Outpost of Freedom blog

The Bundy Affair -Is Anybody in Charge Here?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 23, 2014

There are events currently unfolding in Bunkerville, Nevada, that aren’t apparent to most, and especially not of interest to Mainstream media, however, they are extremely important to the Patriot Community, as you will see.

Let’s revisit this past Saturday, April 12, 2012. The Bundy family, friends, and supporters, numbering in the hundreds, massed in a wash, not far distant from the cattle that had been “arrested”, in conformity with a Court Order, for those cattle trespassing on government land.

Then comes Jerry DeLemus, US Marine Corp veteran (circa 1973), and leader of a Glenn Beck 9/12 Project group, but no known membership or contribution to the militia. Quite interesting that Beck has ridiculed the plight of Cliven Bundy, though Jerry seems to hold Beck in high esteem. According to reports that I have received, he arrived, after a nearly 3,000 mile drive, with 2 vehicles, one driven by his son, Josh, in an exhausted state, and has remained in that state (of exhaustion) since. His hyperactive state (an indication of exhaustion and lots of coffee) can be seen in this rather emotional interview by Stewart Rhodes – Bundy Ranch: We Came Risking Never Coming Home Jerry DeLemus.

Though he was absent from the event that might be deemed the Bundy Cattle Unrustling, which was attended by protestors, some militia members and, of course, the Cowboys. A reserve militia unit was standing by at the Ranch, ready to respond if the call that things were getting bad came from one of the Bundys who was a principle in the events then unfolding at the BLM camp 3 or 4 miles north of the Bunkerville exit on I-15.

While others were calling for additional assistance form volunteers around the country, DeLemus had other ideas. In the Nashua Telegraph, his hometown newspaper published the following from their April 18 edition (an excerpt – http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/1034411-469/nh-man-takes-prominent-role-with-armed.html):

Thursday afternoon, DeLemus was warning others not to come to Bunkerville because “we don’t want an escalation.”
DeLemus said, if a confrontation was to unfold, they would likely be obliterated by federal firepower. DeLemus said he is concerned that more people would enter harm’s way if the number of activists keeps swelling at the Bundy Ranch.
“We’d be able to bloody their noses a little … but we wouldn’t stand a chance,” DeLemus said.

A rather interesting lack of confidence for someone who has just taken charge, and assumed control, over all personnel except the Bundy family.

DeLemus didn’t arrive until well after that event, though upon reporting to the Militia Liaison, and he was delegated to assist Bill Keebler in maintaining organization within the militia camp. DeLemus then “relieved Keebler of “command”, asserting his authority over the entire militia contingent. In subsequent efforts for the Militia Liaison to work with, and pass direction on, from the Bundys, he was responded to with, “These are my guys, you must go through me if you’d like access to them”; “This is my camp and this is my command”; and “Just stay away from here.” Clearly, this late comer, who arrived after the Saturday event, has no known militia ties, had wrested control of the militia operation, even to the point of ignoring the Militia Liaison, which had been the means of communication and of the Bundys means of seeking assistance or requesting any activity of the militia contingent. Rather scary that what had functioned so well, all the way up to and beyond the Saturday event, was now being taken over by someone that had no dog in the fight, and was unwilling to relinquish any “power” that he had assumed, if to the extent of the previously fluid communication between the Bundys and the militia.

Now, to understand the role of the Militia Liaison, first established and approved by the Bundys. The Militia Liaison arrived at the ranch on April 8. He met with Cliven Bundy and explained that Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) had sent requests for militia to come to the ranch, and he had come to coordinate their activity. It was agreed that he would be the interface (liaison) between the family and the militia, and he agreed that a force of volunteers would could serve in the capacity of a Security Team (Personal Security Detail – PSD), to provide immediate protection for the family. These, however, would be detached for the militia contingent, while serving in that capacity.

As members of the PSD returned to their homes and replacements became necessary, efforts to secure replacements were met with the belligerent assertions of control quoted above, leaving securing additional person for the PSD difficult, and based upon DeLemus’ selection rather than that of the Militia Liaison, so rather than easily dealt with, now sometime requiring off-site visits to interview potential replacements.

To demonstrate the problem, let me provide a quote from a report concerning such difficulty, from an occurrence on April 19:

“I requested 3 men from Jerry’s [DeLemus] contingent for temporary ranch security while I vetted and approved a new PSD leader and personnel. I personally vetted and briefed the personnel that Jerry sent to me before I left to vet new PSD staff, which has remained a decentralized element from militia contingent, While I was gone from the ranch vetting a possible volunteer, Jerry came down to the ranch and found his men on the PSD at the house and proceeded to chew their asses, then he left the house and returned to the ranch entry checkpoint just before I arrived. When I arrived Jerry started yelling at me in front of 5 other men while I was still in my jeep. I exited the jeep and told Jerry we should have the conversation elsewhere in an attempt to not reveal a dissension in the ranks to the men. He followed for about 30 yards and then re-engaged the yelling. His complaint was that I had not informed him of what duty the 3 men I had requested were to perform (which is untrue, he was informed they were for temporary PSD), and that PSD at the house was so important that he had to personally vet all PSD personnel, to which I replied that I had vetted and briefed the men as they reported to me, I felt comfortable with all 3 as I had contact with one for the last 2 years and the other two made no triggers in my interrogation style vetting process. He continued yelling and making aggressive gestures, accusing me of a condescending tone, trying to own the entire situation and he was going to beat my little punk ass.”

So, from chaos brought to order by the Militia Liaison, we then come to a pompous “Napoleon” who must have absolute and complete control over all, though he has no demonstrable ability or prior relationship with militia, and a now disgruntled command.

Though there may have been others, I have received a report that a contingent of six militia members who arrived from the Phoenix, Arizona area, who, upon meeting the new Napoleon, determined that they would not “put up with his shit”, and began their 370 mile return trip, shortly after their arrival.

So, from what began, and succeeded, with a degree of controlled chaos, which should have evolved into a highly organized and cooperative effort has become the ‘command’ of a pompous, self-aggrandizing, untrained (since 1973, and no idea of what rank he held), Glenn Beck advocate (Do you wonder what Beck would say to them having guns, let along supporting Bundy), who is belligerent, abusive, uncooperative, hyperactive, exhausted, unable to demonstrate any leadership qualities, pusillanimous, and otherwise, a totally unqualified individual, who has assumed command, leaving the Militia Liaison in the ticklish position of having to be manly, polite, courteous, and to maintain his distance as not a part of the militia, deal with an insubordinate SOB, and try to reestablish a coherent defensive force in order to continue the operation begun by OMA to provide protection for the Bundys.

As a final thought; as resistance to government intrusions into our rights escalates, perhaps it is time to look back into our history at the militia of both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, where men who were volunteers fought better when they elected their own leaders, rather than having someone, not of their choosing, either by assuming or being appointed to command.

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 – 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

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2014

Before I get to the meat of this article, I am going to present my assessment of the well known videos/articles asserting Sheriff Richard Mack laying claim that, as at least one of the headlines states, “Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women ‘Up at the Front’ During Bundy Ranch Standoff”.

When I first read of this proclamation by Sheriff Mack, I had two thoughts. First, if that was the strategy, and was implemented, what made him think that he should divulge the tactic in a public proclamation? The only answer I could come up with was self-aggrandizement.

Second, if the women “were up front”, what would make him feel a need to go public with why they were up front, unless he thought that he could bolster his reputation by laying claim as the proponent of it, again, self-aggrandizement.

In viewing the pictures of the Saturday rescue of the cattle, I didn’t see women at the fence while the discussions were going on, nor was I able to discern women in a ‘risky’ position in any of the footage, however in some scenes, the distance was too great to discern male or female, and I was also limited to the tunnel vision of the camera operator. This, however, was insufficient, by my standards, to make an assessment and go public with it.

Then comes Kelly Townsend, of the Phoenix Tea Party, who I have spoken with in the past. I received what follows from another source, so I called Kelly to verify the veracity of what will be made clear, below. Kelly confirmed that she had made contact and received the two responses that are contained therein.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the participation of certain people within the Patriot Community, at least as to their motives. Not to suggest that they are not patriotic, rather to ascertain just what their priorities are in their involvement. There is a phrase that was commonly expressed in the nineties to describe many who “sold” information, plans, even ideologies, for a price. The were called “Patriots for Profit”. Now, can we doubt that some of those players in these recent events haven’t benefitted financially (contributions to their respective causes), substantially, by their support of the efforts of those on the ground in Bunkerville, Nevada? However, I think that we need to also ask, is what they raised as a consequence of their participation going back to the ranch, to sustain the continuing effort, providing food, supplies, and perhaps some token payments, to those who have freely, often solely at their own expense, and put their lives on the line?

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

Folks,

We need your help to dispel a terrible rumor that was started by one of our own.  Sheriff Mack thought it would be a good strategy to put women and children up front in the confrontation between the Bundy family and Federal agents.  Because he said that, it has now become the narrative that the Bundy family actually did do that.  I have had two of the women send me statements that they are trying to get out in order to undo the damage caused by this unfortunate miscalculation on the Sheriff’s part.  Please help the ladies right the wrong and send the statements out to everyone you know, asking them to do the same.

Thank you,
Kelly Townsend

As a woman rider on Saturday I can confirm that the statement made was untrue. In fact it was opposite. We were told to stay at the rear. If a shot [was] fired, we were to ride as fast as we could for safety. The women did not approach the gate until BLM had dispersed and metro had arrived. These were officers of our community that we knew and trusted, otherwise we would have remained where the Bundy men told us to stay. The Bundy men are protectors and would not have allowed any harm to come to us. We were there on our own accord for the freedoms of our children.
Briana Bundy

To whom it may concern
I would like to put an abrupt stop to the rumor concerning the speculation that women and children were strategically placed at the front of the protest against the BLM on Saturday April 12th. I was one of 5 women that was horse back that day, and never once was I asked or told to stand at the front of the pack. The cavalry of horses was stopped by members of the Bundy family that were also riding, before we dropped off the hill into the wash in order to have a prayer. There, we were asked once we entered the wash to spread into a straight line and stand as a united front. We were asked to be Christ like and reverent. We were asked not to taunt or yell obscenities. As a woman, I chose to stand with the Bundy family. I chose to ride into that wash, along side my husband and my friends in order to stand for something I believe is right. And contrary to current rumor, I was instructed that if anything were to go wrong, I was to turn my horse around and get somewhere safe as fast as possible. I think I can speak for most of the women in that wash on Saturday, when I say that standing along side the Bundy family, not in front of or behind them, but with them, was a choice me made that day and would make again.

Thank you,
Haley Crandall

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

 Then ponder, who did stand in front at Lexington Green?

           “No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time through fear of giving offense I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings.

            Mr. President it is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775 (Liberty or Death speech)

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

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

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

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 12, 2014

Though I have been in touch with one of the Bundys, I haven’t been reporting on it.  Surely, there is more coverage of this event and activity than any in recent memory.

That, however, brings up something noteworthy.  At Waco, a call went out, early in the siege.  Less than a hundred people showed up.  Later, in April, another event was called by local Texans.  That had a bit better showing of perhaps 200-300 people.  That, however, was the extent.

Since that time, a number of organizations came into being, though many fled after the Murrah Building Bombing.  Some, however, stayed, quietly prepared for such an event as has just occurred.  It is that preparation , and subsequent new entries into the patriot community that were far more prepared to deal with, by whatever means necessary, the Bundy affair.

So, what is the outcome?  Well, BLM says that they are backing down out of concern for the safety of government employees, government contractors, and the public.  However, they failed to mention that they had bribe inspectors and an auction house in Utah to ignore laws requiring cattle health certification and branding laws — to avoid rustling of cattle, which is exactly what they were doing — as each of these (safety and branding) would have required Cliven Bundy to sign the certifications, as the owner of the livestock.

They also ignore the fact that the patriot community has, for the first time, responded, in large and growing numbers, to the VR Ranch, in opposition to the government’s activities.

The foundation for the government’s claims rests with the desert tortoise.  They wanted to designate this as a preserve that would protect them and allow them to safely prosper.  However, that is a load of, well, cattle poop, as cattle poop, in itself, is one of the best things that can happen to such critters.

In the past, nature had wildlife that roamed, and pooped, in this area.  Man has moved most of them out into other realms, leaving little to supply the wants of the tortoise.  However, in a recent article on Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62380) that argument is made for what it is — cow poop.  A study demonstrated that cattle poop is salvation for the tortoise, and that it can prosper because of it, and will struggle to survive without it.

Probably most important, however, is the fact that patriots responded.  Cliven Bundy put out a call.  Unfortunately, the patriot community, in many instances, chose to implant their conspiracy theories into the story, explaining that the reason behind the government actions had to do with _____ (fill in the blank).  Simply put, it had to do with the government taking control over as much of the public lands as possible, thinking that the public is the government, not the people, themselves.

The efforts of the government to misrepresent, and to utilize means described in “Vortex” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=642), they could not sway the distaste of government intrusion in our lives from the concern of so many who answered the call.

Most important of all, however, is the fortitude of Cliven Bundy and his family, who really were willing to put their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” on the line for a cause they believed in.

Second, those who did answer the call deserve our profound respect, as they took from their time and resources, and responded when the call was given.

And, finally, to those who supported the Bundys, by others means, believing that the government was wrong and devoted their time and energy to support, as best they could, those who were in need.

Related articles:

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

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

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – 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)

Resistance to Tyranny Martino

By Joseph P. Martino

For over twenty years people have been talking about the ‘takeover’ of America, whether by foreign forces, or, by a government intent on creating a truly despotic government.

In 1984, a movie, Red Dawn, depicting one form of takeover was very popular throughout the country.  It was so popular that it was the 20th rated movie of that year.

Since then, movies and mini-series have depicted such a “takeover” and have captivated audiences.

What non off them present, and, what has eluded those who have endeavored to “prepare” for such and event , is the complexity of coordination that would be required of people who really wanted to prepare for “Resistance to Tyranny”.

Based upon real events of the past as well as his practical application of experience in his tenure with the Air Force, this book is a description of the ‘networking’ necessary, in today’s world, to carry out such a resistance.

Joseph Martino has compiled a complete primer to the organizational elements necessary to be able to affect such resistance.

This book is an absolutely necessary addition to the libraries of for Committees of Safety, Militia units, and Survivalist organizations, as well as anybody who wants to really understand what may be necessary, if we are to survive, as a country.  It should be read and understood by any person with any degree of responsibility in such organizations.

 Resistance to Tyranny

ISBN 9781450574280

Available at: Resistance to Tyranny

About the Author
Dr. Martino is a retired Air Force Colonel.  He served in Thailand where he conducted research on counterinsurgency.  He later was Chairman of the Counterinsurgency Working Group of the Military Operations Research Society.  He teaches a course in Just War Doctrine at Yorktown University.  He holds degrees in Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Mathematics.

Credentials

Served in US Air Force 1953 – 1975, retiring in grade of Colonel.  Service included 21 months in SE Asia 1962-1963, researching problems of counterinsurgency.  Served as Chairman, Special Warfare Working Group, 1963 – 1968.  Published A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1982, applying Just War Doctrine to use of nuclear weapons.  Several papers on counterinsurgency and special warfare at Vietnam Symposium, Texas Tech U. and in military journals.  Educational background: AB in Physics; MS in Electrical Engineering; PhD in Mathematics.  Worked as Research Scientist at U. of Dayton Research Institute 1975 – 1993.  Visiting Professor, Marmara University, Istanbul, 1998 – 1999.

How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 16, 2011

In this modern age of communication, it is easy for us to drop our guards and allow information out which will be gathered and used, perhaps against us, as patriots, in the future.

We are all aware of people losing their job because of something posted on Facebook, or any of the many social networking sites.  In some cases, criminal charges have resulted from such postings or YouTube videos.

Perhaps there is a more obscure and sinister threat than what I have described, above.  Suppose that you were involved with a group of peers, say, in a NING type site.  Now, I think that we all know that our email can be read, without us knowing about it.  I’m sure that we recognize that any VOIP (Skype, et al.) can also be “tapped” to hear our conversations.  Wouldn’t it be rather foolish to think that a website could provide any security against access by those who we perceive as opposed to us?

Surely, they have “agents” who are members of such sites who are acting as our friends, with the sole purpose of gathering information.  They can “copy and paste” or “capture” all information posted on the site.

Similarly, I doubt that there are more than a small handful of sites that can afford protection from outside sources.  The remainder probably have a “back door”, if not a “front door” that allows unwanted access.

Finally, disregarding “key stroke captures”, every byte of information you send over the Internet is subject to capture by sophisticated equipment. So nothing you do is sacred, unless encrypted..

Now, this, in itself, is nothing to be concerned about, or, at least, overly concerned.  After all, if you have expressed any thoughts about the misdeeds of government, you are, well, probably on a list.  That list, however, is extremely large.  Its size is, for the most part, predicated on where the line is drawn as to inclusion on the list.

With the current administration, many millions of people; Republicans, Tea Partiers, patriots, militia members, radicals, etc, on down the line, are disenchanted, or disenfranchised, and might well be considered “the opposition”. However, if the government has access to certain information, they can draw the list out in a line, sort of like establishing priorities.  (For more information about how this sorting is done, see C3CM).

Of course, in that massive list, of millions, we are nearly anonymous.  However, by choice, we tend to identify ourselves to a higher level of disenchantment with government.  Once we describe ourselves as patriots, militia, etc., we have set ourselves apart from those who are prone to rely only upon the voting booth to secure our future, for ourselves and our posterity.  To a large degree, we have even set ourselves out from those who carry signs on sticks.  So, you can see where this is beginning to focus.  We have reduced the more extreme of us to a much more “manageable” group that numbers in, perhaps, tens of thousands instead of millions.

Still, if the scenario that I expect to be the “start of something big” is that the government needs to swoop down on those who pose the greatest threat, and, to do so, they have to have a manageable sized group as a target, they can do so by gathering information (identifying) what those individuals will do, and whether those activities are more, or less, detrimental to government actions.

Let’s take some scenarios. And see what sort of people would be at the top of the “hit list”, (A group, as per C3CM).  First will be those in roles of leadership.  Obviously, the functionality of any organized group is severely affected when the leadership is removed.  This serves two purposes to the government. First, of course, is the removal of the leader that is capable of “causing grief” to the government.  Second, however, and more sinister, is that infiltrators or informants (see Informants Amongst Us?) we have “done well” may even be in a position to move into the vacated leader’s effectively putting the group at the mercy of the government.

Next on the list would be those who might provide safe haven to leaders and others who have been targeted by the government.  If those who would provide such protection can be identified, the government can, effectively, “remove” those resources, making more difficult the act of those fleeing to find help in their efforts.  Worse, still, is that staking out those who might provide such services to fleeing patriots might be the very “Judas Goat” which will result in their being captured, while believing that they are on their way to protection.

If we think about it, any expression of one’s willingness to perform and “task” for the patriot cause, in an open forum (as described above) might serve not only to the detriment of the patriot community, also, to the benefit of the government.

To assume that those on the other end of an Internet connection, especially if you have never met them and looked them in the eye, is, in itself, risky.  All care and caution should be utilized in any communication with them.  Even more importantly, any statement of what role you might play in the game, when the shit hits the fan, “may and will be used against you”, and, unfortunately, others, when that time comes.

Jim Stachowiak; Committees of Safety; and, Shades of Grey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2011

There is a self-proclaimed “leader” of the patriot community who goes by many names.  He is Jim Stach; Jim Stachowiak; Freedom Fighter; and, probably more.

Though he claims to have been a patriot for 34 years, an Internet search finds results no older than 2008.  I suppose we all can make such claims, though if we are active in the community, it would seem that something that was noteworthy would show more than just 3 years ago.

Now, I did not know who Jim Stach (I will use the easier to pronounce and spell version of the name) was until Riflestock was being put together.  I received a response to my posting of the first announcement of RifleStock (RifleStock 2011), from Jim, claiming that neo-Nazis were behind RifleStock.

Now, I cannot say how Jim got on my mailing list, though I only put people on that list that have requested to be there, though I do not recall any prior communication with him.

I contacted Jim, in response to his claims, explaining that I was not a neo-Nazi; that Mike Freebyrd has an Hispanic surname, and in my conversation s with him, there was no indication that he was a neo-Nazi; and, that Joe Racer said nothing to indicate that he was a neo-Nazi.  Since I was involved as one of the organizers, I had more insight into what was happening with RifleStock than someone who simply read what I had written, and made such determination.

We then discussed the patriot community.  Jim had bad things (accusations) to say about a whole handful of people, some of whom I knew.  We talked about not calling names within our own community, since the government only benefits when we cannot get along amongst ourselves.  He agreed, and agreed to stop making such accusations.

I also explained Committees of Safety, in our rather lengthy discussion.  All seemed well, and he invited me to be a guest on his January 20, 2001, radio program (Freedom Fighter Radio), to discuss Militia and Committees of Safety.  I agreed.

The next day, he called me and ranted (I can’t find another word for what he had to say) about other patriots (contrary to what we had agreed to, the day before).  He went on and on and on, and I was unable to get a word in.  Finally, I reminded him that he had invited me to be a guest on his radio show.  If, however, he was inviting me to be on the show so that he could rant, and I were only be allowed to speak as little I was in the current conversation, I would have to decline the invite.  Without another word, he hung up.  I was not on the program.

The next I heard from Jim was after I posted Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation), which was also sent to the mail list.  His knee-jerk reaction was, well, let me quote from the email:

“this is a joke lol as wram and arm have proven neo nazi connections” (April 11, 2011).  Interestingly, Jim’s email address is “arm1776@gmail.com”.  Even more interesting is that he associated the Committee of Safety with WRAM (Well Regulated American Militia).  This is telling, since he claims “wram” is run by Neo-Nazis, and, he must know that I posted that article on the WRAM site.  Does he have an infiltrator; does he have a friend that is a neo-Nazi; or, does he cloak himself in even another name, to sneak into where he finds such “filth”?

I also posted it to about 30 others, including Tea Party and Glenn Beck sites, and I may have posted it to some sites that were controlled by those evil Republicans and Democrats, who have done far more to take away our rights than WRAM or even the neo-Nazis.  After all, I do try to get what I have to say out to all (not a selective few) who might be interested in it.  This, of course, is because I believe that we all have to work together to amass the number of people that we will need to regain control of the government and return it to its Constitutional foundation.  And, in the hope that some who think wrongly may, by reading something, may just decide to begin thinking rightly.  But, then, that is trying to bring together, not to tear apart.

On that same day, April 11, Jim informed me that:

” iam only doing news now i have given up on a national movement our group here is now calling ourselfs a a fdf family defense force of family and only close friends no recruiting.”

So, we will have to see if he means what he said, or, if he is simply insincere and unpredictable.

That same day, he provided the following, ” there is no way to insure fairness n this plan no way as the movement is infiltrated from the very top to the bottom i have unti recently been in movement since late 80;s “.  So, here, he is in the “movement” from the late eighties.  Being generous, let’s use 1985.  Then, then would be a total of 26 years in the “movement”.  Let’s just keep that under advisement.

Then, three days later, he says, ” gary your idea cant and wont work for example if someone has a problem with me they have no power to drag me in if i wont participate the militia movement has to many who call nazis patriots wram is proof of this 706-394-8019 at least after today maybe july4 patriot will be where he belongs jail.”

This is interesting in that the Common Law Court is voluntary.  That is what was intended.  If someone makes claims, then he is charged with making false claims, he can answer (defend and prove those claims), or not.  Each will speak for itself.  And, the ultimate judge of what is right will be the judgment, not of the followers or the parties (accuser and accused), rather, of the patriot community, as they will have the opportunity to review all of the information presented (or not presented), and judge for themselves, what the truth really is.  This, at least, would put an end to name-calling, unless it was provable, and would work wonders in doing away with false accusations.  Especially those made which provide no opportunity to respond (as we will get in to, later).

His next response, that same day, was, ” well only if both parties participate and iwill never take part as i know the movement is dead and controlled by anti Semitic racist pricks you may call me i will address this common law bs on my show sometime and encourage non involvement i do get thousands of downloads each week too”.  I’ll let you take that, for what it’s worth.

Now, we come to the current round of discussion.  Though I had spend quite some time, on numerous occasions, explaining to Jim what Committees of Safety were (and, are), he decided to take them (not me) to task.  He posted “Whats Up Doc? Neo-Nazi WRAM and ARM Member Arrested June 1, 2011 Doc [ NAZI] Sacramaniac In Jail” (link no longer valid), and sent me the link and asked me to call him.

First, the pertinent part of that “exposé” by Jim:

“Freedom Fighter Radio Challenges any and all Patriot websites to publicly denounce the NSM, such as Oath Keepers (Stewart Rhodes), Committees of Safety (Gary Hunt) and all Militia forums.”

So, first I went to NSM and found that they presented 25 points, which I assume stand for the principles of the NSM88 group.  When I read their points, I see that they are as socialistic as the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Congress, except, they want to impose limitations on the socialism, such as requiring drug tests for those on welfare.  Well, in that regard, I hold them in a higher light than the Democrats, Republicans, and the Congress, since, at least, they think that there should be some accountability on the beneficiaries of free money.  However, it is not Constitutional, so I object to any transfer of wealth.

Now, there is little doubt that the 25 points have racist (or, is that racialist) tones to them.  But, then, it is only political correctness that says that we are criminal if we have human thoughts of hate (though love, even between people of the same sex is okay), the Democrats, the Republicans and Congress, support this by enactment of laws that, generally, only work in one direction.

Now, don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that I believe in what they say, though I do believe that the Congress, and the Democrats and Republicans, have created a very fertile ground for overreaction to the emotions that exist in a normal society, love and hate.  When either is outlawed, both being the character of human nature, you are made criminal for being human.  On top of that, you see that there are those who support such laws because they are selective, not in writing, rather, in enforcement.  When put in that position, it is, again, human nature, to look for those who are willing to say what you want to say, and, even though they may be more extreme in what they say, they, at least, are willing to say it.  The rest of the people will only say it in whispers, for fear of being caught, and charged with a crime, or, being castigated as not being “politically correct”.  It becomes the only refuge for those willing to speak what they believe (freedom of speech), and, then, they are made (by another form of “patriotic political correctness”) out as criminal by those who should be their support of the Constitution, allow them the right to express their sentiments.  This, then, tends to push them even further into their chosen refuge, and defend themselves against attackers — who should be on their side, if not philosophically, at least, lawfully and Constitutionally.

This is all a result of “political correctness” achieving a polarization (making everything black or white), though it is target specific, and does not apply to all.  Whatever happened to the shades of grey that allowed us to disagree and get along, at the same time?  After all, if you study the history of this country, you will find, whether with regard to reconciliation or independence, or, what form of government, there was never absolute agreement.  They shades of grey were weighed, and a consensus made, in both cases, and the country followed that course.  Each was allowed to choose, and was not cast out if his ideas were not consistent with the majority.  He was respected for his input and the thoughts that he brought to the table.  Likewise, he respected the result, even though not what he, personally desired.

You see, it was those shades of grey that allowed the thought and discussion that lead the Founders to what they, finally, gave to us, their posterity.  It was a living society that, through free expression, allowed debate and discussion, without resorting to the current government tactic of demonization, in place of reasoned debate.

Now, since I had done my homework (gone to the NSM site), I was ready to responded to Jim’s request that I call him.  He wanted J. T. Campbell to join us in the call, to which I had no objection — until I found that neither one of them, apparently, had intention of hearing what I had to say.  If I managed to get a complete sentence out, in the conversation, I had two people responding, not to what I had just said, rather, to what they wanted me to say.

My first explanation was that I am not Committees of Safety.  Committees of Safety is a concept with heritage in our English traditions; an historical concept that goes back to long before the creation of the United States.  As such, I cannot speak for the Committees of Safety — since each Committee would be local, then county, then state — and that they can only speak for themselves.  It is not an organization with a leader who must be followed (the unfortunate consequence of our current society having lost the concepts embodied in our creation as a nation, and the ideals of the Founders), rather, it is a number of organizations, each representing those who live within its realm, and, who make the decisions, for themselves.  That by tradition, Committees did not act in a legislative capacity, except in establishing laws to deal with Tories and laws regarding the Militia.  As such, I don’t believe that they would be within their authority to make such a decision to support, or denounce, any other organization.

Now, all for this about Committees was left unsaid, due to the interruptions.  This made it apparent that the request that I call was not to get answers, rather, it was an effort to intimidate me into acceptance of what they chose to dictate.

In his effort to justify the attack on NSM (the 25 points are linked, above), and the demand for denouncing them, Jim did say that he has read many posts on that site that are of a much more threatening nature than the 25 points.  So, I guess we can ask some questions here:

• Do the thoughts of any single member, or members, of an organization speak for that organization?
• If so, what if what they say contradicts the espoused purpose of the organization?
• Should that organization disassociate with other organizations that don’t follow the exact same ideology?
• Can one man dictate what an entire organization stands for?

After I spoke with Jim, and since he and J. T. did not want to hear what I had to say, I wrote an email, to set the record straight.  Jim has chosen to post portions of this email dialogue, though they are hard to follow, and out of context.  Below is the entire discussion:

1.  Gary to Jim (after the phone conversation was over):

Jim,

Since your blog does not allow for responses, even from those named in the blog, I will try to make clear, in writing, the position of the Committees of Safety, with regard to such denouncements that you seem to be demanding.

First, I am not the Committee of Safety.  I am, however, a student of the historical Committees of Safety.  I cannot make a decision pro, or con, with regard to your request.

Second, Committees of Safety are local entities that are, for all intents and purposes, local governing bodies, elected by the people in a community (the Association), to fill the place, in the absence only of existing government’s failure to provide, for the safety and needs of the community (Association).  Any decisions to be made are made at that local level, not by me, who is only a student of the Committees of Safety.

Third, historically, the Committees of Safety did not enact laws, nor did they take any position in political, matters, except when they denounced Tories (people inimical to American Liberty).  Tories were those who supported the Royal government, once the division between what the constitution and charters meant came into question.  (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence for an example of that division.)

Fourth, with the exception of Tories.  Freedom of Speech was supported by the Committees of Safety.  Absent a law prohibiting something (NSM88, Nazi Party, Socialist Party, .  Democratic Party, Republican Party, etc.), there is no position that the Committees of Safety can take regarding either denouncing or supporting and other group.

Now, I know you are trying to leverage support for your beliefs.  I do hope that you are open-minded enough to understand that you are asking for something that would allow personal, or, individual, influence in an organization that is in no position to make such proclamations.

I do trust that you and J. T. Campbell understand the position that has to be taken in the matter.  I can assure you that if you don’t, there will be no action taken by the Committees of Safety, regardless of what efforts to denounce the Committees of Safety you take, since, by virtue of the explanation, above, the same would apply to you, regardless of what assertions you make about Committees of Safety.

Please forward this to J. T. so that he, also, understands what I was trying to tell you on the phone.

I do apologize for hanging up, but since you would not hear me out, I felt that putting it in writing was the best solution.

Respectfully,

Gary Hunt

2.  In an effort, again, to try to explain why Committees of Safety could not take a position, I sent the following:

Jim,

An example of the attitude taken by Committees of Safety in 1774:

On December 12, 1774 (before Lexington and Concord), the Maryland Provincial Congress, which was the colonial substitute governing body, created by the local Committees of Safety, set forth a series of Resolves.  The last on, Number 7, sets forth the sense of the Congress, with regard to personal animosities.

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

Again, please pass on to J. T.

Thanks,

Gary

3.  Jim to Gary (this was replied to my mail list post, Committees of Safety and the General Association:

so you have not met the challenge we will be putting it out there on a regular basis and point out the neo nazi connections to wram and arm this is for the cause of freedom to expose the nazis from with in like doc sacramanic and jt  ready more to be exposed

4.  Gary to Jim:

Threats and intimidation will only bring dishonor to you.  It will come, and, I suspect, it will come soon.

That is not the way that free people should be expected to act.  It is more along the lines of the Southern Poverty Law Center tactics.

Have at it, but, understand that your tactics have cost you any support I could offer you.

5.  Jim to Gary:

gary dishonor in exposing nazis lol  you are buying into bullshit and my audience is worldwide not just those you reach wake up i have been at this a long time

6. Gary to Jim:

When you believe that you have the right/authority to decide what is, and what is not, acceptable, you have, well, become a dictator.

As I explained (or, tried to, since you and J.T. didn’t really want to hear what I had to say), if you took it to the court, and got a verdict, then you would be justified.

Instead, in your self-righteous arrogance, decide that you can decide for all of the rest.

I have nothing to discuss with someone who decides what is best for all.

7. Gary to Jim (I was curious about his claim of how long he had been in the “movement”:

Jim,

You have been at this a long time.  How long?

8. Gary to Jim

Dishonor has to do with how you do something, not what you do.

9. Jim to Gary:

34 years will be posting these emails and quote you on calling Michigan militia bigots

10.  Gary to Jim:

Have at it.  However, if you say that I said something that I didn’t say, you might find that you have hell to pay.

Walk softly!

Let’s make some other things clear, I never said “Michigan Militia”, during the entire conversation.  Jim seemed come to that (or at least first make the claim) in his last email – #9, above.  Any comment I made regarding bigot was in this context: “Jim you call me a bigot because I because I won’t do what you want me to do.  Does that make you a bigot?”

Somehow, then, this was construed, by Jim, to mean that I called the Michigan Militia bigots.  Apparently, that message was passed on to someone who goes by Thumper”, who responded, according to Jim’s post, by saying, “bite me”, which appears to be directed at me.

Now, since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, they have to stand on their own, There was no response that I could make on their behalf, since I am only a student of Committees of Safety and attempting to pass on what to other what I have learned.

This did not mean that I couldn’t be concerned about the Michigan Militia, since in the nineties I was in contact with Norm Olson and Mark Koernke.  And though I haven’t been in contact with the Michigan Militia, since then, I was concerned that they might think that either I or the Committees of Safety (which can’t even have a voice), I decide to see if I could find someone in the upper echelons in the Michigan Militia, and set the record straight.  After all, the post made it appear as if I was trying to denigrate them, based not upon what I said, rather, what Jim said that I said (and interesting tactic, used frequently by the SPLC).

My intention was to try to get through to “Thumper”, though I found an intelligent voice on the other end of the phone, so we discussed what had occurred.  The person on the other end of the conversation seemed to understand both what I was saying, and, the nature of Jim Stach.  We talked about other aspects of the patriot community, and seemed to be on agreement on just about everything.  I told him that if we are fighting amongst ourselves we would never be able to take on the government.  That the division in the patriot community is more destructive than anything that the government can do (overtly), and that we are doing it to ourselves.

He asked me if I thought that there was anything wrong with the Michigan Militia not allowing neo-Nazis the right to join the Michigan Militia, and I told him that I believed that if that was what Michigan Militia wanted, they had every right to limit their membership, though they didn’t have the right to try to intimidate others organizations from making their own decisions.  We seemed to agree on that last point, and the conversation was concluded.  I will say that I believe that the other person felt rather uncomfortable that the Michigan Militia was even made party to the dispute between Jim and me.

Well, I thought that this was the end of it.  I had explained to the Michigan Militia that what Jim said I said was not what I said.  Since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, there was nothing left for me to do.

Friday (June 10) evening, I received an email from Jim, making clear that his efforts to intimidate by demonization were over.  The email provided a link (http://freedomfighterradio.net/2011/06/10/gary-hunt-of-outpost-of-freedom-and-committees-of-safety-calls-michigan-militia-racist-bigots-and-turns-down-challenge/[link no longer valid]), and, though I have no capacity to defend the Committees of Safety, the Outpost of Freedom has now been named, and that brings on a whole new battle. Outpost of Freedom has been what I have been writing under since January 1993.  It was the name of the newspapers I published; the fax network (in the nineties); and has been the name of my webpage since 1995.  It is not an organization, nor is it an association of people (as the Committees of Safety).  It is mine, and I will defend it.  Neither of Jim’s posts have provision to respond.  Since, if I respond by email, Jim will cut and paste and manufacture, to suit his objective (whatever it might be), I will go public with what has transpired, and, I will be open to response by Jim (comments section, at the bottom of this blog).  I have always believed that both sides of any story must be heard, and, that any judgment be made with a fair hearing of both sides.

I will not pretend to speak for Committees of Safety, though I will speak for Outpost of Freedom.  “Thumper” seems to think that he speaks for the Michigan Militia (though that is not the impression I got from the conversation, above).  Jim Stach seems to speak, also, for the Michigan Militia, though not even a member, as well as the entire Militia community, since he knows that they must submit to his “challenge”, or subject themselves to his insignificant and infantile tantrum of wrath.

Now, return to what Jim said about what some said on the NSM page.  He suggests that they speak for the NSM, regardless of what their policy (25 points) says.

Jim also presumes that he speak for the entire Militia community, regardless of what each Militia determines its own policy to be.  He suggests that, if you don’t do what I say, you are not a patriot.  If you do what I say, I will kick everybody out of the patriot community, by use of this demonization process, that I think doesn’t belong here.  It is not your decision, it is my decision.

So, there, you have my side of the story.

You be the judge.  Comments are welcome, so long as they are presented in a decent manner.  If you resort to name-calling, you may find that certain remarks may be edited, though the context will not be changed.

Committees of Safety and the General Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction to Committees of Safety

Committees of Safety, or like elements, existed throughout the history of colonial America.  Though known by various names (Committees of Protection, Associations, or, as the case in Plymouth Colony, an unnamed civil body politic, and, in Jamestown, simply governing council), they had the characteristic of being a civil government absent a government established by the sovereign.

In the early eighteenth century, Committees of Safety were quite common, especially on the frontiers, where the possibility if Indian attacks were likely.  The Committee would appoint watchmen, hog reeves, fence reeves, and, militia officers.  These are functions that were taken on by more organized governments, in some towns, though were common through most of the colonies, leading up to the War of Independence.

Committees served, primarily, to fill in gaps that were left by existing colonial and county governments, providing services that were otherwise unavailable.

As tensions grew between the colonists and the Crown government in England, the need for Committees increased, especially in western Massachusetts and South Carolina.  After the Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774), which revoked the Massachusetts Charter and replace the locally elected governments with appointments by the King, the farmers in western Massachusetts began forming Committee to assure a continuity of government and to take charge in expelling courts and judges who were not abiding by the original charter, and replacing them with their owns courts, though primarily only for criminal matters.

There were sufficient numbers of Committees in most of the colonies to call for the First Continental Congress, in 1774.  These Committees were not subject to Royal governance, because, quite simply, to call for such a Congress would have been a contradiction of their authority granted by the various charters.  Subsequently, the Second and Third Continental Congress were called by the Committees, which by this time, had evolved to the point where sufficient numbers of participating Committees established a Provincial Committee of Safety.

Committees of Safety continued to operate as functions of local government throughout the War of Independence, until each state adopted a Constitution, or otherwise revised their form of government, absent any Royal control.  Once the Article of Confederation were instituted (1781), the need for the Committees, except, once again, in the frontiers, diminished, as did the Committees.

Their next occurrence was in 1835, when President Santa Anna abolished the Constitution of 1824, granting himself enormous powers over the government.  Colonists in Texas began forming Committees of Correspondence and Safety.  A central Committee in San Felipe de Austin coordinated their activities.  This de facto government waged the revolution against Mexico, directing and supplying the militia, until independence was won.

What role could Committees of Safety play in today’s world?

Events such as Katrina, as well as the possibility of man caused disasters, are potential threats to the security, safety, and well-being of our families.

If a Committee existed in your community, and you were a member, then your family is also a member.  Suppose there was some sort of event that affected food supply, utilities, water, or otherwise threatened your safety.  You have in place, through the Committee, a cooperative with which to share needed resources.  Though short lived in Plymouth Colony and Jamestown, this “cooperative” served quite well for survival in a hostile land, for the first few years.

It also allowed the sharing of crops in the frontier towns and agricultural communities, in later colonial times, when Indian raids, or weather, destroyed crops, which would leave those affected short of food, had their neighbors (fellow Committee members) not shared with them what food was available.

In the aftermath of Katrina, if a Committee existed in a consolidated area (a community), and sent a representative to the local law enforcement with the message, “we will provide our own protection in our area”, describing the limits of the area protected by the Committee, it would make sense the law enforcement would be relieved that their job was made easier based upon the Committee relieving them of a substantial area that might otherwise require their patrolling.

The Committee would be a resource for such eventualities, and would be an ideal place from which to gain recognition by launching programs to help those in need.  Roof repairs, painting, yard maintenance, etc., for those unable to care for their own property.  This would encourage friendship, appeal to potential members, improve the quality of the neighborhood, and set the Committee out as supportive of the neighborly attitude that prevailed in this country, many decades ago.  This would result in reduced crime, safer streets and communities, and, a reaffirmation of our rights, freedoms, and liberty.

Committees of Safety are quite able to fill in where government fails to provide, at least for those who see the need, join, and, participate in, Committees of Safety.

http://www.committee.org/