Denouncing the Denigrators
The Seeping Wound in the Patriot Community

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2016

Recent events up near Burns, Oregon, have brought, once again, the Denigrators to the forefront. These are people who will begin digging, misrepresenting, and outright lying, about some of the key players in any event. Occasionally, a bit of truth is brought out, though often, it is intended to associate those who may have bad records with those who are otherwise; good, honest, men, doing what they believe to be a necessary course of action.

About that necessary course of action. Many people have been critical, not of the players, but of the activity of taking over federal buildings. They tend to judge those actions by their own standards, and expect others to abide by their moral compass.

However, if they are not players in a particular incident, what is their motive to object to the actions of others? Are they conditioned as “arm chair quarterbacks”, drinking beer and deciding why the coach’s call was a bad one? Well, there is nothing wrong with that, even if it is taken to the Internet. Surely, those who support the same team are most likely to agree, or, then, they might have a different opinion. The bottom line, however, is whether their team won, or lost.

The professed patriot, however, has different opposition, and it never changes, though the playing field might. The opposition is the government, and the playing field, in the current instance, is the Malheur Refuge, about thirty miles south of Burns, Oregon.

The handful of people that initiated this action have been accused of being government agents, provocateurs, scumbags, guilty of falsely representing the military service, and possibly even more evil deeds than Batman’s enemies. These assertions are submitted to the public with airs of absolute authority, though for what purpose? Well, we will get in to that, later.

At the end of the Bundy Affair, I wrote an article, “The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues“, discussing what was becoming quite apparent; the Internet was being used to subvert the efforts being exerted by hundreds to push the federal government back, and leave the Bundys to continue with their business, without government removing their longstanding use of federal property.

At the same time, I was adding an addendum to an article, “Vortex“, that I had written back in 2012. It dealt, primarily, with my experience and personal knowledge of events where the nefarious tactics of the police state we have been living in for decades were exposed. It explains the levels and types of agents, as well as the role and types of informants. In April 2014, I added an addendum to the article, supplementing it with more recent tactics of that police state, especially as applied to the Internet.

Now, with that in mind, we will discuss a recent Facebook article, which appears to be authored by Christian Yingling, late in the evening of January 4, two days after the Malheur Refuge buildings were seized. The first three paragraphs of the article set the stage:

Ok …Everybody… please gather around and listen to what I am about to say. Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not.. I want nothing to do with you. simple as that.

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I’m about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

The first paragraph says, agree with me, or shut up. I am your leader. Rather suggestive, and well within the realm of Physiological Operations (PysOps).

In the second, he suggests that the operation in taking the Wildlife Refuge building was based upon “raw emotions“. This, of course, is to denigrate those who carried out the mission. However, that mission was well planned, even to the point of having all attention focused, to the last minute, on the Fair Grounds, where everybody, even the government agents, expected Ammon Bundy to speak. This left no opportunity for the government to establish a roadblock to keep the team from getting to the Refuge. Those who were assigned to “tail” the key players, and they were well known to the FBI by this time, could only tail from the rear, so there was no obstruction in accessing the buildings. That did require “a calm, level headed, common sense approach“, though our “author”, tried to reverse these thoughts in the minds of the reader.

Next, he uses the battle cry of keyboard patriots, “false flag“, to garner attention, and then asserts that he is “logical” and “100% correct“. Finally, he says that what he is going to tell you is “documented verifiable fact“. Now, I must agree, in part, with that final assertion. It is documented. It is verifiable”, however, whether it is fact, or not, is the whole focus of this article. Documentation only requires the existence of a document, and in this case, there are hundreds. Perhaps thousands, of internet “documents”, that will support his claims. So, it is also verifiable, that we cannot dispute. The whole question hinges on whether it is factual. And, here lies the problem.

Let me digress. In a recent discussion in a patriotic forum, it was suggested, regarding Ryan Payne, that he should have defended himself against the allegations that he claimed to be a Ranger. However, when those claims came out, Ryan pretty much had his hands full at the Bundy Ranch. So, should he drop everything, ignore his obligations and responsibilities to address such allegations, just because they were brought up?

To answer that question, I can refer to my own experiences. Back in 1995, I was accused of being John Doe #4 in the Oklahoma City Bombing. This all came from a single article by Bill Cooper. Now, should I drop my travelling, investigating, and writing, and redirect my efforts to addressing this, or should I continue on with my original purpose? Had I curtailed my efforts to get to the bottom of stories of interest to patriots to “defend” myself against this allegation, that very act imply, that defense was needed, and perhaps it was true? It was seventeen years later, when there were over 40,000 iterations (verifiable documentation) of that single story, that I finally said, “that’s enough”, and did a two-hour radio show to dispel the accusation. If you are interested in the background, and the proof of the falsehood of the accusation, the audio of that show can be found here.

As George Carlin advised us, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Among the many efforts to denigrate Payne, Yingling says, “Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial “leader” of the militias present at the Bundy ranch“. So, is that verifiable, and is it fact? Well, I have seen similar assertions, many times. So it is verifiable, at least that it was said. However, the “fact” (pesky little devils) is that his role at the Bundy ranch was far from what is suggested. Ryan was “Militia Liaison” to Cliven Bundy. And there is a very valid reason for such a designation. If Cliven Bundy had developed a direct relationship with the militia then the “law of agencies” would make the “principal”, Cliven Bundy, responsible and liable for the acts of any of his “agents”. That would provide legal fodder, should any accident result in injury or damage to property, and make accidents and injuries the responsibility of Cliven Bundy, which would be grounds for lawsuits, resulting in the loss of his ranch, everything he owned, and perhaps prison time. More so if the charges were brought by the federal government. The role of Militia Liaison breaks that legal responsibility and directs it to the individual that committed, whether an agent or an accident, injury to another or damage to property. So, he was not the “leader” of the militia, instead he was the liaison. So, he communicated between the two elements. As such, he had to endeavor to create an atmosphere that would provide for a cohesive effort. That effort was sustained from his arrival until the Unrustling, on April 12, and even beyond, where disputes were resolved, and attempts to subvert the efforts of the militia were a constant hindrance. Those who wish to “verify” this “fact” are welcome to contact Cliven Bundy.

So, let’s get back to another allegation made against Ryan Payne, that being that he “also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records. They said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school“. When this allegation was made, I contacted Ryan (I had been in regular communication with him during the entire Bundy Affair) and discussed it with him, agreeing to take the burden off of him. He arranged to have copies of two awards that he had received while in the Army, and I pursued seeking audio recordings of him saying that he was a “Ranger”. I spoke to many who said that they had heard him say it, and one of them is well known for recording conversations, yet none of them recording Ryan saying that he was a Ranger. However, I did run across two recordings where Ryan said that he had been in “a Ranger unit”. This information was published in an article, “Stealing Valor“, in May 2014. As the title suggests, it was not stolen valor, instead, it was an effort to steal Ryan’s valor away from him.

Next, let’s look at what was said about Jon Ritzheimer. Yingling, apparently, believes that he is a psychiatrist, or at least a psychologist, since he feels he is qualified to state that Jon “is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD”. Bravo, Christian, though I’m not sure what “classic” means, and almost all returning vets are diagnosed as having PTSD and given a prescription medications. Even the VA admits that they don’t try to treat it, but many thousands of veterans so diagnosed are productive members of their community. Jon, for example, after working for others, began his own business. His background is explained in “Jon Ritzheimer – When did Freedom of Speech Become Hate Speech?”

Yingling, in his paragraph on Jon Ritzheimer, says, “How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to ‘change the govt’?” I’m not quite sure why it was included there, but it is worthy of note. What will change the government? I know it is rhetorical, but it is also realistic. Has voting worked? How about demonstrations, petitions, letters, calls to congresscritters? I think it might be appropriate, here, to quote a portion of Patrick Henry’s famous speech of March 23, 1775:

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! (emphasis mine)

So, how does Yingling suggest that we “change the govt“? To point out problems is easy enough, and it is easy enough, too, to find support on the Internet to prove the existence of the problem. The problem is that it is solutions that are necessary. After all, we have multitudes, perhaps nearly enumerable, amounts of problems. It is those who seek a solution that we should revere, not condemn.

Now, Yingling has tried to trash others, and I’m sure that he has found “verifiable sources”, though, perhaps, only partially, or even void of facts. However, I have chosen both Ryan and Jon to demonstrate Yingling’s fallacy, as I already have the facts on those subjects. Those facts were developed from diligent research, not of what others have, verifiably, written, but to the source, for the purpose of writing articles. Though there may be 40,000 statements to some subject, there is only one fact. It is the quality of the information, not the quantity that matters.

Such unsubstantiated rantings, as we have discussed, can only serve to harm the patriot community. At this time when we need unity, we find division. Perhaps it is time to consider whether we really want to “change the govt“, or just play like we do.

For the record, in my twenty-three years of writing for the patriot community, I have only publically accused two people of being contrary to the interest of the community. The first was Linda Thompson, back in the 90s and the era of fax networking, not the Internet. The second was Christopher Blystone. Both have substantiated facts, both verifiable and documented by other than the perpetuation of destructive rumors.

Finally, we must look at what motivates one to do such as Yingling has done. First, let me state that I am not accusing Yingling of having any specific motivation behind what he wrote, rather it is what he wrote that I am addressing. I fully understand that often sincere purpose can lead to erroneous conclusions. It is the purpose of this article to explain the nature of the consequence of the propagation of erroneous, or invalid, information, based upon both substantiated and unsubstantiated “facts”, and more importantly, the tendency to create “facts” based upon theory rather than base theory upon facts.

The two most likely motivations are, first, the desire to appear to have inside knowledge, what I refer to in the Vortex article, as the “guess what I know” mentality, or as a friend describes it, “useful idiots”.

The second, and far more sinister, is the one that often feeds “facts” to the above described individuals. Once fed, the “information” is composed into the subsequent misinformation (that is so destructive to our community), and is perpetuated, ad infinitum, and quite often sensationalized in the process. As explained in “Vortex”, the person that first plants these destructive seeds into the community is the “Vortex”, and he plants them with a specific intention, that of disruption, conflict, division, and, hopefully, in their efforts, to created a dysfunctional community out of one that must rely upon cohesiveness. It is a community wherein, if one disagrees with the actions of another, though those actions are directed at achieving the common goal, as the events on Burns surely are, then he should not go public with malicious attacks, as they only serve the government. For, to do so does far more harm than simply keeping your mouth shut.

I believe this has been amply demonstrated by the events in Oregon, as we see organizations that were critical of, but not outspoken against, the operation, now coming together in order to protect those at the Refuge from harm by the federal government. As the old saying goes, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!” Do not be an obstruction to the efforts of others, as they are pursuing the same goal, as are all of those who really are patriotic, and believe in their country, not the government.

Maryland Resolves, December 12, 1774
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.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Demonization of Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 23, 2015

Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau is accused of failing to pay a tax and register a firearm with the federal government and that required that the tax be paid. However, the “firearm” was not a “firearm”, but separate parts, when the government received it, as explained in “The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau“. There were two barrels, a receiver, optical devices, and other items, in a case that was delivered to a Confidential Human Source (CHS), identified as Oliver Murphy.

Now, it is necessary to understand that all of the objects that were in that case were legally purchased. There is no crime in the possession of the objects. However, it is rather ironic that if the shorter barrel (10.5 inches long) is affixed to a rifle receiver, it becomes illegal, presumably, because the rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches (the “criminal” element), can be easily concealed because of the short length. The 10.5 inch barrel reduces both muzzle velocity and accuracy, when fired, so it is really less of a rifle. On the other hand, if you were to affix the 10.5 inch barrel to a pistol, or handgun receiver, it is legal. In contrast, the rifle receiver, which by description, must have a stock, while the pistol receiver does not. This makes the pistol with the 10.5 inch barrel considerably shorter, and more concealable, than the rifle version. So, it begs the question, is there any sense, at all, in this law that taxes the one (rifle) and not the other (pistol)?

So, now we have illustrated the extent of the charges against Barbeau. Clearly, this is about his demonization by the federal government, in an attempt to influence public opinion against Barbeau, because the law does not allow “fishing expeditions” to try to find a crime, nor did the Framers intend for the government to have such power.

The demonization begins with the information provided by the paid CHS. This is detailed in “Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License“. There are unsubstantiated claims that Barbeau claimed to have stolen “blasting caps and detonation cord” from his Army National Guard unit, though there is no indication that the well inventoried and secured items were ever stolen, nor were they found during the warranted search.

To understand the security involved in cataloging these items on a military installation, here is what Maureen Peltier, a disabled 15 year veteran that worked in supply, says about the control of such inventory:

I must add information for those not privy to our supply handling of certain equipment.
Soldiers, we all know Ammo, blasting caps, det cord are not just laying around in our Armories. We all have to go to ASP (Ammo Supply Point) to receive and only those authorized with specific Ammo handlers certification can sign out for such items for scheduled training. Transportation to and from Armory than to training site is all pre-determined. Much coordination is involved and I personally have overseen such coordination as I have in my logistics positions, coordinated from pre-planning to execution to return. Such items are handled under guard and with great caution. Storage points at Armories, just prior to live training execution, would be under weapons vault controlled by unit Supply Sergeants. Security alarm systems and a vault room inside larger weapons vault room is the proper authorized site until final movement to a designated training site.

If items such as that went ‘missing’, they would not only shut down and lock down all of the surrounding area or entire base, Soldiers would all be confined to unit AO or training site, until all missing items are recovered or an all clear by base Commanders have been issued. This would not go unnoticed. ~SSG Moe

However, when the FBI visited the National Guard unit, the only thing they had to say was that Barbeau had served eight honorable years in both the Marines and Army National Guard. There was no evidence to support the loss of the named items.

This, however, did not bar the FBI from “invading” the Aenk Ranch, some 280 miles from where Barbeau was arrested. This raid was a quasi-military operation, conducted by 25 goons, each using the same type of firearm that Barbeau is accused of possessing, and numerous other federal agents, as shown in video footage of the raid in “Domestic Terrorism“.

This raid was based on the very vague charges in violation of Title 18 (Criminal) US Code. Charges of possession of stolen federal property and possession of a machine gun. Neither of these charges have any substance, as explained above, except for the word of the paid CHS informant. So, again, it begs the question, were the “allegations” made by the paid informant simply an imaginary and contrived scenario to please those who were going to cut him a check for $3,500, or just bravado talk between friends?

Later, news channel, King 5, on December 17, did a field interview with Allen Aenk, where the damages caused by the December 6 raid on the Aenk Ranch can be seen. The segment also shows a portion of a document that had been recently unsealed at the Federal Eastern District Court, in Spokane, though not tied to the arrest and current charges against Schuyler Barbeau.

The referred to document, the affidavit supporting the search warrant that was executed on the Ranch of December 6, brings forward the additional unsubstantiated charges of violation of the criminal code.

It is important to note, since there is no proof of stolen property, it is reasonable to question, how can it be justification for such an overwhelming show of force when the nearly platoon sized army of federal agents stormed the ranch, knowing that, with the exception of Carrie Aenk who was alone at home, the other two inhabitants of the property were in federal hands, 280 miles away?

The raid, based upon such meager justification, surely cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars, which makes us ponder whether the intent of the law is, as suggested, a tax or revenue law, or is it an expansion of federal authority, outside of the constraints of the Constitution, in trying to circumvent the Second Amendment?

We are not yet finished with this story. There is little doubt that public disclosure of the raid did bring to the forefront the (obscure) possibility of criminal acts. That, of course, would produce a high degree of concern, and perhaps taint the minds of those who might sit in judgment of Schuyler Barbeau, in a jury trial. Rest assured, there is no intention, on the part of the government, or media, of letting it, at that.

On December 11, 2015, King 5 news aired a segment in which they described as a “rare insight”, especially “in light of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, last week, and other terrorist attacks across the country”, which raises a serious concern regarding Islamic Terrorism. That recently unspeakable phrase, which surely got the attention of the general public, most likely blinded or deafened to any of the above facts of the case, to date. As stated, the FBI is asking for the public’s help “in preventing the next act of terrorism.”

In that broadcast, the FBI begins by talking about “behavior that preceded the event”. They then suggest that certain individuals in the state may be in communication with ISIS, suggesting that Washington might see a brutal terrorist attack, in the near future. They are monitoring the behavior of those they have identified. Chris Ingles (King 5) suggests that Barbeau could be one of those cases the FBI had being speaking about. So, now they have classed this honorably discharged Marine/Soldier, a defender of the United States Constitution, in the same category as Islamic terrorists.

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Domestic Terrorism?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 18, 2015

Update

Yesterday, Schuyler Barbeau was Indicted by a Grand Jury. He was indicted solely on the information in the Criminal Complaint. He is only charged with violating Title 26, US Code §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3), to wit:

26 U.S.C. § 5861: Prohibited acts

It shall be unlawful for any person –

   (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or

26 U.S.C. § 5845 : Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter –

   (a) Firearm The term “firearm” means

     (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

They have also included the forfeiture provision (26 US Code §5872(a)) which would allow them to keep any firearms, if Schuyler is convicted of the crime.

Before we get in to just who is a terrorist, it would not hurt to revisit the Search Warrants that were served at the Ranch. The search warrants included Title 18 provisions that were not included in the Criminal Complaint. Had the Search Warrant been in compliance with the constitutionally required limitations, “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”, the only items that could have been included were the Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and any other barrels or objects directly related to the SBR. However, what they took, they presumed the right to take based upon the Search Warrant reference to “(b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).”

To make matters worse, they have alleged that Schuyler was a “domestic terrorist”, and I’m sure they expressed that to the Grand Jury. I am equally sure that though the Search Warrant has yet to be filed on the Court Docket, that the Grand Jury was probably made privy to it — most likely to demonize Schuyler so that the Jury would feel no doubt that they had to indict him. However, the Grand Jury only indicted Schuyler on the original charges from the Complaint.

Is Schuyler the Terrorist?

However, this whole episode with the Search warrant leads us to consider who the terrorists really are. Schuyler was accused of having a rifle receiver, a 10.5 inch, and an 18 inch barrel, both of which would fit the receiver, but he didn’t register and pay the tax on what could have been made from the otherwise legal parts.

The government, in the hearing on December 14, accused Schuyler of being a “domestic terrorist”. To support these allegations, the Criminal Complaint states:

The CHS advised that Barbeau frequently told the CHS that the federal government was not abiding by the principles set forth in the Constitution and that many public servants, such as judges and police officers who had sworn to uphold it, had deviated from their oath of office. Barbeau told the CHS that it was his duty to educate public servants who were not living up to their oath and discussed “lynching” those he deemed unworthy if necessary. In one instance, Barbeau told the CHS that he and other like-minded individuals would physically remove a California judge presiding over a misdemeanor weapons violation he received there in the fall of 2014.

Well, that is hearsay, to say the least, but they also said that he was going to “hang a judge”. So, were these just words under Freedom of Speech, or was he serious about what he had said, such as in the context of a threat or incitement? He never moved in that direction, or otherwise indicated that he intended to carry out this “threat”. So, if this is the extent, well, we must also include a rifle (SBR) that, if he had registered and paid the $200 tax, would have been as legal as his political statements under Freedom of Speech. Schuyler never threatened (coerced or intimidated) the judge, and if the judge knew what he said, it would probably be because the government told the judge what they said that Schuyler said.

However, the government says that he is a terrorist simply because of their claims of Schuyler’s possession of a machine gun, stolen federal property, and the utterance of vague hearsay of THREATS.

So, what law would make him a “domestic terrorist? What is the government trying to tell the Court and the Grand Jury? Well, here it is:

18 U. S. C, §2331.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.

There would have to be “acts dangerous to human life”, and criminal in nature. Or, that appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population”, or to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.” So, with these three choices, which, if any, did Schuyler’s actions fit into? None? Well, that’s what I understand, too.

By the way, Schuyler was honorably discharged from the Marines Corp, after 4 years of service to his country. He then went into the Army and served another 3 years, and was again, Honorably Discharged.

Is the Government Conducting Terrorist Activities?

Well, that is a tough question. If we ask Mainstream Media, or the government, we know what the answer will most likely be. That, however, like what Schuyler has said, is just words, with no actions to back up those words. I suppose we could call that Freedom of Speech, though a gross distortion of Freedom of the Press.

However, on December 6, while Schuyler was arrested, and Allen Aenk was being detained and his car searched, without a warrant, other activity (actions) was taking place. However, it wasn’t “domestic terrorists” (or, was it?) that entered the Aenk Ranch. At 12:40 PM, fifteen thugs, dressed in battle gear, entered the property, bypassing a locked driveway gate. They were soon followed by two more squads comprised of five thugs, each.

However, rather than me telling the story, so there be no doubt, we will let the videos from the security cameras tell the story. I will assist be giving a description, the video time stamp, and the [true time], as we go through the five cameras (channels) captured that afternoon. The videos have been edited to reduce the over 7 hours of total footage into just the significant portions.

Channel 1 (at Front Gate, from house) (38:04 long):

0:46 [12:37:46] The goon squads turns off of Springdale Hunter Road, in the distance, onto a private easement road.

2:50 [12:39:51] The first vans of battled dressed goon squads arrive at the front of the property.

3:31 [12:40:32] The 15 thugs begin entering the property, SBRs at the ready, reminiscent of the military tactics used in villages in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7:27 [12:49:47] Five more thugs enter the property.

9:18 [12:55:06] Five more thugs enter the property, making 25 thugs, and a number of supervisory personnel.

12:28 [12:58:36] The front gate is unlocked using the key that was voluntarily given to the thugs by Carrie Aenk. Understand that the government already knew that Allen and Schuyler were detained near Seattle, nearly 300 miles away. If they had any intelligence (of either kind), they would have known that Carrie was home alone.

15:03 [01:00:59] Twenty-four minutes after the initial entry, Carrie is escorted to one of the kennels, handcuffed and with a coat thrown over her shoulder (this, after being thrown down in the mud. See “Carrie’s Statement“), to secure some of the dogs — without the use of her hands. After all, there are only 25 goons.

16:34 [01:02:20] Enter an important person with case in hand, and another important person with bag in hand.

32:17 [02:34:03] Vehicles begin leaving.

32:48 [02:43:27] Important person leaves with case (16:34), box and envelope.

33:25 [02:44:04] Important person w/baggage meets non-government looking vehicle. Important person walks from vehicle, without baggage, about 20 seconds later.

36:45 [03:30:11] Silver SUV pulls into driveway (SA Baldino), parks just out of frame, appears to reach into back seat (37:03).

Channel 2 (Right of entry gate, from house) (7:49 long):

0:15 [12:40:53] Goons “sweep” the property, anticipating major action from sole occupant (Carrie) One goon slips and falls on the ice (right side of frame), comes up prepared to fire his weapon.

4:42 [03:30:19] SA Baldino arrives (See Channel 1 – 36:45)

4:53 [03:30:29] SA Baldino does something, difficult to explain, at back door of SUV (See Channel 1 37:03.)

7:02 [03:40:38] Drives away with passengers. Thugs have left the property, 3 hours and 4 minutes after entry.

Channel 3 (West entry gate, from house) Note: This channel included for a little levity, and to watch taxpayer dollars wasted. (11:19 long):

00:04 [12:45:49] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment of pickup truck.

00:33 [12:46:47] Goon “clears” bed and passenger compartment, this time with SBR and Tactical Light aimed at potential threats.

2:45 [12:58:10] Goon wary of “vicious dog”.

3:39 [12:59:26] Other goon tries to befriend the “vicious dog”.

3:56 [03:56:55] Flash bang goes off, cracking window and forces security camera into black and white mode.

Channel 4 (storage area; Schuyler’s trailer – far left, from house) (48:21 long):

Note: Throughout this video, remember that the warrant listed stolen federal property and machine guns. Since then, we have learned that they were also looking for explosives. Note how cursory the search of the storage area is. A machine gun, explosive, and unidentified stolen federal property could easily have been overlooked.

00:14 [12:41:06] Goon passes entry tool to another goon, prefatory to breaking in through back door of house. Apparently, the entry team was not quite ready to enter.

1:28 [12:42:17] Note the camera shuttering, followed by smoke in about 15 seconds. This was probably one of the “flash bangs” set off while “clearing” the house.

1:55 [12:44:42] First goon enters Schuyler’s trailer (left, with ladder leaning against it).

11:50 [12:58:16] Carrie Aenk enters at left of frame, handcuffed and a coat thrown over her shoulders, escorted by a goon.

12:35 [12:59:49] Carrie enters at left of frame, escorted by one goon and one important person.

30:30 [01:36:47] Two goons go up the hill, above storage, for some reason. Probably to relive themselves.

41:50 [02:13:04] Box is handed out of Schuyler’s trailer.

42:54 [02:17:03] Trailer door closed. One hour and 33 minutes in the search of Schuyler’s trailer.

47:41 [02:37:24] Plastic tote box and cardboard box carried from 4-wheeler to leave scene left. Note the apparent weight of the two boxes and compare that with the inventoried items in the Search Warrants (page 4), and consider the apparent weight.  Also note, in Channel 1, that the plastic tote box never left the property through the gate.   So, where did it go?

Channel 6 (Southeast corner of house) (2:12 long): Short, simply another view of clearing the area.

 Conclusion

We saw that Schuyler had none of the elements of a “domestic terrorist”, and though we won’t have an exact match, we can look at what you have seen in the videos and see that 25 plus thugs, battle dressed and often raising their weapons, can readily be considered as an act “dangerous to human life”, even when performed by the government. After all, I believe that they are human, just like us, and since many of us, including Schuyler Barbeau, have received probably more training in the use of firearms, while in military service, then some of these goons.

There is little doubt that this display of force was intended “to intimidate or coerce”, though perhaps not a population, but the population of the Aenk Ranch, whether in Springdale or Seattle.

And, the Search Warrant, along with other misrepresentations, are accusations without any foundation, such as suggesting that Schuyler was a domestic terrorist, are, without a doubt, intended to “influence…a government” entity, specifically, the Grand Jury, to secure an indictment.

If government was granted, by the people via the Constitution, the authority to do anything, it was because we, the People, had the authority to grant them theirs. Should we expect them to act with as much, if not more, integrity than we would expect of ourselves? Or, did we, as they assume, make them our masters?

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

Rogue Infidel – A Working Vacation to New Hampshire

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 30, 2015

The Trip

On November 18, 2015, Jon Ritzheimer began a road trip to aid an old high school buddy, Tyler Zarr, in his move to New Hampshire. After they loaded the SUV with Tyler’s belongings, they set out on their cross-country journey.

Since this road trip was part vacation and part work, they decided to take some “tourist” pictures along the way. Rather than dwelling on natural history or historical monuments, they opted to take pictures of what they perceived as the intrusion of an evil element into our country. Like any good tourists, they made “selfies” in front of the following mosques or Islamic Centers: New Mexico; Amarillo, Texas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Springfield, Missouri; Illinois; Terre Haute, Indiana; Ohio; Reading, Pennsylvania; Lowell, Massachusetts; and finally, Manchester, New Hampshire.

Here, in Jon’s words, is his description of the trip (note: all italicized portions are from Ritzheimer’s statement to the Outpost of Freedom.):

“As we made our way cross country we stopped and took a photo at every mosque that was within our path during the journey. We also decided that since we were heading that way that it would be nice to give the Muslims at the Islamic Post a visit to simply give them a piece of our mind in regards to the article they publish back in June, [Where they accused Jon, Pam Geller, and others, of being “American Taliban“. See note at end.] calling me a terrorist because I organized a pro freedom of speech rally at a Mosque where now five terrorists have come from.”

The Video

Shortly after leaving Phoenix, Ritzheimer made a video explaining his trip to those who have been paying attention to what he is trying to oppose publicly, which in the past was focused on the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP). An account of his recent “confrontation” there can be found in the press release for the event, Global Rally for Humanity – Phoenix.

Now, even prior to the Global Rally event, Ritzheimer had held a Freedom of Speech Rally (When did Freedom of Speech Become Hate Speech?), where false accusations of his intentions were prolific, even in the mainstream media. Ritzheimer had made it clear, though many choose not to hear it, that being armed is strictly for defense. After all, he served in Iraq, where it was Muslims, not Christians, that were hell-bent on trying to kill him. Based upon events in Europe, it is simply a precaution, for who really knows when the violence, which has already risen here, will escalate to the level it has on the other side of the Atlantic?

The Offended

Now, that video apparently offended those Muslims in Islamberg (Hancock), New York, the home of The Muslims of America and The Islamic Post. Or, perhaps their comprehension of English is couched in their perception of themselves. The video (slightly edited by the New York Daily News – used by permission from Mr. Ritzheimer) contains no threats, nor has Ritzheimer removed any heads or hands, stoned any rape victims, or otherwise suggested any such violence against Muslims. He has done nothing more than advise them that he is more than ready to defend himself, against any acts of violence directed at him, or any event he sponsors — including his road trip.

So, to make that clear, here is a transcript of the voice in the video:

What’s up America? Jon Ritzheimer here with my brother Tyler, one of my old high school brothers here, and we’re driving all the way across America, all the way to New York to go see those assholes at the Islamic Post that decided to publish a paper calling me, me, a fucking terrorist in this country.

Fuck you Muslims! Fuck all of you! We’re going to stop at virtually every mosque on the way, take a picture flipping them off, telling them to get fucked!

And Obama, you stupid sorry sack of shit, you wanna come out and say that we’re all afraid of these poor little three-year-old orphans and these widows?

Fuck you! That is not what’s coming over here. And you know what? I’m not afraid! I fear for my family’s safety, but I’m not afraid, because these guys are fucking cowards, and they have shown, time and time again, they do not come and attack hard targets.

Well, guess what? [shows pistol] We’re fucking ready for them! [racks pistol slide] Bring it on you Muslim fucks!

You wanna come fuck around in our country, we’re ready for you. So, I’m not afraid. I’m urging all Americans across the U.S., everywhere in public, to start carrying a slung rifle with you, everywhere. Don’t be a victim in your own country. Fuck you, Obama.

If there is any threat in what he said, it was that there would be that he implied retaliation, should they mess with him. However, the Islamic Post, perhaps presuming that Americans practiced Taqiyya, or that implied threats had a different meaning behind them, contacted the FBI and/or the New York State Police, claiming that the video was an open threat, and that they feared that there would be violence.

The FBI and the New York State Police

From Ritzheimer:

“After we crossed into Pennsylvania, on November 20th, I received a three-way phone call from Special Agent Bridget Walters of the FBI, and a Sergeant with New York State Troopers. The FBI agent was nice and respectful during our phone call and the Trooper started out respectfully. They then proceeded to tell me that they saw the video of me with a gun and if I cross into New York that I would be arrested. I asked them if I could surrender the gun at the state line to them and just get an escort through the state so I could make my destination and they said NO. I asked if I could leave it in Pennsylvania with a friend and they said that they would still search me, give me a hard time, and basically violate my rights because of the video of me with a gun.”

Ritzheimer had initially agreed to stay in touch with the FBI agent, However, as a result of the breakdown in negotiations (you know, when the government says we can negotiate — as soon as you agree to our terms), Ritzheimer had to develop a strategy that would allow him to get to his destination in New Hampshire. Since New York extends from the Canadian Border to the Atlantic Ocean, there is no means of land travel that will allow you to take a handgun from the Middle States to New England (General Gage knew that when he tried to take control of the Hudson River during the Revolutionary War).

In his words:

“Originally I told Special Agent Walters that I would maintain contact with her and keep her posted on my whereabouts but then after reading state laws and seeing that no matter what they were going to violate my rights I made the decision that we needed to change our course and shut our phones off and pull out enough money from the nearest ATM so we wouldn’t need to use our debit cards. We had to break communication with law enforcement because they were clearly not going to work with me.”

The Break

So, as reported in a New York newspaper when communications were cut off, it was Ritzheimer’s fault, and was sufficient for the FBI and/or New York State Police to perceive a threat against them. As stated in the article, “he got angry and cut off communication with them. At that point, the alert, citing a “potential threat to law enforcement,” was issued, sources said.”

Keep that in mind — if you won’t talk to the FBI and/or New York State Police, and they know that you have a firearm, they will determine that you are a threat to them (or their presumed haughty almightiness). So, now this has escalated to a point where some people in law enforcement might “shoot to kill”, since the subject is now “armed and dangerous”.

However, as Ritzheimer explained, he used a little common sense, whereas the New York State Police and the FBI are lost in even beginning to understand why communications were cut off, because they assumed that “going dark” was indicative of preemptive hostile action.

So, Ritzheimer and Zarr did get to their destination, with only a slight delay. Though, apparently, the search for Ritzheimer and Zarr continued, throughout New York, for the next few days.

As Ritzheimer clarified for this article:

If I was going to attack them as they claimed I was headed to do, I would have brought way more fire power, and they never would have known that I was coming. I am a law abiding citizen and it’s unbelievable what I had to go through due to false reports from Islamic Post and Law Enforcement Officers who claim to be “just doing their job” when threatening to violate my rights if I cross into their state. Shame on New York State Troopers and shame on the FBI agent who rather than protecting a citizen and their rights fell into the trap set-up by the Muslims who play the victim.

American Taliban?

So, let’s look at the Islamic Post’s effort to demonize Ritzheimer and others. They accused them of being “American Taliban”. Well, that is rather ironic, as that “label” was first applied to John Phillip Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam at age 16. Then, on November 25, 2001 (at age 20), he was captured while fighting with the Taliban, against American forces, when his unit surrendered (no virgins for them) at Kunduz, Afghanistan. Interesting that they would then accuse Americans opposed to Islam and attaches the moniker that was first given to an American who opposed Americans.

So, if two Americans, knowingly travelling across the country and communicating with the FBI as they travel, can elude being taken while travelling from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire, is it conceivable that a real Muslim terrorist could easily evade the web that they are capable of setting up?

Apparently, you are more likely to be protected by the FBI and the New York State Police if you are a Muslim than if you are an American.

(to be continued)

    Operation      Mutual      Defense

                         Advisory Board

            Response Coordinator:      Ryan Payne

          Public Relations:                 Gary Hunt

    Research:                              Dennis

                   Planning                                Jon Ritzheimer

         Training:                               Tim Foley

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OMD

November 10, 2015

Operation Mutual Defense is now an Active Organization

In April 2014, an organization named Operation Mutual Aid (OMA) let out a call for patriots to come to the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, to protect the rancher’s family, livestock, and ranch, from threatened Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) efforts seize the livestock in payment for a perceived obligation.

The structure of OMA was determined to be insufficient for effective response, planning, coordination, and organization of the effort required. This led to a division between the two principals of OMA leadership, and the formation of a new organization, Operation Mutual Defense (OMD), anticipating a more rapid and effective response. Additionally, support functions are incorporated in the structure and function of OMD.

The Advisory Board of Operation Mutual Defense, is announcing the commencement of its organization’s website and operation of services to Americans who are in need of assistance, in defense of life, liberty, or property, due to oppressive government overreach that threatens their God given rights.

OMD is a network of volunteers, patriotic citizens, activists and militia, dedicated to furthering a government, by the people, free from oppressive intrusion, overreach and aggression, through training and implementation of established defensive postures, at optimal tactical positions, in relation to the people or property in need.

An additional tier of the OMD organization includes, journalists, logistical and support personnel, and media relations personnel from other patriotic political and activism groups.

OMD observes all local laws, not in violation of the United States and state constitutions, and considers all laws in violation of the United States and state constitutions reasonable cause to coalesce resources to protect and defend citizenry requesting support.

The organization believes in a culture directed by the principles of the Declaration of Independence; to absolve such government of its power, or separate from it to be freed from its oppression. OMD is intended for the defense of the populace from enemies, foreign and domestic. The latter path shall be left to the determination of that populace, and we shall guarantee them the freedom to make that choice, and to assist them, in accordance with man’s God-given Liberty, the ideas espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the constitutions of the several States, the Constitution of United States, and the Bill of Rights, so help us God.

OMD encourages visitors to go to the OMD website (operationmutualdefense) to learn more about its mission and the terms and conditions under which activation occurs. For those interested in following, and perhaps participating, in any OMD event, you may join the OMD mail list from the link on that page.

All inquiries are to be directed to:
Gary Hunt, OMD Public Relations
Email:   public relations

Muslims at Loves – True or False?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 13, 2015

Many “incidents” are reported to the patriot community and there is a reaction that distracts from other activities, requires endless hours in effort to attempt to track back to a reliable source, and, most often, are found to be unfounded.

We accuse the press of always lying to us, unless, of course, they say something that we want to believe.  Or, often, it is the pictures they use to support a story of an event.  This leads to a lot of speculation over whether “crisis actors” are portrayed in events, such as Sandy Hook” and other mass shootings.  Many people will spend hours search pictures form events, and will find similar looking people at various events.  These are alleged to prove that the event was a “false flag” event, orchestrated by the government.

Think about this.  We discredit the written word of MSM, yet we want to rely on the reliability of photos used in conjunction with a story.  It’s as if we have never accepted the importance of videos or photos to bring attention to a story, and quite often, file photos/videos are used to enhance the story and bring attention to it.  The proponents of “false flag” assume that all of the photos shown are actually of the event, though during Sandy Hook, the press used videos of a previous “active shooter training event”, then they were used by the patriot community to prove that it was a false flag event.

In a recent near viral story, it was alleged that buses carrying Muslims were spotted at a Loves trick stop at Interstate 35 and Highway 9, near Norman, Oklahoma.  Photographs showing a number of white buses travelling away from the camera, suggesting that these were the buses that were supposed to have been seen at Loves, supported this.

The problem is, that same photograph of the buses (above) was used last July 2015, alleging they were proof of military activity during Jade Helm 15.  However, we can go back even further and find that that picture was used as early as April, before we knew about Jade Helm 15, claiming that it was military buses moving military personnel around the country.

So, are we as guilty as MSM?  Or, perhaps more so, because we use those pictures to “prove” the veracity of a story that we want to bring attention to?  MSM does it to bring attention to an event.  Some within our community use them to propagate a conspiracy story that has no foundation in fact.

Back to the Loves truck stop story.  When it first started circulating, with follow up stories that it had been confirmed, a simple Internet check determined that the photos going around with the story were bogus, which brings serious doubt to the validity of whole story.

After tracking down the source of the original information, we find that he spoke to the mechanic — that part is true, though unverified by any evidence.  However, it appears that others appended information about the clerk at Loves and the claim that there was confirmation Ohio Highway Patrol.  Whoever added those elements must have done so in an effort to lend credibility, and/or enhance the story.  The consequence is that credibility, and very much increased numbers, distorted, and brought discredit, to something that was worth investigating — to find the TRUTH of the matter.

Then, there is the source of the story.  Where did it come from?  Most will repost the story by copying and pasting, so that the story begins with “I was contacted by a friend who has always been truthful…”  However, the person pasting has no idea who the “friend” is, or, quite often, even who the “I” is.

There are also those who will then comment that they have “verified” the initial information, since they have seen it posted elsewhere, perhaps 5 or six times.  At this point, who can challenge the veracity of the information?  The more often the story is repeated, the more effort it takes to weed through the proliferation of affirmation of the event.

Now the event, especially one as isolated as a claim of seeing a bunch of Muslims heading to same known/unknown destination, is not going to change our world, it will simply distort the view of it.  However, wouldn’t it be nice if we had some reliable means of verifying such stories, so that the time wasn’t wasted chasing ghosts, and we would have a better picture, especially a realistic one, of what was going on around the country?

So, let’s look at what could be done to prevent such “intrusions” into our “intelligence”.  But, first, let me refer you to a previous article that explains how the government uses such artifices to receive a desired effect on our community.  The article is “Vortex“.  It is an account of experience and research into the methodology of government in creating confusion, gathering intelligence, and discrediting people, where it serves the government.

Now, what should be done BEFORE any “incident” is reported to the patriot community?  In this day and age where nearly everybody has a camera and a phone, we should practice the following:

• How many?  How many vehicles, and how many people, are observed
• Description: Of vehicles, especially markings and license plates, with number and state/organization.  And, of people, dress, language, if not English, other characteristics.
• Location, date, and time: Where, exactly, did this happen?  Yes, we need the date not today, or yesterday, but the calendar date, and the time at which the observation was made.  And, equally important, the direction of travel.
• Who all observed it?  Was the reporting person alone?  What is his name and contact information?  If there were others with him, or if he spoke to others who can confirm, and perhaps provide addition information, who are they?
• Finally, and most importantly, pictures of the vehicles, scene, and individuals.  You cannot have too many pictures, as things that you may not have noticed might be revealed with careful study of the pictures.
• If you do any follow up by making phone calls, or speaking with other witnesses, provide date, time, contact information, and what information they could provide.

Think about it.  I have tried to find a cell phone without a camera.  There are a few available, but they are very few, and very difficult to find.  Absent pictures, in this day and age, there is also a very probability that the information is without merit.  It is not a photo contest; it is substantiation of a claim.  If you pass on information, absent most of the above information, then you are, at best, propagating a rumor, and at worst, will cause some to spend hours investigating the story, and, quite possibly, making you look bad for originating, or even passing on, the information — as an unreliable source.  Not a good reputation to have.

If you have reason to believe that something did occur, find others in the area and have them look for verification, with camera in hand.

Note: We are still in the process of investigating this matter. If additional information is forthcoming, the article will be revised to incorporate that information.

Camp Lone Star
Follow Up on a Show of Support for KC Massey

The Lone Warrior

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2015

I spoke with KC on Monday.  He had received a number of “I Care Gifts” (https://camerontx.icaregifts.com/), and some money has come in to his commissary account, via PayPal.  Letters, cards, and money orders would not have arrived since the Show of Support for KC Massey was put out last Thursday, but what has come in has given KC an understanding of just how many people support him and are willing to do something to demonstrate their concern.

Let’s look at it from KC’s perspective.  He is in jail and his contact with outside is very limited.  He talks to Khristi, his wife, regularly; he talks to me quite often; and, he is in phone contact with a few other close friends.  Beyond that, the world does not exist.  He has felt like the patriot community has abandoned him, since he has no idea of what transpires in discussions on Facebook and other Internet communications areas.  The government follows all of this, but they damned sure will not tell KC what support he has, so KC thinks, regardless of what we tell him, that he has been abandoned.

The display of support that has come in, so far, has given him to understand that the support is still there.  Reality has hit him, like “a 2×4 up the side of his head”, that people realize the potential effect of his battle with the misinterpretation of a federal law, and that the support that he was hoping that he had through this ordeal was really there, all along, but the means of showing that support has manifested itself in something quite demonstrable in the form of gifts, monetary, and especially, the letters of encouragement that he has, and, hopefully, will continue to receive.

Easily the least expensive and the easiest to provide, in terms of you showing support, is a letter or card.  And, perhaps, the most meaningful and long lasting, as the commissary account will, eventually, dry up, and the I Care Gifts will eventually be consumed.  Those letters and cards, however, will, like the Bible that he keeps close, always be there as a reminder of the good things that make his ordeal worthwhile.  You need not stop at just one letter.  He needs the Commissary for pen, paper, and postage, but I am sure that he will have plenty of time, until this gets before the Appellate Court, to reply to those of you who send their words of support.

For those who wish to participate in the Support for KC Massey, and for those who want to add to the support that they have already shown, mailing address and other information can be found at the bottom of the Show of Support for KC Massey.

Finally, I will pass on what KC asked me to express his thanks to those who have supported him with action, and those who have simply supported him with their thoughts:

“Express to them my Heartfelt Thanks for their support for me,
and, my standing against a despotic government.”

The Rise of Islam in Our Children’s Minds
Is This the Destruction of America?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 23, 2015

A friend sent a copy to me of the current assignment in Social Studies for her Seventh Grade son. Since the truancy people have threatened her if he doesn’t go to school, he has simply been instructed to face the back of the classroom and ignore the instruction. However, that solution is problematic, and what we are seeing is a program of enforced indoctrination.

Hitler arranged the educational system to propagandize the Nazi philosophy, and dwell on certain aspects of the German culture. He did not instill a foreign culture into the minds of the children. What country would even consider doing such?

The student’s previous historical education included California history, primarily the early Spanish portion with the Missions and Spanish settlement; Ancient history centered on the Mediterranean Sea (Byzantine Empire, Romans, etc.), and the Rise of Islam (current studies). No America history, no European history, no government studies.

So, before we look into just what is currently being studied, let’s think a bit about the near future. The students who have taught very little of our own history, but have been indoctrinated (I can’t think of a better word) in Spanish settlement of California, and Islam’s role in the world, including how badly the White Europeans treated them, will leave them with a foundation of culture that excludes that which they were born into, believing that their roots are from a Spanish and Muslim heritage.

They will object to any subsequent instruction that might dwell upon the settlement of the “New World” by English and French adventurers –those that brought civilization rather than chaos — because it would be foreign to the foundation that had been implanted in them. The “Great Experiment”, the first, and only real, government created by the people of the country, for the purpose of self-government, will be spurned as inconsequential, even though it laid the foundation for the freedom of those invaders (yes, that is the correct word) who have used those protected freedoms (which do not exist where they came from) to destroy the very structure that has led the world to the advanced society it has become. The result will be a regression of society back into a barbaric age, which should have been left to the dustbin of history.

Some of the atrocious effects of this program include:

• Teaching that Muslims pray five times a day, implying that this is acceptable within the school, yet the same school will not let Christians pray, even once a day.
• Teaches and honors a religion that has their five pillars, though they won’t allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed or spoken of.
• Teaches support of a religion that dictates both social and political behavior, though they limit that teaching to only the Sunni sect of that religion, the sect that is the primary elements of ISIS/ISIL, but disallow any discussion of the Christian religion or the Judea-Christian moral foundation of our country

It has become abundantly clear that the federal government, under the current administration, supports this effort by requiring such teaching in our schools, and funds that denigration of our educational system.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created in 1953. In 1979, the educational aspect of governmental control of education (that used to belong to the local School Board) was created and named the Department of Education, while the remainder of HEW was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services. It is that Department of Education that now dictates policy (curriculum, including Common Core) and provides the funding for the local schools.

Since the Department of Education is an Administrative Agency under the Executive Branch (the President), we can expect no change in this policy, except possibly getting worse, until January 2017, when a new President will take office.

If the new President chose to change the policy, it would probably not go into effect until the beginning of school in September 2017.

That would leave this school year and the next of total indoctrination of our children into the benefits of Islam as a state religion, and it would be very difficult to undo the mental damage to our children, since it is the parents who willingly send their children to the government schools, telling them that school is where they will be taught what they need to know to get along in life and in America.

This country was a “Great Experiment” in self-government. It has turned into an oligarchy that is not responsive to the will of the people, and often is beyond the ability of Congress, our chosen representatives, to retain control of what they have willingly passed on to the Executive Branch.

If this is to change, and if we are determined not to allow these two school generations to be taught that Islam is great, and then probably vote for Muslims running for office, then we must, as the Founders did, determine to take upon ourselves, regardless of the laws but consistent with the Constitution, the responsibility and the task of removing this cancer from our society. And, that, by any means necessary, with no restrictions.

* * *

The following is the study guide for the Seventh Grade at:

• Canyon Lake Middle School
• Lake Elsinore Unified School District
• Principal: Dr. Preston Perez
• phone number: 951-244-2123
• webpage: http://clm.leusd.k12.ca.us

The source for the instructional material:
Society for Visual Education, Inc., 1345 Diversey Parkway, Chicago, Illinois 60614,
or,
Society for Visual Education, Inc., 6677 North Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois, 60631
phone: (800) 829-1900; fax number: (800) 624-1678

* * *

The future of this country is now in your hands. If it is to continue as we have believed, and as many have fought and died for, then the call to act is greater than any other time in our history. Contemplation, procrastination, and delay, have become our enemy. The time is now, and the necessity is, again, by whatever means.

It is Time for Grave Concern
It is Time for Action

The handwritten portion is the due dates for the various assignments.

Five Pillars of Islam? Where are the Ten Commandments?

Quran & Sunnah (the Word of God &teachings and attributes of Prophet Muhammad)?

What about the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Mecca? A city for only Muslims?

Mosque? What about Church., Temple, and Tabernacle?

Take the time to read the words in the list and see which ones, if any, are and should be a part of a student’s vocabulary.

Also, look at the lack of care in putting this together, for example the absence of a space before the entrees 10, 16-24, 26, 29, 30, 32-34, & 37. It shows a very poor attention to detail by those who wish to indoctrinate our youth.

Well, at least Europe gets a bit of attention.

Why would they want someone to know the routes of the four major Crusades? And, Israel had to be handwritten in — I wonder if someone might get in trouble for that.

Shouldn’t Americans first learn where the Mississippi, Colombia, Ohio, Potomac, and other American rivers are?

Why simply the geography of Islamic nations on untended conquests?

This, apparently, is the map that the elements of Page 5 are to be drawn on.

More Muslim geography. Only one European country. However, they fail to suggest that we should keep it that way. And, this whole exercise tends to suggest that they want the United States to, eventually, join the list of Muslim countries.

Now, we have some “fill in the blanks”. Not that “male” is included, however, “female” is not.

Who gives a damn where Islam was first preached?

They ask what countries Islam spread rapidly through, though they fail to ask why it spread rapidly, and how much blood was shed.

Now, they must learn all about Mohammad, but there is nothing about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and the scores of truly phenomenal, peace loving, Americans — that helped form this great country that we live in.

Now, we get into the religious foundation of Islam, in a school that outlaws the Bible.
That should be sufficient to justify burning the school, and some of the teachers and administrators, to the ground.

Now, we have a structure of government under Islam, but the students have yet to learn the structure of government in their own country.

That last question is the real kicker. I wonder what the acceptable answer might be.

Nothing about baptism, but very much about a very foreign, and strange, religion.

It seems that the student is supposed to learn, and perhaps participate in, the five pillars, though neither the Bible, or Christian prayer, are allowed in the school.

It also seems to support only one branch of Islam, the Sunni, since the Shia branch has twelve pillars.

So, conquest, and demonstration of a few basic practices that we have evolved into our more progressed society. They are not, however, demonstrative of something that would not have occurred without Muslims, and are probably more substantially developed than Islam could very have achieved.

Now, we have the Christian persecution of the Muslims, though we simply ignore the fact that the Muslims persecuted not only Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, most of Africa, by execution, or committing them to slavery — which they still practice.

Now, at least, we see what happened in Europe (Spain, in particular) as a reaction, after the expulsion of the Muslims, to those who were not of the Catholic faith.

Rule of Law, or, Rule of Man
An Analysis of the Kim Davis Fiasco

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 8, 2015

The Supreme Court and States’ Tenth Amendment Rights

The Constitution created a Union. That Union was of the several States, and the Constitution was written to join those States into a confederation, with a federal government that dealt only within the powers and authorities defined in the document. The autonomy of states was assured within the Constitution, though doubts arose as to whether the federal government might attempt to secure more power than was intended and granted to it.

The most significant clarification of that intent was laid out in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. A preamble sets forth the purpose of a document, and that which was ascribed to the first ten Amendments reads, as follows:

The Preamble To The Bill Of Rights

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

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

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

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

The last two amendments made even more obvious the limited role of the federal government:

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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.

After the Civil War, a Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (the lawfulness of that ratification may be questioned, though that is not the topic of this article). It stated that no State could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However, it was not intended to, nor did early application of that provision even suggest that there was one set of laws that applied to all, and if the states were in agreement over an issue, or each State had addressed an issue, that the issue in question was not one that was subject to federal approval.

The rights protected by the Constitution would have to extend to all citizens, not all people, as was clear by the wording in the Amendment. Those rights, however, were deemed natural rights pertaining to “life, liberty, and property”. They were not rights which would take from one to give to another.

In 1973, a Supreme Court decision demonstrated that the rights of the States, so solidly secured by the Constitution, would no longer be exercised by the States, if the federal government decided that it wanted to bring any aspect of our lives under its wing. This is clearly demonstrated in the decision that expanded the government’s role in abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The decision defied previously held limitation of authority, was widely accepted by the public, perhaps not fully understood were the ramifications of the expansion of federal powers.

Justice Rehnquist explained the problem and the ramifications in his dissenting opinion, when he wrote:

“To reach its result [the majority opinion], the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”

“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

So, we have seven out of nine justices expanding the power of the federal government; usurping from the States those rights that were retained by them. And, unfortunately, we had a naive public that applauded, or damned, the decision of the Court, not even considering the affect on our Constitution and the rights of the States.

Now, to get to where we are going, we must address another Supreme Court decision, this being made in June 2015, and bears heavily on the current situation regarding Rowan County, Kentucky, County Clerk Kim Davis, who, as of this writing, sits in Rowan County Detention Center (121 Lee Avenue, Morehead, Kentucky), under a Contempt of Court charge.

This charge stems from another Supreme Court decision, decided in June 2015. That case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., 576 US ___. It was filed “claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition.” So, by the simple wording in the complaint, “the right to marry”, we have something that was never considered a right, it was always, at best, a religious or civil choice, converted and accepted by the Court to be deemed a right, having nothing to do with “equal protection of the laws.” There is no “protection” in marriage simply the notification that two people, of opposite sexes, are bound together in matrimony. Or, as Noah Webster described it the first American Dictionary (Webster’s 1828), marriage is “the legal union of a man and woman for life,” which served the purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.” So, is a legalized union to be considered, now, to be a “right”?

The conclusion to the decision reads:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

So, Kim Davis is free “to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” However, “[t]he Constitution… does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” What kind of double-speak is that? The “right” is a part of the First Amendment. The abomination is the contradiction that the Constitution does not permit. Try as I might, I cannot find that, anywhere.

In an age where the enumerated rights are under fire, we have courts granting rights that were never considered rights, nor were they enumerated, and, if they were rights, the came strictly under the purview of the state.

By definition, this process of expansion of federal power and usurpation of state power is known as the “incorporation doctrine- a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” So, we must ask which provision of the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the states, or, if the description needs to be updated to “Incorporation Usurpation Doctrine”

To exemplify this overarching expansion of federal authority, we can look to Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell, where he wrote:

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

“Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history–and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.

Though our very mobile and fast-paced society has had an effect on the “lifelong relationship”, it has done nothing to warrant an extension of that purpose to achieve marriage, for marriage sake, as a right, rather than the original indentation of providing security for the children (posterity).

Whether we are a Democracy, a Republic, or both, we are, without question, to be a self-governing people. At this time, there are over 300 million people in this country. Of that number, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported, in 2013, that only 1.6% of the population was queer (homosexual, both sexes). That is not a minority, it is an insignificant number. And, there is nothing that prohibits them from living as they choose. Those laws have slowly fallen to our modern world, where they are not prosecuted; rather, they are allowed to practice their life-style, without legal penalty. Isn’t it enough that the biblical punishment is no longer inflicted, or are we to allow this insignificant group hold sway over our lives, our morality, and our culture?

Of those 300 million plus, they are represented in their respective state legislatures by hundreds of senators and representatives, chosen by the citizens of those states to enact laws. In no state is the court given the right to enact laws, simply, the “power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” ONLY the representatives of the people, and in accordance with the respective State Constitution make the laws.

Likewise, in the federal government, there are 435 representatives and 100 senators, those, also, elected to represent the will of the people, and enact laws accordingly.

So, we have thousands of the representatives of the people who have enacted laws in accordance with the will of the people, and those laws no longer act unfavorably on the insignificant number. That is what was intended, and that is what should continue to be.

However, we find that a simple majority of nine Justices, yes, just five appointed individuals, not chosen by the people, themselves, have established an apparent right to enact laws contrary to the will of the people and their representatives. That is an oligarchy (rule by a small, select group), and, as you will not find “marriage” in the federal Constitution, you will neither find “oligarchy” as our form of government.

Unless, of course, the people will stand idly by as those robed “oligarchs” continue to expand their authority, destroying our whole concept of self-government.

The Road to Contempt of the People

Based upon the Supreme Court’s contradictory decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al, James Yates, April Miller, and others, filed complaints with the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland, against Kim Davis, individually and as County Clerk of Rowan County.

The Complaint by Yates was brought under 42 USC §1983:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Now, “secured by the Constitution and laws” will be addressed, later on. However, we see that the “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [Article I, § 8, clause 17].” comes in to play here, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution and the laws are both supportive of the right of a State to make its own laws, and by the broadest stretch of imagination, does not include marriage, a civil bond.

The Complaint also incorporates a letter from the Governor, Steven L. Beshear, to the “Kentucky County Clerks, dated June 26, 2015. The letter reads, in part:

“As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky – and all states – must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.”

“Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

“You should consult with your county attorney on any particular aspects related to the implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision.”

So, the Governor first informs the recipients that they had “taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.” Then, he provides his solution, whereby “same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.”

So, the oath is to the constitutions, and, presumably, the laws made in accordance thereof. And then, he talks about entitlements. What? I suppose he didn’t feel any more comfortable than I do in suggesting that they are “rights”, rather, that queers are “entitled” to a legal bond intended to assure that children are conceived and brought up in a healthy environment.

Finally, he wants to “implement” the Supreme Court decision. So, which constitution provides a directive, or even implies, that a decision must be implemented, if not an enacted law passed in accordance with those constitutions? Does the oath bind them to a Court decision?

The US Constitution provides the authority to enact laws in Article I, § 1, to wit:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

“All legislative Powers” means what it says, “All”. Nobody else in the federal government is empowered to make laws. The Court can only rule on the constitutionality of a law. Even without referring to the “Case Law Method”, which has moved the courts away from the Constitution, simply building upon previous decision, without regard to the Constitution, we can see that something is amiss — in violation of the Constitution.

Now, let’s look at the Kentucky Constitution, beginning with the Kentucky Bill of Rights:

Section 2. Absolute and arbitrary power denied. Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Section 4. Power inherent in the people – Right to alter, reform, or abolish government. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

So, the Kentucky Constitution disallows “[a]bsolute and arbitrary power over the lives [and] liberty” of the people. So, just what about the decision regarding the current case (Yates, Miller, et al) and the charge of Contempt of Court (which will soon be discussed) is not “absolute and arbitrary”?

And, if “[a]ll power is inherent in the people” and “founded on their [people] authority”, how can a judge, at the lowest level of federal courts, make a decision, based upon a decision, though not enacted into law, be used to deprive Kim Davis of her liberty?

The Bill of Rights concludes with:

Section 26. General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights – Laws contrary thereto are void. To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Just consider what “inviolate” means.

Now, from the Kentucky Constitution, the Legislative Branch:

Section 29. Legislative power vested in General Assembly. The legislative power shall be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, which, together, shall be styled the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Section 55. When laws to take effect – Emergency legislation. No act, except general appropriation bills, shall become a law until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, except in cases of emergency, when, by the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each House of the General Assembly, by a yea and nay vote entered upon their journals, an act may become a law when approved by the Governor; but the reasons for the emergency that justifies this action must be set out at length in the journal of each House.

Section 68. Civil officers liable to impeachment – Judgment – Criminal liability. The Governor and all civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office; but judgment in such cases shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under this Commonwealth; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be subject and liable to indictment, trial and punishment by law.

So, as in the federal government, “legislative power [enacting laws]” is vested in the General Assembly. Nobody else can make laws.

The Kentucky Constitution makes provision for “emergency legislation”, which, under the circumstances, would have to be done to “implement” the decision, and to protect the County Clerk, who is bound to uphold the laws enacted in accordance with both constitutions. It would appear that Kim Davis suffered in jail because the legislative branch was remiss in their responsibility to the people and the officials of the state.

Finally, absent an impeachment, it would appear that no legal action could be taken against an official of the state. The qualifier, “but the convicted party” would require such impeachment prior to legal action.

However, what we are finding, in this current situation, is that the lowest level judge in the federal system, can, single-handedly, deny an elected official, under the authority of the state Constitution, her liberty.

On September 1, 2015, April Miller filed a Motion to Hold Defendant Kim Davis in Contempt of Court, stating:

“Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis’ compliance through incarceration. Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, Plaintiffs urge the the [sic] Court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis’ immediate compliance without further delay.

However during a hearing on September 3, Judge David L. Bunning arbitrarily opted to incarcerate Kim Davis, in Contempt of Court. In that hearing, the minute notes show:

“Defendant Davis shall be remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal pending compliance of the Courts Order of August 12, 2015, or until such time as the Court vacates the contempt Order.”

It appears that the Judge opted for jail time in lieu if the requested monetary damages.

Kim Davis was released, on September 8, during the course of preparing this article. An understanding was made that the marriage licenses issued by the County will not bear her name or title, though the will simply say, “Rowan County, Kentucky” at the line for the Clerk/ Deputy Clerk signature.

Laws on the books

Many people are claiming that Kim Davis violated the law by not issuing marriage licenses to queers that wanted to be married to each other.

We have all been taught that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So, let’s look at what the responsibility of an elected official is, if their job requires that they obey the law.

First source is the Kentucky Constitution, which, in Section 223A states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Next, we have Kentucky Statutes:

“402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”

Well, Kim Davis has taken a position that requires that she uphold the laws. That pretty much settles it from the State side of the matter. But, since it was a federal judge, maybe we need to look at what the federal government has to say.

I find no reference to (marriage” in the Constitution, though I do find the specific reservation in the Tenth Amendment:

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

So, we find that since there is no delegation to the federal government, or courts, regarding marriage, in the Constitution, then that authority must be one of those “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, does the federal government have anything to say about marriage? Yes, they do; however, it pertains ONLY to “administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States”, and has nothing, at all, to do with licensing (legal permission) for marriage. Clearly, that “right” is reserved to the state.

1 U.S.C. § 7 : Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

So, let’s review the Kim Davis incident. Kim is an elected official, the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. When she took the position, she also took an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions and the law of the land.

Both constitutions provide for the legislative bodies (Senate and House of Representatives) to have the sole authority to enact laws. If a judge rules an act unconstitutional, then the legislative body must enact a law consistent with the ruling. That is the only way that it can work. It is not up to the individual to determine what she can, or cannot, do. It is those who have taken the role in government to enact laws, well, to enact laws.

Kim Davis should not be held in contempt of court. If anyone is to be held in contempt of court, it should be those in the legislative bodies that leave on the LAW books laws that are unconstitutional. They are paid far better than Kim Davis is, and their job is to write the laws that she is to enforce. Every member of the state legislature should be willing to sit in jail, in lieu of Kim Davis, for she is the only one that is upholding the law. The same might be said of the Congress, as they, too, recognizing their limited role in the matter of marriage.

As a final thought, Kim Davis has stated that she refused to issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs. Had a law been lawfully enacted that allowed queers to marry, then Kim Davis would have to decide whether she wanted to continue in her job, or not, based upon a law that was properly enacted. To put that in more interesting terms, if any legislative body (not judicial) thinks that they have a right to change a definition this is thousands of year old, based upon the Bible, which defines marriage, then those in that legislative body have placed themselves above God.

Camp Lone Star – Pressure Cooker of Just Us

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 24, 2015

A pressure cooker was used to make the bombs used in the Boston Marathon Bombing. However, besides cooking, there appears to be another form of pressure cooker used by the government. Pressure cookers use steam to build up pressure to increase the rate at which something cooks. It changes the normal conditions to conditions that have a more rapid effect on what is being, well, pressure-cooked.

KC Massey was returned to jail for violating his (innocent until proven guilty) pre-trial release conditions (Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction). Prior to his pre-trial release, he had been held at Willacy Federal Detention Facility, and was placed in a solitary cell. After the violation, he was sent to a County Sheriff’s facility, Carrizales Rucker Detention Center, under federal authority. Again, he was placed in solitary confinement.

In solitary confinement, he has no exercise privileges, unless they decide to let him out of his cell. He had, while at Camp Lone Star, been active on patrols and had gotten plenty of exercise. However, his confinement and the poor quality of the food have had detrimental affect on his health. He suffers from kidney problems and was recently diagnosed with early stages of congestive heart failure.

So, why is he, not having yet been convicted, and only charged with a crime that is not violent in nature, treated worse than the many real thugs in jail, whether under either federal or local charges?

A couple of weeks ago, KC told me that another prisoner, a trustee, had told him that he was in solitary confinement because of his affiliation with Aryan Brotherhood. This was a surprise to KC, and, as he explained to me, he has never supported them and has often been critical of Aryan Brotherhood.

Just a few days ago, he asked Sgt. Campbell, one of the detention officers, if he would look in his (KC’s) file to see if it did say what he had been told. Sgt. Campbell responded, I don’t have to look, I know. The US Marshall Service put Aryan Brotherhood Affiliation on the outside of your jacket [folder].” So, KC is in solitary confinement because the US Marshall Service can lie, just to punish KC, because they, or someone above them, wants to punish him.

Through a fabrication, the pressure on KC to submit, psychologically and physically, to the pressure that was being applied to the cooker, had begun.

KC had been offered a plea agreement, plead guilty to one county and five years in prison, but stoically refused this offer, knowing that he was right and was not guilty of any crime.

Over time, I could hear and sense the frustration over the solitary confinement. His mood was quite often very low, and much of our conversation was an effort to boost his morale and to stand firmly behind his beliefs.

Within days of Sgt. Campbell explaining why he was in solitary confinement, and with just a few days to go before his trial, the government comes back, through KC’s attorney, with a new offer – Guilty to one count and he was told it would be three years in prison, by his attorney.

However, this offer came with additional information. They had been monitoring all of his phone calls, they had reviewed all of the text messages on his cell phone, they had gone over every post on his Facebook pages, and, had reviewed all of his radio shows. If he did not plea and the case went to trial, they would go after everybody that was named in any of the information gathered, if there was any chance of prosecution. They would also go after his wife, Khristi, who had bought an AK 47 that KC was charged with possession of, notwithstanding that under Texas law, there was no illegality to the purchase or to allowing KC to use her firearm.

This is the same tactic that they used against Robert Beecher (Who Does the Patriot Fight For?) to secure a plea agreement, rather than the government taking the rather risky task of trying to convince a jury that the government acted above board in their persecution of Beecher.

This morning, KC apparently stood his ground. He was willing to plea No Contest (nolo contendre), take the 3 years, however, his unwillingness to agree to their plea bargain offer, and finding that there was no specification on the three years, has result in the trial NOT being held today at 1:30 PM, but is put off until the end of September.

So, why did they schedule this second trial, and then cancel it? Well, both Sorola, KC’s attorney, and KC began talking jurisdiction (Massey & The Clash of Laws), this morning, in front of the Judge. Sorola pointed out that KC had brought up the jurisdictional matter back with his first attorney, Ed Cyganiewicz. Judge Hanen, favoring KC’s side, allowed for the September date to hear additional arguments, including a challenge to jurisdiction. Hagen resisted, but the Judge had made his decision.

Hagen, the prosecutor, seemed upset that KC would not plea, arguing that he has been made plea offers, and has refused to take them. The only other conceivable reason is that the trial is something that Hagen does not want. They want KC to plead guilty, period.

I will add, however, that KC called me as soon as he got back to jail from the hearing. He is exuberant, and he said that he feels that God is on his side, as this critical argument of Tenth Amendment State Rights, is going to get its day in court. He is more excited and up beat than he has been, in many months — even though it is another month in solitary. He feels that his suffering will have the appropriate reward, in the end.

This, my friends, is what Justice has become, in America. No trail, we will punish you until you agree that you are guilty, then we will imprison you, and you will carry that “conviction” with you, the rest of your life. But, KC intends to beat the system, and get out of the pressure cooker with only minor burns.