Outpost of Freedom blog

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 15, 2016

Note: Numbers shown thus, {nn} refer to PDF page numbers in the “Hammond Legal Trailing Part I” PDF file.

On May 6, 1987, David Johnson filed an internal memo {52-55} explain that he had received a call from Dwight Hammond, on April 27, and that Dwight said he was going to begin moving cattle the next morning, at 5:00 AM.. Johnson, because of 3 broken ribs, advised that he could monitor the trailing, but could not help. Dwight told him that if he was not going to help, he needn’t come. When Johnson and another employee arrived at 10:00 AM, the move had been completed and the Hammonds were on their way back to their ranch.

Johnson attempted to trace the route that the Hammonds had taken, and attached a map to show the route. His final statement in the Memo, “I did not see any significant resource damage as a result of this action.”

On January 18, 1988, Dwight Hammond sent a letter to De Bates {57-58}, which says, in part:

THE ONLY THING YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE IS WRITE LETTERS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROBLEM NO LONGER EXISTS, AND THAT THE PROBLEM IS BEING WORKED OUT. NOTHING PHYSICAL, (WHICH IS THE REAL PROBLEM) HAS CHANGED. Continue reading ‘The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988’ »

The Harassment of the Hammonds
Act I – Decade of the Eighties
Scene 1 – Introduction

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 1, 2016

Long before the fires (controlled burn in 2002 and a backfire to protect their own property in 2006) that resulted in Dwight and Steven Hammond being imprisoned for 5 years, the dispute over their rights had begun. Nearly four decades of harassment had been directed against them, until, finally, the government could make a very meager case, using a law enacted to cover terrorism, and applied to the Hammonds for doing what the government does, on a regular basis.

The Hammond family had been ranching in Harney County, for many years. They had been grazing on allotments on public lands, and as any rancher, they sought to resolve problems, though resolution had to be practical.

When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was the overseer of the land in question, no problems arose. However, when the Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) became the controlling agency, the protection of wildlife and plants, even to an absurd extreme, became priority, at the risk of a way of life.

The information (cited documents) in the following series, being public records with no indication of any security or confidentiality, were obtained in order to record the history of the Hammond’s relationship with various agencies, in order to continue their business of cattle ranching as they had become accustomed. The documentation revolves around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

After 1988, it appears that he problem was solved, as there is no correspondence or entries in the folder to indicate any problems or harassment.

Then, in 1994, we see that the Refuge, once again, tries to obstruct the traditional and historical rights of the Hammonds.

This first Act will cover the decade of the eighties. The second act will cover the decade of the nineties. Throughout Act I, you will find numbers shown thusly, {nn}. They refer to the PDF page numbers in the “Hammond Legal Trailing Part I” PDF file, that being only a portion of the recovered documents. More will be brought out in Act II.

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 2 – October 24 1986 – March 20 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 3 – April 2, 1987 – April 15, 1987

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Scene 4 – May 6, 1987 – April 22, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act I – Decade of the Eighties- Scene 5 – May 2, 1988 – May 9, 1988

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 1 – Feb. 18, 1994 – June 9, 1994

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 2 – June 28, 1994 – Feb. 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 3 – Feb. 28, 1997 – May 21, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 4 – May 22, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 5 – June 30, 1997 – Aug. 4, 1997

The Harassment of the Hammonds – Act II – Decade of the Nineties – Scene 6 – Feb. 25, 1998 – Jan. 12, 2004

Burns Chronicles N^o 10
Is There a Peaceful Solution?
Redux
Representative Greg Walden

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 22, 2016

In a previous article, “Is There a Peaceful Solution?“, I included a link to a video. Based upon a number of comments, it appears that many decided not to watch the video, instead filling in the answers, for themselves. They continue to assume that there is a peaceful solution to the problems that we are facing in dealing with the federal government.

Understand that Representative Walden spoke to the House of Representatives on January 5, 2016, just 3 days after the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was occupied, though the occupation had nothing to do with being “armed”; and the day after Dwight and Steven Hammond turned themselves over to the Bureau of Prisons, at San Pedro, California — to serve the harsh sentence imposed by the Appellate Court, not by the trial court.

I have underlined the more significant portions of what Rep. Walden had to say, so that you can fully understand that the administrative agencies tend to ignore the laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution, by that branch that has the sole authority to enact laws. The specific wording of that provision of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

For those who believe that there is a peaceful solution, I can only ask, “Just how do you propose to achieve that solution, when the laws are ignored by the government, when they choose, and misapplied (as in the Hammond case) when they choose?”

* * *

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues are aware of the situation in Harney County, Oregon, where a group of armed protesters have overtaken a Federal facility in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

This group is led largely by people who are not necessarily from Oregon, although they obviously have supporters from Oregon. They were originally there to protest the sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond.

I know the Hammonds. I have known them for probably close to 20 years. They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County. They have been sentenced to prison not once, but now twice. I will get into that in a moment.

The point I want to make at the outset is for people in this Chamber to understand what drives people to do what is happening tonight in Harney County.

I have had the great honor and privilege to represent Harney County for a number of years. I have seen the impact of Federal policies from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration. I have seen what happens when overzealous bureaucrats and agencies go beyond the law and clamp down on people. I have seen what courts have done. I have seen the time for Congress to act and then it has not.

I want to put this area in perspective because I think it is really important to understand how big this region is. By size, my congressional district in Oregon is something like the seventh or eighth biggest in the Congress. If you overlaid it over the east coast, it would start in the Atlantic and end in Ohio.

The county where this occupation is taking place–Harney County–is over 10,000 square miles. There are 7,000 souls inhabiting it. If my math is right, that is one person for every 1.4 miles. One person for every 1.4 miles.

Just this one county is 10 times the size of Rhode Island. It is larger than the State of Maryland. And 72 percent of it is under the command and control of the Federal Government.

It is the public’s land. That is true. But what people don’t understand is the culture, the lifestyle, of the great American West and how much these ranchers care about the environment, about the future, about their children, about America, and how much they believe in the Constitution. Now we see the extent they will go to in order to defend what they view as their constitutional rights.

***

But, I want to talk about what happened with the Hammonds. I want to put in perspective what happens almost every year in my district. That is these enormous wildfires.

The Miller Homestead Wildfire in 2012 burned 160,000 acres, mostly in this county, if not all; 250 square miles, a quarter of the size of the State of Rhode Island. That was just in 2012.

The Barry Point Fire that year, in Lake County, next door, burned 93,000 acres. Last summer alone, we burned 799,974 acres across Oregon; that is both forest and high desert. In 2012, 3.4 million acres burned in Oregon.

There was another fire in Malheur County. The Long Draw Fire, in 2012, burned 557,000 acres, five times the size of Rhode Island. So 93,000 acres, 557,000 acres, 160,000 acres, all burning.

The Hammonds are in prison tonight for setting a backfire that they admit to, that burned 139 acres, and they will sit in prison, time served and time going forward, 5 years, under a law that I would argue was never intended to mete out that kind of punishment, and I will get to that in a moment.

***

When Secretary Babbitt, the Interior Secretary at the time, came before the House Resources Committee, of which I was a member, I said, Mr. Secretary, your own resource advisory committees in the area just reported that there was no need for additional protection on Steens Mountain, and yet, you and the President are threatening to create this national monument. Why do you waste the time of the citizens to go through a process to determine if additional protections are needed and then ignore what they came up with?

To Bruce Babbitt’s credit, he agreed when I told him: I think you would be surprised about what the local ranchers and citizens of Harney County would be willing to do if you give them a chance. To his credit, he said: All right, I will give them that chance. And, he did.

We went to work on legislation. It took a full year. I worked with the Hammonds. I worked with Stacy Davies, I worked with all kinds of folks, put a staffer on it full-time, multiple staffs, and we worked with the environmental community and others. And we created the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act, model legislation, never been done before, because I said: We don’t have to live by past laws, we write laws.

So, we wrote a new law to create a cooperative spirit of management in Harney County. The Hammonds were part of that discussion. We saved a running camp, Harlan Priority Runs. We protected inholders. We tried to do all the right things and create the kind of partnership and cooperation that the Federal Government and the citizens should have.

Fast forward on that particular law. Not long after that became law, and it was heralded as this monumental law of great significance and new era in cooperation and spirit of cooperation, some of those involved on the other side and some of the agencies decided to reinterpret it. The first thing they tried to do is shut down this kids’ running camp because they said: Well, too many, maybe more than 20, run down this canyon and back up, as they had for many, many years. They wanted to shut it down. So we had to fight them back and said, No, the law says historical standards.

Then the bureaucrats, because we said: You should have your historical access to your private property, if you are up on Steens Mountain, you should maintain that access like you have always had it. Do you know what the bureaucrats said? They began to solicit from the inholders in this area: How many times did you go up there last year? You see, they wanted to put a noose around the neck of those who were inside. That was a total violation of what we intended and we had to back them off.

See, the bureaucracy wants to interpret the laws we write in ways they want, and in this case, they were wrong, not once, but twice.

Then, a couple of years ago, I learned that, despite the fact we created the first cow-free wilderness in the United States under this law, and said clearly in this law that it would be the responsibility of the government to put up fencing to keep the cows out, as part of the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management said: No, we are not going to follow that law. And, they told the ranchers they had to build the fence.

I networked with my Democrat colleague from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, who was part of writing this law. I said: Peter, you remember that, right? He said: Yeah, I didn’t like it, but that was the case. BLM still wouldn’t listen. So, we continued to push it and they argued back.

Well, it turns out there had been a second rancher who brought this to my attention who they were telling had to do the same thing, build a fence, when the government was supposed to under the law I wrote. The arrogance of the agency was such that they said, We don’t agree with you.

Now, there aren’t many times, Mr. Speaker, in this job when you can say I know what the intent of the law was, but in this case I could because I wrote the law, I knew the intent.

Oh, that wasn’t good enough. No, no, no. No, no, no. The arrogance of these agency people was such that we had to go to the archives and drag out the boxes from 2000, 1999-2000, when we wrote this law, from the hearings that had all the records for the hearings and the floor discussions to talk about the intent. And our retired Member, George Miller, actually we used some of his information where he said the government would provide the fencing. They were still reluctant to follow it. So I put language in the appropriations bill that restated the Federal law.

***

This is a government that has gone too far, for too long. Now, I am not condoning this takeover in any way. I want to make that clear. I don’t think it is appropriate. There is a right to protest. I think they have gone too far. But I understand and hear their anger.

Right now, this administration, secretly, but not so much, is threatening, in the next county over, that looks a lot like this one, Malheur County, to force a monument of 2.5 million acres, we believe. I think this is outrageous. It flies in the face of the people and the way of life and the public access.

***

We have fought other issues. More than half of my district is under Federal management, or lack thereof. They have come out with these proposals to close roads into the forests. They have ignored public input. They often claim to have all these open meetings and listen to the public, and then, in the case of Wallowa-Whitman, the forest supervisor who was eventually relieved because of this, I believe, completely ignored all the meetings, all the input, all the work of the counties and the local people, and said: Forget it, I am going my own direction.

There were 900 people that turned out at the National Guard Armory where they had a public hearing, standing room only and beyond, furious.

You see, how do you have faith in a government that doesn’t ever listen to you? How do you have faith in a government that, when elected Representatives write a law, those charged with the responsibility of implementing it choose to go the other direction and not do so? That is what is breaking faith between the American people and their government, and that is what has to change.

The other thing that has to change, the law under which the Hammonds were sentenced. Now, they probably did some things that weren’t legal. I have given you the size of the acreages that burned naturally. I haven’t gotten into the discussion about how these fires are often fought and how the Federal Government frequently will go on private land and set a fire without permission to backburn. That happens all the time.

In fact, in the Barry Point Fire down in Lake County, they set fire on private timberland as a backburn while the owners of the property were putting out spot fires down in the canyon. I drove down there afterwards. They are darn lucky to have come out alive.

There was nobody sentenced under the terrorism act there. Oh, heck no. It is the government. They weren’t sentenced. Nobody was charged. Oh, it just happened.

Now, fires are tough to fight. I have great respect for firefighters. There are always two sides on how these fires get fought. But I can tell you, a few years back in Harney County, because I went and held a meeting out there right as the fire was being put out, that the fire crews came in, went on private ground, lit a backfire on private ground, behind a fence line, that then burned out the farmer’s fence, the rancher’s fence, and burned all the way over and down into a canyon where there was a wetland, which would have been the natural break to stop the fire from the other side. You see, they never needed to burn that land.

These things happen in the course of fighting fire. It doesn’t mean they are right. But rare is it that somebody ends up 5 years in prison.

Let me tell you what the senior judge said when he sentenced the Hammonds the first time, Judge Michael Hogan, senior Federal judge, highly respected in Oregon. He sentenced Dwight Hammond to 3 months and Steve to a year. There were different offenses here.

He said, “I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum because, to me, to do so, under the Eighth Amendment, would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.”

The Judge went on to say, `”And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct would not have been the conduct intended under the statute.”

“When you ask, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles, and there are homes up the ravines, it might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that is what the Congress intended.”

“In addition, it just would not meet any idea I have of justice proportionality. It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience, to me.”

Senior Judge Mike Hogan, when he did the original sentencing.

But, you see, under this 1996 law under which they were charged and convicted, it turns out he had no judicial leeway. He could not mete out a sentence that was proportionate to what the crime was.

So yesterday, Dwight and Steve went to prison again. Dwight will be 79 when he gets out. Steve will be about 50.

Meanwhile, in Harney County, on the ranch, Susie will continue to try and survive; 6,000-acre ranch, she needs grazing permits to make this happen. It would be a cruel and unjust act, by the way, if access to those grazing permits that allow that ranch to work were not extended. What possible good could come out of bankrupting a grandmother that was trying to keep a ranch together, while the husband sits in prison, her son sits in prison? What possible good?

They will serve their sentences. There is nothing, short of clemency that only the President can offer, that we can do. But we can change that law, and we should, so that nobody ever is locked in like that for a situation like this, where a senior judge, literally, on his final day on the bench, says this goes too far, it goes too far. They appealed that, by the way, and lost. But I believe that the judge was right.

***

They are good people. Their sons and daughters, by a higher proportion, fight in our wars and die, and I have been to their funerals. So to my friends across eastern Oregon, I will always fight for you. But we have to understand there is a time and a way. Hopefully the country through this understands we have a real problem in America: how we manage our lands and how we are losing them.

It is not like we haven’t tried here, Mr. Speaker. Year after year we pass bipartisan legislation to provide more active management on our forests so we don’t lose them all to fire, and we are losing them all to fire. We are losing firefighters’ lives, homes, and watersheds–great resources of the West. Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave. He created this wildlife refuge in 1908.

There were some bad actors there in the 1980s, by the way. They were very aggressive running the refuge, threatening eminent domain and other things that took ranches. It was bad. That lasted for at least a decade or more. It has gotten better though. It is not perfect. There is a much better relationship, and the refuge and the ranchers work closer together. In fact, during this fire in 2012, the refuge actually opened itself up to the ranchers for hay and feed because theirs was burned out because of this big fire. So there was a better spirit there.

But there are still these problems: the threat of waters of the U.S. shutting down stock ponds and irrigation canals and a way of life, the threat of fire every year that seems to not be battled right and just gets away, and no one is really held accountable; the continued restriction on the lives of the men and women who, for generations, have worked hard in a tough environment. It has just gone too far. It is hurtful.

I hope people understand how serious this is felt and how heartfelt this is by those who pay their taxes and try and live by the law and do the right things and how oppressed they feel by the government that they elect and the government they certainly don’t elect, and how much they will always defend the flag and the country, and their sons and daughters would go to war, some will not come back–and they have not from this area.

… The BLM needs to make sure Susie Hammond isn’t pushed into bankruptcy and has her ranch taken by the government and added to those that have been. We need to be better at hearing people from all walks of life and all regions of our country and understanding this anger that is out there and what we can do to bring about correct change and peaceful resolution.

It is not too late. We can do this. It is a great country. We have the processes to do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

* * *

The peaceful solution, then, should be solely those laws enacted by the Congress, such as the Steen Mountain legislation that Mr. Walden spoke of. The Executive branch is to carry out and enforce those laws. Though, as we have seen, they choose to interpret them other than the wording or the intent of those laws lawfully enacted.

Further, the agencies are empowered to adopt rules. To do so, they are to publish those proposed rules in the Federal Register and hold public hearings on the proposed rule. Now, this is just a bureaucratic trick. The hold the hearing, and regardless of the input by the public, the agency, once they have held the hearings, have satisfied the requirement. Then, they adopt the rule, even if 100% of the public input is contrary to the rule.

So when we realize that the legislative branch is without any constitutional authority to assure that they laws they pass have become “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI, clause 2), then we are at the mercy of the interpretation, or rules, of the agency that administers those laws.

With that in mind, let us return to the question:

Is there a peaceful solution?

Burns Chronicles N^o 9
Civil Defiance or Submission?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 18, 2016

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

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787) [North Carolina Supreme Court]

The unfortunate circumstances of January 26, 2016, which resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Brian Cavalier was a blow to an effort to expose the dishonesty of the federal government in its pursuit of acquiring land belonging to ranchers in Oregon.

In fact, the story behind what happened in Burns, Oregon actually goes much further. It had begun to show the underbelly of the beast we call the US government, its failure in obedience to the Constitution, the very document that created it, and its failure to abide by established judicial “due process of law”. Perhaps most significant is its absolute disregard for human life, and especially so if that life is of one who believes in the Constitution.

Now, many have said that what was happening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was of no concern to them. Some have said, “We (the militia) are here to protect our state. What happens in Oregon is not our concern.” And, they are right, but only to an extent.

In the hours that followed the events at Lexington Green and Concord, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Militia from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, marched on dirt roads to come to the aid of those from another colony. Within days, many more colonies had sent their forces to join those surrounding Boston. Of course, it was not their concern, though they did realize what had happened in Massachusetts would, eventfully, happen in their own backyards.

Many have stated that their greatest concern is that the government will come to take their guns, and that will be the time to act. However, they fail to respond to the slow and meticulous erosion of the Second Amendment, constantly progressing, bit by bit. But, they still have their guns, so there is nothing to worry about.

However, just a week after the Indictments were issued in Oregon, a Grand Jury in Nevada issued Indictments against five people who were involved in events at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada, in April 2014, nearly two years prior.

Both acts, Nevada and Oregon, were acts of Civil Defiance. Let’s be clear about that term. Civil Disobedience is a term applicable to participating in something that might result in ones arrest, or perhaps being assaulted by law enforcement. These activities are conducted with the hope of political change. They are, at best, inconveniences.

Civil Defiance, however, is an act in real defiance against unlawful authority. Whether firearms are used actively, or passively, there is no doubt that Civil Defiance has the possibility for not just incarceration, but death.

During the Bundy Ranch affair, hundreds of armed patriots stood defiant against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and contractors who were trying to arrest cattle for grazing on public lands. The patriot weapons were simply for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. BLM was the aggressor, with force of arms and a “judge’s edict”.

In Oregon, once again, the patriots’ arms were for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. There is no instance of those at the Refuge, or away from the Refuge, ever threatening or intimidating anyone. In fact, they had a policy to let anyone venture into the occupied area, without threat, or harm. Their arms were for self-defense.

The government, in this instance, under the control of the FBI, was the aggressor, however, unlike Nevada, the aggressor chose to shoot and kill LaVoy Finicum. As can be clearly seen in the aerial footage, Mr. Finicum never had a gun in his hand. He was lured into an ambush and shot. He had no opportunity to defend himself, even if he had been armed. Quite simply, the government that he was exposing murdered him.

So, let’s put a little perspective on things. Whether you are in Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, or elsewhere, what you have been reading about is your future, as much as those who have been directly affected by those events. To “reason” that “it didn’t happen to me” is both acceptance of the legitimacy of the government’s proven practice, and submission to it. When it finally gets to you, those who had more courage than you, have already been taken by the forces of government, either to prison, or to the cemetery.

If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted, and you can clearly see your own future.

I was asked the question “Is there anything that we can do about this?” After some thought, I realized that the Indictment from Nevada was a message that the government is in the process of taking control. This raises the question as to whether we can back them down. If more of us begin standing up by occupying federally owned facilities, like the Refuge, or by taking other inspired actions, can we demonstrate that we are not backing down; that we are not willing to Submit to their unconstitutional activities, and that we will retaliate, as they have, by expanding our efforts in response to every unlawful or unconstitutional act committed by the government?

“In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Burns Chronicles N^o 6

Is There a Peaceful Solution?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 09, 2016

I have heard professed patriots, such as Melvin Lee (especially, beginning at the 19:27 mark), on behalf of Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), claiming that what was accomplished by Ammon Bundy and others was wrong, that there is a peaceful way to achieve what they were trying to achieve. When what Ammon did is compared with our own history, they argue that there was no Constitution then, but there is one now, and we must abide by it.

So, let’s set the record straight by starting with the Constitution. There was an English Constitution, however, it was a compilation of acts and court decisions, beginning with the Magna Carta, and insuring the “Rights of Englishmen”. It was the Crown’s refusal to recognize the rights of the colonists, as they were enjoyed in England that led to the Revolution.

Our Constitution is written in a single document, with amendments in addition to the original. However, the Supreme Court will not pass on the constitutionality of a matter before it “unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case”. In other words, only as a last resort. This was explained to the country in a 1936 Supreme Court decision, Ashwander v. T.V.A.

Lee also claims that there is a peaceful solution, suggesting demonstrating, petitioning politicians, etc. Well, those are fine words; however, they are nothing more than words. But, I don’t want you to take my word for it. I think that the best source would be a person, Representative Greg Walden, who had firsthand knowledge of the abuse by the administrative agencies, even though an act of the Congress was passed to set some rigid rules against such abuse. If our lawmakers pass a law and the agencies ignore, or circumvent, the law, perhaps you can explain to me just how a peaceful resolution can be achieved. Listen to the entirety of his Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives (Published January 8, 2016 – 24 minutes).

So, what can we do to change things, peacefully? To get government back to being the servant rather than the master? I have read the OathKeepers post where they are trying to get Ammon and his people to leave. They suggest that a “lateral move” to another, friendly, county, would solve the problem. Well, it surely would have gotten them off the Refuge. And, we heard both the Sheriff and the FBI constantly touting that they were seeking a “peaceful resolution”, but, then, we have the aerial footage showing just how that turned out for LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Bundy, and the others who are currently facing 6 years of “peaceful” solitude.

Surely, had Ammon done so, they would have gone directly into the hands of the feds, or ended up being murdered, as happened to LaVoy Finicum on the 26th. So, words, whether from the feds, law enforcement, or professed patriots, mean nothing. Only actions speak loud enough to generate the attention, and the support of other freedom loving Americans. Consider, too, that we have passed the point of even thinking that words, unless backed up by the threat of defensive force, are worth any more than the words of those who are destroying our country, and those who seem to, under the guise of “patriotism”, support those deceptive words.

Burns Chronicles N^o 5
The Burns Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 8, 2016

I arrived in Burns, Oregon on Sunday evening, January 24. After checking into the Silver Spur Motel, I drove down to the Refuge. At the gate (a truck blocking the roadway into the building complex), I was questioned. I mentioned both Ryan Payne and Ammon Bundy, as they both knew that I was coming up to write some articles about subjects peripheral to the story that was currently hitting the news, social media, and anywhere a listener or reader could be found. Unlike Waco, where fax networking was the patriots’ media, this modern age has made information access a whole new world. I was more interested in the back stories than what was readily available.

After a few radio calls, I was escorted down to the Admin building, then directed to MOB (Militia Operational Base), where I found Ryan. I was welcomed, warmly, and assured that access would be less difficult, in the future. It was mid-evening, so I returned to Burns and got a good night’s sleep.

I had picked up an ATT phone on the way up, but was unable to “initiate” it, so the next morning, having learned that only Verizon service is available at the newly named Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), I went to the local Verizon store and purchased a phone and a month’s worth of unlimited calls.

While waiting for nearly an hour to get my phone, another man that was waiting for service went outside to have a cigarette. I joined him and asked if I could interview him regarding what was happening in Burns. He agreed, so I got my recording out of the truck, and began my first, and only recorded, interview. His name is Chuck, and he had lived in and around Burns for over forty years. He drives a truck for a living.

When asked what he thought about what was going on down at the Refuge, he said, “I think those guys are on the right track.”

What about what is going on here in Burns? “I stopped at the airport yesterday and got treated like I was flying the ISIS flag, when I drove up there.”

Same thing when I went to the Courthouse. All I wanted to do was talk to a state cop. I had a horse missing. I had guys pointing guns at me; FBI agents pointing guns at me. I said, ‘Guys, I’m not packing’. They wouldn’t back off. You probably won’t print this, but they are a bunch of assholes. They need to back off from treating us locals like we’re gonna shoot them… I don’t want to be treated like an outlaw just because I live in this town.”

I asked him about the influx of Oregon State Police and the Sheriff’s deputies from other counties. He said, “They need to go home. I don’t want to be paying these federal agents and all these extra County Sheriffs and all of the State Police, when those guys out there are on the right track. All they need to do is go out and talk to them. We just don’t need them.”

I asked him if he believed that the federal government ever gave in, once they had made up their mind. He answered, “I don’t think so. If the jerk-off in the White House would just release the Hammonds, like he has done with all of the drug dealers and all the other federal prisoners — just sign a pardon. All they did is light a fire to protect their ranch. Just sign a pardon and let them go. This would all settle down.”

What about the aspect that those at the Refuge want the land to go back to the people? “I think that is where it ought to be. Not only in the Refuge, but in the Forest Service, and the BLM. I go out here and try to ride my 4-wheeler, I can’t. Cause every time I jump my 4-wheeler out of the back… Here’s the BLM cop telling me he’s gonna write me a ticket; because I’m going to ride me 4-wheeler on public land.”

You’ve seen the signs that say, ‘Enjoy Your Public Lands’, haven’t you? “No, no, not in this county. I’ve seen them. They’re bullshit. You wanna camp, you have to camp in one of their campgrounds that you gotta pay them to camp in. Then, they come and harass you. You can’t go to the woods anymore, cause they burned all the timber off, so now they got it all blocked off so they can do their experiments, or whatever the hell they are doing up there.”

Did they burn some timberland here, in Harney County? “Oh, hell yea. They let the first get away, and then they come in and build backfires twenty miles away from the fire that was going. And, the two fires never, ever, got together. Thousands of acres have been destroyed by the Forest Service. One time, they brought in firefighters out of Georgia and they went out and built backfires along the roads, twenty miles from the original fire. They didn’t even fight the fire. And, they burned all of the timber off. I think they burned the timber off because they don’t want any logging. It’s not job security for these loggers to go out and log it. If they log it, we don’t have wild fires. We used to log this country and keep that timber thinned out and moved back, and the brush was kept down. Them loggers would replant, but they never clear cut. They go out and selective cut after the Forest Service marked the trees they wanted out. And, they would go out and they would cut them, drag ’em out, knock the brush down. We didn’t have fires. Now, we don’t have loggers, but we got fires everywhere; All the time.”

He continued, “There was a big fire out here towards John Day. It burned all of that country off, cause it hadn’t been burned in fifty years. The Forest Service just won’t sell the timber. If they won’t sell the timber, the loggers can’t have it. What’s the Forest Service got to do with selling timber? They don’t own those trees. It belongs to us. They won’t sell the timber. The timber revenue used to pay for our schools. There is no timber sold, anymore. There ain’t no logging goes on here. The mill is shut down, it’s gone.”

What do you know about ranching and cattle?

“I know a little bit about it. Most of the ranchers around here, they deal with them, because they have to.

I’ve lived here my whole life. I like to take my 4-wheeler out and ride. And, I can’t, anymore. That’s what’s got me siding with the guys at the Refuge. The Forest Service and the BLM are the gardeners that we hired to take care of our garden. They are not the law enforcement, they don’t own it. And, they need to quit telling me what to do on our property. They should just go out there and tend to our trees, go out there and tend to our water holes, make sure that grass is growing, and shut the hell up.

“It’s really not just my 4-wheeler, it’s that they think they own it. Many years ago, the first Forest Service cop I saw, she was in the county parade. She’s riding a horse and all Ramboed up; guns, tazers, all the Rambo BS, and she’s setting on a horse, and I asked her, what the hell does the Forest Service have that’s worth shooting somebody over. And, she says, ‘Well, I have to protect myself.’ So, I said, ‘Well, if you weren’t an asshole when you walked up to someone in the woods, you wouldn’t need protection. You wouldn’t need a gun to protect yourself. If you walked up to someone who was cutting a tree down, to burn in their house, and you weren’t a jerk about it, you wouldn’t need protection, you wouldn’t need a gun.

“It’s like these jerks up here. You know, treating me like I’m an outlaw walking up to the Courthouse. That’s my Courthouse up there. I paid for that Courthouse and the Sheriff’s Office. I can’t even go to the Sheriff’s Office. Can’t get anywheres close to it. I pay that guy’s wages. I pay for his building, I pay for his heat, we pay for all of that. But, we can’t go up there, because that idiot FBI agent has got it all surrounded. They challenge me with automatic weapons. They’ve got it surrounded up there. You can go to the Courthouse, but you got to get through FBI agents to get into the Courthouse. The Sheriff’s Office is right behind it, but you can’t go to the Sheriff’s Office. That’s my Sheriff, and I had a horse out. I went to the Sheriff’s Office to see if see if I could just get somebody on patrol to just watch out for it. State cops, and the Sheriff’s deputies. I wanted to talk with the State Police, but I had to have the cop come outside of the barricades to talk to me because I couldn’t go inside of the barricades to talk to him. A cop that I’m paying for. It’s horseshit, it is all horseshit!”

What about Judge Grasty? “He needs to be in the Sheriff’s jail. I don’t know him all that well. I know who he is.”

I did interview others, though more informally. At restaurants, standing in line at the Safeway, and a couple of them just stopping someone on the street.

The interview with Chuck is consistent with most of what I heard. There were some common aspects, as everybody I interviewed had no problem with what was happening 30 miles away, whether they agreed with what they were doing, or not. Thirty miles distance had no effect on the Burns community, except a little additional business, such as more outsiders in the motel and at the local diners.

Their concerns, apprehension, and “fear”, as expressed by Sheriff Ward, had nothing to do with those at the Refuge. There was concern over the FBI and multitude of Sheriff’s deputies from other counties coming into their community, setting up barricades, and otherwise the presence of so many law enforcement people in town. However, the greater concern seemed to be the number of people walking around their otherwise peaceful community, armed. These would be those who professed to keep things peaceful, and avoid another “Waco” at the Refuge, while arrogantly walking the streets, almost like the gunfighters of the past, though holstering automatic pistols instead of Six-guns.

Though both sides blamed the peaceful occupants of the Refuge, they chose to impose upon the community rather than direct their efforts at what they claimed to be the problem, or those to be protected.

When I asked if they had been to the Refuge, most answered that they already had, or that they intended to go down and meet the people that were standing up for their rights.

Burns Chronicles N^o 1
Introduction

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2016

This is the first of a series of articles about the events surrounding the investiture of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration buildings by a group headed by Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven and Carol Bundy. The Bundys are well known for the events in Nevada that played out in April 2014. In that incident, the Bundys, along with hundreds of other patriotic Americans, went beyond “civil disobedience” and entered the realm of “civil defiance”, defying, with arms, the intrusion of the Bureau of Land Management into the long time operation of the cattle part of the Bundy ranch operation – denying rights that had existed for years and denying them their pursuit of the family business.

Though this writer only spent five days in Burns, he was able to meet many of the key players on the side of the patriots, some townspeople from Burns, and some of those who gathered, on one side or the other, to observe, or attempt to affect, the ongoing activities.

As the world knows, the events neared completion when the motorcade, on a peaceful mission to a community meeting in John Day, Grant County, Oregon, met the undue wrath of the federal government, and local and state law enforcement, resulting in the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and the arrest on rather interesting charges of 11 participants of the activities at the refuge.

In an effort to be as factual as possible, many witnesses still have to be interviewed to ensure that what will be written is as factual as possible. Due to the rampant, and most often unsubstantiated, rumors in social media, those stories that will follow should finally put to rest many of those false claims.

Every effort will be made to corroborate the factual aspects of these stories, which will result in each story only “going to press” after exhaustive research and interviews have been completed.

Due to the nature of the interdependence of some activities, conjecture may be used to bridge gaps. This is deemed necessary as the government, at all levels, is notorious for misrepresentations, omissions, concealing evidence under the guise of “ongoing investigation”, or simply to cover their misdeeds. Absent available facts, though circumstantial evidence tends to support conclusions of that interdependence, such conjecture will be appropriately indicated.

If subsequent evidence becomes available, the original article will have an addendum, at the online site, rather than revision of the original story.

Camp Lone Star — Down to the Wire

Ninth Amendment Rights

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 27, 2015

As was explained in “The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?“, Massey’s attorney had brought two matters up in his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment. They were the Tenth Amendment and Intrastate v. Interstate commerce. The government, through their apparently novice attorney, Corley, argued that Massey did not have standing to challenge the government’s prosecution of him (sort of a “bend over, we will take care of everything” mentality).

This past Wednesday (September 23rd), Judge Andrew Hanen filed his Opinion and Order, addressing all three of the sought actions.

First, he addressed the government’s, stating that “Massey makes a… claim – that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, impermissibly regulates intrastate activity. Therefore, he has standing to challenge § 922(g)(1).” So, we have dispensed with the government’s feeble effort to claim that Massey had n standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the law he was charged with violating..

Next, he addresses the Tenth Amendment claim. Unfortunately, being a District Court, the Judge is bound by previous decisions of the Fifth Circuit, to which it is subordinate. Justice, perhaps not, but still the rules of the corrupt game for what passes for justice, in these times.

However the final ruling, this one has, apparently, not been addressed by the Fifth Circuit, at least to the extent that Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, has taken it. In what Hanen has described as “The Purely Intrastate Claim”, he states:

“Since the Government bears the burden of proving this element, and since the trial has yet to be held, the facts upon which Massey’s claim stands have not yet been established one way or the other. Until evidence has been presented, the Court is unable to evaluate this claim.”

“Therefore this argument is denied without prejudice because it is not yet ripe. Massey may reassert it at trial should he conclude that the evidence supports this claim.”

So, it appears that Judge Hanen is willing to venture into a substantive argument with regard to the difference between Interstate and Intrastate commerce. He has also placed the burden on the government to prove its jurisdiction. This leads us to review some things that have been brought up in discussion, though, perhaps, not in Court. We will revisit a previous article, “Massey is Protected by State Law” to put this argument before the people, if not the Court.

To begin with, the State of Texas has granted authority for federal agents certain powers with the enactment of Texas Penal Code, Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS. From that law (pertinent portions only):

(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

 (c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].”

Though the Tenth Amendment argument has been denied, there can be little doubt that the above enactment, by the State of Texas, is an assertion of the State’s rights (not the individual’s right, as per denied motion) to limit federal authority within the State.

So, it would be rather interesting to discover if the government’s witnesses are aware of this grant of authority, and the limitations imposed upon them, by Article 2.122. If they are not, was the government remiss in advising them, or did the government hope that they would assert authority not granted to them so that the federal government would have a broad reign over activities within the State, in the hope that case law would help affirm authority beyond that which was left to them by the State grant?

So, if the federal authority is limited by “any offense under the laws of this state”, they exceeded their authority by the detention of people who were not witness to any crime that might have been a felony under state law, and the only possible violation of that law was committed by the BPS shooter, and, perhaps even those who illegally detained (kidnapped) Massey and Varner.

Let’s revisit state law regarding firearms. From Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possess a firearm:

(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

So, this law makes it illegal to possess “at any location other than the premise”. However, apparently exception was made in another provision, Texas Penal Code, Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS (again, pertinent portions):

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Since Massey is no longer prohibited from possessing a weapon, and where we have a definition of “premises” (re: 46.04) and the ability to transport a weapon, then it is clear that Massey was not in violation of state law, and if in violation, it would only be a misdemeanor, unless he was in a place that sold alcoholic beverages, then clearly the state has no objection to his possession of a firearm under the circumstances surrounding Massey, throughout this entire ordeal.

Now, the enumerated right is the right to keep and bear arms. The government argues that 18 USC 922(g)(1) includes any firearm that is:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Intrastate Commerce

Now, let’s look at how 18 US Code defines “interstate commerce”:

18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code – Section 921: Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter –

(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State…

However, I find no definition of “Commerce” in 18 US Code, so we will look at the legal authority, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition):

“The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles…”

So, commerce is the exchange of goods, barter, sale, trade, or any other means, to be “in and affecting commerce” would require that one be involved in such a transaction.

Defining that even further, we have “interstate or foreign commerce” specifically excluding “intrastate” commerce, to wit:

“but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State”

So, if Massey had purchased (commerce) a firearm within the state, it would take a real stretch to include “interstate”. However, Massey never purchased (commerce) any firearm, he merely possessed a firearm. Even if Massey had received it as a gift, it is inconceivable that this could create the necessary nexus to interstate commerce that the statute addresses. However, the government cannot even prove that he owns a firearm, and that is the burden that is placed upon them, by Hanen’s Opinion.

Now, that is twice removed from the apparent extent of the charges brought under 18 USC §922(g)(1). No interstate, and, no commerce.

Since the Fifth Circuit has ruled on the Tenth Amendment, and it is no longer a legal defense for Massey, it does not preclude the state from passing laws that are consistent with the Tenth Amendment, which, obviously, they have done.

So, let’s refer to this as the Ninth Amendment argument. The federal government has raised no objection to the state laws referred to above, so they must be constitutional. The Ninth Amendment reads:

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

The question is whether Massey has the right, under the Ninth Amendment, to possess a firearm, if he is totally in compliance with state law, and has not been involved in interstate commerce.

The Rise of Islam in Our Children’s Minds
Is This the Destruction of America?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 23, 2015

A friend sent a copy to me of the current assignment in Social Studies for her Seventh Grade son. Since the truancy people have threatened her if he doesn’t go to school, he has simply been instructed to face the back of the classroom and ignore the instruction. However, that solution is problematic, and what we are seeing is a program of enforced indoctrination.

Hitler arranged the educational system to propagandize the Nazi philosophy, and dwell on certain aspects of the German culture. He did not instill a foreign culture into the minds of the children. What country would even consider doing such?

The student’s previous historical education included California history, primarily the early Spanish portion with the Missions and Spanish settlement; Ancient history centered on the Mediterranean Sea (Byzantine Empire, Romans, etc.), and the Rise of Islam (current studies). No America history, no European history, no government studies.

So, before we look into just what is currently being studied, let’s think a bit about the near future. The students who have taught very little of our own history, but have been indoctrinated (I can’t think of a better word) in Spanish settlement of California, and Islam’s role in the world, including how badly the White Europeans treated them, will leave them with a foundation of culture that excludes that which they were born into, believing that their roots are from a Spanish and Muslim heritage.

They will object to any subsequent instruction that might dwell upon the settlement of the “New World” by English and French adventurers –those that brought civilization rather than chaos — because it would be foreign to the foundation that had been implanted in them. The “Great Experiment”, the first, and only real, government created by the people of the country, for the purpose of self-government, will be spurned as inconsequential, even though it laid the foundation for the freedom of those invaders (yes, that is the correct word) who have used those protected freedoms (which do not exist where they came from) to destroy the very structure that has led the world to the advanced society it has become. The result will be a regression of society back into a barbaric age, which should have been left to the dustbin of history.

Some of the atrocious effects of this program include:

• Teaching that Muslims pray five times a day, implying that this is acceptable within the school, yet the same school will not let Christians pray, even once a day.
• Teaches and honors a religion that has their five pillars, though they won’t allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed or spoken of.
• Teaches support of a religion that dictates both social and political behavior, though they limit that teaching to only the Sunni sect of that religion, the sect that is the primary elements of ISIS/ISIL, but disallow any discussion of the Christian religion or the Judea-Christian moral foundation of our country

It has become abundantly clear that the federal government, under the current administration, supports this effort by requiring such teaching in our schools, and funds that denigration of our educational system.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created in 1953. In 1979, the educational aspect of governmental control of education (that used to belong to the local School Board) was created and named the Department of Education, while the remainder of HEW was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services. It is that Department of Education that now dictates policy (curriculum, including Common Core) and provides the funding for the local schools.

Since the Department of Education is an Administrative Agency under the Executive Branch (the President), we can expect no change in this policy, except possibly getting worse, until January 2017, when a new President will take office.

If the new President chose to change the policy, it would probably not go into effect until the beginning of school in September 2017.

That would leave this school year and the next of total indoctrination of our children into the benefits of Islam as a state religion, and it would be very difficult to undo the mental damage to our children, since it is the parents who willingly send their children to the government schools, telling them that school is where they will be taught what they need to know to get along in life and in America.

This country was a “Great Experiment” in self-government. It has turned into an oligarchy that is not responsive to the will of the people, and often is beyond the ability of Congress, our chosen representatives, to retain control of what they have willingly passed on to the Executive Branch.

If this is to change, and if we are determined not to allow these two school generations to be taught that Islam is great, and then probably vote for Muslims running for office, then we must, as the Founders did, determine to take upon ourselves, regardless of the laws but consistent with the Constitution, the responsibility and the task of removing this cancer from our society. And, that, by any means necessary, with no restrictions.

* * *

The following is the study guide for the Seventh Grade at:

• Canyon Lake Middle School
• Lake Elsinore Unified School District
• Principal: Dr. Preston Perez
• phone number: 951-244-2123
• webpage: http://clm.leusd.k12.ca.us

The source for the instructional material:
Society for Visual Education, Inc., 1345 Diversey Parkway, Chicago, Illinois 60614,
or,
Society for Visual Education, Inc., 6677 North Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois, 60631
phone: (800) 829-1900; fax number: (800) 624-1678

* * *

The future of this country is now in your hands. If it is to continue as we have believed, and as many have fought and died for, then the call to act is greater than any other time in our history. Contemplation, procrastination, and delay, have become our enemy. The time is now, and the necessity is, again, by whatever means.

It is Time for Grave Concern
It is Time for Action

The handwritten portion is the due dates for the various assignments.

Five Pillars of Islam? Where are the Ten Commandments?

Quran & Sunnah (the Word of God &teachings and attributes of Prophet Muhammad)?

What about the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Mecca? A city for only Muslims?

Mosque? What about Church., Temple, and Tabernacle?

Take the time to read the words in the list and see which ones, if any, are and should be a part of a student’s vocabulary.

Also, look at the lack of care in putting this together, for example the absence of a space before the entrees 10, 16-24, 26, 29, 30, 32-34, & 37. It shows a very poor attention to detail by those who wish to indoctrinate our youth.

Well, at least Europe gets a bit of attention.

Why would they want someone to know the routes of the four major Crusades? And, Israel had to be handwritten in — I wonder if someone might get in trouble for that.

Shouldn’t Americans first learn where the Mississippi, Colombia, Ohio, Potomac, and other American rivers are?

Why simply the geography of Islamic nations on untended conquests?

This, apparently, is the map that the elements of Page 5 are to be drawn on.

More Muslim geography. Only one European country. However, they fail to suggest that we should keep it that way. And, this whole exercise tends to suggest that they want the United States to, eventually, join the list of Muslim countries.

Now, we have some “fill in the blanks”. Not that “male” is included, however, “female” is not.

Who gives a damn where Islam was first preached?

They ask what countries Islam spread rapidly through, though they fail to ask why it spread rapidly, and how much blood was shed.

Now, they must learn all about Mohammad, but there is nothing about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and the scores of truly phenomenal, peace loving, Americans — that helped form this great country that we live in.

Now, we get into the religious foundation of Islam, in a school that outlaws the Bible.
That should be sufficient to justify burning the school, and some of the teachers and administrators, to the ground.

Now, we have a structure of government under Islam, but the students have yet to learn the structure of government in their own country.

That last question is the real kicker. I wonder what the acceptable answer might be.

Nothing about baptism, but very much about a very foreign, and strange, religion.

It seems that the student is supposed to learn, and perhaps participate in, the five pillars, though neither the Bible, or Christian prayer, are allowed in the school.

It also seems to support only one branch of Islam, the Sunni, since the Shia branch has twelve pillars.

So, conquest, and demonstration of a few basic practices that we have evolved into our more progressed society. They are not, however, demonstrative of something that would not have occurred without Muslims, and are probably more substantially developed than Islam could very have achieved.

Now, we have the Christian persecution of the Muslims, though we simply ignore the fact that the Muslims persecuted not only Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, most of Africa, by execution, or committing them to slavery — which they still practice.

Now, at least, we see what happened in Europe (Spain, in particular) as a reaction, after the expulsion of the Muslims, to those who were not of the Catholic faith.

Rule of Law, or, Rule of Man
An Analysis of the Kim Davis Fiasco

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 8, 2015

The Supreme Court and States’ Tenth Amendment Rights

The Constitution created a Union. That Union was of the several States, and the Constitution was written to join those States into a confederation, with a federal government that dealt only within the powers and authorities defined in the document. The autonomy of states was assured within the Constitution, though doubts arose as to whether the federal government might attempt to secure more power than was intended and granted to it.

The most significant clarification of that intent was laid out in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. A preamble sets forth the purpose of a document, and that which was ascribed to the first ten Amendments reads, as follows:

The Preamble To The Bill Of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The last two amendments made even more obvious the limited role of the federal government:

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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.

After the Civil War, a Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (the lawfulness of that ratification may be questioned, though that is not the topic of this article). It stated that no State could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However, it was not intended to, nor did early application of that provision even suggest that there was one set of laws that applied to all, and if the states were in agreement over an issue, or each State had addressed an issue, that the issue in question was not one that was subject to federal approval.

The rights protected by the Constitution would have to extend to all citizens, not all people, as was clear by the wording in the Amendment. Those rights, however, were deemed natural rights pertaining to “life, liberty, and property”. They were not rights which would take from one to give to another.

In 1973, a Supreme Court decision demonstrated that the rights of the States, so solidly secured by the Constitution, would no longer be exercised by the States, if the federal government decided that it wanted to bring any aspect of our lives under its wing. This is clearly demonstrated in the decision that expanded the government’s role in abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The decision defied previously held limitation of authority, was widely accepted by the public, perhaps not fully understood were the ramifications of the expansion of federal powers.

Justice Rehnquist explained the problem and the ramifications in his dissenting opinion, when he wrote:

“To reach its result [the majority opinion], the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”

“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

So, we have seven out of nine justices expanding the power of the federal government; usurping from the States those rights that were retained by them. And, unfortunately, we had a naive public that applauded, or damned, the decision of the Court, not even considering the affect on our Constitution and the rights of the States.

Now, to get to where we are going, we must address another Supreme Court decision, this being made in June 2015, and bears heavily on the current situation regarding Rowan County, Kentucky, County Clerk Kim Davis, who, as of this writing, sits in Rowan County Detention Center (121 Lee Avenue, Morehead, Kentucky), under a Contempt of Court charge.

This charge stems from another Supreme Court decision, decided in June 2015. That case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., 576 US ___. It was filed “claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” So, by the simple wording in the complaint, “the right to marry”, we have something that was never considered a right, it was always, at best, a religious or civil choice, converted and accepted by the Court to be deemed a right, having nothing to do with “equal protection of the laws.” There is no “protection” in marriage simply the notification that two people, of opposite sexes, are bound together in matrimony. Or, as Noah Webster described it the first American Dictionary (Webster’s 1828), marriage is “the legal union of a man and woman for life,” which served the purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.” So, is a legalized union to be considered, now, to be a “right”?

The conclusion to the decision reads:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

So, Kim Davis is free “to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” However, “[t]he Constitution… does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” What kind of double-speak is that? The “right” is a part of the First Amendment. The abomination is the contradiction that the Constitution does not permit. Try as I might, I cannot find that, anywhere.

In an age where the enumerated rights are under fire, we have courts granting rights that were never considered rights, nor were they enumerated, and, if they were rights, the came strictly under the purview of the state.

By definition, this process of expansion of federal power and usurpation of state power is known as the “incorporation doctrine- a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” So, we must ask which provision of the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the states, or, if the description needs to be updated to “Incorporation Usurpation Doctrine”

To exemplify this overarching expansion of federal authority, we can look to Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell, where he wrote:

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

“Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history–and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.

Though our very mobile and fast-paced society has had an effect on the “lifelong relationship”, it has done nothing to warrant an extension of that purpose to achieve marriage, for marriage sake, as a right, rather than the original indentation of providing security for the children (posterity).

Whether we are a Democracy, a Republic, or both, we are, without question, to be a self-governing people. At this time, there are over 300 million people in this country. Of that number, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported, in 2013, that only 1.6% of the population was queer (homosexual, both sexes). That is not a minority, it is an insignificant number. And, there is nothing that prohibits them from living as they choose. Those laws have slowly fallen to our modern world, where they are not prosecuted; rather, they are allowed to practice their life-style, without legal penalty. Isn’t it enough that the biblical punishment is no longer inflicted, or are we to allow this insignificant group hold sway over our lives, our morality, and our culture?

Of those 300 million plus, they are represented in their respective state legislatures by hundreds of senators and representatives, chosen by the citizens of those states to enact laws. In no state is the court given the right to enact laws, simply, the “power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” ONLY the representatives of the people, and in accordance with the respective State Constitution make the laws.

Likewise, in the federal government, there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, those, also, elected to represent the will of the people, and enact laws accordingly.

So, we have thousands of the representatives of the people who have enacted laws in accordance with the will of the people, and those laws no longer act unfavorably on the insignificant number. That is what was intended, and that is what should continue to be.

However, we find that a simple majority of nine Justices, yes, just five appointed individuals, not chosen by the people, themselves, have established an apparent right to enact laws contrary to the will of the people and their representatives. That is an oligarchy (rule by a small, select group), and, as you will not find “marriage” in the federal Constitution, you will neither find “oligarchy” as our form of government.

Unless, of course, the people will stand idly by as those robed “oligarchs” continue to expand their authority, destroying our whole concept of self-government.

The Road to Contempt of the People

Based upon the Supreme Court’s contradictory decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al, James Yates, April Miller, and others, filed complaints with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland, against Kim Davis, individually and as County Clerk of Rowan County.

The Complaint by Yates was brought under 42 USC §1983:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Now, “secured by the Constitution and laws” will be addressed, later on. However, we see that the “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [Article I, § 8, clause 17].” comes in to play here, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution and the laws are both supportive of the right of a State to make its own laws, and by the broadest stretch of imagination, does not include marriage, a civil bond.

The Complaint also incorporates a letter from the Governor, Steven L. Beshear, to the “Kentucky County Clerks, dated June 26, 2015. The letter reads, in part:

“As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky – and all states – must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.”

“Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

“You should consult with your county attorney on any particular aspects related to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision.”

So, the Governor first informs the recipients that they had “taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.” Then, he provides his solution, whereby “same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

So, the oath is to the constitutions, and, presumably, the laws made in accordance thereof. And then, he talks about entitlements. What? I suppose he didn’t feel any more comfortable than I do in suggesting that they are “rights”, rather, that queers are “entitled” to a legal bond intended to assure that children are conceived and brought up in a healthy environment.

Finally, he wants to “implement” the Supreme Court decision. So, which constitution provides a directive, or even implies, that a decision must be implemented, if not an enacted law passed in accordance with those constitutions? Does the oath bind them to a Court decision?

The US Constitution provides the authority to enact laws in Article I, § 1, to wit:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“All legislative Powers” means what it says, “All”. Nobody else in the federal government is empowered to make laws. The Court can only rule on the constitutionality of a law. Even without referring to the “Case Law Method”, which has moved the courts away from the Constitution, simply building upon previous decision, without regard to the Constitution, we can see that something is amiss — in violation of the Constitution.

Now, let’s look at the Kentucky Constitution, beginning with the Kentucky Bill of Rights:

Section 2. Absolute and arbitrary power denied. Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Section 4. Power inherent in the people – Right to alter, reform, or abolish government. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

So, the Kentucky Constitution disallows “[a]bsolute and arbitrary power over the lives [and] liberty” of the people. So, just what about the decision regarding the current case (Yates, Miller, et al) and the charge of Contempt of Court (which will soon be discussed) is not “absolute and arbitrary”?

And, if “[a]ll power is inherent in the people” and “founded on their [people] authority”, how can a judge, at the lowest level of federal courts, make a decision, based upon a decision, though not enacted into law, be used to deprive Kim Davis of her liberty?

The Bill of Rights concludes with:

Section 26. General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights – Laws contrary thereto are void. To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Just consider what “inviolate” means.

Now, from the Kentucky Constitution, the Legislative Branch:

Section 29. Legislative power vested in General Assembly. The legislative power shall be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, which, together, shall be styled the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Section 55. When laws to take effect – Emergency legislation. No act, except general appropriation bills, shall become a law until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, except in cases of emergency, when, by the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each House of the General Assembly, by a yea and nay vote entered upon their journals, an act may become a law when approved by the Governor; but the reasons for the emergency that justifies this action must be set out at length in the journal of each House.

Section 68. Civil officers liable to impeachment – Judgment – Criminal liability. The Governor and all civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office; but judgment in such cases shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under this Commonwealth; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be subject and liable to indictment, trial and punishment by law.

So, as in the federal government, “legislative power [enacting laws]” is vested in the General Assembly. Nobody else can make laws.

The Kentucky Constitution makes provision for “emergency legislation”, which, under the circumstances, would have to be done to “implement” the decision, and to protect the County Clerk, who is bound to uphold the laws enacted in accordance with both constitutions. It would appear that Kim Davis suffered in jail because the legislative branch was remiss in their responsibility to the people and the officials of the state.

Finally, absent an impeachment, it would appear that no legal action could be taken against an official of the state. The qualifier, “but the convicted party” would require such impeachment prior to legal action.

However, what we are finding, in this current situation, is that the lowest level judge in the federal system, can, single-handedly, deny an elected official, under the authority of the state Constitution, her liberty.

On September 1, 2015, April Miller filed a Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court, stating:

“Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis’ compliance through incarceration. Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, Plaintiffs urge the the [sic] Court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis’ immediate compliance without further delay.

However during a hearing on September 3, Judge David L. Bunning arbitrarily opted to incarcerate Kim Davis, in Contempt of Court. In that hearing, the minute notes show:

“Defendant Davis shall be remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal pending compliance of the Courts Order of August 12, 2015, or until such time as the Court vacates the contempt Order.”

It appears that the Judge opted for jail time in lieu if the requested monetary damages.

Kim Davis was released, on September 8, during the course of preparing this article. An understanding was made that the marriage licenses issued by the County will not bear her name or title, though the will simply say, “Rowan County, Kentucky” at the line for the Clerk/ Deputy Clerk signature.

Laws on the books

Many people are claiming that Kim Davis violated the law by not issuing marriage licenses to queers that wanted to be married to each other.

We have all been taught that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So, let’s look at what the responsibility of an elected official is, if their job requires that they obey the law.

First source is the Kentucky Constitution, which, in Section 223A states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Next, we have Kentucky Statutes:

“402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”

Well, Kim Davis has taken a position that requires that she uphold the laws. That pretty much settles it from the State side of the matter. But, since it was a federal judge, maybe we need to look at what the federal government has to say.

I find no reference to (marriage” in the Constitution, though I do find the specific reservation in the Tenth Amendment:

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

So, we find that since there is no delegation to the federal government, or courts, regarding marriage, in the Constitution, then that authority must be one of those “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, does the federal government have anything to say about marriage? Yes, they do; however, it pertains ONLY to “administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States”, and has nothing, at all, to do with licensing (legal permission) for marriage. Clearly, that “right” is reserved to the state.

1 U.S.C. § 7 : Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

So, let’s review the Kim Davis incident. Kim is an elected official, the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. When she took the position, she also took an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions and the law of the land.

Both constitutions provide for the legislative bodies (Senate and House of Representatives) to have the sole authority to enact laws. If a judge rules an act unconstitutional, then the legislative body must enact a law consistent with the ruling. That is the only way that it can work. It is not up to the individual to determine what she can, or cannot, do. It is those who have taken the role in government to enact laws, well, to enact laws.

Kim Davis should not be held in contempt of court. If anyone is to be held in contempt of court, it should be those in the legislative bodies that leave on the LAW books laws that are unconstitutional. They are paid far better than Kim Davis is, and their job is to write the laws that she is to enforce. Every member of the state legislature should be willing to sit in jail, in lieu of Kim Davis, for she is the only one that is upholding the law. The same might be said of the Congress, as they, too, recognizing their limited role in the matter of marriage.

As a final thought, Kim Davis has stated that she refused to issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs. Had a law been lawfully enacted that allowed queers to marry, then Kim Davis would have to decide whether she wanted to continue in her job, or not, based upon a law that was properly enacted. To put that in more interesting terms, if any legislative body (not judicial) thinks that they have a right to change a definition this is thousands of year old, based upon the Bible, which defines marriage, then those in that legislative body have placed themselves above God.