Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part III

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part IIII of IV Parts

Factions in conflict with the Principle Faction

Illegal immigrants:  It is often said that the first impression is the most important impression that you will make upon others.  Suppose that the first impression that you make is an unwillingness to abide by the rules/laws of the host, when you are a guest; suppose someone came, invited, or not, into your home and started telling you that the wall colors were wrong, that they didn’t like the pictures you had hung, that they didn’t like carpeted floors, or that you should prepares them a meal and a bed.  It would not be surprising if you caused them to exit your home, and assured them that they would never, again, have entry into your home.  That impression that they gave was not what is expected of the guest, and any reaction you had to that belligerence is justified, even if force is necessary to remove them.

We are the collective owners of the country (our collective home), and, as such, have established rules/laws for entry into that home. They were enacted in accordance with the Constitution and are, as such, the law of the land.  Those who enter with their first step being a violation of those rules/laws have, as the unwanted guest in your house, established an impression that is lasting, and totally unacceptable.

Those who wipe their muddy feet on your clean carpet are not a part of any acceptable class of people, visitors, or those here by right.  They have, by their actions, spit in the face of what this country stands for.  It is not a melting pot for the entire world, nor was it intended to be destroyed from within, by a cancer that grows at astronomical rates, and, quite often, at the expense of our own depleted treasury.  Each person that enters illegally, or overstays their permitted visit, is a greater threat to the future of our country than any military threat, from any other country, without comparison.  The military threat, we have proven, cannot prevail against us.  This insidious intrusion, however, eats away at our country’s soul with every day that they remain.

Illegal immigration advocates:  Those who would advocate forbearance in dealing with these intruders are not adherents to the Principle Faction, nor are they adherents to the laws, concepts, traditions, manners, customs, nor anything else, that we hold dear — and must continue to hold dear, if we are to survive as the United States, our birthright.

These people, though they may otherwise not be in conflict with the Principle Faction, and may even be of the class of “We the People”, or “citizen of the United States”, are, by their support of violation of the law of the land, in conflict with the Principle Faction.  They have denied the concept of assimilation, and have thereby provided a means of destruction of the entire purpose of the Founders and Framers, for the creation of this great nation.

Anti- religious groups, Atheists, Agnostics:  When we understand our heritage, we recognize that the Founders and Framers were religious, though perhaps not pious, men.  Both Washington and Jefferson had problems with organized religion, as many of us do today.  Regardless, they had beliefs founded on both Old and New Testaments, and adhered to the Christian moral values, without question.  Never did they challenge the concept that was, eventually, embodied in the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court Building (built 1932-35) in Washington, D.C., contains over a dozen depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandment, sculpted in stone, and permanent not only in that building, but in the hearts and heritage of this country.  Congress begins each daily session with prayer, and has done so from their first gathering.  President’s have called for days of prayer and thanksgiving, in official proclamations, throughout our history.

However, there are those advocates who have challenged the right of a state, a county, school, or even a small town, to begin with prayer; display the same representation found in the Supreme Court building, or erection of seasonal displays of Christian holidays on public land.

And, in a somewhat surprising response, they have found proponents of their advocacy in those very halls of government mentioned above.  All under the guise that such actions and displays are “unconstitutional”.

How can that be unconstitutional which was practiced by the very authors of that document, and those who ratified it?  Their practices and beliefs were not in question then, and there is the more serious question as to whether even an amendment to the Constitution would be Constitutional if it abrogated the First Amendment.

Surely, we cannot even begin to consider that we may remain as even a vestige of the United States if we allow the denigration of those practices considered by most to be fundamental to the establishment of the country — by those very people who caused to be carved in stone the underpinnings of the moral compass by which we found our course.

So long as they adhere to the Principle Faction, and otherwise meet the requirements of class, and distance themselves from those who advocate to the contrary, they may be considered to be of the Principle Faction.

Those who continue to advocate legal sanctions, removal of displays, or any other means of undermining that which has stood so long, are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place in this country, since they choose not to assimilate, rather to change that which is our heritage.

Homosexual rights groups:  Some will argue that homosexuality is a disease, others that it is a lifestyle choice.  Each is a diversion from the crux of the matter.  It is considered by the Christian moral values adopted by this country, 220 years ago, to be immoral.  Though with the exception of some local jurisdictions, and some states, it has not been considered criminal — just immoral.

Even when criminal, it was seldom prosecuted, since it was conducted between consenting parties, in private circumstances.  To intrude on that privacy was as much a crime as the behavior itself, at least under the principles of the Constitution.  However, if we look at a few of the steps taken to endeavor to assign legitimacy and morality to the practice, we will find an excellent example of the destructiveness of factions.  The common terminology used to describe homosexuals was often “queer” (which is rather what their behavior was considered to be), or the more objectionable “fag” or “faggot” (a derogatory term).

As late as the fifties and sixties, homosexual, or, queer, bars and clubs were not uncommon.  Their public behavior was normal, and their private behavior, in such facilities, was, to use the expression of the time, “done in the closet”.  And, very few had objection to such behavior, so long as it did not “spill onto the streets”.

There was an effort in California, back in that period, to establish a homosexual community in the village of Alpine, in the High Sierra.  Even then, there was no general outrage, since the village would be their own ‘closet’.

Next came a change in terminology.  A word that was frequently used to indicate jovial, happy, light, was adopted by the homosexuals.  Back then, people would go to a “gay party” meaning that it was going to be sitting around in a light and humorous atmosphere, perhaps telling jokes and stories.  However the theft, yes, I mean theft, of that word, which had only positive connotations, was a move to give an air of legitimacy and acceptance to a behavior that was, heretofore, considered immoral.  A major coup by this faction managed to change the image of the homosexual, and to remove from usage a word that was commonly used, even then.

Since that time, this once frowned upon group has managed to use the courts and legislative process to provide special protection and special privileges from what was, through most of our history, a subject unworthy of discussion.  They have taken a word, “marriage”, with millennia of understanding of the definition, and still recognized in US Code as between a man and woman, and have managed to steal that word for their own uses and economic gain.

They have successfully lobbied for legislation that forces the government schools to encourage such behavior, contrary to the wishes of the parents who are clearly among the Principle Faction, and are advocating a moral degeneration of our society.

Those advocates of homosexuality are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place, with the exception of the closet, in our country.

Black  rights advocates:  As explained in the “We the People” series (linked above), a second class of citizen was established by the Fourteenth Amendment, and confirmed by a subsequent amendment and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. However, through a subtle process of indoctrination, beginning in the late fifties and early sixties, the intent of that Amendment has been converted to an application that has generated havoc, loss of property, and even loss of life.

The “civil rights” movement of that period moved us from a society that recognized the Principle Faction (basically, a fundamentally white culture) to one that has legislated, encouraged, and enforced against, that society, undermining it,  in favor of granting privileges to those citizens of the United States, as well as other without such standing, under the guise of equality, greater even than that afforded to “We the People”.

Society, itself, had moved in that direction, at the rate that was warranted by the people, not the government. Whether Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, or Fats Domino; acceptance of negros as a part of our culture, was in the works.  Society, itself, was approaching a degree of equality, voluntarily.

Instead, it turned to demonstrations (not the preferred form of legislative influence), by both sides.  And, since those early days of civil rights demonstrations, they often turned to violence, instigated by both sides. America has been in a near constant state of turmoil, since the time that the government stepped in and tried to privilege the second class even above the first class.  And some of that violence, today, perpetrated by those who believe that “change has not come fast enough”, is nothing more than rioting and thievery, perpetrated under the guise of equality, couched in phrases about social and economic ‘justice’.

These, groups, relying upon judicial intimidation and violence, have proven that their methods and goals are in conflict with the Principle Faction, the Constitution and its principles, and our way of life.

Woman’s right advocates:  Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, is probably the best known advocate of women’s rights.  However, as much as she discussed the subject in correspondence with her husband, he never did advocate such a change in the legal relationship of women within that society.

Over the years, the nation evolved, not turning against the Founding principles, rather, in a social or societal form, with Wyoming being the first to enact women’s suffrage laws.  Rights of ownership of land and/or inheritance were becoming common, and barriers were falling, as well as advancing women in the society, without intervention by the federal government.

Finally, in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the federal government intervened in an area that was reserved by the Constitution to the states.  As with the Fifteenth Amendment (race suffrage), the right of the states to determine who could vote in elections, both state and national, as protected by the Constitution, was now being assumed by the  federal government.

Not that it was a bad move, rather, that it was the abrogation of the right of the states to make such a decision, that was so appalling.  It was just seven years earlier that the right of the states to be represented, by senators chosen by their respective legislatures, in Congress, was removed by the Seventeenth Amendment.  This was, effectively, the end of states’ rights.

As contrary to the original construction of the Constitution as this was, it also opened a means of the presumption of federal authority in manipulating the society to the will of the powers in Washington, D.C., and those who influence such social change.

Over time, unconstitutional legislation has resulted the reduction of the male to a subordinate position in our society, where lawsuits and intimidation work in only one direction, to the detriment, and at the expense of, one half of the society.

Our society, which was based upon rewards for performance, was converted to one where rewards are mandated by quotas, with little regard to ability and performance.  This denies to society the making of the choices that were assured and protected by the Constitution.

The advocacy of federal intervention, as opposed to the normal evolution of these norms in our culture, is in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and is inconsistent with the Principle Faction.

Christian militia:  Militia, the right to collective self-defense, is embodied in the Second Amendment, and has been a part of our heritage and culture since the Magna Carta.  Since 1215, that right has existed, and, since that time, the Militia have always been subordinate to civil authority and have been geographic in their composition.  From the Shires of England, to the counties, townships, villages and plantations of the seventeen hundreds, participation in the militia was a right and was a duty. The only exceptions were exclusions for certain people because of vocation, and those that were “inimical to the cause of American Liberty” (Tories).  To exclude people who do not claim to be of the Christian faith is contrary to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded.

Christian militia are inconsistent the Principle Faction

Islamic groups:  Islam is not just a religion.  Islam, in its current manifestation, is a social and political system, as well.  It is a social system that includes a number of practices that are considered abhorrent, by our culture. Its social/judicial system manifests extreme punishments for what our culture might perceive to be a minor transgression or no crime at all.

Though two hundred years ago, “Mohametmen” simply practiced as a religion, and were accepted as a religion by the Framers, their character has changed to be anything but just a religion.

We can look to Europe and see the consequences of the intrusion of Islam into a society.  Eventually, the demand for change or legal reform to comply with their social/political system takes many forms, including physical abuse against people that oppose them; and the obstruction of roadways so that they can hold collective prayer absent a facility for such service; exercising their form of justice, including capital punishment, contrary to the host country’s laws, and often exempt from prosecution for crimes that would otherwise result in incarceration, or worse.

Much like the illegal immigrants, members of the Islamic faith come here with a total disregard for our laws, our culture, and our society.  They come with the intention of forcing change, by intimidation, by their numbers, or any means that suits them.  Their presence in the country, under their present manifestation, is contrary to the Constitution and its principles, and contrary to the Principle Faction.

The Congress:  Congress, especially after their vote for the Debt Ceiling Increase, has demonstrated that they are a faction unto themselves, without regard for the Constitution or the will of the people.

The Congress acts in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country.

The Executive Branch:  The Executive Branch, tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, has continued to ignore existing laws regarding immigration, and when forced into enforcing such laws, does so with a leniency that is more encouraging to the violation of the immigration laws than deterring them.

The Executive Branch has declared that Tea Party members; Constitutionalists; Gun Rights (Second Amendment) advocates, combat veterans, and others, who fall well within the Principle Faction as “terrorist”.

The executive Branch of the government is in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country

The US government:  The government “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”,  to lie, steal and even murder, members of the Principle Faction, and has done so with immunity from prosecution.

The Administrative Branches of government are in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

State governments:  State governments, with rare exception, do not defy federal intrusions against the Principle Faction, and often participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional polices and laws, receiving compensation from the federal government for the submission to its assumed and unconstitutional authority.

The state governments are acting in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

Of course, within each of these factions are members who are adherents to the Principle Faction and the Constitution, though they may be facilitating that faction in opposition to the Principle Faction.  Rather than suffering guilt by association, they would be well advised to understand that adherence to the Principle Faction and assimilation is imperative.

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 3, 2011

In Part I, we established what the Supreme Court determined to be “We the People”, or, “citizens of the United States”, prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Part II, we saw that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred to those not of “We the People”, regardless of prior status, a new class of people who are granted “privileges and immunities”, though not the rights inherent with “We the People”.

In Part III, we see that within a few years of ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court confirms that “rights” were not conveyed by that Amendment.

In Part IV, we found that the Supreme Court did recognize that there was a difference between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States, and that the latter was protected (jurisdiction existed) by the Fourteenth Amendment and to the former, it did not (no jurisdiction).

Now, we will move forward, 56 years, to 1964, to a case that reaffirms the classes of citizen, though begins to erode the protections previously provided to citizens of the United States.

The case is Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, and involves a discussion by the Court of just which Amendments (Bill of Rights) are extended to those who seek protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, when it says:

“It was on the authority of that decision that the Court said in 1908 in Twining v.  New Jersey, supra, that “it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law.”

So, the question that arose in this case is, to what extent does the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the protection of rights, and, which rights are protected.  It redefines what was said in Twining, and requires that any right being protected “be a denial of the due process of law“.  This is a simple paraphrase of “the equal protection of the laws”, from the Fourteenth Amendment.  So, it simply expands that singular authority to include speech, press, and other rights within the first eight amendments, so long as “due process” can be brought into the equation.

It did not, however, even begin to address anything that would remove, or affect, the nature of the two classes of citizen.  They remain unimpaired and intact.

Since the Courts will use a stepping stone process in “revising” laws to a more modern “interpretation”, Malloy afforded the Court the opportunity to undermine the distinction between the two classes.  However, they chose not to walk upon that sacred ground.  Their absence of comment on the two classes leaves that distinction intact.

So, we can see that from Dred Scott (Part I), in 1854, the Court established a foundation of this country as being built upon, by, and for, a certain class of people.  This is probably best defined by the wording of Justice Taney, in that decision, to wit:

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

For the sake of discussion, this sacred class (within the United States) shall be referred to as “We the People”.  But, perhaps, we should endeavor, with a bit more precision, to define just what/who those “We the People” were/are, in light of what Justice Taney said.

After much thought, I can only come up with three possibilities that might shed light on Taney’s description of that class known as “We the People”.

1. That it would include only those who are defined by the rather common acronym, “WASP”, meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant”.  When we consider that in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Jews were not allowed to reside in some of the colonies; that loathing of Catholics (Popists) was common through most of the colonies, during that period, more effectually demonstrated by the objection to the Quebec Act of 1774, allowing Catholics to vote and hold office in Canada, are indicative of the sympathies of the times;
2. Caucasians of European descent, which would include perhaps 99% of those who had immigrated to the colonies to begin life, anew; or,
3. Those of Indo-European language groups (first defined in 1647 and including English, Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages), thus having a common heritage and culture, at least in the distant past.

There is no way that we can interpret, from what Justice Taney said, just who “We the People” were, though it is clear by the context of his description that it would include those above described peoples, or combinations thereof, “but for no one else.

Then, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and granted citizenship to people who were not of this class, “We the People”.  Further, it granted then only privileges and immunities.  It did not grant them rights.

This position (distinction between classes) is further supported by the ratification of the 15th Amendment (granting the right of suffrage (voting), regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.

Then, in 1874, the Court, in Happersett (Part III), made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment did not convey rights.  However, the Constitution makes clear that there are rights retained by the people (We the People), so since there cannot be conflict between the Constitution and an AMENDMENT (unless expressly resolved in the amendment), the distinction is further enhanced.

So, for all intents and purposes, there are four classes of people in this country, today:

• “We the People”, those descended from the Framers, or otherwise within the principles of the original Constitution, who have retained their rights;
• Those made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment, with the privileges and immunities granted therein, and any rights specifically bestowed, by subsequent amendments;
• Those who are here, lawfully and in accordance with all laws, as visitors, and who have not violated any conditions of the permission granted to visit; and,
• Those who are here unlawfully, that have entered in violation of our laws or have violated the conditions of their permissive visitation.

The foundation of this country, then, rests upon an understanding that the purpose of the Constitution, and the country, is to provide a home for those of the class, “We the People”.  That others who choose to assimilate into the American Culture do so with that understanding, and the understanding that they are the beneficiaries of all privileges and immunities, though only those rights specifically granted.

It can also be concluded that any who have designs contrary to the support and continuation of the United States, as intended by the Framers, and described herein, are inconsistent with the purpose of the country, and, as such, are against the Constitution and should be deemed unacceptable and unwanted visitors.

If the United States is to return to its former stature as the beacon to the world of freed enterprise by a free people, we must return, also, to the concept that allowed such concepts of freedom to prosper, and grow, in a rather short history, to what it had become by the end of the Nineteenth Century.

It can return to that stature only if we do return to those principles that made this nation great.  Absent a dedication to that purpose, we are destined to be nothing more than a footnote in history.  And, that will be our rightful place, if we fail to act to secure that which we hold so dear.

Thus concludes this series.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2011

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

We think they [descendents of slaves, whether free, or not] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #62:

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 18, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taney goes on to ask this important question:

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

Further defining the question, he says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

Committees of Safety and the General Association

The Committees of safety were best described as an Executive Committee, perhaps equivalent to a mayor, county board, or governor.  In Agnes Hunt’s book, “The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution“, she explains the colony level Committee of Safety as an Executive Board that often shared that responsibility with the governor, if the governor had taken the colonist’s side of the dispute with Great Britain.

Though no “instruction manual” has been found, various writings about the Committees, and records left by them, provide a pattern that can be reestablished, at least to the extent that the Committees operated, in some locations.  It is probably safe to assume, also, that other locations operated in a similar fashion.

What has come to light is that a community had a General Association, to which each family who chose to subscribe was subscribed by the signature of the head of the family.  In some instances, if the head of the family was a Tory, or had questionable allegiance, another male in the family would subscribe to the General Association.  It also appears that the term, Committee of Safety, applied to both the General Association and the executive board known as the Committee of Safety.  Tories were excluded from participation, however, once hostilities broke out, they, along with everyone else in the community, was assumed to be under the jurisdiction of the Committee of Safety (a de fact subscriber).  This would subject them to judicial control of the Committee, which, in the case of Tories.  Might result in “house-arrest, taking of long arms, or even imprisonment, unless and until an oath was taken to the cause of the colony.

From the General Association, members were elected to serve on the Committee, as representatives of the entire Association.  In Albany, New York, where a count can be made, approximately 10% of the General Association (by family, not total census) served on the Committee of Safety, at any given time.

There was frequent turnover within the Committee.  Chairmen appeared to serve for six months, and names change, in the composition of the Committee, fairly often, though some members served the entire period from 1775 to 1781.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities.  Most General Associations, and their respective Committees of Safety, existed only to fill in where the British government failed to provide necessary services.  Often the Association and Committee were described as the “town meeting”, which was an authority granted under the Royal Charter, converted to strictly General Associations and Committees of Safety, as the disagreement between colonists and British Rule devolved into conflict (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence).

By April 12, 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress requested that all communities within Massachusetts form Committees of Safety (See document at committee.org).  After the outbreak of hostilities, just a week later, every colony put out similar requests for the creation of Committees.

Much of the record of evidence demonstrates another aspect of Committees.  Committees were formed in communities.  Within a County, those communities would form a County Committee of Safety, and, though, much independence of action by the local Committees was retained, they subordinated to the County Committee of Safety, as a senior body.  Similarly, the Provincial Committees (as par Agnes Hunt, above) subordinated to the State Committee of Safety, though they, too, retained independence in many areas.  The ascending levels of authority appear to be only to the extent necessary to achieve cooperation and coordination of efforts.

The extent of the “legislative authority” of the Committees, at all levels, seems to be limited with enacting laws to deal with Tories (those inimical to the cause of American Liberty”) and establishing requirements for service in their respective militia units.

For more information about Committees of Safety, go to http://www.committee.org

The
Fourteenth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution

From the Ratification of the Constitution through today

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

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

By
Gary Hunt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom.

An Argument For Moral Courage

Part I

By David Allison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Disease –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characteristics Of Madness:

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

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

Addendum:

Sent by email:

Dear friends;

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

Regards,

The White Value System:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent by email:

Dear Friends;

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

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

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

Regards,

THE FOLLOWING FROM

TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

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

THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom.

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

An Argument For Moral Courage

Part II

By David Allison

Contagion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cloward and Piven and Other Cultural Manipulators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Habeas Corpus — what does it mean?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 4, 2010

Constitution, Article I, Section 9, clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Unlike most protections afforded in the Constitution as rights, this one is clearly set out as a “privilege”. This is because it can be suspended under certain conditions, though it has to be so stated to the public, when it is suspended.

* * *

The following is written as an explanation in response to a number of queries about my use of habeas corpus in an article entitled “What if I’m Arrested?“.

The article dealt with the circumstance surrounding a traffic ticket, though did not sufficiently support the reasoning behind the habeas corpus.  This is to expound upon that “great writ”.

This does not mean that “habeas corpus” will only work on a traffic ticket. I have not had the opportunity to test it on a larger scale.

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

Habeas corpus is a phrase that many of us learned in grade school.  Not that we really knew what it meant, but we were told how important it was and why it was even included as protected by the Constitution.  At best, we were told that it was “bring forth the body”, which, by definition, has some truth.

Today, the press only mentions habeas corpus when they are talking about death row decisions.  This is a nice diversion, because, since we didn’t really know what it meant, we are now prone to accept that if we ever find ourselves on death row, we can recall that fine “great writ of liberty” and, perhaps, prolong our demise.

So, let’s start by looking at what the legal definition(s) of habeas corpus is (are):

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Habeas corpus acts.  The English statutes of 31 Car. II, c. 2, is the original and prominent habeas corpus act.  It was amended and supplemented by St. 56 Geo. III, c. 100.  Similar statutes have been enacted in all of the United States.  This act is regarded as the great constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.  See Art. I, § 9, U.S. Const.; 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum.  A writ which is issued to remove, for trial, a person confined in one county to the county or place where the offense of which he is accused was committed.  Thus, it has been granted to remove a person in custody for contempt to take his trial for perjury in another county.

Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum.  A writ issuing in civil cases to remove the cause, as also the body of the defendant, from an inferior court to a superior court having jurisdiction, there are to be a disposed of.  It is also called “habeas corpus cum causa“.

Habeas corpus ad prosequendum.  A writ which is usually employed in civil cases to remove a person out of the custody of one court into that of another, in order that he may be sued and answer the action in the latter.

Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum.  An English practice, a writ which issues when a prisoner has had a judgment against them in an action, and the plaintiff is desirous to bring him up to some superior court, to charge him with process of execution.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ, the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent.  This writ is guaranteed by U.S. Const. Art I, §9, and by state constitutions.  See also 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

This is the well known remedy in England and the United States for deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone the most celebrated writ and the English law, and the great and efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  3 Bl.Comm. 129.  The “great writ of liberty”, issuing at common law out of the courts of Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Habeas corpus ad testificandum.  The writ, meaning you have the body to testify, used to bring up a prisoner detained in a jail or prison to give evidence before the court.  Hottle v. District Court in and for Clinton County, 233 Iowa 904, 11 N.W.2d 30, 34; 3Bl.Comm. 130.

Now, I realize that this is getting rather confusing.  However, if you read them all, as well as the first, which sets out that history of the series of acts that constitute habeas corpus, you might have noted that one stands out from the rest.  If not, then, go back and reread Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  In so doing, you will note that Blackstone defined it as “the great writ of liberty“.  Darn, same language they used in school.

You will also note that, “the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention“.  So, it appears that, perhaps, this, as in the game “Monopoly”, just might be a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.  Not quite!

Detention evokes an image of being constrained by chains, force, threat of force, or other means that keep you from doing what you wish to do.  So, I’ll use an example of what I wrote about in What if I’m Arrested?.  I was arrested.  I posted bail and was free, so long as I appeared in court at the time and place directed.  Though I was free to move about, while on bail, I was still, technically, detained.  I was under detention!  Likewise, if you have signed a traffic ticket, you have agreed to appear.  If you ask the officer issuing the citation, “If I do not sign this, will you take me to jail?”, he will affirm that he will take you to jail.  So, even though you may not have posted bail, you have, by your signature, bound yourself to self-imposed detention until such time as you appear.

New, if we understand just what “held to answer” (5th Amendment) means, that is that we are, technically detained, though perhaps not physically, when we are charged with a crime, we understand that the charge, requiring that you produce yourself at the required place and time, makes the detention a part of the charge, and the charge a part of the detention.  Neither can exist without the other.

Now, with that in mind, let’s look at the matter of detention.  When I did my “oral demand for habeas corpus” (What if I’m Arrested?), by challenging the court to produce the injured party, and demanding that that party be produced along with an affidavit or contract, I was challenging the detention associated with the charge.  The judge, apparently, agreed and decided to “nolle prosequi” (not prosecute) the case.  Thereby freeing me from both detention and charges.

Unlike the approach most often taken by those challenging jurisdiction (which this really was -jurisdiction over my body), who seek to get into common law courts, my approach was predicated on getting out of common law court by assuming that I was already in a common law court.  This created no argument with the judge, only the decision to grant me that common law right, or not.

For much more on Habeas Corpus, see

Habeas Corpus – Main Page  webpage

Habeas Corpus docketed in the U. S. Supreme Court  article

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

a United States Militia

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 3, 2010

Often I see a suggestion that the federal government should enact statutes protecting the militia, perhaps even organizing and equipping it.  Well, to some extent that is provided for in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, clause 15:

Congress shall have the Power to….  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So, it can be called forth for certain purposes.

Article I, Section 8, clause 16:

Congress shall have the Power to…. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Organizing, arming, and disciplining are also included, extended even to governing, while in time of service to the country.  Significantly, however, the appointment of officers and training is left to the States.  This is important because it show the chain of command being to the State not the United States, (except as necessary when in service to the United States).  The officers know who writes their check, and, the members are trained by local people, though in accordance with the discipline provided by Congress.  The primary allegiance to the State is preserved.

Article II, Section 2, clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …

Here is the exception mentioned above.  Only while in service to the country is the allegiance to the State even subordinated.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Though State can also mean a country, in the context of the Constitution, it is one of the members of the Union created by the Constitution.  Here, quite clearly, the ability for the State to a free in its nature is assured by the only explanation of the need for the Militia — the security of a free State.

The following was enacted in 1916, with the exception of the provision for “female members of the National Guard (1973) and “unorganized militia” description (1958).  Exceptions (those not in the militia) are provided for in the next Section of the Code, but are irrelevant to this discussion.

10 U.S.C. § 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, let us look at what affect this Statute (United States Code provision) has on the entire concept of Militia.

Let’s suppose that the United States wanted to call forth the Militia, prior to 1916.  They would requisition from the states a quota to be filled.  The States, in their capacity, could refuse, if they wanted, to fill the quota.  I’m not sure where this would take us, since I am not aware of any instance where that happened, but, perhaps, that is why it never happened — that the federal government knew its limits and would not dare call the Militia under circumstances that it felt might generate a refusal.