Outpost of Freedom blog

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.

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom.

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

An Argument For Moral Courage

Part II

By David Allison

Contagion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cloward and Piven and Other Cultural Manipulators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because YouTube said so…

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 23, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press and the Patriot Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 31, 2010

For decades, the patriot community has been demonized by the government, and, by the mainstream media.  We can understand why the government desires to impose a negative image upon those who would require them to abide by the Constitution, the document that created that government that supports them and subsidizes their rather pretentious lifestyle.  We can also understand that the media, through various organizations and affiliations, is closely-knit with the government, and will, absent an easy alternative, present news in a manner that is acceptable to those who pretend to govern.

It’s not so much that the press wants to deceive the American public, though there is, to some extent (see The Press in Waco), that motivation, more significantly, it wants life to be easy, and, once committed to a story line, it becomes even more difficult to admit errors in previous stories.

An example of the tendency of a “story” gaining strength, even though inaccurate, and the perception, by the public, of that story, tending to become truth, is explained in A Prima Facie Story.

Understanding how the press works provides us a means to have a more significant effect on what s, ultimately, presented to the public.  If we provide fuel of a negative nature, they will use that fuel, since it will, most likely, support the government line.  This makes it very important for us to provide fuel that cannot be turned against us.  In addition, this has to be early in the game, before the press becomes fixed in their story line.

In Waco, the press was not as bad as it could have been.  Part of this can be explained by the duration, since over time, more truths, and more fallacies, come to light.  The number of foreign reporters who often avoided the press conferences, and, in a traditional manner, sought people with knowledge to understand what was happening can also explain the source of a bit of pressure for more truthfulness.  However, the full truth was not presented, in a forum for public consumption, until accurate documentaries managed to push aside the inaccurate documentaries, and truth did, finally, prevail.

In April 1995, Timothy McVeigh bombed a United States courthouse in Oklahoma City.  Between Waco and that bombing, thousands of patriots, outraged over what had happened in Waco were crying for action.  Going to Washington, D.C. and hanging the traitors, bombing government buildings, and military action against the FBI and BATF were discussed, and agreed to as practical polices, in light of what occurred in Waco, though, as we understand now, bravery is easy at a distance.

To provide some insight into what happened in Oklahoma City, I did extensive research, including responding to invitations from a number of people in Oklahoma City to go there and speak with them.  These included the press, Glenn Wilburn (grandfather to the twins that his stepdaughter lost in the bombing, and the McVeigh defense team.  Though I had already mailed McVeigh most of what I had written (Oklahoma City Bombing) up to that point, I sent copies into him through Richard Reyna, of the defense team.  I was trying to get an interview with McVeigh.  Reyna thought it would be a good idea, but Stephen Jones quashed the meeting.  The best that I could get was Reyna bringing a message from Tim, “Close, real close”, regarding what I had written.  Subsequently, I corresponded with McVeigh up until his execution (see McVeigh’s Forum, which is comprised, except for introductory statements, only information send to me by McVeigh, including the picture).  I have also read “American Terrorist” by Michel and Herbeck, which was recommended by McVeigh, though was not published until after the Execution.

Given the information that I have compiled, and setting aside unsubstantiated claims and ‘technical facts’, that can be disputed by other experts, I can only conclude that McVeigh did what he did for the reasons that he said he did it.  However, assuming that he did, in fact, follow the direction set out by those thousands of patriots, and bomb the Murrah Building, something went awry, and the patriot community picked up a story line that lead the government in providing bad press to the patriot community.  This “public relations” lapse resulted in a near total decimation of the patriot community and the militia, which lasted for years.  So, what went wrong?

When McVeigh bombed the building, even before his name was mentioned, certain outspoken members of the community (Bo Gritz, Linda Thompson, Mark Koernke, to name a few) began ‘disclaiming’ that there could be any involvement by the patriot community.  I have often wondered how they managed to be so sure that others in the community would have obtained their blessings, or felt obligated to inform them of any actions that were contemplated or conducted.  It is a bit presumptuous to assume that we had then, or have now, a command structure that would allow spokesmen to have full knowledge of goings on.

It is important to understand that the recognized (by the press) spokesmen for the patriot community achieved their prominence because the pres let them achieve that prominence.  However, they did not speak for much more than themselves, the press said that they spoke for us, and, we believed them.

Now, what might be referred to as “The McVeigh Syndrome” comes into play.  Because of the onslaught against McVeigh, tendered by the government, supported by “our spokesmen”, and supported, to the hilt (since there was no strong opposing story line) by the press, we find that probably 98% of the patriot community signed on” to that line.  They had, so to speak, gotten on the bandwagon.  To get off of that bandwagon is not an easy task, so most chose to stay on the bandwagon and support the story that had be shoved down our throats by the press.

Back to Waco, there was a video presented (by a member of our community) that purported to show a flame throwing tank being used on the Church in Waco.  Though there were many indications that it could not be a flame-throwing tank, the story line (bandwagon) maintained top billing for many years.  Finally, however, the truth did prevail, and most of the community realizes that there was no flame-throwing tank.

It appears that we do prefer to hear what we want to hear.  It also appears that when choices are presented, early on, that we will choose from those available and then design what we want to hear upon that which we have select.  At that point, little else matters.  We will support our bandwagon regardless of evidence, logic, common sense, or indisputable proof to the contrary.

This leaves us with the necessity to get information out, as early as possible, so that those who broadcast, and formulate the opinion that most will develop, will have an opportunity to have a positive consideration of the matter available to them, while they are forming their stories.  It is rather apparent that they cannot think while standing, so the information has to be provided to them so that it is, at least, available for their consideration.  If it is sufficient to the purpose, it may provide them the means to keep from looking like a fool, and perpetuating that foolishness, since other possibilities might just make more sense than what the government has said.

We can look back to incidents in the past, such as the Viper Militia, in Phoenix, and the West Virginia Militia, back in the nineties.  Arrests were made, stories got out, and then they were held to.  Even though informants were involved in both instances, the public opinion was formulated without our participation.  The result was that nobody was let out on bail, nor did the press every really deal with many of the truths of those incidents.

More recently, the Hutaree Militia was charged with planning to attack a funeral procession for a police officer, hoping to kick off a war with the government.  The press picked up the story and started with their pronouncement of guilt.  However, there were a number of articles written that questioned the entire ‘crime’ (see Thought Crimes).  Surprisingly, the press seemed to back down, and, bail was set for the accused.  Once another side is presented, it becomes more difficult for the press to participate in the demonization, and, it may trickle down, if not to the government, at least, to the courts.

People have suggested that the government does not care what we write or what we say.  I would suggest that this is only partly true.  During the Waco siege, I sent out, vie American Patriot Fax Network, daily reports of what was happening in Waco (Waco White Papers).  I had arranged that the FBI headquarters in Waco would be one of the first to receive the reports, which were sent out nightly.  To things occurred that showed that there is concern if what we write makes sense and poses a threat to the government line.  Though I was ‘removed’ from the press conferences on March 21, I did follow them.  Quite often, what I had written the night before would be addressed by the government in their opening monologue at the press conference.  It appears that they wanted to do damage control, and were concerned about what was being written

Most of the people from out of town, government and patriot alike, ate at the Waco IHOP restaurant.  It was the only decent 24 hour restaurant (Denny’s had lousy food and worse service).  Bob Ricks did not smoke, but he was sitting in the smoking room, one morning, as we came in for breakfast.  When I walked into the smoking room, I noticed that one of my faxes was on top of his pile of paperwork.  He glanced up, noticed me, and slid the fax under some other papers and look back down to his coffee.  There is little doubt that, though they will never admit it, they are concerned about what we write if it is well written especially in opening other thoughts up for discussion.

Probably most important, however, is what we write and what we say.  The government will pounce (as they did in OKC) on outlandish or unsupportable stories.  If the story is not well written and includes conjecture or theory, especially some of the more outlandish ones, the government loves the, On the other hand, if it poses legitimate questions; presents plausible scenarios; and, does not include anything that will subject it to public ridicule, the government is, well, quite concerned.

Another problem arises when the press wants to interview someone.  If that person is not well versed in the trickery and chicanery that the press uses to entice statements that can be misconstrued, they will trap the novice into providing a sound bite that will end up biting the interviewee.  And, it is amazing how far some bad press can go.

The press will be there. The press will cover the story. It is up to us to do what we can to assure that we get the best coverage that we can — for the message that goes out across the country will garner support for our side, or make us enemies, it will depend on how we work with that necessary evil — the press.

The bottom line is that we need to improve the competence in our communication with the MSM.  We need to designate well-qualified people to act as spokesmen for a group or activity.  These spokesmen need not be members of the activity or organization, and when security requires it, it is probably better that they not be.  This always allows, if necessary, for avoidance or disclaimer.

It is important to have contact information when press releases are sent out, but the contact can anticipate spending a lot of time dealing with communicating, for failure to respond is, often, worse than any response could be.  It tends to generate a “we don’t care about you” attitude, which forces the other side, doing their job, to resent the lack of willingness to respond.  Further, it often leaves unanswered questions to the other person to “fill in the blanks”.  Even if the question cannot, or should not, be answered, the courtesy of politely stating such will help establish the rapport  that will, in the long run, benefit our side, and our story.

The Demise of America

Gary Hunt
July 4, 2010 (and the 234th year of our Independence)

 [Note: I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Trey Tasker for review and editing this article.]

Where we began

America!  Just what is America?  Well, for a few centuries, it was the ideal of individual freedom and prosperity.  It was the hallmark of self-government, and it was the ultimate salvation of two major efforts of world conquest.  It was the deciding factor in both world wars, and was the refuge for those oppressed, elsewhere.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a great experiment that had proven itself over all other forms of government and a foundation of moral values, which, un-retarded, had provided a commitment to the rest of the world for aid in achieving similar prosperity, freedom, and moral value.

America is an overreaching name for what is, geographically, just another country in the world of countries, though it was also the name that applied to a Union of countries that had joined, for better, or for worse, to achieve those goals set out by the Founders, some 220 years ago.  America was manifest in the United States of America.  It was and remains that which is otherwise unachievable in other nations of the world.

A thorough study of the history of the United States will demonstrate, to all, that it had, after its inception, surpassed all expectations in establishing itself amongst the nations of the world as a formidable force with which to be reckoned.

Within 36 years of its separation from Great Britain, it had achieved the means of defending itself against the most powerful imperial power in the world.

Within the first century of its existence, it went through a tumultuous period of civil war, though it managed to avoid the separation, or change of government, that would otherwise have been the result of that upheaval.

Within just over a century, it had attained a position of esteemed prominence in the world of industry.

Within 150 years, it had become the economic center of the world whose dollar became the exchange currency most acceptable among the other nations of the world.

Looking back from the challenges of today, the questions that haunt us are:

1.  Has America lost its values — its moral compass — and those many aspects, as set forth by our Founders, that had set it out as a model to the remainder of the world?

2.  Has it outgrown its usefulness both to the people who call themselves Americans, as well as those who look, from afar, and envy that which was?

3.  If so, what has lead to the demise of that image of a better life, or, was it just the imagination of those who proclaimed its nature, for those two hundred years?

Political Correctness

Freedom of Speech is probably the most important and absolutely necessary enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  The ability to express oneself, both to others and to the government, is fundamental in a country that is composed of self-governed people.

That freedom allows us to express ourselves to others, but also to ourselves.

So, what happened when the means by which we express our thoughts, concerns, ideas, beliefs, and, secrets, is curtailed, by any means, at all?

Let’s look at how this works.  Suppose you have had a religious upbringing, and a morality founded upon that belief.  You understand that heterosexual relationships are the only morally acceptable form of relationship.  You were raised understanding that homosexuals were immoral, and the idea of two people of the same sex having relations together was repugnant.  There was another word, a slang word that was used by most people including homosexuals, which was a reference to that type of relationship.  The word was “queer”, yet it was not necessarily derogatory.  After all, it meant odd, curious, or unexpected.  There is little doubt that the definitions fit, when compared with what was presumed to be the proper moral relationship.

Of course, the term “queer”, being odd, was indicative of someone who was not up to par with the morality and, as such, tended to exclude them from the acceptable norm.

Now, what if there was a concerted effort to abolish the terms queer and homosexual, through a policy of what is known as “political correctness”?  The substitute term would be “gay”, meaning light hearted, brightly colored, or carefree.  Under the social, political, and, in some cases, legal pressure, you succumb to the new phrase for what was considered immoral, not to very long ago.  You accept and use the term.  Over time, your mind follows that implied change in the character and nature of the word, and what used to be unacceptable, or immoral, behavior, has, both in the spoken word, and in your mind, attained a degree of respectability that, without political correctness, would never have been achieved.

Before long, you have adjusted your moral values to accepting what you knew to be unacceptable, though you are not sure just how that change occurred.

Another word that has come into common usage, though is now defined differently than it was, just a few decades ago, is “hate”.  Hate is defined a number of ways, such as, dislike intensively, or a strong distaste.  Often, hate is defined as the opposite of love.

Hate, however, need not have, and in most cases, at least in the past had, no connotation of violence.  Violence stood all by itself.

Recently, however, hate has changed from dislike of liver, or distaste from immoral behavior, to an adjective that is applied to certain crimes of violence, with the intention of providing more serious penalties, under certain conditions, usually unilaterally.  We have accepted this definition so that certain portions of our society are afforded more protection, under the law, than others, regardless of the extent, and, often, regardless of the cause of a violent act.  As a result, we have allowed ourselves to believe that crime perpetrated against some members of our society are worse than the same crime being perpetrated against other members of our society.

In both of the above examples, we have withheld our (freedom of) speech to avoid offending.  As a result, we have managed to allow our minds to be manipulated into accepting things that we clearly knew to be untrue.

By subtle manipulation, we are having our fundamental right of freedom of speech transformed into behavioral manipulation, a form of social engineering, and, consequently, a very serious encroachment upon that sacred right.

Education

A number of advocates promoted public Education, early on in the formation of this country.  Probably the most well known advocate would be Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson has given us many quotations of his belief in the necessity of public education, and each will engender the consideration of the effect of the absence of education upon the morality, prosperity (of the community), politics and the necessity for the people to understand, and then, approve or disapprove that actions of the government.

Public Education, however, predates Jefferson.  In the Cape Cod area, for example, an annual tribute of fish was contributed to pay for the services of a teacher, available to all of the children, as compensation for his services.

However, after the formation of the new country, the United States of America, the promotion of public education was left to the county or other entity, at the local level.  It wasn’t until after the Civil War that the idea really took hold and the literacy rates of the population began to increase.

Very probably, the long war, the destruction of property and lives, was instrumental in the desire to assure that the population could consider all aspects of political decisions, so that their affirmation of the actions of government would be based upon being sufficiently educated so as to be able to properly judge those actions.

The following is from the Department of Commerce data, and reflects the literacy rate (of the white population) from 1860 through 1979.

Year                   White Literacy Rate
1870                   88.5
1880                   90.6
1890                   92.3
1900                   93.8
1910                   95
1920                   96
1930                   97
1940                   98
1947                   98.2
1950                   No data
1952                   98.2
1959                   94.4
1969                   99.3
1979                   99.6

Note that there was a continual progression of literacy from 1870 through 1947.  After the creation of the federal Department of Education, in 1953, we see a shift in education from the Public School System, which had achieved so much, over the previous century, to both federal and state entities.  We also see a shift in the upward rates of literacy.

During this period, we were experiencing a rapid growth in population, what would eventually be style the “Baby Boomers”.  These children, the byproduct of the attitude that prevailed after the victories of World War II, did put an increasing demand upon the educational resources, during that period from 1947 to 1952.  It also removed the traditional, and, demonstrably successful, method of education that had brought us what was later described as the “greatest Generation”, all of whom were educated under the former system of Public Schools.

With the intrusion of the federal government, as well as the state governments, replacing the decision making from the local School Board, whose interest was of the ability to educate the children of their own community, to the centralized, political and bureaucratic control of education, by those quite distant from what the needs, abilities, and resources of the community were, also provided a new means of measuring literacy.

Under the new guidelines for the determination of literacy, as it has evolved to the present time, the schools will teach, primarily, that information which is necessary to pass the competence (literacy) test created to measure the ability of the schools to educate our children.  Any education beyond the purpose of proving competence is secondary.

Arts, science, history, and many other areas of discipline have been subordinated to the effort directed to passing tests in which the answers have become the primary curriculum.

It has become abundantly clear that the average product of the government school system is, functionally, illiterate, though the statistics, revised to prove the efficacy of the centralized control of education, will prove to the contrary.

This deals strictly with education, though it does not deal, at all, with the morality, ideology, history, nature of government and the heritage of this once great nation.  Can we assume that the desired effect of the educational system has been achieved when, for the most part, the educational system has become a tool for government propaganda and the reduction of the average education to one of rote and compliance?

Is it in our best interest to put into the hands of those who would enslave us, the education of our children?  Or, should that responsibility be placed back in our own hands.

Religion

Those who first peopled the shores of America in the early Seventeenth Century were fleeing religious prosecution in Europe.  As they established themselves on those hostile foreign shores, they established equally sectarian societies from those that they had fled.  They were, however, more than willing to share the land with others and only endeavored to impose their religious sanctions on those in their immediate communities.

Originally, they were left alone, by the mother country, and allowed to practice as they saw fit.  Over time, however, the Church of England began imposing the tenets of that Church in many communities, effecting the government of entire colonies.  Other religions were allowed to practice, though all paid tribute to the master Church.

A turning point came in the late Eighteenth Century when the ties that had held the colonies to their mother, England, were severed.  The mother Church was allowed to continue, though it was relegated to the same authority as all of the other churches in the country.

Though all religions were allowed to be practiced, even Mohametism, the moral values of the country were firmly established in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  It was the foundation of the laws, the spirit and the prosperity that flowed from the people to make America a symbol of good and righteousness to the world.

It was the moral values that flowed from that religious source that inspired the courage, strength, and commitment, to enter two world wars, which tipped the balance of power and allowed the defensive powers to prevail against the aggressors.

America has, through its entire history, recognized the role of God in its foundations, establishments, and history.  Religious quotations are inscribed on most of the government, both state and federal, buildings built in its first two centuries.  Moses and the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, many times, on the Supreme Court Building.  Prayers open every session of Congress and our currency bears a prominent “In God We Trust”.

More recently, however, those religious virtues have fallen to evil forces that are endeavoring to undermine the moral values and principles upon which that nation was founded.  And, it is coming from an area least expected.  It is coming through education — academia, and being fed to that country’s posterity, without the consent of the parents, and, as insidiously as if the Church of England were back in control of education, morality, and law.

Of course, it is couched in an innocuous term, evolution.  The term, however, permeates that society on levels that most have never even considered.  In ‘public’ schools, which used to utilize the Bible as a means of teaching reading, and, following the example of Congress, opened each school day with prayer.

In 1852, a forty-one year old Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”.  It was, then, a theory put forth by Darwin that all life evolved from a single cell, which was formed by an accident.  Of course, Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or he may have reconsidered the complexity of a single cell — and its chance of creation.

Today, however, this “theory” has had no advancement, yet it is espoused by the academic community, the scientific community, and the courts (who no longer provide a Bible for swearing in).  They accept the “theory” of evolution over the accepted principle of creation, which now, in deference to the campaign against it, goes by the name of “Intelligent Design”.

The proponents of evolution call intelligent design a theory.  They claim that it is unsubstantiated and that no proof exists supporting the existence of God.  They advance their theories on the foundation of scientific proof that evolution is the means by which life, and man, came into being.  They have, through massive campaigns, removed that which was, Creationism, from the classroom, from the government (where it had comfortably resided for two centuries) and the search for the source of life, science.

The Evolutionists can best explain the effect, especially in the classroom, themselves.  Most will proclaim that they did once believe in God and were raised religiously, though upon their study of evolution, they determined that there is no God, so they became atheists.  Though, perhaps, not scientifically provable, they have laid claim to the proof of the lack of the existence of God to be a direct result of their studies.

They have created, by academic denial for those who believe in Intelligent Design, through establishing curriculum absent any mention of Intelligent Design, through refusal to consider Intelligent Design in any scientific research, and by pursuing legislative restriction on the discussion of Intelligent Design, an environment which is void of such teaching, or even the consideration of Intelligent Design, voiding the minds of our youth of any consideration of those sources of Providence to which the people, and this nation, owe so much.

Absent religion, which provides a moral foundation, we can expect that morality will become as individualistic and varied as the number of people in that country.  Situational ethics — doing what feels right — is becoming the morality of America, and, though not scientific, by any means, is best demonstrated by the very obvious changes in morality (out of wedlock birth rates, divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) in recent decades.

The decline in morality and virtue is indicative of the failure of a society.  It loses its moral fiber that binds people together, its commonality, and its very binding sprit, which will, eventually, lead to its demise.

The final point to be made, here, is that the government has chosen to dictate what cannot be said from the pulpit, which has had sufficient impact upon the preaching of immorality.

Immigration

Immigration can be one of many lifebloods of a nation.  In the case of the United States, that lifeblood began flowing more than 350 years before the birth of that nation.  Immigrants from Europe came for many reasons, though most commonly, to practice their Christian faith, without obedience to a state/church government.  This Freedom of Religion, though restricted by community, was not restrictive to the practice of religion, as each saw fit.

Through those first few hundred years, the Anglican Church, from England, held absolute sway, in some of the colonies.  Other religions may have been allowed, by tithes (taxes) were paid to the Anglican Church for distribution only to the Anglican churches.

After the founding of the United States, religious freedom was guaranteed to all, and embodied in the Bill of Rights.  For those, then, and their posterity, the freedom of religion (absence of laws restricting the practice of religion) became assured for generations to come.

Time, however, and the lust for power in government (fear of opposition) generated a subtle change that would begin to diminish this significant right (birthright) of Americans.

It began with the simple gift of tax-exemption for churches.  With the imposition of taxes, which are questioned by many as even being constitutional, any organization requesting exemption from those taxes must file with the government claiming status as a religious, not for profit, corporation.

This, by itself, had no effect on the ability of the church to preach sermons that might favor a candidate, or a policy.  But, over time, those who controlled the purse strings wrote into the laws that the churches, in order to maintain their tax exemption, could not support candidates or policies, unless the government turned their back.  This meant that preaching could include support for anything that the government wanted, but excluded any sermon that would undermine the authority of government, by removing that exemption.

Churches were left to abandon any sermon, regardless of how well founded in scripture that was in opposition to government policy.  Morality had become subject to the approval of the government.  Consequently, church corporations began voting, by whatever form that had chosen, to abandon doctrines that were fundamental to their scriptures.

Few, however, have been willing to challenge the illegitimacy of such incursions into the practice of religion, though most of them are fully aware that sermons preached within the laws of the time (under British rule) offered no such limitation on the exercise of religion.

With banner held high, “Freedom of Religion”, we continue to accept that government is, as required by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, protecting that fundamental element of a person, and a nation’s, morality.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing and other industries were major elements in achieving prosperity, and attaining the recognition as the greatest industrial power on the earth.

In the Nineteenth Century, the availability of natural resources; open land; desire for expansion and settlement of those open lands; and the free market (uncontrolled by government) became the means by which that prosperity was achieved.

Industry was able to find a market place for its goods.  The availability of resources was unlimited, allowing for rates of production to meet demands.  Absence of governmental involvement gave a free hand for the free market to develop plants, seek new markets, and innovate new products, beyond anything the world had beheld before.  Tens of thousands of miles of railroad connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and Canada to Mexico.  Each new mile added additional resources, land for settlement, and profit, which returned to expand the network, even further.

Innovation created new machinery for harvesting of crops, reducing manpower, and increasing productivity in the bread belt, thereby providing more than ample supplies of food to the growing nation.

Innovation also developed new methods of manufacturing, which would continue to lead the way in production, for decades to come.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, war encompassed the world.  The geographic isolation allowed product supplies to be increased to meet the demands of wartime goods.  Though our participation in WWI was not immediate, eventually, the spirit, ingenuity, and individualism that had lead to that prosperity provided an American fighting force that turned the tide of that war.

Just a few decades later, another war encompassed the world.  The productivity of that industrial giant was able to produce goods, and transport them across the seas, at a rate that was unachievable by all of the other countries, individually AND combined.  Once again, the American fighting force was the turning point in the war.

The demands of this second war had produced production lines incomparable to anything that preceded it.  Plants that produced toys were converted to the manufacture of weapons, within weeks.  Means were developed to adapt to any demand, and the production facilities went undamaged by war, providing a prosperity, post-war, that was later defined as the American Dream.

To this point in time, a philosophy of “A Good Product at a Fair Price” was the motivation, both in and out of war, to produce.  America was second to none in industry, and more than willing to share its knowledge and resources to rebuild the damaged countries resulting from that war — even the enemy’s country were rebuilt and their industry re-established, mostly along the lines of what America hand learned in the century preceding.

About this time, and in order to aid another country’s recovery, a practice of contracting foreign industry to produce certain goods lead to the denigration of a product by referencing the country or origin, “Made in Japan”.  These products, for the most part, were low profit, easily made, and required little technical ability to produce.

Over the next few decades, Industry continued to prosper, however, the philosophy shifted from “A Good Product…” to what became known as “the bottom line” mentality.

As a consequence, many of the industrial machines were produced, under contract to foreign nations, and then returned to the United States bearing the name of a United States corporation.  The same foreign manufactures also manufactured the same products for sale through different distribution systems, bearing their name, even though the products were otherwise identical.

Most of the raw materials (natural resources) to manufacture these products were mined in the United States, transported across Canada to Pacific ports, shipped overseas in foreign vessels, processed, manufactured to finished products, and then returned to the United States on foreign vessels.  Amazingly, these products would be for sale at less cost than they could be manufactured here.

One of the reasons for this gross disparity in cost of production was the proliferation of unions, demanding higher wages, more benefits, and job security, and, often, limiting production rates to ease the burden on the worker.

The government, by the end of World War II, legislated in favor of these unions, without regard to the consequences, and by venturing where the Constitution did not authorize them to go.

This fueled the fires of profit, at any cost, to the point that became destructive to American industry.  Quite the opposite of “protective tariffs”, the new course was actually beneficial both by support of unions and reduction of tariffs (e.g. Most Favored Nation status), resulting in the decimation of American industry.

Currently, less than 10% of the manufactured goods in the marketplace are made in this country, though they may well bear American names, such as Ford, General Electric, and Motorola.

Absent foreign imports, whether with, or without American names, our lives would approach third world status, unable to obtain goods for everyday household chores, workplace tools, and even industrial equipment.  Even obscure countries produce more for their own consumption than does America.

In less than one hundred years, we have gone from the apex of industry to a country almost void of industrial production.  We have become dependent for our daily lives upon those who may, at some time in the future, become our enemies.

Dependency

Dependency, by its very nature, makes one subordinate to that upon which it depends.  Children are dependent upon their parents, until they have reached an age and the competence in which they can depend upon themselves — independence.

Employees are dependent on their employers to provide both the wages that they earned, and a marketplace for the product that they provide, so that money is available for such wages.  Employers, in turn, are dependent upon the performance of their employees to provide quality products and services.

Governments are dependent upon their citizens to provide the guidance (by whatever means the construction of the government is based upon), and for revenue (again, based upon those means provided) for the operation of that government.

In turn, the citizens of a nation are dependent upon the government (in the case of the United States) for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

What happens when the government — the society — for which it is obliged to provide the means to protect, becomes dependent upon another government, or country, to assure that the means of daily living can be obtained in order for that society to survive?

If the government, for any reason, especially after having fully demonstrated that these means are readily available within the country, legislates in such a manner as to reduce, or even remove, those means, requiring that the society is now dependent upon another country for its daily means, has it transferred the primary responsibility for its citizens to another country — and government?

Has it, by these means, dissolved its entire purpose — in subordination to foreign interests?

Is it possible that the country which has relied upon its government to secure those means, by abrogating its responsibility, has destroyed the government and relegated its citizens to the mercy of the whims of another country?

We remain fully capable of providing some aspects of life, such as medicine, weapons of war and destruction, and a relentless line of politicians more than willing to reduce us, even further, into dependency upon others.

Catastrophic is an understatement of the effect, both short and long term that this transfer of dependence will have upon us.

Tradition

Every nation in the world is steeped in tradition.  Those traditions, whether good or bad in the eyes of outsiders, are a binding force in that nation’s culture and are necessary so that the longevity, coherence, and perpetuation of that culture to continue.  Absent that background, it is nothing less than a new nation without a foundation, course, or future.

The longstanding traditions of the United States have come under attack, recently, undermining the very fabric of that nation granted, by Providence (yes, that is a substantial part of the tradition), to the people who settled, then fought for the existence of it.

As the traditions are eroded away, under whatever guise might be undertaken to supplant them, so, too, is the personality, the character, the entire embodiment, of that nation.

When those traditions are eroded using the guise of the Founding papers, the Constitution, as an excuse for their erosion, the complacency of those who merely stand by and watch becomes as much of the destructive force as those who, by intent, are striving for the destruction of that nation.

Regardless of the ambitions of the latter, or the absence of objection by the former, the effect is the same.  They both allow a transition of government, as much as if conquered buy military force, though the means are far more subtle.  The intention is the same, and the result is as effective as the alternative.

Taxation

Though only a small part of what lead to the Revolutionary War, taxes, as they have through history, have become the means by which people are most often oppressed.

The French-Indian Wars had taken an economic toll on England.  Generally, the coffers of government are maintained, absent war, by a relatively small tax, intended to replace the debt incurred by war.  This was the case with the Stamp Act, in 1765.  In order to replenish the treasury, taxes were laid on the colonies.  This, along with the removal of charter government (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence) incited sufficient concern in the colonists to begin down the pathway that, eventually, lead to separation from England.

The intention, as had been the practice, even under British rule, was to restore the Treasury and then to remove the taxes, with the need for replenishment no longer being necessary.

That practice served America quite well, during its first nearly two centuries.  The taxes imposed during World War II were in the single digit percentages, and the tax that had been imposed was, originally, imposed only for the duration of the war.

Instead, and by the time the America attempted to accomplish, in Vietnam, what the French had failed to achieve, the government had raised taxes, and they had become a way of life.  Twenty percent of income, or more, was the norm, nearly seven times greater, on all income, than the 3% taxes, only on certain items, that had roused the anger of the colonists.

Government had determined that they could maintain near perpetual war, if they were able to provide a constant and permanent flow of revenue, never allowing the coffers to be depleted.

Their President, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1961, in his Farewell Address, provided insight into what he had seen as a threat to the future of America, when he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

He realized that the “economic favors” bestowed upon those who made weapons of war, by the government who benefited, in one way or another, from perpetual war, was a danger to what our country stood for.

Leadership

The leadership in this country is recognized by that title, but have you considered what the word means?

Leaders are those who lead.  Just how do they achieve such significance that would warrant our following them?

Back in the late seventeen and early eighteen hundreds, there were many who had achieved their positions of leadership through demonstration of their ability to lead, and thereby justify our willingness to follow them.

Over the years, however, things have changed.  Now, the people that we are to follow come from a degree of obscurity.  Their respective parties, somewhere along the line, have decided that they have ‘achieved’ such prominence that they can be cast forth as leaders.  But, what criteria are used to determine that they have demonstrated their ability to lead?

Consider, if you will, that for them to garner the support of the party, they will have had to assure that the party is well satisfied with, well, their obedience to the party.  Let us take the current president of the United States.  He was obscure.  A senator from Illinois, who was nothing more than a yes man for the party.  Virtually all of his votes were on the party line, though he had something going for him:  the party, already satisfied with his obedience, determined that they could promote some aspects for their chosen candidate and convince the voters throughout the country that this man was worthy of the role of leader.  Nothing to demonstrate that he could, it is simply a matter of selling their candidate to the public.  This is accomplished by taking polls; analysis of the results; developing marketing strategies, not unlike those used to sell cereal or drugs; and, determining what people want to hear, in each region of the country, and assuring that their candidate says, in that region, what they have told him to say, in that region, and, likewise, in the other regions.  If you should have any doubts, recall what the candidates have said in the past, such as, “Read my lips, no New Taxes”, or, “I will have a transparent government.”

In the end, better leaders can probably be found by looking in your local community rather than looking at the television, which will bring you exactly what you want to see.

Government is designed to serve the people.  Understanding that it is impractical, and imprudent, for everybody to be involved in every decision required to be made at the top level of government, we have developed a system whereby the will of the people, through their chosen representatives, is made so, on the people’s behalf.

If you would, imagine an inverted triangle.  The base, being at the top, constitutes the people.  Below them are the representatives of the people, and at the very bottom, the point of the inverted triangle, is the President of the United States.  His purpose, according to the Constitution, is the chief executive of the country.  His job, then, is to carry out the will of the people (top of the triangle), as expressed through their representatives (middle of the triangle).  He is the lowest man on the triangle, and his job is to work for us, on our behalf.

For whatever reason, perhaps an inadequacy in the educational system, we have learned to accept the triangle in the wrong configuration.  We have allowed that the President is at the top of the triangle, master of all.  Below him is the Congress, our representatives, making decisions that are both contrary to, and against our will.  Finally, at the bottom, are we, the people, who find ourselves forced into obedience to the government, and, paying all the bills that they can accumulate, while attempting to tell us that what they are doing is in our best interest?

Where does this leave us?

Through a slow and meticulous process, events that are hardly noticed begin to have an effect on the people, and the future, by that same process, is modified in such a way that the people who have thought that they knew what freedom was, eventually, find that they are no longer free, nor are they what they thought that they were.

Those in control will exert their efforts to the point that a substantial majority will accept the conditions that they have imposed.

In time, the acceptability of what has been imposed, through these subtle means, becomes even more accepted, if not in years, in a decades or two, that which was, will be lost among the pages of history.  The newly accepted condition becomes the platform for the next generation of change, which, ultimately, will result in that which the United States was to be lost, and that which it has become to be accepted as that which always was.

When unlawful force or influence are used to undermine the obligations of government, the people subject to that government, are also slaves to that government.

This, unless we accept our responsibility of restoring that which was, will result in the Demise of America.

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

Those who find this interesting might also appreciate Finding Freedom Again

.

.

A Prima Facie Story
Or, Manipulated By The Government, And Its Press

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 25, 2000

While I was in Waco, during the siege on a Church, I was able to witness, first hand, many of the tactics of government in its manipulation of the press. Now, don’t get me wrong, the press wasn’t really duped. They had a job to do, and they did it – as effortlessly as possible. If all that needed to be reported was, so conveniently, provided by the government – along with coffee and donuts – at the press conferences. All they had to “put up with” was motels, restaurants, lounges and expense accounts.

The tactic that I want to talk about is what I call the “prima facie story” tactic. It is a rather encompassing tactic. It can be applied in little pieces, yet it will have a cumulative effect. It can be applied in medium sized pieces, which will serve to enhance the whole. Finally, the entire story can be “prima facie” and it can be “proved’ with the little and medium sized pieces.

The beauty of the tactic is that, once it is found out, the residual of the tactic will be in place for years to come. It will be used by ‘shills’ in Internet discussions, it can be used in newspapers, radio shows and television, and no fault can be found for believing something that had been “prima facie” back when the event under discussion first occurred.

It must also include elements of ‘befuddlement’, where variations of a specific are changed, from time to time, so as to cause those following the story to throw their hands of in befuddlement, and leave the decisions as to what is true to the ‘experts’.

To be most effective, the “prima facie story” has to have some doubt interjected. So, let’s look at a recent event that has all of the earmarks of a Prima Facie Story:

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

On October 12, 2000, we began to hear of an event, off the coast of Yemen, just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, scene of another military disaster just a few years ago, which would soon cause many to become extremely outraged. Of course, outrage would have probably been an appropriate reaction, even if the truth of the event were presented at the time — but the government has become so engrossed in the manipulation of the populace that they plied their trade on this one, too. It will be used even more to demonize certain people. The effect of the prima facie story will simply add substantial acceptance to the hate mongering that will, in a short period of time, evolve from the ‘story’.

The first details of the blast came through the Department of Defense. The blast, which tore a gapping 20-foot by 40-foot hole in the USS. Cole (DDG67), a 505 foot long, 8,300-ton Aegis guided-missile destroyer, occurred as the Cole was docking for refueling at the Port of Aden. The blast occurred at 12:15 a.m., local [Yemen] time, as a rubber speedboat, which was assisting in the mooring of the Cole, came alongside. The destroyer, part of the George Washington Carrier Battle Group, was on its way to the Persian Gulf after transiting the Red Sea. The ship was due to join the Maritime Intercept Operation in the gulf.  (DOD press release, 10/12/00, 2:30 p.m. EDT)

Just half an hour later, in a press briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen told us “the blast occurred when a small boat that was participating in the mooring approached the USS Cole. I want to repeat that we do not yet know the cause of the explosion.  If, however, we determine that terrorists attacked our ship and killed our sailors, then we will not rest until we have tracked down those who are responsible for this vicious and cowardly act.”

During the course of the briefing, a reporter asked if “this [is] an example of asymmetric warfare that you’ve warned about as in our future?”

Cohen replied “Well, the answer’s yes.  This is precisely the kinds of threats that we face where countries are unwilling to take us on head to head, but will resort to acts of terrorism in order to achieve their goal.”

Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, then took the briefing over. He gave the time of the blast as 5:15 a.m., East Coast Time (EDT) [12:15 a.m. Yemen Time], “as she was mooring.” Clark went on to explain that when a ship visits a port, it must “submit a [force protection plan] for every port visit that they are involved in. Such was the case here.  The planning was done, it was approved by the immediate superior in command, and they executed the plan as it was specified.” We were told that they were on “Threat Condition Bravo”.

Clark explained how the fueling operation proceeded:

“… This small boat, by report, was involved in the mooring evolution. This was not a conventional pier, if you will.  Rather, it was a fueling — it’s called a fueling dolphin, but it is, in effect, a fueling facility out in the middle of the harbor.”

“The mooring evolution, instead of being alongside of a pier, there are several mooring buoys that the ship attaches lines to.”

“Small boats come to the ship and the lines drop down to them and the boat takes the line to the mooring buoy.  This is what happened in this circumstance.  And the report I have is that this small boat was involved in that activity, and when returning from one buoy came alongside.”

When Clark was asked why a decision was made to refuel at Aden, a known headquarters for Hamas, and other terrorist groups, he explained the decision.

“I can just say this: We have been working to improve our relations with Yemen for some time.  And I’m sure that that was at the heart of the motivation of the unified commander as they are improving our relations in that part of the world.

And, in a subsequent series of questions, more specifics are provided:

Question: “And the fueling hadn’t started yet, right?”

Clark: “No.  They were still tying up when this happened.”

Question:  “So the fuel couldn’t be exploding because it didn’t leak from the line?”

Clark:  “That’s correct.  No, that’s right.”

The next day, Cohen, in a press release, was quoted as saying, “that while the United States could not definitively prove terrorism, “If … [ellipses in original press release, for emphasis] we determine that terrorists attacked our ship and killed our sailors, then we will not rest until we have tracked down those who are responsible for this vicious and cowardly act.”

Later, in an October 13 press briefing, Rear Admiral Joseph G. Henry, Director, Military Personnel Plans & Policy Division, who was providing information from the Commanding Officer of the USS Cole, provides us the following:

Q: Did the CO say anything about what he thinks happened? Did he explain his view of what –

Henry: I think — I think it’s been explained that there was a ship that originally handled one of the Cole’s lines and that that tending ship then came alongside and while it was alongside, the explosion took place.

Q: Did he add anything to the understanding of what happened?

Henry: No, he didn’t. That’s a very normal occurrence, when you pull into port, for a tending ship to come up and take the lines and take it over to the dolphin, so —

Q: Admiral, yesterday the Pentagon asked the news stations not to put — use Yemeni television footage showing wounded sailors.

Henry: Sure.

Q: Was the effort done in time, or did you get feedback from families saying, “Jesus, I saw my son on CNN,” or one of the stations —

Henry: We have not gotten personal feedback, although we know there were a number of pictures on the TV where you could identify a sailor from. We certainly prefer to get to the family first so they don’t see it on TV before we’ve seen it. That’s why we have preferred not to have those pictures shown.

Q: But you haven’t got any outraged families at this point?

Henry: No, not that I know of.

During this same briefing, Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, gave us some more insight into the government’s position on the matter:

Q: Going back just for a moment to the eyewitness yesterday, the Army major with the State Department, with the embassy over there, can you clarify what he says he saw? As we understand it, two men stood up in the boat shortly before the explosion. Did they stand at attention, did they put their hands in the air, do we know if two men did stand up and if so what they did? And were they the only two men aboard the boat?

Bacon: I don’t have anything to add to the reports on that yesterday. Obviously, one of the things the FBI is going to do is talk to everybody in a position to have seen what happened and try to put together the best possible report. There’s a — I’m not casting any aspersions on the major, but there are a lot of data points that have to be checked, and the information has to be correlated before we can make a — give a full picture.

By the October 17 briefing, Rear Admiral Craig R. Quigley, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, began to back away from the now planted seed:

Q:  Among the initial reports was one that this small craft assisted the USS Cole in attaching the mooring line to a buoy.  Is there any reason now to think that — is there any less confidence in that account at this point, after all the people on the ship have been interviewed?

Quigley:  Another great question to ask the FBI.  I’m sorry, I can’t provide that.

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

So, now we have the foundation which was set by the government, and which became the basis for the proliferation of news stories about the event. This is the Prima Facie Story. We can probably summate the initial entire series in this way:

Just after Midnight, October 12, 2000, the USS Cole, an electronic destroyer, arrived in the Port of Aden to take on fuel. As she was mooring, a rubber speedboat came alongside. The speedboat appeared to be one of the many vessels necessary to moor a larger ship, like the Cole, so that she could be fueled.

As the speedboat approached the Cole, the two men aboard saluted as they rammed the Cole with explosives. The explosion ripped a 20-foot by 40-foot hole just above the waterline, and killed a number of sailors. The carnage is not fit for American television (since the DOD decided that it should not be aired).

The Cole was in the process of mooring, and was still under way, so the security that would normally protect the ship had not been in place. This may be an act of terrorism.

The reason given for the Cole fueling in Aden is that we are trying to improve our relations in that part of the world. This does not increase the risk to the sailors, as a force protection plan would have been implemented as soon as the ship was moored.

This scenario leads us to feel that every precaution that could be taken had been taken. Under the circumstances, it appears that a couple of men conducted a terrorist attack at the only moment that the ships guard was at a reduced level. A very dastardly deed, indeed!

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, having spent a little time in Vietnam, it is safe to say that if a position did not properly protect and defend itself, then what happened, if the enemy attacked against the unprepared defense, was their own fault. When you know that you are in hostile territory, you are – must be, prepared, at all times. The press briefings made clear that the ship knew that it was in potentially “hostile waters.”

Regardless, the image that is presented is one of absolute innocence on the part of the Cole, and her sailors. Conversely, absolute guilt is implied for the modestly suggested “possible terrorists” (as if there were any other possibility).

There are, also, occasional references to potentially inaccurate sources. This plausible deniability is a mainstay in this sort of story. It is clear that, in this age of advanced communications and cell phones in every pocket that the accurate description of the events would be easily obtained.

Now, Cohen did suggest that, “This is precisely the kinds of threats that we face where countries are unwilling to take us on head to head, but will resort to acts of terrorism in order to achieve their goal.” Now, I suppose that he is suggesting that a country of just a couple million people and a budget comparable to a large American city, if she should have disagreement with the US government, or has been subject to destruction of her cities and population, by smart bombs and not so sanitary remote electronic destruction – maybe even attempts at assassinating her leader, or using covert means to achieve removal of same, and should she have cause to, she should be open and up front about it. His suggestion appears to be that she should challenge the US government to a duel, each using the weapons available to them – and see who wins.

Now, it is ludicrous to suppose that any more than, perhaps, two countries in the world would be in any position to ‘take on’ the US government with any hopes, at all, of prevailing. So, the obvious conclusion is that, with the exception of those two, anybody who has a grudge against the US government has no choice but to submit to its overwhelming power – and its demands, regardless of their nature – or, be deemed a terrorist.

As subtle as this all seems, in time even those dupes of the US government, the press, especially the foreign variety, through persistence in the pursuit of a story, begin to uncover the truth.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By October 23, The London Times was able to piece together a more plausible picture of the events. Their reporter in Washington, Ian Brodie, along with a few other sources, provide us the following information:

The bombing occurred two hours AFTER the ship was moored to the fueling dock, which was actually October 11, 11:18 p.m., Yemen Time. This was sufficient time for the force protection plan to be fully implemented. The force protection plan and Threat Condition Bravo required that observer teams, including an observer and a rifleman equipped with an automatic rifle be on constant patrol. A number of these teams would be posted around the perimeter of the deck.

It also means that the small boat did not approach the Cole under cover of a flotilla of working boats, but was probably the only moving vessel in the area – a conspicuous target, to say the least.

The boat was, apparently fiberglass, which would be much more capable of carrying a concealed load of explosives than a rubber boat. It is estimated to have had about 500 pounds of plastic explosive on board.

As it circled the bow, and then came alongside, the two men on the boat waved to the crew. The crew, apparently, waved back, as boaters (not fighting men) usually do. Then, the two aimed the boat amidships, stood at attention and saluted, probably to Allah, without any effort to stop them, and then delivered their ordinance — in a very effective manner.

It also appears that the Cole had sufficient fuel to reach Bahrain, its destination, aboard. It appears that 250,000 gallons of the total capacity of 480,000 gallons, was still in the tanks. This would indicate that the vessel and its crew were put at risk “to improve our relations in that part of the world.” Not a very nice message to deliver to the family of those injured, or killed in this political expediency. But, this may be the key – this may be what necessitates the “prima facie story”, so that the blame can be placed on others. Unfortunately, the American press failed to pick up on this line. Or, was it left out of the evening news for a reason?

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

Suffice it to say that the ‘prima facie story’ has established a conclusion in the minds of most. There will not be an enquiry into what effect decisions made by bureaucrats had, instead, ALL blame will be directed at those who, using initiative, were able to inflict so much damage on such a sophisticated weapon of war as the USS Cole. The prima facie story has detracted from what should be the real focus of the story – and allowed the US government to continue on in the same manner that it has – propagandizing the American people and lulling them away from any criticism of the government.

Subtle though it is, the effect of the prima facie story tactic provides an edge that can change the balance of the conclusion come to by the majority of the American people. Though we know, after time, what the truths of the events really are, the seed has planted itself, germinated and grown. The reaction that we should have as a result of the events has been moderated away. The US government, once again, has duped us.

And, their means are, at least, contemptible. Deceit, fraud and guile are the tools of politician, not statesmen; the tools of dictators, not true leaders.

I hope that we all remain unconvinced that it is proper to pay officials in government to use these means to achieve THEIR end. If you had an employee that, intentionally, lied to you so that you did not know the true circumstances of what he did, as your employee, would you not be fully justified in firing him – on the spot?

As time goes on, more and more of the truth will, slowly, be exposed. It will be presented in much less limelight that the original, sensational Prima Facie Story. It will be there for the critical student of government, but for the average voting American, the Prima Facie Story will always be the ONLY TRUTH.

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

prima facie – at first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.

deceit – A fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or more persons to deceive and trick another, who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. To constitute “deceit’, the statement must be untrue, made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless and conscious ignorance thereof, especially if the parties are not on equal terms, …

Fraud – An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

guile – deceitful, cunning

 

The Press in Waco

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom

December 6, 2009

During the siege in Waco, an attorney contacted me. His name was Rick Morris, with Melvin Belli’s office. He had found out about the Power of Attorney that I had obtained from David Koresh.

Rick spent almost a week in Waco, but could find nothing that would help to utilize the Power of Attorney to bring things to a peaceful solution. By then, the government had decided, after having rejected him initially, the Dick Degurien could represent Koresh.

One evening, Rick Morris called and said that we were having dinner with a producer from CBS. Dick knew him and had arranged the dinner meeting to see if that would help with our attempt to get access to Mt. Carmel.

At diner, I was introduced to Charles, the producer out of Miami, Florida, and one of his reporters, also from Miami. As they explained it, they were on their ‘tour of duty’ in Waco. It seems that the networks were rotating people in and out because the length of the siege had exceeded their original expectations.

During dinner, I asked Charles why they weren’t telling the truth about what was happening in Waco. Charles did not attempt to claim that they were telling the truth, I believe he figured I knew what was really happening. Instead, he replied, “Gary, I have a wife and two sons.” He went on the explain that his job, as a producer, was to assure that program met the criteria of his bosses. He explained that there were no ‘written policies’, however, at cocktail parties, dinners and other social functions the higher ups would always make sure that the lower downs understood what the ‘policy’ of the network was(policy would include what stories to cover, what perspective to put on stories, what stories not to cover, etc.). He said that as these ‘policies’ worked their way down from owners, through the different tiers, each tier would add a little comfort to what he understood to be desirable. By the time it got to him, it might be far more restrictive than what the owners wanted, but, well, it is important to keep your job so that you can support your family.

He told me about a young video-journalism student that had graduated from Miami-Dade Community College. He had excellent grades, and his portfolio was very well done., so, they hired him. The young journalist was given several assignments, his first week. He did a ‘bang up’ job on the stories, including the 5 Ws (Who, what, why, where, when of journalism), however, the content and presentation was not exactly what the ‘policy’ wanted. None of the stories were aired, and that first week was also the last week of his journalism career with CBS.

Every morning the FBI held a press conference. It began with an update, from the FBI perspective, and then went to eruption and answer format.

An aside: while in Waco, I met the press from various countries. In particular, I got to know reporters from Australia, England and France who were as critical of the American press as I was. They mocked the American press for dutifully going to the press conferences, writing their stories, and then attending the local ‘discussion groups’ at one of the hotel lounges, very seldom venturing out to seek other newsworthy information about what was happening a few miles down the road.

These foreign journalists were constantly looking for local people, especially Davidians, or friends of the Davidians, who could add to the story of what really was happening. Of course, their reports were not published in this country, though a few that I did read were very critical of the great American “Free Press”.

If we look at the ramifications of what the press did in Waco, we can come to some pretty frightening conclusions.

The Freedom of the Press, as defined in the Anti-Federalist Papers, is:

“The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS hath, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safeguards. That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people, If he will take that trouble upon himself, whether they are on point or not, his countrymen are obliged to him for so doing; for, at least, they lead to an examination of the subject upon which he writes.”

“John DeWitt,” Essay III, Nov. 5, 1787

It has always been considered the bulwark of liberty, since it could be relied upon to expose the  misdeeds of government. But, that was back when each paper was owned by different people, and the opinions expressed were as varied as the ownership of the press.

Today, three syndicates own over 99% of the printed newspapers. This leaves the control of the opinions (and the content) to three people, probably close friends, who have nearly absolute control over what is presented to the public as “truth”.

What effect did this monopolistic control of the press have on Waco?

As has been explained, what went out to mainstream America was what the government ‘created’ to excuse actions committed by the government. It was also the means by which the Davidians were made out as evil, child molesting, people. It if carried the message that implied that child molestation was something that the government (federal) had an obligation to deal with. The real reason behind the raid in Waco was lost to the contrived stories that were presented to millions of people.

The final result was that through demonization and distortion of truth, America was almost cheerful when the FBI promulgated fire swept through a wooden church, resulting in the death of many dozens of men, women and children — with nearly no expression of regret.

There can be little doubt that the press, as it was in Waco, is complicate in the murder of innocent people by their refusal to take an objective look at events in which the government is involved.

A question that we must ask ourselves is, does that make the press an accessory to murder?