Tahoe Regional Area Plan (TRAP)
by K. M. Heaton  (Aug. 28, 1913 – Jun. 6, 2000)

(Note: This article was printed in the Outpost of Freedom newspaper on February 5, 1993.  The date that it was written is unknown.)

While citizens around the country are becoming alarmed at the regional activity in their areas which threatens their own local government and their rights to use their property as they choose, there are some in El Dorado and Placer Counties in California, and in Douglas, Washoe and Ormsby Counties in Nevada who know only too well that the alarm is justified.

Those El Doradoans who live in what is known as “the Tahoe Basin” have come face to face with the hard reality of planning-by-government, and they rue the day when the Tahoe Regional Area Plan was placed over their Constitutional government.

Even those who wished for oversight to “preserve the beauty of the lake“, have lived to regret the imposition of the controls they thought they wanted to achieve that goal.  The controls fell far short of their stated purpose, but laid a heavy hand on the lives of all the citizens in those five counties – even those who did not live in the Basin.

Like most of their fellow Americans, the residents of the Tahoe Basin lived a workaday existence.  They exhibited minimal political awareness.  Very few took any interest in partisan activities.

Surrounded by mountain peaks, Tahoe was isolated from the mainstream of American life, except for the summer tourist population, which in recent years had been matched in winter by skiers enjoying the snow-clad mountains.

Even longtime residents were at a loss when the California and Nevada Legislatures took the step that placed them and their future outside the protection of the United States Constitution.

There had been warning signs, of course.  There always are, if people only knew.  But such a radical step as took place under the Tahoe Plan was inconceivable.

It should not have been, for the fact that something was in the wind had not been a secret for many years, just as it is no secret today that government everywhere is facing a similar assault – and not just in the United States.  When George Herbert Walker Bush announced the creation of a “New World Order“, he simply made official what students of the regional movement had known for years.

But the fact is that there were none on guard to read the warning signals, to look beyond them and find out why they were raised, and what they would portent.

At Tahoe, as elsewhere, citizens actually took part in the general planning for “economic development”, without knowing what that really meant, nor what the “plan” might be, nor how their personal futures were directly tied to what was being done.  Certainly, no thought was ever entertained that it meant an end to their guarantees under the Constitution.

In El Dorado County, the “general plan” was brought in through a long-term effort, initiated at the federal level, but energized by some in the power structure of the county.  The first direct move into the county took place without fanfare, and unknown to most citizens.  There is a question if even the elected officials of the time were aware of it, for there is no indication of their complicity as a body.  Of all the people whose involvement can be identified, none were elected and only one is a name recognized five years later in county activity.

Since this was the first overt step in El Dorado toward regional governance, and since it was taken by authority of the United States Department of Agriculture, and since it was part of “a nationwide inventory” reputedly set up by the Secretary of Agriculture, it has significance for every local government in the nation.

Throughout 1958 and ’59 (yes, it was that long ago, and even longer, as you will learn), groups of “Resource agency” representatives held meetings as part of a national program to provide data “useful to federal, state and local agencies and private interests for efficient planning, programming, research, administration and legislation, affecting soil and water resources.”  So said the Report this group issued for El Dorado County.  (And for how many others?)

Using the so-called “population explosion” as the stated impetus, these early planners laid the foundation for their final recommendations, saying that “nothing is more important to health, welfare, and general happiness of the people than to maintain the right relationship or balance between people and these basic resources.”  (Apparently these ‘experts’ never head of the ‘Declaration of Independence’.)

The Report winds up with a ‘summary’ of their findings in a “Conservation Needs Inventory“.  There it was predicted (with out substantive data to use as a base) that the El Dorado population would increase from 50 to 100% by 1975.  (Quite a disparity there! and it did not).  They stated that this increase would create new problems in land use and conservation.  They asserted that this would affect as much as one third of “the county’s land” and influence its economy.  Then they opined that “Long term land-use planning is needed“, and offered the data in their Report as a base for such planning.

The “data” they offered refuted their own premises, and confirmed that land use planning was the single goal.

A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY

In a book entitled “New Worlds for Old”, written in 1908, H. G. Wells, Fabian Socialist historian, and long-time promoter of the New World Order, described the techniques needed to achieve the Fabian goal.  He wrote:

“…the reconstruction of our legislative and local government machinery is a necessary preliminary to Socialization in many directions.”

Those who refuse to accept the fact of the long effort to prepare the United States to surrender its sovereignty to a New World Order either have not done their homework, or they are collaborators or co-conspirators.  The record is too clear to admit any other evaluation.

The roots of regionalism existed for almost a century, before the fruit began to ripen.  From official reports, the flowering began in 1913.  The “necessary preliminaries” are constantly referenced in their working papers, both in the past, and still today.  This was also the case in the matter of the system imposed on the Tahoe Basin.

The care with which the wheels were greased in creating the machinery to turn this nation into a totally managed and controlled society in preparation for the time to come when it could be merged with third world countries was never more evident than in the source material leading to the so-called “Tahoe Compact”.

Lacking knowledge of the intent at the time the Tahoe grab was begun, the end would have been hard to foresee.  As a collaborating legislator in California smirkingly told an irate citizen who demanded to know how the Tahoe Plan could have taken shape without those living there being aware of it:

“We played it close to our chest.”

That may have been the first honest statement he made in his political career, but it was the sad truth – not just about Tahoe, but about whole regional movement.

Who could have guessed, for instance, that the first successful attempts to provide subventions and grants-in-aid to the States would have established a precedent that would give the federal government control of local districts by means of perversion of the “welfare clause”?

Probably the last real president of these United States, Grover Cleveland, recognized the unConstitutionality of such a move, but even he did not see the bigger picture of a planned destruction of the United States Constitution, when he reported to the Congress:

“I return without my approval House Bill #10203.  It is represented that a drought in the State of Texas (has resulted) in a failure of the crops… I am willing to believe that … a donation of seed… would serve… but I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering.”

“A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited… power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.  Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectation of paternal care… and weakens the sturdiness of the national character…”

So you see, even in 1887, the tendency was “prevalent” to provide what was to become a “pork barrel” for federal and state officials to dip into, and to “spend and spend and elect and elect“.  Once this protective barrier was broken in 1913, a flood of “federal money” was released – capable of buying, not just individuals, but whole sections of government.

Referring to the argument that such appropriations are Constitutional under the Constitution, then-Supervisor William V. D. Johnson of El Dorado County pointed out:

“There is no ‘welfare clause’… That phrase in the Preamble ‘to promote the general welfare’ simply means that we were adopting the Constitution to ensure the general welfare by clearly enumerating the powers given to the federal government and by reserving the remainder to the States…”

While the Constitution retained the intent of the Founding Fathers, that was the recognized meaning, as clearly enunciated by Grover Cleveland.

It was this phrase in the Preamble which, perverted by the Planners, made possible the usurpations of the Roosevelt ‘brain trusters’, made possible the usurpations of the Planners, and prepared the way for the Tahoe TRAP.  But the programs of the 30s were too bold.  They awakened resistance in a people still knowledgeable of the meaning of their government, and the way it should function.  These began to ‘view with alarm’, and to react.

Then the regionalist adopted the argument of the Constitutionalists, and made it serve them!  They demanded a return of the usurped means of taxation of the States and local governments, and then they created “intergovernmental cooperation” to divert State sovereignty for their own purposes.  By this ruse they brought “interstate cooperation” into State legislatures, and succeeded in creating appointed “Commissions on Interstate Cooperation” to carry forward the work of 1913s, Council of State Governments.

It was the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation (CCIC) which spearheaded the reconstruction of our State and local government machinery, and to prepare for the planned change into appointive governance – and for the regional “compact” at Tahoe, sitting astride the boundaries of California and Nevada, and in so doing eliminating the border between the states there.

 

BAITING THE TRAP

Official interference with the lawful operation of the governmental machinery provided in the Constitution for the United States of America had its beginnings early in this century, but it was not until the 1930s that the Plan for turning elective government into appointive administrative governance was exposed.  This was spelled out in a series of Reports issued by Roosevelt’s National Resources Committee (NRC, aka National Resources Planning Board, NRPB).

In the manner of the Tahoe Regional Area Plan, there is not only a direct linkage with the NRPB in the person of a “principal collaborator” of the NRPB, but there exists an entire series of Reports in California, which demonstrate a close relationship to the recommendations of the Board.  These Reports show the shallowness of the purported reasons for usurping the legal government at Tahoe, and its replacement by the tyrannical Agency that now rules the Basin.

Among the numerous projects promoted by the NRPB and its Committees, (many of which are now only too familiar), was a Call for “intergovernmental cooperation” and the “greatest possible use” of 1913s, state Leagues of Cities and Municipal Officers.  The States responded to this Call less than two years after it was issued, and several years before Congress apparently even became aware of it and repudiated both the Report and the NRPB!

The California Commission On Interstate Cooperation

The California Commission on Interstate Cooperation (CCIC) was established in 1939 and, according to its annual reports, was “substantially identical” to CICs in 43 other States.  By 1948, all states had CICs.

CCIC was formed under a “uniform act” (one of 1913s so called “model laws”) as, it may be assumed, were the other States’ CICs.  Under the California statute, the State was made a “participating member of the 1913 Council of Governments.

The stated purpose of the CICs was “to furnish a means” to deal with “interstate problems” specifically with interstate compacts, uniform and model legislation of the several states, promotion of regional programs, and reciprocal administrative acts or agreements to “develop interstate unity“.

In effect, the CICs are a “government within a government”, and have other goals and means than those provided for in the Constitution.

The first five years of CIC activity around the nation are summarized in the first Report of the California CIC, issued in 1945.  Those who wonder “How could these things to on without our knowledge?” would wonder no more after reading the chronological record of those five years – years during which most Americans were intent on the events of WW 2, and were not even remotely thinking about losing their tried and true government.

But this is the story of Tahoe, so for the moment that narrative must be bypassed.

It was the 1949 Report of CCIC that first brought up the Plan for Tahoe.  The Report does not say what the Governor of Nevada said to the Governor of California which led the latter to direct his CCIC to take on “a study of certain problems related to … suppression of diseases transmissible to humans from wild rodents, adequacy of good water supply, real estate subdivision practices, and pollution of the waters of Lake Tahoe…” but that was the beginning of the desperate twenty year battle to erase the first state boundary through regionalism, and to end representative government for that area.

CCIC and NCIC created a Joint Committee on Tahoe, and a year later, that body added the “population explosion” to the agenda.  In succeeding years, fire protection, sewage and garbage disposal, fishing licenses, drainage and trucking were additional bait for the TRAP.

Endless surveys were conducted.  Perhaps the most interesting of these was one purportedly intended to obtain “public input” on what would be a desirable level of the waters of the Lake!  Strangely, the 1959 CCIC Report states that this was a “campaign to acquaint Lake Tahoe residents with the problems relating to the… Lake which affect them, and also to develop a desire among these residents to work together in proposing acceptable solutions to some of these problems.  This Report also says that these surveys were made to contain the necessary information that would lead to “satisfactory completion of a compact.”  No one interviewed about this remembered being told that!

But at long last, a proposal for a compact was finally developed in 1963, and legislation to implement it was introduced in both State Legislatures.  However, while California was still debating the issue, Nevada’s Legislature killed the twin bill.  On learning of this development, then occupant of the California Governor’s Office, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown”, Sr., expressed his regrets, but added, “This is not the end.”

And of course it wasn’t.  Regionalists never give up on key issues, and Tahoe was one such.  CCIC began immediately to explore further ways to obtain this goal.  Creation of a bi-state park was an alternative they considered, but the prior eagerness of the two Legislatures seemed to have cooled and there was no enthusiasm for this.

Officials in local governments involved with Tahoe had begun to smell something fishy.  Some even recognized the determined effort to regionalize Tahoe and they balked – “…reluctant,” CCIC reported, “to relinquish their authority.”  (Ed. comment:  How reactionary!)

When the Bill which finally created the Tahoe Agency was submitted in California, it was met with as great opposition as had ever been seen in the State.  Local governments clearly and precisely gave the lie to every argument put forward in support of this outrageous “taking”.  They demonstrated that every claim made by the promoters of this monstrosity was either false, or had already been dealt with by local action.  There was absolutely no support from local residents who, along with local governments and volunteer organizations, gave substantive opposition.  The limited support all came from “conservation” groups, San Francisco interests, and the Governors of the two States.

AB 1362 received the requisite number of votes for passage, was matched in Nevada, signed by the two Governors, approved by Congress and became law with the blessing of the man sitting as President of the United States – and the citizens of Tahoe went under administrative rule.  As you will see, that “law” did not just impact Tahoe and the States directly involved.  It now rules the lives of all citizens of the United States, wherever they live with its boundaries.  (The following excerpts from the body of the CCIC 1963-65 Report demonstrate the long-term process of undermining the foundations of representative government, which led to acceptance of the TRAP):

CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION

Sacramento

I am pleased to transmit herewith a copy of the Report of the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation for the period from July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1965.

Cordially yours,

Glenn M. Anderson, Chairman

INTRODUCTION

ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION

The California Commission on Interstate Cooperation was established in 1939 as a statutory agency of the State of California (Cal.Stats. 1939, Chap. 376).  As amended in 1947 and 1959, the act setting forth the membership and duties of the Commission is contained in Title 2.  Division 1, of the Government Code.

Under previous authorization, the commission is comprised of the seven members of the Assembly Committee on Interstate Cooperation including specifically the Speaker of the Assembly and the Chairman of the Rules Committee; the seven members of the Senate Committee on Interstate Cooperation; the five state officials appointed by the Governor to serve at his pleasure; and the Governor and one member of the California Commission on Uniform State Laws designated by the Governor as an ex officio, nonvoting member.

The commission is directed by statute to carry forward the participation of California as a member of the Council of State Governments both regionally and nationally, to confer with officers of other states and of the federal government, to formulate proposals for cooperation between California and the other states, and with the federal government, and to organize and maintain government machinery for such purposes.

RELATION WITH THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

The California Commission on Interstate Cooperation also acts in a liaison capacity.  With similar organization in other states, it promotes better understanding of federal-state problems.  The commission and facilities the interchange among California, the other states and their national associations, of experiences and studies pertaining to the common problems of the states.  Whenever findings or action on the federal, state or association level may have gainful application in California or an effect on its welfare, they are communicated to the responsible agencies of the state.

Much of the work of the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation is conducted through the Council of State Governments – an agency created, supported and managed by the states to facilitate the internal relations with each other and with other levels of government  As a joint agency of all the states, the council makes available to them research materials and information on developments, problems and procedures in state government; staff services for regional and national meetings of state officials; and liaison and technical assistance effecting cooperation among the states and with federal government for the solution of interstate and federal problems.

THE FIRST QUARTER CENTURY

As noted in the introduction, the commission was created in 1939.  Thus during the biennium covered by this report, the CCIC passed its silver anniversary.

During these years, the commission has participated in developing a broad variety of interstate joint programs and arrangements.  Among these are programs that relate to crime, juvenile delinquency, education, civil defense, vehicle taxation, driver licensing and traffic safety, fisheries, and many others.  Some are nationwide involving most or all of the states; some are compacts affecting only the western states, and a few are agreements between California and its immediate neighbors only.

(Note the wide range of activities in which these CICs were involved.  Was this done with the knowledge and consent of the people – or just their ‘representatives’?)

The California Commission, through these and similar programs and activities, endeavors to strengthen and improve state governments and through mutual agreements, to solve problems common to California and neighbor states.

(Under what authority are the CICs permitted to “solve the problems common to the states”?)

The commission, under current authorization, is somewhat different from its initial makeup.  Then, it provided for the commission to be composed of five members from each house, plus five to be appointed by the Governor from the administrative branch.  The National Conference on Uniform State Laws has existed, in one form or another since the last decade of the 19^th century.

(Note the admission of when this process actual began – in the 1890s!  Did you know that?)

Though California had been informally participating in the national conference, it was not until 1927 that the Legislature authorized California membership.

(For “informal participation”, read “without legislative approval” – unlawfully.)

The Council of State Governments had been organized in 1913 and had been growing steadily in state affiliations, and had demonstrated that interstate co-operation through voluntary agreements among the states glowed with promise.  However, by the time California became an affiliate, a dark shadow – international relations – the threat of war – tended to diminish the glowing promise; problems to be solved through mutual agreements among the states were abundant, but the threat of war became the overriding problem.

(The history of the “social science” movement, of which TRAP is an operational segment, suggests that WW 2 was critical to activation of the Plan for a New World Order.)

(California’s CIC was dissolved around 1969, yet every year for many years, this no-longer-existing Commission received a regular contribution of taxpayers’ money, funding this link to regional HQs for some obscure reason.  In 1981, the sum of $76,000 passed through this shadow body to the Council of State Governments.)

The “New” American Revolution

“Would you believe me if I were to tell you that I live under a government that has taxing, police and legislative powers, but I do not elect the governing board?”

“Nor do I have recall rights against my governors, nor initiative nor referendum rights against the laws they ‘pass’.  Yes, I do have that distinction, and I do live in the United States – at Lake Tahoe.”

Those are the words of William Van Dike Johnson, at the time a Supervisor from the 2^nd District in El Dorado County, in a speech he made many times around the State of California.  He first made those remarks to the Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), in opposition to their program for “substate redistricting”.

There was an audible gasp from the throng attending the ACIR Hearing in San Francisco.

There is no man in this country better qualified to speak to the ramifications of regionalism than Bill Johnson.  When (as a private citizen) he first began to recognize an intent for government to take over plans for private property, he accepted a position on the County Planning Commission, publically stating that he believed there should be a voice on such bodies which spoke for the people.

As a Planning Commissioner, Bill testified to the State Senate Local Government Committee that such bodies are too prone to become a solid front against the people’s interest and that his vote always took into consideration the rights of the owners of property, and their expressed desire to use their property in their own best interest.  He served with such distinction on the Commission that the people of his district wisely selected him to represent them on the Board of Supervisors, where he served three terms.

On that Board, he worked long and hard – not just to do the job for which he was elected, but also to alert other county officials and citizens in general to the source and the nature of the problems, which seemed to mount daily as a result of edicts handed down from other levels of government.

It was Bill Johnson who first called the attention of his Board – and the public – to what he described as one of the most infamous pieces of effrontery ever perpetuated by any ‘governing body’ in the United States – Ordinance #10 issued by the Tahoe Regional Agency.

It was Bill who led the El Dorado Board of Supervisors in unanimously denouncing Ordinance #10 in no uncertain terms, in a two-page “White Paper”, which began:

“At first glance, the document strikes the reader as an absurd, humorous ‘put-on’…  Nevertheless, we are forced to recognize that the proposal is being advanced in deadly earnest…”

“We are not dealing here with matters of pollution, erosion control, housing density, waste disposal, or the customary building or housing codes…”

“We are confronted with a Plan to deny citizens the right to develop their own design concept, choose their own materials, and believe it or not, the color scheme to be used…  Controls are spelled out in exquisite detail, ranging from the shape and style of the buildings to requiring approval of plant material used in landscaping the backyard…”

“…the crushing necessity for this outrage is attributed to the need to “effectuate the adopted regional Plan”.  There is even a finding that an emergency exists requiring immediate action.”

“Seldom has a more blatant sophistry been employed by any government – anywhere…”

At that time, there was nothing more the Board could do.  The Legislatures of California and Nevada, the Governors of both States, the Congress and the president of the United States had joined together in taking from them their Constitutional duty to represent the citizens who had elected them.

Alerted by the White Paper, though, the citizens stormed the next meeting of the Agency.  To still the protest, Ordinance #10 was not approved at that meeting, as intended.  Had the Board not sounded that alarm, those controls would have been placed over them unannounced.  Proof of that is the fact that, one by one, they have been quietly passed since then, and Tahoe went under that kind of control.

El Dorado had opposed the Agency from the beginning.  Twice it sought relief from the Courts.  For years, the County refused to tax its citizens who did not live in the Tahoe area to pay its expenses – required by the law that created the Agency.  The Board encouraged then-State Senator John Schmitz to prepare a bill to dissolve the Agency, and supported him in his effort to get it passed.  It was all to no avail.

Until the citizens of this nation come to realize what regional planning will mean to them, individually, and become aware that they are electing men and women who permit such things to go on, all the protests and the legal action are simply an exercise in futility.

Tahoe was a test case.  The Court said so.  The legal decisions made on Tahoe are precedents for all such agencies – in existence or to be created.

This is revolution – the “new” American Revolution – within the form of our lawful government, but without the consent of the people.

The Price of a Lake

How can the cost of the “common good” be assessed when individual rights are in the balance?

In which column are the shattered remnants of a thousand dreams to be placed?

How are the ‘rights’ of public access weighed against the rights vested in private property?

How is the value of a treasured heritage of representative government measured against a monstrous parody, which retains some of the familiar outlines, but from which the essential elements have been removed?

These are issues which should be at the forefront in campaign rhetoric of every candidate for office in the United States today – but are rarely mentioned – if ever.  If they were, would there be mad repudiation at the polls of those who would not discuss them?

What would happen to those in office if their opponents demanded an accounting for their cooperation in the massive regional attack on the historic, lawful American government?

These things would be discussed, if every American knew what the property owners at Tahoe learned firsthand.  The general public is simply not aware yet that powers that belong to them are being granted to regional bodies by the people they elect.

Worse than that, it is not generally understood that there are certain matters (which the Founders of this nation called “inalienable rights”), which even those elected are not free to dispense.

Even worse than that, it seems most people do not yet understand why that is important.

Ti is important because “all men are granted certain inalienable rights by their creator” – rights which they, themselves, cannot ‘alienate’ (or give away).  If the possessors of those rights cannot give them to anyone else, how is it possible that their agents are doing it?

This vital question is ignored in all political discussions.  Ignored, too, is the effect – not just on the body politic, but on the lives of the citizens who have been disenfranchised – by the autocratic decisions which are made, using those usurped powers.

It would take a book to tell the myriad stories of distress caused by the ‘autocratic’ decisions made by the Agency at Tahoe, but for a case in point, consider the plight of one woman there, who owned a piece of paper deeding her five acres of prime land.  When she and her husband acquired that piece of paper, they thought they had bought those acres for their own use.  The paper said that 40 residential units could be built on each acre.  The area was booming, and it looked like a good investment for their future.

The land increased in value, and the first to recognize that was the county assessor.  Soon they were paying taxes on a valuation of two hundred thousand dollars, and their dream had new luster.

Then tragedy struck, and, as usually happens, not singly.  Her husband died, and the regional authority was created – and began to impost “its” plans on the citizens.

Down zoning was imposed on the property to “limit population growth“, supposedly to “protect the Lake”.  The widow learned that now only 15 units per acre could be built – no matter what her paper said.  The Agency did not propose refunds for all the taxes they had paid for the higher use.

Before she recovered from that blow, another mandate was issued, which made the deed to per property all but worthless.  The new edict prohibited construction of more than one unit per acre until all the buildable land in the area had been developed.  Under those circumstances, there was no hope at all that she could even sell the property for anywhere near what they had paid for it years before.  Building under the present ukase would be folly.  But the taxes go on, and the mortgage must be met.

What price should a widow have to pay to “preserve the beauty of a Lake“?

The basic facts of her plight could be multiplied thousands of times at Tahoe – and in other areas of the country where land-use-planning by government has stolen individual rights in property.  Land which brought fabulous prices before government usurped the decision-making process, becomes a drug on the market – just as it as intended, when the Agency was created for Tahoe.  Those who had bought before then were unable to use their property for any feasible purpose, and default was a dark threat.  More than that, if they try to sell it, the prospective buyer will find an army of bureaucrats standing between him and any plan he might have for it.  He would be a fool to pay what it is “worth”.  Or is it “worth” anything?

One resident at Tahoe who had a large herd of cattle had to liquidate his holdings.  Having paid over a half a million dollars in taxes in the ten years before the ‘compact’ – he could not afford to keep them anymore.  Many smaller ranchers were in the same boat.

What price, the beauty of a Lake?  All of the costs of the Tahoe Agency are not recognized – not even by the public.  One of those costs is the imposition of taxation without representation.  Who remembers that this was the smoldering fire that sparked the tinder to cause the America Revolution?

Under the legislation that created the Agency, some of its funding comes from State taxes – all of California citizens are hostage for that.  The Agency decides how much it will need each year, counts up how much will be received under the provisions of the legislation, and then, under the compact, demands the remainder from the counties out of which the regional body was carved – from citizens outside its jurisdiction.

Like an ominous harmonic, the inequities of the costs and controls of the Agency are underscored by the constant refrain that the need for it for any of the stated purposes was never proven:

–        The Lake is not – nor ever was – “stagnant“.

–        Waste Control was already well underway by local governments.

–        Runoff waters were already being diverted.

–        Rodent control was a continuing effort.

–        Planning and zoning were a fact.

Nor is there any substantive reason to believe that the Agency can guarantee “preservation of the Lake” – short of removing the entire population and closing the access roads.

What value, then, the beauty of a Lake?

The People vs. the County of El Dorado

The appeal by El Dorado County for a legal decision on the “taxation without representation” issue was held in limbo, until the State Attorney General brought a mandamus proceeding to “compel the County to pay its fair share” of the costs of the Tahoe Regional Agency.  At that point, the Court granted the writ, and took the whole matter of the County’s complaints as well as those of the State, under advisement.

The case should have been called “The People vs. The People“, since that was the essence of the proceedings.  It might as well have been The People of the United States vs. The People of the United States, for the Court began its “opinion” by stating that the issues presented were of great concern to the entire country.

And so they were.  And are.

The decisions regarding the Tahoe Agency are precedents for all succeeding actions against regional bodies, everywhere in this country.

Since El Dorado County made its appeal on behalf of all its citizens, and not just those who were under the regional compact, the decisions of this court also have meaning for all Americans.

The decisions on the matters involving Tahoe also bring new significance to the pressures to make all State Constitutions uniform.  Without such uniformity, there will be labored twistings to apply the California decisions in States which do not succumb to the new revisionism, but the nature of these decisions gives assurance that even in citizens in those States which retain their ‘outmoded Constitutions” will face a troubled future.

Up front, the Court had to stretch the meaning of “mandamus” to make it cover this case, since there was “an absence of adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law“, and a pressing necessity to end the El Dorado resistance to the Agency.

Having granted the writ, the Court then found that the two counties involved in the Compact had to pay the Agency demand, since (the Court pontificated), “…limitations of the California Constitution do not prevent the Legislature from authorizing a district to impose taxes for a State purpose“.  Conveniently, the legislature had recorded in the bill that created the Agency that the preservation of the Lake was a State interest, and the reason for the Agency.

The Court also found that taxing citizens not under the Agency’s umbrella was legal, even though there was no direct relevance.  (Taxation without representation!)  The court said it was legal because the monies were not for county or local needs, but for regional purposes.

In these two decisions are the basis for trouble whenever regional bodies are created.  Because, you see, the “unauthorization” was, in fact, a mandate by the Legislature, included in the bill as passed, just as was the funding for the Agency, which imposed a tax on the whole of California.  Designating the purpose of the Agency as “regional” by passes any Constitutional constraints on spending.

But then, you see, the Court applied the same logic to the powers given to the Agency, and put them out of the reach of any State or Constitutional restrictions aimed at limiting regional powers.

The Court also found that the citizens under the Tahoe umbrella “are not entitled to the right of initiative, recall or referendum“, or to “the operation of the one-man-one-vote principal, in view of the interstate nature of the Agency, and of the interest of non-residents in the preservation of the Lake Tahoe Basin“.

And so, the court said, the Compact “properly provided for the appointment, as distinguished from the election of its governing board.”  And so, this Court gave a double whammy to representation, and that is an issue that should be given the closest scrutiny.

There was one item in this holding that is easily passed over, with such huge wounds inflicted on our lawful government, but it should be noted, for it is an ominous portent for a larger concern.

That is the recognition by the Court of “the interest of non-residents” in the affairs of Tahoe.  It is not unthinkable that this interpretation could at some point in time zoom out to impact our national government with “the interest of non-residents“.  Think about that.

Perhaps though, the most significant ruling by the California Court was this:

“The concept of equal protection of the law means simply that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.”

Are you listening, Florida:  New Jersey?  Washington State?  Texas?  You other States where regionalism is being promoted.  Do you hear the chains rattling for you?

“A district” said the Court, “is excluded from the initiative, referendum, and recall, if it has been formed under a law that does not provide for elections… if members of an official body are elected, the one-man one-vote principle applies, and if they are appointed, it does not apply.”

It is as simple – and as horrendous – as that.  “…whether the activities to be performed are legislative or administrative in nature is immaterial.”  Thus spake the Court.

Since it was “not only the Legislatures of California and Nevada, but also Congress” which conspired to create this monstrosity, the Court found that the broad delegation of powers were not unlawful.  It assumed Constitutionality, because of the source.

Lawsuits involving hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to individuals in the Basin brought up some very interesting points of law, but there is little hope for people whose lives and hopes, yes, and fortunes, hang on the decisions of Courts, which can make such decisions.  It is a clear and present warning to all citizens everywhere.  The best way to escape such a perversion of the precious heritage of representative government is to prevent regional bodies being superimposed on it.

These decisions on Tahoe make it obvious that there is no remedy in sight after the fact, except to figure out some way to remove the cancerous growth – a much harder way to go.

From the 1963-5 minutes CCIC’

“Mr. Matthews expressed surprise at being called upon because he thought he had just come for an airplane ride”

(Isn’t that what has happened to all of us?)

The illustration on the front cover of this Report, the map on page 5, and the inserts identified as “minutes” are from the official documents for the Plan for Lake Tahoe.

The statement in script on the cover gives a message from the Planners, The major error in this message lies in ignoring the fact that Plans like this are designated to deny Man the right to use that ability they define.

There is an identifiable Master Plan (of which this is a part):

“to commence the remodeling of the lives of American freemen… to mix the lives and hopes and dreams of human beings with physical resources, and attempt to measure and modify and restrict men and their intangibles…” 1

The Plan for Lake Tahoe was a pilot program for that Plan.

John L. Rankin “If this program, proposed by our so-called National Resources Planning Board, were put into effect, it would wreck this Republic, wipe out the Constitution, destroy our form of government, set up a totalitarian regime, and pile on our backs a burden of expenditures that no nation on earth could bear…”

Clare Hoffman:  “That horde of bureaucrats which promulgates the multiplicity of orders, rules, regulations and directives… have presumed to take solely unto themselves the prerogative of interpreting the intentions of Congress – reading into its enactments meanings never even thought of…”

Noah H. Mason “…It is a scheme to give the federal government control of every activity in this nation, with the States pushed back into a position of impotence, if not entirely obliterated…  A State that does not cooperate… is to be policed from Washington…”

And Congress repudiated the Plan, and eliminated the Planners – or so they thought…  What do you think now?

A Social Contract

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 18, 1994

The Founding Fathers relied upon, and developed much of the concept of the Constitution (a social contract) from the works of authors, thinkers and philosophers of the time. One of those was Rousseau, who wrote “The Social Contract”, who recognized the true relationship between government and people when the presumption was made that all just power derives from the people. Rousseau wrote:

“The moment the people is lawfully assembled as a sovereign body, all jurisdiction of the ‑government ceases the executive power is suspended, and the person of the hum blest citizen is as sacred and inviolable as that of the highest magistrate, because there can be no representatives in the presence of those they represent. . . The consuls were then only the people’s chairmen, the tribunes were only speakers, and the Senate was nothing at all.

“The government always dreads these intervals of suspension, when it recognizes, or should recognize, a present superior and such assemblies of the people, which am the shield of the body politic and the brake on the government, have always been the terror of the magistrates, who therefore spare no pains in raising objections, making difficulties, and giving promises to discourage the citizens from assembling. When the citizens am avaricious, lethargic, cowardly, or fonder of tranquility than of freedom, they do not hold out long against the redoubled a its of the government. It is thus that, as the opposing force constantly  increases, the sovereign authority finally  vanishes and most republics fail and perish before their time.

So, what stands between the sovereign authority (the people) and arbitrary government (that which Rousseau identifies as the “opposing force”)? The social contract which, in our case, is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution for the United States of America. It is easy to conclude the purpose for the Constitution, yet is it so easy to understand the peril that threatens it today?

We are told, from early school education through college, on television, radio, newspapers and nearly every from of social communication, that the changes in technology warrant a greater necessity for “law enforcement” and regulation. We are told that the reason for the second amendment was the need to hunt meat or to defend against outlaws and Indians. We are told that the need no longer exists, and that the passage of laws restricting firearms ownership are because of the rampant crime existent in America today. Do they tell us that the crime that we see today is not crime as envisioned by our forefathers? These “crime control acts” that they are constantly passing, if you think about it just a moment, are really “crime creation acts”, for they create crimes as a result of rule violations rather than damage or injury to victims. These “manifestations” of crime then lead to real crime as a result of putting people into a circumstance of being on the other side of the “law.” Then comes the “outrage” expressed by the politicians which results in reactive passage of even more restrictive laws, which results in further increase in “crime”, which results in passage of more laws ‑‑ And we see the results of Rousseau’s theory come to fruition.

Is there, however, and alternative to this slow but sure demise of our Constitutional Republic? Perhaps the Founding Fathers gave us a means to achieve these goals. In most republics of past history, and there were many, the cycle of their histories lasted about two hundred years. The Founding Fathers, understanding this reality, provided us a document written in simple terms so as to not be to difficult to be understood, yet provided us, also, with many supportive documents whereby we could learn of their inspiration and, perhaps, resurrect the Great Experiment. The tools were given us by the AntiFederalists when they insisted on the Bill of Rights. This “heart of the Constitution” assures us both the intent and the means of the salvation of this great nation. It is not an easy task, nor is it to be accomplished without effort by those who understand and desire to achieve this goal. More significantly it must be recognized that now is just short of to late to begin this process.

The Other (not so) Thin Line

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 5, 2012

There is a very thin line between what we believe to be our rights and what the government believes our rights are.  Unfortunately, that line continues, either by police action or court decisions, to move against us, allowing even greater power and control over our lives by the government.

There is another line that we might want to consider, though this line tends to ‘flow’ in a different direction.  If we look at the Patriot Community as a whole, and then endeavor to define the progression of those who have joined that community, from entry through, well, wherever they might be now, we, perhaps, can understand just what we are dealing with.

Let’s take a line that runs from left to right, with no political affiliation, philosophy, or ideology, in mind.  At the right end of the line are those who have been members of the Patriot Community for quite some time.  Their experience, research, and observations, along with their current mindset, have moved to the point of no return — that “state of Nature” that the Framers understood.  They might easily be referred to as extremists, as were those “Indians” who made tea in Boston Harbor.

On the left end of the line, we have those who have only recently began to see something amiss in government.  To provide a bit more perspective, if we revisit the nineteen-fifties, they John Birch Society had already seen the evil potential of the United Nations.  They, as a group, comprised a majority of those who might first be defined s “Patriots” by our modern understand.

Over the next forty years, those entering the community were few, and most were those how had begin to understand that the “income tax” (3% in the forties) was unconstitutional and basically a theft of personal property.  This activity brought a prolonged surge into the Community, though it extended over many years.  The issues were separate and singular, so there was no adhesive element to the Community.  Basically, there were “Get Us Out of the United Nations” and “Income Taxes Are Unconstitutional”

Then, in 1993, the federal government, primarily the BATF, raided a Church in Waco, Texas, on a Sunday morning.  A siege of epic proportions, under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lasted for 51 days — until the occupants remaining in the Church, with few exceptions, died in the fire that consumed the Church in tens of minutes.  Though there had been a militia element in the Patriot Community prior to Waco, there was a new surge, this occurring over a very short period.  The militia community was rather large; however, there was another large segment of people filled with disgust over the events then occurring.  Waco touched hundreds of thousands of people.  National news and alternative media (fax networks) brought a story to millions, unlike previous events.  This resulted in two more elements added to the Patriot Community, “Militia” and a contingent simply disgusted with the misdeeds of government and the broad assumption of authority that accompanied such an activity.  The Patriot Community had become more diverse (that word is not used in the politically correct context).

The next significant contribution to those who consider themselves to be part of the Patriot Community, though as in the past, many may not have come to that realization, yet, came just a few years ago, as it became apparent that our economy was beginning to collapse.  This infusion, the largest, by far, is also the most diverse.  That diversity is both about issues and means of achieving change (again, not the politically correct definition).  In fact, the apparent disparity might incline someone to believe that there is little, or nothing, in common within, let’s call it the “Tea Party Crowd”, let alone, the Patriot Community.

However, as time goes on, there is a tendency for the issues to merge, or, at least, have a degree of commonality with other issues.  Likewise, the means of achievement tend to focus away from the ineffective.

In these observations, I have intentionally omitted the anti-war groups, though they tend to be consistent with the John Birch Society.  Their omission is based upon the fact that, once the war they oppose is over, they either return to the comfort of the couch, or have, by association, joined in with another of the common causes of the Patriot Community.

Now, let’s stand back and look at this line.  Towards the right, we see a rather narrow but constant thickness to the line.  As we move towards the left, there is a very small bubble, very near the center, that reflects the “Waco” infusion.  Then, way over towards the left end is a rather large bubble that represents the Tea Party Crowd.  Of course, each of the bubbles taper of both left and right, the left being those moving along more slowly, the right, those progress more rapidly.

The problem that we face, however, is that the average will always shift to the left when there is a new infusion of members into the Patriot Community.  It is almost like undoing that which was done before, and the median is constantly shifting away from the fortitude that is necessary to affect real change.  The average is constantly shifting back towards “vote them out of office”, “Support the Republican Party”, or an effort to enact new laws (as if we need any new laws).  And, as those near the left move along to toward the right, they will soon find out that they, too, are outnumbered by the constant flow in on the left.

So, let’s leave the current line behind, for now, instead, let’s look at history.  In April 1775, most of the colonists would have been well to the left on the above-described line.  Any thought of violence would only have occurred in parts of Massachusetts and in North Carolina.  Contentment and peaceful change were the mean, and that was how it was, just as it is, today.  For example, in Albany, New York, word of the “Kings Troops” commencing “Hostilities” was received, via a letter from the Committee of Correspondence, on April 26, 1775.  The response to the letter received indicated that any real threat was “entirely Groundless”.  On May 1, a public meeting was held to determine if the citizens wished to take a position on the matter and appoint people to look into forming a District Committee of Safety and to prepare a plan to deal with the King’s “Ministerial Plan”.  Finally, on May 3, they began enrolling a Militia unit.

Had a role call been made of all of the colonists who were otherwise unsympathetic to the British intrusions into the colonist’s rights, the majority, most assuredly, would have voted against such action.  It was only after events were acted out that made continued “Hostilities” inevitable that the shift in thought — the joining of one side, or the other, was an inescapable necessity, regardless of prior reluctance.

To argue, now, to avoid the inescapable reality, that force will ever be necessary, flies in the face of historical fact, and, reality.  Or, to phrase it in the language of those days, “Load, shoot, or get out of the way”, but don’t attempt to hinder those who have been here longer and realize that there is but one means by which we will achieve our goal of restoration of Constitutional Government.

Until our line hardens sufficiently to keep their line from constantly encroaching, we will remain on the downhill side of achievement of our goal.

Independence Day 2012

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, in the Year of our Lord, 2012, and, of our Independence, 236

 

As we enter the 236th year of our Independence, perhaps it is time to reflect upon that which was achieved so many years ago, and, what has transpired since that time.

It was just a month before that when the Continental Congress had suggested that all of the colonies create new governments.  Two colonies revised their charters, omitting any reference to the King or England while the others wrote constitutions, forming new government based upon republican/democratic principles.

In 1781, the Article of Confederation were finally ratified, though were insufficient for the purpose of binding the colonies into a cohesive and functioning confederacy.

From 1776 through 1787, many of the original state constitutions had been heavily revised, or replaced, as the process of forming a government based upon theory was much more difficult than was first anticipated. Most importantly, the limitations on the power of the government were insufficient since those early government’s authority was nearly absolute.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, many of the apparent problems with the conversion of theory to practice had become known and were addressed in the new document known as the Constitution for the United States of America.  However, Article V provided for an amendment process, as they had learned from the past decade that theory to practice needed to have some practice to find what did not work according to theory.

Since that time, the deficiencies in the theory have manifested themselves into significant shortcomings as to what was intended when the Constitution was written.  Whether it be the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms; The prolific use of direct taxes that were supposed to be assessed only for purpose of emergency; The subversion of the jury and judicial process; or a multitude of other unforgivable sins, the limitations have been slowly abrogated in favor of more power in the government than was ever intended.  As the states went through that period of learning, the national government has, also. However, the national government has not taken the intended steps to correct those evils that those seeking power have found and utilized, contrary to the intentions of the Framers.

From the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776):

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. 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.

“[D]eriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” was the initial offering. That consent was granted, though it only continues so long as we don’t raise objection. Voting is not, by its nature, consent, especially when it is done only with hope that things will change.  Sons of Liberty #14 will explain that matter of consent, as perceived by the Framers.

“[W]hen long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” is the qualifier — the determinant — of when the system has failed for want of proper control.  That deficiency can be caused by omission from, or usurpation of, the original writing (Constitution). It is merely the object that, once perceived, is an alarm that the system and the intent has been subjugated to the authority of those who pursue that despotism. This, of course, leads us to:

“[I]t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”  Is it our responsibility to pass on to our posterity, when we know of the failure of the government? Or, is it our responsibility to, as the Founders did, by whatever means necessary, provide for our posterity, with the intention of a more severe and specific limitation of those powers granted to government?

duty –  noun.  That which a person owes to another; that which a person is bound, by any natural, moral, or legal obligation, to pay, do, or perform.

Habeas Corpus
A New Understanding

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 19, 2012

 

The Constitution provided for a separation of powers both within the federal government, and, between the federal government and the state governments (Republican Form, Art I, Sec IV, clause 4, Const.). There were limitations of, and grants of, authority given to the federal government. And, by the Tenth Amendment, those powers not granted were retained by the states or the people.

There is also a rather obscure provision that provided the means to protect the states and the people from encroachment by federal authority. When I say “obscure”, I do so because I am at a loss for the proper word. After all, nearly everybody in the country knows that “The Privilege of the Writ Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” (Art. I, Sec. 9. Clause 2, Const.). Most people also understand that Habeas Corpus is also known as the “Sacred Writ”, however, I would suggest that only a small handful really understand exactly what Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, really is. After all, the last time the United States Supreme Court heard a case on Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum was in 1876 (EX PARTE PARKS, 93 U.S. 18), yes, 136 years ago — long before any practicing attorney or judge ventured into law school to learn the “law of the land”. Given the number of generations between that last occurrence, is it any wonder that the concept, and the understanding of the significance, of Habeas Corpus has been lost?

Just a few historical quotations regarding the Sacred Writ:

“The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution.”. [Abelman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), at 519]

“This judicial power was justly regarded as indispensable, not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States, but also to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government.  And as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the power assigned to the Federal Government, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void.  The grant of judicial power is not confined to the administration of laws passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Constitution, nor confined to the interpretation of such laws; but, by the very terms of the grant, the Constitution is under their view when any act of Congress is brought before them, and it is their duty to declare the law void, and refuse to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legislative powers conferred upon Congress” [Abelman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1858), at 520,521]

“Rights and immunities created by or dependant upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress.  The form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide.  These may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected”. [U S v. REESE, 92 U.S. 214 (1875), at 215, 216]

“A remedy the more necessary, because the oppression does not always arise from the ill-nature, but sometimes from the mere inattention of government“. [William Blackstone, Commentaries (1768)]

“Reasons will be given hereafter for considering many of the restrictions, contained in the amendments to the Constitution, as extending to the states as well as to the United States, but the nature of the writ of habeas corpus seems peculiarly to call for this construction. 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“.  [“A View of the Constitution of the United States”, William Rawles (1829)]

“The national code in which the writ of habeas corpus was originally found, is not expressly or directly incorporated into the Constitution.

If this provision had been omitted, the existing powers under the state governments, none of whom are without it, might be questioned, and a person imprisoned on a mandate of the president or other officer, under colour of lawful authority derived from the United States, might be denied relief. But the judicial authority, whether vested in a state judge, or a judge of the United States, is an integral and identified capacity; and if congress never made any provision for issuing writs of habeas corpus, either the state judges must issue them, or the individual be without redress.” [“A View of the Constitution of the United States”, William Rawles (1829)]

“It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power, and that no state can prevent those courts and judges from exercising their regular functions, which are, however, confined to cases of imprisonment professed to be under the authority of the United States. But the state courts and judges possess the right of determining on the legality of imprisonment under either authority. [“A View of the Constitution of the United States”, William Rawles (1829)]

“§ 1333. In order to understand the meaning of the terms here used, it will be necessary to have recourse to the common law; for in no other way can we arrive at the true definition of the writ of habeas corpus. 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,” [“Commentaries on the Constitution”, Joseph Story (1833)]

Though we have seen that the state legislatures have failed at nullification of unlawful enactments of Congress, perhaps, however,  we can see that there is a remedy within the Constitution that, if properly applied, will achieve such end. Unless, of course, the “Sacred Writ has been suspended — without the requisite act of Congress and the Constitutional conditions met.

To understand more about Habeas Corpus, and, the apparent suspension (not enacted suspension, as required), go to Habeas Corpus 2012

Also:

Habeas Corpus 2012

Has Habeas Corpus Been Eliminated

For the current status of the Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court, see Habeas Corpus Suspended

 

Are Committees of Safety Illegal?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 9, 2012

That is a question that has been posed to me a number of times.  So, let’s look at it both from the perspective of the past and how it fits within the Constitution.

I have found reference to “extra-legal” in certain writings about Committees of Safety. Extra-legal means outside of the protection of the law.  It does not mean illegal.  I have found nothing that indicates that they were deemed illegal by the Crown, though once they became active, their actions, in many instances, were considered to be illegal.  I have found nothing where any effort was made to “arrest” any Committees of Safety, though Sam Adams and John Hancock were surely targets of such effort on April 19, 1775.

Now, we shall visit the Constitution — specifically, the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A Committee of Safety, if its concern is to establish an infrastructure, to be implemented in the event of a failure of the existing government, so that “Civil government” can be maintained, as was only existent in our Revolutionary period, then it is nothing more than Freedom of Speech in a body Peacefully Assembled.  Like the spare tire in your car, there is always the hope that it will never be needed. There is little doubt that the same is true of this infrastructure that the infrastructure created by the Committee of Safety is, likewise, something that we hope will never have to be utilized.  To meet and discuss and plan for something as important as the protection our lives, families, and property, by planning for the maintenance of civil government, cannot be illegal, by any stretch of the imagination.

By being outside of the protection of the law simply means that it is not protected, specifically, however, at the same time, it does not fall outside of the retained rights addressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, to wit:

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

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.”

Freedom of Speech

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 23, 2012

A while back, I wrote an article, The Three Boxes, about the loss of both ballot and jury boxes, tools intended by the Framers, which allowed the people a degree of protection and redress against usurpation of un-granted (unconstitutional) powers by the government.  A comment I received regarding that article was the proclamation, “We still have Freedom of Speech”.  Well, that struck me as not quite so, which has led to this article.

To properly evaluate whether we still do have, intact, Freedom of Speech, we must go to the beginning or we find ourselves simply jumping to a conclusion based upon what we have been told.  So, if we are to start at the beginning, it behooves us to think about Speech, and exactly what it is.

Now, the first reaction to this question often elicits the response, “the words that I say, I can say anything I want”.  Well, there is no doubt that Speech is the utterance of words.  However, we must consider that words uttered, absent conscious thought, are more aptly described as gibberish.

It appears, then, that we can likely agree that Speech, that protection afforded in the First Amendment, must surely be intended to also protect the Freedom of Thought.  Otherwise, it would be best described as “Freedom of Gibberish”.

So, now that we have expanded the concept of Freedom of Speech to the point that thought has to be the conscious source for the words to be uttered, we can proceed.

Well, we know that we can go stand on the street corner and speak, all that we want.  At first glance, that would seem to imply that we do have Freedom of Speech.  However, what if we said something that was, well, not really an advocacy of a crime, a threat, or some other expression that would, under the Constitution, be unlawful?  Of course, yelling “fire” in a theatre, which might result in injury as people flee a perceived peril, is prevented by virtue of reason and common sense.  Also, slander and libel, directed at a specific individual, are, likewise, subject to judicial scrutiny as civil matters.  However, at what point must we “restrict” what we say?  And, what if we do find that we have, by law, or other means, been prohibited from expressing our thoughts, whatever they may be?  I think that we can, rightfully, construe Freedom of Speech, as suggested earlier, to be, in actuality, the Freedom of Expression of Thought — so long as that expression does not result in an unlawful act.

To fully investigate the theory as to what Freedom of Speech really entails, perhaps it would serve us to pick a topic and evaluate whether, as a consequence of other factors, we are, in fact, denied Freedom of Speech.  Since most states, at some point in time, had moral laws regarding the subject, it is probably safe to look at homosexuality to begin to delve into the consequences of the social engineering, and if, in fact, it has had the effect of suppressing Freedom of Speech.

Let’s go back about fifty years.  The commonly used term for a homosexual, accepted even in academic circles, was “queer” or “homo”, or, the more offensive “faggot” or “fag”.

Queer (all definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary): “At variance with what is usual or normal; differing in some odd way from what is ordinary; odd; singular; strange; whimsical; as, a queer story or act”.  Well, there can be little doubt that homosexuality is “at variance with what is usual or normal”.

Fagot: “A bundle of sticks, twigs or small branches of trees…”  The term was applied to the wood bundles used to kindle the fires with which witches and queers were burned, during the Inquisition, and “fag”, the abbreviated form.

Back then, there was nothing wrong with calling a homosexual a queer.  Even if you called him a fag, there were no social consequences, unless, of course, you were in a queer bar.  That was the accepted — the norm — at the time.  After all, Freedom of Speech (and the inherent ability to express thoughts that led to the Speech) was still intact, as they had been since the ratification of the Constitution and long before.

Social engineering, however, provides us a different twist.  Social Engineering is the art of manipulating people with the purpose of having greater effect on the social structure of society.  The very act of manipulating is contrary to the Constitution; however, the much more subtle social engineering is nothing less than offensive to a free people.  However, we must understand that once exposed, the ability to manipulate is negated by virtue of knowing that an effort is being made to cause one to think differently than he would, without such manipulation.

So, to continue our understanding of Freedom of Speech, we need to understand that Freedom of Thought is based upon our free will, or, as the Framers would have described it, natural law and natural rights.

When a concerted effort is made, regardless of who is making the effort, to intrude upon those fundamental rights, we have social engineering with the intention to sway common opinion into acceptance of what might, otherwise, be unacceptable.

So, suppose we take a word that has a very positive definition and substitute that word for the word that was, before, commonly acceptable.  Of course, we would pick a word that could otherwise also be associated with the word being replaced, so, let’s choose “gay” as the word to be used for the purpose of social engineering.

Gay: “Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome.  It denotes more life and animation than cheerful”

The connotation of gay, even four decades ago, was quite different from what many would expect.  If you were going to a party, it could be a poker party, a bridge party, birthday party, or, perhaps, a gay party.  The last being a party where, most often, drinks were served and jokes and humorous stories told — everybody had a gay time.  Surely, a positive word, even in a morally sensitive world.

That morality, however, whether Biblical, or simply a moral judgment that sex was for procreation, left homosexuality on the fringes — “at variance with what is usual or normal”.

So, a concerted effort was made by the homosexual community to replace the traditionally, morally judgmental, phrases then used with the now stolen word, “gay”.  Wait just a minute, did I say stolen?  Well, if I have something, or the use of something, and someone takes it away from me so that I can no longer use it for the intended purpose, is it not “stolen”?  At the same time, they have taken a word that had an acceptable connotation and applied it to a practice that was not deemed acceptable.  The effect is to add an air of legitimacy to what was once outlawed.

So, what affect does this have on us, especially with regard to Freedom of Speech?  Well, let’s just think (Freedom of Thought) about it.  We know that it is politically correct to use the current attribute to the sexual activity, so our minds tells us, “You can’t say queer, anymore.  You have to refer to them as “gay” (or the even more recent “same sex”).  Subtle, but, heck, through these past few decades, we have slowly begun to accept this subtle inference — and, in the process, have rejected that which was common in favor of the socially engineered word.  We have, essentially, conditioned our mind to reject that which was and replace it with that that is — even to the point of correcting someone who uses the now archaic term, queer and wondering why they would use such a vulgar term to describe an acceptable activity or condition.  Now, instead of rejecting what was once immoral activity, we tend to reject those who have not succumbed to the engineering, as if they were worse than the gay people, who have every right not to have any aspersions cast upon them.  The good have become the bad, and, the bad have become the good — the world, truly, turned upside down.

So, in a mere fifty years, we have seen that Freedom of Speech has not only been suppressed, rather, it has also developed into suppression of thought — by such subtle and manipulative means.

We must question our willingness to be socially engineered, however subtle and long term that effort might be, or we will find that we have, by Orwellian means, allowed ourselves to remove our once assured rights.

What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 11, 2012

This is not intended to be a book or video review, at least in the normal sense. However, both a book and a video will be mentioned. The each cover opposite sides of recent events, though you will see the common ground — that both sides agree on.

It begins with Congress (and, yes, let’s include presidential candidates, as well) and their desire to seek or retain their office. This is often referred to as “The Campaign Trail”. Of course, that sounds nice, but when we think of a trail, we think of a dirt path with minimal effort in its constructions. The Campaign Trail, however, is paved with gold. It entails hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, to move the candidate into the public eye and, hopefully, get him elected.

When you consider that nearly half of Congress are multi-millionaires, you begin to understand that they are a part of an “economic aristocracy” to begin with. They move and shake with the wealthy, and rely upon those wealthy to assist them in securing their election.

These wealthy, however, have already learned that the fastest way to wealth is to have the law on your side; and, whenever possible, that their competition have the law against them. So, the question arises, how can they possibly grow and retain their wealth with the best assurance of their success? Quite simply, the answer is to manipulate the Congress to enact laws to their benefit and to enact laws that would hurt the competition. It is the legislation that provides “economic favor” to one and the legislation that denies “economic favor” to the other that is the motivating factor for what has become the mainstay of politics in Washington, D.C. That end is achieved by assuring that under the right conditions, those who are seeking to enter or retain office need a source, beyond mom & pop, to contribute to their campaign — for a job that pays about $200,000 a years plus benefits. The goal is to raise tens or hundreds of millions for “The Campaign Trail”. Now, if mom & pop were to pitch in say $200, to the campaign, it would take half a million such contributions to make the campaign fund come to the $100 million mark. It would be a lot easier if contributions in the tens or hundreds of thousands were made available, so, let’s put ethics aside and go for the easiest way to achieve the funds necessary for election or retention.

Now, to really understand how this works, I would suggest that you read Jack Abramoff’s book, “Capital Punishment” (available at Amazon). It is a self serving story of what led him to serve a prison sentence. He, of course, didn’t really realize that what he was doing was illegal, though he did manage to create a number of organizations so that there was, often, no direct trail from his lobby client to the Congress critter. All the Congress critter knew was that if he supported certain legislation, substantial contributions ended up in his campaign fund. Of course, he wasn’t smart enough to understand the causal relationship between the two, though he is smart enough to enact laws that have, to say the least, begun to destroy this country (more about that, later).

The other side, however, is a bit more enlightening. There is concurrence with much of what Abramoff says in his book, but the divisiveness of his activities comes out, clear as a bell, in Alex Gibney’s documentary, “Casino Jack” (available through Netflix and other on line sources). Abramoff’s downfall came when he received over $40 million from an Indian tribe to aid them in securing the right to reopen their casino, which, ironically, earlier activity by Abramoff caused to be closed. The bill was attached as a rider to an Election Bill. When a Senator refused to go along, Abramoff’s house of cards began to crumble, as did the leadership of the Indian tribe who had spent so much money on “a sure thing”.

As you review the events described in the book and video, you will read, or hear, names of many well known people (including a President). You will, in many cases, understand their gratitude for the “contributions” they received, just for being good Congressmen. When you are finished, you will wonder why only two Congressmen served time, and why their sentences were so short.

Finally, you will see that hundreds of millions of dollars began flowing from the Financial industry through lobbyists, just a few years ago, resulting in deregulation of the Banking industry and the subsequent failure of our economy.

If you have never before thought that something was too broken to fix, I’m sure that when you read and watch, you will then begin to understand that Congress has set up a creature that serves only them and their campaigns – and it is too broken to fix…or, if you prefer…”too big to fail.”

 

When Johnny Comes Marching Home…

Gary Hunt
Outpost-of-Freedom
December 22, 2011

The well known song, “When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again”, a song of praise and gratitude that gained popularity in this country during the Civil War, derived from an Irish anti-war song (“Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye”) from about 1820.  At the end of both World Wars, the song came back to us as our victorious soldiers returned from Europe, and in the Second, Asia.

If we look at the emergence of the multitude of wars since the end of World War II, we find that those words of pride and gratitude have lost their meaning, or, at least, have not found a place in our hearts, as they once did.

On December 18, 2011, “the last American Soldiers” left Iraq, after nine years of combat; 4,500 American lives lost (not included the tens of thousands who have been disfigured mentally, physically, or both); $800,000,000,000 dollars spent, and, according to 86% of the people, the goals of the “war” have been accomplished.  Of course, those goals have been constantly changing since our first incursion into the country (ignoring, of course, the first Gulf War back in 1991).  I find myself at a loss to understand just what the goals really were.

Though the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein might be considered a goal, it was denied as an objective, at the beginning.  We never found the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that were touted as the initial purpose, along with the claims that Hussein was buddy-buddy with Osama bin Laden — a wholly unsupportable pretext.  But, heck, we have to have some reason to peddle our success.

However, rather than signing “When Johnny Comes Marching Home” in every city, town and village, as was done in the past, it will only be sung in secure military installations, as troops arrive from the third, fourth or fifth tour of duty — and with the inherent mental dysfunction that has been ascribed to such service.

Soon, perhaps, we can expect the same for those who have given their lives, “fighting for our freedoms”, in Afghanistan.  And, most assuredly, we will be blessed with a list of goals accomplished in that land of American corpses, as well.  It is become blatantly obvious that “getting bin Laden” is not the ruse for that war, though it was the only pretext given to us after the events of September 11, 2001.

Let’s venture back even further, to just a few years after World War II, when we entered Korea to stop communist aggression (in a Korean civil war).  I still remember relatives coming home to no fanfare, with heads down and simply a desire to hide from the evils of what they had experienced.  Essentially, Johnny had to sneak in the back door.  Yet, with only an armistice, after half a century, we still have soldiers on duty securing the border of a foreign country, absent a surrender.  Fifty years of Johnny sneaking back to our own country, through the garden gate rather than Main Street.

Just more than a decade later, returnees from Vietnam not only had to sneak in the back door, they had to withstand abuse and ridicule for a war that was lost.  With so very few exceptions, the only “Welcome Home” greetings were from one veteran to another, at least until not too long ago.

Unlike Korea, where the war was not lost, only temporarily discontinued, Vietnam was an unequivocal loss, though through no fault of those soldiers who fought and suffered that “war”.  Still, there never have been real accolades on behalf of those millions who served there.

Perhaps we should look a bit more closely as our soldiers return home after any conflict.  If the outpouring of gratitude and praise is unprovoked, and from the heart, then the action they were involved in is, without question, one of national necessity — at least in the eyes of our citizens.  However, when the expression of gratitude and pride is non-existent, or at best, well orchestrated by government and press, we should, perhaps, begin to question just what and why that event warranted our involvement, in the first place.

Let me leave you with one additional thought.  The recent headlines regarding the last troops to leave Iraq are absent an essential truth.  They should read, “the last combat troops”, since we have left our legacy in Iraq, just as the British did in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, the largest United States Military Air Base outside of the United States (Latitude 30°56’12.39″N, Longitude 46°5’31.99″E, though if you look this up on Google Earth you will find that they are using February 2002 imagery, and the runways and much of the beginning of construction can be clearly seen).  Now, just how are they going to man this massive and expensive installation without troops?

Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part II

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part II of IV Parts

Factions not in conflict with the Principle Faction

Let’s look at some factions that are examples of those consistent with the Principle Faction:

Christians:  Our nation was founded, without doubt, upon Christian moral values.  Some of those values, however, have been disputed between various sects of Christianity since before the Founding of this great nation.  In fact, the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, was adopted to assure that the ability to practice one’s religion, as one might chose to practice it, was a fundamental (God given) right.  Even “Mohametmen” were allowed to practice their religion, though the principles established by the Constitution retain the moral values of Christianity.  It was never implied that laws could be passed based upon Islam — only those based upon Christian moral values, and those, only locally, in order to provide a comfortable community for those who chose to live therein.  The idea that a law would be passed allowing the wearing of a Burka, contrary to norms for the community and country, was inconceivable.  It was the need for assimilation, in order to maintain that which was created by the Revolutionary War, that is necessary to maintain the greatness of the country.

Outlawing prostitution, gambling, alcohol, done at the local community level (often county level), was paramount in the concepts adopted by the Founders.  To assume that a state could enact and enforce such laws was not even under consideration during those formative years, and efforts to establish moral laws on a state-wide level were inconceivable.

Many Christians have beliefs that are not consistent with the beliefs of others, though there is a tendency to suppress expressing them outside of one’s own circle, in recognition of the rights of others to believe as they wish.  However, if we look back in history, we find that these ideals were expressed in newspaper articles, on soap boxes, and by legislators in assemblies, without fear of repercussion or arrest.  Absent the ability to express such feelings, we are denied the right to pursue legislation that we believe to be for the good of the country, the state, the county, or the town, in which we live — not to impose upon others, but rather to refrain from leaving those moral values behind.

So long as Christians adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

Boy Scouts of America:  Why would we even consider discussing a private organization such as the Boy Scouts of America under the heading of factions?  Well, they are a faction — one that has been around for over a hundred years.  Their principles are based upon the Christian religion, and the Constitution and principles of this great country.  Recently, however, the courts in this country have endeavored to impose upon the Boy Scouts rules of admission and acceptance that are absolutely contrary to the foundation of that organization.  They, like Christians, are able to practice as they choose, and allow only those who conform to their beliefs to become members of that organization.

Instead, the courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts cannot prohibit membership to those who don’t espouse the objectives of the Boy Scouts.  They are forcing change upon an organization that exists totally within the concept of adherence to the Principle Faction, and have every right, under the Constitution, to allow membership only to those who adhere to the principles of that organization.

The Boy Scouts of America adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

Jews: Jews don’t believe, with few exceptions, that Christ existed, or, that if he did, he was not the Messiah.  Well, this is definitely not consistent with Christianity, though it is not inconsistent with Christian moral values.  In fact, for many years, many Christians despised the Jews and held them in contempt. Often crimes were committed against them, in the name of Christianity.  In those instances, the Christians stepped outside of their adherence to the Principle Faction, though such instances are few and far between.

The Jews have established their own communities where they adhere to the precepts of their religion, and do not endeavor to impose their beliefs into the law, or upon others.  They adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

National Socialist Movement (in certain of its various forms):  Much like the Jews, the beliefs of many National Socialists are inconsistent with the general tenor of the country, and though outspoken in their beliefs, they have, for the most part, adhered to the Principle Faction.

Some participants in this faction have stepped outside of the law and impose injury, unjustly, on others.  These few, however, do not speak for the whole; the majority adhere to the laws, and their expression of their beliefs is consistent with the Constitution, though, perhaps, not politically correct.

Though they have chosen symbols (swastika and other Nazi representations) that are considered evil by most, what they hold to is not much different than the government’s support of Japan and Germany, since the end of World War II.  It was the whole of the people of each of those countries that stood firmly behind their governments — responsible for death and devastation, around the world.

So long as National Socialists do not break the law and adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

Anarchists (in certain of their various forms): The Founders enacted very few laws that acted directly on the people. For the most part, the laws enacted in the first few decades of the United States were laws to define, enhance, or protect the government.  The exceptions were the moral laws, also known as Blue Laws, which generally existed within the confines of a town’s ordinance, or, perhaps, even county ordinances, in an effort to establish a moral foundation that was comfortable to the majority of those residing there.  Otherwise, a degree of anarchy, at least by one definition, was a part of life of the times.

There is an old adage that Liberty is existent so long as your fist stops before it reaches my nose.  Our individual constraint on our own actions, so that we do no harm to others, is, perhaps, the best definition of that which should be.

The modern anarchist, even those who might espouse absence of government, altogether, are not inconsistent with much of what the Founders believed.  A minimum of government is, perhaps, best, and, is without a doubt, consistent with the Constitution and most state constitutions, at least as originally ratified.

So long as Anarchists adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

The Patriot Community:  This is the most loose-knit community within the factions adhering to the Constitution.  It is comprised of people who have, generally, taken one issue or aspect of the Constitution, to be their cause.  Some of those aspects are taxation, the monetary system, the judicial system, the immigration policies (laws) that are not enforced, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment (either, or both, right to bear arms and militia), and, other lesser and greater causes.  They are as diverse, and, perhaps more so, than the Founders, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, yet they are probably the most vociferous of factions that comprise the adherents to the Principle Faction. They do, without a doubt, adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs to that Principle Faction.  They are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.