Liberty or Laws?
Militia in Defense of the State

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Toledo War

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Honey War

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Liberty or Laws?
Dealing with the Current Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 11, 2014

The Continental Congress, being the first government of what was to become the United States of America, was able to assemble, without undue influence by the British government, though contrary to the law of the land. That Congress (like the many Committees of Safety) was created in violation of British law. The British Parliament often, subsequently, passed specific laws to criminalize some of the actions taken by the colonists.

Ultimately, based upon a political philosophy (see Sons of Liberty #14), a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, more commonly described as the Declaration of Independence from British rule, was signed on July 4, 1776.

The arduous efforts of the colonists, prior to that Declaration, were, without question, based upon illegal acts. Some of those acts were reacted to by the Parliament, with additional acts, making even more laws, which were soon to also be violated.

Beginning in 1765, with the Stamp Act, destruction of both personal, and government property held by the Crown or its representatives was conducted, in violation of the law. Personal injury was imposed on individuals, either because of their government office, or because of their violation of certain illegal agreements of non-importation.

The British continued to enact laws making certain activities, construed by the colonists as rights, illegal. This culminated in the seizure of arms and munitions by the British, as well as the colonists, coming to that final flash point on April 19, 1775, at a country village named Lexington. Within hours, tens of thousands of militiamen were converging on the area around Boston, ready and willing to break even more laws.

Today, we have many laws that denigrate the rights both fought for, and purchased at great cost, by those colonists of two centuries ago. We are facing the same proliferation of laws enacted to reduce, restrict, or otherwise deny our rights, redefining some as criminal and thereby subjecting Americans to incarceration and/or loss of property. We also see that laws enacted to protect our country from invasion, by force under arms, or by use of the “Trojan Horse” whereby invaders are placed within our communities, only needing the access to “cached arms”, are being ignored. Those arms possibly even held by government entities, to aid an invasion, from within, in order to render moot, and destroy that Great Experiment, known as the United States of America.

Is it possible to reclaim our birthright — that United States of America be returned to its intended form, and proper Glory — if we continue and abide by the very laws that were enacted to destroy it?

In recent discussions, the “rights” of those southern border invaders, under somewhat absurd laws, and contrary to the immigration laws of other countries, seem to have the “weight of law” in the minds of those individuals who should defend this country from invasion; Whether the children should be let in or, whether the parents should be let in, if they accompany their children; Whether we should allow those with provable or admitted criminal backgrounds, because of their youth, to be let in; Whether we should allow those in who have contagious, and often terminal, diseases, though by so doing, we expose our own children to those diseases, and bear the economic burden of care, form entry to grave, of those so infected, to be let in; Are the questions that we must answer, for ourselves, not according to the “law”.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to leave in the hands of the people, the first, and the most important, defense of nation, state, community, and family. Does that defense require a blessing from a higher authority than the people, themselves? Laws enacted by the Congress, or rules promulgated by executive agencies, have removed the right of the governors of these states from protecting the states from invasion. They have not removed that right from the people, regardless of what laws they may enact in an effort to do so. Reserving the right to determine if it is an invasion to those who have enacted the laws, removing their responsibility to even make such a determination, and leaving it solely in the hands of the Executive, who has steadfastly refused to enforce existing immigration laws, defies logic. These Executive actions defy the very purpose of the inclusion of Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment to the Constitution

Whatever the government (federal or state) uses to excuse the destructive activity currently going on along our southern border, does not remove from the people the rights embodied in the Constitution. Simply because Congress ignores our petitions and the state governments acquiesce to the unlawful influence of the federal government does not nullify immigration law. It is time for the People to enforce those immigration laws.

Do we not, as citizens of the various states of the Union, retain those rights protected by the Constitution? Do we have the inherent right to repel invasion? Are we required to restrict our actions simply because the federal government fails to enforce those laws?

Let’s ask ourselves some hard questions:

• If armed foreign invaders were coming into our country, do we have the inherent right to protect our state and country?
• If invaders, with the full potential of coming into your country, or state, unarmed, having arms readily accessible to them, by “law” (no criminal record in this country) or from stored arms caches, do you have the right to shoot them?
• Do you have an obligation to risk your life to separate those who are a potential threat from those who are not a threat, or only to endeavor to not shoot those who appear not to be a threat?

Let’s look at the war strategy of the federal government in the non-wars that they are fighting, throughout the Middle East. Smart bombs and missiles do not discriminate between good and bad, though we have this corrupt government insisting that we must abide by their laws, while their practices defy bounds of decency. The federal government’s wartime strategy is to shoot everyone, indiscriminately, around a single designated threat. Are we allowed to use the same strategy to protect our own borders?

The federal government has violated state, federal, and international law by providing arms, knowing that they will cross both international boundaries and go into the hands of the drug cartels, or possibly to caches on this side of the border. They have now opened the borders in an attempt render our sovereign nation status moot. It should be no surprise to anyone that arms and ammunition provided by the federal government has metastasized into wholesale violence in both of those nations. It does appear that the federal government is more than willing to allow those arms to be turned against American citizens, all the while pretending that we are blind to its actions, and will only see a “Humanitarian Crises” involving children, using Main Stream Media propaganda to berate Americans for being cruel and heartless because we insist the laws be enforced.

We are left with the choice of Liberty and our Responsibility, as intended by the Founders, or, laws, dictated by “the Crown”, which are self-serving and contrary to OUR Constitution, our rightful sovereign nation status, and individually, the right to the fruits of our labor. We have a decision to make, much the same as the decision made by those who bequeathed this great nation to their posterity, to apply the Laws of Nature, rather than the edicts of kings and princes, so that we may restore Constitutional Government, protecting our nation from assured destruction.

Has the time come for us to determine to break those laws, for failure to do so will, most certainly, lead to the destruction of our country?

Suggested Reading:

Tuberculosis
Murrieta
Information Blackout
Illegal Immigration: Diseases
MSM cover-up

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

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

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

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

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

Lessons of History #2

What a pity it is that our soldiers are not as numerous as our officers.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 29, 2014

In January 1776, Colonel Henry Knox was returning to Boston with the cannon he had acquired from the British at Fort Ticonderoga. From the book, “Bunker Hill”, by Nathaniel Philbrick (pages 270-271):

That night in Westfield [Massachusetts] an appreciative crowd gathered around the twenty-five year old colonel [Knox] at the town’s inn. Many of the men were members of the Westfield militia and, like most town militias throughout New England, there were a disproportionate number of officers. This imbalance had made it necessary for Washington to reduce the officer corps in the Continental Army, a move that inevitably angered many former officers and contributed to the reenlistment crisis. Now in Westfield, as Knox was introduced to officer after officer, he could appreciate firsthand one of the many difficulties his commander in chief had been forced to confront while he had been overseeing the transportation of cannons from Fort Ticonderoga. Once the introductions had been completed in the Westfield tavern, Know smiled broadly and said, “What a pity it is that our soldiers are not as numerous as our officers.”

“No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 20, 2014

A few days ago, a post appeared on Facebook. It was rather brief, and rather poorly written, but it had a message in it. Fortunately, the person posting was willing to remove it from Facebook, pending an investigation into the veracity of what was said, as well as what was implied, in that post. The post was about Robert Beecher, who was recently arrested, either in a conspiracy “to kidnap and torture” a DHS agent, or a simple firearms violation. That point is still not clear, though it is what leads up to the “conspiracy” allegation that brought it into the limelight.

The post read, in part, “Robert [Beecher] has asked me to give the name of the person who the FBI says… is accusing Robert M. Beecher of “planning with him” to kidnap and torture an agent of the DHS. He is the one… his name was given by the FBI and whose statement the FBI used to swarm in on Robert at his place of work. At the same time, they hit Robert’s home property. The accuser’s name is Jerry Bruckhart, with the Operation Mutual Aid group.” As written, it is accusatory, though in fact, Beecher was trying to determine what the connection between he and Jerry Bruckhart was, which would lead to such an accusation. So, the subjects of the investigation are Jerry Bruckhart (co-founder of OMA), Operation Mutual Aid (OMA), as an organization, and Robert Beecher. It is the roles of the two people and the organization that is the subject of this article.

Payne and Bruckhart started Operation Mutual Aid [note: website has been taken down], a few years back. In 2012, Beecher, thinking that he had found a group that appealed to his objectives, joined as a member — an open membership organization. Bruckhart’s explanation of his relationship with Beecher follows.

In an interview, Bruckhart states that his knowledge of Robert Beecher is minimal. He did have a conversation, via telephone, with Beecher back in 2012, as he does with all new members of OMA. That is the only conversation he has every had with Robert Beecher. He states that he has been involved with discussions on various Internet pages where Beecher may have been involved in the same discussion, as his recollection of the name brings that possibility to mind. Sometime in 2013, Robert Beecher deleted his membership on the OMA webpage. It was a consequence of a disagreement regarding the purpose (Mission Statement) of OMA. Jerry further states that the FBI has never contacted him, though others had told him that the FBI had asked them about him.

Now, let’s look at Robert M. Beecher, the government alleged co-conspirator with Jerry Bruckhart, to “kidnap and torture an [unknown] DHS agent”. Beecher has a somewhat checkered past, having been convicted of some crimes over twenty years ago, that may preclude him from owning firearms.

Beecher is 60 years of age, is a III% Commander, and has been active in the patriot community for at least a couple of years.

Regarding the controversy with the OMA, Beecher states that it had to do with a call for an armed march on Washington, D. C., OMA was supporting the march and Beecher declared it a “bad idea” and that it was “suicide to attempt to occupy D.C., armed”. Though Beecher believed in the “Mission Statement” of OMA, he felt that this action was outside of the scope of that Statement. This is what led to Beecher removing himself from the rolls of OMA.

On May 6, 2014, FBI Special Agent Slater, a BATF agent and a local officer from Toombs County, Georgia, approached Beecher at work. He was told that he was “not under arrest, that they needed to talk about some things”. They then asked if he knew Jerry Bruckhart of OMA. Given the length of time since his dispute with Jerry, he took this question as a “sucker punch”. The agent said that they had received word from Pennsylvania (Jerry’s home state) that he had “agreed to assist Jerry in the kidnap of a Homeland Security Agent” and were in the process of recruiting two more people to assist. He was told that Jerry disclosed this information while being questioned on another matter. Well, this doesn’t seem to be in agreement with what Jerry has stated, though we will address that, later.

Beecher was arrested on a “Complaint”, with no affidavit indicating the commission of a crime, according to his statement. Additionally, a search warrant was served on his home. His computers and drives were confiscated, along with a .45 pistol along with a 30-30 rifle. This raises the question of the justification for the search. Was it based upon the alleged conspiracy with Jerry Bruckhart? Or, was it based upon the speculation, or proof, that he had firearms, in violation of his felony conviction, from years past?

The search warrant (click warrant for larger image) affords no help. According to the warrant, in “identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location”, we find “The Residence located at 118 Pine Mountain Road, Reidsville, Georgia 30453, outbuildings, vehicles located thereon, and the person of Robert Beecher”.

Conspicuously absent is the “Attachment B”, which is intended to describe what “is believed to conceal (identify the person or describe the property to be seized)”

Further on, it states, “I find that the affidavit(s), or any testimony, establish probable cause to search or seize the person or property”.

The warrant appears to be signed by “M. Smith”, though the “Printed name and title” bears the name “G. R. Smith”, and provides no title for that person.

Now, just think about the very general nature of the warrant. What did he do that justifies the warrant? What, specifically, are the looking for? Who really signed the warrant, and what is his title?

So, let’s go to the remainder of Beecher’s written statement:

As we got into their truck to talk, the FBI agent told me that “Just so you know, I have been following you for the past year and a half.” He then went on to question me about my beliefs, my involvement with the militias, other websites, and what my role as Commander in the III%ers was. He was curious as to what Operation American Spring was, who was in charge of various details involved, and who I was attending with.

[T]he FBI Agent told me I wasn’t “being truthful and at that point I was only hurting myself”, that the “Government wasn’t concerned with the preppers or survivalist, but was concerned with those willing to hurt anyone connected to the government.” I agreed with that and told him that was why I opposed Jerry Bruckhart’s attempt to have patriots march on DC armed. They didn’t seem too happy about that comment.

I was then placed under arrest and taken to Tattnall County where I was questioned more about various people involved in different groups and organizations. I kept telling them I wasn’t familiar with the names, and that because I dealt with a lot of people in different parts of the country, some with the same first names, that I was unsure of who they were talking about. Again I was told that if I helped them that they would help me, that they could help me get released if I helped them cooperate. Around 4:30, they read me my Miranda rights, and had a deputy take me to Chatham County. I was placed in segregation around 7:00 pm Wednesday the 7^th of May, and kept isolated until Friday when they came to get me for court. Again they attempted to get me to agree to infiltrate W.R.A.M., Three Percenters, and Modern Militia Movement…

I was transferred to Bulloch County, the US Marshalls told me where I was going was a “hellhole” and wished me luck. I must say that these people, the US Marshalls and the GBI [Georgia Bureau of Investigation] have been the only professionals I have dealt with… I went to court, was declared a “menace to society”, and denied bond.

[Later] I told the agent I wasn’t sure about which group he was referring to, and that I needed to be out and access my computer before I could answer any questions. He then told me he would bring my computer to the jail, and the attorney chimed in that I could access the info that way. I responded in the negative and knew then there would be no bond – regardless…

The important thing for people to understand is that if they did this to me, how many others have been snatched and agreed to inform? Good people, but outside their limits dealing with lying ass federal agents?…

Beecher concludes the above statement with, “I have sworn my oath and I will uphold it to the end. No bended knee for me.”

The search warrant that was served, with only some of the paperwork being left at Beecher’s home, resulted in the confiscation of a .45 pistol and a 30-30 rifle.

Since we can’t find any elements of illegal activity on the part of either Bruckhart or Beecher, nor anything that suggests any recent communication, on a level that would be required for a conspiracy charge, we must look elsewhere for any justification, or should I say, rationalization, for the events that have unfolded. Darn, nothing wrong there. So, let’s bring in the other players.

We can start with the three that participated directly in the arrest. We have a local officer; we have a BATF agent; and, then we have FBI Special Agent Slater. Well, the officer was “just doing his job”, so we can discount him. Then, we have SA Slater, who brought up the suggestion of a conspiracy between Bruckhart and Beecher, which doesn’t hold water. Finally, we have the BATF agent who deals with firearms violations. But, why was he even brought in? Was the purpose simply a “fishing expedition”, to see if they could find something that would, eventually, lead to an actual criminal charge — if they found firearms? If so, what could be the source of such information? Well, it appears that there was a picture posted on Facebook showing Beecher holding what appeared to be a rifle (30-30?). Is that grounds for a warrant? Perhaps so, though the warrant doesn’t say it is so. Therefore, it must be far too insignificant, or in admissible, to bring any charges, or those charges would have been laid on the table from the beginning.

What other plausible explanation could be behind this whole episode, which has taken a man from his job and family, for nearly a month and a half, without even a presentation of any charge or evidence to justify these actions?

The only thing that comes to mind, and hasn’t already be addressed is, perhaps, the most terrifying of all. They used the power of the government, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment, ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Unfortunately, we have no
oath or affirmation” that supports any of the activities of the government for the search. This stinks of the concept of “Writs of Assistance” that were so appalling to the Founders, and lead to the specific inclusion of that Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Further, we must also question the arrest, itself. He was lied to when he was told he was not being arrested, and then was arrested. Beecher stated (above) that he was arrested on a Complaint. If they had a Complaint, then they knew that they were going to arrest him. To do otherwise would be to lie, to deceive, to use chicanery, to violate the “Miranda Decision“, and to violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which read, in part, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” Of course, the government has circumvented the Constitution by using “Complaints”, for decades. The Framers, however, sought to leave the denial of liberty (jailing) in the hands of the people, not of the government. Even if the government’s argument for “Complaints” is valid, the intent, for “a presentment or indictment” surely requires that the charges be a part of the circumventing “Complaint”, though at over 45 days in, we have no charges.

What can we conclude from this? Well, try as I might, I can only draw one conclusion — that the government will use the “color of law” to deny Liberty (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) that they are charged with protecting, and to intimidate a person who may have knowledge that they want, to entice him to turn against friends and neighbors, hoping to find some chargeable crime, and make a permanent “snitch” a member of their “team”. If Beecher were to sign a “plea agreement” to regain his Liberty, he will have made the first step into submission to the Big Brother that government has become. To understand this process, I would suggest that you read Informants Amongst Us?

Based upon my observation of the increase in activity of this nature, I think that I can safely predict that there is an escalation of this activity and it is likely to visit your neighborhood, in the very near future. This makes it imperative that we heed the proudly spoken words of Robert M. Beecher, when he said,

“I have sworn my oath and I will uphold it to the end. No bended knee for me.”

Additional article son Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment

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

Lessons of History #1

Maryland Resolves of 1774

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 19, 2014

On December 12, 1774 (four months before Lexington and Concord), the delegates from the various county Committees of Safety, ‘deputies’, met at Annapolis, Maryland. The following is from the report of their meeting, constituting an endorsement of the Association of the Continental Congress.

Though all of the Resolutions are significant, we might pay particular attention to the last Resolve. *

 AT A MEETING OF THE DEPUTIES appointed by the several counties of the province of Maryland, at the city of Annapolis, by adjournment, on the 8th day of December, 1774, and continued till the 12th day of the same month, were present, eighty-five members: Mr. John Hall in the chair, and Mr. John Duckett, clerk.

The proceedings of the Continental Congress were read, considered, and unanimously approved. Resolved, that every member of this convention will, and every person in the province ought strictly and inviolably to observe and carry into execution the association agreed on by the said Continental Congress.

* * *

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

Now that the events of April 12, 2014, have unfolded, and the relationships within the patriot community have hardened, we need to realize the necessity, as they did then, of putting aside “all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion.”

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 9, 2014 (Revised June 10, 2014)

Note: In the first article, I explained that all of the parties had not yet been contacted. The article went to press because the efforts of Mainstream Media to tie the Millers to the Bundy Ranch had to be addressed, as early as possible. Though I seldom put out a story until all of the necessary research is completed, this was an exception. What follows is the same story as the first, though with corrections and clarifications, based upon input by the other parties that chose to provide what insight they had into the event.

The shootings that occurred in Las Vegas, on Sunday, June 8, 2014, were initiated by Jerad (age 31) and his wife, Amanda (age 22) Miller. There has been speculation of ties between the Millers and the Operation Mutual Aid support of the Bundy family and ranch. This is to set the record straight.

The Millers arrived at Bunkerville between April 12 and 14, though were never admitted to the ranch property or the operational militia base until the following events occurred. After a few days, questions were raised by other participants about the Millers. These questions were brought to the attention of Jerry DeLemus, Ryan Payne, and head of security on the Bundy Ranch, Booda. They were then brought to the area of the ranch and were interrogated by Jerry DeLemus, Ryan Payne, and Booda

Jerad Miller admitted that he was a convicted felon. The had a model 1911, 0.45-caliber handgun and a shotgun. The interrogation was conducted based upon reports from other participants regarding the aggressive nature of the couple and the apparent volatility displayed by Jerad.

This first interrogation resulted in a subsequent meeting between DeLemus, Payne and Stobel, as well as Stewart Rhodes and Mike Vanderboegh. The initial assessment was that they were not of the caliber of people needed to provide for the defense of the Bundy family and property. They were first directed to go to Mesquite and report on what was occurring there. Because of their disheveled appearance, Rhodes gave them “a couple hundred dollars” so that they could get a motel room, shower, and some new clothes, because they claimed that, they had given up jobs, their home, and were wearing the only clothes they possessed.

Prior to their leaving for Mesquite, it was determined that there might be a problem if they appeared to be working with the operation, and armed, so Miller’s gun was put in a tent.

As the discussion continued, the realization that there could be more serious consequences if the Millers were associated with the operation, it was decided that they should be asked to leave the ‘jurisdiction’ of the operation. Miller’s gun was given to Amanda, as she was not a felon, and they were told to leave the area. The operation was properly focused on defense of property and people, and did not have any facility, obligation, or right, to do other than what they did.

The Millers were sent on their way. Never were the Bundys apprised of this situation. It was dealt with by the shared command of the militia contingent that had evolved through the progression of the operation.

What subsequently developed is quite unfortunate. However, the rapidly unfolding of events at the ranch did not diminish the necessity of proper vetting of participants.

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

Mike Vanderboegh’s take, from a previous article at:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/05/there-is-no-teacher-but-enemy-bundy.html

“One afternoon a couple showed up at the camp: a young tattooed white male wearing a holstered pistol and his girlfriend toting a shotgun. In the entrance interviews, which Jerry insisted upon mostly conducting himself, it developed that the guy was an admitted felon, but he didn’t believe that it was constitutional to deny him his firearm rights. This came with a long, sad story about how they had quit their jobs to volunteer for the Bundys and do their part. Both Jerry and Stewart were inclined to accept their help until I called them over and explained the ramifications of accepting a self-admitted, armed felon into camp. They were impressed by the man’s “honesty and sincerity,” in admitting up-front that he was a felon. I said, among other things, that of course he admitted it. If he hadn’t, then they would have plausible deniability when later confronted about it. By stating it up front, it was actually worse for them because they could not later deny having known that fact.”

However, according to other reports, Mike was not the only one to bring others into reality and make the right decision.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Stealing Valor

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 9, 2014

There have been efforts to discredit a man who has served, honorably, in the United States Army, active duty from June 2001 through January 2006.

The question arises out of whether he was an Airborne Ranger, or, an Airborne ranger. Hardly a violation of the Stolen Valor Act. Instead, well, let’s look at what he did do.

Prior to his separation from service, he received The Army Commendation Medal. The citation reads:

The Army Commendation Medal
Sergeant Ryan W. Payne
F Co, 51st Infantry, 519th Military Intelligence Battalion
For exceptionally meritorious service as a long range surveillance senior scout observer and assistance team leader. Sergeant Payne brought to every mission outstanding initiative, professionalism, and dedication to duty. His selfless service has been in the finest military tradition and reflects great credit upon himself, the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade, and the United States Army.
From 1 March 2002 to 1 January 2006

Note that he served “as a long range surveillance senior scout observer and assistance team leader.”Not only were their Rangers doing “long range surveillance”, there were Airborne qualified personnel doing “long range surveillance” They did the same duties as a Ranger, though they were only rangers. They did not earn the tab “Ranger”, and Payne has never claimed that he had earned the tab.

I hope that we haven’t come to the point that when his sons asks, “what did you do in the War, Daddy?”, he would have to say that he was a long range “hiker”, since ranger has become politically incorrect.

Ryan received another Army Commendation Medal, as well. That citation reads:

The Army Commendation Medal
Spc. Ryan W. Payne
Exemplary Service during combat operations with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) from 19 March 2003 to 05 June 2003 in Iraq. His selfless service and duty performance during Operation Iraqi Freedom contributed significantly to the Division’s success in liberating three key cities and to the establishment of a Free Iraq. His professionalism and commitment to excellence reflect great credit on him, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), and the United States Army.

However, the nit pickers, in their efforts to demean Ryan Payne, have chosen to attack his successful (read the citations, again) “meritorious service” at Bunkerville, holding the chaotic mass of militia and molding them into a cohesive force, by attacking his likewise successful service to his country as the tool to accomplish their nefarious objective.

No, the is not a case of “Stolen Valor”, it is simply a case of “Stealing Valor”.

Organizational Plan for Militia Response

Prepared by Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom

Additional input by Joe Martino, author of “Resistance to Tyranny” (jm)

Date of this version, April 29, 2014

 This will be updated as additional input is provided or changes are required.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Organizational Plan for Militia Response

Introduction

Based upon contributed after action reports from some who attended the Bundy Ranch Affair, and with discussions with the Militia Liaison at the Ranch, the following has been prepared to provide assistance to those who venture into harm’s way in subsequent events.

Lessons were learned, though through the Hand of Providence, nothing occurred that jeopardized the defense of the Bundys, their ranch and property.

The week prior to the Cattle Unrustling, on Saturday April 12, 2014, had its difficulties, all of which were surmounted. After that day, some command problems arose, and were quickly resolved by agreement with all the parties thereto. The concept of “shared command”, based upon Councils of War, prevalent in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, were adopted for the purpose of diversifying command and creating a coordinated effort.

In the future, as events unfold, we may arrive at a point where a command structure, based upon performance of someone who has truly demonstrated his abilities, in conflict as well as in peace, may ascend to the position we have learned to understand as “supreme commander”. Until that time, we must wait and watch, trusting that someone will demonstrate his abilities to take that position. Until that time, we should be able to successfully defend our rights and Constitution, in an organized manner, as outlined herein.

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

Initiation of Plan

This plan will be initiated upon acknowledgment, by any participating units or individuals, based upon their recognition of a need to respond to a situation to which they have been apprised.

The person requesting a response from militia must be the individual, or group, expecting imminent attack by Government Thugs (GT), or a clearly authorized representative thereof.

The requesting party will be known as the Host. Once a request is responded to, a liaison will be established between the host and the militia units, subject to the approval of the Host. From this point on, the Host will not be involved in strategic discussions, though he can object to any decision regarding issues that do not compromise the safety and security of the on ground personnel.

As soon as possible, when personnel become available, a Press Liaison will be established. Like the Militia Liaison, the Press Liaison will be the only contact with the Host, with regard to their respective areas of responsibility.

All liaisons are subject to acceptance by the Host, who can request, from the Defense Coordination Council, the replacement of a liaison, subject to the approval of the Council.

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

Militia Structure and Command

Defense Coordination Council

The Defense Coordination Council will be comprised of:

• Company Commanders, as elected by the Militia Companies
• The Militia Liaison.

Each will have a vote in any decisions made.

Advisory members to the Defense Coordination Council will include the Press Liaison and the leader or designated representative (with written authorization of the leader) of patriotic organizations, provided that members of those organizations are responding to the call. This will not apply to militia units, who will participate only through their Company Commander. Advisory members may participate in discussion, but shall have no vote. Any threat of withdrawal or act of intimidation by any advisory member will be cause for his immediate removal from the Defense Coordination Council.

Militia Companies

Militia units arriving on scene, will sign in with the Militia Liaison. The militia unit leader will sign in with:

• Name
• Unit identification
• Number of individuals in the unit
• Basic armament
• Qualification of personnel.

Independent militia members will sign in with the Militia Liaison with their name, home location, armament, and qualifications.

The Militia Liaison (until such time as the Defense Coordination Council is established) will assign units to alphabetically defined companies.

Ideally, Companies will be comprised of between 50 and 100 individuals, however, in smaller numbers, it is desirable to have at least 3 companies to provide for diversity on the Defense Coordination Council. Companies will be supplemented by additional volunteer units until the minimum of 50 members is achieved. Independent militia members will be assigned, likewise.

To avoid personality conflicts, any militia unit or individual can request from the Militia Liaison reassignment to another company, one time only. If that unit or individual requests reassignment to a specific company, it will be approved only if the receiving company approves the transfer. Otherwise, reassignment will be at the discretion of the Militia Liaison.

Once the requisite 50 member company is achieved, or the 3 company criteria met, an election will be held. Each individual within a company will have one vote to elect a Company Commander (to be rated as Captain), who will then become a voting member of the Defense Coordination Council. After said election, should the manpower of the company increase by 50% or more, a re-election may be called for by a majority of the members.

The Captain of any company may designate Lieutenants, within his command, as platoon leaders, subject to approval of the majority of those within the platoon. Platoons may be of any convenient size, and will take the role in the command structure as subordinate to the Captain.

Militia Company Designations:

Headquarters Company will be comprised of platoons identified as, and responsible for:

• Administration
  A log of daily “incidents” will be kept. A daily tally of militia units and members present should be maintained. Arrange procedure and control of monetary donations, including disbursement. (jm)

• Communication (within the militia structure).
  Allocate frequencies and call signs, and record all communications. Develop non-radio communications (runners or couriers) for secure communication, including receipted delivery. Daily newsletter informing members of current status, information of interest, etc. If rumors begin circulating, endeavor to identify source and quash by positive information. Source of rumor propagation should be the subject of a report to intelligence.       Arrange for ham radio communication with family of those without cell phones. Log all incoming and outgoing communications, to be a part of the final incident report.
  A wireless Local Area Network (LAN) should be established to facilitate communication, report filing, record keeping, and other necessary functions, and should be available to all volunteer personnel; secure (passworded) communications to be provided for official uses. (jm)
• Logistics
  Establish communication with Press Liaison, to provide information regarding needed supplies, equipment, food, etc, and instructions for delivery. It will not be the responsibility of Logistics Platoon to communicate outside of camp for donations, unless an alternative is not available.       Arrange with Administration Platoon for funding necessary Purchase Requisitions. Determine distribution procedure for new volunteers and replacement (DX). Assure that material is available for camouflage purposes, as required by the Intelligence Platoon. Endeavor to keep minimum equipage to all volunteers on site. Upon completion of event, arrange for DCC or Administration Platoon to accept remaining equipment and supplies. (jm)
• Intelligence
  Operatives from the covert company (explained below), as well as Operatives from this Platoon, are to determine what organizations are represented in the Opposition Force (OpFor), number of personal in each organization, equipage, armament, communications equipment and frequencies, call signs, and passwords used, if any. This information should be continually updated.
  Analysts will compile and evaluate the information obtained and provide reports to the DCC, daily, if not more frequently based upon information obtained between regular reports.
  Requisition and assure installation of camouflage and other protective measures to minimize information available to the OpFor utilizing drone surveillance techniques. Institute measures against infiltration and prepare reports of questionable participation in the Free Force (FreeFor) encampment. Maintain dossiers on all known participants of the OpFor and FreeFor personnel. Publish, for the use of guards, Company commanders, and other necessary personal, a loose-leaf binder with pictures and basic information of identified personnel of the OpFor, to be updated as additional identifications are made. Establish a protocol for protection of individual’s identities of the FreeFor personnel, to include license plates, photos sent, email messages to etc., based upon the needs determined by the DCC. (jm)
• Mess
  Store and distribute rations.       Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) will probably be the primary source of food, though consideration should be made to provide for normal meals, where possible. At least one prepared hot meal should be provided per day. Occasional local purchases of meals, including Subway, Burger King, KFC, etc., may serve until equipment and supplies are readily available.
  A Mess area should be provided, with sanitization and washing facilities available. If necessary, nominal charges to personnel for meals as an interim until funding becomes available.
  Water sanitization (Lister Bags and other means) must be provided and continually replenished. (jm)
• Medical
  Many militia units will not have doctors or medical personnel with them. Those who have should detach their personnel to the Medical Platoon, with the right to recall them for specific duties. Likewise, if a company without any medical personnel has a duty that warrants having medical support, they should be temporarily assigned for that duty. Primary medical facilities and supplies should be maintained in a central facility, and “medic bags” should be kept on hand for use of patrols or other situations where the availability of medical treatment is likely. Arrangements should be made to be able to transport, if conditions allow, seriously injured or those needing specialized medical treatment to existing public medical facilities.
  Small individual first-aid packets should be made available to all personal with field duties.
  Daily sick call should be held to deal with minor injuries or medical problems. (jm)

Remaining companies will be designated, sequentially, “A” thru “Z”

Ideally, assignments to these companies should be made with consideration to individual capabilities. For example:

• Those equipped with sniper equipment and training should be, where possible, within a single company so that they can, depending on current Defense Coordination Council strategy, be within a single unit to develop tactics.
• Those with special operations training should be included in a one, or more, specific units for special operations, based upon equipment and training.
• Those more physically fit should assigned to companies that will have patrol duties.
• Those with physical limitations should be assigned to Headquarters Company, unless special skills warrant assignment to a regular company.

Remaining companies, unless the Defense Coordination Council determines a need for other specialization, will be infantry companies. One example might be designated as Military Police (MP) Company.

Enrollment of Participants

Each person assigned to any militia unit, duty, or other capacity, who will have access to the bivouac area or within the defense perimeter, will be required to “Enroll for Temporary Service in the ______ Militia”. That enrollment will include an agreement to abide by officers of his designated company, or, if none, the Headquarters Company; he agrees that if ordered, by an act of the Defense Coordination Council, to remove himself from the premises, he will obey, or be subject to further discipline. All visitors falling outside of this description will be properly escorted.

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

Press Liaison

The Press Liaison, and assistants, if necessary, will be the only contact between the volunteer forces and the press.

He will:

• Work with the Host to develop answers to questions, in advance when possible, assuring consistency and positive structure in the responses.
• Prepare press releases, addressing difficult or complex concerns, or frequently asked questions.
• Aid in establishing authorized on-line web presence concerning the event, as the only source(s) of authorized information.
• Review any releases submitted by any units or individuals within the volunteers for content and acceptability. He may censor such submittal so as not to compromise security, or from misleading or incorrect statements.
• He will assist the Host in determining qualifications of those requesting interviews, and will assist, as necessary, in the preparations for any such interview.
• He will establish an appointment calendar of scheduled interviews and maintain a log of all press events. (jm)
• He will establish a Press Center for printing and distribution of Press Releases and other information, as well as a call center, to communicate with outside news source. Preferably, the host will provide such facilities. If impractical, then a van or trailer should be set up for such purpose. (jm)
• He shall establish a camera corp to record events, OpFor activities and personnel, hostile’s actions, events within the command, and other activities, creating a photographic/video record of the event for the historical record. (jm)
• He shall prepare an after action report, with the assistance of the DCC, at the conclusion of the event, to be distributed to militia units for instructional purposed, to be approved by the DCC prior to release. (jm)
• Liaison with the Defense Coordination Council to disseminate requests for additional personnel (volunteers), so as to keep such requests under control and not exceed the ability to absorb an excessive influx, greater than can be handled.

General provision regarding media:

• The Press Liaison position should be assigned to someone with news media and/or PR experience. (jm)
• Each arriving unit should be instructed to refer all news media inquiries to the Press Liaison. Each arriving militia member will be given a card with a standard response to anticipated media questions, and they should refrain from making any statements that might be construed to represent the whole rather than their own personal convictions. They should direct all inquiries to the Press Liaison. (jm)
• The official position is to be presented only by specifically assigned personnel.       (jm)

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 29, 2014

In these past few weeks, we have seen history unfolding right before our very eyes. Events in Bunkerville, Nevada, have been watched on the evening news throughout the country, and quite possibly, around the world. For the first time in a century and a half, Americans stood, defiant, ready to go to the wall, against the government, or at least one of her administrative agencies, to assure that the erosion of our liberties ceases, and we begin to restore our rights to what our forefathers intended.

From a people rather complacent for most of their lives comes a new test not unlike that which the Founders faced back in 1774 — the determination of who is on our side and who is not; who is committed and who is not; who is willing to give his life for a cause that he believes in and who is not, and that what this story is about.

Recent events in Bunkerville portray that test in vivid and sensational detail. I give a chronology to these events, and they will be presented in Pacific Daylight Time, regardless of the local time where some of them occurred. This is to insure continuity, and that the sequence is properly portrayed.

At about 2:30 pm, Friday April 25, 2014, Mr. X received a call from an associate. This call would provide for some interesting disclosure over the next 6 hours. The associate is described as a fellow participant in Open Source Intelligence, a nuclear physicist, a Democrat, a higher-ranking military officer, and that held a “Yankee White” security clearance.

I spent nearly an hour going over the details with Mr. X, to whom I have promised confidentiality. I am fully satisfied as to the veracity of what he told me. Though I did ask him if it would be possible to talk with the associate, with a guarantee of anonymity, he assured me that this would not be possible, as was made clear by the associate. I then asked him if Oath Keepers had asked if they could interview his source. His answer was, no they did not. This, to me, is a rather curious omission, even though the answer would be anticipated to be as it was — so much for the intelligence gathering ability of Oath Keepers, but, hey, I’m just a reporter. What would I know?

The story related in the conversation between Mr. X and the associate is that the associate had received information from a source he knew in the Defense Department (DOD). The source at DOD said that they had received orders from Eric Holder, of the Justice Department, to conduct drone surveillance of the Bundy property and to conduct a hot drone strike on the ranch and those on or around it. This was to occur within between 24 to 48 hours, and that there were to be no witnesses nor would any videos be allowed to leave the area.

Mr. X was quite shaken by what he had heard and expressed those concerns back at the associate. Wouldn’t this be going too far in the eyes of the public? Answer: They are prepared to deal with that. There is no way that this could be covered up. Response: They are prepared for that. It was suggested that this would lead to martial law based upon authority provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He was also told that the justification for the strike was based upon Harry Reid’s assertion that Bundy and those supporting him were “Domestic Terrorists”. To each of Mr. X’s queries, similar answers were provided to justify the story being conveyed.

Mr. X was, to say the least, perplexed and did not know what to do with this information. By about 3:00 pm, he contacted Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers. Rhodes, upon receipt of this information wisely dispatched Wes (aka “Mac”, Oath Keepers Intelligence Officer, about 6′ tall, older gentleman, prior Special Forces operator, driving a silver pickup truck) and Michelle to meet with Mr. X. and ‘vett’ him to determine whether he was sincere and to make an evaluation of the story.

Jumping ahead to 8:03 pm, John Jacob Schmidt, Radio Free Redoubt, interviewed Rhodes and other Oath Keepers (21’18”) regarding this story. Rhodes, justifiably, pointed out that the vetting had convinced him that the source (Mr. X) was sincere, though there was no way of verifying Mr. X’s source. Rhodes said that there was a risk to his credibility by putting this out, but since there was a concern for human lives, the story must be gotten out. Rhodes also pointed out, in releasing the story, that he was not going to “let my people die on my watch” and to “err on the side of caution for my guys.” Of course, the advertisement at the end of the radio interview was an enlistment ad for Oath Keepers.

Let me return to my interview with Mr. X. We discussed potential scenarios that might occur, considering the strike and its ramifications. Presuming the government had drone surveillance, and wanted to assure maximum effect, they would have a containment team to prevent any attempt of any of people to leave the area, as they did in Waco, where only those who came out in view of the cameras came out alive. They would have to insure meeting the objective of the strike — all personnel dead and evidence destroyed. As Rhodes pointed out, they would need a follow on team, though he didn’t address containment. That follow on team could surely serve as the containment team prior, and the follow on team subsequent, to the strike. We also discussed the ramifications — the effect on the American, and world, public, should such a strike occur. We all know how even the Mainstream Media (MSM) reacted to the directed drone strikes that killed two American citizens in Yemen, even though they had sided with our ‘enemy’. What would be the consequence of a general, indiscriminate, attack on men, women, and children, on American Soil, for merely resisting the enforcement of an agency rule to “rustle” Bundy’s cattle? No shots fired, no deaths, or even injuries. Would the public stand for it, and would Congressmen, even Democrats, scramble to condemn the action? Would a hundred million Americans realize that the government had gone berserk? Would they then flock to the cause of those who would resist such tyranny? Even MSM might even turn, drastically, against the administration. Would Jay Carney have trouble attempting to justify such action?

The probability of such an action is, at least, remote, and such intelligence should be used only within the confines of the current operations at the Bundy Ranch, rather than risk ridicule, when precautions could easily be taken, without public notice of such a threat?

Returning to the time line of events, we now go back to the Ranch to see what activity occurred because of this threat. At between 5:00 and 6:00 pm, Oath Keepers at the ranch began packing up their gear. At about 8:00 pm, about the time of the radio interview, Rhodes used the internal communication system and notified the Oath Keepers that they should move out. By 8:30 pm, 30-40 Oath Keepers in the encampment had moved out, as had the Oath Keepers command circle. Only about 5 Oath Keepers remained at the ranch to protect the Bundy family and property. Where did the others go? To the Virgin River Motel, possibly at the expense of the contributions sent to Oath Keepers, contributions having been made to provide protection for the Bundys, not for luxurious comforts for those who had abandoned their posts.

Later that evening (exact time unknown) a conference call was made between State Representative Michelle Fiore, Stewart Rhodes, Pete Santilli (patriot videographer), Booda Bear (Personal Security Detail for the Bundy family), Ryan Payne, Militia Liaison, and LTC Potter (who states, “I am a former US Army LTC of 28 years. I served in various Military Police and Military Intelligence positions around the globe. I was also a municipal police officer for about 3 years. I bring my unique experience, training, education, and spiritual insights to bear in analyzing important issues and trends in the U.S. and the world.”). The result of the conversation was to request that Representative Fiore contact the Governor and request the State’s support, independent of the militia, to provide protection for those Americans on the ground at the ranch. To date, there has been no response from the Governor.

So, let’s put a bit of perspective on what can be deduced by the actions of some of the players in these events.

First, as explained in my article, Vortex, if the government wants to disrupt or bring ridicule on the patriot community, it would choose an innocent patriot who they hoped would be likely to spread the story, indiscriminately, throughout the patriot community. However, the chosen conduit, the Vortex, had enough sense to provide the information, discretely, to someone he respected, hence the message going to Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers could have contained the story and still benefitted, in every way, by preparing for that eventuality. Instead, they chose to go public with it, for reasons unknown.

The Oath Keeper mission, “to not obey unconstitutional orders”, had, by their participation at the ranch, extended to “protecting the Bundy family”. They also declare that their purpose includes “education”. Now, if their mission is to protect the Bundy Family, just how far does that go? Given the choice of fulfilling their mission, by removing the Bundys, by force, if necessary, or holding their ground against the ‘enemy”, they chose to abandon that mission, for their own protection. Being that their membership is largely Law Enforcement, it appears that they have also adopted the “Officer Safety” principle adhered to by Law Enforcement to justify killing unarmed civilians. In this instance, the outcome would have been the same, had the strike occurred. In military parlance, this would be tantamount to desertion under fire. I can only suggest that the purpose for going public with the story was to justify their withdrawal, after the beating that they have recently taken as a result of an article, The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia, wherein one of their officers, in the comments section, is unable to address some of the concerns raised.

Various discussions around the Internet have also brought their true role and purpose at the Bundy Ranch into question. I won’t suggest that this event, the drone strike, may have been a setup by the Oath Keepers to bow out gracefully, as I don’t believe that they would stoop that low. However, I can only wonder why those stalwart militiamen held their ground, while the professed bearers of the torch chose to flee. Not quite like the roles played in the American Revolutionary War, where militia fled and the trained soldiers held their ground — to the last extremity.

Now, some have suggested that this controversy between militia and Oath Keepers has caused division in the patriot community. I am inclined to see this in a different light, in that, in these times, we must separate the voices from the action; Those who will stand, and those who will not; those who are true patriots, and those who only mouth those words.

Epilogue: Yesterday, the militia command structure, which is a shared command rather than top down, held a Coalition meeting to provide insight into why Oath Keepers, with the exception of those few who stood their ground like real patriots, were deemed persona non grata, by those who still stand their ground, and truly honor their oaths. Coalition Meeting of April 28 – caution, language.

Finally, a Salute to all true Americans that seek a return to the government intended by the Constitution.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 24, 2014

Oathkeepers is a national organization founded by Elmer Stewart Rhodes in 2009. By 2011, they had a reported membership of 12,000, though no current membership figures are readily available. Their stated Purpose:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.

Interestingly, they say that they will not “conduct warrantless searches”, though those in law enforcement do so every day. But, then, that is not the point of discussing Oathkeepers, so, on with the story.

They declare that “THEY will not obey unconstitutional orders”. Otherwise, they did not explicitly state, since they refer to their “oaths”, that they will “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, though that is not their primary purpose, only incidental. Nowhere do they make that their purpose. Only not to obey unconstitutional orders. This needs to be emphasized as this is where the rubber meets the road.

Though we have no current numbers, the membership structure consists of both Full and Associate memberships, with Full being $40 per year and Associate being $7.00. Associates are supporters that don’t meet the criteria defined in the “Purpose”.

We must ask ourselves why Oathkeepers are even on the scene. They have taken an oath not to violate their oath. That is well and good, but let’s look at how that fits into the current situation. Oathkeepers (not associate Oathkeepers) are current, ex, or retired law enforcement, etc., and military. So, we’ll look, first, at Law Enforcement.

Active Law Enforcement are currently paid by the enemy (government), just as the Redcoats were 230 years ago. If they were on our side and acted in conjunction with Constitutional Militia, they would, in essence, be fighting themselves or their brother LEOs). They may still be on the side of their brothers. However, if you look at almost any state, Law Enforcement Officers are specifically excluded from the militia — check your own state statute under the militia section. So, on to ex-LEOs. This would presume that they did not get the time in for retirement, leaving the question as to, “Why?” Sort of reminds us of the guy charged with a crime and then the charges are, mysteriously, dropped; or, the guy that has an assignment that requires that he shed his Law Enforcement identity. Finally, we come to the Retired LEO. He is receiving a very substantial paycheck. Many larger cities have salaries for these full-term officers in excess of 100 thousand dollars per year. That would prove to be a tidy sum, which, surely, the retiree would not be willing to relinquish because he participated in an event that was an action against his brothers in Law Enforcement. We must judge based upon what we can use as a benchmark to measure the probability of actual concurrence with the efforts of the militia.

With regard to LEOs, since 1967, law enforcement training has focused on a “them or us” mentality. That means that though they are sworn to enforce the law, that policy is inapplicable if the offender is a brother law enforcer, except, perhaps, in extremely egregious circumstances, likely comprising a very small fraction of a percent of all LEO offenses. Will he ever be willing to disassociate himself from an aura of superiority that had become a mainstay of his life?

On the other hand, their disdain for the public safety, as demonstrated so often by “policy” of “Officer Safety” resulting in hundreds of killings per year of innocent, unarmed citizens. If an officer is involved in such incident, he gets administrative leave, with pay, pending investigation — yes, paid vacation, not taken from his contractual vacation time — for killing someone. If by some chance the victim’s family prevails in a lawsuit, then the taxpayers pay the damages and costs. What a deal! But, I digress, though that digression is also important to the story.

In addition, perhaps we should consider the proliferation of Fusion Centers, where various federal agencies interface with local law enforcement officers. Can we reasonably expect that there is not a degree of encouragement for the locals to infiltrate, or at least, ingratiate, the various patriot groups to obtain intelligence on their operations? If so, the simple next step is to attempt to gain influence to be able to direct, or at least influence, those groups’ activities, in support of their federal comrades.

Now, let’s look at the Military side of Oathkeepers. Active military can be of no assistance, as he would not go AWOL, or risk his leave, to do something that might get him an early discharge, at less than honorable. We’ll jump to Retired, and we will recognize the same problematic relationship with the pension of one who takes on the federal government. As well as his obedience to the government controlled environment for at least twenty years of his life. Though perhaps extreme, remember, Timothy McVeigh, recipient of a number of medals and an honorable discharge, was denied the burial rights that were guaranteed as a condition of enlistment. Surely, they can yank pensions on almost any grounds that they reasonably justify.

This leaves us with those who chose not to career, and since 1973 there has been no conscription (draft), so we needn’t address those who didn’t volunteer and deal only with those who volunteered to serve their country, did their duty, served their time, and got out to reenter civilian life. They have nothing to lose by participation with the militia, and they are not excluded by statute. Therefore, they are the only possible contingent of the Oathkeeper element that can relatively safely be assumed pure in their motivation.

With that one exception, they all have a conditioning in their lives that would suggest that they would tend to be inclined to a sort of special duty — infiltration of the militia — than they would to have of the pure motives of participation in the militia.

The Oathkeepers, by their oaths, only intend to “not violate their oath”. There is not provision in their corporate bylaws that provides for them stopping another person from violating his oath. The militia, on the other hand, having both helped in wresting control from England, and current situations, have been a mainstay, and by tradition as well as intent, are bound to support and defend the Constitution and their State’s constitution.

That being said, if Oathkeepers choose to participate in the events at Bunkerville, they should do so not as an Oathkeepers, but only as a member of a militia, which the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of each and every state, recognizes as a lawful and protected right — a right of united self-defense. They should be relegated to duties without access to privileged information or command. And, as such, are subordinate to the command within the militia structure, not to the patriarch of the Oathkeepers. Oathkeepers may, by choice, be militia. However, militia members, who have taken the same oath, absent the requisite requirement to join and pay the dues, may not be Oathkeepers. So, which of the two MUST be the subordinate?

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oath Keepers vs. Militia – Part II

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM