Outpost of Freedom blog

Taxation without Representation

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2002

Early this past year, we were still being told how gracious President George W. Bush (George III) was in allowing the taxpayers (American citizens) to keep the surpluses created by a healthy economy. After all, it was their money, wasn’t it?

The current estimate for the cost of a war (police action) in Iraq is set at $200,000,000,000.00 (two hundred billion dollars), and that is assuming that a government project falls within its original budget.

So far, defense spending, in normal budgetary terms, is at its highest in many years. Though it doesn’t appear that this extremely high budget is any part of the estimated 200 billion.

Two-hundred billion dollars! Just how much money is that? Well, it is over $765.00 for every man, woman and child in this country. A family of four will be contributing over #3,060.00 dollars to a ‘war’ that, we are told, is to protect us.

Early in this century, the mobs ran protection rackets in major cities. For a few dollars here and there, the mob would assure you that you would be protected from the violence that occurred, from time to time, to those who had not chosen to participate in the protection ‘racket’.

Has the government learned from the mob? If so, they are doing far better at it than the mob had ever anticipated. First, the mob numbers, even accounting for inflation, would never amount to over three thousand dollars per household.

Secondly, the mob only sought protection from people who were involved in a business. In the current situation, every taxpayer is going to have to participate, whether an employer or employee, and his participation will have to be increased proportionate to the ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Loosely, he will have to pay about four times what his “fair share” really is. Yes, that’s a whopping $12,000.00 for each and every taxpayer.

But, don’t be discouraged. The government, you see, is much easier to work with than the mob. First, you needn’t anticipate immediate harm, if you fail to pay. In fact, the threat that is the cause for the “protection racket” is rather speculative, to say the least. It is best upon conjecture that Saddam Hussein: has weapons that can cause great harm in this country; has the means of delivering those weapons; has the motivation to deliver them (which, we are trying desperately to provide); and, finally, that he would be willing to deliver them.

Secondly, the government, has much better credit than the mob, is willing to allow your obligation to be carried, from year to year, until satisfied. Realizing that there is no way for each taxpayer to come up with his “fair share”, in addition to the regular protection money that he has been paying, regularly, the government will just “mark up” the debt, and chisel away at it, in years to come (perhaps, many, many years – hopefully, slightly faster than interest will increase the burden).

I’ll bet that you are wondering what this has to do with taxation. Well, let’s see if we can pull the pieces together. First, we must have an understanding of “representation”. I know that we all know that we think that we know what it means. After all, we all know who our “representatives” are, both in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C. They are there to “represent” us.

Let’s begin with a few definitions. First, from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (considered the language of the Founders):
” Representative… 2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. An attorney is the representative of his client or employer. A member of the house of commons is the representative of his constituents and of the nation. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation. ”

From Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth Edition): “Representative. A person chosen by the people to represent their several interests in a legislative body.”

So, it appears by Webster’s (as the Founders would have understood it) that a representative, with the exception of passing “laws” in the interest of the nation, is bound by the instruction of his constituents. The time has passed whence instructions were given, specifically, to the representatives. This process has been replaced in what has become known as “campaign promises”.

In campaign promises, a candidate tell the constituents what he will do when he is elected. The candidate that seems to best represent, ideologically and specifically, the interest of the greater number of voters is elected – and, sent to represent the “several interests” (Black’s) of the people.

I

Now, if your candidate had campaigned under “no new taxes”, he would have to carry that “campaign promise” as an indication of the “several interests” of the people.

So, the question arises, “Does an elected representative, once he violates his campaign promise, cease to represent his constituents?”

II

Congress has specific responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution. One of those, and one which is very significant in the limitations of power which were desired and inherent, when the Constitution was written and ratified, is the “Power … To declare War”.

So, the question arises, “Should an elected representative shirk his Constitutional responsibility, does he cease to represent his constituents?”

III

There is little doubt that real war (declared in accordance with the Constitution), which without might cause a failure in the governmental obligation for “common defense”, is a situation which warrants incurring debt. Like any family, it is the duty of the head of that family NOT to incur such debt as to force his children, and their children into debt before their lifetime begins. The Constitution even assured that a means of bankruptcy would preclude the necessity of burdening posterity with debt of which they had no part.

It should be evident that our representatives in Congress, likewise, except in cases of necessity, cannot burden those yet unborn with obligations to repay debt of which they had no part. To do so, without extraordinary cause, would be to tax those who one could not possibly represent.

So, the question arises: “Should an elected representative impose a tax on someone yet unborn, except under extraordinary circumstances, is he taxing without representation?”

IV

The government of the United States of America exists ONLY because the people caused it to exist. Unlike any government that preceded it, its source is the people, and the people, only.

All other governments, prior to the founding of the United States, were lead by people who had acquired leadership (ownership) of the country by either force; or, divine right (from God).

The creation of that government was under certain conditions. The authority of the government to govern was first granted by the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient authority for the federal government to be able to maintain itself sufficiently to conduct its business.

The Constitution, in order to provide a “more perfect Union” of independent and sovereign states, was created with very specific powers, authorities, and limitations. It was endowed, by the people, with authority and RESPONSIBILITY. As such, it exists ONLY at the will of the people. It represents (stands in the place of) only those to whom it has kept its promise.

To think that we could walk away from government; abolish it by our consent, especially in a representative form of government, is, without question, impossible.

On the other hand, if that contract is breached by the government, they, by their very act of violation, have removed themselves from the contract. The have divested us from that government.

If any of the questions above are answered in the affirmative, the government has violated your consent to be governed by them. They have ceased to have any authority over your life, except that which they can impose by force. Similarly, the only effect you can have on them is by force. You are without (proper or lawful) government, and they are without authority to govern. They could only do so if you were to, again, give your consent to be government under a new contract (whether written, or not).

Have you given your consent?

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

What is Habeas Corpus?

There is only one Right embodied in the Constitution; the remainder are found in the Bill of Rights.  For the most part, the Constitution created a government and granted it only certain powers and authorities.  So, what right is so significant as to be included within the Constitution, while the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 2 years later?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.  [Article I, §9, cl. 2]

What?  That says “Privilege”.  Well, a “Privilege” is a right that can be suspended, under certain circumstances.  Those circumstances are only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”, and, being in Article I, of the Constitution, the authority to suspend that right lies only with the Congress.

If you were old enough, or fortunate enough, to have been taught about Habeas Corpus in your early schooling, you would know that it is the “sacred writ” and that it means, “produce the body”.  Well, that doesn’t tell you a lot, though it does demonstrate that even in school, the assurance that you had a rudimentary understanding of what Habeas Corpus was a part of the educational process.

So, what is Habeas Corpus?  We can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, to find what a modern definition is:

habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent. 

This is the well-known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ in the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the Courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Perhaps we can look for a more specific explanation of just what it means by “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment.”  Detention, of course, would be simply “arrest”, while imprisonment is a consequence of conviction.  This is important to understand, as we proceed.  Now, we can see what some legal scholars, in the era of the framing of the Constitution, have to say.

First, we will look at the very foundation of Habeas Corpus in the Magna Carta, from 1215 A.D., which states, in Article 39, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Now, as you continue to read, you will see reference to “ill nature [or] mere inattention of government“; “repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors”; and, that it is “the great bulwark of personal liberty.”  Understand, regardless of what you have believed, that the Framers were concerned, as they understood human nature, and provided for, not in the Bill of Rights, but, in the body of the Constitution, this single means, this right, to challenge unconstitutional laws, giving the people, themselves, the means to nullify such enactments that were contrary to the powers and authorities granted by the Constitution.

In 1768, William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, says of the writ, “A remedy the more necessary, because the oppression does not always arise from the ill-nature, but sometimes from the mere inattention of government.”

In 1829, William Rawle, in his “A View of the Constitution of the United States”, tells us that it “is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors.”

Finally, in 1833, Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, provides that, “At the common law there are various writs, called writs of habeas corpus.  But the particular one here spoken of is that great and celebrated writ, used in all cases of illegal confinement, known by the name of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum...  It is, therefore, justly esteemed the great bulwark of personal liberty.”

There is another aspect of Habeas Corpus that is not addressed in any of the above descriptions, though, as we will learn as we continue down this road, the Supreme Court of the United States has also ruled that since there is both a federal constitution and a constitution within each state, jurisdiction is a consideration of Habeas Corpus, as well.

Demand for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is two things; first, it is the demand for a writ of habeas corpus.  It is not automatic, and absent such request, there is no reason for the courts to even consider it.  Second is the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which, in past practice, required that the party incarcerated be brought before the court to determine if his imprisonment is legal.

So, we can look, once again, to the legal scholars, to see what they say about the demand.  However, before we do this, there is another source from which modern Habeas Corpus emanates, and we shall consider it.

In 1679, the first Habeas Corpus Act was enacted in England.  From that Act, we find:

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the returns aforesaid… shall for the first offence forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of one hundred pounds; (2) and for the second offence the sum of two hundred pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said office…

So, we see that punishment for failure to respond to a writ of habeas corpus has penalties.

And, from Blackstone, we find, “it was, and is still, necessary to apply for it by motion to the court,… [that] if a probable ground be shewn, that the party is imprisoned without just cause, and therefore hath a right to be delivered, the writ of habeas corpus is then a writ of right, which may not be denied, but ought to be granted to every man that is committed, or detained in prison, or otherwise restrained, though it be by the command of the king, the privy council, or any other.”

So, the question arises, can the court not issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus, without showing cause why it should not be issued?  To answer this, we must first understand just what “suspend” means.  From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Suspend – To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

Is Habeas Corpus Suspended?

Habeas Corpus, being a “writ of right”, as explained above, has a status similar to an “objection” during a trial.  Once demanded, it must be answered, prior to proceeding, as the objection will be “sustained” or “overruled” before proceeding.  Habeas Corpus, once demanded, is treated equally, in that it must be answered, prior to proceeding.  That answer can be either a refusal to grant the writ, based upon grounds expressed by the opposing party, or it must be granted and the writ issued.

It is significant, in terms of timeliness, to understand that when the writ is demanded, from 28 U.S.C. § 2243:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith [immediately] award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.  It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The judge or justice must respond to the demand immediately, and then the person having custody has three days, except for cause, which extends those three days up to twenty.  That is a requirement for a timely response, by the judicial branch, to a demand for habeas corpus.

So, we must begin at the beginning to understand that Habeas Corpus has been not only suspended, but has been blatantly ignored by the Judicial Branch of government, at every level; absent any lawful suspension by the Congress.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was served on the jailers of Larry Mikiel Myers on January 27, 2012, direct to the Court.  This Demand was also mailed directly to the Sheriff, who should have forwarded it to the District Court Judge.  Mr. Myers received no response and was tried in the District Court beginning February 9, 2012.  The trial should not have commenced until the Habeas Corpus was answered.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was prepared and sent, Certified Return Receipt, on February 10, 2012, to the District Court, the Sheriff, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, the Florida Supreme Court.  It was received by all parties on February 12, 2012.  The Sheriff and the District Court never acknowledged the service.

The 11th Circuit replied by returning the Demand for Habeas Corpus and saying that it must be filed with the District Court, and referenced FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) 22, which states, “Application for the Original Writ.  An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the appropriate district court.  If made to a circuit judge, the application must be transferred to the appropriate district court.”  So, even though their rules state that THEY must transfer it to the District Court, They chose to pass it back to the Petitioner, avoiding dealing with their obligation to justice.

The Florida Supreme Court returned the Demand claiming that they had no jurisdiction — contrary to the record in which Wisconsin, in fulfilling its obligation to its citizens, twice, granted habeas corpus so that it could be taken to the United States Supreme Court.

So, the lower courts have failed to answer and return habeas corpus, effectively denying it, or, perhaps, since their own rules establish procedures, they “suspended” habeas corpus, arbitrarily and capriciously; and permanently.

This left only one recourse to assure that Mr. Myer could get a fair ruling on the constitutionality of the laws he was charged under.  If the Constitution still had standing in the government of the United States, original jurisdiction was forced, by inaction of the lower courts, to the United States Supreme Court — which is obligated to assure that the people of the United States have justice.

On November 26, 2012, the Petition for Habeas Corpus was submitted to the United States Supreme Court.  It was directed to Justice Antonin Scalia as the designated Justice for the Fifth Circuit, where Mr. Myers is currently incarcerated.  The Rules provide that the appropriate Justice may hear a habeas corpus, and in a review of Supreme Court decisions where the original jurisdiction (first hearing) of a habeas corpus was before that Court, it was always heard and decided by a single Justice.  However, the Clerk’s office, through seven rounds of correspondence, refused to direct it to Scalia, changed the caption from “In Re Larry Mikiel Myers” to “In Re Gary Hunt”, where the record shows that the incarcerated person is the proper name for the caption, not the “attorney of record.”

In an effort to correct these errors, on September 22, 2013, an “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus” (a Mandamus is an order for an official to perform his duty)  (Exhibits to Mandamus) was served on the Court.  Receiving NO response, whatever, to that Petition, a follow up letter was sent on October 12, and no response has been forthcoming regarding the Mandamus.  It would appear as if they can’t respond to something with legal authorities, they just don’t respond.

The final effort at disposing of the original Petition by the Clerk’s office was a claim that I had no right, as a non-attorney, to file a Petition of Habeas Corpus on behalf of another party, Mr. Myers (See Mandamus and Exhibit 9 to Mandamus, linked above).  A 1990 Supreme Court decision dispelled that claim (you would think that the Clerk’s office should know what decision the Court had made in that matter), wherein the decision did allow one in my position to file on behalf of Mr. Myers.  The Petition was finally put on the Docket on June 29, 2013, to be discussed in Conference on September 3, 2013.  That Conference then DENIED the Petition.  Subsequently, a Petition for Rehearing was filed, within the requisite time frame, for a November 26, 2013 (exactly one year after the first service to that Court — so much for being timely) Conference, and this, too, was subsequently DENIED on December 2, 2013.

Who can Suspend Habeas Corpus?

“Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ.”

“The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article.  This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.  It begins by providing “that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.”  And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress “the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The above from Ex Parte Merryman, Circuit Court D, Maryland, April Term 1861, Decision by Supreme Court Justice Robert B. Taney.

Now, there may be some ambiguity in just what is meant by “suspend”, so we will refer to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

However, if Congress were to suspend Habeas Corpus, it would have to be an enactment, by them, stating what the cause was, rebellion or invasion, and other matters that would advise us that they had temporarily, suspended habeas corpus, and when the “suspension’ would be concluded.  Any other denial of that right would be a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.  On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has simply done away with Article I, Section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution — they have simply removed it from the Constitution — a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.

The Petition for Rehearing

Some of the arguments presented in the Petition for Rehearing include:

A court has a legal and constitutional obligation to answer and return a Writ of Habeas Corpus, when demanded.  When the District Court refuses to answer and return, the next step is the Circuit Court.  When the Circuit Court refuses, in violation of their own Rules, to send the Demand for Habeas Corpus to the District Court, and refuses to answer and return, that leaves only this Supreme Court in which a citizen may find remedy, by answer and return.

To Deny this Petition [for Rehearing] is to Deny the obligation on government created by Article I, § 9, clause 2.

To Deny to answer and return the Demand for Habeas Corpus is to Deny the Constitution, itself — and the government created thereby.

This last argument is based upon a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1787, they being cognizant of the relationship and responsibility of the government to its constitution.  The case is Bayard v. Singleton (1 N.C. 42):

But that it was clear that no act they [the legislature] could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established. 

That is the consequence of a government failing to abide by its responsibility under a constitution.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

From: Supreme Court Docket 13-5008

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty”, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

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

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

 A PDF of this article, suitable for forwarding to contacts or representatives:

Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution

There is more to this story at Another Story Behind the Story

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
Another Story Behind the Story

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

[Note: This is the second part of the article, “Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court – The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution” and deals with the impact on the Petitioner/author, as a consequence of filing the Habeas Corpus.]

I had often wondered if the Habeas Corpus would pose a serious problem within the government if what appears, by my research, to be a means of nullifying “unconstitutional laws”.  I had been doing some research on the subject of the “sacred writ” prior to the current case.  However, it was in December of 2011 that I received a phone call from the sister of the last member of those indicted as the “Florida Common Law Court“, who was going to stand trial after over 15 years from the first trial.

At that point, my serious research on the subject of Habeas Corpus began.  The first three-page Demand (Habeas Corpus, February 2012) was rather meager, however, anticipating our “day in court”, the hearing on Habeas Corpus would allow light to be shed on what I had, at that time, discovered.

When that first Habeas Corpus was ignored by the Sheriff and District Court (assuming that the Sheriff had send it to Judge Merryday), it became apparent that the Petition, itself, would have to contain the argument that the laws that Mr. Myers was being prosecuted under did not apply to him, as all of the actions alleged were already covered by state law.

My receipts show that the Sheriff, the District Court, the Appellate Court, and the Florida Supreme Court all received their “service” on February 12, 2012.

Just a few days before, I had set up a webpage — the first time that Larry Myers’ name and mine were ever associated together on the Internet — to post the progression of the pursuit of justice under the “sacred writ”.

The next day, February 13, 2012, I found that there were at least forty hits to that webpage using the search term “Gary Hunt Larry Myers”.  I only briefly looked, as it didn’t strike me so much, at the time, what was happening, though I do recall that four of those addresses that did the search and went to that page were domain “uscourts.gov” and were from Rochester, Seattle, and San Diego (2).  The remainder of them, in that short period that I checked, were from phones and personal computers from various locations around the country.  In hindsight, I should have followed those visits through the remainder of the day, and, captured images of the “hits” on my statistics page.

At that time, I had no idea of just what this might be the beginning of, though the surprise would be forthcoming.

In November 2008, I retired, applied for, and began receiving Social Security benefits.  I had not paid income tax since 1984, so within a month of receiving my first Social Security check, I was notified that the Internal Revenue Service has taken a portion of my benefit — that should I have any questions, to contact the IRS, not the Social Security Administration.  I discussed this with my wife and she asked me not to challenge the IRS (the most feared government agency in the United States); that we could do well enough with the amount that remained.  So, I relented, and, for the next three years received the reduced “benefit”.

In Mid February 2012, an IRS agent visited me for the first time in well over a decade.  We had a conversation over the fence, with my dog looking on, and I refused a service from him.  In a letter from that agent, dated February 24, 2012, after nearly four years of not working and having no taxable income, I find that they have found that I owe them $188,489.41.  Not to be bogged down in the details, since 1985, I have dealt with various agents.  They always relented, and nothing came of any effort to collect what they might think I owed them, nor did they even attempt to garnishee my wages.  However, this attack, so timely made, was unrelenting.

I had begun checking my site visit stats a bit more regularly and I ran across this one from February 24, 2012 – a visit from the Treasury Department.

In a letter from the Social Security Administration, dated March 1, 2012, I was informed that they were increasing the benefit reduction, though they assured me that I would continue to receive the residue.  The amount was that I received was reduce to $812, but they assured me that I would continue receiving payments on the third of each month, thereafter.

In April 2012, I was again notified by the Social Security Administration that the IRS was to receive all of my Social Security Benefit, and I was to get none — after contributing to that system for 45 years.  This is also contrary to the IRS’ own rules that require that they exempt me from levy for a portion of my benefit (IRS form 1494).  Well, there goes forty-five years of contribution (full faith and credit in the government), down the tubes.

I had been involved in a few other patriot activities, during this time.  Two of them had rather interesting potential.  One was the Arizona Committee of Safety (ACOS), which was modeled on the historical example of the Revolutionary War era.  Though it was unnoticed, at first, by March 10, 2012, elements within the groups had created disturbances that became downright disruptive, eventually leading to the resignation of the Chairman.  Increasing turmoil resulted in the organization being taken over by parties who had completely lost sight of its purpose (as per the by-laws) and making it impossible for the group to remain viable.  By May, the Arizona Committee of Safety had fallen into ruin.

Another organization, the Patriot Unity Coalition (PUC), which came into existence in December 2011, was formed to discourage its members from participating in activities that disparaged other patriots or organizations, unless through a proper forum, such as the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court.  Internal turmoil, violation of the by-laws by some members, and total disruption of the PUC, resulted in its demise by April 8, 2012.  This resulted in starting over, again, with the Coalition of American Patriots (CAP).

Both of these organizations had been proceeding along constructive courses until all of a sudden, out of nowhere, disruption came on with such force that it could not be countered, resulting in both efforts being totally destroyed.

Now, it is possible that they would have followed the same course, absent any outside influence, however, if we look at the timing, and the fact that I was a principal player in each, perhaps there is more to their demise than meets the eye.

We can go one step further.  Back in 1995, Bill Cooper, a well-respected patriot, claimed that I was John Doe #4, and in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.  That allegation, which first found its way in fax networking, began floating around the Internet, though never to any significant degree.  From time to time, a discussion would be brought to my attention where the allegations of John Doe #4 arose.  I would join the discussion and ask the group to pick one of their members, who I would direct to a well-known patriot who was with me, in Florida that morning.  I chose this method in lieu of going public with the witness to my whereabouts, as it might have been disruptive to his business, if everybody wanted to call him to verify where I was.  So, the selected party would contact the witness, verify that he was who he claimed to be, and report back, thereby quashing one source that was perpetuating the allegation.

Frankly, that allegation problem wasn’t that serious, until sometime in March 2012, when many of my friends and contacts reported that the John Doe #4 story was proliferating on the Internet.  So, after 17 years, the time had come where I was to take the matter on, or succumb to the falsehood, which would result in a “no credibility” attachment to anything else that I wrote, or might write in the future.

Prior to the show, a Google search was done by at least three of the people I was working with.  The search “Gary Hunt John Doe 4 OKC” gave over 46,000 results.

On March 3, 2012, Randy Mack, host of “You Have Tread On Me”, aired an Internet radio show entitled “Gary Hunt Exposed as John Doe #4 at OKC“.  The show appeared to be quite effective, and a subsequent Google Search, same criteria, resulted in less than 4,000 hits — more than 40,000 hits removed from the search engines.

Now, it would be easy enough to write these occurrences off as “coincidence”, if it were just one or two.  However, in light of the timing, and the disruptive effect on my finances, reputation, and the efforts of others to come up with viable means to pursue a Restoration of Constitutional Government, that is a very hard pill to swallow.

This, then, leads to the final image from my stats.  On November 13, 2013, just one day after my Petition for Rehearing was docketed for conference, we get a visit from a DHS Fusion Center.

Note that in the Fusion Center (the information at the bottom comes from a government Fusion Center listing), the email address is to the local Sheriff’s Department, not a federal agency.

Habeas Corpus would stop such extension of authority over our local governments.

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty“, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

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

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

“None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
Understand what went wrong, forty years ago, and lead us to what we see, today.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2013

In 1971, Gary Allen wrote a book, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”. And though there are, currently, many who continue to yell “conspiracy”, the true conspiracy is laid out for us in explicit detail in this book. You will recognize much of what is discussed, and, you will see the beginnings of much of what you see, now.

First, some quotes from the book:

“We… most emphatically disagree with this network’s aim which the Professor [Carroll Quigley] describes as “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” In other words, this power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. As Professor Quigley observes: “… his (the individual’s) freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.” It wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system.”

Well, there it is, the stated objective of the conspiracy.

Now, to understand how we have, so often, failed to comprehend just what was happening, because we only had a part of the story:

“Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the way through? Confusing wasn’t it? All the evidence made it look as if the butler were the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out, surprisingly, that it was the man’s wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.”

With this in mind, we are near the end of the story, however, the insight provided by this book will take you back to the beginning, so that you can understand without doubt, just what the whole story is.

In telling us about then President Nixon, a well respected conservative (Republican), and the beginning of “decentralized” government, we see the beginning of a process I often refer to as “Greenmail”, where our money is used to buy favor from the state government — to our detriment.

“The second major segment of the President’s “New Federalism” is revenue sharing with the states, touted as a step in the decentralization of power from the federal government. Actually, the program does just the opposite. The money must first go from the states to Washington before it can be shared.”

We can also see the seeds of the many government funded institutions whose objective is the denial of our form of government.

“John Gardner, a “Republican” and member of the C.F.R., has established a grass roots proletarian organization called Common Cause. This may become the biggest and most important organization in American history. Common Cause’s goal is to organize welfare recipients, those who have not voted before, and Liberals to lobby for Socialism.”

The examples given above are just of few of the insights provided within the book. As you read, you will find that many of the concerns that you have, now, had their seeds planted long before you became aware of the misdeeds that have lead us steadily down the course that we now find ourselves enslaved by.

If you cannot find time to read this book, you will simply have to remain without foundation, only conjecture, to explain the evils that beset us, today. However, armed with the knowledge presented therein, you may better be able to formulate a means of extricating us from the subjugation we find ourselves submitting to.

If there is no PDF attached to this email, the PDF can be downloaded at “None Dare Call It Conspiracy – PDF”

For those who would prefer a Kindle (PRC) version of the book, it is available at “None Dare Call it Conspiracy – Kindle“

Which Constitution Am I Protected By?

Do you really want the Federal Government
to protect you from your State Government?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 19, 2013

“We have Constitutional Rights!”  “They have violated the Constitution!”  We hear such exclamations on a regular basis.  However, have we ever really stopped to consider just what we are saying?  Just what we are supporting?  Just what we have represented by those exclamations, which are really contrary to our best interest, and the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and government?

Recently, there was a Rally in San Antonio, Texas.  The rally was called because a few weeks earlier, some “Second Amendment” advocates had settled down, armed in accordance with Texas law, on the sidewalk in front of a Starbucks coffee shop (Open Carry Texas harassed by SAPD).  Subsequently, a Come and Take It – San Antonio Rally was called, with no reference to the Second Amendment, though it did emphasize a phrase from that Amendment, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.  Such a rally, however, will draw national attention, as it did.

The Rally drifted toward the Second Amendment, as a result of speakers such as Alex Jones, who went so far as to include other cities, around the world, in his desire to protect Second Amendment rights (Gun Owners Defy Tyranny, Defend Constitution at the Alamo).

To me, it was simply amazing that so many people came out in support of a “Federalist” form of government.  Yes, that’s right!  They came out asking the federal government to intervene in, and take control of, their right to keep and bear arms.

“Well”, you say, “Isn’t that what the Second Amendment is all about?”  So, I will answer that question — “Yes”, and, “No”.  Yes, if it is the federal government that you are dealing with.  However, a distinct and definite “No”, if you are dealing with the state, and subordinate, governments.

Darn, that is tough to grasp!  I thought the Bill of Rights was to protect us from government assuming away those rights.  Well, yes, it is, but which government are we talking about?  The federal, or, the state, government?

Why would I go and say such a foolish thing?  We all know that we have Second Amendment rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, this poses a rather interesting question.  So, let’s look at the Texas Constitution.

Article I – Declaration of Rights:
§23.  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

That sure doesn’t read quite like the Second Amendment, it says nothing about “”shall not be infringed”.  So why do we not accept the limitation imposed by the Texas Constitution?  We may not like it, but that is the way it is in Texas.  The federal Constitution was written only with regard to the relationship between the people and the federal, not the state, government.  The concern, and the reason for such separation, was that the Framers, and those that ratified the Constitution, did not want to relinquish any unnecessary power or authority to the federal government, except that which was necessary to allow that government to conduct the business of governing — only — the federal government.

Let’s venture back to 1833, when the country was still young, and some of the Framers were still alive.  Chief Justice Marshall, in a Supreme Court decision [Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243], gives us an explanation:

The [U. S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own [federal] government, and not for the government of the individual states.  Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.  The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.  The powers they conferred on this [federal] government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument.

So, each constitution, federal and state, creates a government and then binds that government to the provisions, as judgment dictated, granting power and authority, and reserving rights, to the extent of what was determined, at the state level, to be consistent with the will of the people of that state.

Going further in his explanation as to why the federal Constitution was limited, Marshall says:

Serious fears were extensively entertained, that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those unvaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.  In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended.  These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments.  In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states.  These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.

A review of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights will bear this opinion out:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the [federal] Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the [federal] Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Are we beginning to get the picture, yet?

Now, the Fourteenth Amendment provided a foundation for change, at least to some extent, though that is not the object of this discussion.  However, for those interested, there is an extensive study of the Fourteenth Amendment at The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – an Essay.

We can, however, see an instance of the conversion of authority from state to federal from a well known, though this aspect is too often overlooked, 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113].  The decision hinges on the right to an abortion, though Justice Rehnquist, in his dissenting (disagreeing) opinion, provides insight, not to abortion, rather, to the limitations of federal power, when he says:

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”.  Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.  As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature.  By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.  1)  While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.  2)  Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.  The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

Since the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, we have heard one side call for the decision to be overturned, while the other side praises the “wisdom” of the Court.  What the Court did was legislative in nature, contrary to the intention of the Framers and the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, neither side objected to the Supreme Court’s authority in dealing with the matter of abortion (have you found any mention of abortion in the Constitution?).

So, by acquiescence — by projecting this un-granted power to the Supreme Court — we have supported not the Union of States, under and by the Constitution, rather, we have agreed to make the federal government supreme in all matters concerning our lives (even our flush toilets).

In 1789, when the U. S. Constitution was ratified, it was the concern, in the states, that the Constitution would give the federal government too much power.  It was the state governments that insisted that there must be a limitation on the power granted to the federal government.  Those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment), cannot be sustained, except by the will of the people, and their perseverance and support of their respective state and its constitutional power and authority.

Does this acquiescence, to such federal authority, by those who so support it and seek a reversed decision from the Supreme Court, make them Federalists, at heart?  After all, they have moved away, as far as possible, from any proposition that states, too, have powers protected by the Tenth Amendment — the few that still remain.

Bound by Moral Obligation!
Surrendering the Moral High Ground

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 7, 2013

Having touched upon the subject of Honor (Bound by Honor?), and Oaths (Bound by Oath!), we will now venture to the foundation of both Oath and Honor, the sense, or lack thereof, of moral obligation.

Whether morality is inherent, as some believe, or acquired, it is something that we all have; some with good values and others absent such values.  If the former, can it be extinguished by environment?  If the latter, then that upbringing is fundamental to the consequential development of moral values.  Regardless, however, of the source from which it emanates, by adulthood, it is most likely firmly established.

Honesty is, perhaps, the most demonstrable characteristic of good moral values.  This honesty, however, is not the consequence of being caught in an act, rather, is the up front, straightforward, admission of a fault.  This was demonstrated recently when 22 year old Matthew Cordle admitted to killing someone in a YouTube video.  He didn’t have to make such admission, though his moral character, regardless of the subsequent accusations that he wanted to get a lighter sentence, resulted in a frank and open admission of his guilt in the matter.

This is almost unheard of in our adversarial society, where “not guilty” is the standard plea, regardless of available proof, and legal efforts to suppress evidence and testimony.  After all, if everyone who was guilty of charges brought against them, and so admitted, then attorneys would be looking for their EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards.

Unfortunately, a society whose representatives in government are weaned on adversarial relationships, to go with conscience and admit guilt, absent overwhelming pressure, is an unacceptable mode of action.  Consequently, the talking heads of television and news services began their speculative denigration of Cordle, accusing him, not of honesty, rather, of attempting to sway the judicial process.  Ultimately, apparently, the judge agreed with the press, and Cordle was sentenced to serve 6 1/2 years (the Ohio average) of a possible 8 1/2 maximum sentence.

The primary purposes of imprisonment are retribution (vengeance) and rehabilitation.  Those who do not show remorse tend to have more severe sentences than those who show remorse.  Often, this is a result of a plea bargain, where the remorse is simply acted out to achieve that reduced sentence.  True remorse can only come from an un-coerced confession, without an agreed upon quid pro quo (this for that).  There is no doubt that the video confession was without coercion, unlike the plea form of remorse.  Further, the YouTube video is probably the most effective means of discouraging others from drunk driving.  However, this does not fit the societal norm.

So, let’s look at the societal norm.  First, however, let’s preface it with an observation.  In any business, the employees are, for the most part, a reflection of management.  If you go into a retail store where trash lays about, the floors are dirty, and the merchandise disarrayed, you can expect that the management does not give a damn, and that is reflected by the actions of the employees, often demonstrated by rudeness or inattention.  However, if you go into clean retail store, with the merchandise neatly stacked on the shelves, you can probably expect the service to be courteous and helpful.

Similarly, in society those “leaders” of the society — those elected to represent the people, set the example for, at least, business, especially in financial and moral values.  If the government sets the example of living in perpetual debt, many businesses will follow suit.  If the government is lacking moral values, then you can expect big business, again, to follow suit.

Back in 1972, under the direction of President Richard Nixon, a break in and theft of records from the Democratic Headquarters located in the Watergate Complex occurred.  Though there were no voluntary, as with Cordle, confessions, 19 people, staff and consultants, were convicted or plead guilty.  John Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States served 19 months in prison for his role.

It was about this time (1971) that Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst, went public with what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”.  The “Papers” were designated “Top Secret”, though they had nothing to do with National Security.  They were first published by the New York Times, which was never prosecuted for publishing them.  They were primarily policy papers that demonstrated that the war (in Vietnam) could not be won, and would only result in much higher casualty rates, if the war continued.  They also proved that President Lyndon Johnson lied to both the public and the Congress, in his efforts to escalate the war in Vietnam.  Basically, the secrecy of the documents was to cover lies of government and poor judgment in policy, resulting in thousands of unnecessary casualties, and a policy that served no acceptable purpose toward the good of the country.  The war, however, was a boon to the Military-Industrial Complex, as warned of by President Dwight Eisenhower, and began a rampant escalation of national debt, that continues to this day.

Ellsberg released this information because of moral conviction — to stop an immoral war that was unwinnable and would only continue to cost many thousands of lives, both Vietnamese and American.

Ellsberg was charged with violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, though the charges were later dismissed, primarily as a result of the government’s (same players from Watergate) efforts to plant evidence to implicate Ellsberg.  Apparently, the administration felt that there were no grounds for a guilty verdict and endeavored to create both evidence and verdict.

Jump to the present.  In an operation known as “Fast and Furious”, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, lied during Congressional hearings, which was substantiated by subsequent evidence implicating him as having knowledge of the operation.  Apparent there were ties to the White House, though the “Justice” Department has refused subpoenas from Congress to provide records, testimony, and other information, which may implicate the highest office in the country.

Similar to Ellsberg, we have modern day “moralists” that are concerned with covering bad practices under the guise of “national security”.  First, let’s look at a foreigner, an Australian, and his organization.  Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have made a name for themselves, and have incurred the wrath of the U. S. Government, which has brought to bear almost every political resource it has to bring Assange to the United States for, hopefully, just a trial.  However, considering that the government has determined that various tactics can be used against foreigners, it is quite possible that those tactics will be used against Assange, should he be handed over by another country.

What Assange has done is simply republish information provided to him by other sources, much like the New York Times in the Ellsberg matter.  However, with the Internet, the readership is significantly larger than the Times.

If you have taken the time to read any of the release by WikiLeaks, those that the government claims would expose operatives and risk lives, you will find that WikiLeaks has redacted them, repressing information that would expose secrets or people that might be of national security value, as opposed to machinations of the government process, most often quite contrary to what the public has been told — unlike the exposure of Valarie Plame (addressed in Bound by Oath!) by the government.

WikiLeaks was exposing information that was embarrassing to secretive governments, though there is no case that can demonstrate a threat to the true interest of national security.  Like Ellsberg, Assange and WikiLeaks saw something wrong with government, and chose to take the risk of exposing it.

Via WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning exposed information that he accessed in his role as an Army Intelligence Analyst.  The most well known exposure was the infamous Baghdad video of aircraft crews gloating over hitting ground targets that were not what they were claimed to be.  Two of those killed were members of the press, and in a follow up attack, two adults and a child that were trying to give aid to those injured were attacked.  Many thousands of other classified documents were released by Manning.  Manning subsequently signed a plea agreement admitting to 10 of the only 22 charges against him.  It appears that Manning had based his decision to expose the information on “removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare”, as well as saving both American and Iraqi lives.

Next, we come to Edward Snowden.  He was a former CIA (IT security) employee and then a NSA (National Security Agency) contractor.  In the latter capacity, he had access to information regarding extensive mass surveillance practices being conducted by NSA and other agencies.  Snowden later explained, “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things [surveillance on its citizens]… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded… My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”  Apparently, Snowden, unlike most of those in government, has read the 4th Amendment, prohibiting illegal searches and seizures.

Subsequent claims by the government are somewhat revealing.  They claim that personal information that is gathered is stored, though not accessed.  This, however, would allow subsequent searches, based upon subsequent warrants, to go back in time and find something that might incriminate someone.  They claim that the information is not accessed and used, unless there is a warrant.

The problem here is one of credibility.  Based upon actions by government, elsewhere, it is probably safe to say about the government’s claims, “bull hockey!”  Understand that for the government to use the information as evidence, it must have been acquired by a legal warrant.  That doesn’t mean that the government cannot use the information, so long as they “develop” a court case by other means — those means being made available by using the illegally obtained information.  Now, many will say, “my government wouldn’t do that.  That would be illegal.”  So, let’s see if “my government” would do that.

The DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) routinely gathers information by covert means (wiretaps, intelligence intercepts, and phone records — those records readily provided by cooperating phone companies).  Of course, the information gathered would not stand the legal test required to make it acceptable as evidence, however, it is intelligence.  So, they share this information with other agencies, who must, on their own, “develop a case”, since the information provided by DEA cannot be exposed.

Now, we have two options in which to look at this practice.  First, that it is only the DEA (and the agencies that receive this information) that is involved in this illegal activity.  Or, Second, that this is a standard practice in most, if not all, government agencies.  Remember what was said, earlier, about the employees following the example of their management?  Now, make your choice.

So, we can see that those who act on moral values, from Ellsberg to Snowden, run the risk of subjecting themselves to persecution and prosecution, by upholding those values.  On the other hand, those in government, from Nixon to Holder and his boss, seem to have lost sight of any moral, or constitutional, values.  The former assumes a Moral Obligation (An Argument for Moral Courage), while the latter assumes a moral superiority (Social and Political Superiority).

Bound by Oath!
Are there 3 Constitutions?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 5, 2013

Having touched upon the subject of Honor (Bound by Honor?), we shall now venture into the subject of that Honor.  From the ratification of the Constitution, through today, it has been held that an oath is one of the requisites for office.  It was required of the President (Article II, § 1, clause 8) and the “Senators and Representatives … and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States” (Article VI, clause 3).  It was so important that a violation of that oath was enforced, after the Civil War, with a prohibition against holding public office to all who had taken such oath and then joined “in insurrection or rebellion” (14th Amendment, §3).  All state constitutions have, likewise, adopted requirements for an oath of office to hold positions of public trust.

It is reliance upon the obedience to that oath that is the framework that the Framers relied upon to maintain that institution created by the Constitution, the government of the United States, intact and honorable.

The introduction of the “United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” provision dates from 1953, with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953.  Since 1966, the current oath, retaining the “enemies” provision, has remained unchanged

Unchanged, however, is the fundamental recognition to obedience to the Constitution, and, to the state’s constitution for all state offices.

This leads us to look into that subject of the oath, the Constitution.  However, to understand this relationship, we need to look very closely at the document, and what it means.

I believe that this can be best understood by looking at the Constitution in a perspective of the application of the document, and just what the perception, by the oath takers, is of that document.

So, let’s begin at the lowest level — the on the street enforcement level.  The cop (Sheriff’s deputies, other armed agencies, including federal) perceive the Constitution that they took an oath to as what they have been told by their superiors is entailed in the Constitution.  Let’s refer to this as Constitution #1.  For example, and the Supreme court has played a role in this, if they are told that they can make searches and arrests based upon their individual judgment — if they believe that a crime either has, or may be committed — they are within their power to search and/or arrest people of whom they have suspicion.

This has become manifest because it was practiced by law enforcement, in violation of the Constitution.  Once challenged, it can go before the courts, and, eventually, to the Supreme Court, where that Court will rule, often contrary to the Constitution (see About Ashwander v. TVA), which now gives us Constitution #2, that being the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court.  However, if they had determined not to rule on the Constitutionality of a matter before them, “The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of” (Ashwander, rule #4), then are we to assume that their rulings are actually interpretations of the Constitution?

This, then, leads us to Constitution #3, the Constitution as written and intended by the Framers and those who ratified it.  The Constitution is comprised of about 4,400 words.  Add the first Ten Amendments, including the Preamble thereto, for another 700 words.  Simple, yet easily understood; written in the English language, not in legalese; intended to be understood by any literate person, not subject to interpretation, except where construction failed to address certain conflicts that might arise, the Constitution was written for us, by our ancestors, to be the foundation for the continuation of a self-governed people, so long as we understood and abided by it.

We must first understand that our separation from English rule was predicated on the concept that the people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  It was for the protection of Life, the preservation of Liberty, and the ability to acquire property, that lead to those Founders taking action to re-secure that which had been denied them — the Rights of Englishmen — by the British government.

We know that the purpose of government, as declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  We need only understand that “promote the general Welfare” is preceded by “promote”, not “provide”, for us to proceed.

Clearly, no matter what our own emotions may suggest, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes any provision for the government to become a “charitable organization”, taking from some and giving to others.  In fact, this would be contrary to the principles of self-government, in that government has become the master and determines just whom he might favor with gifts (and the inherent votes that will follow from the beneficiary).

Let’s look at some more of the precise wording of Constitution #3, as well as comments with regard to what was intended:

Article I, Section 8, clause 11: The Congress shall have the Power … To declare War…

Congress has not declared war since December 1941, yet we have the longest war in our history going on, right now.  The war in Afghanistan began in 2001.  That is twelve years — the longest war in our history.  The Framers realized that the decision to go to war, and to invest the lives of America’s youth, should lie with the representatives of the people, the Congress, and not with an individual.  Why has Congress collectively rejected their oath by enacting legislation that allows the President to go to war, so long as Congress doesn’t object?  Quite simply, they can absolve themselves of the responsibility that they agreed to take upon themselves, when they took their oath.  Quite possibly, their abrogation of responsibility results in substantial ‘support’ from the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us of, when leaving office.

Article I, Section 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.

This recognition of the Militia, whether called forth, or not, recognizes the Militia as an inherent part of the concept of self-government.  Further, 10 U.S.C. § 311 states that “[t]he militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age.”  So, how is it that those who have taken an oath to the Constitution can object to, and demonize, those citizens who recognize their obligation to the Constitution.  After all, is “all”, ALL?  Less, of course, those specifically exempted.

Section 4– The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

However, California Supreme Court justices, who had taken oaths to both the California and federal constitutions, ruled, in “In re Marriage Cases”, (43 Cal. 4th 757), that held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying. However, in reviewing the California Constitution, I can find no reference to “same-sex couples”.

On appeal to the federal courts, they, too, held, though on slightly different grounds, that the Proposition — the will of the people of California — was unconstitutional.  They have yet to rule on the statute (1 U.S.C. §7) cited above, though apparently it has been constitutional for many decades.  Those judges only took an oath to the federal Constitution, though, again, I find no reference that would grant the federal government to become any more involved in marriage than to recognize what it has been, for centuries.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Contrary to many opinions, it does not say that there is a “separation between Church and State”, which is attested to be the numerous depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the United States Supreme Court building.  So, let’s look at what it says.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Those cities and towns that have adopted Sharia Law have certainly done so.  However, many states or counties had laws that were derived from the Ten Commandments.  , even though many of those laws based upon the Ten Commandments have been removed.  However, there is a law that requires that a religion must pass certain steps (Internal Revenue Code) to qualify as a religion, thereby becoming exempt from taxation.  That, in itself, seems to be a law respecting the establishment of religion, since the religion is not established (at least in the eyes of government), unless it abides by the law that establishes it as a religion.  Once established, laws come into play that restricts what can be said by the religious exercise of the congregation.  However, those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, either as elected representatives, or, appointed, or hired, agents of government, have promulgated laws that, by reading of the words, and a review of how those words were applied by the Framers, we can conclude that the oaths have been violated, even though many of them were taken on a Bible.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have trouble understanding why people can’t understand, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, which along with the Militia (previously mentioned), cannot be infringed.  However, those who have taken an oath to the Constitution seems to be as remise in understanding what this means as they are in understanding the oath that they took.

Amendment 4: 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.

Searches are often conducted without a warrant, or at least a warrant served on the person whose property is to be searched.  Legal process, for such as subpoenas, requires that paperwork be served.  There are numerous methods of legal service, however, the constitutionally prescribed warrant is held to a much lower standard than, say, serving divorce papers.  Divorce, however, is not protected by the Constitution.

The Amendment also requires a sworn statement of probable cause, and “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Two hundred years ago, warrants were specific, describing exactly what was to be seized, and where it was located.  More recently, a warrant might include the entire house, or property, seeking all papers, computers, discs, tapes, books, and anything else that might be found.

We also find that searches, with the blessing of the courts (whose judges have taken an oath), have allowed the police to make searches almost any time, relying on their nose, their ears, or their instinct, to justify the search.  This, without question, is appalling.  And, if nothing is found, there is no remedy for the person whose liberty has been lost, for the time involved, which doesn’t even begin to suggest that there is any accountability on the part of the police.  Roadside stops and searches have become a mainstay of law enforcement.  Didn’t law enforcement officer, too, take oaths?  Perhaps to Constitution #1.

Did the Constitution intend a police state, or a free state, where the obligation was on the government, not on the people?

Amendment 5: No person shall … be deprived of … property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Both “Eminent Domain” and “Asset Forfeiture” come to mind, when we read the wording of this Amendment.  The former is lawful, though limited, while the latter is unlawful and unconstitutional, without equivocation — unless you are an attorney intending to subvert the Constitution for financial gain.

So, we can start with the purpose, “public use”.  Public is not the government, it is us.  The concept of eminent domain goes back centuries and was intended to make inviolate your right to own and posses property, with the sole exception of the “public good”.  So, what is this “public good”?  Well, roads, canals, rivers, lakes, parks, even easements allowing utilities to be put across your land to serve others of the public.  To extend this concept to land being condemned by eminent domain, and then sold to a private developer, who will then be paying a higher tax on the property than the previous owner(s), is bizarre.  It is chicanery utilized to transfer one’s property to another, and require that transfer to be forced, rather than voluntary, regardless of the compensation to the owner(s).  The courts, however, by judges and justices sworn to the Constitution, have acquiesced to such chicanery.

Asset forfeiture, without any compensation, is clearly outside of any constitutionally vested authority.  [N]or shall private property be taken … without just compensation” leaves no room for any other construction of the intent.  However, to those who have taken oaths, it is simply a matter of obfuscation to distort what was intended to that which will serve their friends and allies.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Based upon the above, have we retained those rights that were not enumerated in the “Bill of Rights”?  Even those enumerated, which we have addressed here, are been denied, as has been explained.

Amendment 10: 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.

We have also seen that powers not delegated, such as marriage, have been assumed into “authorities” that were not delegated by the Constitution.

So, we can conclude that those who take oaths will take them to one of the 3 Constitutions.  The police, for the most part, take them to Constitution #1.  Most administrative officials, at all levels of government, being, perhaps, a bit more intelligent, tend to take their oath to Constitution #2.  Few, if any, take it to Constitution #3, and that includes the highest powers — the Justices of the Supreme Courts — in government.  They are more inclined to assist those others in government to increase their stranglehold on the people, and usurp powers that were never intended by the Constitution, or the state constitutions.

It is only when the people take an oath in court, or when military personnel take their oath upon induction, that the law expects them to abide thereby.

The Constitution has a provision (Article V) for making changes.  The oath, however, has no such provision.  Once given, the oath taker is bound thereby.  Absent a change in the Constitution (Constitution #3), the violation of oath should result in immediate removal from office.

We have discussed what was intended, though some might suggest that what has been discussed is not what was intended.  For those who want some insight into the intention of the Framers, we can look to how they practiced what they had written.

What could be more demonstrative of intent than actions, which put that intent into practice?

Regarding juries, I would suggest Essay on Trial by Jury (PDF) (1828)

Regarding searches, arrests, and the authority of law enforcement, I would suggest Are Cops Constitutional? (PDF)

Bound by Honor?
Secrecy vs. Honesty

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2013

There is an inherent tendency to suppose guilt, when someone lies about an incident.  Many applauded when Martha Stewart was sent to prison for 5 months for lying to investigators about some stock dealings.  The charge was not perjury, rather, “obstruction of justice” If someone lies about, say, a relative’s whereabouts, though the lie may have been told to protect someone’s privacy rather than obstruct justice, it is a presumption of guilt on the part of the person “hiding” information, as well as the object of the investigation.  Quite frankly, we have been conditioned to accept that lying is an implication of guilt, without regard to the cause for the lying.  This, of course, is instilled in us by the big brother mentality of being protected by the government.

Perjury, the willful telling of a lie while under oath, is criminal.  It always had been, and, it always should be.  This, perhaps, is the foundation of the above, yet in many cases, an oath is not a part of the lying, though still held to the standard of proof of guilt.

So, we can conclude that either by law or by implication, the people believe themselves bound to truthfulness, when dealing with the government.

What of those in power, whether a policeman in traffic court, a politician running for office, those elected to run the machinery of government, or those holding the highest offices of trust in this nation?  Are they not bound, while in their official capacity, whether an immediate oath is required, or they are simply bound by their oath of office, “to support and defend the Constitution” and in the realm of state officers, of the constitution of their state; are they not even more bound to truthfulness?

It seems, however, whether the cop in court, an elected official running for re-election or standing before Congress and/or the people, the Attorney General of the United States, or even the Executive Officer (president) of the United States, have a flagrant disregard for their oaths and the people of the nation.  They, and the press that supports them, seem to be immune to such a lowly concept as a sense of honor.  To most other people, lying is both dishonorable and criminal.

In Congressional hearings, an official of the United States, flat out declared that he knew nothing about “Fast and Furious”, which sent hundreds of legal and illegal arms south of the border.  Subsequently, the evidence shows that he did know and probably condoned that operation, yet he still holds his high office, at our expense.  The extent of punishment is, at best, a mild rebuke.

Similarly, we have an Executive and congress-critters that make promises.  Should those promises, absent a well-justified reason to the contrary, be held to the highest standards of honor?  And, if made frequently, deemed to be lies, based upon a lack of intent to fulfill when offered?

National Security is the mask behind which the government seeks to hide information.  A search for a definition of “National Security” in the United States Code (US Code) yields no results; however, it does contain rather ambiguous references to protecting national security.

Wikipedia provides some insight:

There is no single universally accepted definition of national security.  The variety of definitions provide an overview of the many usages of this concept.  The concept still remains ambiguous, having originated from simpler definitions which initially emphasized the freedom from military threat and political coercion to later increase in sophistication and include other forms of non-military security as suited the circumstances of the time.

From that same source, we can find some apparent contradictory definitions:

Arnold Wolfers (1960), while recognising the need to segregate the subjectivity of the conceptual idea from the objectivity, talks of threats to acquired values:
“An ambiguous symbol meaning different things to different people.  National security objectively means the absence of threats to acquired values and subjectively, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.”

The 1996 definition propagated by the National Defence College of India accretes the elements of national power:
“National security is an appropriate and aggressive blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of natural resources and finally the military might.”

The former inclined toward protection of the nation from external efforts to change its “values”; in other words, to protect the nation and its people.  The latter, however, appears to be more inclined to protect the government from its own people, and to bear no responsibility or accountability.

So, let’s look at what happens when government officials break the law and lie about it.

Valarie Plame was inducted as a CIA officer in 1985.  From that point forward, she acted as a covert operative for the CIA until, in July 2003, Robert Novak, using information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, exposed her as an operative.  Plame eventually resigned her position in December 2005.

This, exposing an agent, can, without a doubt, by considered a breach of national security, as it divests the government of continued utilization of the agent for the purpose for which that person was trained.

Subsequent investigation by a grand jury resulted in the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby for his role in the divulgence of the name of the agent.  In March 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury.  He was acquitted on one count of making false statements.  He was not charged for revealing Plame’s CIA status.  His sentence was 30 months in prison and two years of probation.  In July, President George W. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence, removing the prison term but leaving in place the probation.  Libby, who did violate the concept of national security and did obstruct justice by lying, served less time, four months, than Martha Stewart did.

Based upon the legal ambiguity of “national security”, it can be turned against the people, when it serves the government, and it can be used to protect those who work for the government, since there is no legal definition.  It is a subjective determination by the prosecutor, who is an agent of government.

So, we can see that lies are bad, when told by the public, even without an oath that is required by jurisprudence to rise to the level of criminal.

On the other hand, government, from traffic cop to President, can lie under the guise of national security, and is subject to discipline only when the press (the elite press, as much a part of government as other officers — and, which lies to us, daily) or other circumstance rise the incident to a level of national public attention.

It follows, then, that citizens are held to be honorable, while those serving the government are not, in the least, Bound by Honor.

Appeasement
Giving in, inch by inch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2013

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

Appease
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

So, what does appeasement have to do with anything?  Perhaps pacifying or placating someone would avoid potential problems.  It can’t be a bad approach, can it?

Perhaps a brief history of appeasement, as applied from a political standpoint, just about seven decades ago, will give us a better understanding of the consequences of appeasement.  So, let’s look at a brief history of appeasement leading up to the beginning of World War II.

Appeasement and World War II

At the close of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles set certain conditions on the losers, especially Germany.  Among those was a limitation of 100,000 troops in their army.  It also limited the size of their Navy in both manpower and ships.

In 1935, Germany began rearming beyond the limitations set forth in the Treaty of Versailles.  After discussions between Italy, Britain, France, and Germany, nothing was done to force Germany into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles.  This was appeasement.

In 1936, Germany, under Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, sent military forces into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty.  Though protests were made by Britain and France, nothing was done to stop this violation of the Treaty.  Britain claimed to lack the forces to back up France, leaving Hitler unopposed, and establishing a powerful strategic position.  This was appeasement.

In 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain.  The following year, Hitler sought the reunification of Germany and Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and sent German Wehrmacht troops into Austria to force the reunification.  Chamberlain’s reaction was to state, “The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force.”  This was appeasement.

In 1938, Germans, who found themselves living in the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, because of the boundaries drawn up in the Treaty of Versailles, under instruction from Hitler, sought autonomy.  Chamberlain warned Hitler that Britain might intervene if Hitler ordered an attack on Czechoslovakia.  Chamberlain went to Germany to meet with Hitler and Hitler demanded the Sudetenland be absorbed into Germany.  He convinced Chamberlain that refusal would result in war.  Chamberlain, with agreement from France, told the Czechoslovakian president that he must hand to Germany all of the territory with a German majority population.  This included over 800,000 people, substantial amounts of industry, and substantial portions of the Czechoslovakian mountain defense installations, thus providing an insecure Western Czechoslovakian border, ripe for subsequent invasion.  In late September, Hitler, Chamberlain, the French Prime Minister, and Mussolini of Italy, met in Munich, Germany.  They agreed that Hitler could complete his occupation of Sudetenland.  This was appeasement.

On September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland.  France and England were forced to enter war against Germany.  The policy of appeasement had only encouraged Hitler, and in May 1940, Chamberlain stepped down and Winston Churchill, who had consistently opposed appeasement, became Prime Minister.

During the years of appeasement, Hitler increased his military and armament, increased his strength, increased his access to natural resources and food supplies, increased his industrial capacity, and increased the size of Germany.  While other nations apologized for Hitler’s actions, he continued on a course that compounded the difficulty of dealing with the problem, when the appeasers finally recognized the error of their ways.

Had appeasement not been the practice of the day, and a firm position taken in 1934, the problem could have been dealt with and would probably have been but a minor incident in history.  As each step of the appeasement progressed, the magnitude of the problem became greater.  After a mere five years of appeasement, the solution to the problem resulted in deaths of many tens of millions of people and many trillions of dollars both in fighting the war that followed and rebuilding after the destruction of that war.

Appeasement Today

One of the elements of the greatness of America was an immigration policy that, until the Civil War, limited citizenship to those of European ancestry.  Even after the war, immigration was based upon quotas and other educational or experience criteria, and, for the most part, was open to any that chose to come to America, assimilate into the American way of life, and contribute to its greatness.

In the past three decades, immigration standards have been reduced to an open door policy.  The quotas that provided for limited immigration, resulting in assimilation, were dropped.  We began becoming a relocation destination for refugees who stood on our side in the wars that we continue to start, and to lose.  These newer policies have allowed entire communities to retain the heritage, culture, and lifestyle of their country of origin, and have effectively nullified the concept of assimilation.

Under the guise of multiculturalism, we have also opened our doors to just about anybody, regardless of their motivation, allowing floods of people who have no aspirations of assimilation, rather who come here for what they can get without effort, or, perhaps, with even more devious intentions.  However, to pacify world opinion created by our support for multiculturalism, and, to placate those who wish to come here, we have developed a policy of appeasement on immigration.

What might be the consequences of this policy of appeasement?  Perhaps we can take an American city and evaluate the consequence of this rampant immigration.  So, we will look at Dearborn, Michigan.  Of the estimated population of over 98,000 people, 40,000 are either Muslim or from Muslim countries (Wikipedia).  At this point, it is safe to say that they constitute 40% of the voting potential, regardless of the makeup of the remaining population.  Considering normal voting turnout, with a little motivation, the Muslims would have a majority in local elections.  The consequence would be that rather than assimilation into the American lifestyle, we would see a conversion of Dearborn into a Middle Eastern city and could eventually expect that local laws would be changed by that majority into laws foreign to the nature of America.  Putting it bluntly, they would, by utilizing the mechanism of democracy, convert Dearborn into a city ruled by Sharia Law.  As those laws change so, too, will the culture of a once American city.

That was one American city.  Let’s look at a county.  The population of Los Angeles County is 9.9 million people (LA Times blog).  The Hispanic population is 4.9 million people (Pew Research).  That constitutes over 49% of the population.  Based upon estimates (Los Angeles Almanac), the illegal immigrant population of Los Angeles County is over 700,000.  This would raise the number of Hispanics to 53%.  La Raza and other Hispanic organizations, asserting that California was stolen from the Mexicans, may soon be able to vote Los Angeles County out of the United States and into Aztlán.

Presumably, in the former, the population is a result of the lax immigration laws and open door policy.  In the latter, many are “old Mexican”, whose families have been here for generations, however, the remainder, except as noted, are comprised of those who became legal immigrants as a result of the 1986 amnesty, or, anchor babies and their associated families.

As these demographics continue to change, we can expect more cities and more counties to succumb to such consequences as we see in these two examples.  Appeasement, supported by court decisions, providing a spurious sense of blanket equality — even allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections (USA Today – Justices: Arizona voter registration rules go too far) — allows the growth of a problem that, as time goes on, will, as we saw in World War II, compound itself to the point that the solution becomes almost insurmountable, and will result in a hodgepodge of many pseudo-nations within the United States.

We have addressed to geopolitical aspects of appeasement and how they might affect the future of our once great nation.  Now, we can look into more subtle aspects of appeasement and the effect that they are having on our society.  You will note with both the above and those that follow, that one side (the appeaser) gives ground and weakens, while the other gains ground and strengthens.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on our children

ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a relatively new disease.  It has resulted in the drugging of hundreds of thousands of juveniles with psychotropic drugs.  Those same drugs appear to be associated with nearly every school shooting by a student.  If we look at the statistics, we will find that community referrals are 3 to 1 more likely to occur in boys than girls.  In clinic referrals, we find that the ratio extends to 10 to 1 (NIH/National Center for Biotechnology Information).  And in the female occurrences, it is defined as “inattentive type”, being less severe.  These numbers suggest that either the male is far more susceptible to ADHD than the female, or, perhaps, it is a consequence of the male tendency to be more active, and less passive, than the female.  Since our educational system has, by various means, endeavored to feminize the educational process by prohibiting physical contact sports, suggestions of guns or violence, and forced the male to participate in activities that were, just a few generations ago, considered to be in the realm of female passiveness.  Is it possible that the observation and determination of ADHD is a consequence of the depression that is a result of leaving the football field and having to participate in activities that are more feminine?  When you remove the “slugs and snails and puppy dog tails” and forced the masculine gender into “sugar and spice and everything nice,” can you expect the consequences to be other than what is described as ADHD?  Is acceptance of the government’s explanation appeasement?

Appeasement on militarization of police

“To Protect and To Serve” has been the motto of most police departments, for at least the last half century.  Recently, however, we have seen a marked movement towards that “protection” being redefined as “officer safety” (WSJ / Rise of the Warrior Cop).  As a consequence, and as the equipment becomes militarized, where officers are far more protected than they were decades ago, we see an increase in the level of violence directed at citizens, quite often in the comfort of their own home.  In 2005, there were 364 “arrest related deaths” (DOJ / Arrest-Related Deaths in the United States,).  In that same year, only 162 officers died in the line of duty, of which only 60 were shot (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial).  The government provides semi automatic and full automatic rifles to law enforcement, they provide military style helicopters to law enforcement, they provide military style armored vehicles to law enforcement, they have assigned drones to support law enforcement, and, they continue to provide additional military level equipment and training to law enforcement.  At the same time, many elements of government are attempting to restrict our right of self-defense, making us absolutely submissive to the law enforcement community.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on Christianity

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian moral values.  From courtroom to the executive office, the Bible has been the device upon which oaths were taken.  Christmas time and Eastertide have been celebrated throughout our history.  The United States Supreme Court building contains at least six depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments.  Recently, however, we have seen rejection of Christmas displays and Easter celebrations in our schools and other government locations, under the guise that the First Amendment prohibits them, though they had been celebrated openly on government property from the founding of our country until just a few decades ago.  There can be no doubt as to the role of Christianity in our history and heritage; however, as they are pushed out, we find that we have laid a red carpet out for Islam.  Many minarets, with speakers, loudly announce prayer early in the morning.  Muslims are allowed to lay down their prayer rugs and pray in streets, sidewalks, airports, and other public areas.  We are told that we are not to offend their practice of their religion.  Is this appeasement?

Conclusion

Appeasement, like any other disease, if treated early, lessens the damage.  Like cancer, if caught soon enough, total remission is quite possible.  However, if untreated, it will continue to grow, leading ultimately to the demise of the host.

Its introduction, like the Trojan Horse, is subtle and accepted.  If not recognized before introduction, where it can be denied admission, then as early as possible, as soon as it is recognized, remedial action must be taken.  Absent such treatment, the objectives of the interloper, instead of the host, will be achieved.

Its introduction is usually preceded by the utilization of “Political Correctness”.  Under the guise of Freedom of Speech, the host tends to drop its guard, often under the fear of ostracization, or even judicial punishment.  Political correctness is foundational to creating an air of acceptability, where ones true thoughts are suppressed – under the guise of being for the “common good”.

Appeasement is nothing less than the creation of an advantage for the opposing side.  Unless and until recognized, it serves none other than the host.  Once recognized, remedial action is absolutely necessary, at the earliest possible moment, to avoid the consequences that will ultimately follow.  Acquiescence to appeasement has only one conclusion — the social engineering of a society, contrary to its very nature.

Resistance Has Begun

Once again, we honor those who served their country, and world, seventy years ago

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 14, 2013

For the first time since the Tea Party element realized that something was seriously wrong in government, thereby becoming a part of the patriot/constitutionalist community, people were seen on the streets carrying something other than signs.  Though not quite on the level of rifles, or pitchforks, the idea that barricades could be returned to the White House, in protest of the childish actions of the Executive Branch of government, begins to show an advanced form of resistance to the misdeeds and shenanigans of government.

What makes this action so comment worthy is that this act of defiance goes beyond words.  It is, without a doubt, an action that demonstrates that the government will find more resistance, in the very near future, if it does not begin to demonstrate moral and fiscal responsibly in utilizing their positions of trust with the American people.

Unlike Arab Spring, which was chaotic mobs without a real objective, we Americans have sense enough to recognize that the foundation of this country is solid, and, if properly administered, can return to the greatness it once demonstrated.  The actions of Sunday, October 13, 2013 are just the beginning of the insistence that government revise its course and resume administering a government of the people.  If they fail to do so, those activities are a portent of things to come.

Finally, let us honor those Veterans of World War II, and all those who supported them — in reclaiming that which is ours.