Camp Lone Star – “a Fundamental Right”

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 21, 2015

It is normal, in any criminal proceeding, for the Defense Attorney to file a Motion to Dismiss. Most often, these are simple appeals about nothing of significance, though they do add chargeable hours.

In K. C. Massey’s case, however, we find a “Motion to Dismiss Indictment“, with merit. Perhaps not in a legal sense, but in a truly lawful sense – The difference that is anything can be enacted (legal), though unless it is firmly based upon the powers and authorities granted in the Constitution, it may be unlawful.

Constitutionality

Massey’s attorney, Louis S. Sorola, begins by explaining the Texas law (Texas Penal Code, §46.04) which allows Massey to possess a firearm, for his own protection. This and other aspects that will be addressed here are dealt with in detail at Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful.

He supports this by reference to, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, in reference to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in “District of Columbia v. Heller” (554 US 570), where the Court held that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep firearms at their homes for their self-protection. This decision is consistent with the Texas law that allows such possession five years after completion of a sentence as a result of a felony. However, the federal statute that Massey is charged with presumes a lifetime prohibition, if incorrectly interpreted (see Commerce Clause, below).

He further argues that the term “people”, as used in the Second Amendment is also used in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments, and in none of those is there an exception that would allow rights to be taken away. The only notable legal exception is in the Supreme Court decision found in “Sampson v. California” (547 US 843), which allows a different criteria if one is a prisoner or a parolee. It does not extend beyond that period of time when the person is in custody, or is under conditions of parole, in which he can be searched outside of constitutional constraints.

Commerce Clause

The question as to what extent the Commerce Clause (Article I, §8, cl. 3, Constitution) grants authority to the federal government is raised. Heller addressed the Second Amendment, but did not address the Commerce Clause, however another decision, “United Sates v. Lopez” (514 US 549) addressed the Commerce Clause, but did not address the Second Amendment. In Lopez, the extent of the Commerce Clause did not grant blanket jurisdiction, which resulted in the overturning of the federal Gun-Free School Zone law. If the ruling in Lopez was applied to Massey’s case, it would necessarily require a “substantial effect on Interstate Commerce.

As Sorola argues, “[t]he interstate commerce began and ended with the Federal Firearm License dealers involved. After the importation into Texas the guns are under Texas jurisdiction. Thus the laws of Texas apply, not the federal government.”

Equal Protection Clause

What is meant by Equal Protection was best defined by the Supreme Court in their ruling in “Yick Wo v. Hopkins” (118 US 356 – 1886):

[E]qual protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights;… that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; and that, in the administration of criminal justice, no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses.

Now, it must be understood that the Equal Protection requirement is federal, not to be confused with state laws. Otherwise, all state laws would be equal, but, they are not — they are enacted in accordance with the State’s constitution. (See Which Constitution Am I Protected By?) Where it does apply is in the application of federal laws, as described in Yick Wo.

If different states have different laws as to what a felony is and how much time is served, is it equal protection if one state might consider it third degree and have a light sentence while another state might hold a higher penalty and mandatory 1 year (federal criteria) in prison? The federal government has not even attempted to establish a uniform criteria for the applicability of 18 USC §922(g)(1) – the charge against Massey). This lends support to the Commerce Clause limitation, above, where the law would only apply to Interstate Commerce, not to the right of the people, in general.

In a Circuit Court decision, the court decided that, in enacting the statute, “Congress superimposed a patchwork of state law over a broad piece of federal legislation in a manner bound to produce anomalous results.” (McGrath v. United States, 60 F.3d 1005)

Perhaps what is most important about this Motion to Dismiss is the fact that it is, without a doubt, a challenge to federal jurisdiction, a preservation of State’s Rights, and the rights of the People.

The Declaration of Independence Has Been Outlawed

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2015

“[W]hen long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

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

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

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

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

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

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking the Bonds of Slavery

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 1998

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

* * * * *

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

OPF: John, how are you, today?

JOHN: Fine Gary, and ready to go.

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPF: What about the political leaders?

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

Lessons of History #3

Emotions that Led to Secession

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

December 31, 2014

On October 16, 1859, John Brown and 18 men took over the Harpers Ferry Armory, in northern Virginia (now West Virginia). His intention was to seize the arms and get them to slaves in the South so that they could rise up against their masters, and kill them. Brown’s effort was cut short when he was captured on October 18.

His trial began on October 27 and a jury convicted him on November 2, 1859.

Thomas J. Jackson, from Virginia Military Institute was in charge of the military security detail assigned to keep the crowds in order for the December 2 hanging. Just two years later, Jackson would be known as “Stonewall” Jackson, and would encourage his troops, at the Battle of Bull Run, to “yell like banshees”, which was the beginning of the famous Rebel Yell.

The people of the North, especially the abolitionists, considered the conviction and hanging of Brown to be a travesty, as Brown had become a folk hero in that part of the country.

The South, observing the North’s disrespect for the laws and the system that convicted and hanged Brown, were outraged. A popular hero had grown from the event, and his purpose was to foment a slave uprising by arming them so that they could kill their masters, and presumably, any whites they could find. The Yankees had overtly sought the death of the Southern whites at the hands slave population.

Is it any wonder that just a year later, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union? Could anyone remain in a union with other states that had openly and publically supported an effort that might well have led to their deaths?

We are often caught up in the events that may have led to secession, such as tariffs, slavery, or any other easily identifiable cause, however, we seldom, if ever, want to look at the social relationship that was straining both sides to a breaking point. The first, with open and exuberant support for a cause that may have left hundreds of thousands of dead fellow countrymen, and the other, who chose not to be identified as of the same nation as those who had called for their deaths. We fail to understand the mindset, dwelling on the actions, and focus strictly on those bits of history written in out textbooks (by the winner), rather than the emotional undercurrents that might reasonably justify the response, in this case secession.

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 21, 2014

Yesterday, in the early afternoon, Kevin (K.C.) Massey, 48, was arrested in a motel room near Brownsville, Texas. Massey was one of the organizers of Camp Lone Star, which has been turning back, or turning over to the Border Protection Service (BPS), illegal aliens attempting to cross the Southern border. He was alone when the FBI and BATF arrested him, charging him with Felony Possession of a Firearm. He was convicted in 1988 of burglary – over a quarter of a century ago. To better understand the charge against Massey, I refer you to a previous article on a similar situation, “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher. It would appear that Massey is subject to the same intentional misinterpretation of the Federal Statute.

Sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 PM, FBI and BATF agents arrived at the home of Khristy Massey, Kevin’s wife, located in the Quinlan, Texas, over 600 miles from Camp Lone Star.. Massey had not lived at the home for the past four months, and the house is currently for sale. They wanted to search the house for firearms, though Khristy refused, absent a warrant. She was then threatened with arrest if she removed any firearms from the house. Interesting that one can be threatened with arrest for doing what they want with their lives and property – simply because the government went to search a house, though apparently unable to secure a warrant for that search. It makes you wonder if any laws, whatsoever, bind the federal government.

Massey was one of three members of Camp Lone Star involved in a shooting incident that occurred on August 29, 2014 (Massey’s account of incident). Massey, Allen Varner (Wolf), and John Foerster (Jesus), were patrolling on private property near the Texas/Mexico border. A BPS agent Hernandez, standing about 30 feet from Foerster, fired two shots at him, yelled “Stop”, fired two more shots, again yelled “Stop”, and then fired one more shot. Foerster placed his rifle on the ground, deescalating the situation. Hernandez claimed that he was pursuing some illegal aliens. It is noteworthy to understand that the BPS has been instructed not to fire on illegal aliens, unless fired upon — which did not occur, in this incident. Are we to surmise that the BPS IS instructed to fire on American citizens?

Subsequently, while meeting with a BPS Captain and other agents, Massey, Wolf, and Jesus, were asked to store their weapons in the Captain’s vehicle, for security — since there were still illegals in the area and they didn’t want the weapons unsecured and possibly stolen from the open “mule” which the three were travelling in. They also took Massey’s GoPro camera, with no explanation.

Additional BPS officials, Sheriff Deputies, FBI, and DHS agents arrived on the scene to investigate the shooting incident. A Sheriff Deputy then took possession of the five weapons, claiming that they were a part of the evidence in the investigation in the shooting incident — shooting by the BPS agent, not the three men legally possessing firearms on private property.

Shortly thereafter, Jesus was asked to leave Camp Lone Star because of suspected drug use. He had stayed away from the Camp since that time.

Moving forward to the recent events, Camp Lone Star had rented a motel room, a place to take a shower and get a good night’s rest. The evening prior to the arrest, the motel room was used by some of the Camp Lone Star members to conduct a conference call with militia members around the country. Earlier that day, at 1:58 PM, Jesus, for unknown reasons, called Camp Lone Star to say that he would be going over to the Camp. He never did show up. Perhaps he knew of the conference call, because he made two appearances during the course of that call, not at the Camp, but at the motel. He was described to me as fidgety and nervous during the two appearances during the conference call, as if he had something to hide. Is it possible that he was sent to the motel room to report if Massey was alone?

Well, let’s look into the background of John Frederick Foerster. Foerster served a prison term for three counts of burglarizing a building, beginning in May 2001. He was released from prison in August 2002. In 2009, he was charged with theft, in Missouri, disposition unknown. Foerster, however, has not, as of this date been arrested for felony possession of a firearm. He has also recovered his two weapons taken by the BPS and Sheriff on August 29. It has been alleged that Foerster was arrested again, for possession of cocaine, just four days prior to Massey’s arrest, though this has not been confirmed independently.

He claimed, in a phone call made late last night (20th), that he had heard about Massey’s arrest and had tried to call Archie Seals, of Camp Lone Star, numerous times — to find out what had happened with Massey. Archie Seals reports that he has had no contact, nor does his cell phone record show any calls from Foerster.

These occurrences (Beecher and Massey) should provide adequate warning to patriots, especially thus who have a felony record, that there is a concerted effort on the part of government to find cause to bring charges against you and take your guns away. They also provide insight into the tactics that the government is using to cull the patriot community of as many as they can, reducing the remaining numbers, and intimidating those who remain.

For an understanding of how informants and other infiltrators work, I would suggest reading “Informants Amongst Us?” and “Vortex“. To understand who the likely patriot targets of federal persecution are, I suggest “C3CM“.

Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

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

Can Muslims fit into our society?
Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2014

 The question is rather simple, though the answer may be a bit more complex. However, with the current situation, both here and in Europe, an answer must be sought. If not, we have no means of understanding the severity of the problem, nor can we formulate a solution to the problem.

My observation has been that the “Moderate Muslims” allege that they do not support the “Radical Muslims”. Perhaps not overtly, however, if you listen, they never really create any distance. On the other hand, the “Radical Muslims” are killing some “Moderate Muslims”, but, then, there is justification to what they do, and we will discuss that, shortly.

What we don’t see is the Moderates endeavoring to impose sanctions, or even criticize, the Radicals. The extent of their interposition in the discussion is to claim that all Muslims should not be looked upon as Radical, while vociferously defending their “peaceful” position in the matter. They don’t want to be involved in a solution, and suggest that we have no right to judge them — we can only go after those who have proven to be Radical. They have distanced themselves and desire that we deal with the problem, even though the problem is with their religion. And, our government willingly defends that position, making us “own” the Muslim problem, though distancing themselves from any solution, except the government solution of violence in the Middle-East. They won’t even consider profiling Muslims as potential threats in this country.

As I understand Islam, there are a number of sects, as there are in Christianity. The largest sect appears to be the Sunni Muslims, so if we want a model to evaluate, the Sunni is the most logical subject.

In May 2013, there was a conference held by Sunni Muslims in Scandinavia. One of the subjects was Islamophobia, and that is exactly where we want to go. Below, you will find a link to the excerpted portion of a talk by one of the speakers, Fahah Ullah Quereshi. To make clear the point that is to be made, we have transcribed that portion of Quereshis’ talk that is pertinent, and demonstrative of the point that is to be made.

Note: The entire YouTube video of “It’s Not the “Radical Shaykh” it’s Islam” (6:39), by Fahah Ullah Quereshi
The transcribed portion (3:22) (Emphasis in red text is pertinent parts)

[begin transcription]

Quereshi: Can we have the camera focusing on all the audience there? Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they always come with the same accusations – “This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports death penalty for this crime or that crime, or that he is homophobic, they subjugate women,” etc. etc. etc. It’s the same old stuff coming all the time, and I always try to tell them that, “Look, it’s not that speaker in that writing who has these extreme radical views, as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has, every Muslim believes in these things, just because they are not telling you about it, just because they are not out in the media does not mean they don’t believe in them.”

So I will ask you, everyone in the room, how many of you are normal Muslims, you are not extremists, you are not radical, you are just normal Sunni Muslims, please raise your hands?

[most of the room raises their hands]

Everybody, masha’Allah, Subhan Allah. Ok, take down your hands again. How many of you agree that men and women should sit separate? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Everyone agree, brothers & sister, subhan Allah. It’s not just this “radical shaykh” then, Allahu Akbar. Next question – how many of you agree that the punishments described in the Quaran and the Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it is, if it is from Allah and His Messenger, that is the best punishment possible for humankind and that is what we should apply in the world? Who agrees with that?

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row & a different man in the fifth row, raises their hands]  

Allahu Akbar! Are you all radical extremists? Subhan Allah. So, all of you are saying you are common Muslims, you all go to the different mosques. Are you a specific sect? Please raise your hand if you belong to an extreme sect.

[no one raises their hand]

No one, allahu akbar. How many of you just go to the mosques just to a normal Sunni mosque? Please raise your hands.

[everyone in the entire room, except for one man in the front row, raises their hands]

Allahu akbar! So, what is the politicians going to say now? What is the media going to say now? That we are all extremists? We’re all radicals? We need to deport all of us from this country? Subhan allah. Allahu akbar! Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: Takbir!

Audience: Allahu akbar!

Quereshi: May we have the next question, please?

[end transcription]

Though he only gets specific concerning women sitting apart from men, in his next question, he incorporates the penalties imposed by the “Quaran”; death, stoning, etc. So, though he only mentioned the one crime and referred to adultery, he is completely inclusive of all crimes listed in the “Quaran” and the “Sunnah”. That would include the loss of a limb for theft, beheading for other crimes, anything that is written would have the appropriate penalty — regardless of the law of any country in which those crimes might occur, and where the penalty is dispensed.

Now, back to the original question, Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”? Well, he provides the answer in the very next question, when he asks if anyone present belongs to an extremist sect. No hands are raised, so none of the attendees — those who agree with the punishments provided for by Islam — is a member of an “extremist sect”. Yet they have agreed that they hold to values that are extreme in our country and culture.

What we can easily conclude form the above is that though they do not consider themselves to be “extreme”, there can be little doubt that when they bring their ideology to our country, our legal system, and our culture, they are nothing but “extreme”.

Liberty or Laws?
… jealously guard our Liberties

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 11, 2014

Who will fire the first shot? Who can fire the first shot? Contemplation of these questions causes me to recall a situation, many years ago, when I was first confronted with the thought of aiming, squeezing, and taking the life of another human being. It is not difficult to recall that memory, as it is one that will stay with me the rest of my life; that thought and that first time that I did aim, squeeze and fire.

The thought first occurred as we began the second leg of a flight from California to Hawaii, and then on to Tan Son Nhut Airbase, Saigon, Vietnam. Our short stop in Hawaii was about long enough to get a Scotch and Water, and then re-board. We snuck our drinks onto the charter commercial aircraft, took off, and headed southwest, into a combat zone.

Shortly after we settled in at flying altitude, I finished my drink and began thinking of the adventure that awaited me. Through training and my previous two years in the Army, I had relived the adventures of war, as presented by the prolific black & white movies of action during World War II. However, it struck me that I was not going into training; rather, I was going to put that training into action. I would surely find myself, at some point, faced with the necessity of aiming and squeezing. Would I be up to such a task, when that time came?

My religious beliefs never distinguished between murder and killing, so there was a moral dilemma, which, for the first time in my life, I had to seriously contemplate. Could I do what I had surely been called upon to do?

As I reflected upon the moral consequences, I realized that back there, behind me, throughout the country, there was a government, representing the people of the United States, which had, by issuing my orders into combat, taken the burden of the moral responsibility from of me. My job was to do for my country what it had asked me to do.

Months later, even though there had been some long range exchanges of rifle fire, and some mortar attacks on our base, I did find myself with a clear view of the enemy. I was in the back seat of a Bird Dog. We were flying low over a Viet Cong transfer point at the “Horseshoe” of the Mekong River. My M-14, being as long as it was, was tucked behind me. The pilot, however, handed me his M-16. As I raised the barrel, I could see the one that I had in my sights running, rapidly, for cover. We were flying at treetop, with nearly full flaps, and I was probably not more than 60 meters from him. His hat flew off as he ran, and I could see the expression on his face, which I judged to be fear. This didn’t distract me, as I fired off about ten rounds. One of them struck him in the leg. His partner, ahead, apparently responded to his call, turned and grabbed him and helped him into some bushes, in the attempt to cover their location. The pilot then turned back to the location where they had sought cover, and laid a 2.75″ HE (High Explosive) rocket into the bushes.

As we flew back to base, I thought about what had happened, and I knew that I was able to do what is probably the most difficult single obstacle in combat, taking a human life for the first time. That thought, however, was not passing. No, it remains with me, and will do so until I have become the dust that those two Viet Cong became, because of our action.

Many records available demonstrate the difficulty in “fresh” soldiers being willing to aim and squeeze. They will often fire over the head of the enemy, doing their job, but doing so in such a way as to “protect” their moral values. Those records include from the Revolutionary War to the present, though nowadays, the Army uses electronic games, similar to “Doom”, to train the soldier to overcome that moral objection. They fire, and a very human looking figure reacts in a very natural manner, with the blood squirting or misting, just as in real life, to condition the trainee to accept that taking another life is nothing more than a game. However, for most, the moral stigma still attaches itself to our conscience.

So, who will fire the first shot, when that event that will spark the inevitable confrontation between a people wishing to be free, and a government which continues to encroach upon their Liberties?

In a previous article (He Who Leads the Charge), I address the consequence that will fall to many of us, as we take upon ourselves the task bestowed upon us by the Founders — to retain our form of government for “ourselves and our Posterity“. While we are at it, let’s look at another well-known phrase from our Founding, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Those phrases have historical significance, though we have some newer phrases that most are familiar with, such as, “… from my cold, dead hands“, “… one bullet at a time“, etc. Now, those last two are purely rhetorical, as they serve no purpose other than bluster on the part of the speaker. However, many in the patriot community often express the first two. The question is, when they are expressed, is it rhetorical, or is it sincere? If the former, then clearly you are not prepared to face the challenge that lies before us, nor have you seriously contemplated that challenge.

Let’s look at some more rhetoric, “They will soon declare martial law. We cannot do anything because if we do, they will declare martial law.” Isn’t that rhetoric a bit oxymoronic?

It is clearly evident that the law enforcement in this country is rapidly becoming militarized. Should we await the completion of the militarization before we act?

Perhaps we should heed the words of Patrick Henry, when he said, “The war is inevitable – and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come! ”

If we are to retain our birthright, Liberty, the object of the sacrifices of those who gave us this once great nation, it will come at a cost. Of that, we can be assured.

One thing is certain in combat. Once the action begins, those who have resolved themselves to the necessity of taking lives have taken the necessary action. Others, regardless of the moral hesitation, when the necessity has passed beyond rhetoric and into reality, will eventually follow. If they don’t catch on, they will probably be killed. The idea, quite simply, is to KILL him before he kills you. It will be the truly courageous — the heroes of our future history — who fire those first shots, with a clear understanding of the necessity of doing so.

Our choice, our actions, our future, depend upon whether we agree to obey the laws that currently protect the government and criminalize our actions, or to obey our conscience, and jealously guard our Liberties, an obligation imposed by the Founders and memorialized by our Founding Documents.

94th Rec. Airplane Co.
Duc Hoa, Vietnam
1967

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Militia in Defense of the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Toledo War

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Honey War

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Celebration of Independence Day – 2014

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, 2014, and in the Year of our Independence, Two-hundred and Thirty-nine

It seems that time, especially the last 150 years, has eroded away the Independence gained by the Founders, at the cost of their lives and fortunes, though their Honor is still preserved, for the time being.

Our traditions have been trampled into the dust of history (except the hot dogs and fireworks – though the latter is slowly becoming illegal).

An example is that of dating documents. If you go to your county courthouse and look at the public records and deeds from the early Nineteenth Century, you will see something like:

This 4th day of July, in the Year of Our Lord, Two-Thousand and Fourteen, and of our Independence, Two-hundred and Thirty-nine.

Yes, today starts the 239th year of what was gained, then, and is slowly dying.

We have lost the reverence we had for the moral foundation of this country, through subjugation of the churches to the dictates of an administrative agency known as the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). In those formative years, church pulpits were inspirational in discussing the rights of the people, and the necessity of opposing the creeping despotism from across the ocean. Now, they have become pulpits of political correctness — in order to retain their tax-exempt status.

Similarly, our educational system, I won’t say Public Schools, since they have been stealthily subverted into propagandized reeducation camps for our children, so I call them what they are, government schools. Their purpose is to propagate a belief in a government system whereby the words and ideals of the Founders have been distorted and in most cases, omitted, from the “knowledge” being taught to those who will soon hold in their hands the reins of the of this country.

As an old house, whose foundation is beginning to crumble, if not repaired, the house will soon follow. With proper maintenance of the foundation, and continual (education) repair to the house, itself, that house may continue to serve the posterity of those who first built it, for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years, becoming, once again, a beacon unto the world.

I am reluctant to say, “Happy Independence Day”, as there is nothing happy about the threatened failure of both foundation and house, though I do hold in my heart a celebration that the work to be done is, already, in progress.