. Iowa Governor Robert Lucas warned Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs that the Missouri sheriffs would not be allowed to collect taxes in Iowa. Boggs then threatened militia action to enforce the collection of the taxes. Both governors then called out their militia to the disputed area. The only damage being the destruction of some profitable honey trees, hence the name of the war. The two militia were called off when the dispute was submitted to Congress, and eventually, to the United States Supreme Court.

Although Iowa attained statehood in 1846, the Court did not settle the dispute until 1851. The extent of federal authority was limited to resolving the dispute judicially. There was no federal armed intervention.

* * *

So, there, we have it. The Constitution remains unchanged, and the States in these disputes, called forth their respective militia to protect their boundaries. Though nobody was killed, the face off and the potential for real war was present. The only federal solution was political or judicial.

Suppose, then, that the intrusion, without question of a boundary dispute, exists. Suppose, also, that the intruders were not Americans, rather, are foreigners. Would the federal government have any more authority than what has been discussed? Would they be limited, as they were in the past, to either a negotiated political solution, or a judicial determination? Is it possible that the right is inherent, in each State (or even as a territory) to defend its borders, by use of the militia?

If some unconstitutional law; Some federal mandate; Some divisive compact between the federal and state government; or, Some financial obligation, precludes the state from protecting its own borders against invasion, is it not, under the current onslaught of illegal immigration across state borders, an abrogation of the responsibility of the governor of any state who refuses to fulfill his duty?

If he should fail to do so, then the People themselves should recognize that the right to self-defense against invasion resides, ultimately, with them, whether under the Congress, the President, or the State governor, or the People who would become that militia force. In addition, nothing within that Constitution prohibits the militia from acting upon its own behalf. It only provides for subordination, if the higher governing authority does not abrogate its responsibility. The Tenth Amendment:

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

This is further supported by the oft-overlooked Ninth Amendment:

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

Ultimately, the final decision to act is in the hands of the People. It is their country; It does not belong to the Government. If the government refuses to act, especially, when the laws of the land require such action, both of federal and state government, the People are left naught — except to act on their own behalf — for their sake and the sake of their posterity.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Liberty or Laws?
Dealing with the Current Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 11, 2014

The Continental Congress, being the first government of what was to become the United States of America, was able to assemble, without undue influence by the British government, though contrary to the law of the land. That Congress (like the many Committees of Safety) was created in violation of British law. The British Parliament often, subsequently, passed specific laws to criminalize some of the actions taken by the colonists.

Ultimately, based upon a political philosophy (see Sons of Liberty #14), a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, more commonly described as the Declaration of Independence from British rule, was signed on July 4, 1776.

The arduous efforts of the colonists, prior to that Declaration, were, without question, based upon illegal acts. Some of those acts were reacted to by the Parliament, with additional acts, making even more laws, which were soon to also be violated.

Beginning in 1765, with the Stamp Act, destruction of both personal, and government property held by the Crown or its representatives was conducted, in violation of the law. Personal injury was imposed on individuals, either because of their government office, or because of their violation of certain illegal agreements of non-importation.

The British continued to enact laws making certain activities, construed by the colonists as rights, illegal. This culminated in the seizure of arms and munitions by the British, as well as the colonists, coming to that final flash point on April 19, 1775, at a country village named Lexington. Within hours, tens of thousands of militiamen were converging on the area around Boston, ready and willing to break even more laws.

Today, we have many laws that denigrate the rights both fought for, and purchased at great cost, by those colonists of two centuries ago. We are facing the same proliferation of laws enacted to reduce, restrict, or otherwise deny our rights, redefining some as criminal and thereby subjecting Americans to incarceration and/or loss of property. We also see that laws enacted to protect our country from invasion, by force under arms, or by use of the “Trojan Horse” whereby invaders are placed within our communities, only needing the access to “cached arms”, are being ignored. Those arms possibly even held by government entities, to aid an invasion, from within, in order to render moot, and destroy that Great Experiment, known as the United States of America.

Is it possible to reclaim our birthright — that United States of America be returned to its intended form, and proper Glory — if we continue and abide by the very laws that were enacted to destroy it?

In recent discussions, the “rights” of those southern border invaders, under somewhat absurd laws, and contrary to the immigration laws of other countries, seem to have the “weight of law” in the minds of those individuals who should defend this country from invasion; Whether the children should be let in or, whether the parents should be let in, if they accompany their children; Whether we should allow those with provable or admitted criminal backgrounds, because of their youth, to be let in; Whether we should allow those in who have contagious, and often terminal, diseases, though by so doing, we expose our own children to those diseases, and bear the economic burden of care, form entry to grave, of those so infected, to be let in; Are the questions that we must answer, for ourselves, not according to the “law”.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to leave in the hands of the people, the first, and the most important, defense of nation, state, community, and family. Does that defense require a blessing from a higher authority than the people, themselves? Laws enacted by the Congress, or rules promulgated by executive agencies, have removed the right of the governors of these states from protecting the states from invasion. They have not removed that right from the people, regardless of what laws they may enact in an effort to do so. Reserving the right to determine if it is an invasion to those who have enacted the laws, removing their responsibility to even make such a determination, and leaving it solely in the hands of the Executive, who has steadfastly refused to enforce existing immigration laws, defies logic. These Executive actions defy the very purpose of the inclusion of Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment to the Constitution

Whatever the government (federal or state) uses to excuse the destructive activity currently going on along our southern border, does not remove from the people the rights embodied in the Constitution. Simply because Congress ignores our petitions and the state governments acquiesce to the unlawful influence of the federal government does not nullify immigration law. It is time for the People to enforce those immigration laws.

Do we not, as citizens of the various states of the Union, retain those rights protected by the Constitution? Do we have the inherent right to repel invasion? Are we required to restrict our actions simply because the federal government fails to enforce those laws?

Let’s ask ourselves some hard questions:

• If armed foreign invaders were coming into our country, do we have the inherent right to protect our state and country?
• If invaders, with the full potential of coming into your country, or state, unarmed, having arms readily accessible to them, by “law” (no criminal record in this country) or from stored arms caches, do you have the right to shoot them?
• Do you have an obligation to risk your life to separate those who are a potential threat from those who are not a threat, or only to endeavor to not shoot those who appear not to be a threat?

Let’s look at the war strategy of the federal government in the non-wars that they are fighting, throughout the Middle East. Smart bombs and missiles do not discriminate between good and bad, though we have this corrupt government insisting that we must abide by their laws, while their practices defy bounds of decency. The federal government’s wartime strategy is to shoot everyone, indiscriminately, around a single designated threat. Are we allowed to use the same strategy to protect our own borders?

The federal government has violated state, federal, and international law by providing arms, knowing that they will cross both international boundaries and go into the hands of the drug cartels, or possibly to caches on this side of the border. They have now opened the borders in an attempt render our sovereign nation status moot. It should be no surprise to anyone that arms and ammunition provided by the federal government has metastasized into wholesale violence in both of those nations. It does appear that the federal government is more than willing to allow those arms to be turned against American citizens, all the while pretending that we are blind to its actions, and will only see a “Humanitarian Crises” involving children, using Main Stream Media propaganda to berate Americans for being cruel and heartless because we insist the laws be enforced.

We are left with the choice of Liberty and our Responsibility, as intended by the Founders, or, laws, dictated by “the Crown”, which are self-serving and contrary to OUR Constitution, our rightful sovereign nation status, and individually, the right to the fruits of our labor. We have a decision to make, much the same as the decision made by those who bequeathed this great nation to their posterity, to apply the Laws of Nature, rather than the edicts of kings and princes, so that we may restore Constitutional Government, protecting our nation from assured destruction.

Has the time come for us to determine to break those laws, for failure to do so will, most certainly, lead to the destruction of our country?

Suggested Reading:

Tuberculosis
Murrieta
Information Blackout
Illegal Immigration: Diseases
MSM cover-up

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

“No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 20, 2014

A few days ago, a post appeared on Facebook. It was rather brief, and rather poorly written, but it had a message in it. Fortunately, the person posting was willing to remove it from Facebook, pending an investigation into the veracity of what was said, as well as what was implied, in that post. The post was about Robert Beecher, who was recently arrested, either in a conspiracy “to kidnap and torture” a DHS agent, or a simple firearms violation. That point is still not clear, though it is what leads up to the “conspiracy” allegation that brought it into the limelight.

The post read, in part, “Robert [Beecher] has asked me to give the name of the person who the FBI says… is accusing Robert M. Beecher of “planning with him” to kidnap and torture an agent of the DHS. He is the one… his name was given by the FBI and whose statement the FBI used to swarm in on Robert at his place of work. At the same time, they hit Robert’s home property. The accuser’s name is Jerry Bruckhart, with the Operation Mutual Aid group.” As written, it is accusatory, though in fact, Beecher was trying to determine what the connection between he and Jerry Bruckhart was, which would lead to such an accusation. So, the subjects of the investigation are Jerry Bruckhart (co-founder of OMA), Operation Mutual Aid (OMA), as an organization, and Robert Beecher. It is the roles of the two people and the organization that is the subject of this article.

Payne and Bruckhart started Operation Mutual Aid [note: website has been taken down], a few years back. In 2012, Beecher, thinking that he had found a group that appealed to his objectives, joined as a member — an open membership organization. Bruckhart’s explanation of his relationship with Beecher follows.

In an interview, Bruckhart states that his knowledge of Robert Beecher is minimal. He did have a conversation, via telephone, with Beecher back in 2012, as he does with all new members of OMA. That is the only conversation he has every had with Robert Beecher. He states that he has been involved with discussions on various Internet pages where Beecher may have been involved in the same discussion, as his recollection of the name brings that possibility to mind. Sometime in 2013, Robert Beecher deleted his membership on the OMA webpage. It was a consequence of a disagreement regarding the purpose (Mission Statement) of OMA. Jerry further states that the FBI has never contacted him, though others had told him that the FBI had asked them about him.

Now, let’s look at Robert M. Beecher, the government alleged co-conspirator with Jerry Bruckhart, to “kidnap and torture an [unknown] DHS agent”. Beecher has a somewhat checkered past, having been convicted of some crimes over twenty years ago, that may preclude him from owning firearms.

Beecher is 60 years of age, is a III% Commander, and has been active in the patriot community for at least a couple of years.

Regarding the controversy with the OMA, Beecher states that it had to do with a call for an armed march on Washington, D. C., OMA was supporting the march and Beecher declared it a “bad idea” and that it was “suicide to attempt to occupy D.C., armed”. Though Beecher believed in the “Mission Statement” of OMA, he felt that this action was outside of the scope of that Statement. This is what led to Beecher removing himself from the rolls of OMA.

On May 6, 2014, FBI Special Agent Slater, a BATF agent and a local officer from Toombs County, Georgia, approached Beecher at work. He was told that he was “not under arrest, that they needed to talk about some things”. They then asked if he knew Jerry Bruckhart of OMA. Given the length of time since his dispute with Jerry, he took this question as a “sucker punch”. The agent said that they had received word from Pennsylvania (Jerry’s home state) that he had “agreed to assist Jerry in the kidnap of a Homeland Security Agent” and were in the process of recruiting two more people to assist. He was told that Jerry disclosed this information while being questioned on another matter. Well, this doesn’t seem to be in agreement with what Jerry has stated, though we will address that, later.

Beecher was arrested on a “Complaint”, with no affidavit indicating the commission of a crime, according to his statement. Additionally, a search warrant was served on his home. His computers and drives were confiscated, along with a .45 pistol along with a 30-30 rifle. This raises the question of the justification for the search. Was it based upon the alleged conspiracy with Jerry Bruckhart? Or, was it based upon the speculation, or proof, that he had firearms, in violation of his felony conviction, from years past?

The search warrant (click warrant for larger image) affords no help. According to the warrant, in “identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location”, we find “The Residence located at 118 Pine Mountain Road, Reidsville, Georgia 30453, outbuildings, vehicles located thereon, and the person of Robert Beecher”.

Conspicuously absent is the “Attachment B”, which is intended to describe what “is believed to conceal (identify the person or describe the property to be seized)”

Further on, it states, “I find that the affidavit(s), or any testimony, establish probable cause to search or seize the person or property”.

The warrant appears to be signed by “M. Smith”, though the “Printed name and title” bears the name “G. R. Smith”, and provides no title for that person.

Now, just think about the very general nature of the warrant. What did he do that justifies the warrant? What, specifically, are the looking for? Who really signed the warrant, and what is his title?

So, let’s go to the remainder of Beecher’s written statement:

As we got into their truck to talk, the FBI agent told me that “Just so you know, I have been following you for the past year and a half.” He then went on to question me about my beliefs, my involvement with the militias, other websites, and what my role as Commander in the III%ers was. He was curious as to what Operation American Spring was, who was in charge of various details involved, and who I was attending with.

[T]he FBI Agent told me I wasn’t “being truthful and at that point I was only hurting myself”, that the “Government wasn’t concerned with the preppers or survivalist, but was concerned with those willing to hurt anyone connected to the government.” I agreed with that and told him that was why I opposed Jerry Bruckhart’s attempt to have patriots march on DC armed. They didn’t seem too happy about that comment.

I was then placed under arrest and taken to Tattnall County where I was questioned more about various people involved in different groups and organizations. I kept telling them I wasn’t familiar with the names, and that because I dealt with a lot of people in different parts of the country, some with the same first names, that I was unsure of who they were talking about. Again I was told that if I helped them that they would help me, that they could help me get released if I helped them cooperate. Around 4:30, they read me my Miranda rights, and had a deputy take me to Chatham County. I was placed in segregation around 7:00 pm Wednesday the 7^th of May, and kept isolated until Friday when they came to get me for court. Again they attempted to get me to agree to infiltrate W.R.A.M., Three Percenters, and Modern Militia Movement…

I was transferred to Bulloch County, the US Marshalls told me where I was going was a “hellhole” and wished me luck. I must say that these people, the US Marshalls and the GBI [Georgia Bureau of Investigation] have been the only professionals I have dealt with… I went to court, was declared a “menace to society”, and denied bond.

[Later] I told the agent I wasn’t sure about which group he was referring to, and that I needed to be out and access my computer before I could answer any questions. He then told me he would bring my computer to the jail, and the attorney chimed in that I could access the info that way. I responded in the negative and knew then there would be no bond – regardless…

The important thing for people to understand is that if they did this to me, how many others have been snatched and agreed to inform? Good people, but outside their limits dealing with lying ass federal agents?…

Beecher concludes the above statement with, “I have sworn my oath and I will uphold it to the end. No bended knee for me.”

The search warrant that was served, with only some of the paperwork being left at Beecher’s home, resulted in the confiscation of a .45 pistol and a 30-30 rifle.

Since we can’t find any elements of illegal activity on the part of either Bruckhart or Beecher, nor anything that suggests any recent communication, on a level that would be required for a conspiracy charge, we must look elsewhere for any justification, or should I say, rationalization, for the events that have unfolded. Darn, nothing wrong there. So, let’s bring in the other players.

We can start with the three that participated directly in the arrest. We have a local officer; we have a BATF agent; and, then we have FBI Special Agent Slater. Well, the officer was “just doing his job”, so we can discount him. Then, we have SA Slater, who brought up the suggestion of a conspiracy between Bruckhart and Beecher, which doesn’t hold water. Finally, we have the BATF agent who deals with firearms violations. But, why was he even brought in? Was the purpose simply a “fishing expedition”, to see if they could find something that would, eventually, lead to an actual criminal charge — if they found firearms? If so, what could be the source of such information? Well, it appears that there was a picture posted on Facebook showing Beecher holding what appeared to be a rifle (30-30?). Is that grounds for a warrant? Perhaps so, though the warrant doesn’t say it is so. Therefore, it must be far too insignificant, or in admissible, to bring any charges, or those charges would have been laid on the table from the beginning.

What other plausible explanation could be behind this whole episode, which has taken a man from his job and family, for nearly a month and a half, without even a presentation of any charge or evidence to justify these actions?

The only thing that comes to mind, and hasn’t already be addressed is, perhaps, the most terrifying of all. They used the power of the government, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment, ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Unfortunately, we have no
oath or affirmation” that supports any of the activities of the government for the search. This stinks of the concept of “Writs of Assistance” that were so appalling to the Founders, and lead to the specific inclusion of that Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Further, we must also question the arrest, itself. He was lied to when he was told he was not being arrested, and then was arrested. Beecher stated (above) that he was arrested on a Complaint. If they had a Complaint, then they knew that they were going to arrest him. To do otherwise would be to lie, to deceive, to use chicanery, to violate the “Miranda Decision“, and to violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which read, in part, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” Of course, the government has circumvented the Constitution by using “Complaints”, for decades. The Framers, however, sought to leave the denial of liberty (jailing) in the hands of the people, not of the government. Even if the government’s argument for “Complaints” is valid, the intent, for “a presentment or indictment” surely requires that the charges be a part of the circumventing “Complaint”, though at over 45 days in, we have no charges.

What can we conclude from this? Well, try as I might, I can only draw one conclusion — that the government will use the “color of law” to deny Liberty (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) that they are charged with protecting, and to intimidate a person who may have knowledge that they want, to entice him to turn against friends and neighbors, hoping to find some chargeable crime, and make a permanent “snitch” a member of their “team”. If Beecher were to sign a “plea agreement” to regain his Liberty, he will have made the first step into submission to the Big Brother that government has become. To understand this process, I would suggest that you read Informants Amongst Us?

Based upon my observation of the increase in activity of this nature, I think that I can safely predict that there is an escalation of this activity and it is likely to visit your neighborhood, in the very near future. This makes it imperative that we heed the proudly spoken words of Robert M. Beecher, when he said,

“I have sworn my oath and I will uphold it to the end. No bended knee for me.”

Additional article son Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2014

What? Three Constitutions? What must he be talking about?

What we will be looking at is that there are, in the minds of various people, especially those within certain vocations, who perceive the Constitution from a perspective differently than others might. It may appear that when we speak of the Constitution, we think that we are all speaking of the same document. However, we will explore whether there is a document attached, at all, to one of these perspectives; what minimal role the original Constitution plays in another perspective, and finally, the Constitution, as written and intended by the Framers.

Well, the conversation began when I was talking with an Oath Keeper. I had asked, regarding their stated of purpose of keeping their oaths by not obeying unconstitutional laws, just how they interpreted the Constitution. My query was whether that interpretation included the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution they had “sworn an oath to”. Well, how do those come into play?

It that phone conversation with an Oath Keeper, that I first asked the question, “Which of the three Constitutions do they affix their oath of allegiance and obedience to?” Of course, he was as perplexed as I had been until the reality formulated in my head. So, let’s venture into the realm of, “I knew that, I just didn’t realize it”.

The Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I have no trouble reading the words. Quite simply, they say that “Writs of Assistance” are no longer recognized in this country and that “unreasonable searches and seizures” cannot be conducted. That means, you can’t search to find something that might incriminate a person, you have to have a Warrant, which must be issued based upon “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” It is clearly the intent of the Framers that the Warrant must be based upon knowledge of a crime, identifying the person or object to be seized. A judge, not a cop, must sign the Warrant and it is supported by an oath, which must be based upon personal knowledge.

Now, this is a tough concept to those of us who have been raised in a world where that line, as defined by the Constitution, and that which we recognize to have moved by interpretation, has been so blurred that we accept the latter, without due consideration of the former. (To understand how this worked in the time of our Founders, see Are Cops Constitutional?)

However, before we get to how this applies, we must visit, also, the Fifth Amendment, or at least a part of it:

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

Let’s start by attempting to understand what the (perhaps intentionally archaic) phrase, “held to answer” means. Well, I answer when I go to court to “answer” to the charges. Simple enough. So, let’s go to the other, “held”. Well, if you are arrested, you are held or detained. Again, quite simple.

Now, let’s visit the next portion, “for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime”. We all know what capital is, and, with a little research we find the “infamous crime” transitioned into “felony”, though its original meaning did carry with it a crime that could result in imprisonment for a year and a day, or more. Those crimes had to be against person or property. They were never, at least back then, applied to a rule violation, as they are in many states, now.

So, putting these two elements together and coupling it with the final provision of this portion of the Amendment, we get paraphrasing, based upon interpretation of the wording and apply it to our language of today:

No person may be arrested and charged in a court of justice (yes, that is what they were called back then, not a court of law), for the serious crimes bearing either the death penalty or over one year in prison, that crime being against person or property, unless a Grand Jury, comprised of “good and honest men” determine that there is probably cause that the crime alleged did appear to have taken place.

To better understand what was intended, I might direct you to The Right to Self Defense , which discusses both arrest, under the Constitution, and killing a law enforcement office attempting to serve an unlawful warrant. Yes, he could kill that officer.

Have you every scratched your head when someone is “arrested for resisting arrest”? First, where is the warrant demonstrating that he was to be arrested for resisting arrest? Second, where is the warrant for the alleged crime that he is to have committed, warranting the arrest that he was arrested for resisting? Wait! Where is our Constitution? Has it, too, been arrested? The answer to that last is, unequivocally, yes. So, let’s venture into that First Constitution.

Superiors tell Law enforcement officers what they can, and what they cannot, do. They accept those instructions as if they were firmly grounded in the Constitution; whether by deception or assertion of their “them or us” authority. Regardless, both the Second and Third Constitutions will be violated by this activity.

Before we get to that, we have to think back to many situations, mostly in those two unconstitutionally undeclared wars, on drugs and terrorism. Well, that can’t be all bad, can it?

As we have seen in Interstate highway stops, resulting in unlawful searches, they have been challenged in the Supreme Court. So, the Court decided that “just searching because of suspicion” doesn’t pass muster (note that I didn’t say “constitutionality, which will be addressed, shortly). However, once the person is no longer detained as the result of the traffic stop, whether valid or not, the rules change. The officer can then, after he has said, “you are free to go”, ask for permission to search. If the answer is yes, he searches. If the answer is no, then he can justify “suspicion”, based upon the answer, even though he may have to call the drug or explosive smelling dogs, he has achieved the point of an unconstitutional search, the Constitution notwithstanding.

So, this began, and not just in the highway searches, as an act by the officer, firmly believing that he has constitutional authority, because his boss told him he could do it — just obeying orders, sir — an act has been committed outside of any reasonable constitutional authority.

Thus concludes the First Constitution.

Now, let us eaxamine the Second Constitution. When the Supreme Court ventures into a matter before it, when they rule, we assume that the ruling is based upon the “constitutionality”. Silly us, we are so deceived. Let’s take a decision made just a few days ago, Hedges v. Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-758, wherein the Court said that Hedges had no standing to challenge the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as unconstitutional. Why can’t we challenge a law, made by the legislature, or even an administrative agency, to see if we are bound by that which the law applies?

Here is what James Madison said about laws in Federalist Paper #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, did they rule on the Constitutionality, as we would expect? No, they did not; they only said that they won’t hear the matter, since Hedges had no standing. But, more about standing, shortly. Just remember this, “Rule #5”, as we continue.

Now, let’s look at another decision from 2012, dealing with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, Supreme Court, No. 11-393. This is the case that many of us are familiar with because of Chief Justice Robert’s opinion, wherein he held that the “penalty” described in the Statute was not, in fact, a penalty, rather that it was a “tax”. Well, was he addressing constitutionality? Now, just remember “Rule #7”.

Finally, at least in subject matter for consideration of the Second Constitution, let’s look at our belief that the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of most, if not all, of the matters before it. I will refer to Rules #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6. Well, that’s all of the Rules, and you can find out what that means, in the words of Justice Brandeis, by going to About Ashwander v. TVA.

So, the Second Constitution is the one that most believe to be the “real” Constitution, as set forth by the Framers. Instead, we find that it is the “Constitution” promulgated (or, should I say foisted upon us?) by a Supreme Court that is unclear or ambiguous in their decisions, or is simply codifying the incremental expansion of police powers by slowly decimating our rights, from case to case, extending those powers to law enforcement and other agencies of government. Most attorneys (if not all) are taught this as Constitutional Law, most often dealing with cases decided after the early 1900s. After all, many of them are in direct conflict with the John Bad Elk decision from the Self Defense article (linked above). It was in the late 1800s that Yale began teaching case law instead of substantive law. That change allowed the Court to avoid consideration of constitutionality, in favor of what has resulted in incrementally undermining the written word and the intent of the Framers, along with our Rights, in favor of what can best be described as a Despotic government — death of the Constitution — by judicial activism.

So, on to the Third Constitution. This does not require any special skills, it only requires that you get a copy of the Constitution, remove those preconceived notions (based upon the above) of what you have been lead to believe it says, and digest each and every word of it.

So, what we have seen is that the First Constitution is an interpretation by a chief law enforcement officer who believes that he has to give his “troops” a greater discretion in fighting the evils of “them”, whether under the guise of the War on Drugs, terrorism, Officer Safety, or any other rationalization. This, then, becomes a practice that, when it appears to violate the Constitution, will be challenged by an individual, an organization, ACLU, SPLC, or even the Justice Department, for the purpose of getting a ruling from the Supreme Court, hopefully to obtain an extension of police powers or a further encroachment on our Rights. But, have no fear. They will run this same gauntlet, yet again, to revise the Second Constitution, each time, granting more powers and obscuring more rights. Each of these is a subversion of the Constitution that created the very government that is intent upon destroying the limitations within the Document, and expanding those powers that were intended to be limited.

So, the final question for you to answer is, which Constitution have you taken your Oath to?

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014

In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.

From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.

Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.

At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.

I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?

The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.

Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.

Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.

Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18”) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.

Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?

The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?

Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.

Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.

So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.

First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.

The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.

Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.

Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.

Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.

Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 24, 2014

Oathkeepers is a national organization founded by Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009. By 2011, they had a reported membership of 12,000, though no current membership figures are readily available. Their stated Purpose:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.

Interestingly, they say that they will not “conduct warrantless searches”, though those in law enforcement do so every day. But, then, that is not the point of discussing Oathkeepers, so, on with the story.

They declare that “THEY will not obey unconstitutional orders”. Otherwise, they did not explicitly state, since they refer to their “oaths”, that they will “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, though that is not their primary purpose, only incidental. Nowhere do they make that their purpose. Only not to obey unconstitutional orders. This needs to be emphasized as this is where the rubber meets the road.

Though we have no current numbers, the membership structure consists of both Full and Associate memberships, with Full being $40 per year and Associate being $7.00. Associates are supporters that don’t meet the criteria defined in the “Purpose”.

We must ask ourselves why Oathkeepers are even on the scene. They have taken an oath not to violate their oath. That is well and good, but let’s look at how that fits into the current situation. Oathkeepers (not associate Oathkeepers) are current, ex, or retired law enforcement, etc., and military. So, we’ll look, first, at Law Enforcement.

Active Law Enforcement are currently paid by the enemy (government), just as the Redcoats were 230 years ago. If they were on our side and acted in conjunction with Constitutional Militia, they would, in essence, be fighting themselves or their brother LEOs). They may still be on the side of their brothers. However, if you look at almost any state, Law Enforcement Officers are specifically excluded from the militia — check your own state statute under the militia section. So, on to ex-LEOs. This would presume that they did not get the time in for retirement, leaving the question as to, “Why?” Sort of reminds us of the guy charged with a crime and then the charges are, mysteriously, dropped; or, the guy that has an assignment that requires that he shed his Law Enforcement identity. Finally, we come to the Retired LEO. He is receiving a very substantial paycheck. Many larger cities have salaries for these full-term officers in excess of 100 thousand dollars per year. That would prove to be a tidy sum, which, surely, the retiree would not be willing to relinquish because he participated in an event that was an action against his brothers in Law Enforcement. We must judge based upon what we can use as a benchmark to measure the probability of actual concurrence with the efforts of the militia.

With regard to LEOs, since 1967, law enforcement training has focused on a “them or us” mentality. That means that though they are sworn to enforce the law, that policy is inapplicable if the offender is a brother law enforcer, except, perhaps, in extremely egregious circumstances, likely comprising a very small fraction of a percent of all LEO offenses. Will he ever be willing to disassociate himself from an aura of superiority that had become a mainstay of his life?

On the other hand, their disdain for the public safety, as demonstrated so often by “policy” of “Officer Safety” resulting in hundreds of killings per year of innocent, unarmed citizens. If an officer is involved in such incident, he gets administrative leave, with pay, pending investigation — yes, paid vacation, not taken from his contractual vacation time — for killing someone. If by some chance the victim’s family prevails in a lawsuit, then the taxpayers pay the damages and costs. What a deal! But, I digress, though that digression is also important to the story.

In addition, perhaps we should consider the proliferation of Fusion Centers, where various federal agencies interface with local law enforcement officers. Can we reasonably expect that there is not a degree of encouragement for the locals to infiltrate, or at least, ingratiate, the various patriot groups to obtain intelligence on their operations? If so, the simple next step is to attempt to gain influence to be able to direct, or at least influence, those groups’ activities, in support of their federal comrades.

Now, let’s look at the Military side of Oathkeepers. Active military can be of no assistance, as he would not go AWOL, or risk his leave, to do something that might get him an early discharge, at less than honorable. We’ll jump to Retired, and we will recognize the same problematic relationship with the pension of one who takes on the federal government. As well as his obedience to the government controlled environment for at least twenty years of his life. Though perhaps extreme, remember, Timothy McVeigh, recipient of a number of medals and an honorable discharge, was denied the burial rights that were guaranteed as a condition of enlistment. Surely, they can yank pensions on almost any grounds that they reasonably justify.

This leaves us with those who chose not to career, and since 1973 there has been no conscription (draft), so we needn’t address those who didn’t volunteer and deal only with those who volunteered to serve their country, did their duty, served their time, and got out to reenter civilian life. They have nothing to lose by participation with the militia, and they are not excluded by statute. Therefore, they are the only possible contingent of the Oathkeeper element that can relatively safely be assumed pure in their motivation.

With that one exception, they all have a conditioning in their lives that would suggest that they would tend to be inclined to a sort of special duty — infiltration of the militia — than they would to have of the pure motives of participation in the militia.

The Oathkeepers, by their oaths, only intend to “not violate their oath”. There is not provision in their corporate bylaws that provides for them stopping another person from violating his oath. The militia, on the other hand, having both helped in wresting control from England, and current situations, have been a mainstay, and by tradition as well as intent, are bound to support and defend the Constitution and their State’s constitution.

That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers, but only as a member of a militia, which the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of each and every state, recognizes as a lawful and protected right — a right of united self-defense. They should be relegated to duties without access to privileged information or command. And, as such, are subordinate to the command within the militia structure, not to the patriarch of the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers may, by choice, be militia. However, militia members, who have taken the same oath, absent the requisite requirement to join and pay the dues, may not be Oathkeepers. So, which of the two MUST be the subordinate?

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair

The Battle Continues

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 16, 2014

Late yesterday early evening, I received a message and link to on on-line article about the events at the Bundy’s Ranch.  I was asked if the article was accurate.  The article is at National Report and is titled “Multiple Militia Members Arrested at Bundy Ranch, Charged with Domestic Terrorism.”  The article, though no time stamp, appears to have been posted yesterday (April 15) at about 3:00 PM PDT.  It has no byline.

I have been in contact with people who had been at the ranch, and I have spoken with Ryan Bundy, as my point of contact at the ranch.  Realizing that they have had their hands full, dealing with the events and after the events, I had minimized my contact with Ryan (a 45 minute interview on April 8, and a 5 minute conversation a few days ago), but this article warranted attention.

I called Ryan, yesterday evening, and asked if they were aware of any arrests.  He affirmed that there had been no arrests.  There is little doubt that had such arrests occurred, the Bundys surely would have received information to that effect.

So, why would someone want to publish an article that was such a blatant lie, and easily refutable?  Well, let’s look at some aspects of the article, and then I will conclude with what appears to be the reason behind this article, and perhaps many more that are circulating on the Internet.

The article begins with this assertion, “The standoff in Nevada reached new heights this afternoon as armed federal agents began arresting militia members gathered to protest in support of Cliven Bundy.”  Considering the time that it was published, early in the afternoon, it does raise suspicion.

Next, it claims:

In total, 16 protesters taking part in the rally are reportedly in custody and being held without bail on domestic terrorism charges, resisting arrest, creating a public nuisance, and trespassing.

Interestingly, they were charged with “domestic terrorism” and “creating a public nuisance”.  The former, probably quite severe; the latter, usually treated with arrest and then release; a rather strange assortment of charges.

Then, for whatever reason, the following conclude that paragraph:

Early reports indicate that protesters were verbally and physically abused prior to being arrested.

I would suggest that this sentence is intended to garner sympathy from, and credibility to, the patriots, for reasons that will be addressed, later.

Now, the next paragraph gets even more interesting.  In a single sentence, a warning is put out to instill fear in any who attend the protests going on outside of the Bundy Ranch:

Federal agent Paul Horner, a 14-year veteran of the force, spoke with National Report by phone and had this to say: “Under direct orders from the FBI and the DOJ, on behalf of the BLM, we have infiltrated the crowd with armed undercover agents.  The agents are collecting intel and coordinating that information with drones that are also overseeing the disturbance.  In addition, we have positively identified approximately 85% of the crowd and are running background checks for previous violations, warrants, etc.  License plate numbers of protesters are being collected and entered into the national database as well.  These right-wing extremists pose a serious threat to the safety of the operation and we have orders to make arrests and confiscate firearms.”

Now, I don’t like windmills, so I will not joust with one to see if Horner is real, though I doubt that he is.  However, within his statement, he “admits” infiltration by armed undercover agents, who we must suppose came out from their cover when they made the arrests.  Then, the subsequent threat of identification and inclusion in a “national database” sort of completes the effort of intimidation.

There is more to the article, however, what is above presented is sufficient for us to begin to look at, perhaps, is the purpose of this blatantly false article.

After the events of Sunday, where the BLM stood, stoically, for a few minutes, and then cowered away, in what appeared to be mortal fear, the government had lost the upper hand.  This was, without a doubt, a defeat of the worst kind for the government.  They had been publically humiliated, even in Mainstream Media, in having the will of the people asserted over their presumed authority.

If we look back at both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, we know that when there is victory, enlistments increase and public support excels.  However, with defeat comes the opposite — not to mention the psychological effect on the participants.

Embarrassment in conflict often has rather bizarre consequences.  For example, in Waco, on the first day, the BATF suffered defeat.  They were shown  with their tails between their leg, dragging wounded comrades away from the battlefield for medical treatment, with the grace of the Davidians, who were not afford such medical luxury.  Their humiliation resulted, eventually, in the childish destruction of the property of the Davidians, after the fateful fire of April 19.  This was the result of an arrogant attempt to restore the superiority of the government forces over an enemy, the Davidians.

It is the psychology of defeat, and the psychology of victory, that instills, in each side, a mental framework that is either destructive, or brings enthusiasm.

This National Report article, and many other articles that detract from the truth of the events of the past week in Bunkerville, Nevada, appear to be an intentional Psychological Warfare (Psyop) operation by the government, their shills and supporters, to endeavor to reduce the moral effect of our victory, and enhance the believe of superiority in theirs.

Before I conclude this article, I want to bring to your attention a rather divisive tool implemented in the distraction of the article.  Many know that I have been in contact with the Bundys.  As I pointed out, above, I wanted to ascertain the veracity of the article.  Once the truth was known, I posted in the comments section.  There is no logging in required (strange) and I did check the box to receive notice of follow up comments, giving my email address, though I have, since, received none.

This morning, I received a message form a friend who had run across the article, and seeing the following comments, contacted me, saying that he believed it to be true, since the comment appeared to have been made by me:

Well, that would be about the time that I posted, though my last name, which I always use, was omitted.  So, what about the wording?  Well, what I wrote was, “This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.”  (This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.)  Rather interesting, and extremely deceitful.

This is to deceive, intimidate, discredit, or otherwise attempt to use Psyop to change the nature of the game, and it is in full force.  For those interested in the mechanics of such subversive tactics, they are explained in Vortex.  Understand, however, that though the first battle has been won by the People, it is not over, and the nature of the game can be expected to change.

We must remain vigilant, and retain momentum, and not allow a denigration as a result of their tactics.  We have prevailed, and we will continue to prevail — until Constitutional government is restored to our land.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 12, 2014

Though I have been in touch with one of the Bundys, I haven’t been reporting on it.  Surely, there is more coverage of this event and activity than any in recent memory.

That, however, brings up something noteworthy.  At Waco, a call went out, early in the siege.  Less than a hundred people showed up.  Later, in April, another event was called by local Texans.  That had a bit better showing of perhaps 200-300 people.  That, however, was the extent.

Since that time, a number of organizations came into being, though many fled after the Murrah Building Bombing.  Some, however, stayed, quietly prepared for such an event as has just occurred.  It is that preparation , and subsequent new entries into the patriot community that were far more prepared to deal with, by whatever means necessary, the Bundy affair.

So, what is the outcome?  Well, BLM says that they are backing down out of concern for the safety of government employees, government contractors, and the public.  However, they failed to mention that they had bribe inspectors and an auction house in Utah to ignore laws requiring cattle health certification and branding laws — to avoid rustling of cattle, which is exactly what they were doing — as each of these (safety and branding) would have required Cliven Bundy to sign the certifications, as the owner of the livestock.

They also ignore the fact that the patriot community has, for the first time, responded, in large and growing numbers, to the VR Ranch, in opposition to the government’s activities.

The foundation for the government’s claims rests with the desert tortoise.  They wanted to designate this as a preserve that would protect them and allow them to safely prosper.  However, that is a load of, well, cattle poop, as cattle poop, in itself, is one of the best things that can happen to such critters.

In the past, nature had wildlife that roamed, and pooped, in this area.  Man has moved most of them out into other realms, leaving little to supply the wants of the tortoise.  However, in a recent article on Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62380) that argument is made for what it is — cow poop.  A study demonstrated that cattle poop is salvation for the tortoise, and that it can prosper because of it, and will struggle to survive without it.

Probably most important, however, is the fact that patriots responded.  Cliven Bundy put out a call.  Unfortunately, the patriot community, in many instances, chose to implant their conspiracy theories into the story, explaining that the reason behind the government actions had to do with _____ (fill in the blank).  Simply put, it had to do with the government taking control over as much of the public lands as possible, thinking that the public is the government, not the people, themselves.

The efforts of the government to misrepresent, and to utilize means described in “Vortex” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=642), they could not sway the distaste of government intrusion in our lives from the concern of so many who answered the call.

Most important of all, however, is the fortitude of Cliven Bundy and his family, who really were willing to put their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” on the line for a cause they believed in.

Second, those who did answer the call deserve our profound respect, as they took from their time and resources, and responded when the call was given.

And, finally, to those who supported the Bundys, by others means, believing that the government was wrong and devoted their time and energy to support, as best they could, those who were in need.

Related articles:

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM