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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Some thoughts on the Zimmerman Verdict

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2013

For those who have decided that George Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, consider whether Trayvon Martin would agree with your advocacy of beating or killing whites. If Trayvon Martin would not support your advocacy, then that verdict was in error. If, however, Trayvon Martin would support such advocacy, then that justifies the actions of George Zimmerman and proves that he acted in self-defense.

So, what you have proven is that the verdict was correct, since those not involved in the events in Sanford, Florida, now must fear for their lives, as George Zimmerman feared for his.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We played it close to our chest.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BAITING THE TRAP

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

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

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

The California Commission On Interstate Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION

Sacramento

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

Cordially yours,

Glenn M. Anderson, Chairman

INTRODUCTION

ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

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

RELATION WITH THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

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

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

THE FIRST QUARTER CENTURY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “New” American Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Price of a Lake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–        Waste Control was already well underway by local governments.

–        Runoff waters were already being diverted.

–        Rodent control was a continuing effort.

–        Planning and zoning were a fact.

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

What value, then, the beauty of a Lake?

The People vs. the County of El Dorado

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

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

And so they were.  And are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the 1963-5 minutes CCIC’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 30, 2011

Through the process of conditioning (programming), especially in government schools and the press, we have lost sight of what this country really is, and, what it stands for.

Though there have been many nations throughout the history of the world, there is only one that was established, independent of outside source, by the people of that nation.  It was a nation of independent people who had learned to cherish their freedom, primarily established by an absence of control from across the ocean.

They had found, though bound by English laws and English government, that absent a regular imposition of that authority, that they did quite well for themselves, taming a wilderness and establishing a productive society, within the limits imposed by that far away government. They were, for all intents and purposes, the first and only truly free civilized nation.

When that foreign government began to impose upon these people who had developed self-sufficiency, beyond any before them, they resented their treatment as “children” rather than being treated as adults, and true sons of England, with all of the rights enjoyed by Englishmen.

Just eleven years after their separation from the then greatest power on the Earth, they established a government in a form that would best suit them — developed, in part, by the political philosophers that preceded them; in part, from what they had learned from the natives of the land they shared; and, in part from their experiences with the previous government, which bonds they had so recently broken.

This new government was embodied in a document which was then styled, “Constitution for the United States of America”. It was, through conventions in the various states, truly a document approved by “We The People”, as its suggests in its preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In this modern day, we have lost sight of the intention of the Framers of that great document. We can however, look to the past to understand just who embodied those “People” who set on forth this greatest venture in self-government that the world has ever seen.

Our best understanding can be found in a Supreme Court decision, rendered in Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393] , in 1856. Chief Justice Taney, who gave the decision of the Court, went into great detail in defining just who those “People” were.

The case hinges on who had standing, as a “citizen of the United States” (prior to the Fourteenth Amendment) to sue in court.  The details of the case is not necessary to understand the following.

The case ended up in the Supreme Court.  In its decision (below), the Court pointed out that Scott had claimed to be a citizen of Missouri, which would give him standing to sue Sandford.  It found that though Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, or of the United States, that standing for the Court to hear the case was based upon the Courts acting on the fact that the question of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court.

Going directly to the Final Decision, given my Justice Taney, we have the Court’s determination of just who was a “citizen of the United Sates:

“The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.  The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.  “

* * *

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endow him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.  And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.”

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

* * *

“It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.  And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations.  We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Now, clearly, it is those who initiated the fight for independence that are of the class recognized by the Constitution as “citizens of the United States”.  Many have pointed out that one of the first to “die for the cause” was a negro named Crispus Attucks, who was shot to death in the “Boston Massacre”, in 1770.  This, however, in the eyes of the Court, does not qualify him as one of the people — for which the country was intended.

Though the decision of the Court continues to give examples of just how the Court perceived this relationship, I would prefer to not include too many more of the over one-hundred and ten thousand words in the Decision.  There are some words, however, that warrant our attention in fully understanding what was intended by the founding of this nation, and so I will provide these few paragraphs:

“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.‘

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.  They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.  The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection.  It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.  It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.  It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary.

So, we have, from many angles, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of who the Constitution was written both by, and, for.  It was never intended to be a catch all for the diverse populations, cultures, and religions of the world.

In 1867, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Though many of the Congressmen believed that its purpose was to provide a place, in this country, for the negro population (recently freed slaves, as well as those negros previously freed), it has since been interpreted, by the government, not the Court, to be inclusive of all walks of life.

The Amendment first made “[a]ll persons born or naturalized. . . . citizens of the United States”. It then prohibited any state from passing laws which would “abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment extended the privileges and immunities to those who were henceforth known as “citizens of the United States”, it made no mention, nor is there any wording that would confer upon them, the status of those “sovereign people” who had established this government, and nation. It simply granted to them the “privileges and immunities”.

This left the original intent in place, though extended only certain rights to those who had, prior to the Amendment, no access to those “privileges and immunities”.

The country was still, as intended, only for those who were as described by Justice Taney, “it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else,” though it was then willing to share some of the bounty of this great land with others. In essence, it took  phrase, “citizen of the United States”, and made it a legal term. It did not remove the meaning of “citizen of the United States”, as it existed prior to the amendment, it simply created a second meaning, which, in legal context, conveyed only certain specified rights, and nothing more.

Regardless of the Amendment, we can clearly understand that if the door were opened to include any who wished to walk in and enjoy that bounty, it would absolutely destroy the context in which the country was formed. It was, after all, the heritage and culture, and the moral foundation espoused by Christianity, that was the very foundation for the great experiment. To allow that a single amendment, with an alleged purpose of only extending certain rights, could not be subsequently interpreted to be the means by which all that was embodied in the document to retracted  whiteout specific wording nullifying that original intent.

A nation has to have some binding force. In most nations, that force is the common language, heritage, and, culture, of the dominant people of the nation.  In the United States, that language is English; the heritage is English and the culture is European.  It is under such conditions that the United States evolved into an effective world force between its inception (the Declaration of Independence in 1776) and its ability to defend itself against outside forces (the War of 1812).

Its growth in prestige, power, influence, productivity, and pride, continued to grow, providing what became the deciding factor in World Wars I and II.  It had, without a doubt, become the dominant world power, especially considering that it did not suffer the devastation that most other countries realized in those conflicts.

Since that time, we have begun a downward spiral, destructive of both the nation (integrity of) and the Constitution, with but few exceptions.

In 1954, the Congress enacted the Communist Control Act of 1954. This act recognized that the Communist Party posed an eminent threat to the United States and its Constitution.  The codification of that act, at 50 U.S.C. § 842 , provides that:

The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated. . .

Clearly, there is legitimate concern that the Communist Party might use force to overthrow the government. Unfortunately, at the time, there was no due consideration of an overthrow by other means, such as subversion of the Constitution by political chicanery.  After all, subversive means had not then been developed to the fine art that has been achieved in the past half-century.

The authority within the Constitution, however, to enact laws that would protect the Constitution were, clearly, within the means and authority of the government.  Would it make any sense to be able to outlaw force as a means of supervision of the Constitution and not to allow means to avoid such an overthrow, without force?

What has effectively happened is that the manipulation, without Amendment to the Constitution, and with the abrogation of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to rule upon the constitutionality of laws (see About Ashwander v. TVA), we have seen a dilution of the Constitution which has resulted in a de facto revision to the Preamble, as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect workers Union, establish Justice Injustice, insure domestic Tranquility disharmony, provide for the common defence of any nation we see fit, promote provide the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to all but ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which shall continue in effect until such time as the people decide that they will burden their posterity with unmanageable debt and allow revision to this Constitution, without regard to the provision in Article V for amendment hereto.

Unless we stand firm and demand that the Nation be retained, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, we will find that our children will be living in a third world country by the time they have grandchildren.  There is no middle ground.

We must understand that any organization, association, political philosophy, or, religion, which is not consistent with the Constitution, and, our way of life, should of necessity, be made unlawful, since its purpose would be to allow the Constitution to be the weapon of its own demise

The Communist Party and the Socialist Party espouse a politics of government control of, and, redistribution of, wealth.  Islam, though a religion, retains social, political and legal requirements that are inconsistent with our Constitution. Labor unions, though they may have served a useful purpose, in times past, before the government instituted laws that were protective of labor, are now too powerful and political to be consistent with the intention of the Constitution. They have become manipulators of the law, to their own favor, and with total disregard to the economy and our world trade situation.  These serve no useful purpose to the continuation of our way of life, and must be outlawed.

If we don’t act, firmly and soon, we will find that the new Preamble to the Constitution will be taught, at our expense, to our own children:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a workers Union, establish Injustice, insure domestic disharmony, provide the defence of any nation we see fit, provide the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to all but ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, which shall continue in effect until such time as the people decide that they will burden their posterity with unmanageable debt and allow revision to this Constitution, without regard to the provision in Article V for amendment hereto.

Though the Constitution may be equated to a “birth certificate” for the new nation conceived and embodied within it, unlike a birth certificate that certifies that you and I have entered life, only to leave it at some point in the future, that “birth certificate” was written to include posterity — it was the birth of a perpetual union – intended to live as long as free men do.

* * *

For more information on  who “We the People”, those whom the Constitution was written, by and for, are, see the five part series beginning with “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I    and the four part series beginning with Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part I.

 

 

Introduction to Committees of Safety

Committees of Safety, or like elements, existed throughout the history of colonial America.  Though known by various names (Committees of Protection, Associations, or, as the case in Plymouth Colony, an unnamed civil body politic, and, in Jamestown, simply governing council), they had the characteristic of being a civil government absent a government established by the sovereign.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Mayflower CompactIn ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king, defender of ye faith, &cHaueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur= therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte, constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie:  vnto which we promise all due submission and obedience.  In witnes wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap= Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·| * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

In the early eighteenth century, Committees of Safety were quite common, especially on the frontiers, where the possibility if Indian attacks were likely.  The Committee would appoint watchmen, hog reeves, fence reeves, and, militia officers.  These are functions that were taken on by more organized governments, in some towns, though were common through most of the colonies, leading up to the War of Independence.

Committees served, primarily, to fill in gaps that were left by existing colonial and county governments, providing services that were otherwise unavailable.

As tensions grew between the colonists and the Crown government in England, the need for Committees increased, especially in western Massachusetts and South Carolina.  After the Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774), which revoked the Massachusetts Charter and replace the locally elected governments with appointments by the King, the farmers in western Massachusetts began forming Committee to assure a continuity of government and to take charge in expelling courts and judges who were not abiding by the original charter, and replacing them with their owns courts, though primarily only for criminal matters.

There were sufficient numbers of Committees in most of the colonies to call for the First Continental Congress, in 1774.  These Committees were not subject to Royal governance, because, quite simply, to call for such a Congress would have been a contradiction of their authority granted by the various charters.  Subsequently, the Second and Third Continental Congress were called by the Committees, which by this time, had evolved to the point where sufficient numbers of participating Committees established a Provincial Committee of Safety.

Committees of Safety continued to operate as functions of local government throughout the War of Independence, until each state adopted a Constitution, or otherwise revised their form of government, absent any Royal control.  Once the Article of Confederation were instituted (1781), the need for the Committees, except, once again, in the frontiers, diminished, as did the Committees.

Their next occurrence was in 1835, when President Santa Anna abolished the Constitution of 1824, granting himself enormous powers over the government.  Colonists in Texas began forming Committees of Correspondence and Safety.  A central Committee in San Felipe de Austin coordinated their activities.  This de facto government waged the revolution against Mexico, directing and supplying the militia, until independence was won.

What role could Committees of Safety play in today’s world?

Events such as Katrina, as well as the possibility of man caused disasters, are potential threats to the security, safety, and well-being of our families.

If a Committee existed in your community, and you were a member, then your family is also a member.  Suppose there was some sort of event that affected food supply, utilities, water, or otherwise threatened your safety.  You have in place, through the Committee, a cooperative with which to share needed resources.  Though short lived in Plymouth Colony and Jamestown, this “cooperative” served quite well for survival in a hostile land, for the first few years.

It also allowed the sharing of crops in the frontier towns and agricultural communities, in later colonial times, when Indian raids, or weather, destroyed crops, which would leave those affected short of food, had their neighbors (fellow Committee members) not shared with them what food was available.

In the aftermath of Katrina, if a Committee existed in a consolidated area (a community), and sent a representative to the local law enforcement with the message, “we will provide our own protection in our area”, describing the limits of the area protected by the Committee, it would make sense the law enforcement would be relieved that their job was made easier based upon the Committee relieving them of a substantial area that might otherwise require their patrolling.

The Committee would be a resource for such eventualities, and would be an ideal place from which to gain recognition by launching programs to help those in need.  Roof repairs, painting, yard maintenance, etc., for those unable to care for their own property.  This would encourage friendship, appeal to potential members, improve the quality of the neighborhood, and set the Committee out as supportive of the neighborly attitude that prevailed in this country, many decades ago.  This would result in reduced crime, safer streets and communities, and, a reaffirmation of our rights, freedoms, and liberty.

Committees of Safety are quite able to fill in where government fails to provide, at least for those who see the need, join, and, participate in, Committees of Safety.

http://www.committee.org/

If you have already read “An Argument For Moral Courage – Part II“, you will probably better appreciate Part I, having the understanding of the conditions which have molded our society to be receptive to what might amount to revulsion at what you are about to read.

If you have not read Part II, and you have not recognized what has happened to our society, through the manipulation addressed in that Part II, you may not even complete reading Part I, as it is offensive to the conditioning that we have undergone.

However, if you can retain your objectivity through the reading of this Part, you should come out on the other side with a whole new understanding of both yourself and the society we find ourselves subject to.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom.

An Argument For Moral Courage

Part I

By David Allison

Three years ago, I determined to present public arguments to the issues attending Black Nationalism (BN) and Black Liberation Theology (BLT).  Until that time, my expertise in those ideologies was necessarily concealed from public scrutiny.

My earliest revelations were veiled in scores of dimensionless chatter characteristic of someone seeking to avoid criticism.  My verbiage was tightly structured, cautious, the purpose of my discussion neatly concealed within equally-balanced racial criticisms.  Though I was driven to reveal the dangerous nature of BN and BLT, I was equally motivated to avoid being labeled a ‘racist’.  And, given the hell-storm unleashed upon anyone labeled a racist, my fears were reasonable.

Three years ago, I unwittingly invited an evolutionary momentum into my life that would force me to examine my conscription to poisonous, cultural, racial illusions.  Those illusions were process driven, the end product of years of cultural propaganda.  Introspection forced me to examine unexplored fears.  I did not then know that my self-examination would reveal characteristics induced by fouled societal pressures; nor could I have then known that those characteristics are almost universal.

Lesson One: White Attitudes Towards Race Have Created A Predatory, Cannibalistic Environment Of Forced Silence –

Shortly before Obama was elected president, I forwarded a ‘revolutionary’ concept to hundreds of people, including friends.  The article was titled, “The White Value System”.  I described that I had come across a unique church whose values were described in “The White Value System”.  Those values were obviously ‘white’ biased and inflammatory towards blacks.  I received numerous rejections of the “system” and numerous accusations I was a ‘racist’.

I waited a few days before I alerted the audience that I had purloined “The White Value System” from the Trinity Lutheran Church (TLC) – the church Obama attended for over twenty years.  In his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama makes note of “The Black Value System” that represents the essence of his church.  I took the liberty of changing “Black” to “White” in order to determine what ‘white’ attitudes would be.

After a few days, I forwarded Obama’s “Black Value System” to the same people with the question, “Is this racist”?  The answer was universally, “NO!”  When I queried how it was the “White Value System” was racist but the “Black Value System” was not, the only response I received was a one word reply, “Because”.

Although this small sampling of white racial attitudes is by no means an absolute assertion of the racial confusion that permeates the white psyche, it was broad enough to provide me insight into my own confusion.

An attorney friend who received the “White Value System” cautioned, “Dave, you’re sounding like a racist.  Be careful old friend.”  Another recipient who works for a Florida power company wrote, “Have you lost your mind?  This is racist.”  The strongest warning came from a high-school friend who wrote, “Don’t bother to contact me anymore – I don’t associate with racists.”  Even after I informed them I was conducting a ‘cultural experiment’ – an introspective examination – the retorts continued.

One recipient was so angered by “The White Value System” she forwarded emails to mutual friends.  “Dave is a racist,” she wrote.  I would never have guessed the depth of the animosity directed at me.  The repercussions of that experiment continue to this day.  This examination of racial attitudes offered me insight into fears I internalized during years of exposure to partial and incomplete racial truths.  I came to understand the power of the ‘collective’ mind to control and define our attitudes – Even when those attitudes are suicidal.

Clearly, something was terribly, terribly wrong – with me.  The emotional, psychological and mental angst I experienced whenever I wrote or discussed racial issues was inconsistent with the reality of the situation.  My arguments remained consistent: Blacks must take responsibility for their behavior and whites must shed the notion that we are somehow responsible for black behavior.  The facts I presented were drawn from real-world dynamics: Everything I discussed was supported by tons of literature, studies, data and other resources.  Still, I was unable to shake the emotional angst that accompanied my efforts.

Part of me felt I was betraying the ‘good’ people around me – people who had dedicated themselves to helping black ‘victims’.  Another part felt I was being unfair – even though I knew the concept of ‘fairness’ is irrational, relative.  I was deeply concerned my efforts would relegate me to the isolated dungeons reserved for social lepers whose racial beliefs relegate them to a life of apologetic alienation.  The most difficult aspect of my angst, however, derived from my sense of decency: Never pick on someone smaller than you or someone weaker than you.  NEVER!  So it was that I realized my perception of blacks was that they were ‘weaker’, ‘less fortunate’ and ‘unfairly burdened’.  Thus, my role was to treat them ‘fairly’ – regardless of their behavior.

I had assimilated the belief I was in a superior position, a blessed position, an unearned position; that my skin color allowed me gratuities and characteristics ‘victimized’ blacks were deprived the ‘luxury’ of acquiring.  When I shed this perspective, when I examined the totality of my life and those struggles I have endured – regardless of my skin color – I realized that skin color is no determinate of success or failure, that all members of the human race know joy and sorrow, pain and fortune – We all struggle to define our lives: White offers no guarantee of success.

This perspective allowed me to pursue truth, to examine racial issues, knowing that my efforts were intended to enhance the likelihood of mankind’s successes rather than perpetuate his failures.  It was this perspective that allowed me to establish an attitude towards blacks that is the exact attitude I have towards everyone: I am not my brother’s keeper. 

The Disease –

For years I perceived blacks to be helplessly oppressed by the history of racism and the inherent, evil characteristics unique to the white race.  I accepted ‘being bad’ without actually having ‘done bad’.  From this perspective, the color of my skin not only defined me, it condemned me; a condemnation I readily accepted without question because this was the behavior I saw in other whites.  I accepted vicarious liability and punishment for things I had not done – or would do.  The history of my race, the white race, pressed me into a quantifiable realm where the totality of my character was exclusively defined by the color of my skin.

Like many whites, I assimilated racial attitudes and behaviors without questioning their moral essence.  Among the countless racial contradictions whites have nurtured, the most dangerous is white acceptance of responsibility for every malady that afflicts blacks.  This attitude is both arrogant and destructive as it provides a pathway for blacks to avoid responsibility for their behavior.

Anyone familiar with the destructive nature of alcoholism recognizes the similarity within the poisonous characteristics of black-white dynamics.  The destructive behavior of alcoholics requires them to employ manipulative techniques that allow them to avoid responsibility for their behavior.  Sympathetic people in the alcoholic’s life are typically referred to as ‘enablers’ as their sympathy often nurtures and reinforces the alcoholic’s destructive behavior.

The alcoholic rationalizes his behavior; the enabler accepts those rationalizations, often to the detriment of himself and others.  The alcoholic who loses his job, wrecks his car, beats his wife and children, experiences numerous arrests invariably blames the people and conditions in his life for causing him to ‘act the way he does’.  The sympathetic enabler readily accepts these rationalizations, often choosing between the alcoholic, moral decency, personal honesty and the willful infliction of harm to innocent people.

 

The enabler truly believes his support for the alcoholic is morally sane.  The enabler is convinced the alcoholic is a victim of cruel, life circumstances; that the people and conditions within the sphere of the alcoholic’s life are ‘evil’.  These dynamics create a poisonous relationship wherein the enabler becomes the ‘savior’, the alcoholic the ‘victim’ – Everyone else becomes ‘evil oppressors’.  The friction that naturally evolves from these dynamics is unmistakably brutal.

Imagine the wife who, for years, has supported her alcoholic husband’s errant behavior.  She has worked, sacrificed, tolerated, endured, and blindly hoped that one day her sacrifices would cause the alcoholic to become productive.  His parents, too, have done all they could to ‘keep the family afloat’: They have given rent and food money to the alcoholic; they have purchased cars for him; they have made countless excuses for his behavior.

[ http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7903/pub_detail.asp ]

One of the alcoholic’s brothers is not sympathetic: He abhors his brother’s destructive behavior; he tries to convince the wife and parents to quit enabling the alcoholic’s behavior by giving him money, accepting his rationalizations and making excuses for him.  The brother intuitively sees the moral insanity of preventing the alcoholic from suffering the full-brunt of his behavior.  By keeping the alcoholic from becoming homeless, hungry, alone, desperate and vulnerable the wife and parents are insulating him from the consequences of his behavior.  The brother knows the alcoholic’s ‘excuses’ are well-honed rationalizations that are factually untrue; he also knows that unless and until the enablers insist the alcoholic accept responsibility for his behavior, the situation will only worsen – The brother also knows the alcoholic’s offspring are destined to repeat their father’s behavior, becoming equally destructive, equally dependent.

During one particularly brutal drunk, the alcoholic blamed his behavior on a boss whose alleged cruelty forced the alcoholic to drink – again.  The wife and parents readily accepted this rationalization without examining the truth: What could the boss have done that was so horrible it would cause another man to drink himself to oblivion?  The brother knew better.  He knew the alcoholic’s boss.  He also knew that the alcoholic had sunk to such moral lows he would exploit anyone regardless of the consequences his blame had upon them.

When the alcoholic quit high school, he blamed his actions on a ‘bad’ teacher – A teacher who had sacrificed time and money to help the alcoholic improve his grades.  In another instance the alcoholic made vengeful public declarations that he had been abused by a neighbor – Those declarations were prompted by the neighbor’s refusal to ‘loan’ the alcoholic money after years of having done so without being paid back.  In yet another incident the alcoholic ruined the family car; he blamed his parents for the incident as they had given him a ‘sad childhood’.  Regardless of the pain he inflicts on others – and upon himself – the alcoholic is determined to maintain his destructive behavior.

The brother becomes a source of friction.  The wife and parents turn against the brother, thus earning the alcoholic’s endearment.  They gain a sense of moral superiority that their behavior is ‘benevolent’, ‘kind’, ‘tolerant’, ‘altruistic’; in contrast, the brother is characterized as ‘selfish’, ‘bad’, ‘oppressive’, ‘unfair’ and ‘morally corrupt’.

 

There is an unmistakable death spiral here – Every person in the alcoholic’s life plays one role or another: The sympathetic enabler; the people who are hated for insisting the alcoholic accept responsibility for his behavior; the neighbors, friends, relatives and children who are caught in the insane maelstrom; the government agencies and social programs that are exploited to ‘soften’ the alcoholic’s misery – Everyone is caught in the disease.

Until and when the alcoholic is forced to accept responsibility for his behavior, the disease will continue until…

1. The alcoholic dies.
2. The alcoholic is imprisoned.
3. The alcoholic goes insane.

 

There is one other alternative: The alcoholic continues to drink.

The destructive nature of alcoholism is identical to the racial disease that permeates our culture.  Blacks are the helpless, victimized, destructive alcoholics; Liberals resemble the sympathetic enabler whose actions only feed the disease; Conservatives are the ‘evil oppressors’ who refuse to accept the alcoholic’s behavior.  This analogy is the essence of the diseased conceptualization of race we have created and nurtured within our culture.  By virtue of its nature, it feeds on friction and conflict: Liberals and Conservatives blaming one another for the ‘sad state’ of blacks.  The cure, THE ONLY CURE, is blacks must accept responsibility for their behavior – ALL OF IT: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY.

This racial disease is too firmly embedded in our culture.  It will not disappear simply because we offer ‘sane moral arguments’; it will not fade-away because mankind has suddenly become enlightened or educated.  NO, this is a human game, a diseased game.  A game that provides massive doses of emotional and psychological sedation to Liberals who truly believe their actions are meritorious, kind, benevolent, helpful, altruistic, brave, unique….JUSTIFIED.

Unless resistance is presented, and regardless of the consequences, this game has upon our culture, our nations, our economic and social sovereignty, blacks will press the matter forward, creating an enlarging culture of dependency and destruction.

Characteristics Of Madness:

 

My evolution from ignorant participant to advocate for sanity in racial issues subjected me to unimaginable criticisms.  When I first presented arguments against ‘black behavior’, the concept was immediately ‘racialized’.  My discussions and writing focused on ‘behavior’ rather than ‘race’.  That behavior was born of necessity as I was yet seeking to avoid accusations of ‘racism’.  By that time, I was well aware of the techniques used by blacks and their sympathizers to diminish honest racial conversations – Especially conversations that advocated ‘black responsibility’.

Still, I forged ahead, and in so doing my progression towards a firm understanding of the nature of the ‘racial disease’ that permeates our culture naturally evolved.  In the next article, I will discuss the emotional, psychological, and spiritual maladies that plague honest analysis of racial issues and why it is we may anticipate an enlargement of friction between the races that will one day lead to a catastrophic outcome. 

Addendum:

Sent by email:

Dear friends;

I have recently joined a church that practices the White Value System.  The reason I am forwarding this information to you is due to the excitement I feel in the promises offered by practicing the White Value System.  Please join me in my celebration to freedom!

Regards,

The White Value System:

These WHITE Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever WHITES are gathered.  They consist of the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God.  “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become WHITE Christian Activists, soldiers for WHITE freedom and the dignity of all humankind.  Matthew 22:37 – Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
2. Commitment to the WHITE Community.  The highest level of achievement for any WHITE person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the WHITE Community.  I John 4:20 – If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother [or his sister], he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother or sister whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
3. 3.    Commitment to the WHITE Family.  The WHITE family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.  Those WHITES who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.  Deuteronomy 6:6-8 – And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.  And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education.  We must forswear anti-intellectualism.  Continued survival demands that each WHITE person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process.  “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment.  Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems.  Since the majority of WHITES have been denied such learning, WHITE Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade, or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.  Basic education for all WHITES should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of WHITE minds.  Matthew 22:37 – Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind.
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence.  To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the WHITE Community.  We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year.  Such is the language of growth and development.  We must seek to excel in every endeavor.  Ecclesiastes 9:10 – Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
6. Adherence to the WHITE Work Ethic.  “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.”  Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area.  We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation, and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry.  We are in competition with other cities, states, and nations for jobs.  High productivity must be a goal of the WHITE workforce.  II Thessalonians 3:7-12 – For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.  For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.  Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.  To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline.  We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others.  Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of WHITE Progress and a model for WHITE Youth.  I Peter 1:4-7 – To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”  Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.  Proverbs 3:13-14 – Happy are those who find wisdom and those who gain understanding, for her income is better than silver and her revenue better than gold.

• Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
• Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
• Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
• Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
• So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of WHITE “middleclassness.”  If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B.  And more importantly, WHITE people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

1. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the WHITE Community.

10.  Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting WHITE Institutions.

11.  Pledge Allegiance to All WHITE Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the WHITE Value System.

12.  Personal Commitment to Embracement of the WHITE Value System.  To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the WHITE Community and the Advancement of WHITE People towards freedom.

Sent by email:

Dear Friends;

Thank you for your many replies.  I have attached the ‘system’ from which I purloined the ‘White Value System’.  The Black Value System, as noted, is the guiding essence of the church presidential candidate Barack Obama has attended for years – the church practices ‘Black Liberation Theology’, an anti-white ideology of hate.

I apologize to you for duping you into my examination of white attitudes towards race.  Many of your emails described “White Value System” as ‘racist’.  Some of you also referred to me as ‘racist’.

I must now ask you to examine the “Black Value System” and determine whether you are inclined to believe it, too, is racist; if so, is presidential candidate Barack Obama also ‘racist’?  Please respond with your observations as it will help me to finalize this moderated examination of white racial attitudes.  Again, I apologize for being deceptive – there is no “White Value System”.

Regards,

THE FOLLOWING FROM

TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

 http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114

THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM:

These BLACK Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever BLACKS are gathered.  They consist of the following concepts:

13.  Commitment to God.  “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become BLACK Christian Activists, soldiers for BLACK freedom and the dignity of all humankind.  Matthew 22:37 – Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

14.  Commitment to the BLACK Community.  The highest level of achievement for any BLACK person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the BLACK Community.  I John 4:20 – If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother [or his sister], he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother or sister whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

15.  Commitment to the BLACK Family.  The BLACK family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.  Those BLACKS who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.  Deuteronomy 6:6-8 – And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.  And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

16.  Dedication to the Pursuit of Education.  We must forswear anti-intellectualism.  Continued survival demands that each BLACK person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process.  “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment.  Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems.  Since the majority of BLACKS have been denied such learning, BLACK Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade, or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.  Basic education for all BLACKS should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of BLACK minds.  Matthew 22:37 – Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind.

17.  Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence.  To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the BLACK Community.  We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year.  Such is the language of growth and development.  We must seek to excel in every endeavor.  Ecclesiastes 9:10 – Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

18.  Adherence to the BLACK Work Ethic.  “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.”  Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area.  We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation, and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry.  We are in competition with other cities, states, and nations for jobs.  High productivity must be a goal of the BLACK workforce.  II Thessalonians 3:7-12 – For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.  For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.  Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

19.  Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.  To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline.  We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others.  Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of BLACK Progress and a model for BLACK Youth.  I Peter 1:4-7 – To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.

20.  Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”  Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.  Proverbs 3:13-14 – Happy are those who find wisdom and those who gain understanding, for her income is better than silver and her revenue better than gold.

• Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
• Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
• Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
• Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
• So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of BLACK “middleclassness.”  If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B.  And more importantly, BLACK people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

21.  Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the BLACK Community.

22.  Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting BLACK Institutions.

23.  Pledge Allegiance to All BLACK Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the BLACK Value System.

24.  Personal Commitment to Embracement of the BLACK Value System.  To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the BLACK Community and the Advancement of BLACK People towards freedom.

NOTE: As noted in the article, I received only a few responses to my second request.  All of those responses stated that neither Barack Obama nor the Black Values System was racist.  When I later asked, “Why?” neither Obama nor the Black Value System is racist – but the ‘White Value System’ is  racist – I received only one, cryptic reply: “Because”. [DA]

A Simplified Explanation of
“The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government”

I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe “The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government”. Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself.

However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work.

Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds — all of them).

Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger.

After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area.

As time goes on, these areas become even large, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cities and metropolitan areas).

As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely.

So, if I have been successful in reducing the Plan to a simple and easily conveyed explanation, perhaps you would like to go to The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government,  and download a copy of The Plan.

When you read the Plan, you will see that it is based upon our own history. It is an emulation of the same course taken by our own Founders in securing the colonies that were soon to become the United States of America.

Charity and General Welfare

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

[Note: in all definitions, italics, underscoring, and bolding are mine, for emphasis]

Often, we think that we know what a word means.  Its meaning can be construed according to the rules by which the communication game is played.  If we all agree to the meaning, then we understand what the other means, when he uses that word in a discussion.

What happens, then, when there is a disagreement over the definition of a word?

Let’s suppose that I define, for the sake of explanation, the word “water” to mean only potable (drinkable) water.  By that singular act, I have excluded most of the water in the world.  Seawater, wastewater, ground water, bathing water, heck, even tears are excluded, along with a large percentage of your body.  I have tipped the conversation to a point where you must struggle in any effort to describe any H2O, unless it can be ingested.

Let’s look at another word that, if defined outside of the common usage, creates a different sort of dilemma.  To understand this phenomenon, we must look back to get a solid understanding of what the word means.  Note that I use a dictionary that defines words, as the Founding Fathers would have perceived them, at the time of the birth of this great nation.  The word is:

Charity [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary] 1.  In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good.

2.  In a more particular sense, love, kindness, affection, tenderness, springing from natural relations; as the charities of father, son and brother.

3.  Liberality to the poor, consisting in alms giving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services, to relieve them in distress.

4.  Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.

5.  Liberality in gifts and services to promote public objects of utility, as to found and support bible societies, societies, and others.

6.  Candor; liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to think and judge favorably, and to put the best construction on words and actions which the case will admit.

7.  Any act of kindness, or benevolence; and as the charities of life.

8.  A charitable institution.

Now, we can see that benevolence is synonymous with Charity.  We can also see that, with the exception of the sixth definition, all acts of charity are acts of individuals (italicized words), or, perhaps, groups of individuals.

So, let’s look at:

Benevolence [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

1.  The disposition to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness; the love of mankind, accompanied with a desire to promote their happiness.

2.  An act of kindness; good done; charity given.

3.  A species of contribution or tax illegally exacted by arbitrary kings of England.

So, benevolence provides a bit more insight into what Charity might really mean.  We can look at “disposition to do good” and “act of kindness” to clearly be acts that cannot be done by government.  Government cannot have disposition, nor can it commit an act of kindness, for kindness is a feeling of emotion.

Government can, however, require a contribution (not alms, which are freely given) or tax.  As is indicated by the definition, the government referred to one form of benevolence as such.  But, then, that was arbitrary, and without free will.

Now, let’s look at what the Courts have determined Charity to consist of:

Charity [from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition]

A gift for, or institution engaged in, public benevolent purposes.  A gift for benefit of indefinite numbers of persons under influence of religion or education, relief from disease, assisting people to establish themselves in life, or erecting or maintaining public works [Johnson v. South Blue Hill Cemetery Association].

A charity, in absence of legislative definition, is an attempt in good faith, spiritually, physically, intellectually, socially and economically to advance and benefit mankind in general, or those in need of advancement and benefit in particular, without regard to their ability to supply that need from other sources and without hope or expectation, if not with positive abnegation, of gain or profit by donor or by instrumentality of charity [Planned Parenthood Association v. Tax Commissioner].

Once again, we see that government cannot act in the capacity of giving charity, unless it sets a legal definition.  But, to do so would be to say that Charity (water) is what we want it to be, and must exclude whatever we do not want to be included.

Now, I realize that this last sentence might be difficult for some to swallow.  After all, the government, through the IRS, determines what acceptable charities are.  Well, yes, that is true.  At the same time, by not acknowledging something that you or I might deem charitable, if the government does not, they have made an uneven playing field.  They have allowed tax deductions for what they consider to be charitable, and, denied those deductions from those that they choose to exclude.

This, then, means that if you want a tax deduction for a contribution, you can only receive it if you contribute (not give alms) to the charities on the official government list.  In addition, by the way, the government has set rigid rules for those charities to abide by, or they will lose their status as charities.

Now, with this simple conversion of charity to what the government wants it to be, and, since they are essentially tied to those charities (by their arbitrary influence over them), it is a simple step to allow the government to “take out the middle man” and become a “Charity” (see Charity, #8, and Benevolence, #3) in themselves.  When they perceive a deficiency in availability of resources, they will, well, fill in the gap.

However, that gap is filled through forms such as welfare, unemployment compensation, and numerous (actually, hundreds of) other “entitlement” programs.

So, how did charity work, in the past?

Charity, which is what was recognized at the time as the means by which individuals might receive assistance, was carried out by Churches, towns, cities, counties and the state, as appropriate.  And, the decisions of what to provide were solely in the hands of the people who voted within that level of government.  County and state only provided for hospitals, mental hospitals, and orphanages.  Counties also provided for “poor farms”, but those partaking of this offering were expected to work by growing food and producing products.  Churches, towns, and cities would provide assistance, as well as encouragement, to provide for those in need.

We can go a bit further and, perhaps, begin to understand that the results, or, consequences, of Charity can have very different outcomes.  We all know the pleasure of gift giving, — The smile on a young child’s face, or the gratitude from one that you were able to help during a time of crisis.  It seems apparent that, when Charity was administered locally, you could see the benefits realized, and with that, also realize the sense of goodness that you had demonstrated.

If you were the recipient of that local Charity, you would forever feel indebted, and very appreciative of those who had helped you in your time of need.

Fast forward to the “charity” of our current time.  As the “contributor” to the charity, you don’t even have a sense of who your gift went to, where they live, or what form that charity took.  Quite frankly, you don’t even know if your “contribution” went to charity, or not.  There  are, after all, so many needs that exist outside of helping people: Interest; armament and grants to other countries; research grants to scientists, so that they could ‘prove’ that global warming is a reality; etc.  So, your sense of giving is lost, and never realized as a good thing, something to be proud of.  Nor can you ever realize that sense of pleasure — seeing the effect of the good that you have done.

Similarly, the recipient of that “charity” really has nobody to thank for what good they have received.  They know that the dole is generated by a table based upon their needs, and, often, they will manipulate their apparent need to receive a greater benefit.  There is nobody to thank, or to be grateful to, because the ‘benefactor’ is a cold government agency, with equally cold employees, administering the ‘investigation’ of your needs.  You see it as their obligation to you.  And, further, having nobody to direct your gratitude to, you begin to lose all sense of appreciation for what you have received.  Eventually, you begin to be scornful of that very agency that puts food in your mouth, and the only thing that stirs any sense of self-respect is that you know that if you scorn those who have given to you, then you just might intimidate them into giving you more.

If you have any doubts about the above, just ask yourself if those, who gave in the past, would have given if the person who appeared to have a need also had a color television and a cell phone, and managed to keep the monthly charges current, rather than risking having the cable or cell service cut off.  Would you really want to help them, after seeing that they simply did not have a grasp on what is most important in life?

So, this will lead us to the next step of our journey.  In the Preamble (purpose) to the Constitution, we find the phrase, “promote the general Welfare.”  Well, we simply look around us and see that we have moved, consistently, toward a “welfare state”, but, was that what was intended by the phrase?

Let’s return to 1828, and see what the Founding Fathers might have meant by that phrase:

Welfare [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the normal blessings of society and civil government; as applies to states

General [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

The whole; the total; that which comprehends all or the chief part; opposed to particular.

So, we can see that the intention of the phrase, as can be surmised by the definitions of those times, was very general — to endeavor to create an environment that was conducive, to all of the citizens, of peace and prosperity.  Nothing in this description would even begin to suggest that the general welfare was selective, and that it could be applied only to some.  It was not a tangible application; rather, it was intangible, and was presumed to create a harmonious and equitable political foundation for all.

And again, as the courts perceive it (though take note that while case cites are provided when there is precedent in law to provide a definition, as in the definitions above, the following definitions are absent any citations):

Welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

Well-doing or well-being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.  See also General welfare; Public welfare

General welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

The general term used to describe the government’s concern for health, peace, morals, and safety of its citizens.

Public welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

The prosperity, well being, or convenience of the public at large, or of a whole community, as distinguished from the advantage of an individual or limited class.  It embraces the primary social interests of safety, order, morals, economic interests, and non-material and political interests.  In the development of our civic life, the definition of “public welfare” has also developed until it has been held to bring within its purview regulations for the promotion of economic welfare and public convenience.

Though the definitions hold similar meaning with Webster’s, in the last sentence we see that the foundation is beginning to be laid for the expansion of what was clearly the limitation on government from the Preamble to the allowance of “regulations“ that would extend the authority to a realm in which the Founding Fathers did not anticipate.

There might be one more step that would assist us in understanding just what Charity is, or, at least, what it was intended by the Founding Fathers to be:

Hospital [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

The building appropriated for the reception of sick, infirm and helpless paupers, who are supported and nursed by charity; also, a house for the reception of insane persons, whether paupers or not, or for seaman, soldiers, foundlings, &c. who are supported by the public, or by private charity, or for infected persons, &c.

Now, we can see that hospitals were charitable institutions.  Most people of means, at the time, would have the doctor call upon them for treatment.

As recently as sixty years ago, doctors made house calls.  However, the increases in population, the expansion of hospitals to meet the needs of the increased numbers, and, the increased demand on doctors, all conspired to pave the way for office visits, with visits to the hospital for surgical procedures, long term care, and contagious sequestration.

Now, what have the Courts said?  Although, once again, case cites are not provided here, you will nonetheless see that the definition reflects those changes just described:

Hospital [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

An institution for the treatment and care of sick, wounded, infirm, or aged persons; generally incorporated, and then of the class of corporations called “eleemosynary” [relating to, given as, or depending on charitable gifts] or “charitable.”  Also the building used for such purpose.  Hospitals may be either public or private, and may be limited in their functions or services, e.g., children’s hospital.

So, even though incorporated, the hospitals were charitable in nature.  They had not yet become the “profit centers” (medical, or health, centers) that we now see proliferating the landscape.

Charity, as I believe has been adequately demonstrated, is a voluntary contribution, by an individual or an organization, with the intent of providing a means of service or betterment for individuals who are otherwise unable to provide such benefit or service for themselves.

Over the last two centuries, there has been an “evolution” of the meaning of words as well as the intention of the Founding Fathers.  Though they made provision for Amendment of the Constitution, they made no provision for the redefinition of the words that they so meticulously selected to compose that document.

Let us look at the consequences of the changes, without lawful authority, to those definitions and intentions.  Government has removed the free choice of charitable contributions by selectively determining what constitutes a charity, and providing rewards (deductions) for contributing to those so chosen.  They have presumed an authority to act in the character of an individual or organization by becoming one of the most “benevolent” charities of all, via social security, welfare, and a multitude of other “programs” by which they have garnered the allegiance of the beneficiaries of those programs.  If I grant a gift, freely, that goes from me to you, it is charity.  If, however, you encourage, allow, or refuse to resist a burglar, or anyone else (government) from taking from me and giving to you, that is nothing less than theft (pillage), and you are an accessory to that theft by being the recipient of the benefit or service.  You cannot color it in any other way.

[on line at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/verbnd.htm]