Outpost of Freedom blog

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

The Bundy Affair

The Battle Continues

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 16, 2014

Late yesterday early evening, I received a message and link to on on-line article about the events at the Bundy’s Ranch.  I was asked if the article was accurate.  The article is at National Report and is titled “Multiple Militia Members Arrested at Bundy Ranch, Charged with Domestic Terrorism.”  The article, though no time stamp, appears to have been posted yesterday (April 15) at about 3:00 PM PDT.  It has no byline.

I have been in contact with people who had been at the ranch, and I have spoken with Ryan Bundy, as my point of contact at the ranch.  Realizing that they have had their hands full, dealing with the events and after the events, I had minimized my contact with Ryan (a 45 minute interview on April 8, and a 5 minute conversation a few days ago), but this article warranted attention.

I called Ryan, yesterday evening, and asked if they were aware of any arrests.  He affirmed that there had been no arrests.  There is little doubt that had such arrests occurred, the Bundys surely would have received information to that effect.

So, why would someone want to publish an article that was such a blatant lie, and easily refutable?  Well, let’s look at some aspects of the article, and then I will conclude with what appears to be the reason behind this article, and perhaps many more that are circulating on the Internet.

The article begins with this assertion, “The standoff in Nevada reached new heights this afternoon as armed federal agents began arresting militia members gathered to protest in support of Cliven Bundy.”  Considering the time that it was published, early in the afternoon, it does raise suspicion.

Next, it claims:

In total, 16 protesters taking part in the rally are reportedly in custody and being held without bail on domestic terrorism charges, resisting arrest, creating a public nuisance, and trespassing.

Interestingly, they were charged with “domestic terrorism” and “creating a public nuisance”.  The former, probably quite severe; the latter, usually treated with arrest and then release; a rather strange assortment of charges.

Then, for whatever reason, the following conclude that paragraph:

Early reports indicate that protesters were verbally and physically abused prior to being arrested.

I would suggest that this sentence is intended to garner sympathy from, and credibility to, the patriots, for reasons that will be addressed, later.

Now, the next paragraph gets even more interesting.  In a single sentence, a warning is put out to instill fear in any who attend the protests going on outside of the Bundy Ranch:

Federal agent Paul Horner, a 14-year veteran of the force, spoke with National Report by phone and had this to say: “Under direct orders from the FBI and the DOJ, on behalf of the BLM, we have infiltrated the crowd with armed undercover agents.  The agents are collecting intel and coordinating that information with drones that are also overseeing the disturbance.  In addition, we have positively identified approximately 85% of the crowd and are running background checks for previous violations, warrants, etc.  License plate numbers of protesters are being collected and entered into the national database as well.  These right-wing extremists pose a serious threat to the safety of the operation and we have orders to make arrests and confiscate firearms.”

Now, I don’t like windmills, so I will not joust with one to see if Horner is real, though I doubt that he is.  However, within his statement, he “admits” infiltration by armed undercover agents, who we must suppose came out from their cover when they made the arrests.  Then, the subsequent threat of identification and inclusion in a “national database” sort of completes the effort of intimidation.

There is more to the article, however, what is above presented is sufficient for us to begin to look at, perhaps, is the purpose of this blatantly false article.

After the events of Sunday, where the BLM stood, stoically, for a few minutes, and then cowered away, in what appeared to be mortal fear, the government had lost the upper hand.  This was, without a doubt, a defeat of the worst kind for the government.  They had been publically humiliated, even in Mainstream Media, in having the will of the people asserted over their presumed authority.

If we look back at both our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, we know that when there is victory, enlistments increase and public support excels.  However, with defeat comes the opposite — not to mention the psychological effect on the participants.

Embarrassment in conflict often has rather bizarre consequences.  For example, in Waco, on the first day, the BATF suffered defeat.  They were shown  with their tails between their leg, dragging wounded comrades away from the battlefield for medical treatment, with the grace of the Davidians, who were not afford such medical luxury.  Their humiliation resulted, eventually, in the childish destruction of the property of the Davidians, after the fateful fire of April 19.  This was the result of an arrogant attempt to restore the superiority of the government forces over an enemy, the Davidians.

It is the psychology of defeat, and the psychology of victory, that instills, in each side, a mental framework that is either destructive, or brings enthusiasm.

This National Report article, and many other articles that detract from the truth of the events of the past week in Bunkerville, Nevada, appear to be an intentional Psychological Warfare (Psyop) operation by the government, their shills and supporters, to endeavor to reduce the moral effect of our victory, and enhance the believe of superiority in theirs.

Before I conclude this article, I want to bring to your attention a rather divisive tool implemented in the distraction of the article.  Many know that I have been in contact with the Bundys.  As I pointed out, above, I wanted to ascertain the veracity of the article.  Once the truth was known, I posted in the comments section.  There is no logging in required (strange) and I did check the box to receive notice of follow up comments, giving my email address, though I have, since, received none.

This morning, I received a message form a friend who had run across the article, and seeing the following comments, contacted me, saying that he believed it to be true, since the comment appeared to have been made by me:

Well, that would be about the time that I posted, though my last name, which I always use, was omitted.  So, what about the wording?  Well, what I wrote was, “This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.”  (This is BS.  I just spoke with the Bundys.  There have been no arrests.)  Rather interesting, and extremely deceitful.

This is to deceive, intimidate, discredit, or otherwise attempt to use Psyop to change the nature of the game, and it is in full force.  For those interested in the mechanics of such subversive tactics, they are explained in Vortex.  Understand, however, that though the first battle has been won by the People, it is not over, and the nature of the game can be expected to change.

We must remain vigilant, and retain momentum, and not allow a denigration as a result of their tactics.  We have prevailed, and we will continue to prevail — until Constitutional government is restored to our land.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

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 – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Bound by Oath!
Are there 3 Constitutions?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 5, 2013

Having touched upon the subject of Honor (Bound by Honor?), we shall now venture into the subject of that Honor.  From the ratification of the Constitution, through today, it has been held that an oath is one of the requisites for office.  It was required of the President (Article II, § 1, clause 8) and the “Senators and Representatives … and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States” (Article VI, clause 3).  It was so important that a violation of that oath was enforced, after the Civil War, with a prohibition against holding public office to all who had taken such oath and then joined “in insurrection or rebellion” (14th Amendment, §3).  All state constitutions have, likewise, adopted requirements for an oath of office to hold positions of public trust.

It is reliance upon the obedience to that oath that is the framework that the Framers relied upon to maintain that institution created by the Constitution, the government of the United States, intact and honorable.

The introduction of the “United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” provision dates from 1953, with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953.  Since 1966, the current oath, retaining the “enemies” provision, has remained unchanged

Unchanged, however, is the fundamental recognition to obedience to the Constitution, and, to the state’s constitution for all state offices.

This leads us to look into that subject of the oath, the Constitution.  However, to understand this relationship, we need to look very closely at the document, and what it means.

I believe that this can be best understood by looking at the Constitution in a perspective of the application of the document, and just what the perception, by the oath takers, is of that document.

So, let’s begin at the lowest level — the on the street enforcement level.  The cop (Sheriff’s deputies, other armed agencies, including federal) perceive the Constitution that they took an oath to as what they have been told by their superiors is entailed in the Constitution.  Let’s refer to this as Constitution #1.  For example, and the Supreme court has played a role in this, if they are told that they can make searches and arrests based upon their individual judgment — if they believe that a crime either has, or may be committed — they are within their power to search and/or arrest people of whom they have suspicion.

This has become manifest because it was practiced by law enforcement, in violation of the Constitution.  Once challenged, it can go before the courts, and, eventually, to the Supreme Court, where that Court will rule, often contrary to the Constitution (see About Ashwander v. TVA), which now gives us Constitution #2, that being the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court.  However, if they had determined not to rule on the Constitutionality of a matter before them, “The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of” (Ashwander, rule #4), then are we to assume that their rulings are actually interpretations of the Constitution?

This, then, leads us to Constitution #3, the Constitution as written and intended by the Framers and those who ratified it.  The Constitution is comprised of about 4,400 words.  Add the first Ten Amendments, including the Preamble thereto, for another 700 words.  Simple, yet easily understood; written in the English language, not in legalese; intended to be understood by any literate person, not subject to interpretation, except where construction failed to address certain conflicts that might arise, the Constitution was written for us, by our ancestors, to be the foundation for the continuation of a self-governed people, so long as we understood and abided by it.

We must first understand that our separation from English rule was predicated on the concept that the people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  It was for the protection of Life, the preservation of Liberty, and the ability to acquire property, that lead to those Founders taking action to re-secure that which had been denied them — the Rights of Englishmen — by the British government.

We know that the purpose of government, as declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  We need only understand that “promote the general Welfare” is preceded by “promote”, not “provide”, for us to proceed.

Clearly, no matter what our own emotions may suggest, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes any provision for the government to become a “charitable organization”, taking from some and giving to others.  In fact, this would be contrary to the principles of self-government, in that government has become the master and determines just whom he might favor with gifts (and the inherent votes that will follow from the beneficiary).

Let’s look at some more of the precise wording of Constitution #3, as well as comments with regard to what was intended:

Article I, Section 8, clause 11: The Congress shall have the Power … To declare War…

Congress has not declared war since December 1941, yet we have the longest war in our history going on, right now.  The war in Afghanistan began in 2001.  That is twelve years — the longest war in our history.  The Framers realized that the decision to go to war, and to invest the lives of America’s youth, should lie with the representatives of the people, the Congress, and not with an individual.  Why has Congress collectively rejected their oath by enacting legislation that allows the President to go to war, so long as Congress doesn’t object?  Quite simply, they can absolve themselves of the responsibility that they agreed to take upon themselves, when they took their oath.  Quite possibly, their abrogation of responsibility results in substantial ‘support’ from the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us of, when leaving office.

Article I, Section 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.

This recognition of the Militia, whether called forth, or not, recognizes the Militia as an inherent part of the concept of self-government.  Further, 10 U.S.C. § 311 states that “[t]he militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age.”  So, how is it that those who have taken an oath to the Constitution can object to, and demonize, those citizens who recognize their obligation to the Constitution.  After all, is “all”, ALL?  Less, of course, those specifically exempted.

Section 4– The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

However, California Supreme Court justices, who had taken oaths to both the California and federal constitutions, ruled, in “In re Marriage Cases”, (43 Cal. 4th 757), that held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying. However, in reviewing the California Constitution, I can find no reference to “same-sex couples”.

On appeal to the federal courts, they, too, held, though on slightly different grounds, that the Proposition — the will of the people of California — was unconstitutional.  They have yet to rule on the statute (1 U.S.C. §7) cited above, though apparently it has been constitutional for many decades.  Those judges only took an oath to the federal Constitution, though, again, I find no reference that would grant the federal government to become any more involved in marriage than to recognize what it has been, for centuries.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Contrary to many opinions, it does not say that there is a “separation between Church and State”, which is attested to be the numerous depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the United States Supreme Court building.  So, let’s look at what it says.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Those cities and towns that have adopted Sharia Law have certainly done so.  However, many states or counties had laws that were derived from the Ten Commandments.  , even though many of those laws based upon the Ten Commandments have been removed.  However, there is a law that requires that a religion must pass certain steps (Internal Revenue Code) to qualify as a religion, thereby becoming exempt from taxation.  That, in itself, seems to be a law respecting the establishment of religion, since the religion is not established (at least in the eyes of government), unless it abides by the law that establishes it as a religion.  Once established, laws come into play that restricts what can be said by the religious exercise of the congregation.  However, those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, either as elected representatives, or, appointed, or hired, agents of government, have promulgated laws that, by reading of the words, and a review of how those words were applied by the Framers, we can conclude that the oaths have been violated, even though many of them were taken on a Bible.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have trouble understanding why people can’t understand, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, which along with the Militia (previously mentioned), cannot be infringed.  However, those who have taken an oath to the Constitution seems to be as remise in understanding what this means as they are in understanding the oath that they took.

Amendment 4: 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.

Searches are often conducted without a warrant, or at least a warrant served on the person whose property is to be searched.  Legal process, for such as subpoenas, requires that paperwork be served.  There are numerous methods of legal service, however, the constitutionally prescribed warrant is held to a much lower standard than, say, serving divorce papers.  Divorce, however, is not protected by the Constitution.

The Amendment also requires a sworn statement of probable cause, and “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Two hundred years ago, warrants were specific, describing exactly what was to be seized, and where it was located.  More recently, a warrant might include the entire house, or property, seeking all papers, computers, discs, tapes, books, and anything else that might be found.

We also find that searches, with the blessing of the courts (whose judges have taken an oath), have allowed the police to make searches almost any time, relying on their nose, their ears, or their instinct, to justify the search.  This, without question, is appalling.  And, if nothing is found, there is no remedy for the person whose liberty has been lost, for the time involved, which doesn’t even begin to suggest that there is any accountability on the part of the police.  Roadside stops and searches have become a mainstay of law enforcement.  Didn’t law enforcement officer, too, take oaths?  Perhaps to Constitution #1.

Did the Constitution intend a police state, or a free state, where the obligation was on the government, not on the people?

Amendment 5: No person shall … be deprived of … property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Both “Eminent Domain” and “Asset Forfeiture” come to mind, when we read the wording of this Amendment.  The former is lawful, though limited, while the latter is unlawful and unconstitutional, without equivocation — unless you are an attorney intending to subvert the Constitution for financial gain.

So, we can start with the purpose, “public use”.  Public is not the government, it is us.  The concept of eminent domain goes back centuries and was intended to make inviolate your right to own and posses property, with the sole exception of the “public good”.  So, what is this “public good”?  Well, roads, canals, rivers, lakes, parks, even easements allowing utilities to be put across your land to serve others of the public.  To extend this concept to land being condemned by eminent domain, and then sold to a private developer, who will then be paying a higher tax on the property than the previous owner(s), is bizarre.  It is chicanery utilized to transfer one’s property to another, and require that transfer to be forced, rather than voluntary, regardless of the compensation to the owner(s).  The courts, however, by judges and justices sworn to the Constitution, have acquiesced to such chicanery.

Asset forfeiture, without any compensation, is clearly outside of any constitutionally vested authority.  [N]or shall private property be taken … without just compensation” leaves no room for any other construction of the intent.  However, to those who have taken oaths, it is simply a matter of obfuscation to distort what was intended to that which will serve their friends and allies.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Based upon the above, have we retained those rights that were not enumerated in the “Bill of Rights”?  Even those enumerated, which we have addressed here, are been denied, as has been explained.

Amendment 10: 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.

We have also seen that powers not delegated, such as marriage, have been assumed into “authorities” that were not delegated by the Constitution.

So, we can conclude that those who take oaths will take them to one of the 3 Constitutions.  The police, for the most part, take them to Constitution #1.  Most administrative officials, at all levels of government, being, perhaps, a bit more intelligent, tend to take their oath to Constitution #2.  Few, if any, take it to Constitution #3, and that includes the highest powers — the Justices of the Supreme Courts — in government.  They are more inclined to assist those others in government to increase their stranglehold on the people, and usurp powers that were never intended by the Constitution, or the state constitutions.

It is only when the people take an oath in court, or when military personnel take their oath upon induction, that the law expects them to abide thereby.

The Constitution has a provision (Article V) for making changes.  The oath, however, has no such provision.  Once given, the oath taker is bound thereby.  Absent a change in the Constitution (Constitution #3), the violation of oath should result in immediate removal from office.

We have discussed what was intended, though some might suggest that what has been discussed is not what was intended.  For those who want some insight into the intention of the Framers, we can look to how they practiced what they had written.

What could be more demonstrative of intent than actions, which put that intent into practice?

Regarding juries, I would suggest Essay on Trial by Jury (PDF) (1828)

Regarding searches, arrests, and the authority of law enforcement, I would suggest Are Cops Constitutional? (PDF)

Bound by Honor?
Secrecy vs. Honesty

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2013

There is an inherent tendency to suppose guilt, when someone lies about an incident.  Many applauded when Martha Stewart was sent to prison for 5 months for lying to investigators about some stock dealings.  The charge was not perjury, rather, “obstruction of justice” If someone lies about, say, a relative’s whereabouts, though the lie may have been told to protect someone’s privacy rather than obstruct justice, it is a presumption of guilt on the part of the person “hiding” information, as well as the object of the investigation.  Quite frankly, we have been conditioned to accept that lying is an implication of guilt, without regard to the cause for the lying.  This, of course, is instilled in us by the big brother mentality of being protected by the government.

Perjury, the willful telling of a lie while under oath, is criminal.  It always had been, and, it always should be.  This, perhaps, is the foundation of the above, yet in many cases, an oath is not a part of the lying, though still held to the standard of proof of guilt.

So, we can conclude that either by law or by implication, the people believe themselves bound to truthfulness, when dealing with the government.

What of those in power, whether a policeman in traffic court, a politician running for office, those elected to run the machinery of government, or those holding the highest offices of trust in this nation?  Are they not bound, while in their official capacity, whether an immediate oath is required, or they are simply bound by their oath of office, “to support and defend the Constitution” and in the realm of state officers, of the constitution of their state; are they not even more bound to truthfulness?

It seems, however, whether the cop in court, an elected official running for re-election or standing before Congress and/or the people, the Attorney General of the United States, or even the Executive Officer (president) of the United States, have a flagrant disregard for their oaths and the people of the nation.  They, and the press that supports them, seem to be immune to such a lowly concept as a sense of honor.  To most other people, lying is both dishonorable and criminal.

In Congressional hearings, an official of the United States, flat out declared that he knew nothing about “Fast and Furious”, which sent hundreds of legal and illegal arms south of the border.  Subsequently, the evidence shows that he did know and probably condoned that operation, yet he still holds his high office, at our expense.  The extent of punishment is, at best, a mild rebuke.

Similarly, we have an Executive and congress-critters that make promises.  Should those promises, absent a well-justified reason to the contrary, be held to the highest standards of honor?  And, if made frequently, deemed to be lies, based upon a lack of intent to fulfill when offered?

National Security is the mask behind which the government seeks to hide information.  A search for a definition of “National Security” in the United States Code (US Code) yields no results; however, it does contain rather ambiguous references to protecting national security.

Wikipedia provides some insight:

There is no single universally accepted definition of national security.  The variety of definitions provide an overview of the many usages of this concept.  The concept still remains ambiguous, having originated from simpler definitions which initially emphasized the freedom from military threat and political coercion to later increase in sophistication and include other forms of non-military security as suited the circumstances of the time.

From that same source, we can find some apparent contradictory definitions:

Arnold Wolfers (1960), while recognising the need to segregate the subjectivity of the conceptual idea from the objectivity, talks of threats to acquired values:
“An ambiguous symbol meaning different things to different people.  National security objectively means the absence of threats to acquired values and subjectively, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.”

The 1996 definition propagated by the National Defence College of India accretes the elements of national power:
“National security is an appropriate and aggressive blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of natural resources and finally the military might.”

The former inclined toward protection of the nation from external efforts to change its “values”; in other words, to protect the nation and its people.  The latter, however, appears to be more inclined to protect the government from its own people, and to bear no responsibility or accountability.

So, let’s look at what happens when government officials break the law and lie about it.

Valarie Plame was inducted as a CIA officer in 1985.  From that point forward, she acted as a covert operative for the CIA until, in July 2003, Robert Novak, using information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, exposed her as an operative.  Plame eventually resigned her position in December 2005.

This, exposing an agent, can, without a doubt, by considered a breach of national security, as it divests the government of continued utilization of the agent for the purpose for which that person was trained.

Subsequent investigation by a grand jury resulted in the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby for his role in the divulgence of the name of the agent.  In March 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury.  He was acquitted on one count of making false statements.  He was not charged for revealing Plame’s CIA status.  His sentence was 30 months in prison and two years of probation.  In July, President George W. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence, removing the prison term but leaving in place the probation.  Libby, who did violate the concept of national security and did obstruct justice by lying, served less time, four months, than Martha Stewart did.

Based upon the legal ambiguity of “national security”, it can be turned against the people, when it serves the government, and it can be used to protect those who work for the government, since there is no legal definition.  It is a subjective determination by the prosecutor, who is an agent of government.

So, we can see that lies are bad, when told by the public, even without an oath that is required by jurisprudence to rise to the level of criminal.

On the other hand, government, from traffic cop to President, can lie under the guise of national security, and is subject to discipline only when the press (the elite press, as much a part of government as other officers — and, which lies to us, daily) or other circumstance rise the incident to a level of national public attention.

It follows, then, that citizens are held to be honorable, while those serving the government are not, in the least, Bound by Honor.

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.

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?

What did Timothy McVeigh really say?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 14, 1997

If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me.  He wrote, “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.  For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

That’s all I have.

Timothy McVeigh, August 14, 1997 — just prior to being officially sentenced to death

For weeks, now, I had been conjecturing, along with nearly everyone else in the country, what words would come forth on Timothy McVeigh’s day of sentencing. He had declared that he would make a statement — his first since he was accused of bombing the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 — and the word had spread, as had the anticipation. Many had expected a confession, remorse or denial of complicity. Very few, if any, expected so much acumen to come from McVeigh and just 47 words.

To fully understand the depth of McVeigh’s statement, it might be best to understand exactly what the Olmstead case was about. “Olmstead was the leading conspirator and the general manager of [a] business” (Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438) which employed “not less than 50 persons,” including executives, salesmen, deliverymen, dispatchers and an attorney. The business was “unlawfully possessing, transporting and importing intoxicating liquors,..” The crime, then, was a violation of the statutes enacted under authority of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition) which was ratified in 1919.

The general argument of the court was that although postal mail, once sealed, was prohibited from intrusion by government officers seeking evidence, a telephone line was not, and, although Washington state law made it a misdemeanor to tap a phone, the evidence obtained thereby was admissible. The court, in its opinion, also made clear that the government need not be ethical in its acquiring of evidence.

Brandeis, in his dissenting opinion, stated that “Tapping of one man’s telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone line of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him.” He continued, [a]s a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping.”

Although the comparison of any evidence gathering in the McVeigh case is inconsequential to the whole, the seizure of the papers in McVeigh’s car, his home, the homes of his friends and relatives, and the intimidation of his sister and the Fortiers falls well within the domain of what was once prohibited under the Constitution — but which has become an everyday occurrence under the federal government’s agenda.

I’m not so sure that this was all that Timothy McVeigh had to say when he uttered those few words — much to the chagrin of many. The implications of wrongdoing by government, and usurpation of authority not granted by the Constitution through the process of judicial review is much broader in its ramifications than this case, by itself, demonstrates. Brandeis does discuss other aspects of the Constitution, which have changed by their nature due to the nature of change in the society, especially from a technological point of view. How, for example, could the Founders have protected the right to communicate (theirs was limited to post and courier) over telephone lines when electricity had not been discovered. How, too, could they address the right to communicate freely on the Internet when just a few years ago the concept of this medium of communication was beyond the comprehension of most people. Brandeis states, with regard to the Supreme Court’s review of actions of the Congress, that “this court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of [the Constitution], over objects of which the fathers could not have dreamed.”

“Protection against such invasion of ‘the sanctities of a man’s home and the privacies of life’ was provided for in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language.” He continues, “[b]ut ‘time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.’ Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what was whispered in the closet.”

In appraising the consequences of the government’s overzealous tendencies to secure convictions, Brandeis discussed the actions of the government officials, and the government, itself. “When these unlawful acts [wire tapping in violation of Washington state laws] were committed they were crimes only of the officers individually. The government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the government, having full knowledge, sought through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes… and if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers’ crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present the elements of ratification [of the crime committed by government officials, individually]. If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker.”

Brandeis’ entire concluding paragraph is probably warranted. What McVeigh left out speaks volumes. From the record:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”

The act of anarchy that McVeigh committed was an act induced by observation of the government’s violation of numerous aspects of the Constitution. In Texas, for example, §9.31 (C) of the Texas Penal Code states:

“The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

“(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

“(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

There can be little doubt, regardless of your perception of what occurred in Waco, that the BATF and the FBI did create a situation in which the retaliatory action by the Davidians was fully justified, at least under Texas law. Other events in our recent history can lead us to conclude that the governments efforts at crime control have only generated a scenario where the government may commit crimes, with impunity, and convict others who have not committed a crime of the mere act of possibly contemplating a crime. A very far cry from what Brandeis spoke to some seventy years ago.

Some will suggest that I am attempting to justify McVeigh’s deeds. On the contrary, I have only attempted to explain them.

The previous post in this series about McVeigh,

An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 2, 2013

There comes a time when we are past the point of words; only action will achieve the goal that we have set.  That goal is founded upon our belief in, and our determination to support, the Constitution — and, the peaceful transition of the office of President.  Now, we must consider what to do when that transfer appears to be the harbinger of the total destruction of the way of life to which we are accustomed.

Every four years, the people of this country elect a new Executive to wield the reins of government.  To date, the United States of America is the only country in the world in which the government was truly created by the authority of the people.  In so doing, they required that the Executive take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

All subordinate offices, which require an oath, are similar to the following: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Interestingly, with the exception of the Executive, the oath includes, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  The stipulation “all enemies, foreign and domestic“, though omitted in the former, is included in all of the latter.

In a previous article (Sons of Liberty #14); the concept of self-government was discussed.  Part of that discussion dwelt upon the means by which governments are dissolved (dissolution).  First, they can be dissolved by force, by a conquering army, wherein they are absorbed within the government of the conqueror.

Second, they can be dissolved when an external force, not by outright conquest, instills a modified form of the existing government, albeit friendly to the external force, whereby through a slow transitional process, the existing government is modified to a new form.  (This, we impose upon countries under the guise of bringing them democracy.)

Thirdly, when an existing representative form of government is subverted by internal forces, such as: When the executive arbitrarily imposes his will on the elected representatives and the people; when the trust bestowed upon the legislative body is betrayed, by whatever means, whereby the ultimate authority is transferred from the people to arbitrary authority by the Legislative or the Executive, contrary to the document that brought the legislative body into existence; and, lastly, when the people become subject to the influence of a foreign power, thereby influencing the legislative body to pass laws inconsistent with the original foundation of the government.  It is of this last method of dissolution that we must concern ourselves.

Of these three forms of dissolution of government, we must concern ourselves with the third and its three basic elements.

Of the first, the Executive, we have seen in our history, a number of usurpations that don’t seem to be supported by the Constitution.  John Adams elicited legislative support for his Alien and Sedition Acts.  These Acts were to discourage dissent and criticism of the executive.  Of them, the Supreme Court overturned some; the remainder expired at the end of Adams’ term of office.  Later, Andrew Jackson refused to enforce laws enacted by the legislature.  During the Civil War, both Lincoln and the Congress enacted laws contrary to the Constitution.  All of these, however, pale when compared to recent usurpation of authority by the executive branch of government, resulting in their near dictatorial power, without regard to the Constitution, to which the executive oath was taken.

Of the next, the legislative, as discussed above, has been willing, under generally extraordinary circumstances, to enact laws contrary to the Constitution, has, recently, especially with the support of the judiciary, imposed upon the people of this country laws that are totally outside of any authority or power granted by the Constitution.  Beyond that, the judiciary has become legislative, and has broadened the interpretation of laws enacted by the legislature, and, by undermining the authority of the state governments to enact laws under their respective constitutions, provided us with, rather than interpretations of the Constitution, expansion of the authority of the federal government.

The consequences of the two above-mentioned usurpations has resulted in an electorate comprised of foreign interests, often illegally within this country, and often voting for those who promise them benefits and privileges that are greater than even those allowed to the people of this country.

The effect of the mis-administration of government according to the Constitution has resulted in a dissolution of government by the third method, which has been so subtle as to have been almost overlooked as it incrementally dissolved our freedoms.

Let’s look at some aspects of government, wherein we have seen the results of incrementalism and destruction of the foundations of our government.

Education:  In 1867, an “Office of Education” was established within the federal government.  Its purpose was to provide information and arrange for land grants to establish state colleges for agricultural and mechanical purposes.  Curriculum and all administrative matters were determined at the local level.  In 1953, a position was created and known as “Health, Education, and Welfare”.  At that time, curriculum and all administrative matters were determined at the local level, though in some cases subject to state intrusion.  Today, we have a dictatorial federal agency that mandates curriculum, testing, and social engineering, without regard to any more than token input from interested parties, leaving all decisions in the hands of a few select administrators.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Religion:  We have transformed the constitutional prohibition of government enacting any “law respecting an establishment of religion”, to an unconstitutional, and undesirable, “separation of church and state”, to the point that United States Supreme Court, with numerous engravings of the 10 Commandments or Moses on the edifices of that institution has summarily dictated that any representation of Christian belief cannot be demonstrated in, and in some cases even spoken of, in buildings owned by the public.  Meanwhile, atheism, through the same Court, has caused the forced removal of Christian symbols that have stood for decades, or longer, asserting that they are unconstitutional.  The tenets of Islam (Shariah Law) have, however, found standing in the lesser courts to justify actions that have been held as unlawful for centuries.  Likewise, they have allowed promotion of Islam in the same locations that they have denied the promotion of Christianity.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Police:  Even after World War II, police were courteous, helpful, protective, polite, and friendly, matching the phrase “to serve and to protect”.  Today, they serve search or arrest warrants, with no less than half a dozen militarily armed SWAT teams; breaking down doors, even if unlocked; shooting dogs and terrorizing the occupants; and, often at the wrong address.  The more they are equipped militarily, purportedly to provide officer protection, the more they are inclined to utilize force, even deadly force, in the conduct of their duties.  Their own personal safety has become paramount, with a total disregard for the safety of the public.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Criminal Justice:  “Hate crimes” have become the watchword in criminal justice.  If an act of violence is initiated by a white person (or even Hispanic), then the full force of justice will be imposed upon the perpetrator.  If, however, the act of violence is initiated by a black person on a white person, most often it will be asserted as a robbery, whether property was taken, or not.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Constitutional Justice:  Federal judges have, in numerous instances, determined that state constitutional amendments are unconstitutional, even though the amendments were enacted in accordance with state constitutions (Republican form of government) and are consistent with federal law (as in the federal definition of marriage, 1 U.S.C. § 7), or consistent with existing law and common sense (ruling barring Shariah law as a defense in Oklahoma).  These same federal courts have become the source of unlawful legislation to accomplish, by subjective means, social engineering, not authorized by the Constitution.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Debt:  They have imposed upon, not only us, but also our great grandchildren, a debt beyond comprehension.  The ability to pay down that debt is nonexistent, making it perpetual, though they continue to borrow and increase that debt, making us a destitute nation.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Welfare:  They have provided a smooth and easy path to dependency for those unwilling to fend for themselves.  With more people receiving food stamps, than there are working for a living, we can only wonder, should this trend continue, just who is providing for the food stamps.  The dependence upon government is at an historical high, and the continuation of this policy has no end in sight.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Immigration:  They have provided an open door, complete with financial incentive, to those who can find a better life, with less effort, by violating existing laws within this country.  This open door policy denigrates the very concept of what it means to be an “American”, which in times past, was the pursuit of those who entered this country abiding by the rules, with the intention of assimilation rather than invasion.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Veterans:  Young men are sent, by the government, to impose destruction and death upon perceived enemies of “our freedoms”.  Once returned, those who were willing to risk their lives “in defense of America” find that the same government that sent them on those dastardly deeds has now labeled them as enemies of the state.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Are those same veterans now willing to, once again, risk their lives for really protecting our freedom and liberty — from those who have used them and then tossed them aside?  Do they still have the courage and the desire to do what must be done?  Perhaps they need only look around and understand that the people, not the government, need their willingness, once again, to fight, and die, if necessary, to preserve those freedoms.

It has always, throughout history, primarily fallen to the young men of our nation, whether they have prior military service, or not, and those who support them, to preserve this “grand experiment” of self-government, the United States of America, or to abandon it to those who have corrupted that which was our birthright, and allow their children, their posterity, to submit to a slavery that they are becoming subject to, at this very moment.

There is no longer any need for “a line in the sand”, as it will surely be moved, once again, after we have allowed the incremental expansion of dictatorial government to remove even more of that which made us great.  It is now upon us — it is time to ACT.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Surrender is not an option, though if we continue to submit to the encroachments that are daily imposed upon us, it will surely be the result of our inaction.

Suggested reading:

Let’s Talk About the Constitution

The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

Introduction to Committees of Safety

The Other (not so) Thin Line

A Simplified Explanation of “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government”

A Thought on Leadership

The Other (not so) Thin Line

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 5, 2012

There is a very thin line between what we believe to be our rights and what the government believes our rights are.  Unfortunately, that line continues, either by police action or court decisions, to move against us, allowing even greater power and control over our lives by the government.

There is another line that we might want to consider, though this line tends to ‘flow’ in a different direction.  If we look at the Patriot Community as a whole, and then endeavor to define the progression of those who have joined that community, from entry through, well, wherever they might be now, we, perhaps, can understand just what we are dealing with.

Let’s take a line that runs from left to right, with no political affiliation, philosophy, or ideology, in mind.  At the right end of the line are those who have been members of the Patriot Community for quite some time.  Their experience, research, and observations, along with their current mindset, have moved to the point of no return — that “state of Nature” that the Framers understood.  They might easily be referred to as extremists, as were those “Indians” who made tea in Boston Harbor.

On the left end of the line, we have those who have only recently began to see something amiss in government.  To provide a bit more perspective, if we revisit the nineteen-fifties, they John Birch Society had already seen the evil potential of the United Nations.  They, as a group, comprised a majority of those who might first be defined s “Patriots” by our modern understand.

Over the next forty years, those entering the community were few, and most were those how had begin to understand that the “income tax” (3% in the forties) was unconstitutional and basically a theft of personal property.  This activity brought a prolonged surge into the Community, though it extended over many years.  The issues were separate and singular, so there was no adhesive element to the Community.  Basically, there were “Get Us Out of the United Nations” and “Income Taxes Are Unconstitutional”

Then, in 1993, the federal government, primarily the BATF, raided a Church in Waco, Texas, on a Sunday morning.  A siege of epic proportions, under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, lasted for 51 days — until the occupants remaining in the Church, with few exceptions, died in the fire that consumed the Church in tens of minutes.  Though there had been a militia element in the Patriot Community prior to Waco, there was a new surge, this occurring over a very short period.  The militia community was rather large; however, there was another large segment of people filled with disgust over the events then occurring.  Waco touched hundreds of thousands of people.  National news and alternative media (fax networks) brought a story to millions, unlike previous events.  This resulted in two more elements added to the Patriot Community, “Militia” and a contingent simply disgusted with the misdeeds of government and the broad assumption of authority that accompanied such an activity.  The Patriot Community had become more diverse (that word is not used in the politically correct context).

The next significant contribution to those who consider themselves to be part of the Patriot Community, though as in the past, many may not have come to that realization, yet, came just a few years ago, as it became apparent that our economy was beginning to collapse.  This infusion, the largest, by far, is also the most diverse.  That diversity is both about issues and means of achieving change (again, not the politically correct definition).  In fact, the apparent disparity might incline someone to believe that there is little, or nothing, in common within, let’s call it the “Tea Party Crowd”, let alone, the Patriot Community.

However, as time goes on, there is a tendency for the issues to merge, or, at least, have a degree of commonality with other issues.  Likewise, the means of achievement tend to focus away from the ineffective.

In these observations, I have intentionally omitted the anti-war groups, though they tend to be consistent with the John Birch Society.  Their omission is based upon the fact that, once the war they oppose is over, they either return to the comfort of the couch, or have, by association, joined in with another of the common causes of the Patriot Community.

Now, let’s stand back and look at this line.  Towards the right, we see a rather narrow but constant thickness to the line.  As we move towards the left, there is a very small bubble, very near the center, that reflects the “Waco” infusion.  Then, way over towards the left end is a rather large bubble that represents the Tea Party Crowd.  Of course, each of the bubbles taper of both left and right, the left being those moving along more slowly, the right, those progress more rapidly.

The problem that we face, however, is that the average will always shift to the left when there is a new infusion of members into the Patriot Community.  It is almost like undoing that which was done before, and the median is constantly shifting away from the fortitude that is necessary to affect real change.  The average is constantly shifting back towards “vote them out of office”, “Support the Republican Party”, or an effort to enact new laws (as if we need any new laws).  And, as those near the left move along to toward the right, they will soon find out that they, too, are outnumbered by the constant flow in on the left.

So, let’s leave the current line behind, for now, instead, let’s look at history.  In April 1775, most of the colonists would have been well to the left on the above-described line.  Any thought of violence would only have occurred in parts of Massachusetts and in North Carolina.  Contentment and peaceful change were the mean, and that was how it was, just as it is, today.  For example, in Albany, New York, word of the “Kings Troops” commencing “Hostilities” was received, via a letter from the Committee of Correspondence, on April 26, 1775.  The response to the letter received indicated that any real threat was “entirely Groundless”.  On May 1, a public meeting was held to determine if the citizens wished to take a position on the matter and appoint people to look into forming a District Committee of Safety and to prepare a plan to deal with the King’s “Ministerial Plan”.  Finally, on May 3, they began enrolling a Militia unit.

Had a role call been made of all of the colonists who were otherwise unsympathetic to the British intrusions into the colonist’s rights, the majority, most assuredly, would have voted against such action.  It was only after events were acted out that made continued “Hostilities” inevitable that the shift in thought — the joining of one side, or the other, was an inescapable necessity, regardless of prior reluctance.

To argue, now, to avoid the inescapable reality, that force will ever be necessary, flies in the face of historical fact, and, reality.  Or, to phrase it in the language of those days, “Load, shoot, or get out of the way”, but don’t attempt to hinder those who have been here longer and realize that there is but one means by which we will achieve our goal of restoration of Constitutional Government.

Until our line hardens sufficiently to keep their line from constantly encroaching, we will remain on the downhill side of achievement of our goal.