Liberty or Laws?
Militia in Defense of the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2014

Prior to the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, each State (nation) had a right to defend its borders. The Articles created a collective pursuit of defense of borders against the British.

With the ratification of the Constitution, there was a greater consolidation of the collective into a Union. It also imposed upon that Union an obligation to protect each State against invasion, first, within the Powers of the Congress:

Article I, § 8, clause 15– The Congress shall have the Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Secondly, a guarantee (the only guarantee in the Constitution), with the mandatory “shall”:

Article IV, § 4– The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

It is apparent, then, that protection from invasion warrants the attention, and cooperation, of the federal government. However, we must consider whether the States lost their right to repel invasion, absent the federal government fulfilling their oblation and guarantee. This, then, leads us to the 10th Amendment:

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

Congress was given the Power, though nothing makes that Power exclusive. If it had been exclusive, surely a prohibition against the state protecting its borders would have been written as a prohibition in Article I, Section 10.

Well, that all makes sense; however, can that right to protect a State’s borders be affirmed by example? Answer: Most assuredly. Though the incidents being used to demonstrate this “Right of the State” to protect its borders were from the early part of the 19th Century, there have been no changes to the Constitution that would eliminate that right.

* * *

The Toledo War

In 1835, based upon an incorrect map of the region, two lines were established between the boundaries of Michigan and Ohio. The land within this disputed area comprised about 486 square miles. Ohio had become a state in 1803, though the boundary in dispute was between Ohio and the then territory of Michigan.

Beginning in late 1834, Michigan’s Territorial Governor Stevens Mason sent the Militia to the disputed line and claimed that he would not use force, so long as Ohioans stayed out of the disputed area. Ohioan responded by sending their Militia to the same area. Michigan’s militia ended up arresting some Ohio Surveyors and Officials, firing some shots into the air to scare off others from the survey party.

The dispute was finally settled where President Jackson and the Congress redefined the boundary between Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, give each portions of the disputed lands. Finally, in 1837. Michigan was granted statehood.

The extent of federal authority was limited to resolving the dispute politically. There was no federal armed intervention.

* * *

The Honey War

Missouri became a state in 1821. The boundaries of the state were defined in the Constitution adopted at statehood. The description of the Northern boundary, however, was unclear and lay in Indian lands. At the expiration of the Indian’s usage of the land, in 1836, Sullivan surveyed the boundary. The future Iowa was then a part of Wisconsin Territory. The land, based upon subsequent review of the description of Missouri’s boundary, and a correct interpretation, created an overlap of up to 12 miles.

When a Sheriff from Missouri entered the disputed land to collect taxes, the locals (future Iowans) disputed his jurisdiction and he was arrested. Iowa Governor Robert Lucas warned Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs that the Missouri sheriffs would not be allowed to collect taxes in Iowa. Boggs then threatened militia action to enforce the collection of the taxes. Both governors then called out their militia to the disputed area. The only damage being the destruction of some profitable honey trees, hence the name of the war. The two militia were called off when the dispute was submitted to Congress, and eventually, to the United States Supreme Court.

Although Iowa attained statehood in 1846, the Court did not settle the dispute until 1851. The extent of federal authority was limited to resolving the dispute judicially. There was no federal armed intervention.

* * *

So, there, we have it. The Constitution remains unchanged, and the States in these disputes, called forth their respective militia to protect their boundaries. Though nobody was killed, the face off and the potential for real war was present. The only federal solution was political or judicial.

Suppose, then, that the intrusion, without question of a boundary dispute, exists. Suppose, also, that the intruders were not Americans, rather, are foreigners. Would the federal government have any more authority than what has been discussed? Would they be limited, as they were in the past, to either a negotiated political solution, or a judicial determination? Is it possible that the right is inherent, in each State (or even as a territory) to defend its borders, by use of the militia?

If some unconstitutional law; Some federal mandate; Some divisive compact between the federal and state government; or, Some financial obligation, precludes the state from protecting its own borders against invasion, is it not, under the current onslaught of illegal immigration across state borders, an abrogation of the responsibility of the governor of any state who refuses to fulfill his duty?

If he should fail to do so, then the People themselves should recognize that the right to self-defense against invasion resides, ultimately, with them, whether under the Congress, the President, or the State governor, or the People who would become that militia force. In addition, nothing within that Constitution prohibits the militia from acting upon its own behalf. It only provides for subordination, if the higher governing authority does not abrogate its responsibility. The Tenth Amendment:

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

This is further supported by the oft-overlooked Ninth Amendment:

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

Ultimately, the final decision to act is in the hands of the People. It is their country; It does not belong to the Government. If the government refuses to act, especially, when the laws of the land require such action, both of federal and state government, the People are left naught — except to act on their own behalf — for their sake and the sake of their posterity.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 3, 2014

What? Three Constitutions? What must he be talking about?

What we will be looking at is that there are, in the minds of various people, especially those within certain vocations, who perceive the Constitution from a perspective differently than others might. It may appear that when we speak of the Constitution, we think that we are all speaking of the same document. However, we will explore whether there is a document attached, at all, to one of these perspectives; what minimal role the original Constitution plays in another perspective, and finally, the Constitution, as written and intended by the Framers.

Well, the conversation began when I was talking with an Oath Keeper. I had asked, regarding their stated of purpose of keeping their oaths by not obeying unconstitutional laws, just how they interpreted the Constitution. My query was whether that interpretation included the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution they had “sworn an oath to”. Well, how do those come into play?

It that phone conversation with an Oath Keeper, that I first asked the question, “Which of the three Constitutions do they affix their oath of allegiance and obedience to?” Of course, he was as perplexed as I had been until the reality formulated in my head. So, let’s venture into the realm of, “I knew that, I just didn’t realize it”.

The Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I have no trouble reading the words. Quite simply, they say that “Writs of Assistance” are no longer recognized in this country and that “unreasonable searches and seizures” cannot be conducted. That means, you can’t search to find something that might incriminate a person, you have to have a Warrant, which must be issued based upon “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” It is clearly the intent of the Framers that the Warrant must be based upon knowledge of a crime, identifying the person or object to be seized. A judge, not a cop, must sign the Warrant and it is supported by an oath, which must be based upon personal knowledge.

Now, this is a tough concept to those of us who have been raised in a world where that line, as defined by the Constitution, and that which we recognize to have moved by interpretation, has been so blurred that we accept the latter, without due consideration of the former. (To understand how this worked in the time of our Founders, see Are Cops Constitutional?)

However, before we get to how this applies, we must visit, also, the Fifth Amendment, or at least a part of it:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Let’s start by attempting to understand what the (perhaps intentionally archaic) phrase, “held to answer” means. Well, I answer when I go to court to “answer” to the charges. Simple enough. So, let’s go to the other, “held”. Well, if you are arrested, you are held or detained. Again, quite simple.

Now, let’s visit the next portion, “for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime”. We all know what capital is, and, with a little research we find the “infamous crime” transitioned into “felony”, though its original meaning did carry with it a crime that could result in imprisonment for a year and a day, or more. Those crimes had to be against person or property. They were never, at least back then, applied to a rule violation, as they are in many states, now.

So, putting these two elements together and coupling it with the final provision of this portion of the Amendment, we get paraphrasing, based upon interpretation of the wording and apply it to our language of today:

No person may be arrested and charged in a court of justice (yes, that is what they were called back then, not a court of law), for the serious crimes bearing either the death penalty or over one year in prison, that crime being against person or property, unless a Grand Jury, comprised of “good and honest men” determine that there is probably cause that the crime alleged did appear to have taken place.

To better understand what was intended, I might direct you to The Right to Self Defense , which discusses both arrest, under the Constitution, and killing a law enforcement office attempting to serve an unlawful warrant. Yes, he could kill that officer.

Have you every scratched your head when someone is “arrested for resisting arrest”? First, where is the warrant demonstrating that he was to be arrested for resisting arrest? Second, where is the warrant for the alleged crime that he is to have committed, warranting the arrest that he was arrested for resisting? Wait! Where is our Constitution? Has it, too, been arrested? The answer to that last is, unequivocally, yes. So, let’s venture into that First Constitution.

Superiors tell Law enforcement officers what they can, and what they cannot, do. They accept those instructions as if they were firmly grounded in the Constitution; whether by deception or assertion of their “them or us” authority. Regardless, both the Second and Third Constitutions will be violated by this activity.

Before we get to that, we have to think back to many situations, mostly in those two unconstitutionally undeclared wars, on drugs and terrorism. Well, that can’t be all bad, can it?

As we have seen in Interstate highway stops, resulting in unlawful searches, they have been challenged in the Supreme Court. So, the Court decided that “just searching because of suspicion” doesn’t pass muster (note that I didn’t say “constitutionality, which will be addressed, shortly). However, once the person is no longer detained as the result of the traffic stop, whether valid or not, the rules change. The officer can then, after he has said, “you are free to go”, ask for permission to search. If the answer is yes, he searches. If the answer is no, then he can justify “suspicion”, based upon the answer, even though he may have to call the drug or explosive smelling dogs, he has achieved the point of an unconstitutional search, the Constitution notwithstanding.

So, this began, and not just in the highway searches, as an act by the officer, firmly believing that he has constitutional authority, because his boss told him he could do it — just obeying orders, sir — an act has been committed outside of any reasonable constitutional authority.

Thus concludes the First Constitution.

Now, let us eaxamine the Second Constitution. When the Supreme Court ventures into a matter before it, when they rule, we assume that the ruling is based upon the “constitutionality”. Silly us, we are so deceived. Let’s take a decision made just a few days ago, Hedges v. Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-758, wherein the Court said that Hedges had no standing to challenge the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as unconstitutional. Why can’t we challenge a law, made by the legislature, or even an administrative agency, to see if we are bound by that which the law applies?

Here is what James Madison said about laws in Federalist Paper #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, did they rule on the Constitutionality, as we would expect? No, they did not; they only said that they won’t hear the matter, since Hedges had no standing. But, more about standing, shortly. Just remember this, “Rule #5”, as we continue.

Now, let’s look at another decision from 2012, dealing with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, Supreme Court, No. 11-393. This is the case that many of us are familiar with because of Chief Justice Robert’s opinion, wherein he held that the “penalty” described in the Statute was not, in fact, a penalty, rather that it was a “tax”. Well, was he addressing constitutionality? Now, just remember “Rule #7”.

Finally, at least in subject matter for consideration of the Second Constitution, let’s look at our belief that the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of most, if not all, of the matters before it. I will refer to Rules #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6. Well, that’s all of the Rules, and you can find out what that means, in the words of Justice Brandeis, by going to About Ashwander v. TVA.

So, the Second Constitution is the one that most believe to be the “real” Constitution, as set forth by the Framers. Instead, we find that it is the “Constitution” promulgated (or, should I say foisted upon us?) by a Supreme Court that is unclear or ambiguous in their decisions, or is simply codifying the incremental expansion of police powers by slowly decimating our rights, from case to case, extending those powers to law enforcement and other agencies of government. Most attorneys (if not all) are taught this as Constitutional Law, most often dealing with cases decided after the early 1900s. After all, many of them are in direct conflict with the John Bad Elk decision from the Self Defense article (linked above). It was in the late 1800s that Yale began teaching case law instead of substantive law. That change allowed the Court to avoid consideration of constitutionality, in favor of what has resulted in incrementally undermining the written word and the intent of the Framers, along with our Rights, in favor of what can best be described as a Despotic government — death of the Constitution — by judicial activism.

So, on to the Third Constitution. This does not require any special skills, it only requires that you get a copy of the Constitution, remove those preconceived notions (based upon the above) of what you have been lead to believe it says, and digest each and every word of it.

So, what we have seen is that the First Constitution is an interpretation by a chief law enforcement officer who believes that he has to give his “troops” a greater discretion in fighting the evils of “them”, whether under the guise of the War on Drugs, terrorism, Officer Safety, or any other rationalization. This, then, becomes a practice that, when it appears to violate the Constitution, will be challenged by an individual, an organization, ACLU, SPLC, or even the Justice Department, for the purpose of getting a ruling from the Supreme Court, hopefully to obtain an extension of police powers or a further encroachment on our Rights. But, have no fear. They will run this same gauntlet, yet again, to revise the Second Constitution, each time, granting more powers and obscuring more rights. Each of these is a subversion of the Constitution that created the very government that is intent upon destroying the limitations within the Document, and expanding those powers that were intended to be limited.

So, the final question for you to answer is, which Constitution have you taken your Oath to?

Taxation without Representation

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2002

Early this past year, we were still being told how gracious President George W. Bush (George III) was in allowing the taxpayers (American citizens) to keep the surpluses created by a healthy economy. After all, it was their money, wasn’t it?

The current estimate for the cost of a war (police action) in Iraq is set at $200,000,000,000.00 (two hundred billion dollars), and that is assuming that a government project falls within its original budget.

So far, defense spending, in normal budgetary terms, is at its highest in many years. Though it doesn’t appear that this extremely high budget is any part of the estimated 200 billion.

Two-hundred billion dollars! Just how much money is that? Well, it is over $765.00 for every man, woman and child in this country. A family of four will be contributing over #3,060.00 dollars to a ‘war’ that, we are told, is to protect us.

Early in this century, the mobs ran protection rackets in major cities. For a few dollars here and there, the mob would assure you that you would be protected from the violence that occurred, from time to time, to those who had not chosen to participate in the protection ‘racket’.

Has the government learned from the mob? If so, they are doing far better at it than the mob had ever anticipated. First, the mob numbers, even accounting for inflation, would never amount to over three thousand dollars per household.

Secondly, the mob only sought protection from people who were involved in a business. In the current situation, every taxpayer is going to have to participate, whether an employer or employee, and his participation will have to be increased proportionate to the ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Loosely, he will have to pay about four times what his “fair share” really is. Yes, that’s a whopping $12,000.00 for each and every taxpayer.

But, don’t be discouraged. The government, you see, is much easier to work with than the mob. First, you needn’t anticipate immediate harm, if you fail to pay. In fact, the threat that is the cause for the “protection racket” is rather speculative, to say the least. It is best upon conjecture that Saddam Hussein: has weapons that can cause great harm in this country; has the means of delivering those weapons; has the motivation to deliver them (which, we are trying desperately to provide); and, finally, that he would be willing to deliver them.

Secondly, the government, has much better credit than the mob, is willing to allow your obligation to be carried, from year to year, until satisfied. Realizing that there is no way for each taxpayer to come up with his “fair share”, in addition to the regular protection money that he has been paying, regularly, the government will just “mark up” the debt, and chisel away at it, in years to come (perhaps, many, many years – hopefully, slightly faster than interest will increase the burden).

I’ll bet that you are wondering what this has to do with taxation. Well, let’s see if we can pull the pieces together. First, we must have an understanding of “representation”. I know that we all know that we think that we know what it means. After all, we all know who our “representatives” are, both in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C. They are there to “represent” us.

Let’s begin with a few definitions. First, from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (considered the language of the Founders):
” Representative… 2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. An attorney is the representative of his client or employer. A member of the house of commons is the representative of his constituents and of the nation. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation. ”

From Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth Edition): “Representative. A person chosen by the people to represent their several interests in a legislative body.”

So, it appears by Webster’s (as the Founders would have understood it) that a representative, with the exception of passing “laws” in the interest of the nation, is bound by the instruction of his constituents. The time has passed whence instructions were given, specifically, to the representatives. This process has been replaced in what has become known as “campaign promises”.

In campaign promises, a candidate tell the constituents what he will do when he is elected. The candidate that seems to best represent, ideologically and specifically, the interest of the greater number of voters is elected – and, sent to represent the “several interests” (Black’s) of the people.

I

Now, if your candidate had campaigned under “no new taxes”, he would have to carry that “campaign promise” as an indication of the “several interests” of the people.

So, the question arises, “Does an elected representative, once he violates his campaign promise, cease to represent his constituents?”

II

Congress has specific responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution. One of those, and one which is very significant in the limitations of power which were desired and inherent, when the Constitution was written and ratified, is the “Power … To declare War”.

So, the question arises, “Should an elected representative shirk his Constitutional responsibility, does he cease to represent his constituents?”

III

There is little doubt that real war (declared in accordance with the Constitution), which without might cause a failure in the governmental obligation for “common defense”, is a situation which warrants incurring debt. Like any family, it is the duty of the head of that family NOT to incur such debt as to force his children, and their children into debt before their lifetime begins. The Constitution even assured that a means of bankruptcy would preclude the necessity of burdening posterity with debt of which they had no part.

It should be evident that our representatives in Congress, likewise, except in cases of necessity, cannot burden those yet unborn with obligations to repay debt of which they had no part. To do so, without extraordinary cause, would be to tax those who one could not possibly represent.

So, the question arises: “Should an elected representative impose a tax on someone yet unborn, except under extraordinary circumstances, is he taxing without representation?”

IV

The government of the United States of America exists ONLY because the people caused it to exist. Unlike any government that preceded it, its source is the people, and the people, only.

All other governments, prior to the founding of the United States, were lead by people who had acquired leadership (ownership) of the country by either force; or, divine right (from God).

The creation of that government was under certain conditions. The authority of the government to govern was first granted by the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient authority for the federal government to be able to maintain itself sufficiently to conduct its business.

The Constitution, in order to provide a “more perfect Union” of independent and sovereign states, was created with very specific powers, authorities, and limitations. It was endowed, by the people, with authority and RESPONSIBILITY. As such, it exists ONLY at the will of the people. It represents (stands in the place of) only those to whom it has kept its promise.

To think that we could walk away from government; abolish it by our consent, especially in a representative form of government, is, without question, impossible.

On the other hand, if that contract is breached by the government, they, by their very act of violation, have removed themselves from the contract. The have divested us from that government.

If any of the questions above are answered in the affirmative, the government has violated your consent to be governed by them. They have ceased to have any authority over your life, except that which they can impose by force. Similarly, the only effect you can have on them is by force. You are without (proper or lawful) government, and they are without authority to govern. They could only do so if you were to, again, give your consent to be government under a new contract (whether written, or not).

Have you given your consent?

Merry Christmas 2013
Duck Dynasty as a wonderful moral Christmas present

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
Christmas Eve, 2013

Just a week before Christmas, the Spirit of the Christian Faith has arisen to a degree unseen for decades.  It began when a reality program personality, in an interview, made observations about his faith and the Bible, principally directed at queers – those who have aberrational lifestyles.

In just a few days, the forces of the oppressed people of Christian Faith, or simply, Christian moral values, have come together by the millions to denounce those who would use social, political, or economic pressure to suppress what has been foundational to this country, and land, for nearly four centuries.

Under the guise of political correctness, “tolerance”, and verbicide (the changing of the meaning of a word to effect a social or legal change), our country has been chicaned (past tense of chicanery) into a submissive state, in terms of moral values.

Let’s look at how verbicide works (See Freedom of Speech).  We take a perfectly innocuous word, having a meaning that is readily accepted and has a positive connotation, such as:

Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary (1978)
gay:  1.) happily excited; MERRY, 2 a.)  BRIGHT, LIVELY, b.)  brilliant in color, 3.)  given to social pleasures; also, LICENTIOUS

Now, that third definition may border on immorality, though it is the least significant, and most often referred to the “gay blades” of the aristocracy.

Merriam-Webster on line (2013)
gay:  1 a.)  happily excited: merry <in a gay mood>, b.) keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits <a bird’s gay spring song>, 2 a.)  bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>, b.)  brilliant in color , 3.)  given to social pleasures; also : licentious, 4 a.)  homosexual <gay men>, b.)  of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

In just over thirty years, we have a fourth definition, that, though in fourth place in Merriam-Webster, has become, in common usage, the only remaining definition of the word, as any other definition would tend to assign an improper connotation to the use of the word.

An example would be, say, the old “Donna Reed Show” (1958-1966), where, on occasion, the Stones would be invited to a “gay party” (actual expression in a number of the series episodes).  Of course, it was not a party of queers, rather, it was a party where the atmosphere would be jovial, and there would be humor in the telling of clean jokes.

However, if one were to say that they were going to a “gay party”, today, some would be excited, however most, being those of Christian moral values, would look askance at the person who made such claim.

What has happened is that a change in definition has had the affect of changing the moral and social acceptance of a lifestyle that might best be left in “the closet”.

Once the structure — the verbicide — has come into play, the next step is a demand for tolerance (how can you demand tolerance, isn’t that, in itself, intolerance?).

This call for tolerance came out because of the interview, mentioned above, when GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) responded to what Phil Robertson said, when explaining his religious beliefs.  He explained that there is a logical fit between certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a “not logical” fit.  He then paraphrases Corinthians, in the Bible, when he lumps “the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers” into one lot, those that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

GLAAD spokesperson, Wilson Cruz, condemned his Robertson’s words, saying that “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.”  I do find it interesting when a spokesman for queers asserts his understanding of the Bible and its moral values, contrary to the wording in that Bible.

But, wait, GLAAD admits, by their organization’s name, that they are “Against Defamation”.  So, they, then, defame Robertson for paraphrasing an ancient source of moral values, when they, GLAAD, have probably never taken the time to read, let alone understand, that book that was fundamental to the origination of our country and moral laws.

Instead, he reverts to a one-sided attempt at “tolerance” (the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with), which in his statement, is demonstrative of intolerance.  Cruz continues, “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”  Interesting that the presumption of what the majority believes is coming from one that is desperately seeking acceptance, and presumes to speak for those who have, as a result of both verbicide and “tolerance”, simply remained silent (tolerant) for the sake of “political correctness”.

Perhaps, however, the greatest gift that Providence has given to mankind, in recent times, is this demonstration of the deviation from holding moral principles and values, and the necessity to begin to stand, once again, for those values that are at the very heart of this great nation.

Like fireworks bursting forth, to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ, the rebirth of moral values, and against political correctness, is now bursting forth in a brilliance, and with a magnitude, that will propel us forward an return us to the moral nation that was once, and will be again, the greatest nation on this earth.

With that in mind, let me wish to all,

A Merry Christmas

Habeas Corpus Suspended by the United States Supreme Court
The Sacred Writ has been Removed from the Constitution

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 5, 2013

What is Habeas Corpus?

There is only one Right embodied in the Constitution; the remainder are found in the Bill of Rights.  For the most part, the Constitution created a government and granted it only certain powers and authorities.  So, what right is so significant as to be included within the Constitution, while the Bill of Rights was not adopted until 2 years later?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.  [Article I, §9, cl. 2]

What?  That says “Privilege”.  Well, a “Privilege” is a right that can be suspended, under certain circumstances.  Those circumstances are only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”, and, being in Article I, of the Constitution, the authority to suspend that right lies only with the Congress.

If you were old enough, or fortunate enough, to have been taught about Habeas Corpus in your early schooling, you would know that it is the “sacred writ” and that it means, “produce the body”.  Well, that doesn’t tell you a lot, though it does demonstrate that even in school, the assurance that you had a rudimentary understanding of what Habeas Corpus was a part of the educational process.

So, what is Habeas Corpus?  We can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, to find what a modern definition is:

habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent. 

This is the well-known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ in the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the Courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Perhaps we can look for a more specific explanation of just what it means by “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment.”  Detention, of course, would be simply “arrest”, while imprisonment is a consequence of conviction.  This is important to understand, as we proceed.  Now, we can see what some legal scholars, in the era of the framing of the Constitution, have to say.

First, we will look at the very foundation of Habeas Corpus in the Magna Carta, from 1215 A.D., which states, in Article 39, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Now, as you continue to read, you will see reference to “ill nature [or] mere inattention of government“; “repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors”; and, that it is “the great bulwark of personal liberty.”  Understand, regardless of what you have believed, that the Framers were concerned, as they understood human nature, and provided for, not in the Bill of Rights, but, in the body of the Constitution, this single means, this right, to challenge unconstitutional laws, giving the people, themselves, the means to nullify such enactments that were contrary to the powers and authorities granted by the Constitution.

In 1768, William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, says of the writ, “A remedy the more necessary, because the oppression does not always arise from the ill-nature, but sometimes from the mere inattention of government.”

In 1829, William Rawle, in his “A View of the Constitution of the United States”, tells us that it “is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors.”

Finally, in 1833, Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, provides that, “At the common law there are various writs, called writs of habeas corpus.  But the particular one here spoken of is that great and celebrated writ, used in all cases of illegal confinement, known by the name of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum...  It is, therefore, justly esteemed the great bulwark of personal liberty.”

There is another aspect of Habeas Corpus that is not addressed in any of the above descriptions, though, as we will learn as we continue down this road, the Supreme Court of the United States has also ruled that since there is both a federal constitution and a constitution within each state, jurisdiction is a consideration of Habeas Corpus, as well.

Demand for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is two things; first, it is the demand for a writ of habeas corpus.  It is not automatic, and absent such request, there is no reason for the courts to even consider it.  Second is the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, which, in past practice, required that the party incarcerated be brought before the court to determine if his imprisonment is legal.

So, we can look, once again, to the legal scholars, to see what they say about the demand.  However, before we do this, there is another source from which modern Habeas Corpus emanates, and we shall consider it.

In 1679, the first Habeas Corpus Act was enacted in England.  From that Act, we find:

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers, under-keeper or under-keepers, or deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the returns aforesaid… shall for the first offence forfeit to the prisoner or party grieved the sum of one hundred pounds; (2) and for the second offence the sum of two hundred pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said office…

So, we see that punishment for failure to respond to a writ of habeas corpus has penalties.

And, from Blackstone, we find, “it was, and is still, necessary to apply for it by motion to the court,… [that] if a probable ground be shewn, that the party is imprisoned without just cause, and therefore hath a right to be delivered, the writ of habeas corpus is then a writ of right, which may not be denied, but ought to be granted to every man that is committed, or detained in prison, or otherwise restrained, though it be by the command of the king, the privy council, or any other.”

So, the question arises, can the court not issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus, without showing cause why it should not be issued?  To answer this, we must first understand just what “suspend” means.  From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Suspend – To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

Is Habeas Corpus Suspended?

Habeas Corpus, being a “writ of right”, as explained above, has a status similar to an “objection” during a trial.  Once demanded, it must be answered, prior to proceeding, as the objection will be “sustained” or “overruled” before proceeding.  Habeas Corpus, once demanded, is treated equally, in that it must be answered, prior to proceeding.  That answer can be either a refusal to grant the writ, based upon grounds expressed by the opposing party, or it must be granted and the writ issued.

It is significant, in terms of timeliness, to understand that when the writ is demanded, from 28 U.S.C. § 2243:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith [immediately] award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.  It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The judge or justice must respond to the demand immediately, and then the person having custody has three days, except for cause, which extends those three days up to twenty.  That is a requirement for a timely response, by the judicial branch, to a demand for habeas corpus.

So, we must begin at the beginning to understand that Habeas Corpus has been not only suspended, but has been blatantly ignored by the Judicial Branch of government, at every level; absent any lawful suspension by the Congress.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was served on the jailers of Larry Mikiel Myers on January 27, 2012, direct to the Court.  This Demand was also mailed directly to the Sheriff, who should have forwarded it to the District Court Judge.  Mr. Myers received no response and was tried in the District Court beginning February 9, 2012.  The trial should not have commenced until the Habeas Corpus was answered.

A Demand for Habeas Corpus was prepared and sent, Certified Return Receipt, on February 10, 2012, to the District Court, the Sheriff, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, the Florida Supreme Court.  It was received by all parties on February 12, 2012.  The Sheriff and the District Court never acknowledged the service.

The 11th Circuit replied by returning the Demand for Habeas Corpus and saying that it must be filed with the District Court, and referenced FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) 22, which states, “Application for the Original Writ.  An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the appropriate district court.  If made to a circuit judge, the application must be transferred to the appropriate district court.”  So, even though their rules state that THEY must transfer it to the District Court, They chose to pass it back to the Petitioner, avoiding dealing with their obligation to justice.

The Florida Supreme Court returned the Demand claiming that they had no jurisdiction — contrary to the record in which Wisconsin, in fulfilling its obligation to its citizens, twice, granted habeas corpus so that it could be taken to the United States Supreme Court.

So, the lower courts have failed to answer and return habeas corpus, effectively denying it, or, perhaps, since their own rules establish procedures, they “suspended” habeas corpus, arbitrarily and capriciously; and permanently.

This left only one recourse to assure that Mr. Myer could get a fair ruling on the constitutionality of the laws he was charged under.  If the Constitution still had standing in the government of the United States, original jurisdiction was forced, by inaction of the lower courts, to the United States Supreme Court — which is obligated to assure that the people of the United States have justice.

On November 26, 2012, the Petition for Habeas Corpus was submitted to the United States Supreme Court.  It was directed to Justice Antonin Scalia as the designated Justice for the Fifth Circuit, where Mr. Myers is currently incarcerated.  The Rules provide that the appropriate Justice may hear a habeas corpus, and in a review of Supreme Court decisions where the original jurisdiction (first hearing) of a habeas corpus was before that Court, it was always heard and decided by a single Justice.  However, the Clerk’s office, through seven rounds of correspondence, refused to direct it to Scalia, changed the caption from “In Re Larry Mikiel Myers” to “In Re Gary Hunt”, where the record shows that the incarcerated person is the proper name for the caption, not the “attorney of record.”

In an effort to correct these errors, on September 22, 2013, an “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus” (a Mandamus is an order for an official to perform his duty)  (Exhibits to Mandamus) was served on the Court.  Receiving NO response, whatever, to that Petition, a follow up letter was sent on October 12, and no response has been forthcoming regarding the Mandamus.  It would appear as if they can’t respond to something with legal authorities, they just don’t respond.

The final effort at disposing of the original Petition by the Clerk’s office was a claim that I had no right, as a non-attorney, to file a Petition of Habeas Corpus on behalf of another party, Mr. Myers (See Mandamus and Exhibit 9 to Mandamus, linked above).  A 1990 Supreme Court decision dispelled that claim (you would think that the Clerk’s office should know what decision the Court had made in that matter), wherein the decision did allow one in my position to file on behalf of Mr. Myers.  The Petition was finally put on the Docket on June 29, 2013, to be discussed in Conference on September 3, 2013.  That Conference then DENIED the Petition.  Subsequently, a Petition for Rehearing was filed, within the requisite time frame, for a November 26, 2013 (exactly one year after the first service to that Court — so much for being timely) Conference, and this, too, was subsequently DENIED on December 2, 2013.

Who can Suspend Habeas Corpus?

“Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ.”

“The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article.  This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.  It begins by providing “that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.”  And after prescribing the manner in which these two branches of the legislative department shall be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants [and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits]; and at the conclusion of this specification, a clause is inserted giving congress “the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

The above from Ex Parte Merryman, Circuit Court D, Maryland, April Term 1861, Decision by Supreme Court Justice Robert B. Taney.

Now, there may be some ambiguity in just what is meant by “suspend”, so we will refer to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily…

However, if Congress were to suspend Habeas Corpus, it would have to be an enactment, by them, stating what the cause was, rebellion or invasion, and other matters that would advise us that they had temporarily, suspended habeas corpus, and when the “suspension’ would be concluded.  Any other denial of that right would be a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.  On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has simply done away with Article I, Section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution — they have simply removed it from the Constitution — a blatant and unmitigated violation of the Constitution.

The Petition for Rehearing

Some of the arguments presented in the Petition for Rehearing include:

A court has a legal and constitutional obligation to answer and return a Writ of Habeas Corpus, when demanded.  When the District Court refuses to answer and return, the next step is the Circuit Court.  When the Circuit Court refuses, in violation of their own Rules, to send the Demand for Habeas Corpus to the District Court, and refuses to answer and return, that leaves only this Supreme Court in which a citizen may find remedy, by answer and return.

To Deny this Petition [for Rehearing] is to Deny the obligation on government created by Article I, § 9, clause 2.

To Deny to answer and return the Demand for Habeas Corpus is to Deny the Constitution, itself — and the government created thereby.

This last argument is based upon a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1787, they being cognizant of the relationship and responsibility of the government to its constitution.  The case is Bayard v. Singleton (1 N.C. 42):

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

That is the consequence of a government failing to abide by its responsibility under a constitution.

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

From: Supreme Court Docket 13-5008

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

So, there, you have it.  If you understand what the Supreme Court has done to remove that sacred right embodied in the Constitution, you might also realize that if this is to change, it will be to the benefit of ourselves, our Posterity, the Constitution, and the insight of the Framers who wanted to give us a form of government that would not find us resorting to our “duty”, according to the Declaration of Independence, to secure our Liberties”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

I believe that, if we can muster our forces, the Supreme Court needs to be put on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.  This would require a massive effort to get the information out to as many as possible, such as:

To your Congressional Representatives, as the Court has usurped their authority.

To radio and TV talk shows.

To patriot websites.

To everybody on your mailing lists, with a request that they pass it on to all of their lists, show hosts, representatives, etc.

Let the Court of Public Opinion Convene

The People and the Constitution v. United States Supreme Court

 A PDF of this article, suitable for forwarding to contacts or representatives:

Habeas Corpus Removed from the Constitution

There is more to this story at Another Story Behind the Story

Appeasement
Giving in, inch by inch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2013

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

Appease
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

So, what does appeasement have to do with anything?  Perhaps pacifying or placating someone would avoid potential problems.  It can’t be a bad approach, can it?

Perhaps a brief history of appeasement, as applied from a political standpoint, just about seven decades ago, will give us a better understanding of the consequences of appeasement.  So, let’s look at a brief history of appeasement leading up to the beginning of World War II.

Appeasement and World War II

At the close of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles set certain conditions on the losers, especially Germany.  Among those was a limitation of 100,000 troops in their army.  It also limited the size of their Navy in both manpower and ships.

In 1935, Germany began rearming beyond the limitations set forth in the Treaty of Versailles.  After discussions between Italy, Britain, France, and Germany, nothing was done to force Germany into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles.  This was appeasement.

In 1936, Germany, under Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, sent military forces into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty.  Though protests were made by Britain and France, nothing was done to stop this violation of the Treaty.  Britain claimed to lack the forces to back up France, leaving Hitler unopposed, and establishing a powerful strategic position.  This was appeasement.

In 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain.  The following year, Hitler sought the reunification of Germany and Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and sent German Wehrmacht troops into Austria to force the reunification.  Chamberlain’s reaction was to state, “The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force.”  This was appeasement.

In 1938, Germans, who found themselves living in the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, because of the boundaries drawn up in the Treaty of Versailles, under instruction from Hitler, sought autonomy.  Chamberlain warned Hitler that Britain might intervene if Hitler ordered an attack on Czechoslovakia.  Chamberlain went to Germany to meet with Hitler and Hitler demanded the Sudetenland be absorbed into Germany.  He convinced Chamberlain that refusal would result in war.  Chamberlain, with agreement from France, told the Czechoslovakian president that he must hand to Germany all of the territory with a German majority population.  This included over 800,000 people, substantial amounts of industry, and substantial portions of the Czechoslovakian mountain defense installations, thus providing an insecure Western Czechoslovakian border, ripe for subsequent invasion.  In late September, Hitler, Chamberlain, the French Prime Minister, and Mussolini of Italy, met in Munich, Germany.  They agreed that Hitler could complete his occupation of Sudetenland.  This was appeasement.

On September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland.  France and England were forced to enter war against Germany.  The policy of appeasement had only encouraged Hitler, and in May 1940, Chamberlain stepped down and Winston Churchill, who had consistently opposed appeasement, became Prime Minister.

During the years of appeasement, Hitler increased his military and armament, increased his strength, increased his access to natural resources and food supplies, increased his industrial capacity, and increased the size of Germany.  While other nations apologized for Hitler’s actions, he continued on a course that compounded the difficulty of dealing with the problem, when the appeasers finally recognized the error of their ways.

Had appeasement not been the practice of the day, and a firm position taken in 1934, the problem could have been dealt with and would probably have been but a minor incident in history.  As each step of the appeasement progressed, the magnitude of the problem became greater.  After a mere five years of appeasement, the solution to the problem resulted in deaths of many tens of millions of people and many trillions of dollars both in fighting the war that followed and rebuilding after the destruction of that war.

Appeasement Today

One of the elements of the greatness of America was an immigration policy that, until the Civil War, limited citizenship to those of European ancestry.  Even after the war, immigration was based upon quotas and other educational or experience criteria, and, for the most part, was open to any that chose to come to America, assimilate into the American way of life, and contribute to its greatness.

In the past three decades, immigration standards have been reduced to an open door policy.  The quotas that provided for limited immigration, resulting in assimilation, were dropped.  We began becoming a relocation destination for refugees who stood on our side in the wars that we continue to start, and to lose.  These newer policies have allowed entire communities to retain the heritage, culture, and lifestyle of their country of origin, and have effectively nullified the concept of assimilation.

Under the guise of multiculturalism, we have also opened our doors to just about anybody, regardless of their motivation, allowing floods of people who have no aspirations of assimilation, rather who come here for what they can get without effort, or, perhaps, with even more devious intentions.  However, to pacify world opinion created by our support for multiculturalism, and, to placate those who wish to come here, we have developed a policy of appeasement on immigration.

What might be the consequences of this policy of appeasement?  Perhaps we can take an American city and evaluate the consequence of this rampant immigration.  So, we will look at Dearborn, Michigan.  Of the estimated population of over 98,000 people, 40,000 are either Muslim or from Muslim countries (Wikipedia).  At this point, it is safe to say that they constitute 40% of the voting potential, regardless of the makeup of the remaining population.  Considering normal voting turnout, with a little motivation, the Muslims would have a majority in local elections.  The consequence would be that rather than assimilation into the American lifestyle, we would see a conversion of Dearborn into a Middle Eastern city and could eventually expect that local laws would be changed by that majority into laws foreign to the nature of America.  Putting it bluntly, they would, by utilizing the mechanism of democracy, convert Dearborn into a city ruled by Sharia Law.  As those laws change so, too, will the culture of a once American city.

That was one American city.  Let’s look at a county.  The population of Los Angeles County is 9.9 million people (LA Times blog).  The Hispanic population is 4.9 million people (Pew Research).  That constitutes over 49% of the population.  Based upon estimates (Los Angeles Almanac), the illegal immigrant population of Los Angeles County is over 700,000.  This would raise the number of Hispanics to 53%.  La Raza and other Hispanic organizations, asserting that California was stolen from the Mexicans, may soon be able to vote Los Angeles County out of the United States and into Aztlán.

Presumably, in the former, the population is a result of the lax immigration laws and open door policy.  In the latter, many are “old Mexican”, whose families have been here for generations, however, the remainder, except as noted, are comprised of those who became legal immigrants as a result of the 1986 amnesty, or, anchor babies and their associated families.

As these demographics continue to change, we can expect more cities and more counties to succumb to such consequences as we see in these two examples.  Appeasement, supported by court decisions, providing a spurious sense of blanket equality — even allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections (USA Today – Justices: Arizona voter registration rules go too far) — allows the growth of a problem that, as time goes on, will, as we saw in World War II, compound itself to the point that the solution becomes almost insurmountable, and will result in a hodgepodge of many pseudo-nations within the United States.

We have addressed to geopolitical aspects of appeasement and how they might affect the future of our once great nation.  Now, we can look into more subtle aspects of appeasement and the effect that they are having on our society.  You will note with both the above and those that follow, that one side (the appeaser) gives ground and weakens, while the other gains ground and strengthens.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on our children

ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a relatively new disease.  It has resulted in the drugging of hundreds of thousands of juveniles with psychotropic drugs.  Those same drugs appear to be associated with nearly every school shooting by a student.  If we look at the statistics, we will find that community referrals are 3 to 1 more likely to occur in boys than girls.  In clinic referrals, we find that the ratio extends to 10 to 1 (NIH/National Center for Biotechnology Information).  And in the female occurrences, it is defined as “inattentive type”, being less severe.  These numbers suggest that either the male is far more susceptible to ADHD than the female, or, perhaps, it is a consequence of the male tendency to be more active, and less passive, than the female.  Since our educational system has, by various means, endeavored to feminize the educational process by prohibiting physical contact sports, suggestions of guns or violence, and forced the male to participate in activities that were, just a few generations ago, considered to be in the realm of female passiveness.  Is it possible that the observation and determination of ADHD is a consequence of the depression that is a result of leaving the football field and having to participate in activities that are more feminine?  When you remove the “slugs and snails and puppy dog tails” and forced the masculine gender into “sugar and spice and everything nice,” can you expect the consequences to be other than what is described as ADHD?  Is acceptance of the government’s explanation appeasement?

Appeasement on militarization of police

“To Protect and To Serve” has been the motto of most police departments, for at least the last half century.  Recently, however, we have seen a marked movement towards that “protection” being redefined as “officer safety” (WSJ / Rise of the Warrior Cop).  As a consequence, and as the equipment becomes militarized, where officers are far more protected than they were decades ago, we see an increase in the level of violence directed at citizens, quite often in the comfort of their own home.  In 2005, there were 364 “arrest related deaths” (DOJ / Arrest-Related Deaths in the United States,).  In that same year, only 162 officers died in the line of duty, of which only 60 were shot (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial).  The government provides semi automatic and full automatic rifles to law enforcement, they provide military style helicopters to law enforcement, they provide military style armored vehicles to law enforcement, they have assigned drones to support law enforcement, and, they continue to provide additional military level equipment and training to law enforcement.  At the same time, many elements of government are attempting to restrict our right of self-defense, making us absolutely submissive to the law enforcement community.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on Christianity

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian moral values.  From courtroom to the executive office, the Bible has been the device upon which oaths were taken.  Christmas time and Eastertide have been celebrated throughout our history.  The United States Supreme Court building contains at least six depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments.  Recently, however, we have seen rejection of Christmas displays and Easter celebrations in our schools and other government locations, under the guise that the First Amendment prohibits them, though they had been celebrated openly on government property from the founding of our country until just a few decades ago.  There can be no doubt as to the role of Christianity in our history and heritage; however, as they are pushed out, we find that we have laid a red carpet out for Islam.  Many minarets, with speakers, loudly announce prayer early in the morning.  Muslims are allowed to lay down their prayer rugs and pray in streets, sidewalks, airports, and other public areas.  We are told that we are not to offend their practice of their religion.  Is this appeasement?

Conclusion

Appeasement, like any other disease, if treated early, lessens the damage.  Like cancer, if caught soon enough, total remission is quite possible.  However, if untreated, it will continue to grow, leading ultimately to the demise of the host.

Its introduction, like the Trojan Horse, is subtle and accepted.  If not recognized before introduction, where it can be denied admission, then as early as possible, as soon as it is recognized, remedial action must be taken.  Absent such treatment, the objectives of the interloper, instead of the host, will be achieved.

Its introduction is usually preceded by the utilization of “Political Correctness”.  Under the guise of Freedom of Speech, the host tends to drop its guard, often under the fear of ostracization, or even judicial punishment.  Political correctness is foundational to creating an air of acceptability, where ones true thoughts are suppressed – under the guise of being for the “common good”.

Appeasement is nothing less than the creation of an advantage for the opposing side.  Unless and until recognized, it serves none other than the host.  Once recognized, remedial action is absolutely necessary, at the earliest possible moment, to avoid the consequences that will ultimately follow.  Acquiescence to appeasement has only one conclusion — the social engineering of a society, contrary to its very nature.

National Parks Held Hostage

Just what is a “public” park?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 12, 2013

Recent events have demonstrated that the US government is more than willing to create any inconvenience, whether lawful, or not, in an effort to achieve their ends. This has become abundantly apparent in the closure of portions of National Parks, without regard to the cost, or the inconvenience and private costs, as a consequence thereof.  Concessions within the parks and nearby communities dependant on the tourism brought by the parks have been financially devastated, while government revenues from leases and fees have disappeared, though cost of enforcement of shutdowns has brought upon the government additional costs. This, however, is information readily available, even in Mainstream Media.

To understand just what has happened with these parks, and just how the government has taken upon themselves the ‘responsibility’ of, as their mission states, “Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future”, and at the same time, denying us, the Public, access to those parks, can best be explained by a review of the creation of these monuments to the heritage of America.

These parks are “Public Lands”. To understand just what “Public Land” are, perhaps we need to understand what “Public” means, or, at least, what it meant to the Framers of the Constitution , and, at the time that the parks and public lands came into being. To really understand this, we must look at what “public” meant to them, not as we are conditioned to believe, now, that if it is “public”, then it belongs to the government.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public n. : The general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community; the people, indefinitely.

Public a. :
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 individuals or a corporation only.
3.  Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.
4.  Regarding a community; directed to the interests of a nation, state or community.
6.  Open to common use; as a public road.
7.  In general public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.

So, in the noun form, it means the general body of a nation. That is not the government, that is us. When used as an adjective (preceding “land”), it is “extending to a whole people”, not the government; “exposed to all persons without restriction”; “open to common use”; or, “something common to mankind” and “is opposed to private” in any form that is not all inclusive. It does not mean “government”, which job is strictly to manage the business of government.

So, with that understood, let’s look at the creation of the first two great parks created in this country, Yosemite and Yellowstone.

Yosemite was first given to the State of California, since a National Park system had yet to be established, though the land had to be set aside to protect it from commercial usage. On June 30, 1864, the Congress approved “An Act authorizing a Grant to the State of California of the ‘Yo-Semite Valley,’ and the Land embracing the ‘Mariposa Big Tree Grove.’” That Act provides “[t]hat there shall be, and is hereby, granted to the State of California” and “that the said State shall accept this grant upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time”. It further provided that “All incomes derived from leases of privileges to be expended in the preservation and improvement of the property, or the roads leading thereto.” Later, Yosemite was incorporated into the National Park system, though the intent of the creation of the park, “that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time,” is clearly stated, and the that income from the park will provide  for the “preservation and improvement”.

Clearly, the preservation of the park was outside of government and was to be paid for by those monies collected from fees, lease, and any other source, making the park a self-sustaining entity.

Just 6 years later, the first “national park” was created by “An Act To set apart a certain tract of land lying near the head-waters of the Yellowstone River as a public park,” signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant, on March 1, 1872.  This Act states that the land “is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” Though not in the Act, funding was to be similar to that approved for Yosemite — it was to be self-sustaining. Not that “public” and “people” have become interchangeable, and do not mean “government.”

Both acts provided for protection of the land, vegetation, and animals, and to remove people who attempted to settle on those lands. However, with the exceptions provided, nothing allowed the removal of the public, for the purposes stated; as a public park, resort, recreation, and pleasuring-ground.

So, the parks were established from the public lands to specific purposes, for our (the public) benefit and enjoyment. They were self-sustaining, and unalienable.  How came they, then, to be utilized as a political tool, denying access, prohibiting parking, denial of use to leases with the respective loss of revenue, and, subject to the funding of the general government, rather than the resources that were provide at their establishment?

The intent, at their inception, was, without a doubt, well thought out and of nothing but good intentions. Subsequently, bureaucrats with small minds have promulgated rules, in defiance with the enactments of Congress, converting the parks into ‘private’ entities, owned by the government. Further, the government,. by the means of “general funding”, have taken from the parks their intended source of finance and incorporated it into the general fund budget, thereby removing the self-sustaining aspect initiated by the Congress. The government, especially the Executive Branch, has seized the “public lands” and “public parks” for their own private purposes, to be used to reward, or punish, as they see fit, that which is, by right, ours, and not to be used in the manner that has now removed them from their intended purpose.

With that in mind, what are we, the PUBLIC, going to do about it?

Understanding the Tenth Amendment

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 27, 2013

The Bill of Rights was ratified after the Constitution because many feared that the government created by the Constitution might overreach the limitations imposed upon it.  This is explained in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.  Preamble means: The introductory… showing the meaning or intent.

(from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

The last, of those adopted, was the Tenth Amendment:

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

The first four articles in the Constitution grant power and authority, or, limit power and authority, defining also some authority and limitations upon the states.  However, since the Constitution dealt in generalities, and since there were many areas of concern that were not addressed in the Constitution, the first 8 amendments were ratified as rights protected and the last two broadly provided for a retention of rights not enumerated and an assertion of authority in the absence of such enumeration.

So, let’s look at the elements of the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution“, means what it says.  It identifies, in general terms, (primarily enumerated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution) those powers not specifically granted to the general (federal) government.

Then, “nor prohibited by it to the States“, addresses those grants and limitations from Article I, Sections 9 and 10.

So, now we have identified those items that, if not so identified, “are reserved to the States respectively“, though there is no provision in the Constitution that would provide for the states to assert such authority, since the 17th Amendment removed the election of Senators from the State Legislature, and made them elected directly by the people.  This removed them from any obligation to the State, as represented by its legislature, and made them simply longer termed, higher paid, representatives, thereby removing the assurance of state input in federal matters, as discussed in the Federalist Papers and the Notes of the Constitutional Convention.  That original authority (state’s ability to nullify laws, constitutional, or not) ceased to exist.  This leaves only the means that were often discussed, and once applied, of nullification by secession.  In that one application of such nullification, the cost, in money and lives, provides ample discouragement for future endeavors.

This leads us to the final phrase, “or to the people“.  Is there, within the Constitution, a provision which provides an individual (a people) the means to challenge an unconstitutional law — one without constitutional authority for its enactment, at least as applied to the people?  Surprisingly, there is one provision, Article I, Section 9, clause 2, which reads: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

As William Rawle said (1829) of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, “it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors“.

To learn more about the “sacred writ”, its history and Supreme Court decisions that prove the veracity of what Rawle said, go to Habeas Corpus – The Guardian of Liberty.

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

Habeas Corpus
A New Understanding

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 19, 2012

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

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

Just a few historical quotations regarding the Sacred Writ:

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

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

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

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

“Reasons will be given hereafter for considering many of the restrictions, contained in the amendments to the Constitution, as extending to the states as well as to the United States, but the nature of the writ of habeas corpus seems peculiarly to call for this construction. It is the great remedy of the citizen or subject against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment; it is the mode by which the judicial power speedily and effectually protects the personal liberty of every individual, and repels the injustice of unconstitutional laws or despotic governors“.  [“A View of the Constitution of the United States”, William Rawles (1829)]

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

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

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

“§ 1333. In order to understand the meaning of the terms here used, it will be necessary to have recourse to the common law; for in no other way can we arrive at the true definition of the writ of habeas corpus. At the common law there are various writs, called writs of habeas corpus. But the particular one here spoken of is that great and celebrated writ, used in all cases of illegal confinement, known by the name of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,” [“Commentaries on the Constitution”, Joseph Story (1833)]

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

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

Also:

Habeas Corpus 2012

Has Habeas Corpus Been Eliminated

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

Freedom of Speech

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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