Quartzsite, Ariz., Where the Fox Guards the Chickens

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2011

In a rather interesting, and perhaps, bizarre, action by the Quartzsite Chief of Police, Jeff Gilbert, sanctioned by the Assistant Town Manager, Al Johnson, ten of the fourteen Town policemen have been put on paid leave and confined to their homes, during certain periods of the day.

So, why is this bizarre?  Well, if it were a corporation/business and the CEO (Chief) decided that he wanted to suspend employees, pending firing; he could be serving the best interest of the company and the stockholders.  However, he would also be accountable to the stockholders, and could be dismissed, forthwith, absent the consent of those “owners” of the corporation.

However, when we look at a Police Department, whose purpose is to serve the citizens of that town, we should have an entirely different standard.  If the town requires 14 policemen to maintain control of the town and provide for the safety of the citizens, how can it be in the best interest of the town (and its citizens) to dispense with 71% of the force that was argued as necessary to provide that protection?  At least, this should lead to some serious questions about the Police Department’s budget — as a necessity — since the Chief has arbitrarily found that he can do with four, what he used to need fourteen to do.  This is especially true when you consider that recently the Town Council determined that the safety of the public warranted a special meeting and emergency measures (see The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council) be taken to provide for that safety.  How does that possibly justify the presumption that only 35% of the force can provide such safety?

Think about it, you have four officers who must serve a town of 3800 people, 24 hours a day.  That amounts to 1.3 officers on duty, for all shifts, seven days a week, with no time off.

Understand that Quartzsite sits astride Interstate Highway 10, the primary corridor from Phoenix (and points east) to Los Angeles.  With its truck stops and eateries, and the last significant town before entering California, it is a 24-hour town.  Parts of the town bustle all day, and all night.  How, then, can adequate protection be provided?

Well, the answer is quite simple.  Don Lowery, Sheriff of La Paz County, Arizona, and Chief Gilbert, worked together as officers on the Colorado River Indian Reservation.  Coincidently, they both ended up back in La Paz County.  One as Sheriff; the other as Chief of Police in Quartzsite.  Can there be any wonder why the investigation called for by the ten officers (No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert) ended up being dismissed?

The dismissal of the complaint has resulted in the current activity that imposes the following on the ten officers (only some of what is imposed by the “Notice of Investigation and Intent to Interview“):

• You have the right to have a representative with you during the interview
• Your representative may not participate in the interview
• Your representative must either be an employee of the Quartzsite Police Department who is not a subject of this investigation or a member of your professional membership organization
• Your representative cannot be an attorney

Let’s take a breather here.  A representative is one who represents you, but, in this case, cannot represent (participate) you in the interview.  And, in an even more surprising proclamation, he cannot be an attorney.  It appears that the right to counsel in proceedings that can result in disciplinary action, including termination, does not allow what has been considered a mainstay of the judicial process in this country.

The officers are then placed on “administrative leave”, with the proviso that they are “required to remain in at [their] place of residence (house arrest?) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and Noon and between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.”

It continues, “Failure to be present at your residence during those hours without express prior approval from the investigator, Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson, shall be considered dereliction of duty and may result in additional disciplinary action, including dismissal”.

This pretty much displaces the concept of justice, the judicial branch of government, which the law enforcement agencies are an extension of, as officers of the court.  And ironically, it is contrary to what occurred when the investigation of Chief Gilbert was conducted.

At the June 16, 2011 Town Council meeting, John Stairs, vice president, Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs (AZCOPS), specifically suggested, in his recommendation to the Town Council that “AZCOPS believes it is wise and prudent to place Chief Gilbert on paid administrative leave so these allegations can be thoroughly and impartially investigated by DPS.”  At that meeting, however, the Town Council rejected the recommendation, leaving Chief Gilbert in full control of the Police Department.

Now comes the emergency meeting (link, above) that places Chief Gilbert and Assistant Town Manager Al Johnson in total control, and they decide that ten officers should be placed on administrative leave, leaving the town with a very meager staff to maintain “law and order” (and, I use that phrase loosely), while the decision rests, for all intents and purposes, in the hands of Jeff Gilbert.

Can there be any better example of the fox guarding the chickens?

[Note: Do not construe this article to imply that the citizens of Quartzsite are the chickens referred to, rather, that the chickens referred to herein are the entire Town Council and administrative staff, with the sole exception of Mayor Ed Foster.]

Previous articles on Quartzsite:

Illegal Town Council meeting in Quartzsite, Arizona

No Confidence in Quartzsite Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert

Quartzsite Mayor declares meeting illegal, Town Council proceeds without the Mayor

The Emergency that Warranted an Emergency Meeting of the Quartzsite Town Council

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part III

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 20, 2011

So, we have established that “rights” were not conveyed by the Fourteenth Amendment, only “privileges and immunities”.  Or, have we?  Of course, to this point, it is only words and omission of words that can lead us to that conclusion.

Understand, however, that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and early legislation was written so that all could understand what was being required.  After all, as James Madison said (Federalist Papers #62), “Law is defined to be a rule of action”.  If it is a rule of action, then it must be written so that anybody can understand it.

Let’s see if we can determine whether the premise that rights were not conveyed is properly construed, as presented.  To do so, we must, once again, return to the past — to those who lived the times and understood what the intention of the 14th Amendment really was.

Our answer can be found in another Supreme Court decision, decided just 7 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  The case is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874).

At issue was whether the Fourteenth Amendment conveyed the right to vote to a woman, since she was made “a citizen of the United States” by that Amendment.  Understand that many states did not recognize woman as being full citizens and they were denied the right to vote, own land, sue in court, inherit property, or hold office; or portions of some of these restrictions, depending on the state.

Understand that this case was heard just seven years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and all parties were fully aware of the Amendment, its interpretation and ramifications.  They lived the times, unlike those of us who have to search back to find the intent of laws and amendments.

The case introduces the problem with the following statement of facts:

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains:

‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.’

And the constitution of the State of Missouri thus ordains:

‘Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.’

Minor, as described by the Court, set forth the following arguments:

1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and all the ‘privileges and immunities’ that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.

2d. The elective franchise is a ‘privilege’ of citizenship, in the highest sense of the word.  It is the privilege preservative of all rights and privileges; and especially of the right of the citizen to participate in his or her government.

3d. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government,-the Constitution of the United States.  If not found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to exercise it.

4th. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the privileges of its citizens, expressly declares that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’

5th. It follows that the provisions of the Missouri constitution and registry law before recited, are in conflict with and must yield to the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States.

The Court (in the decision) then posed the question:

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.

In providing an answer to the question, we find:

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by ‘the people of the United States [Preamble to the Constitution],’ and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bonds which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth [Declaration of Independence], and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of ‘the United States of America,’ entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever [Articles of Confederation].

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption.  He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.  As to this there has never been a doubt.  Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

* * *

Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States.  In this respect men have never had an advantage over women.  The same laws precisely apply to both.  The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.  In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.  She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.  The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her, that she had before its adoption.

* * *

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted.  This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption.  If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected.  But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own.  These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown.  Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State were all citizens permitted to vote.  Each State determined for itself who should have that power.  Thus, in New Hampshire, ‘every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request,’ were its voters; in Massachusetts ‘every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds;’ in Rhode Island ‘such as are admitted free of the company and society’ of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had ‘maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate,’ if so certified by the selectmen; in New York ‘every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for six months immediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State;’ in New Jersey ‘all inhabitants . . . of full age who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation-money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election;’ in Pennsylvania ‘every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;’ in Delaware and Virginia ‘as exercised by law at present;’ in Maryland ‘all freemen above twenty-one years of age having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election;’ in North Carolina, for senators, ‘all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election,’ and for members of the house of commons ‘all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants in any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes;’ in South Carolina ‘every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or ( not having such freehold or town lot), hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling towards the support of the government;’ and in Georgia such ‘citizens and inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county.’

[Note: you may want to review the list of voter qualifications, above, and consider that we were strong and building our country into the greatest nation in the world, when the voters had to be above debt to vote — rather than able to vote themselves “a chicken in every pot”.]

* * *

And still again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’  The fourteenth amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, &c.?  Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?

* * *

… Women were excluded from suffrage in nearly all the States by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claim protection he must first show that he has the right.

So, clearly, from this decision, rendered shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, we see that there is a distinction between “rights” and “privileges and immunities”, and that any grant of right would require a constitutional amendment to confer it on any other than “We the People”.

This does beg the question of whether the Fifteenth Amendment confers more than the right to vote.  Does it also confer the right to hold office, when the requisite for that office is “Citizen of the United State” [Art. I. Section 2, clause 2, and, Art. I, Section 3, clause 3, Constitution], and, “a natural born Citizen of the United States” [Art. II, Section 1, clause 5, Constitution], unless such “right” is specifically conferred?

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

—

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2011

In the first part, Justice Taney [Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the Decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)], speaking from the past, explained who was, and, who was not of that class of people known as “We the People.  Recapping that post:

We think they [descendents of slaves, whether free, or not] 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.

* * *

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.

So, the rights and privileges were not conferred upon those who were not citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and their descendents and others.  Those rights, too, are defined as inclusive, regardless of whether he is in his state or another state.

So, in 1867, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  However, it did not convey rights, only privileges and immunities, to wit [Fourteenth Amendment]:

Section 1–All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, this Amendment did not change or undo that which Taney had described as the “citizens of the United States”, though a new class was created by the 14th Amendment.

Now, I know a lot of people don’t see it that way.  They believe that the 14th Amendment merged the ex-slaves and their descendents into the same class of people that had previously held the title of “citizens of the United States”, or, “We the People”.  However, if you will note the wording of the 14th Amendment, you will see that “rights” were not conveyed, only “privileges and immunities”.  Now, this may seem small, or insignificant, though that is because we have been subjected to “political correctness” and mountains of legislation establishing “civil rights”.  However, the Framers never referred to the rights protected by the Constitution as civil, since civil implies granted by government — which is exactly what the legislature has done — enact laws granting civil rights.  These fundamental rights granted by God are not granted by government, and, they are not civil rights.  They were the object and goal of the colonists from April 19, 1775 to the ratification of the Constitution, 14 years later.

What is very important to understand is that when a law is enacted, or a constitution or amendment ratified, the intent at the time of enactment or ratification is, and must be, what was intended — at that time.  To think otherwise is to allow the legislation, or even the Constitution, to mean what was not intended by the sleight of redefining words, concepts, or even enforcement.  If that is how we are to operate, we are not a nation of laws rather, of man, and that man who sits in Washington; Member of Congress, President,. Justice or Administrative Agency head is free to promulgate what he wants the law to be and applies not what was intended to be, rather, what he desires it to be.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #62:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

So, as you contemplate what is said in this Part, understand that only the words of those who were alive at the time of these activities can tell is what they meant.  It is only their words, not what some ACLU lawyer might try to make them out to be, that we must be obedient to.  To be obedient to any other interpretation is, at best, disobedience to the Constitution.

We have seen the affect of the 14th Amendment on the right, privileges and immunities of those who were and were not of the class known as “We the People”.  Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, and, if so, what proof do we have that only “privileges and immunities, not rights, were conveyed by that Amendment.  That will be the subject of the Part III.

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

—

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 18, 2011

In some research for another article (The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution), I ran across a rather enlightening revelation.  It was, just 60 years after the Constitution, a clear and concise definition of just (and only) who the “We the People”, in the Preamble to the Constitution, really are.

Now, most of us will assume that any citizen of the United States is one of, “We the People”.  I must admit that until recently, I, too, believed this to be the case.

Regardless of the (political) correctness of this assumption, we must understand that the law is what it was intended to be, not what we might want it to be.  There is only one means by which that can be changed, and that is the amendment process defined in Article V, of the Constitution.

So, here is what was revealed to us, by the Supreme Court of the United States, with regard to a definitive answer to the question.  The case is Dred Scott v. Sandford  –  60 U.S. 393 (1856)

As recently as ten years before the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted to the States by the Congress, an historical, and often referred to, case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Scott was born a slave, in Missouri.  As such, he was not a citizen.  His “owner” laid hands on Scott, his wife and 2 children.  Scott sued Sandford for assault.  Scott was awarded his freedom by a Saint Louis County, Missouri, Circuit Court.  The case was appealed to the State Supreme Court and reversed.  The Circuit Court then reheard the case.  Scott made exception to the instructions to the jury.  The jury then ruled against Scott.  Based upon the “Exception”.

The case eventually 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.

You will see that even though Scott had no standing, the Court decided to hear the case, anyway.  If you do not challenge jurisdiction (Sandford’s obligation), the Court may assume jurisdiction, the laws of the land notwithstanding..

Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Excerpts are from that decision.

“That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States, for the reasons therein stated.  If the question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming a citizen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed.  It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us; and that as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error; and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court.“

Since the matter of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court, the Court will not rule on Scott’s standing.

However, the Court now finds that it has a forum to define just what a citizen is — a point that had only been addressed in rather ambiguous terms in the Constitution, and not since addressed by the Congress, or the Court.

Taney goes on to ask this important question:

Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? “

Further defining the question, he says:

The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States.

While the decision covers many aspects, and many ways, of addressing the question, I will provide only those that are concise and indicative of the sense of the Court and the decision held to.  Remember, as you read, that this decision predates the 14th Amendment.

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.

Well, there is an interesting phrase, used in the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate, “remained subject to their authority”.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union.  It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.  He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State.  For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights.  But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States.  Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States.  Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.  The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.  The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.  Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States.  It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own.  And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

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.

Well, that makes pretty clear who could not be a “citizen of the United States”.  So, let us look, from the other side, at who was 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 additional 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.

Therefore, an attempt to apply the standards upon which this nation was founded to the morality of today, or, even, of 1856, when this case was heard, would be to deny the intention of the founders.  This does not preclude the utilization of the Fifth Article (Amendment Process) of the Constitution to effect change, which was to be partially achieved eleven years later.  It simply explains what a “citizen of the United States” was, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, or not. That will be the subject of the Part II.

* * * * *

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V

The
Fourteenth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution

From the Ratification of the Constitution through today

What affect has it had on the concept of government intended by the Framers of the Constitution; on our Liberties and our Lives; and, is it really what we believe it to be?

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment
and its effects

By
Gary Hunt

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

For nearly thirty years, I have attempted to resolve a series of questions that are common to the patriot, or constitutionalist, community.  These questions relate to what has happened to the legal system that we were supposed to have adopted, at the time of the formation of this country, based upon both the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776, and, a concept of justice that removed us from the arbitrary control of government.

Over the years, I have listened to what others had to say I have watched their actions to see the results.  I have read cases that seemed to bear on the subject, and, I have “experimented”, when the opportunity to do so arose.

Over time, as will be explained in the following, the pieces seem to fit a pattern.  Rather than trying to wrap the facts around a theory, I developed a theory that fit all of the facts that I could find.  However, in finding that some of the facts were, inexplicably, unwilling to fit any theory, I realized that there must be two theories, and it was a matter, then, of determining which theory fit which facts.

The two outstanding theories, neither of which will recognize the other, are:

• We are subject to all laws enacted by the government, unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
• We are subject to no laws enacted by the Congress; instead, we are only subject to the common law.

The two sides (theories) have advocates who faced off with the other side, each insisting that they are right and the other is wrong.  While, in fact, both sides are partially right, and, partially wrong.

* * *

It does, however, appear that many of the intermediate jurisdictions (other than courts), institutions, and even private corporations, believe that the nexus is there, and, that they are bound by such laws they are told to abide by.  They assume that you, too, are bound by such laws.  To argue the point with them is fruitless, and, at best, will only create dissension.  They, too, have been duped, along with most of the people in this country, into believing that which is not true.

It is for the purpose of exposing that deception that the following has been prepared, for your consideration.

* * *

This Essay will provide insight into the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution; the effect that the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination; Court decisions and Congressional enactments have had on our relationship with the government.

You may be sorry after you have read it, but you will understand how the subversion of the Constitution has been achieved.

The entire Essay can be found on line at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htm

The PDF file can be download from The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – Essay (PDF)

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court

Unlike the common law courts that you hear about, so often, usually in a bad light — as trying to “bring justice” to government officials, the Committee of Safety — Common Law Court (CoS-CLC) is to bring balance to the patriot community.

The Division in the patriot community has, for decades, been our most serious problem.  Perhaps a means to resolve those disputes that lead to division will substantially reduce the problem of division.  This is the idea behind the CoS-CLC.  Suppose there is a name-calling going on between two people.  Others are bound to take sides; generally, it will be the side of a friend or someone who has “your ear” more than the other does.

Unfortunately, such controversy can wreak havoc in portions of the community, often resulting in the disruption, or even dissolution, of an organization.

So, just how can such a problem be avoided?

Let’s suppose that both sides to such controversy are given an equal platform to “air their grievances”.  A platform that will moderate the “debate”, allow evidence to be submitted, both sides being heard, even allowing testimony from witnesses, without any prejudicial intervention.  After all of the evidence is submitted, witnesses heard, and statements made, by both parties, it is turned over to a jury of 12 peers (members of the patriot community) to deliberate and come up with a verdict.

Once the verdict is presented, it will be available for all to read, along with the pertinent portions of the trial.  It will remain as reference, for all who might have questions about either, or both of the parties.

The same can be held for questionable organizations or programs.  All that is required is that someone file a Complaint, and the other party answer.  The CoS-CLC will then begin the process for the “trial”.

All that is needed for this invaluable tool to become available for us it to have members of the community, from as diverse a sampling of Patriots as possible, from all walks of life, from all parts of the country.  This is your chance to have your say, to make your voice be heard, to help rid the infighting, and to provide justice, and vindication or validation for those who have been harmed.

* * *

You can learn more about the Court, and volunteer to serve at http://www.committee.org/Court

You can visit the Forum where you can discuss Committees of Safety or join in conversation at the Green Dragon Inn (need not be registered), or, see the Courtroom (must register), at http://www.committee.org/LibertyTree.

We need volunteers to be judges, jurors, and grand jurors.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see  Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (introduction)]

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.

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]

The following is a much abbreviated version of “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government“. The entire Plan consumes many pages of detail regarding the Plan as well as hundreds of pages of reference materials.

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

The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government

Abbreviated Version
(includes only a few portions of the overall plan)

Preface

This Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, as explained in “The Question”, is purely hypothetical.  It is, however, a natural evolution from the “You Have Tread On Me – Petition“, as the Revolutionary War was a natural evolution from the Olive Branch Petition.

In adapting this sequence of events to modern times, it needs to be understood that times have changed and the possibility of a gathering of “revolutionary” delegates in one place would be fatal to the cause.

Understanding this difficulty, the expedient for today is that individuals would sign and submit, to their respective representatives in the federal government, individual petitions as “redress of grievances, as per Article I of the Bill of Rights.

Absent a positive response to the Petition, one could safely conclude that the government had no more intention of addressing the grievances than King George III did.  This, by colonial standards, would put one in a “state of nature” — absent an operating Constitutional government — wherein he, as a free man, has every right to associate with others of similar circumstance.

An earlier article, by the author of this Plan, provides some insight into this aspect of the Founders’ thinking process when they realized that they could no longer live under government that did not recognize their rights (see Sons of Liberty #14).

As you progress through this hypothetical Plan, you will not that there are short sketches (Historical Perspective) that provide a brief example of the historical conditions that can be equated with each part of the Plan.

The Plan, then, is an effort to parallel the activities of the Founders into a theoretical plan that emulates the progression of events, culminating in the creation of the United States of America.

The Plan is made as detailed as expedient for the variety of possible circumstance that might arise.  Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions.  Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.

Often, elements of the Plan call to mind other works by this author, and, works by others, in which cases, links are provided to those works to provide additional insight which might assist in more detailed planning.

The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education.  What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.

G. H.

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

The Question:

A question was raised, a few months ago, in a conversation with a friend.  The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?”  At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task.

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world.  Its navy was master of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world.  It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies.

The colonies had few things working for them.  They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; some had learned to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned fighting tactics used by the Indians.  They had local knowledge of the topography.  And, they had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land that had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: Substantial numbers of highly trained soldiers; Unlimited supplies and resources, although most of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported, this taking months; A multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies; Mastery of the waterways; And, many of the military leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May, and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were.  They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face-to-face on the battlefield.  They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British.  They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle; that skirmishes were the best tactic, unless a major battle had a high degree of probability of being won..  One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with their persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today?  Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants.  There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins.  This is a theoretical answer to that question.

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

Some Thoughts

This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.

The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed.  The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position — that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.

There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict.  Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to “pick the ground” for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.

In the selection of ‘targets’, outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.

Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.

There is also the moral consideration — that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today.  When they make a decision to “target” someone, or, something, they should consider just how the “target” would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions.  The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act.  If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.

On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.

Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the ‘target’, the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.

If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed.

Some considerations for the evaluation of a ‘target’:

• Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the ‘target’, acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
• Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
• If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?

Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient ‘friends” (collaborators) of a foreign power, these ‘friends’ who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered.  The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential ‘targets’.

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

The remainder of the Plan can be found at The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

Or an audio version at Discourse on “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government”

Let’s Get Real! – Nation #1

What is a Nation?

Gary Hunt
June 7, 2009

 Though I usually shy away from Wikipedia as a source, I will, in this instance, begin with their definition: “A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.”

 Next, we will quote Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, “A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and, generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty”. [Montoya v. U.S., 180 U.S. 261, 21 S.Ct. 358]

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that a Nation is a people with a common heritage and a common culture.

In the past, there were nation-states. Though they may have had nearby nation-states, which contained people with a common heritage and a common culture, only location tended to separate them, and each was its own distinct nation-state.

When Europeans first began settling the new world, there was, in the area known as New England, a group of native people who were known as the Five Nations (later, as the Six Nations). They became such after the Great Peace. Each nation had very similar cultures and heritages as the other nations, however, the distinctions were sufficient to separate them as nations. Each Nation, then, was composed of was various tribes and sub-tribes. Many of the Founders recognized the sophistication of the Six Nations, and, there is reason to believe that some of the concepts that were learned from the Indians were incorporated into the though process during the Constitutional Convention.

That Constitutional Convention was the beginning of what was to become a great nation. It had all of the elements of a nation, and it was that commonality which allowed the design of the form of government to evolve into the United States of America. It also recognized the part played by and obligation to preserve, intact, the Indian population. First, it provided that the Indians would not be taxed (Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3), then it gave Congress the power to regulate commerce with the various Indian tribes (Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3), and, finally, made treaties the supreme law of the land (Article III, Sec. 2).

So, in 1787, a new nation was created. It was based upon a common heritage and a common culture, with the exception of the Indians. They were, however, accounted for and given a place to exist within the new nation (subsequent violations of treaties notwithstanding).

 Continued at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=332