Posts tagged ‘de facto’

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part IV

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part IV

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2011


In Part I, we established what the Supreme Court determined to be “We the People”, or, “citizens of the United States”, prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Part II, we saw that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred to those not of “We the People”, regardless of prior status, a new class of people who are granted “privileges and immunities”, though not the rights inherent with “We the People”.

In Part III, we see that within a few years of ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court confirms that “rights” were not conveyed by the Amendment.

This must lead us to question whether there is any substance to these very significant acts and decision. Is there any long-lasting affect, as a result of them?  If so, has anything changed them? If there have been no changes, are there still two distinct classes of people in this country?

Do answer these questions, we need only jump forward another 34 years, to 1908.  This Supreme Court decision will clearly lay out that there are, indeed, two classes of people, and that one is subject to federal jurisdiction and protection, while the other is not.

The case is Twining v. State of New Jersey – 211 U.S. 78 (1908). It has two elements, at least pertinent to this discussion.  First was whether there was jurisdiction, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to a state citizen; and, what did the Fourteenth Amendment extend to a “citizen of the United States”.

Albert C. Twining and David C. Cornell were indicted by a Grand Jury, and, convicted of providing “false papers” to a state banking examiner.  They were sentenced to prison terms, and Twining appealed the action of the New Jersey Court.  He held that the requirement to turn over papers to the examiner, absent a court order, denied him “due process” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  He lost that case and pursued a remedy in the Supreme Court.

Justice Moody provided the decision of the Supreme Court.  In summing up the case, he posed the following:

“. . .  whether such a law [state law] violates the 14th Amendment, either by abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or by depriving persons of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  In order to bring themselves within the protection of the Constitution it is incumbent on the defendants to prove two propositions: First, that the exemption from compulsory self- incrimination is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution against impairment by the states; and, second, if it be so guaranteed, that the exemption was in fact impaired in the case at bar.  The first proposition naturally presents itself for earlier consideration.  If the right here asserted is not a Federal right, that is the end of the case.  We have no authority to go further and determine whether the state court has erred in the interpretation and enforcement of its own laws.

Well, that last point, “If the right here asserted is not a Federal right, that is the end of the case.”, will lead to the final decision of the Court, though we must first look at why they denied Twining the protection, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that he sought.

The Court brought out that two states, Iowa and New Jersey, had provisions that did not allow compulsory testimony against one’s self, and, that those two did have limits on compulsory testimony, though not as broad as the other states.  This was felt to satisfy the intent, since it was a state decision based upon their view of the intention of the Fifth Amendment (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”), that established the right of the state to enact a law requiring the turning over of the papers to the examiner.

So, the question resolved itself to whether the federal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was superior to the state law, and, if so, under what circumstances.

Since Twining and Cornel were both citizens of New Jersey, and the case was not between parties of different states, or any other qualifiers for federal intervention, they retained their status as state citizens, dealing with the laws of that state, without “Federal right[s]” being conferred to them.

Let’s separate the points of significance in this case:

  1. Is there a difference between state citizens and “citizens of the United States”, as established by the Fourteenth Amendment?
  2. If so, to what extent does the Fourteenth Amendment confer rights to those who are protected thereby?

The Court goes on to give us some insight into the second point.

“It is obvious . . . that it has been supposed by the states that, so far as the state courts are concerned, the privilege had its origin in the Constitutions and laws of the states, and that persons appealing to it must look to the state for their protection.  Indeed, since, by the unvarying decisions of this court, the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action, there was nowhere else to look up to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the state, at least until then, might give, modify, or withhold the privilege at its will.”

So, the states were within their rights, as they existed prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that those rights did not, until the Fourteenth was ratified, include the restrictive first ten amendments.  Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court recognized that the Constitution did not apply to the states, so long as they were not in conflict with the Constitution.  Essentially, they are conferring all privileges of those first ten amendments, to those who so qualify, for the protections afforded by the Fourteenth.

The Court continues:

The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise.  There is no doubt of the duty of this court to enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist, and there has been no hesitation in the performance of the duty.  But, whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state, so necessary to the perpetuity of our dual form of government, and changes its relation to its people and to the Union.”

So, the Court recognizes an obligation to “enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist”.  This implies that they are addressing both points, mentioned above.  First, to determine the extent of the authority (jurisdiction of the state) imposed by the Fourteenth; and, Second, to determine to what extent the first ten amendments convey obligations to the state.

The Court continues:

“The defendants contend, in the first place, that the exemption from self incrimination is one of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which the 14th Amendment forbids the states to abridge.  It is not argued that the defendants are protected by that part of the 5th Amendment which provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,’ for it is recognized by counsel that, by a long line of decisions, the first ten Amendments are not operative on the states.”

Twining has asserted that he is of the nature of a “citizen of the United States”, and, therefore, the state may not abridge those “privileges and immunities”.  He has declared a status as a “citizen of the United States”.

The Court then, referring to a previous case (subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment), In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), and citing with the decision of that case, given by Justice Miller, in affirming that there were two classes of citizen.

“The 14th Amendment, it is observed by Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, removed the doubt whether there could be a citizenship of the United States independent of citizenship of the state, by recognizing or creating and defining the former. ‘  It is quite clear, then,’ he proceeds to say, ‘that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

So, this Court is affirming what the Court decided 34 years prior, in that there are distinct differences between the “citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State”.  One case, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and another, three decades later, that affirm the conclusion of just who are “We the People”.  Can there be any doubt as to the existence of a distinction between the two classes?

The Court, after a lengthy discussion of “due process”, concludes:

The decisions of this court, though they are silent on the precise question before us [due process], ought to be searched to discover if they present any analogies which are helpful in its decision.  The essential elements of due process of law, already established by them, are singularly few, though of wide application and deep significance.  We are not here concerned with the effect of due process in restraining substantive laws, as, for example, that which forbids the taking of private property for public use without compensation.  We need notice now only those cases which deal with the principles which must be observed in the trial of criminal and civil causes.  Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.

And, they conclude that the court that has jurisdiction over the parties will prevail in a conflict of interpretation.  Since they leave the interpretation to the state court, there must be an absence of federal jurisdiction in the current case.  The Court sees Twining and Cornell to be state citizens, therefore, not afforded the” privileges and immunities”, meaning that federal jurisdiction fails to include them — an absence of federal jurisdiction.

In affirming that view, the Court said:

“Much might be said in favor of the view that the privilege was guaranteed against state impairment as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, but, as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view.”

They tighten up on that conclusion, to wit:

We do not pass upon the conflict, because, for the reasons given, we think that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the states is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution.

Now, this would not be true if the case involved a party of one state against a party from another state, nor would it be true in the extension of “privileges and immunities” conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment, to “citizens of the United States”.

So, we can conclude that the “citizen of the United States” is a separate and distinct entity than the citizen of a state.  That the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court extends only to those who have been brought into jurisdiction by the Constitution (parties of different states, etc.) or by virtue of they being the subjects brought into that jurisdiction by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, some will say that this case is over one hundred years old, and things have changed, since then.  But, have they?  And, if so, how have they been changed?  I can find no amendment that changes what is presented here, and must suppose that nothing has been changed.

So, in the next Part, we will see if this decision, from 1908, still has merit over half a century later.

* * * * *

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

“We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part I

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 18, 2011

In some research for another article (The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution), I ran across a rather enlightening revelation.  It was, just 60 years after the Constitution, a clear and concise definition of just (and only) who the “We the People”, in the Preamble to the Constitution, really are.

Now, most of us will assume that any citizen of the United States is one of, “We the People”.  I must admit that until recently, I, too, believed this to be the case.

Regardless of the (political) correctness of this assumption, we must understand that the law is what it was intended to be, not what we might want it to be.  There is only one means by which that can be changed, and that is the amendment process defined in Article V, of the Constitution.

So, here is what was revealed to us, by the Supreme Court of the United States, with regard to a definitive answer to the question.  The case is Dred Scott v. Sandford  –  60 U.S. 393 (1856)

As recently as ten years before the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted to the States by the Congress, an historical, and often referred to, case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Scott was born a slave, in Missouri.  As such, he was not a citizen.  His “owner” laid hands on Scott, his wife and 2 children.  Scott sued Sandford for assault.  Scott was awarded his freedom by a Saint Louis County, Missouri, Circuit Court.  The case was appealed to the State Supreme Court and reversed.  The Circuit Court then reheard the case.  Scott made exception to the instructions to the jury.  The jury then ruled against Scott.  Based upon the “Exception”.

The case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.  In its decision (below), the Court pointed out that Scott had claimed to be a citizen of Missouri, which would give him standing to sue Sandford.  It found that though Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, or, of the United States, that standing for the Court to hear the case was based upon the Courts acting on the fact that the question of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court.

You will see that even though Scott had no standing, the Court decided to hear the case, anyway.  If you do not challenge jurisdiction (Sandford’s obligation), the Court may assume jurisdiction, the laws of the land notwithstanding..

Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Excerpts are from that decision.

“That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States, for the reasons therein stated.  If the question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming a citizen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed.  It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us; and that as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error; and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court.

Since the matter of citizenship was not in the plea that brought the matter before the Court, the Court will not rule on Scott’s standing.

However, the Court now finds that it has a forum to define just what a citizen is — a point that had only been addressed in rather ambiguous terms in the Constitution, and not since addressed by the Congress, or the Court.

Taney goes on to ask this important question:

Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?

Further defining the question, he says:

The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States.

While the decision covers many aspects, and many ways, of addressing the question, I will provide only those that are concise and indicative of the sense of the Court and the decision held to.  Remember, as you read, that this decision predates the 14th Amendment.

The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.  The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?  We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

Well, there is an interesting phrase, used in the discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate, “remained subject to their authority”.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union.  It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.  He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State.  For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights.  But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States.  Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States.  Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.  The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.  The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.  Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States.  It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own.  And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endow him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.  And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.”

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

Well, that makes pretty clear who could not be a “citizen of the United States”.  So, let us look, from the other side, at who was a “citizen of the United States”.

“It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.  And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations.  We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Now, clearly, it is those who initiated the fight for independence that are of the class recognized by the Constitution as “citizens of the United States”.  Many have pointed out that one of the first to “die for the cause” was a negro named Crispus Attucks, who was shot to death in the “Boston Massacre”, in 1770.  This, however, in the eyes of the Court, does not qualify him as one of the people — for which the country was intended.

Though the decision of the Court continues to give examples of just how the Court perceived this relationship, I would prefer to not include too many more of the over one-hundred and ten thousand words in the Decision.  There are some words, however, that warrant our attention in fully understanding what was intended by the founding of this nation, and so I will provide these few additional paragraphs:

“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men-high in literary acquirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.  They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.  The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection.  It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen.  It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.  It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary.

Therefore, an attempt to apply the standards upon which this nation was founded to the morality of today, or, even, of 1856, when this case was heard, would be to deny the intention of the founders.  This does not preclude the utilization of the Fifth Article (Amendment Process) of the Constitution to effect change, which was to be partially achieved eleven years later.  It simply explains what a “citizen of the United States” was, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, or not. That will be the subject of the Part II.

* * * * *

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V

How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 16, 2011


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Gary Hunt

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


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

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

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

Again, please pass on to J. T.



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

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

4.  Gary to Jim:

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

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

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

5.  Jim to Gary:

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

6. Gary to Jim:

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

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

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

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

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


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

8. Gary to Jim

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

9. Jim to Gary:

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

10.  Gary to Jim:

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

Walk softly!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution

Fourteenth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution

From the Ratification of the Constitution through today

What affect has it had on the concept of government intended by the Framers of the Constitution; on our Liberties and our Lives; and, is it really what we believe it to be?

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment
and its effects

Gary Hunt

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

For nearly thirty years, I have attempted to resolve a series of questions that are common to the patriot, or constitutionalist, community.  These questions relate to what has happened to the legal system that we were supposed to have adopted, at the time of the formation of this country, based upon both the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776, and, a concept of justice that removed us from the arbitrary control of government.

Over the years, I have listened to what others had to say I have watched their actions to see the results.  I have read cases that seemed to bear on the subject, and, I have “experimented”, when the opportunity to do so arose.

Over time, as will be explained in the following, the pieces seem to fit a pattern.  Rather than trying to wrap the facts around a theory, I developed a theory that fit all of the facts that I could find.  However, in finding that some of the facts were, inexplicably, unwilling to fit any theory, I realized that there must be two theories, and it was a matter, then, of determining which theory fit which facts.

The two outstanding theories, neither of which will recognize the other, are:

  • We are subject to all laws enacted by the government, unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
  • We are subject to no laws enacted by the Congress; instead, we are only subject to the common law.

The two sides (theories) have advocates who faced off with the other side, each insisting that they are right and the other is wrong.  While, in fact, both sides are partially right, and, partially wrong.

* * *

It does, however, appear that many of the intermediate jurisdictions (other than courts), institutions, and even private corporations, believe that the nexus is there, and, that they are bound by such laws they are told to abide by.  They assume that you, too, are bound by such laws.  To argue the point with them is fruitless, and, at best, will only create dissension.  They, too, have been duped, along with most of the people in this country, into believing that which is not true.

It is for the purpose of exposing that deception that the following has been prepared, for your consideration.

* * *

This Essay will provide insight into the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution; the effect that the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination; Court decisions and Congressional enactments have had on our relationship with the government.

You may be sorry after you have read it, but you will understand how the subversion of the Constitution has been achieved.

The entire Essay can be found on line at:

The PDF file can be download from The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – Essay (PDF)


The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government – Abbreviated Version

The following is a much abbreviated version of “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government“. The entire Plan consumes many pages of detail regarding the Plan as well as hundreds of pages of reference materials.

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

The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government

Abbreviated Version
(includes only a few portions of the overall plan)


This Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, as explained in “The Question”, is purely hypothetical.  It is, however, a natural evolution from the “You Have Tread On Me – Petition“, as the Revolutionary War was a natural evolution from the Olive Branch Petition.

In adapting this sequence of events to modern times, it needs to be understood that times have changed and the possibility of a gathering of “revolutionary” delegates in one place would be fatal to the cause.

Understanding this difficulty, the expedient for today is that individuals would sign and submit, to their respective representatives in the federal government, individual petitions as “redress of grievances, as per Article I of the Bill of Rights.

Absent a positive response to the Petition, one could safely conclude that the government had no more intention of addressing the grievances than King George III did.  This, by colonial standards, would put one in a “state of nature” — absent an operating Constitutional government — wherein he, as a free man, has every right to associate with others of similar circumstance.

An earlier article, by the author of this Plan, provides some insight into this aspect of the Founders’ thinking process when they realized that they could no longer live under government that did not recognize their rights (see Sons of Liberty #14).

As you progress through this hypothetical Plan, you will not that there are short sketches (Historical Perspective) that provide a brief example of the historical conditions that can be equated with each part of the Plan.

The Plan, then, is an effort to parallel the activities of the Founders into a theoretical plan that emulates the progression of events, culminating in the creation of the United States of America.

The Plan is made as detailed as expedient for the variety of possible circumstance that might arise.  Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions.  Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.

Often, elements of the Plan call to mind other works by this author, and, works by others, in which cases, links are provided to those works to provide additional insight which might assist in more detailed planning.

The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education.  What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.

G. H.

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

The Question:

A question was raised, a few months ago, in a conversation with a friend.  The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?”  At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task.

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world.  Its navy was master of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world.  It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies.

The colonies had few things working for them.  They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; some had learned to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned fighting tactics used by the Indians.  They had local knowledge of the topography.  And, they had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land that had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: Substantial numbers of highly trained soldiers; Unlimited supplies and resources, although most of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported, this taking months; A multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies; Mastery of the waterways; And, many of the military leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May, and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were.  They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face-to-face on the battlefield.  They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British.  They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle; that skirmishes were the best tactic, unless a major battle had a high degree of probability of being won..  One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with their persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today?  Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants.  There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins.  This is a theoretical answer to that question.

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

Some Thoughts

This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.

The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed.  The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position — that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.

There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict.  Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to “pick the ground” for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.

In the selection of ‘targets’, outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.

Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.

There is also the moral consideration — that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today.  When they make a decision to “target” someone, or, something, they should consider just how the “target” would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions.  The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act.  If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.

On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.

Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the ‘target’, the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.

If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed.

Some considerations for the evaluation of a ‘target’:

  • Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the ‘target’, acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
  • Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
  • If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?

Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient ‘friends” (collaborators) of a foreign power, these ‘friends’ who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered.  The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential ‘targets’.

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

The remainder of the Plan can be found at The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

Or an audio version at Discourse on “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government”


de facto, de jure and Sovereign

de facto, de jure and Sovereign

Gary Hunt
April 1, 2010

A question arose, the other day, as to what is the difference between de facto and de jure.  Both are legal term, though seldom used in normal circles.  However, by their very definition, we can understand that there is a need to understand what they meant.  After all, they have made it into our lexicon because the practices that needed defining existed, and, perhaps, have not yet left us.  So, let’s begin with some definitions:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

de jure  [no definition, see de facto]

de facto.  Actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

de jure.  Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law.  Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title.

de facto.  In fact, in deed, actually.  This phrase is used to characterize an officer.  A government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.

As you can see, de facto is what you see, though there may be underlying difficulties with the legitimacy of what you see.  Though we are not speaking of kings, we can apply the definition to the US government.  It is de facto because it is there, it is in place, and, it claims its legitimacy.

The question as to whether it is de jure is as easily determined.  Is it in obedience to the Constitution, which created it?  If so, it would be de jure.  If not, it would be de facto.

Now, in any situation where there is a question of whether it is de jure or de facto, we must consider who can make the determination as to which answer is correct.

It must be supposed that any king, ruler, or, government in power would presume that it was de jure, whether it knew it was de jure, or, in fact, de facto.  This pretty much precludes the existing from the determination.  To serve itself, it must publically recognize and claim that it is de jure.  Obviously not the right means of determination of which it is.

So, in this country, where the government was created by the people, it must be that source of authority that makes the determination to create such a nation.  That was the case 230 years ago when some of the colonists decided that, since the Parliament had not abided by the British Constitution, it had moved from a de jure government into a de facto government.  At first, to a small few, it was de facto.  As time went on, more and more people realized that the nature of that government was de facto until the breaking point of the recognition of its authority was removed by proclamation (the Declaration of Independence).

Likewise, today, there are many who recognize that the US government, by virtue of its abandonment of the Constitution, is de facto rather than de jure.

Is there any wonder that the government discourages common usage of the terms?  Surely, they would not appreciate our delving into whether a government that has the appearance of legitimacy to be thought of otherwise.

Having enhanced our understanding of de facto and de jure, let’s see what role these words might play in our relationship to government.  we will begin with a visit the definitions of sovereign and sovereignty

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Sovereign, a. 

1.  Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion

2.  Supreme; superior to all others; chief.

4.  Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation.

Sovereign, n 

1.  A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control.

2.  A supreme magistrate; a king

Sovereignty, n.  Supreme power; supremacy; the possession of the highest power, or of uncontrollable power

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Sovereign.  A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested

Sovereignty.  The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived.

Now, this can be perplexing because of what we believe to be and what, by definition, can, or cannot, be.

First is the assumption that “We the People” must be sovereign if we possessed, at the time of the Constitution, the authority to create a government that would take its place in the world of nations, and be recognized as such as any monarchy or other form of government (see “Let’s talk about the Constitution“).  Less than sovereign, we could not have taken so bold a step, nor would we even have the authority, to be recognized as such by the rest of the world, including England.

There can be little question, then, that at the time of the Constitution, we were the Supreme Authority, we were the collective supreme ruler or lord.  Moreover, in the act of creating the Constitution, we subordinated only a portion of that supremacy — only as much as was necessary to conduct the duties of government — to that government that we had created.  The remainder of the supremacy remained with us by virtue of the fact that it was not granted to the federal government, specifically (and therefore cannot be assumed) in the Constitution, and, in clarification, was specifically reserved in both the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

However, something happened along the way that wrested from us an authority that was not intended.  It occurred at the end of the most devastating war that we have ever been involved in, and those divisive ‘representatives’ of the people, some elected and some appointed, foisted an Amendment to the Constitution, under one pretext, to serve another purpose, which has had a far more profound effect, and was intended by the government, but otherwise unknown by the people.  That Amendment is now known as the 14th Amendment, and it created a class of citizen hitherto unknown and unrecognized in this country.  That a new class of citizen was referred to then, and henceforth, as a US citizen (a citizen whose allegiance was to the country, not the republican state that they had previously been allied with).  Prior to that time, any citizen was a citizen of the state of his birth, or of his allegiance, should he remove from that state of origin.

Now, these first citizens (we shall refer to them as State Citizens) were of that class known as “We the People”, while this second class (US citizens) were now subjects of the federal government (see “Two Classes of Citizen“).

So, what happened to the Sovereign nature of those who have accepted the condition of being US citizens?  Well, quite simply, how can one be the master of his own master?  If you have subordinated yourself to the federal government, by the distinguished title of “US citizen”, it is not possible that you can retain the title of Supreme over that government to which you have become subordinate.

On the other hand, if you have retained, or returned to the status of a State Citizen, you have retained, also, that Supremacy, absent only that which was relinquished with the formation of the government by the Constitution, just as those who elected to create such government in 1789.  In this case, you are still the master over the government.


Now, if we put the two elements together (de jure/de facto and Sovereignty), we can develop some rather obvious conclusions.  When we look at the relationship between the government, and ourselves we can determine that if we accept the government as master, then we must also accept the government’s determination of its nature, de jure (legitimate)

On the other hand, if we are sovereign, and have not submitted to that subjugation, and have retained, or returned to, that status as a State Citizen, we can clearly see that the government, by its disobedience to the Constitution that created it, has moved itself into the status of de facto (illegitimate).