“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 

Jim Stachowiak; Committees of Safety; and, Shades of Grey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2011

There is a self-proclaimed “leader” of the patriot community who goes by many names.  He is Jim Stach; Jim Stachowiak; Freedom Fighter; and, probably more.

Though he claims to have been a patriot for 34 years, an Internet search finds results no older than 2008.  I suppose we all can make such claims, though if we are active in the community, it would seem that something that was noteworthy would show more than just 3 years ago.

Now, I did not know who Jim Stach (I will use the easier to pronounce and spell version of the name) was until Riflestock was being put together.  I received a response to my posting of the first announcement of RifleStock (RifleStock 2011), from Jim, claiming that neo-Nazis were behind RifleStock.

Now, I cannot say how Jim got on my mailing list, though I only put people on that list that have requested to be there, though I do not recall any prior communication with him.

I contacted Jim, in response to his claims, explaining that I was not a neo-Nazi; that Mike Freebyrd has an Hispanic surname, and in my conversation s with him, there was no indication that he was a neo-Nazi; and, that Joe Racer said nothing to indicate that he was a neo-Nazi.  Since I was involved as one of the organizers, I had more insight into what was happening with RifleStock than someone who simply read what I had written, and made such determination.

We then discussed the patriot community.  Jim had bad things (accusations) to say about a whole handful of people, some of whom I knew.  We talked about not calling names within our own community, since the government only benefits when we cannot get along amongst ourselves.  He agreed, and agreed to stop making such accusations.

I also explained Committees of Safety, in our rather lengthy discussion.  All seemed well, and he invited me to be a guest on his January 20, 2001, radio program (Freedom Fighter Radio), to discuss Militia and Committees of Safety.  I agreed.

The next day, he called me and ranted (I can’t find another word for what he had to say) about other patriots (contrary to what we had agreed to, the day before).  He went on and on and on, and I was unable to get a word in.  Finally, I reminded him that he had invited me to be a guest on his radio show.  If, however, he was inviting me to be on the show so that he could rant, and I were only be allowed to speak as little I was in the current conversation, I would have to decline the invite.  Without another word, he hung up.  I was not on the program.

The next I heard from Jim was after I posted Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation), which was also sent to the mail list.  His knee-jerk reaction was, well, let me quote from the email:

“this is a joke lol as wram and arm have proven neo nazi connections” (April 11, 2011).  Interestingly, Jim’s email address is “arm1776@gmail.com”.  Even more interesting is that he associated the Committee of Safety with WRAM (Well Regulated American Militia).  This is telling, since he claims “wram” is run by Neo-Nazis, and, he must know that I posted that article on the WRAM site.  Does he have an infiltrator; does he have a friend that is a neo-Nazi; or, does he cloak himself in even another name, to sneak into where he finds such “filth”?

I also posted it to about 30 others, including Tea Party and Glenn Beck sites, and I may have posted it to some sites that were controlled by those evil Republicans and Democrats, who have done far more to take away our rights than WRAM or even the neo-Nazis.  After all, I do try to get what I have to say out to all (not a selective few) who might be interested in it.  This, of course, is because I believe that we all have to work together to amass the number of people that we will need to regain control of the government and return it to its Constitutional foundation.  And, in the hope that some who think wrongly may, by reading something, may just decide to begin thinking rightly.  But, then, that is trying to bring together, not to tear apart.

On that same day, April 11, Jim informed me that:

” iam only doing news now i have given up on a national movement our group here is now calling ourselfs a a fdf family defense force of family and only close friends no recruiting.”

So, we will have to see if he means what he said, or, if he is simply insincere and unpredictable.

That same day, he provided the following, ” there is no way to insure fairness n this plan no way as the movement is infiltrated from the very top to the bottom i have unti recently been in movement since late 80;s “.  So, here, he is in the “movement” from the late eighties.  Being generous, let’s use 1985.  Then, then would be a total of 26 years in the “movement”.  Let’s just keep that under advisement.

Then, three days later, he says, ” gary your idea cant and wont work for example if someone has a problem with me they have no power to drag me in if i wont participate the militia movement has to many who call nazis patriots wram is proof of this 706-394-8019 at least after today maybe july4 patriot will be where he belongs jail.”

This is interesting in that the Common Law Court is voluntary.  That is what was intended.  If someone makes claims, then he is charged with making false claims, he can answer (defend and prove those claims), or not.  Each will speak for itself.  And, the ultimate judge of what is right will be the judgment, not of the followers or the parties (accuser and accused), rather, of the patriot community, as they will have the opportunity to review all of the information presented (or not presented), and judge for themselves, what the truth really is.  This, at least, would put an end to name-calling, unless it was provable, and would work wonders in doing away with false accusations.  Especially those made which provide no opportunity to respond (as we will get in to, later).

His next response, that same day, was, ” well only if both parties participate and iwill never take part as i know the movement is dead and controlled by anti Semitic racist pricks you may call me i will address this common law bs on my show sometime and encourage non involvement i do get thousands of downloads each week too”.  I’ll let you take that, for what it’s worth.

Now, we come to the current round of discussion.  Though I had spend quite some time, on numerous occasions, explaining to Jim what Committees of Safety were (and, are), he decided to take them (not me) to task.  He posted “Whats Up Doc? Neo-Nazi WRAM and ARM Member Arrested June 1, 2011 Doc [ NAZI] Sacramaniac In Jail” (link no longer valid), and sent me the link and asked me to call him.

First, the pertinent part of that “exposé” by Jim:

“Freedom Fighter Radio Challenges any and all Patriot websites to publicly denounce the NSM, such as Oath Keepers (Stewart Rhodes), Committees of Safety (Gary Hunt) and all Militia forums.”

So, first I went to NSM and found that they presented 25 points, which I assume stand for the principles of the NSM88 group.  When I read their points, I see that they are as socialistic as the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Congress, except, they want to impose limitations on the socialism, such as requiring drug tests for those on welfare.  Well, in that regard, I hold them in a higher light than the Democrats, Republicans, and the Congress, since, at least, they think that there should be some accountability on the beneficiaries of free money.  However, it is not Constitutional, so I object to any transfer of wealth.

Now, there is little doubt that the 25 points have racist (or, is that racialist) tones to them.  But, then, it is only political correctness that says that we are criminal if we have human thoughts of hate (though love, even between people of the same sex is okay), the Democrats, the Republicans and Congress, support this by enactment of laws that, generally, only work in one direction.

Now, don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that I believe in what they say, though I do believe that the Congress, and the Democrats and Republicans, have created a very fertile ground for overreaction to the emotions that exist in a normal society, love and hate.  When either is outlawed, both being the character of human nature, you are made criminal for being human.  On top of that, you see that there are those who support such laws because they are selective, not in writing, rather, in enforcement.  When put in that position, it is, again, human nature, to look for those who are willing to say what you want to say, and, even though they may be more extreme in what they say, they, at least, are willing to say it.  The rest of the people will only say it in whispers, for fear of being caught, and charged with a crime, or, being castigated as not being “politically correct”.  It becomes the only refuge for those willing to speak what they believe (freedom of speech), and, then, they are made (by another form of “patriotic political correctness”) out as criminal by those who should be their support of the Constitution, allow them the right to express their sentiments.  This, then, tends to push them even further into their chosen refuge, and defend themselves against attackers — who should be on their side, if not philosophically, at least, lawfully and Constitutionally.

This is all a result of “political correctness” achieving a polarization (making everything black or white), though it is target specific, and does not apply to all.  Whatever happened to the shades of grey that allowed us to disagree and get along, at the same time?  After all, if you study the history of this country, you will find, whether with regard to reconciliation or independence, or, what form of government, there was never absolute agreement.  They shades of grey were weighed, and a consensus made, in both cases, and the country followed that course.  Each was allowed to choose, and was not cast out if his ideas were not consistent with the majority.  He was respected for his input and the thoughts that he brought to the table.  Likewise, he respected the result, even though not what he, personally desired.

You see, it was those shades of grey that allowed the thought and discussion that lead the Founders to what they, finally, gave to us, their posterity.  It was a living society that, through free expression, allowed debate and discussion, without resorting to the current government tactic of demonization, in place of reasoned debate.

Now, since I had done my homework (gone to the NSM site), I was ready to responded to Jim’s request that I call him.  He wanted J. T. Campbell to join us in the call, to which I had no objection — until I found that neither one of them, apparently, had intention of hearing what I had to say.  If I managed to get a complete sentence out, in the conversation, I had two people responding, not to what I had just said, rather, to what they wanted me to say.

My first explanation was that I am not Committees of Safety.  Committees of Safety is a concept with heritage in our English traditions; an historical concept that goes back to long before the creation of the United States.  As such, I cannot speak for the Committees of Safety — since each Committee would be local, then county, then state — and that they can only speak for themselves.  It is not an organization with a leader who must be followed (the unfortunate consequence of our current society having lost the concepts embodied in our creation as a nation, and the ideals of the Founders), rather, it is a number of organizations, each representing those who live within its realm, and, who make the decisions, for themselves.  That by tradition, Committees did not act in a legislative capacity, except in establishing laws to deal with Tories and laws regarding the Militia.  As such, I don’t believe that they would be within their authority to make such a decision to support, or denounce, any other organization.

Now, all for this about Committees was left unsaid, due to the interruptions.  This made it apparent that the request that I call was not to get answers, rather, it was an effort to intimidate me into acceptance of what they chose to dictate.

In his effort to justify the attack on NSM (the 25 points are linked, above), and the demand for denouncing them, Jim did say that he has read many posts on that site that are of a much more threatening nature than the 25 points.  So, I guess we can ask some questions here:

• Do the thoughts of any single member, or members, of an organization speak for that organization?
• If so, what if what they say contradicts the espoused purpose of the organization?
• Should that organization disassociate with other organizations that don’t follow the exact same ideology?
• Can one man dictate what an entire organization stands for?

After I spoke with Jim, and since he and J. T. did not want to hear what I had to say, I wrote an email, to set the record straight.  Jim has chosen to post portions of this email dialogue, though they are hard to follow, and out of context.  Below is the entire discussion:

1.  Gary to Jim (after the phone conversation was over):

Jim,

Since your blog does not allow for responses, even from those named in the blog, I will try to make clear, in writing, the position of the Committees of Safety, with regard to such denouncements that you seem to be demanding.

First, I am not the Committee of Safety.  I am, however, a student of the historical Committees of Safety.  I cannot make a decision pro, or con, with regard to your request.

Second, Committees of Safety are local entities that are, for all intents and purposes, local governing bodies, elected by the people in a community (the Association), to fill the place, in the absence only of existing government’s failure to provide, for the safety and needs of the community (Association).  Any decisions to be made are made at that local level, not by me, who is only a student of the Committees of Safety.

Third, historically, the Committees of Safety did not enact laws, nor did they take any position in political, matters, except when they denounced Tories (people inimical to American Liberty).  Tories were those who supported the Royal government, once the division between what the constitution and charters meant came into question.  (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence for an example of that division.)

Fourth, with the exception of Tories.  Freedom of Speech was supported by the Committees of Safety.  Absent a law prohibiting something (NSM88, Nazi Party, Socialist Party, .  Democratic Party, Republican Party, etc.), there is no position that the Committees of Safety can take regarding either denouncing or supporting and other group.

Now, I know you are trying to leverage support for your beliefs.  I do hope that you are open-minded enough to understand that you are asking for something that would allow personal, or, individual, influence in an organization that is in no position to make such proclamations.

I do trust that you and J. T. Campbell understand the position that has to be taken in the matter.  I can assure you that if you don’t, there will be no action taken by the Committees of Safety, regardless of what efforts to denounce the Committees of Safety you take, since, by virtue of the explanation, above, the same would apply to you, regardless of what assertions you make about Committees of Safety.

Please forward this to J. T. so that he, also, understands what I was trying to tell you on the phone.

I do apologize for hanging up, but since you would not hear me out, I felt that putting it in writing was the best solution.

Respectfully,

Gary Hunt

2.  In an effort, again, to try to explain why Committees of Safety could not take a position, I sent the following:

Jim,

An example of the attitude taken by Committees of Safety in 1774:

On December 12, 1774 (before Lexington and Concord), the Maryland Provincial Congress, which was the colonial substitute governing body, created by the local Committees of Safety, set forth a series of Resolves.  The last on, Number 7, sets forth the sense of the Congress, with regard to personal animosities.

“(7.) Resolved unanimously, that it is recommended to the several colonies and provinces to enter into such or the like resolutions, for mutual defense and protection, as are entered into by this province.  As our opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and liberties.”

Again, please pass on to J. T.

Thanks,

Gary

3.  Jim to Gary (this was replied to my mail list post, Committees of Safety and the General Association:

so you have not met the challenge we will be putting it out there on a regular basis and point out the neo nazi connections to wram and arm this is for the cause of freedom to expose the nazis from with in like doc sacramanic and jt  ready more to be exposed

4.  Gary to Jim:

Threats and intimidation will only bring dishonor to you.  It will come, and, I suspect, it will come soon.

That is not the way that free people should be expected to act.  It is more along the lines of the Southern Poverty Law Center tactics.

Have at it, but, understand that your tactics have cost you any support I could offer you.

5.  Jim to Gary:

gary dishonor in exposing nazis lol  you are buying into bullshit and my audience is worldwide not just those you reach wake up i have been at this a long time

6. Gary to Jim:

When you believe that you have the right/authority to decide what is, and what is not, acceptable, you have, well, become a dictator.

As I explained (or, tried to, since you and J.T. didn’t really want to hear what I had to say), if you took it to the court, and got a verdict, then you would be justified.

Instead, in your self-righteous arrogance, decide that you can decide for all of the rest.

I have nothing to discuss with someone who decides what is best for all.

7. Gary to Jim (I was curious about his claim of how long he had been in the “movement”:

Jim,

You have been at this a long time.  How long?

8. Gary to Jim

Dishonor has to do with how you do something, not what you do.

9. Jim to Gary:

34 years will be posting these emails and quote you on calling Michigan militia bigots

10.  Gary to Jim:

Have at it.  However, if you say that I said something that I didn’t say, you might find that you have hell to pay.

Walk softly!

Let’s make some other things clear, I never said “Michigan Militia”, during the entire conversation.  Jim seemed come to that (or at least first make the claim) in his last email – #9, above.  Any comment I made regarding bigot was in this context: “Jim you call me a bigot because I because I won’t do what you want me to do.  Does that make you a bigot?”

Somehow, then, this was construed, by Jim, to mean that I called the Michigan Militia bigots.  Apparently, that message was passed on to someone who goes by Thumper”, who responded, according to Jim’s post, by saying, “bite me”, which appears to be directed at me.

Now, since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, they have to stand on their own, There was no response that I could make on their behalf, since I am only a student of Committees of Safety and attempting to pass on what to other what I have learned.

This did not mean that I couldn’t be concerned about the Michigan Militia, since in the nineties I was in contact with Norm Olson and Mark Koernke.  And though I haven’t been in contact with the Michigan Militia, since then, I was concerned that they might think that either I or the Committees of Safety (which can’t even have a voice), I decide to see if I could find someone in the upper echelons in the Michigan Militia, and set the record straight.  After all, the post made it appear as if I was trying to denigrate them, based not upon what I said, rather, what Jim said that I said (and interesting tactic, used frequently by the SPLC).

My intention was to try to get through to “Thumper”, though I found an intelligent voice on the other end of the phone, so we discussed what had occurred.  The person on the other end of the conversation seemed to understand both what I was saying, and, the nature of Jim Stach.  We talked about other aspects of the patriot community, and seemed to be on agreement on just about everything.  I told him that if we are fighting amongst ourselves we would never be able to take on the government.  That the division in the patriot community is more destructive than anything that the government can do (overtly), and that we are doing it to ourselves.

He asked me if I thought that there was anything wrong with the Michigan Militia not allowing neo-Nazis the right to join the Michigan Militia, and I told him that I believed that if that was what Michigan Militia wanted, they had every right to limit their membership, though they didn’t have the right to try to intimidate others organizations from making their own decisions.  We seemed to agree on that last point, and the conversation was concluded.  I will say that I believe that the other person felt rather uncomfortable that the Michigan Militia was even made party to the dispute between Jim and me.

Well, I thought that this was the end of it.  I had explained to the Michigan Militia that what Jim said I said was not what I said.  Since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, there was nothing left for me to do.

Friday (June 10) evening, I received an email from Jim, making clear that his efforts to intimidate by demonization were over.  The email provided a link (http://freedomfighterradio.net/2011/06/10/gary-hunt-of-outpost-of-freedom-and-committees-of-safety-calls-michigan-militia-racist-bigots-and-turns-down-challenge/[link no longer valid]), and, though I have no capacity to defend the Committees of Safety, the Outpost of Freedom has now been named, and that brings on a whole new battle. Outpost of Freedom has been what I have been writing under since January 1993.  It was the name of the newspapers I published; the fax network (in the nineties); and has been the name of my webpage since 1995.  It is not an organization, nor is it an association of people (as the Committees of Safety).  It is mine, and I will defend it.  Neither of Jim’s posts have provision to respond.  Since, if I respond by email, Jim will cut and paste and manufacture, to suit his objective (whatever it might be), I will go public with what has transpired, and, I will be open to response by Jim (comments section, at the bottom of this blog).  I have always believed that both sides of any story must be heard, and, that any judgment be made with a fair hearing of both sides.

I will not pretend to speak for Committees of Safety, though I will speak for Outpost of Freedom.  “Thumper” seems to think that he speaks for the Michigan Militia (though that is not the impression I got from the conversation, above).  Jim Stach seems to speak, also, for the Michigan Militia, though not even a member, as well as the entire Militia community, since he knows that they must submit to his “challenge”, or subject themselves to his insignificant and infantile tantrum of wrath.

Now, return to what Jim said about what some said on the NSM page.  He suggests that they speak for the NSM, regardless of what their policy (25 points) says.

Jim also presumes that he speak for the entire Militia community, regardless of what each Militia determines its own policy to be.  He suggests that, if you don’t do what I say, you are not a patriot.  If you do what I say, I will kick everybody out of the patriot community, by use of this demonization process, that I think doesn’t belong here.  It is not your decision, it is my decision.

So, there, you have my side of the story.

You be the judge.  Comments are welcome, so long as they are presented in a decent manner.  If you resort to name-calling, you may find that certain remarks may be edited, though the context will not be changed.

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)

Introduction to Committees of Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.committee.org/

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom.

An Argument For Moral Courage

Part I

By David Allison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Disease –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characteristics Of Madness:

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

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

Addendum:

Sent by email:

Dear friends;

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

Regards,

The White Value System:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent by email:

Dear Friends;

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

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

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

Regards,

THE FOLLOWING FROM

TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

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

THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I seldom post articles by others, since it is seldom that I see one with content that should be fully understood so that we have more insight into the underlying factors that have created the tumultuous circumstances that we find ourselves in, today.

The author has given permission for me to repost this article.  You may wonder why I am posting Part II before I post Part I.  So, I’ll explain.  Part I was written first, anticipating Part II to be written later.  Part II, however, provides the foundation to more fully understand the implications brought out in Part I.  Consequently, Part II is being presented to provide the proper foundation for fully understanding the ramifications of Part I.

Understanding how we have arrived in our current situation is far more important than dealing with the multitude of “situations” that crop up daily, detracting from our efforts to understand and deal with the real problems that we face.

I do hope that you will find the following enlightening, as I have, and encourage you to pass it on to those who you feel might benefit therefrom.

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom.

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

An Argument For Moral Courage

Part II

By David Allison

Contagion

“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.” – Charles Mackay

Cultural erosion is progressive, destructive, contagious.  Fueled in part by pathological reverence to insane behaviors, anyone caught within its domain is certain to be affected – There is no escape.

We like to believe our individual autonomy somehow insulates us from the frailty of our humanity – from being vulnerable to suggestion, propaganda and ‘group think’.  Indeed, we are not.  The subtleties of propaganda are well defined; so well, in fact, most of us aren’t even aware when we are operating within parameters established for us by forces upon which we have depended and from which the substance of our individual value systems has been collected then defined.

The construction of our values begin at birth.  The dimensions of those values must be formalized for any of us to function with some degree of ‘normalcy’ within society.  The values we acquire depend upon any number of factors; many values, however, are theoretically universally shared.

Aberrant behavior, such as murder, thievery rape and child abuse are generally abhorred.  These skewed behaviors force laws that define the metes and bounds of human behavior.  In no little part, the purpose of laws is to maintain and perpetuate culture; the converse is true as well: Culture perpetuates laws.  It may said, ‘the culture is diseased’ – “When aberrant behavior threatens the continuity of the culture”.

Cultures are not static organisms.  Volkgeist is dynamic, fluid and sometimes contrasts with enduring cultural values.  A culture that formerly considered public nudity unacceptable, for instance, may alter those values to the extent public nudity not only becomes acceptable it becomes the ‘norm’ (normal).  Behavioral patterns that threaten the sovereignty of the culture, such as murder, rarely become the norm, yet, as we have seen throughout history, any culture is capable of selecting a group from within its midst that then becomes the subject of murderous genocide.  So, even the act of murder can become ‘rational’.

Cultural collisions are not uncommon and sometimes foment wars.  When the ideology of one group clashes with another, frictions are generated that can and often do lead to some form of formalized conflict.  The nature of that conflict is dependent upon the depth of the animosities between the two groups.  Simmering hostilities create a volatility that can be ignited by minor slights.  Long-held resentments are primed for explosion and often do explode when one group is subjected to prolonged abuses by another.

The strength of the collective often suffices to cause individuals to temporarily or even permanently suspend long-held values.  The power of suggestion, of propaganda, and the contagion of like-minded values, can cause an individual to become little more than an automaton who moves along with the group and in so doing voids his personal value systems.

We’ve all seen the madness that can be generated by crowds – riots, looting, and lynching.  When the collective mind kicks into gear, individual reverence to long-held values is often temporarily suspended.  One hopes the moment will come when sanity will be restored and individuals within the crowd will re-affirm values that are consistent with individual and collective survival.  At some point, one hopes the storm will end.

Imagine a group of individuals who temporarily suspend the belief that murder is unacceptable and thus begin to murder one another.  Will the murdering continue until only one man remains standing?  Not likely but also not impossible.

A state of moral insanity can prevail for long periods of time within a culture.  The extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany occurred over many years; similar behavior occurred in Uganda during Idi Amin’s reign of terror.  Humankind’s capacity to do evil is spatially unlimited, though at some point evil consumes itself.

Without some sort of regulating mechanism – values that sustain the security of individuals and the collective – a culture can become consumed by behaviors that are destructive to select individuals or to the whole – “Madness is contagious”.

Terms like ‘madness’ or ‘destructive’ are meaningless until they are defined by cultural values.  Consider the word, “evil” – Although we may believe the concept of evil is universal such is not the case.  As many of us are discovering, evil has become increasingly subjective.  Your concept of evil may markedly differ from your neighbor’s.  So it is that the erosion of cultural values is forcing us to alienate ourselves from the group because we are no longer guaranteed the certainty of shared, common values.

For years, the force of the collective sufficed to create like-minded individuals within our culture.  The rare ‘odd ball’ was generally isolated and alienated.  The power of culture sufficed to limit the dimensions of human behavior.  Churches, schools, communities, organizations and families – all components of culture – exerted influence over individuals that naturally defined the limits of individual behavior.  As history has demonstrated, the less influence culture has over the individual the more it becomes necessary for some external force to intervene in such a way that ‘normal’ patterns of behavior do not become ‘abnormal’ and, therefore, destructive.  Thus, to our misfortune, the necessity of the state evolved for the purpose of ‘correcting’ destructive cultural maladies.

Propaganda acts as a third-party mechanism, beyond the power of culture, to control and define values.  Today, people are influenced by television shows, commercials, advertisements, movies and other forms of media that construct ideological reference points from which values are established.  The influence of cultural mechanisms such as churches, families and communities is challenged by the strain of popularist values.

Though many behaviors are harmless to the continuity of a culture, there are behaviors that slowly etch away at cultural continuity; these behaviors can be dangerous and lethal.

Value confusion occurs when members of the collective no longer share common values.  Imagine living in a home where each member of the home shares conflicting values.  The irritations that would arise from these circumstances could nurture the process of ‘faction’.

Faction is simply the argument that exists between an adverse minority group and a larger group.  As history has demonstrated, the constant gnawing of an adverse minority group can and often does cause the erosion of the larger group.  This erosion invariably leads to the mutation of long-held cultural values.  That mutation can become a lethal process that eventually causes the culture to implode in a whirlwind of value confusion and conflict.

As regards the erosion of Western culture, we have been guilty of many things not the least of which is an incomplete understanding of the power of faction.  Many of us believe that the collapse of a nation is preceded by a violent upheaval (revolution).  In fact this belief is only partly correct.

The French and Russian revolutions, for instance, were characterized by the continued gnawing of adverse factions.  A nation or a culture can be disassembled by persistent, non-lethal calamities, the sum of which eventually exceeds the capacity of the nation or culture to heal.  Imagine the cumulative effects of someone who daily disrupts your life.  Even though no disruption is, by itself, lethal, the cumulative energy of multiple disruptions is sufficient to become lethal.  In addition, the constant gnawing of disruptions distracts from the substance of life.

With enough holes poked in its sides, even the greatest sailing ships are doomed to sink.  The nature of propaganda is such that we rarely recognize the ship is sinking until it is too late to save it. 

The long-term effect of propaganda was not well understood during the first years it was employed to formulate public opinion.  Bernays quickly learned that various propaganda techniques could have profound effects on human behavior – Society became a playground for cultural manipulators.  Today, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the food we eat, the values we hold have been largely constructed for us by external forces that have no obligation to our personal well-being or the survival of our culture.

Cloward and Piven and Other Cultural Manipulators:

By the time Cloward and Piven and Saul Alinsky described their methods to control group behavior, and therefore influence the history of culture, propaganda methods were well defined.  Cloward and Piven, Alinsky and other cultural manipulators appealed to a number of psychological and emotional characteristics that exploited the worst behaviors in men.

Marx employed the concept of the ‘oppressed-oppressor’ relationship to establish and rationalize the need for conflict within a culture.  Marx’ complex reasoning was not available to the masses in meaningful form; Cloward and Piven simplified it to the extent lesser mortals could grasp then act upon its reasoning. 

Communism and ‘fairness’ were at the heart of Cloward and Piven’s work.  As many of us are aware, the concept of ‘fairness’, just like the concept of ‘evil’, can take many forms.  ‘Fairness’, by Cloward and Piven’s definition, was anything that benefited victims and punished ‘oppressors’.

As I described in part one, the dynamics of human behavior are such that we often engage in behaviors that, by their nature, are inexplicable.  The person who aids dysfunctional behavior does so believing his actions are reasonable and morally sound – Even as those characteristics enhance and nurture destructive behaviors.

The only solution to destructive behavior is to hold the person responsible for his behavior –

Cloward and Piven’s idealized vision of culture failed in one critical area: Victims are never responsible for their behavior.  This flaw is the catalyst for all sorts of havoc; havoc that is now being inflicted on our culture.  That so many white people readily accept their role as ‘oppressors’ is a remarkable testament to the power of propaganda and the continued stress created by racial frictions – ‘racialism’.  That ‘oppressed victims’ and their sympathizers have readily taken on the roles of ‘helpless victim’ and ‘savior’, respectively, is remarkable.

Cloward and Piven veiled their intentions behind a universal description of ‘victims’ – Those efforts were revealed when appeals were made to blacks to grab and nurture the concept of their unique position within the cultural hierarchy as victims.  Race, then, became the primal substance through which the concept of victim gained its energy: Blacks, victims; whites, oppressors.

Long-term cultural erosion is a process – The difference between Cultural Evolution and Cultural Revolution is just a matter of time.  As the process of faction takes hold, as victims gain a foothold on the definition of moral rightness, their manipulations, their propaganda, profoundly affects cultural values – Evolution eventually gives way to revolution.

Western culture is in the final stages of its evolution to revolution.  The process of faction has disassembled long-held cultural values to the extent value confusion within the majority is now the norm rather than the exception.

Although white culture has been fundamentally fractured by a number of ideological differences, components of the white psyche remain intact.  Emotions such as guilt, fear, compassion, pity, anger, resentments and acceptance continue to be part of the domain of the white psyche.  I’m not suggesting these characteristics are unique to whites; they are not.  In so much as Jews in Nazi concentration camps developed abnormal responses to their captors so, too, have whites, who have wittingly or unwittingly allowed themselves to be pawns in a diseased game of cultural survival.

The depth of disease and how it affects each of us is our lone responsibility to measure.  Hate directed exclusively at whites is difficult to tolerate, particularly, as in the case of the Boer population of South Africa – Where hate is manifested by extreme acts of violence.

The fragmentation of our culture is so profound, our divisions so complete, that many of us are simply glad we were not last night’s victims of violence.  It seems we have become willing to sacrifice one another for obscure objectives – survival?  – Without giving thought to the reality that at some future date we, too, will be consumed by creeping violence.  Disunity is a by-product of cultural erosion and cultural erosion is the manifestation of disoriented, confused, negated, mutated value systems.

If we hope to survive the onslaught, we must first decide to re-prioritize our value systems:

• Unity must displace mistrust;
• courage must displace doubt;
• action must displace complacency;
• family must displace societal indoctrination;
• community must displace the national authority;
• aggravation must displace appeasement;
• Dispute must displace compromise and intolerance must displace tolerance – especially tolerance for ‘culture destroying behaviors’.

What we have done, what have been doing, is not working and will not work.  Until and when we are determined to change our behavior, our values and our beliefs, the process of cultural erosion will continue:

• Factions will become more powerful, more disruptive, consuming the energy of our lives;
• the loss of our individual and collective sovereignty, what little remains, will make us increasingly vulnerable to our detractor’s designs;
• cultural divisions will manifest lonelier and lonelier lives;
• uncertainty will be the dominant theme of all our plans, hopes and dreams;
• frustration, animosity, surrender, alcoholism, drugs, resentment, hopelessness, depression, infidelity, paranoia, disbelief in God…These destructive elements and more will define the character of our lives;
• petty irritations will cause us to squander joy;
• Conflict will eventually reach the threshold of the certainty of our lives and we, too, will become the victims of violence validated by well-honed though diseased Cloward-Piven rationalizations.

The choice is yet ours to make. But it will come with a price.  When we resist the forces of evil that press against our sovereignty they will react in unpredictable ways – most likely with violence.  We must accept this consequence as part of the conditions we have set for ourselves and for moving to restore moral sanity to our lives, to our culture.

Each of us needs to take a moral inventory of our value systems.  The power of the written word is meaningless if it is not carried into our daily lives by action – “Faith without works is dead.”  We must gaze at the enemies of social order and moral decency with angry, determined eyes.  Too, we must punish detractors for their deeds and for the corruption they interject into the security of our daily lives.  But above all else, we must accept the bitter fact that our character defects – our weaknesses and flaws – have allowed miscreants to enhance their diseased futures without resistance.

I am daily reminded that I do not stand at the pinnacle of judgment of my fellows as I, too, have contributed to the infection of madness that has made me a prisoner in an unfriendly, dangerous world.  After years of enduring rationalizations that inform me I am duty bound to tolerate madness, my tolerance has worn thin.  Today I make preparations to validate my disdain for the poisons that infect my life and the lives of millions of decent human beings – Whether I like it or not the day soon approaches when I must either forcefully validate my convictions or accept the slow, painful erosion of my culture – The latter condemns my children, and yours, to hell on earth.

No amount of propaganda can displace the gnawing pain that informs me hell has come to my nation and my culture.  Cloward and Piven and other cultural manipulators have defined themselves as my enemy because they have repeatedly explained I am their enemy.

The pawns of cultural manipulators truly believe they will advance their madness without meeting resistance from sane, moral, responsible men.  Pawns are convinced they are victims; they are convinced sane, moral, responsible men are oppressors.  This combination squeezes the breath out of any future hope that sanity rather than madness will re-define Western culture.  When the moment of faction explodes, as it certainly will, sane, moral, responsible men will be left one and only one consideration: Fight or die.

When all sacrifices are measured, we must know to absolute moral certainty that we have not condemned our posterity to do that which we ourselves were duty bound to do.  If God there be, and I believe there is, when the measure of our lives is taken we must remember that the sins we commit will be forgiven; the sins we leave for others to cleanse will not.

Because YouTube said so…

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 23, 2009

A question arises, in this modern age, as to whether reading is a dying art that will soon be replaced by video presentations.  Is one capable of deception, more than the other is?  Does one provoke more thought than the other does?  Is one healthier than the other is?

In May 1993, a video production by an Indiana BAR attorney was making its way around the country.  It was titled: “Waco – The Big Lie” (I use this video as an example since, though old, it was one of the first of the “patriot” videos to use mass deception through this means).The video focused, primarily, on the use of a flame-throwing tank alleged to have been used by the FBI in igniting the Mt. Carmel Church on fire — which resulted in the death of nearly 100 people.

As the narrator described the events, you see a tank gun barrel jammed through the wall of a portion of the building.  As the tank withdrew, there was a flame colored element along the side of the tank.  Along with the voice of the narrator and the footage, thousands of people became outraged that the government would use a flame-throwing tank to immolate these people in their own home.  Even some of the Davidians, after watching the video, began to believe that the government had reached an extreme level of depredation by these actions.

A few months later, Mike McNulty (C.O.P.S.) obtained the entire footage of the event.  There was more footage both before and after the brief episode shown on the above-described video, which plainly demonstrated that the narration was grossly in error.  Though there were many other indications of the absence of a flamethrower, the most apparent was when the apparent “flame” fell to the ground — and bounced.

If both videos were watched without the benefit of a narrator, a more honest evaluation of the events was apparent — there was no flame-throwing tank at Waco.  When the narrator has a purpose or mindset, all you get from the video is the narrow channel that he is willing to give you.

On the other hand, written accounts of what happened on April 19, 1993 provide many descriptions of events that were not captured on video, and probably give the most realistic picture of what occurred, even though these accounts were also subject to the bias of the reporter.

This tends to support the contention that videos might misrepresent events, leading us to false conclusions as to what really happened, more so than print or written media.

Let us look at initiation of the thought process while reading and watching videos.

How often, when watching a video, say, a movie, or, more significantly, and informational video, do you stop and rewind the video so that you can ‘capture’ or grasp what was said or presented?  I know that I have done this, many times.  Sometimes it has gotten so frustrating that I am more willing to leave a part not understood than return and watch it again.

In fact, when I am watching a video, especially an informational one, I find that I have to develop a complete reliance on the presenter.  He sets the pace — and, I must abide by that pace.  There is little, if any, time to reflect on or contemplate what was said — until after the video is over.

However, when reading, I set the pace.  If I wish to contemplate something that was written, I simple divert my eyes and direct my mind to evaluate that subject which has grasped my attention.  If I encounter something that is not quite clear, in my mind, without effort, I return and reread the particular objet of my concern.  Moreover, as far as visualizing, well, I have often paused during the course of the reading to visualize the setting or event that provokes the desire to do so.

I suppose that this can be compared to movies and books of the same title.  A very good example is “2001: A Space Odyssey”.  I know that I saw the movie, first.  It was many months before I was able to read the book.  Upon reading the book, I was, all of a sudden, able to impart meaning to many of the events that occurred in the movie that had more appearance of visual sensationalism than of comprehensive reflection of an idea.  Upon watching the movie a second time, many of the confusing or not quite clear parts of the movie really made sense — because the book had laid the foundation.

This has been true of many other book/movies that I have read/seen.  To me, it is clear that much more pleasure and understanding comes from reading rather than the expedient of watching.

I have watched a number of YouTube presentations on subjects dear to the Patriot community.  One that I was direct to the other days is broken into segments.  I watched the first segment and listened as the guy told me what he was going to do.  But, he did nothing except describe, in sinister terms, an organization that was politically motivated and was seeking influence on Capitol Hill.  No, it was not about the NRA or GOA, but it was only different in its purpose, and, probably better funded.

In another rather lengthy presentation, dealing with legal status, I watched over an hour of a two-hour presentation.  In all that I watch, though many ‘legal’ opinions were given, not one shred of legal material was cited.  I am left to either believe, or not believe that which is presented.  If I am not prone to researching to find the evidence that either supports or disproves what has been presented, then I am left fully at the mercy of the person presenting the video.  At this point, quite often what we accept as the truth is either something that is well presented (theatrically) or says something that we wanted to hear, anyway (Waco flame-throwing tank, for instance).

At this point, many of us will become advocates of some presentation, or another.  There are two reasons for this advocacy.  First is that we believe what we have heard and want others to believe what we have heard — so we ask them to watch the video and believe what is heard.  Then, we have something in common!

The second possibility is that we are not sure whether we should believe what we heard.  It is easier to encourage others to watch the video and then to see if they believe what was presented, or, if they find fault with it, and, hopefully, will bring that fault to our attention (even though we really do not want it).  It is more likely that the person that we have asked to watch the video, whether they find fault with it, or not, will never bring it to our attention.  Why should they tend to take away from the communication between us that has developed, even if only to the extent of suggesting that they watch the video, by presenting what appears to be fault within the presentation?  It is better to let sleeping dogs lie.  If, however, they did bring forward their concerns over the information within the video, we would, most likely, not want to talk with them, any more.  After all, they challenged what we offered them, and, more importantly, they challenged our belief system.  We Don’t Need Them!

So, let us look at whether one method is, perhaps, healthier than the other is.  Videos are watched in a computer room (or equivalent), television room or movie theatre. Restricted space, often less than comfortable surroundings and, at best, filtered air.  Reading, however, can be conducted nearly anywhere.  Outside is a nice place to read, in pleasant weather, and is fresh air at its best.  Reading can be interrupted for other responsibilities, and returned to, at any time.  It can fill in otherwise wasted time, if the book is available.

But, probably most significantly, reading burns more than three times as many calories as watching videos.  A chart at discovery.com informs me that, with my 200 pounds, I burn 181 calories for 2 hours of video watching and 597 calories in 2 hours of reading.

In this modern age, where video production has become a hobby, conducted by hundreds of thousands of people, and presented to even  greater numbers through media such as YouTube, we have become inundated, perhaps overwhelmed, by the proliferation of information This phenomenon has been dubbed “information overload”, and is a result of too, too much information.  We must settle on accepting that that does not challenge what we have learned to believe, regardless of how we came to believe what we do.

Sit back and reflect, however, on what the consequences might be if we accept erroneous or incorrect information; suppose that after years of effort, things only get worse; suppose that the time finally comes when our lives depend on what we do.  Do you want to stake your life on information that has not suffered a very critical review by you before you accept it is absolute truth?  Is your life worth it?

Some Thoughts on Public Education

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 29, 2010

Introduction

Public Education in America has a long history.  In the Cape Code area, a public school was established in the early seventeen hundreds.  The pay for the schoolmaster was in the form of part of the catch of fish.  Public Education was not established by government, rather, by the parents and members of the community.

Today, we have a “public education system” that has deviated from that original intent to such a point that, except for the name, they bear little resemblance to each other.

The current form has become an administrative nightmare; a means of social reform (indoctrination); and, fails, miserably, to achieve its intended purpose as a mechanism for the diffusion of knowledge, focusing instead, on an institutional evaluation of the failure of that system.

So, let’s look at what public education was, from Jefferson through the end of the 19th century.

Historical perspective

Thomas Jefferson, the principle advocate of public education, is probably the finest source of the intent of that system.  Below are a number of historical quotes by Jefferson regarding the subject:

“I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.  2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.

“Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

“The present consideration of a national establishment for education, particularly, is rendered proper by this circumstance also, that if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it more eligible to found it on a donation of lands [this applied beginning with the lands acquired under the Treaty of Paris — Ohio Territory], they have it now in their power to endow it with those which will be among the earliest to produce the necessary income.  The foundation would have the advantage of being independent on war, which may suspend other improvements by requiring for its own purposes the resources destined for them.” –Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

“A bill for the more general diffusion of learning… proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square;… to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive at the public expense a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at an University where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

“The less wealthy people… by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

“The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” –Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

“It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction.  This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.

Nearly a century later, we can observe the view and understanding of the public school system from, “Elements of Civil Government, A text-book for use in public schools High schools and normal schools and a manual of reference for teachers, by Alex. L. Peterman, 1891″. From that book:

CHAPTER II. — THE SCHOOL.

Introductory. — When children reach the age of six or seven years, they enter the public school and become subject to its rules.  We are born under government, and we are educated under it.  We are under it at home, in school, and in after life.  Law and order are everywhere necessary to the peace, safety, liberty, and happiness of the people.  True liberty and true enlightenment can not exist unless regulated by law.

Definition and Purposes. — A school district or sub-district is a certain portion of the town or county laid off and set apart for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a public school.  It exists for educational reasons only, and is the unit of educational work.  The public schools are supported by funds raised partly by the State, and partly by the county or the township.  They are frequently called common schools or free schools.  It is the duty of the State to provide all children with the means of acquiring a plain English education, and the State discharges this duty by dividing the county into districts of such size that a school-house and a public school are within reach of every child.

Formation. — The limits of the school district are usually fixed by the chief school officer of the county, by the town, by the school board, or by the people living in the neighborhood…

Functions. — The functions, or work, of the school are solely educational.  The State supports a system of public schools in order that the masses of the people may be educated.  The country needs good citizens: to be good citizens the people must be intelligent, and to be intelligent they must attend school.

MEMBERS.

The members of the school district are the people living in it.  All are interested, one way or another, in the success of the school.  In most States the legal voters elect the school board, or trustees, and in some States levy the district school taxes.  Those who are neither voters nor within the school age are interested in the intelligence and good name of the community, and are therefore interested in the public school.

Children. — The children within the school age are the members of the school, and they are the most important members of the school district.  It is for their good that the school exists.  The State has provided schools in order that its children may be educated, and thus become useful men and women and good citizens.

***

Parents, their Rights and Duties. — All parents have the right to send their children to the public school, and it is also their duty to patronize the public school, or some other equally as good.  Fathers and mothers who deprive their children of the opportunities of acquiring an education do them lasting injury.  Parents should use every effort to give their children at least the best education that can be obtained in the public schools.

GOVERNMENT.

The school has rules to govern it, that the pupil may be guided, directed, and protected in the pursuit of knowledge.  Schools can not work without order, and there can be no order without government.  The members of the school desire that good order be maintained, for they know their success depends upon it; so that school government, like all other good government, exists by the consent and for the good of the governed.

***

Duties. — In most States it is the duty of the district officers to raise money by levying taxes for the erection of school-buildings, and to superintend their construction; to purchase furniture and apparatus us; to care for the school property; to employ teachers and fix their salaries; to visit the school and direct its work; to take the school census; and to make reports to the higher school officers.

***

Powers. — The teacher has the same power and right to govern the school that the parent has to govern the family.  The law puts the teacher in the parent’s place and expects him to perform the parent’s office, subject to the action of the directors or trustees.  It clothes him with all power necessary to govern the school, and then holds him responsible for its conduct, the directors having the right to dismiss him at any time for a failure to perform his duty.

***

CHAPTER III. — THE CIVIL DISTRICT.

Introductory –In our study, thus far, we have had to do with special forms of government as exercised in the family and in the school.  These are, in a sense, peculiar to themselves.  The rights of government as administered in the family, and the rights of the members of a family, as well as their duties to each other, are natural rights and duties; they do not depend upon society for their force.  In fact, they are stronger and more binding in proportion as the bands of society are relaxed.

In the primitive state, before there was organized civil society, family government was supreme; and, likewise, if a family should remove from within the limits of civil society and be entirely isolated, family government would again resume its power and binding force.

School government, while partaking of the nature of civil government, is still more closely allied to family government.  In the natural state, and in the isolated household, the education of the child devolves upon the parents, and the parent delegates a part of his natural rights and duties to the teacher when he commits the education of his child to the common school.  The teacher is said to stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and from this direction, mainly, are his rights of government derived.

The school, therefore, stands in an intermediate position between family government and civil government proper, partaking of some features of each, and forming a sort of stepping-stone for the child from the natural restraints of home to the more complex demands of civil society.  The school district, also, while partaking of the nature of a civil institution, is in many respects to be regarded as a co-operative organization of the families of the neighborhood for the education of their children, and its government as a co-operative family government.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public, a. [L.publicus, from the root of populus, people; that is, people-like.]

1. Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state, as opposed to a private statute or resolve, which respects an individual or a corporation only.  Thus we say, public welfare, public good, public calamity, public service, public property.

Education, n.

The bringing up, as of a child, instruction; formation of manners.  Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations.  To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

Knowledge, n.

1. A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas.  Human knowledge is very limited, and is mostly gained by observation and experience.
2. Learning; illumination of mind.

Public Schools

Jefferson realized that knowledge was essential, in the people, if the government was to be of service to those people, when he said, “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” He also provided that such knowledge would “enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.”

It is clear that education was not a service to or by the government, only to be encouraged and provided for by the government, when he suggested that parents could utilize the public or private schools, though the minimum education would be that afforded by the public school.

He further suggests the limitation of federal government involvement in education by allowing that they only provide “donations of land” which would “endow” the schools to “produce the necessary income”.  Though he suggested the division of land into districts, he never suggested that the government was a player in that education, rather, that it would educate all, thereby “defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts“.  How could you entrust those of birth and wealth with controlling education if the purpose was to defeat their control of that education?

The ultimate purpose of the public education was to assure that the less wealthy people “would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government,” warning, also, that ” our present state of liberty [is] a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.”

In establishing that the responsibility for providing the public education is not a function of government, he says, “Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government.”

Now, it is possible that what Jefferson has told us could be considered as conjecture, not of practice.  This would suggest that he was in error and the government must take a greater role in the education of our children.  If that were the case, surely, practice would have changed shortly after Jefferson left the scene and would have removed itself from that “public” sphere and into the realm of government control by the end of that century.  So, let us look at public education as it was described and practiced in 1891:

From “Elements of Civil Government”, we find government is a rather broad term.  It applies “in home, in school, and in after [later] life.”  That “[i]t is the duty of the State to provide all children the means of acquiring” an education“.  So, here we come to a crux in the difference between public education and what we have, today.  The means of an education versus the education, itself.  Providing you the means of fishing does not provide you the fish — only the means to acquire the fish.  Education is, likewise, from the standpoint of government, only the means, not the education.

“The members of the school district are the people living in it.  All are interested, one way or another, in the success of the school.”  This would exclude people not living in the district, say, in the State capital, or, Washington, D.C.  What conceivable interest could politicians totally unrelated, and, probably, unaware of the nature of the district, should be interested in the outcome of the education?  Surely, if they were other than simply pretending to be interested, we could expect that any true interest would be divisive, and, perhaps as was suggested by Jefferson, a result of their “ambition under all of its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers and defeat its purpose”.  After all, if the truth is what is legislated, there is no role for the people to judge what the government is doing.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a “perversion of power into tyranny“.

Looking at the relationship of the teacher to the student, we find that “The teacher has the same power and right to govern the school that the parent has to govern the family.  The law puts the teacher in the parent’s place and expects him to perform the parent’s office.”  This is further supported by the fact that when we look at the Civil District (city or county), we find that there are “special forms of government as exercised by the family and the school” that are “peculiar to themselves“.

To assure a proper understanding of the relationships stated above, let me repeat from that source that:

“School government, while partaking of the nature of civil government, is still more closely allied to family government.  In the natural state, and in the isolated household, the education of the child devolves upon the parents, and the parent delegates a part of his natural rights and duties to the teacher when he commits the education of his child to the common school.  The teacher is said to stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and from this direction, mainly, are his rights of government derived.

“The school, therefore, stands in an intermediate position between family government and civil government proper, partaking of some features of each, and forming a sort of stepping-stone for the child from the natural restraints of home to the more complex demands of civil society.  The school district, also, while partaking of the nature of a civil institution, is in many respects to be regarded as a co-operative organization of the families of the neighborhood for the education of their children, and its government as a co-operative family government.

So, when you send your child to school, you have made the teacher in loco parentis.  If you have not assigned that right to the federal government, the state government, or even the school district, then, should that authority apply only to those to whom you have granted, should it extended to people unknown, in places unknown, for purposes unknown?

Government Schools

The United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Welfare has since been changed to “human services”) was formed in 1953.  Given that the Founders and Framers only saw fit to provide grants of land, at the federal level, for the support of the public education system, we must wonder why this expansive move into the rights previously held by the parents.  However, these intervening 57 years have clearly established the consequences of the establishment of that Department.  It has resulted in a near complete takeover of the education process and moved it into absolute (despotic?) control of the federal government, including denial of the parent’s right to involve themselves in the education process.

Along with the expansion of federal authority in the realm that was previously reserved to the community, the State governments have also encroached well beyond their original enrolment in education.  BY submitting to federal dictates, mandates and funds allocation, they have become co-conspirators with the federal government to undermine the purpose of public education, as envisioned by the Founders and practiced, for over a century, as a right of the local community and the parents, resulting in the subjugation of our children to an indoctrination program the prescribes social relationship, undermines religious and moral values, and, subjects the children to a belief in the absolutism of government’s authority.

Conclusion

The Constitution stands mute on the subject of education and schools.  The only authority that the federal government had was with regard to the “public lands”.  That authority underlay Jefferson’s desire to found the federal support only to the “donation of lands”.  Clearly, no authority was granted by the Constitution to subvert the rights of the parents and the school district in matters of education.  Even an expansive misrepresentation of “the General Welfare” could not subordinate the authority of the parents and the school district, even if they were failing, miserable, in the pursuit of a proper education.  After all, who but the parents could determine whether there was a failure in the process? 

That ascension of authority to the federal government made way for the ascension of State authority, well beyond that which was intended.  Initially, states could set certain guidelines, and, historically, these were quite limited and included the matter of taxation for funding, usually granted to the county or district, and protections to be afforded the district and schools for protection from abuse.

Taxes for the support of public schools were, for many decades, raised through ad valorem (on property) taxes.  This did provide for inequality in education, however, this inequality was no different from the inequality in housing and diet.  Those who worked harder received greater benefit.

This did not demean education.  The basics of reading, writing, mathematics, and science were necessary as a foundation for subsequent learning, whether through the educational system or the ability to acquire additional knowledge by reading books, periodicals, and newspapers.  It was the foundation that was the necessity of public education.  Those who proved themselves worthy were able to take advantage of scholarships to increase their education, though that route was, and should only be, available to those competent, desirous of, and willing to pursue such higher education.  It was, and should be, the foundational education that came within the purview of “public” education.

The consequence of attempting to assure that all people had such higher education available was that the higher education has been lowered in quality to accommodate those who were not mentally capable of such aspirations, though they had been convinced that it was their “right” to achieve what would otherwise be beyond their abilities.  This has resulted in college graduates with 6th grade reading skills, and, and overall reduction of the equality of education of the higher levels, except where wealth has afforded certain individuals with access to expensive private colleges.  The entire country has suffered as a result of this malaise in education by allowing those to have degrees that are not indicative of their scholarly achievements, rather, the fact that they have completed a course of education without regard to the quality thereof.

Public education, to serve the intentions and practices under which it was first instituted, must return to that which serves the people rather than the government.  To allow the government to impose any more than the “means” to educate; to allow the government to subvert the needs of the people, as defined by the people through their school boards of local, interested parties; is to allow the government the means of indoctrination of the people, especially the young, into acceptance of despotism and subjugation.