Appeasement
Giving in, inch by inch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2013

 

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

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

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

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

Appeasement and World War II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeasement Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeasement on our children

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

Appeasement on militarization of police

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

Appeasement on Christianity

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Resistance Has Begun

Once again, we honor those who served their country, and world, seventy years ago

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 14, 2013

For the first time since the Tea Party element realized that something was seriously wrong in government, thereby becoming a part of the patriot/constitutionalist community, people were seen on the streets carrying something other than signs.  Though not quite on the level of rifles, or pitchforks, the idea that barricades could be returned to the White House, in protest of the childish actions of the Executive Branch of government, begins to show an advanced form of resistance to the misdeeds and shenanigans of government.

What makes this action so comment worthy is that this act of defiance goes beyond words.  It is, without a doubt, an action that demonstrates that the government will find more resistance, in the very near future, if it does not begin to demonstrate moral and fiscal responsibly in utilizing their positions of trust with the American people.

Unlike Arab Spring, which was chaotic mobs without a real objective, we Americans have sense enough to recognize that the foundation of this country is solid, and, if properly administered, can return to the greatness it once demonstrated.  The actions of Sunday, October 13, 2013 are just the beginning of the insistence that government revise its course and resume administering a government of the people.  If they fail to do so, those activities are a portent of things to come.

Finally, let us honor those Veterans of World War II, and all those who supported them — in reclaiming that which is ours.

National Parks Held Hostage

Just what is a “public” park?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 12, 2013

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

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

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

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Dilemma

Posterity and Perpetual Debt

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 8, 2013

The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, which sets out the purpose of the government therein created, concludes with the following, “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, is a mighty powerful phrase, if taken as intended by the framers of our government.

A concept that was advanced among the people, over 10 years prior to the Constitution, dwelt upon the fair and just contribution of the people to the expense of government.  The phrase most often use, with regard to this contribution, was “no taxation without representation.”  This meant that only those selected to represent the people could impose taxation upon them.  Unless directly represented, there could be no justification for the imposition of a tax upon the people.

Let’s look at how “Posterity” was viewed in the past:

Primogeniture, as a concept of birthright and inheritance, goes back, in Biblical times, to before Isaac and his two sons, Esau and Jacob. The oldest child inherits, and the siblings are, for the most part, at the mercy of the oldest, or are simply on their own.  Over time, the right to “testament” allowed the patriarch to divide his estate as he saw fit. Under both systems, there was no appreciable cost imposed upon the inheritance.

In 1215 the Magna Carta was signed.  Articles 2 through 11 address the rights of heirs.  Only descendents of Lords and Knights paid any fees (Lords, 100£ and Knights, 100 shillings) to retain the estate, which included subsequent pensions.  Those of lower social standing received the estate, providing that only debt, without interest, could be taken, and that land could not be taken so long as personal property was sufficient to cover the debt.

In 1898, the first inheritance tax was enacted in the United States.  However, at the time, it was only on personal property, not real estate, and was based upon amounts over $10,000 (a very large sum, at that time).

Since that time, we have seen an escalation in the destruction of an estate that provides that only the very wealthy can pass nearly the entire estate on to their children, unaffected by ‘contributions’ to the government.

Beginning in 1913, with the advent of the “income tax”, we find that the “income tax” becomes the source whereby money is taken from the family, for the general good. We also find that a direct tax, in contradiction to the intent of the original direct tax provision of the Constitution, begins to take more and more of the annual earnings, as well as substantial portions of the estate, upon the death of the parents.

Beyond that, based upon the Congress having the power “to pay the Debts…”,  we find, now, that even after we have had our earnings taken from us, the “Debt” extends to an obligation upon our posterity, which, at this time, we can see no end.

What effect does this have on our descendents, “our Posterity”?  If we look simply at the current publicly acknowledged $16 trillion current debt of this country, without consideration of interest, we are looking at an obligation of about $50,000 per man, woman and child.  However, this is based upon only external (money owed to those outside of government) obligations.

Just for starters, let’s look at what USA Today report, in May 2007, with regard to the true debt.  Their estimate was $59 Trillion (with a “T”, being $59,000,000,000,000), which would put the debt at about $200,000,000 for every man, woman, and child. But, that was 6 years ago.

Let’s look at what that current debt obligation, as explained in a National Review Article,  which is an average estimate at $106,000,000,000,000.  This gives an average debt of $331,000 for every man, woman, and child. So, without consideration of additional annual costs, which will have to be added on each year, for the operation of government, we see that if someone works 50 years, simply paying on the past debt, it will be an obligation of $6,600 per year, for each man, woman, and child.

Looking at the annual proposed 2013 budget, we see that outlays will amount to $3,803,000,000,000. This means that every man, woman, and child, will have to fork over nearly $12,000 to meet this annual expense. However, little, if any, goes to the reduction of the debt outlined above.

To put this in hopefully simple terms, if every man, woman and child paid, this year, $343,000 ($331,000 plus $12,000), we would relieve the debt, completely, and only have to pay $12,000 next year, and subsequent years, so long as Congress doesn’t begin spending, again, like a drunken sailor (my apology to all sailors, drunk or sober).

Now, it is true that the government has revenue from other sources, and those must be taken into account. However, we must also look at just where the money comes from to supply those other sources with the means to pay their share of the annual contribution. Quite simply, that money comes from “Excise, Impost and Duties”, which simply add that cost to what we pay for certain goods. So, though all of the $12,000 won’t be directly on you, it will, without a doubt, be indirectly upon you.

So, what does this have to do with “Posterity” and “No taxation without representation”? Well, the reality of the numbers presented above is that we, the People of the United States of America, and our Posterity, have an insurmountable debt. It is perpetual, as was only intended of the Union, though now it is also of the debt. It cannot be retired (paid off), by any means currently within the grasp of government. It can only result in either an increase in taxes, or, the perpetuation to even more generations, yet unborn, or both.

So, from the days of the Magna Carta, where posterity was protected, and unburdened by future debt, we have evolved, as a free people, to the point that the “Posterity”, which was of great concern to the founders of this nation, has now become the scapegoat, burdened with perpetual debt — that can be described as no less than slavery.  They are without representation, as clearly, those unborn can have none to speak for them.

We have gone from “Last Will and Testament”, intended to pass on to our heirs what remained of our fortune, to one where though there may be a small residual, it can never approach the obligation we have burdened them with.

Is this what the framers intended? Is this what we intend to leave to our Posterity? If not, what do we intend to do about it?

The Passing of the Torch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 11, 2001

This morning, a perversion of justice and the Constitution succeeded in taking the life of an American Patriot.  Timothy James McVeigh was executed, by lethal injection, in Terre Haute, Indiana.  His crime, say the courts, was the murder of federal agents.

McVeigh’s death might be more appropriately ascribed to the inability of the US government to function, in any judicial capacity, in a manner consistent with the authority granted government by the Constitution.

After a failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was created and adopted (ratified) to enable a new government, with more power in the exercise of government, but, with specific limitations established with regard to its jurisdiction, authority and imposing upon it an obligation to protect certain rights which had been deemed, by the Constitution and other founding documents, to have been granted to the People — by God.

In the matter of Jurisdiction, the Constitution clearly sets forth the ability of the federal government to extend “exclusive jurisdiction” over a few enumerated locations.  Even considering the expansion of those locations by the Northwest Ordinance, those limitations were upheld by the Supreme Court for many years.  Federal authority over the actions of individuals was extremely limited, and with few exceptions, existed only when authorized by Constitutional Amendment.  Hence the absence of federal statutes against assassination or murder, until recently.

Likewise, the jurisdiction of federal agencies was severally limited, and extended only to those cases that were well within the Interstate Commerce or other specific provisions.  The Supreme Court has struck down a number of laws, which, though they attempted to appeal to the interstate Commerce provision, were tied to the provision by such a stretch as to be deemed without Constitutional authority.  The striking down of the federal “gun free school zones” is an example of an unlawful presumption on the authority of the federal government.

Many federal agencies were created with a specific purpose.  For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) was instituted to act as a tax collection agency, under the Treasury Department.  Tax matters have always been considered, in this country, to be civil in nature, not criminal.

Within the Department of Justice, there was an agency created whose purpose was to investigate and aid in the prosecuting criminal activity.  The authority for it to “enforce” laws was written in to its directive in 1994, and is a gross violation of the intention of the Founders.  They had always sought a separation between force and civil authority.  Never had it been contemplated that an agency could use force without separate and distinct civil authority.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation was within that scope – until it began, even prior to its description being changed – enforcing, rather than simply investigating.

These two agencies came together, in 1993, in an attack on a religious group in Waco, Texas.  The incident began when the tax collection agency (BATF) entered upon lands recognized by McClellan County and the state of Texas, as a Church.  When they entered, they entered with guns drawn and with every intention of entering the Church through windows and doors, without obtaining the consent of the Pastor of that Church.  They also intended to shoot anyone who opposed that entry.  And, they succeeded in both.

After having four of their own killed (and killing seven of the Church members), they withdrew from their combat positions and regrouped, just a few hundred yards away from the Church – limiting access to only those deemed acceptable by the tax collection agency.

Soon, they were reinforced by the investigators.  Of course, they lied, but just a little bit, about what had occurred, so their bigger brother, the investigators, took family under wing and began an investigation, which resulted in an armed camp, much akin to a military installation, and a defensive perimeter (crime scene) larger than any before ever envisioned.

For fifty-one days, the tax collectors and investigators imposed every sort of mental anguish and abuse that they could concoct – upon the parishioners huddling, scared for their lives, inside of their flimsy Church.

During the course of the fifty-one day siege, the agencies, and their compatriots in Washington, D.C., began a campaign of deceit in an effort to demonize the pastor and his congregation – and, detract from an honest evaluation of the circumstance by both the public and the government.

However, the biggest problem was that for the near first time in the history of this country, the agencies, not the Congress or the President, determined what they would do, how they would do it and what the rules would be by which all would play.

Many people observed, first hand, the encampment of federal ‘soldiers’ just outside of a quiet Texas town.  They also observed the support troops, which had been deputized by the FBI to act as a perimeter guard to the ‘crime scene’.  These deputies, who had sworn to uphold the Constitution in the performance of their duties, had turned their backs on that oath, and blindly obeyed the unlawful orders given by this civilian agency with guns.  Timothy McVeigh was among those observers.

Timothy, like so many others around the country, had sought, by peaceful means, to bring about a return to Constitutional limitations of governmental authority.  After all, being a decorated veteran and hero of Desert Storm, Timothy had demonstrated his willingness to put his life on the line in defense of that Constitution.  He had no choice but to express his discontent with the government’s usurpation of authority by peaceful means.

Then, on April 19, 1993, as the world watched, a tragedy of epic proportions occurred in the area controlled, absolutely, by those federal agents.  Regardless of blame over who started the fire that consumed over eighty lives — men, women and children — the precautions which could have prevented the disaster, or, at least, minimized the degree of death and destruction, were none existent, and when offered by the local fire department were refused.  By any stretch of the imagination, this would be nothing less than gross negligence.  But, considering the obligation of the government to safeguard life and property, the failure to do so constitutes a far more serious breach of public trust than would at first be recognized.

As time went on, it became apparent that federal agents told lies to other federal agents, Congressional committees and the public.  Evidence was lost, misplaced, or hidden.  Eventually, in 1994, when those who had escaped with their lives stood trial, these same agents committed perjury.

Unlike the events in Boston, in 1770, the Boston Massacre, no government agents ever stood trial so that the People might judge whether they had violated the laws, or the Constitution.  Instead, their only judgment came from their superiors within their respective agencies – the same superiors who authorized these unlawful activities in the first place.

Complicit with these agents, the court gave instructions, which some of the jurors later complained of, left no alternative but to convict those Church members on trial, though the lowest possible ‘crime’ was the choice of the jurors who felt that if there was a crime, it was more technical than destructive.  The court became even more contemptuous when it imposed maximum sentences, and even came to some conclusions, which the jury had not, resulting in the judge increasing sentences to up to forty years for some of the defendants.

Many of the same observers of the events in Waco watched the judicial process to see if the government was, in the least, capable of applying justice to the matter, or whether it was more intent on preserving an air of respectability to the actions of the forces which had already decimated the Church to a handful of followers.

The conclusion, by those observers, which has been proven correct in the ensuing years, was that the government had determined that the government (king) could do no wrong.

As a result of the conviction of the Church members, the Constitutionalist community, throughout the country, became outraged.  Many advocates openly expressed their intentions to go to Washington and “hang the Congress from light posts.”  Others advocated blowing up government buildings, killing government agents and taking any action necessary to force the government back in to obedience to the Constitution.

Among all the words, however, only one man began planning an action consistent with the words of others.  He began traveling around the country, securing funding; expanding his knowledge of explosives, visiting potential targets, and preparing a plan of action that would come to fruition just two years, to the day after the destructive conclusion of the events at the little Church in Waco.

To carry out his plan, he realized that there was risk.  Government infiltration of Constitutionalist groups had probably reached epic proportions.  Whether Louis Beam’s “Leaderless Resistance” was a part of his study, or not, it was apparent that he recognized the risk of a broad base of support, so he settled on enlisting the help of two people who he had known for many years.

Had he sought a larger base of support, he might well have had the advantage of sophisticated explosives, timers, and delivery methods.  Instead, he opted for a homemade bomb, using the best materials readily available.

On April 19, 1995, Timothy James McVeigh completed the execution of his plan.  Though he had anticipated even less destruction than occurred, he was successful in bringing attention to his actions throughout the world.  He had little doubt, considering both the historical and recent attributes of the date that the reasoning behind the bombing would be obvious.  He was sure that government would understand his message, and, he was equally sure that he had just committed an act that consummated his status as an enemy of the US government.  He was, finally, involved in a war to restore Constitutional government to the United States of America.

– – – – – – –

In 1995, The Prosecuting Attorney and the Defense Attorney, in the United States vs. Timothy James McVeigh proceedings, formally agreed that ALL documents obtained by the government, regarding the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing, be provided to the Defense Team.  This agreement was affirmed and ordered by Judge Matsch, who was also the trial judge.  As a result of this agreement, a new database was set up to track all documents relating to the case.  Virtually every document relating to the investigation was to be logged into the database.

Early on, however, Defense Attorney Stephen Jones asked for documents that were referred to in other documents, but were not listed in the database.  Frequently, he was told that there were no other documents.  He had little choice but to proceed with what was available.

On May 9, 2001, just a few days before the scheduled execution of Timothy McVeigh, and after months of knowing of the existence of thousands of documents which had been excluded from the database, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (remember them from Waco?) went public with the fact that over three thousand documents had been ‘found’ that were not included in the database, nor were they provided to the Defense Team – in direct violation of the agreement, the order, and the law.

The next day, the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, stayed the execution of Timothy McVeigh until June 11, 2001.  This, he said, was sufficient time for the Defense Team to study all three thousand documents and conclude that there was nothing that would clear their client – who had, by the way, already “confessed to the crime”.

As time went on, the number of documents that had been excluded approached five thousand.  Many of them dealt with the possibility of witnesses to more than just McVeigh and his two army buddies, Michael Fortier and Terry Nichols.  Perhaps so, but if justice is to prevail, all of the facts – especially those which are required to be turned over to satisfy Due Process – must be made available to the Defense Team.  Due Process, after all, requires a rigid adherence to the law.  If failure to advise someone that he has the right to the presence of a lawyer is a violation of Due Process, then, surely, denial of access to all evidence is, likewise, a denial of Due Process.

And, as for confessions, are the valid if they are not sworn to, or if they come through third party writings?  Evidence, perhaps, but not sufficient to deny someone Due Process of Law.

Even Judge Matsch realized the severity of the problem of the missing documents when he berated the FBI for their failure to comply with his order.  But, then, Judge Matsch, just a few minutes later, denied a stay of execution to allow the Defense Team time to complete their review of the documents.

– – – – – – –

Timothy McVeigh acted as he did because he saw that government was incapable of conducting itself with principle and integrity.  He saw a government resorting to “brute force” in dealing with other nations of the world, as well as its own people.  He wanted to expose the actions of the government – to bring attention to the fact that it was no longer operating as was intended.  He was willing to die to reveal these truths – but the government continued to insist that it was operating properly, and was capable of acting within the laws.

As his execution date approached, the FBI, in true form, once again exposed itself as a bungling, incompetent investigative agency in its inability to keep track of its own records.  Final proof of the need to protect Americans from a government who has set itself has the almighty knower of all truths.

Unlike the government, Timothy McVeigh’s head IS “bloody but unbowed”!

But, today, Timothy McVeigh is dead.  And, now, it is time to pass the torch.

Will you receive it?

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

The other two articles in this series:

An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh

What did Timothy McVeigh really say?

 

Understanding the Tenth Amendment

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 27, 2013

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

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

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tahoe Regional Area Plan (TRAP)
by K. M. Heaton  (Aug. 28, 1913 – Jun. 6, 2000)

(Note: This article was printed in the Outpost of Freedom newspaper on February 5, 1993.  The date that it was written is unknown.)

While citizens around the country are becoming alarmed at the regional activity in their areas which threatens their own local government and their rights to use their property as they choose, there are some in El Dorado and Placer Counties in California, and in Douglas, Washoe and Ormsby Counties in Nevada who know only too well that the alarm is justified.

Those El Doradoans who live in what is known as “the Tahoe Basin” have come face to face with the hard reality of planning-by-government, and they rue the day when the Tahoe Regional Area Plan was placed over their Constitutional government.

Even those who wished for oversight to “preserve the beauty of the lake“, have lived to regret the imposition of the controls they thought they wanted to achieve that goal.  The controls fell far short of their stated purpose, but laid a heavy hand on the lives of all the citizens in those five counties – even those who did not live in the Basin.

Like most of their fellow Americans, the residents of the Tahoe Basin lived a workaday existence.  They exhibited minimal political awareness.  Very few took any interest in partisan activities.

Surrounded by mountain peaks, Tahoe was isolated from the mainstream of American life, except for the summer tourist population, which in recent years had been matched in winter by skiers enjoying the snow-clad mountains.

Even longtime residents were at a loss when the California and Nevada Legislatures took the step that placed them and their future outside the protection of the United States Constitution.

There had been warning signs, of course.  There always are, if people only knew.  But such a radical step as took place under the Tahoe Plan was inconceivable.

It should not have been, for the fact that something was in the wind had not been a secret for many years, just as it is no secret today that government everywhere is facing a similar assault – and not just in the United States.  When George Herbert Walker Bush announced the creation of a “New World Order“, he simply made official what students of the regional movement had known for years.

But the fact is that there were none on guard to read the warning signals, to look beyond them and find out why they were raised, and what they would portent.

At Tahoe, as elsewhere, citizens actually took part in the general planning for “economic development”, without knowing what that really meant, nor what the “plan” might be, nor how their personal futures were directly tied to what was being done.  Certainly, no thought was ever entertained that it meant an end to their guarantees under the Constitution.

In El Dorado County, the “general plan” was brought in through a long-term effort, initiated at the federal level, but energized by some in the power structure of the county.  The first direct move into the county took place without fanfare, and unknown to most citizens.  There is a question if even the elected officials of the time were aware of it, for there is no indication of their complicity as a body.  Of all the people whose involvement can be identified, none were elected and only one is a name recognized five years later in county activity.

Since this was the first overt step in El Dorado toward regional governance, and since it was taken by authority of the United States Department of Agriculture, and since it was part of “a nationwide inventory” reputedly set up by the Secretary of Agriculture, it has significance for every local government in the nation.

Throughout 1958 and ’59 (yes, it was that long ago, and even longer, as you will learn), groups of “Resource agency” representatives held meetings as part of a national program to provide data “useful to federal, state and local agencies and private interests for efficient planning, programming, research, administration and legislation, affecting soil and water resources.”  So said the Report this group issued for El Dorado County.  (And for how many others?)

Using the so-called “population explosion” as the stated impetus, these early planners laid the foundation for their final recommendations, saying that “nothing is more important to health, welfare, and general happiness of the people than to maintain the right relationship or balance between people and these basic resources.”  (Apparently these ‘experts’ never head of the ‘Declaration of Independence’.)

The Report winds up with a ‘summary’ of their findings in a “Conservation Needs Inventory“.  There it was predicted (with out substantive data to use as a base) that the El Dorado population would increase from 50 to 100% by 1975.  (Quite a disparity there! and it did not).  They stated that this increase would create new problems in land use and conservation.  They asserted that this would affect as much as one third of “the county’s land” and influence its economy.  Then they opined that “Long term land-use planning is needed“, and offered the data in their Report as a base for such planning.

The “data” they offered refuted their own premises, and confirmed that land use planning was the single goal.

A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY

In a book entitled “New Worlds for Old”, written in 1908, H. G. Wells, Fabian Socialist historian, and long-time promoter of the New World Order, described the techniques needed to achieve the Fabian goal.  He wrote:

“…the reconstruction of our legislative and local government machinery is a necessary preliminary to Socialization in many directions.”

Those who refuse to accept the fact of the long effort to prepare the United States to surrender its sovereignty to a New World Order either have not done their homework, or they are collaborators or co-conspirators.  The record is too clear to admit any other evaluation.

The roots of regionalism existed for almost a century, before the fruit began to ripen.  From official reports, the flowering began in 1913.  The “necessary preliminaries” are constantly referenced in their working papers, both in the past, and still today.  This was also the case in the matter of the system imposed on the Tahoe Basin.

The care with which the wheels were greased in creating the machinery to turn this nation into a totally managed and controlled society in preparation for the time to come when it could be merged with third world countries was never more evident than in the source material leading to the so-called “Tahoe Compact”.

Lacking knowledge of the intent at the time the Tahoe grab was begun, the end would have been hard to foresee.  As a collaborating legislator in California smirkingly told an irate citizen who demanded to know how the Tahoe Plan could have taken shape without those living there being aware of it:

“We played it close to our chest.”

That may have been the first honest statement he made in his political career, but it was the sad truth – not just about Tahoe, but about whole regional movement.

Who could have guessed, for instance, that the first successful attempts to provide subventions and grants-in-aid to the States would have established a precedent that would give the federal government control of local districts by means of perversion of the “welfare clause”?

Probably the last real president of these United States, Grover Cleveland, recognized the unConstitutionality of such a move, but even he did not see the bigger picture of a planned destruction of the United States Constitution, when he reported to the Congress:

“I return without my approval House Bill #10203.  It is represented that a drought in the State of Texas (has resulted) in a failure of the crops… I am willing to believe that … a donation of seed… would serve… but I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering.”

“A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited… power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.  Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectation of paternal care… and weakens the sturdiness of the national character…”

So you see, even in 1887, the tendency was “prevalent” to provide what was to become a “pork barrel” for federal and state officials to dip into, and to “spend and spend and elect and elect“.  Once this protective barrier was broken in 1913, a flood of “federal money” was released – capable of buying, not just individuals, but whole sections of government.

Referring to the argument that such appropriations are Constitutional under the Constitution, then-Supervisor William V. D. Johnson of El Dorado County pointed out:

“There is no ‘welfare clause’… That phrase in the Preamble ‘to promote the general welfare’ simply means that we were adopting the Constitution to ensure the general welfare by clearly enumerating the powers given to the federal government and by reserving the remainder to the States…”

While the Constitution retained the intent of the Founding Fathers, that was the recognized meaning, as clearly enunciated by Grover Cleveland.

It was this phrase in the Preamble which, perverted by the Planners, made possible the usurpations of the Roosevelt ‘brain trusters’, made possible the usurpations of the Planners, and prepared the way for the Tahoe TRAP.  But the programs of the 30s were too bold.  They awakened resistance in a people still knowledgeable of the meaning of their government, and the way it should function.  These began to ‘view with alarm’, and to react.

Then the regionalist adopted the argument of the Constitutionalists, and made it serve them!  They demanded a return of the usurped means of taxation of the States and local governments, and then they created “intergovernmental cooperation” to divert State sovereignty for their own purposes.  By this ruse they brought “interstate cooperation” into State legislatures, and succeeded in creating appointed “Commissions on Interstate Cooperation” to carry forward the work of 1913s, Council of State Governments.

It was the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation (CCIC) which spearheaded the reconstruction of our State and local government machinery, and to prepare for the planned change into appointive governance – and for the regional “compact” at Tahoe, sitting astride the boundaries of California and Nevada, and in so doing eliminating the border between the states there.

 

BAITING THE TRAP

Official interference with the lawful operation of the governmental machinery provided in the Constitution for the United States of America had its beginnings early in this century, but it was not until the 1930s that the Plan for turning elective government into appointive administrative governance was exposed.  This was spelled out in a series of Reports issued by Roosevelt’s National Resources Committee (NRC, aka National Resources Planning Board, NRPB).

In the manner of the Tahoe Regional Area Plan, there is not only a direct linkage with the NRPB in the person of a “principal collaborator” of the NRPB, but there exists an entire series of Reports in California, which demonstrate a close relationship to the recommendations of the Board.  These Reports show the shallowness of the purported reasons for usurping the legal government at Tahoe, and its replacement by the tyrannical Agency that now rules the Basin.

Among the numerous projects promoted by the NRPB and its Committees, (many of which are now only too familiar), was a Call for “intergovernmental cooperation” and the “greatest possible use” of 1913s, state Leagues of Cities and Municipal Officers.  The States responded to this Call less than two years after it was issued, and several years before Congress apparently even became aware of it and repudiated both the Report and the NRPB!

The California Commission On Interstate Cooperation

The California Commission on Interstate Cooperation (CCIC) was established in 1939 and, according to its annual reports, was “substantially identical” to CICs in 43 other States.  By 1948, all states had CICs.

CCIC was formed under a “uniform act” (one of 1913s so called “model laws”) as, it may be assumed, were the other States’ CICs.  Under the California statute, the State was made a “participating member of the 1913 Council of Governments.

The stated purpose of the CICs was “to furnish a means” to deal with “interstate problems” specifically with interstate compacts, uniform and model legislation of the several states, promotion of regional programs, and reciprocal administrative acts or agreements to “develop interstate unity“.

In effect, the CICs are a “government within a government”, and have other goals and means than those provided for in the Constitution.

The first five years of CIC activity around the nation are summarized in the first Report of the California CIC, issued in 1945.  Those who wonder “How could these things to on without our knowledge?” would wonder no more after reading the chronological record of those five years – years during which most Americans were intent on the events of WW 2, and were not even remotely thinking about losing their tried and true government.

But this is the story of Tahoe, so for the moment that narrative must be bypassed.

It was the 1949 Report of CCIC that first brought up the Plan for Tahoe.  The Report does not say what the Governor of Nevada said to the Governor of California which led the latter to direct his CCIC to take on “a study of certain problems related to … suppression of diseases transmissible to humans from wild rodents, adequacy of good water supply, real estate subdivision practices, and pollution of the waters of Lake Tahoe…” but that was the beginning of the desperate twenty year battle to erase the first state boundary through regionalism, and to end representative government for that area.

CCIC and NCIC created a Joint Committee on Tahoe, and a year later, that body added the “population explosion” to the agenda.  In succeeding years, fire protection, sewage and garbage disposal, fishing licenses, drainage and trucking were additional bait for the TRAP.

Endless surveys were conducted.  Perhaps the most interesting of these was one purportedly intended to obtain “public input” on what would be a desirable level of the waters of the Lake!  Strangely, the 1959 CCIC Report states that this was a “campaign to acquaint Lake Tahoe residents with the problems relating to the… Lake which affect them, and also to develop a desire among these residents to work together in proposing acceptable solutions to some of these problems.  This Report also says that these surveys were made to contain the necessary information that would lead to “satisfactory completion of a compact.”  No one interviewed about this remembered being told that!

But at long last, a proposal for a compact was finally developed in 1963, and legislation to implement it was introduced in both State Legislatures.  However, while California was still debating the issue, Nevada’s Legislature killed the twin bill.  On learning of this development, then occupant of the California Governor’s Office, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown”, Sr., expressed his regrets, but added, “This is not the end.”

And of course it wasn’t.  Regionalists never give up on key issues, and Tahoe was one such.  CCIC began immediately to explore further ways to obtain this goal.  Creation of a bi-state park was an alternative they considered, but the prior eagerness of the two Legislatures seemed to have cooled and there was no enthusiasm for this.

Officials in local governments involved with Tahoe had begun to smell something fishy.  Some even recognized the determined effort to regionalize Tahoe and they balked – “…reluctant,” CCIC reported, “to relinquish their authority.”  (Ed. comment:  How reactionary!)

When the Bill which finally created the Tahoe Agency was submitted in California, it was met with as great opposition as had ever been seen in the State.  Local governments clearly and precisely gave the lie to every argument put forward in support of this outrageous “taking”.  They demonstrated that every claim made by the promoters of this monstrosity was either false, or had already been dealt with by local action.  There was absolutely no support from local residents who, along with local governments and volunteer organizations, gave substantive opposition.  The limited support all came from “conservation” groups, San Francisco interests, and the Governors of the two States.

AB 1362 received the requisite number of votes for passage, was matched in Nevada, signed by the two Governors, approved by Congress and became law with the blessing of the man sitting as President of the United States – and the citizens of Tahoe went under administrative rule.  As you will see, that “law” did not just impact Tahoe and the States directly involved.  It now rules the lives of all citizens of the United States, wherever they live with its boundaries.  (The following excerpts from the body of the CCIC 1963-65 Report demonstrate the long-term process of undermining the foundations of representative government, which led to acceptance of the TRAP):

CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION

Sacramento

I am pleased to transmit herewith a copy of the Report of the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation for the period from July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1965.

Cordially yours,

Glenn M. Anderson, Chairman

INTRODUCTION

ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION

The California Commission on Interstate Cooperation was established in 1939 as a statutory agency of the State of California (Cal.Stats. 1939, Chap. 376).  As amended in 1947 and 1959, the act setting forth the membership and duties of the Commission is contained in Title 2.  Division 1, of the Government Code.

Under previous authorization, the commission is comprised of the seven members of the Assembly Committee on Interstate Cooperation including specifically the Speaker of the Assembly and the Chairman of the Rules Committee; the seven members of the Senate Committee on Interstate Cooperation; the five state officials appointed by the Governor to serve at his pleasure; and the Governor and one member of the California Commission on Uniform State Laws designated by the Governor as an ex officio, nonvoting member.

The commission is directed by statute to carry forward the participation of California as a member of the Council of State Governments both regionally and nationally, to confer with officers of other states and of the federal government, to formulate proposals for cooperation between California and the other states, and with the federal government, and to organize and maintain government machinery for such purposes.

RELATION WITH THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

The California Commission on Interstate Cooperation also acts in a liaison capacity.  With similar organization in other states, it promotes better understanding of federal-state problems.  The commission and facilities the interchange among California, the other states and their national associations, of experiences and studies pertaining to the common problems of the states.  Whenever findings or action on the federal, state or association level may have gainful application in California or an effect on its welfare, they are communicated to the responsible agencies of the state.

Much of the work of the California Commission on Interstate Cooperation is conducted through the Council of State Governments – an agency created, supported and managed by the states to facilitate the internal relations with each other and with other levels of government  As a joint agency of all the states, the council makes available to them research materials and information on developments, problems and procedures in state government; staff services for regional and national meetings of state officials; and liaison and technical assistance effecting cooperation among the states and with federal government for the solution of interstate and federal problems.

THE FIRST QUARTER CENTURY

As noted in the introduction, the commission was created in 1939.  Thus during the biennium covered by this report, the CCIC passed its silver anniversary.

During these years, the commission has participated in developing a broad variety of interstate joint programs and arrangements.  Among these are programs that relate to crime, juvenile delinquency, education, civil defense, vehicle taxation, driver licensing and traffic safety, fisheries, and many others.  Some are nationwide involving most or all of the states; some are compacts affecting only the western states, and a few are agreements between California and its immediate neighbors only.

(Note the wide range of activities in which these CICs were involved.  Was this done with the knowledge and consent of the people – or just their ‘representatives’?)

The California Commission, through these and similar programs and activities, endeavors to strengthen and improve state governments and through mutual agreements, to solve problems common to California and neighbor states.

(Under what authority are the CICs permitted to “solve the problems common to the states”?)

The commission, under current authorization, is somewhat different from its initial makeup.  Then, it provided for the commission to be composed of five members from each house, plus five to be appointed by the Governor from the administrative branch.  The National Conference on Uniform State Laws has existed, in one form or another since the last decade of the 19^th century.

(Note the admission of when this process actual began – in the 1890s!  Did you know that?)

Though California had been informally participating in the national conference, it was not until 1927 that the Legislature authorized California membership.

(For “informal participation”, read “without legislative approval” – unlawfully.)

The Council of State Governments had been organized in 1913 and had been growing steadily in state affiliations, and had demonstrated that interstate co-operation through voluntary agreements among the states glowed with promise.  However, by the time California became an affiliate, a dark shadow – international relations – the threat of war – tended to diminish the glowing promise; problems to be solved through mutual agreements among the states were abundant, but the threat of war became the overriding problem.

(The history of the “social science” movement, of which TRAP is an operational segment, suggests that WW 2 was critical to activation of the Plan for a New World Order.)

(California’s CIC was dissolved around 1969, yet every year for many years, this no-longer-existing Commission received a regular contribution of taxpayers’ money, funding this link to regional HQs for some obscure reason.  In 1981, the sum of $76,000 passed through this shadow body to the Council of State Governments.)

The “New” American Revolution

“Would you believe me if I were to tell you that I live under a government that has taxing, police and legislative powers, but I do not elect the governing board?”

“Nor do I have recall rights against my governors, nor initiative nor referendum rights against the laws they ‘pass’.  Yes, I do have that distinction, and I do live in the United States – at Lake Tahoe.”

Those are the words of William Van Dike Johnson, at the time a Supervisor from the 2^nd District in El Dorado County, in a speech he made many times around the State of California.  He first made those remarks to the Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), in opposition to their program for “substate redistricting”.

There was an audible gasp from the throng attending the ACIR Hearing in San Francisco.

There is no man in this country better qualified to speak to the ramifications of regionalism than Bill Johnson.  When (as a private citizen) he first began to recognize an intent for government to take over plans for private property, he accepted a position on the County Planning Commission, publically stating that he believed there should be a voice on such bodies which spoke for the people.

As a Planning Commissioner, Bill testified to the State Senate Local Government Committee that such bodies are too prone to become a solid front against the people’s interest and that his vote always took into consideration the rights of the owners of property, and their expressed desire to use their property in their own best interest.  He served with such distinction on the Commission that the people of his district wisely selected him to represent them on the Board of Supervisors, where he served three terms.

On that Board, he worked long and hard – not just to do the job for which he was elected, but also to alert other county officials and citizens in general to the source and the nature of the problems, which seemed to mount daily as a result of edicts handed down from other levels of government.

It was Bill Johnson who first called the attention of his Board – and the public – to what he described as one of the most infamous pieces of effrontery ever perpetuated by any ‘governing body’ in the United States – Ordinance #10 issued by the Tahoe Regional Agency.

It was Bill who led the El Dorado Board of Supervisors in unanimously denouncing Ordinance #10 in no uncertain terms, in a two-page “White Paper”, which began:

“At first glance, the document strikes the reader as an absurd, humorous ‘put-on’…  Nevertheless, we are forced to recognize that the proposal is being advanced in deadly earnest…”

“We are not dealing here with matters of pollution, erosion control, housing density, waste disposal, or the customary building or housing codes…”

“We are confronted with a Plan to deny citizens the right to develop their own design concept, choose their own materials, and believe it or not, the color scheme to be used…  Controls are spelled out in exquisite detail, ranging from the shape and style of the buildings to requiring approval of plant material used in landscaping the backyard…”

“…the crushing necessity for this outrage is attributed to the need to “effectuate the adopted regional Plan”.  There is even a finding that an emergency exists requiring immediate action.”

“Seldom has a more blatant sophistry been employed by any government – anywhere…”

At that time, there was nothing more the Board could do.  The Legislatures of California and Nevada, the Governors of both States, the Congress and the president of the United States had joined together in taking from them their Constitutional duty to represent the citizens who had elected them.

Alerted by the White Paper, though, the citizens stormed the next meeting of the Agency.  To still the protest, Ordinance #10 was not approved at that meeting, as intended.  Had the Board not sounded that alarm, those controls would have been placed over them unannounced.  Proof of that is the fact that, one by one, they have been quietly passed since then, and Tahoe went under that kind of control.

El Dorado had opposed the Agency from the beginning.  Twice it sought relief from the Courts.  For years, the County refused to tax its citizens who did not live in the Tahoe area to pay its expenses – required by the law that created the Agency.  The Board encouraged then-State Senator John Schmitz to prepare a bill to dissolve the Agency, and supported him in his effort to get it passed.  It was all to no avail.

Until the citizens of this nation come to realize what regional planning will mean to them, individually, and become aware that they are electing men and women who permit such things to go on, all the protests and the legal action are simply an exercise in futility.

Tahoe was a test case.  The Court said so.  The legal decisions made on Tahoe are precedents for all such agencies – in existence or to be created.

This is revolution – the “new” American Revolution – within the form of our lawful government, but without the consent of the people.

The Price of a Lake

How can the cost of the “common good” be assessed when individual rights are in the balance?

In which column are the shattered remnants of a thousand dreams to be placed?

How are the ‘rights’ of public access weighed against the rights vested in private property?

How is the value of a treasured heritage of representative government measured against a monstrous parody, which retains some of the familiar outlines, but from which the essential elements have been removed?

These are issues which should be at the forefront in campaign rhetoric of every candidate for office in the United States today – but are rarely mentioned – if ever.  If they were, would there be mad repudiation at the polls of those who would not discuss them?

What would happen to those in office if their opponents demanded an accounting for their cooperation in the massive regional attack on the historic, lawful American government?

These things would be discussed, if every American knew what the property owners at Tahoe learned firsthand.  The general public is simply not aware yet that powers that belong to them are being granted to regional bodies by the people they elect.

Worse than that, it is not generally understood that there are certain matters (which the Founders of this nation called “inalienable rights”), which even those elected are not free to dispense.

Even worse than that, it seems most people do not yet understand why that is important.

Ti is important because “all men are granted certain inalienable rights by their creator” – rights which they, themselves, cannot ‘alienate’ (or give away).  If the possessors of those rights cannot give them to anyone else, how is it possible that their agents are doing it?

This vital question is ignored in all political discussions.  Ignored, too, is the effect – not just on the body politic, but on the lives of the citizens who have been disenfranchised – by the autocratic decisions which are made, using those usurped powers.

It would take a book to tell the myriad stories of distress caused by the ‘autocratic’ decisions made by the Agency at Tahoe, but for a case in point, consider the plight of one woman there, who owned a piece of paper deeding her five acres of prime land.  When she and her husband acquired that piece of paper, they thought they had bought those acres for their own use.  The paper said that 40 residential units could be built on each acre.  The area was booming, and it looked like a good investment for their future.

The land increased in value, and the first to recognize that was the county assessor.  Soon they were paying taxes on a valuation of two hundred thousand dollars, and their dream had new luster.

Then tragedy struck, and, as usually happens, not singly.  Her husband died, and the regional authority was created – and began to impost “its” plans on the citizens.

Down zoning was imposed on the property to “limit population growth“, supposedly to “protect the Lake”.  The widow learned that now only 15 units per acre could be built – no matter what her paper said.  The Agency did not propose refunds for all the taxes they had paid for the higher use.

Before she recovered from that blow, another mandate was issued, which made the deed to per property all but worthless.  The new edict prohibited construction of more than one unit per acre until all the buildable land in the area had been developed.  Under those circumstances, there was no hope at all that she could even sell the property for anywhere near what they had paid for it years before.  Building under the present ukase would be folly.  But the taxes go on, and the mortgage must be met.

What price should a widow have to pay to “preserve the beauty of a Lake“?

The basic facts of her plight could be multiplied thousands of times at Tahoe – and in other areas of the country where land-use-planning by government has stolen individual rights in property.  Land which brought fabulous prices before government usurped the decision-making process, becomes a drug on the market – just as it as intended, when the Agency was created for Tahoe.  Those who had bought before then were unable to use their property for any feasible purpose, and default was a dark threat.  More than that, if they try to sell it, the prospective buyer will find an army of bureaucrats standing between him and any plan he might have for it.  He would be a fool to pay what it is “worth”.  Or is it “worth” anything?

One resident at Tahoe who had a large herd of cattle had to liquidate his holdings.  Having paid over a half a million dollars in taxes in the ten years before the ‘compact’ – he could not afford to keep them anymore.  Many smaller ranchers were in the same boat.

What price, the beauty of a Lake?  All of the costs of the Tahoe Agency are not recognized – not even by the public.  One of those costs is the imposition of taxation without representation.  Who remembers that this was the smoldering fire that sparked the tinder to cause the America Revolution?

Under the legislation that created the Agency, some of its funding comes from State taxes – all of California citizens are hostage for that.  The Agency decides how much it will need each year, counts up how much will be received under the provisions of the legislation, and then, under the compact, demands the remainder from the counties out of which the regional body was carved – from citizens outside its jurisdiction.

Like an ominous harmonic, the inequities of the costs and controls of the Agency are underscored by the constant refrain that the need for it for any of the stated purposes was never proven:

–        The Lake is not – nor ever was – “stagnant“.

–        Waste Control was already well underway by local governments.

–        Runoff waters were already being diverted.

–        Rodent control was a continuing effort.

–        Planning and zoning were a fact.

Nor is there any substantive reason to believe that the Agency can guarantee “preservation of the Lake” – short of removing the entire population and closing the access roads.

What value, then, the beauty of a Lake?

The People vs. the County of El Dorado

The appeal by El Dorado County for a legal decision on the “taxation without representation” issue was held in limbo, until the State Attorney General brought a mandamus proceeding to “compel the County to pay its fair share” of the costs of the Tahoe Regional Agency.  At that point, the Court granted the writ, and took the whole matter of the County’s complaints as well as those of the State, under advisement.

The case should have been called “The People vs. The People“, since that was the essence of the proceedings.  It might as well have been The People of the United States vs. The People of the United States, for the Court began its “opinion” by stating that the issues presented were of great concern to the entire country.

And so they were.  And are.

The decisions regarding the Tahoe Agency are precedents for all succeeding actions against regional bodies, everywhere in this country.

Since El Dorado County made its appeal on behalf of all its citizens, and not just those who were under the regional compact, the decisions of this court also have meaning for all Americans.

The decisions on the matters involving Tahoe also bring new significance to the pressures to make all State Constitutions uniform.  Without such uniformity, there will be labored twistings to apply the California decisions in States which do not succumb to the new revisionism, but the nature of these decisions gives assurance that even in citizens in those States which retain their ‘outmoded Constitutions” will face a troubled future.

Up front, the Court had to stretch the meaning of “mandamus” to make it cover this case, since there was “an absence of adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law“, and a pressing necessity to end the El Dorado resistance to the Agency.

Having granted the writ, the Court then found that the two counties involved in the Compact had to pay the Agency demand, since (the Court pontificated), “…limitations of the California Constitution do not prevent the Legislature from authorizing a district to impose taxes for a State purpose“.  Conveniently, the legislature had recorded in the bill that created the Agency that the preservation of the Lake was a State interest, and the reason for the Agency.

The Court also found that taxing citizens not under the Agency’s umbrella was legal, even though there was no direct relevance.  (Taxation without representation!)  The court said it was legal because the monies were not for county or local needs, but for regional purposes.

In these two decisions are the basis for trouble whenever regional bodies are created.  Because, you see, the “unauthorization” was, in fact, a mandate by the Legislature, included in the bill as passed, just as was the funding for the Agency, which imposed a tax on the whole of California.  Designating the purpose of the Agency as “regional” by passes any Constitutional constraints on spending.

But then, you see, the Court applied the same logic to the powers given to the Agency, and put them out of the reach of any State or Constitutional restrictions aimed at limiting regional powers.

The Court also found that the citizens under the Tahoe umbrella “are not entitled to the right of initiative, recall or referendum“, or to “the operation of the one-man-one-vote principal, in view of the interstate nature of the Agency, and of the interest of non-residents in the preservation of the Lake Tahoe Basin“.

And so, the court said, the Compact “properly provided for the appointment, as distinguished from the election of its governing board.”  And so, this Court gave a double whammy to representation, and that is an issue that should be given the closest scrutiny.

There was one item in this holding that is easily passed over, with such huge wounds inflicted on our lawful government, but it should be noted, for it is an ominous portent for a larger concern.

That is the recognition by the Court of “the interest of non-residents” in the affairs of Tahoe.  It is not unthinkable that this interpretation could at some point in time zoom out to impact our national government with “the interest of non-residents“.  Think about that.

Perhaps though, the most significant ruling by the California Court was this:

“The concept of equal protection of the law means simply that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.”

Are you listening, Florida:  New Jersey?  Washington State?  Texas?  You other States where regionalism is being promoted.  Do you hear the chains rattling for you?

“A district” said the Court, “is excluded from the initiative, referendum, and recall, if it has been formed under a law that does not provide for elections… if members of an official body are elected, the one-man one-vote principle applies, and if they are appointed, it does not apply.”

It is as simple – and as horrendous – as that.  “…whether the activities to be performed are legislative or administrative in nature is immaterial.”  Thus spake the Court.

Since it was “not only the Legislatures of California and Nevada, but also Congress” which conspired to create this monstrosity, the Court found that the broad delegation of powers were not unlawful.  It assumed Constitutionality, because of the source.

Lawsuits involving hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to individuals in the Basin brought up some very interesting points of law, but there is little hope for people whose lives and hopes, yes, and fortunes, hang on the decisions of Courts, which can make such decisions.  It is a clear and present warning to all citizens everywhere.  The best way to escape such a perversion of the precious heritage of representative government is to prevent regional bodies being superimposed on it.

These decisions on Tahoe make it obvious that there is no remedy in sight after the fact, except to figure out some way to remove the cancerous growth – a much harder way to go.

From the 1963-5 minutes CCIC’

“Mr. Matthews expressed surprise at being called upon because he thought he had just come for an airplane ride”

(Isn’t that what has happened to all of us?)

The illustration on the front cover of this Report, the map on page 5, and the inserts identified as “minutes” are from the official documents for the Plan for Lake Tahoe.

The statement in script on the cover gives a message from the Planners, The major error in this message lies in ignoring the fact that Plans like this are designated to deny Man the right to use that ability they define.

There is an identifiable Master Plan (of which this is a part):

“to commence the remodeling of the lives of American freemen… to mix the lives and hopes and dreams of human beings with physical resources, and attempt to measure and modify and restrict men and their intangibles…” 1

The Plan for Lake Tahoe was a pilot program for that Plan.

John L. Rankin “If this program, proposed by our so-called National Resources Planning Board, were put into effect, it would wreck this Republic, wipe out the Constitution, destroy our form of government, set up a totalitarian regime, and pile on our backs a burden of expenditures that no nation on earth could bear…”

Clare Hoffman:  “That horde of bureaucrats which promulgates the multiplicity of orders, rules, regulations and directives… have presumed to take solely unto themselves the prerogative of interpreting the intentions of Congress – reading into its enactments meanings never even thought of…”

Noah H. Mason “…It is a scheme to give the federal government control of every activity in this nation, with the States pushed back into a position of impotence, if not entirely obliterated…  A State that does not cooperate… is to be policed from Washington…”

And Congress repudiated the Plan, and eliminated the Planners – or so they thought…  What do you think now?

Freedom of Speech

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part II

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

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

Factions not in conflict with the Principle Faction

Let’s look at some factions that are examples of those consistent with the Principle Faction:

Christians:  Our nation was founded, without doubt, upon Christian moral values.  Some of those values, however, have been disputed between various sects of Christianity since before the Founding of this great nation.  In fact, the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, was adopted to assure that the ability to practice one’s religion, as one might chose to practice it, was a fundamental (God given) right.  Even “Mohametmen” were allowed to practice their religion, though the principles established by the Constitution retain the moral values of Christianity.  It was never implied that laws could be passed based upon Islam — only those based upon Christian moral values, and those, only locally, in order to provide a comfortable community for those who chose to live therein.  The idea that a law would be passed allowing the wearing of a Burka, contrary to norms for the community and country, was inconceivable.  It was the need for assimilation, in order to maintain that which was created by the Revolutionary War, that is necessary to maintain the greatness of the country.

Outlawing prostitution, gambling, alcohol, done at the local community level (often county level), was paramount in the concepts adopted by the Founders.  To assume that a state could enact and enforce such laws was not even under consideration during those formative years, and efforts to establish moral laws on a state-wide level were inconceivable.

Many Christians have beliefs that are not consistent with the beliefs of others, though there is a tendency to suppress expressing them outside of one’s own circle, in recognition of the rights of others to believe as they wish.  However, if we look back in history, we find that these ideals were expressed in newspaper articles, on soap boxes, and by legislators in assemblies, without fear of repercussion or arrest.  Absent the ability to express such feelings, we are denied the right to pursue legislation that we believe to be for the good of the country, the state, the county, or the town, in which we live — not to impose upon others, but rather to refrain from leaving those moral values behind.

So long as Christians adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

Boy Scouts of America:  Why would we even consider discussing a private organization such as the Boy Scouts of America under the heading of factions?  Well, they are a faction — one that has been around for over a hundred years.  Their principles are based upon the Christian religion, and the Constitution and principles of this great country.  Recently, however, the courts in this country have endeavored to impose upon the Boy Scouts rules of admission and acceptance that are absolutely contrary to the foundation of that organization.  They, like Christians, are able to practice as they choose, and allow only those who conform to their beliefs to become members of that organization.

Instead, the courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts cannot prohibit membership to those who don’t espouse the objectives of the Boy Scouts.  They are forcing change upon an organization that exists totally within the concept of adherence to the Principle Faction, and have every right, under the Constitution, to allow membership only to those who adhere to the principles of that organization.

The Boy Scouts of America adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

Jews: Jews don’t believe, with few exceptions, that Christ existed, or, that if he did, he was not the Messiah.  Well, this is definitely not consistent with Christianity, though it is not inconsistent with Christian moral values.  In fact, for many years, many Christians despised the Jews and held them in contempt. Often crimes were committed against them, in the name of Christianity.  In those instances, the Christians stepped outside of their adherence to the Principle Faction, though such instances are few and far between.

The Jews have established their own communities where they adhere to the precepts of their religion, and do not endeavor to impose their beliefs into the law, or upon others.  They adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

National Socialist Movement (in certain of its various forms):  Much like the Jews, the beliefs of many National Socialists are inconsistent with the general tenor of the country, and though outspoken in their beliefs, they have, for the most part, adhered to the Principle Faction.

Some participants in this faction have stepped outside of the law and impose injury, unjustly, on others.  These few, however, do not speak for the whole; the majority adhere to the laws, and their expression of their beliefs is consistent with the Constitution, though, perhaps, not politically correct.

Though they have chosen symbols (swastika and other Nazi representations) that are considered evil by most, what they hold to is not much different than the government’s support of Japan and Germany, since the end of World War II.  It was the whole of the people of each of those countries that stood firmly behind their governments — responsible for death and devastation, around the world.

So long as National Socialists do not break the law and adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

Anarchists (in certain of their various forms): The Founders enacted very few laws that acted directly on the people. For the most part, the laws enacted in the first few decades of the United States were laws to define, enhance, or protect the government.  The exceptions were the moral laws, also known as Blue Laws, which generally existed within the confines of a town’s ordinance, or, perhaps, even county ordinances, in an effort to establish a moral foundation that was comfortable to the majority of those residing there.  Otherwise, a degree of anarchy, at least by one definition, was a part of life of the times.

There is an old adage that Liberty is existent so long as your fist stops before it reaches my nose.  Our individual constraint on our own actions, so that we do no harm to others, is, perhaps, the best definition of that which should be.

The modern anarchist, even those who might espouse absence of government, altogether, are not inconsistent with much of what the Founders believed.  A minimum of government is, perhaps, best, and, is without a doubt, consistent with the Constitution and most state constitutions, at least as originally ratified.

So long as Anarchists adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.

The Patriot Community:  This is the most loose-knit community within the factions adhering to the Constitution.  It is comprised of people who have, generally, taken one issue or aspect of the Constitution, to be their cause.  Some of those aspects are taxation, the monetary system, the judicial system, the immigration policies (laws) that are not enforced, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment (either, or both, right to bear arms and militia), and, other lesser and greater causes.  They are as diverse, and, perhaps more so, than the Founders, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, yet they are probably the most vociferous of factions that comprise the adherents to the Principle Faction. They do, without a doubt, adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs to that Principle Faction.  They are adherents to, and a product of, the United States.  They are what America stands for.