Posts Tagged ‘organization’

How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

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

Sunday, June 12th, 2011

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.

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation)

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court

Unlike the common law courts that you hear about, so often, usually in a bad light — as trying to “bring justice” to government officials, the Committee of Safety — Common Law Court (CoS-CLC) is to bring balance to the patriot community.

The Division in the patriot community has, for decades, been our most serious problem.  Perhaps a means to resolve those disputes that lead to division will substantially reduce the problem of division.  This is the idea behind the CoS-CLC.  Suppose there is a name-calling going on between two people.  Others are bound to take sides; generally, it will be the side of a friend or someone who has “your ear” more than the other does.

Unfortunately, such controversy can wreak havoc in portions of the community, often resulting in the disruption, or even dissolution, of an organization.

So, just how can such a problem be avoided?

Let’s suppose that both sides to such controversy are given an equal platform to “air their grievances”.  A platform that will moderate the “debate”, allow evidence to be submitted, both sides being heard, even allowing testimony from witnesses, without any prejudicial intervention.  After all of the evidence is submitted, witnesses heard, and statements made, by both parties, it is turned over to a jury of 12 peers (members of the patriot community) to deliberate and come up with a verdict.

Once the verdict is presented, it will be available for all to read, along with the pertinent portions of the trial.  It will remain as reference, for all who might have questions about either, or both of the parties.

The same can be held for questionable organizations or programs.  All that is required is that someone file a Complaint, and the other party answer.  The CoS-CLC will then begin the process for the “trial”.

All that is needed for this invaluable tool to become available for us it to have members of the community, from as diverse a sampling of Patriots as possible, from all walks of life, from all parts of the country.  This is your chance to have your say, to make your voice be heard, to help rid the infighting, and to provide justice, and vindication or validation for those who have been harmed.

* * *

You can learn more about the Court, and volunteer to serve at

You can visit the Forum where you can discuss Committees of Safety or join in conversation at the Green Dragon Inn (need not be registered), or, see the Courtroom (must register), at

We need volunteers to be judges, jurors, and grand jurors.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see  Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (introduction)]



Introduction to Committees of Safety

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

Introduction to Committees of Safety

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Mayflower CompactIn ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,
the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James
by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,
defender of ye faith, &cHaueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente
of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to
plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe
by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and
one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a
ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=
therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,
constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,
Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie:  vnto
which we promise all due submission and obedience.  In witnes
wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=
Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne
Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth
and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom ·1620·|

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

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

I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe “The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government”. Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself.

However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work.

Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds — all of them).

Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger.

After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area.

As time goes on, these areas become even large, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cities and metropolitan areas).

As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely.

So, if I have been successful in reducing the Plan to a simple and easily conveyed explanation, perhaps you would like to go to The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government,  and download a copy of The Plan.

When you read the Plan, you will see that it is based upon our own history. It is an emulation of the same course taken by our own Founders in securing the colonies that were soon to become the United States of America.

RifleStock 2011

Saturday, January 8th, 2011

RifleStock 2011

RifleStock 2011 has been cancelled.

Effective March 10, 2011

RifleStock 2011

RifleStock 2011 has been cancelled.

For information, see:

RifleStock 2011 Cancellation


RifleStock 2011 – Canceled   A more thorough explanation






The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government – Abbreviated Version

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

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”


Divide and Conquer

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Divide and Conquer

Gary Hunt
August 16, 2009

In War — in battlefield combat, one of the most important strategies, especially if the enemy has superior numbers, is ‘divide and conquer’. Very briefly, it can be explained that if you have a force of 3,000 and the enemy has a force of 4,000, you will probably be defeated in combat. However, if you can cause him to divide his forces into 2 groups, each having about 2,000 men, is beneficial. You have gone from 25% less men, against his entire force, to a 50% advantage over one of the split units. Once the first unit is defeated, the second unit can be attacked, with much better odds than if an attack was made on the entire force, at the onset.

The same is true of the psychological warfare America is embroiled in, today, and the political warfare that has begun to divide the country.

Each unit that advocates an idea, solution, or objective is limited to the number of people in that unit against the joined forces of the Congress; the Executive administration; and, the multitude of Administrative Agencies. The effectiveness of our side is usually diminished further by forces in different states not coordinating their effort; units with the same objective or goal, not working in unison; and, variations of methods of achieving the objective sought.

I have compiled a list of singular objectives that are commonly pursued, today. Bear with me as we look at these issues, and discuss what they will achieve, in the end, if the groups are successful in their pursuit. The items presented are in no logical order, but the primary issues, I hope, are all included.

911 Truth Seekers – the truth seekers – The goal here is to prove that the government was involved in the planning and execution of the events, which destroyed the World Trade Center, and resulted in our involvement in war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though the issues brought up by the group are ambiguous rather than tangible, let us suppose that they convince the majority of the people in this country that the government was involved. What happens then? Will it end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, have they established a totally separate identity from the World Trade Center? If the government does acknowledge culpability, they will throw out a few dogs to be devoured by the press and public, and go on with their evil ways — planning better, in the future.

Problem: Administrative Agencies have too much authority, often independent of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Birth Certificate pursuers – Suppose irrefutable proof of the bastard president’s birth elsewhere (disqualifying him from office) is brought forward. What will Congress and the Courts do? They have a dilemma. Every enactment or document signed by the President becomes void, nunc pro tunc (from the beginning), or, since the task of, say, recovery of the stimulus money approaches impossible, and the undoing of the troop allocations to Afghanistan cannot be undone, what is Congress to do. Nothing –is what they can do. It may cost the President his job. He may be charged with high crimes, and convicted and imprisoned. Who will take his place? The successor would be Joe Biden, as Vice-President, or, John McCain, as runner up in the election. So, you, at best, get a Republican President. Was Bush that much better than the bastard president? Or, are both parties in bed to bring this country to its knees. Remember, the first stimulus package was under Bush

Problem: The Congress has not ventured into qualifying Presidential aspirants, and the Court refuses to look at the matter. There is a qualification in the Constitution, but no direction as to who is to act as the qualifier. Congress has not, as was intended by the Founding Fathers, sought to fill the gap of omission in the Constitution. Congress has let us down.

Audit the Federal Reserve – Suppose there is an audit of the Federal Reserve. What audit standard would apply to an entity as unique as the Federal Reserve? So, first, a standard would have to be developed to assure that the audit provided the desired results. I would suggest that this would first be given to the Treasury Department to propose the standard. I can see Treasury taking a year or two to develop their proposal for a standard. Then, it would go to the Congress who would assign it to committee, and it would be in Congressional committees for at least two years. Once the standard was determined, the audit would be conducted. Most assuredly, at least some of the auditors would be people well versed in the practices and procedures of the Federal Reserve (inside men). Even if the audit, when (if ever) completed showed massive fraud, the result would be to enact laws to prohibit that sort of fraud in the future, and, at best, begin the process of looking for an alternative to the Federal Reserve Act.

Problem:  Congress was outside of its authority when it enacted the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The effect of the subsequent years of entrenchment; loss of GOLD and silver as a means of paying debt; and, the enormous debt that has been created and mostly owed to the Federal Reserve makes a solution under the present system almost impossible. The Congress failed to adhere to the Constitution.

End the Federal Reserve – Even if ended abruptly, the effect on the economy, especially with regard to the National debt, would be devastating. What alternative to both dealing with circulating currency and payment of debt would be implemented to avoid such disaster?

Problem: The Congress abrogated their responsibility under the Constitution and allowed an Administrative Agency (Treasury Department) and a private (foreign) group of investors to control our economy.

Healthcare – Objections to national health care are late, and will do nothing to reduce costs. As has resulted from mandatory (in some cases) healthcare insurance, the costs have escalated because the marketplace was undermined. Once the captive audience (mandatory insurance) was implemented, costs could only go up. If healthcare were left in the free market, there would still be hospitals, doctors, and producers of prescription drugs. They would, however, have to provide their services at prices that were reasonable and manageable. Otherwise, they would have no customers. Absent customers, they would lower their prices, or look for new work. Supply and Demand is the best manager of costs. Supply and Demand allows us, the ”consumers”, to determine what appropriate and acceptable costs are. Once removed from our hands, the value of the service was also removed.

Problem: Congress usurped authority that was not granted by the Constitution, by adopting socialism as a means of buying votes. There is no Constitutional authority to require businesses to provide mandatory health insurance, not is there authority, now, to implement national healthcare.

Continental Congress – The First Continental Congress was called for by the New York Committees of Safety. The other colonies responded, in kind, by agreeing to the Congress. The primary result was the “Non-importation Agreement”, as well as some petitions, and, most importantly, they understanding that the colonies could work together for a common goal. The delegates were either existing members of the respective legislatures who were NOT on the side of the Royal Government, or delegates selected by the various Committees. This was true of the subsequent Continental Congresses. The Congresses were called for by the delegates, not the delegates being called for by the Congress. The current call for a Continental Congress is a small group (though, admittedly, growing) of people who have called for delegates to their Congress. This could never be construed to be an emulation of those first Congresses. Since their line of representation is downward and selective, anything that they do or ask for is nothing more than any other group could do or ask for. It bears no weight, and is not representative of the people or a constituency.

Problem: We have been denied Redress of Grievances, as guaranteed by the Constitution. In desperation, we are seeking ways to regain that right, but it will only come when the Rebel US government returns to its willingness to heed the will of the people.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul has come along and captured the hearts of many of those who believe that the Rebel US government has gone astray. He is right in much of what he says, and those who have adhered themselves to him, are also right in doing so. However, we must think, also, of what effect it would have if Ron Paul were elected President. What would change? The President cannot act without the consent of the Congress. If he does, he places himself in a position to be censured or overruled by the Congress. He has a multitude of administrative agencies to deal with (Over 1000), and most of them have already developed a mind of their own. Alone, or even with as many as one hundred members of Congress on his side, the changes on the nature of government, and the power of the political elite is such that there would be no substantial change in the operation of the government.

Problem: The nature of government has changed to the point that return to the confines of the limitations imposed by the Constitution is nearly impossible. Separation of powers has become ineffective because of the power of the political parties and the political elite.

FEMA Camps – Back in the nineties, a list of alleged FEMA prison camps surfaced and circulated via fax network and other methods that were common. That same list has resurfaced and circulated on the Internet. The list, at least part of it, was bogus. I personally investigated four of the sites and they were not what they were alleged to be. More recently, another list has begun to circulate. It is completely different, though it does mention locations near some of the older lists’ locations. This list may have more truth to it than the previous list. It appears that either bids have been taken, or even contracts let for restoration and/or construction on a number of World War II camps or internment centers. So, what if they are building these camps? What will we do about it? Can they be stopped? Yes, if the new construction is destroyed, but that will simply delay things. Will exposure to the public of the camps service any purpose? Yes, and NO People will be aware of them and maybe resentful that they are being built, but the government will, most assuredly, come up with a plausible explanation that will satisfy at least some, and nothing will be done to change the continuation of what they have already begun.

Problem: An Administrative Agency (FEMA) has been granted extraordinary power, authority and budget funds to ‘prepare for an emergency, whether man-made or natural’.

Codex Alimentarius & Genetically Modified Products (GMP) – The Food and Drug Administration has determined, without anymore than administrative consent from Congress, what is good, and what is bad in our food supply. Once those few people make the decision, regardless of the source or influence behind the idea, it becomes law — and, we have to eat it — unless we grow our own food. Some suggest that we will not be allowed to grow our own food, but that aside, we have lost quality food from retail sources (unless small and local) and, in most cases, cannot even find out, without extensive research, what they have been doing to that food supply. If we get rid of the agency, we still have thousands of food production companies that have implemented the programs, and will be reluctant to withdraw from what they have gotten used to.

Problem: An Administrative Agency (FDA) has been granted extraordinary power, authority and budget funds to decide what we eat, regardless of who benefits and who suffers because of their decisions.

Child Protective (sic) Services – Every state has, under suggestion or pressure from the Rebel US government, established a Child Protective Service, or equivalent. Though the name sounds good, in fact, the agency (with federal funding) has the right to determine whether you are a fit parent, or not. “Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” has become criminal, when applied to disciplining your child. CPS can seize your children without due process of law, and then place them where they see fit. It is likely that some of these agencies have even found that putting children out for adoption can be profitable – beyond the already lucrative government funding. Were we to simply get rid of the agencies (an awesome task, in itself), that will not undo the damage, not the condition, of decades of these agencies affect.

Problem: The government, Congress and administrative agencies in Washington, D.C., have funded and encouraged the establishment of agencies within the states who are ‘legally’ qualified to determine if you are fit parent, or not. This has been destructive of traditional family values upheld in this country for centuries, and has put the state as parent, under color of law, of all children.

Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) – The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by nearly every state, back in the fifties or sixties. Its purpose who to have a set of rules, easily understood and established, with the purpose that consumers would be able to understand their relationship to merchants, lenders, etc., and know where they stood and what their rights were in transactions. It was implemented by being enacted, in near pure form into the statutes of the respective states. There were a number of provisions that, definitely, benefitted the consumer. One was that when you made a payment, the postmark date of that payment had to be accepted as the date of payment by the lender. This has been overridden by the legislatures and now the lender can even hold your payment for a few days before recording it, which often throws the borrower into an overdue status and attaches the penalties that apply to overdue payments. Though beneficial, when implemented, it has become more of a tool for the commercial interests and means by which they can screw us out of penalties, add charges on top of charges, and, generally run the show. This, like CPS, is administered by the states. Congress tends to support the changes to credit cards, with a total disregard for the consumer.

Problem: The Congress had, at first, encouraged enactment and acceptance of the UCC. Then, they turned their backs on the intended purpose and allowed lobbyists to encourage changes that took away the protections and passed laws contrary to the UCC.

Stop the New World Order – This is an admirable goal. However, the question is whether it is achievable? And, if it were achievable, how would we achieve it? There is no doubt that certain identifiable organizations are major players in the effort to create a New World Order. I believe that some organizations, though often included, are not, at least in rank and file memberships, supporters of the effort. Once identified and exposed, do you think anything will change? They sit in their positions of power and influence (backed by their wealth) and dictate what they perceive as the solution to all of man’s problems on earth. We can touch, feel, taste and see the accomplishments that they are making, every day of our lives. The only conceivable way of stopping this effort is to dispose of those who are participants. Let them know that their lives have as little value, or less, than the lives that are lost, every day, because of their programs

Problem: Congress, the Executive, the Courts and all of the principle Ministers of administrative agencies are pawns in the game of world domination. This extends, largely, into the state and local governments. Where that influence is not direct, it is, at least, indirect. So long as there is no accountability for public officials, officers and agents, there is no solution.

Kick Them All Out – So, who will fill their vacancy? Another programmed member of their political party, or the programmed member of the other political party. In the event that you do manage to get a third party candidate in office, it will, more likely, be a lowly office that offers no threat to the establishment power scheme. Further, if against all odds, your third party candidate ascends to a higher and more influential position, you can rest assured that he will either succumb to “the way that it’s done” by trading votes to get some of his items passed, or, being but one or two who vote against bad legislation because they believe it to be bad (Note: many votes are cast against certain programs which already have assured votes for passage, for the sake of impressing their constitutions that they are “not party men”).

Problem: The legislative system in this country, at federal, state, county, and city levels has, with few exceptions, become corrupted and the office is sought for personal gain and influence.

Drug Wars; Medical Marijuana – Drug wars are nothing more than an attention getter and a tool used to demonstrate to the naive portions of the public that government is doing all that it can to get rid of ‘crime’. Of course, there is no victim to the crime, except the person who spends thousands for their lawyers, thousand more in fines, and, perhaps a few years of his life in prison.

Problem: Administrative Agencies have been granted, by the Congress, the authority to enact policies that, a Constitutional Amendment could, only impose less than a century ago. They have also ignored the guarantee of Republican Form of Government [Art IV, Sec 4, Constitution] in the states by allowing their policy to override state enactments and initiatives that have removed penalties for certain drugs and persecuting those who they have managed to license, by removing licenses of those who violate their administrative policies.

Confederate States of America – This group of sincere patriots have endeavored to arise from the past. They have taken the mantle of those who, many years ago, tried to stop them, then beginning to grow, element of Congressional and Presidential tyranny. Though secession was not considered unconstitutional when the New England States met in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814-1815, to, among other things, discuss secession, it was those same states that supported Lincoln in his claim that secession was unconstitutional. Therefore, the most damaging war in our history was conducted to ‘prove’ that secession was unconstitutional. The precedence having been established, just how far do you think that you will get with the current effort?

Problem: Congress and the Executive have, in effect, revised the Constitution effectively outlawing any attempt to remove oneself from the compact. Once in, you are stuck. There is no way out of the corrupted influence of government by secession.

American Party; Constitutional Party; Libertarian Party; Christian Conservatives – In terms of any of these entities achieving any successful political advancement, they are little more than any social organization. Though it may feel good to be among people who think like you, the ability to effect any change within the current political structure with a new party is non-existent.

Problem: The Congress has managed to manipulate the electoral and election processes to remove, or reduce to insignificant, the possibility of a challenging third party to achieve even a modicum of success.

Show me the Law (IRS – income tax) – Though there are a number of reasons why the Income Tax, as applied, is illegal or unconstitutional, there are many who have ended up in prison, or dead, in their efforts to avoid this unlawful imposition on our lives. To their credit, probably millions do not pay Income Taxes. Will this change anything other than how much of what one earns they are allowed to retain? It absolutely will not. With all of those who have moved out of the system, there has still been no substantial change to the nature of imposition and collection of this tax. The government needs the tax, the benefits, and deductions so that they can ‘social engineer’ the society. It has nothing to do with the government’s need for the money, and everything to do with ‘teaching us that they control our very lives’.

Problem: Congress has given an Administrative Agency (IRS) power over our lives, without regard to the Constitutional restrictions on taxation.

Freedom Communities – Wonderful ideas, in concept. Live amongst those with like minds. They will only serve as indefensible enclaves, if the government ever chooses to crack down and arrest resistors. They are quite capable of becoming their own prisons.

Problem: Congress has extended its authority beyond the scope allowed by the Constitution, and encroached upon the domains that were preserved to the States.

State Sovereignty – In the nineties, 17 states adopted sovereignty resolutions. To my knowledge, they were never rescinded. Today, states, once again, are adopting sovereignty resolutions. Most of them were the same states that did so, back in the nineties. Though nice proclamations, they end up having no merit. Whether they were passed out of sincerity, or to ‘convince’ the citizens of the respective states that they would not succumb to federal pressure, they failed then, and they will, most likely, fail now. States have relinquished their authority, under the Constitution, for contributions of money from the federal agencies. They have sold us down the drain. When we object, they pass resolutions as pacification, but will still continue to take the greenmail that is offered by the Rebel US government. If these resolutions passed, and then are forgotten we cannot expect the states to be a viable part of our efforts to restore the government to its proper role.

Problem: The federal government usurped constitution powers to control the states, and then bought the states into submission.

State Citizen (National) – A valid exercise that, when completed, frees you from US citizenship. Once freed, however, you have to be vigilant and careful. A misstep may land you in jail, or worse. If you manage to establish your credential in your home community, you will have to repeat the education of law enforcement and judicial officers, when you leave you local area. This will be a perpetual battle for Rights retained by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If millions were to adopt this status, what would change regarding the other evils of government?

Problem: The unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, allowed by the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, created a fictional relationship between our public servants and ourselves. The effect was to make them master and us the servant.

North American Union – If we do not stop the North American Union, we will be like the European Union and we will have foreign trucks and drivers driving through our country. Yep! Even if you do manage to stop it, how long do you think it will be until the steam goes out and it gets started, again?

Problem: Congress has, many times before, relinquished or sovereignty in favor of foreign alliances that do not come under the heading of “Treaty’, as the Founding Fathers perceived it. NATO, SEATO, United National, NAU, all of them are just car on a train toward one world government.

H1N1 vaccine – This subject has generated a disproportionate amount of debate. The facts appear to suggest that the ‘outbreak’ and the ‘death rate’ are substantially lower than many other sources of disease/death. This brings in to question (suspicion) the insistence of a vaccine. Quite simply, take the vaccine, or don’t take the vaccine.

Problem: The Administrative Agencies, in conjunction with United Nations agencies have determined a course of action to be implemented (forced) upon the American people. This application seems to be inconsistent with the facts, but there is no recourse (Redress of Grievances), as provided for by the Constitution).

Illegal immigration/aliens; Border protection – Our borders, especially the southern border, have become sieves which allow illegal entry (invasion) into the United States sovereign lands. This breech of responsibility by the federal Administrative Agencies required by law to enforce immigration laws has allowed access, without the security that is required even for legal entry, to our country by workers, drug dealers, criminal elements, and very probably terrorists. In the meantime, for the first time in our history, American citizens are required to have a passport and go through extensive security to return to their own country, from visits to Mexico and Canada.

Problem: Administrative Agencies, by the policy and failure to enforce existing law, provide a fertile ground of activity that is in conflict with our professed Foreign Policy. Since both foreign policy and execution of the laws of the land fall in the Executive Branch of government, there is an apparent conflict within that branch which can be demonstrative of nothing less than contempt for the laws of the land.

Education – Public Education has its foundation in this country prior to the Revolution. It has been held that an educated citizenry would be watchful of abuses by government. The concept, as implemented and conducted for over a century was that local school boards: raised revenue through ad valorem taxes; determined curriculum based upon the needs of the community; provided facilities for the purpose of education; received all of Section 16 in the Western lands (the only participation by the federal government); and, hired instructors to provide the education to the students. As time went on, the federal government created a new cabinet position (Administrative Agency) for Health Education and Welfare. Over e few decades, nearly all of the authority for the above listed responsibilities evolved to absolute control by the federal government.

Problem: An Administrative Agency has displaced community, county, state, and family from the determination of what their children will be taught. They have controlled who may teach; what material can be used to teach; and extended their control to matters outside of the realm of education.

Homeschooling – Public education was, historically, ‘”made available”. This left the parents of children to decide whether they want to allow their children to attend public school,; be taught at home (homeschooling); or, receive no formal education, at all. The state stepped in, first, to make education mandatory (truant officers). Now, many states have imposed their guidelines on what qualifications, what material and what guidelines parents must adhere to, if they choose to educate their own children.

Problem: State and federal Administrative Agencies have remove much of the responsibility that God gave to the parents, with regard to the rearing of their children, so that they can be indoctrinated in the ways of the government’s choosing.

Abortion – Abortion is a moral issue. It is not a federal matter, but is, or was, in the purview of state and/or local government. That is the nature of the Constitution, as understood by the Founding Fathers. Federal crimes were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, and, those that were passed in accordance with Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113]. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting, said, ” 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… in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion… 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.”

Problem: The Supreme Court has become a legislative authority in their country. It has used its position of power to aid in the usurpation of both state and individual rights, reverting the people to the roll of subjects, as they were under British rule.

Eminent Domain – Eminent Domain has a long history in our English heritage. Eminent Domain was the means by which the entire community could be served with roads, canals, and other necessities for common use. It has been used for private gain, aided and abetted by city and county governments, since at least the 1960s. Its original intent is a benefit to the community, though the many of current applications are motivated by greed.

Problem: The courts, from local to supreme, have ignored the history and intent of the law by allowing ‘reinterpretations’ of previous cases (stare decisis). If the courts are allowed to change the meaning of a word or phrase top obtain their desired conclusion in a case, the will, by such action, remove Justice entirely from the courtroom.

Congress not reading the bills that the vote for – It has always astounded me the Congress seems to find more new need for legislation, every year. Over 3,000 pieces of legislation are enacted, every year. One would think that, if what Congress did to solve problems worked, there would be less need for new laws rather than more. Perhaps understanding, as they have recently admitted, that they do not read the laws that the pass, we can understand why things are getting worse rather than better.

Problem: Congress, whether a Senator or a Representative, is elected and paid to do a job for his constituency. That job is to represent our interests. Regardless of recent flagrant disregard with respect to spending, answering questions about why they support something, and, there general unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their action, it would seem that enacting laws because someone told them that they were good law (and, we don’t have any idea who told them), is as far away from “representation” as one could possibly imagine.

Balance the Budget – There has been for years an effort to force the federal government to ‘balance the budget’. Let’s just suppose that they did. The budget would of necessity, include debt service (payments on interest, and, hopefully, substantial amounts to reduce principal), along with the necessary expenses to conduct the business of government. Even if the operating expenses of the government were reduced to minimal, when added to the debt service, the amount required to continue the conducting of government would be well beyond the means of the current sources of revenue. This would require imposing a tax that would be unbelievable, and totally unacceptable to most Americans.

Problem: The debt is increasing at an alarming rate because Congress and the Executive have determined that if they want it, they will buy it. Consider that the debt, right now, is in excess of $38,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Congress and the Executive have dug a hole so immense that it is nearly impossible to get out of it.

Militia (Civilian Defense) – Militia have been actively forming and then disbanding for the past 15 years. They generally participate in some combat training, establish a chain of command, and then get bored with their actions. There are some, however, who have retained their character. They, the ones that have stood the test of time, have also acknowledged that the Militia is subordinate to the civil authority. At this point in our history, that civil authority is the governor of the state in which the militia is formed. Similarly, the colonial militia were subordinate to the Royal Governor and to their local Committee of Safety, if they had one. The necessity was different, then. Indians were a major concern. The Committees would also establish night watchmen if the community might be subject to Indian attacks. Much of the activity of the militia was totally without knowledge of the Governor, and the right to bear arms, though unwritten, was without question.

Problem: The Rebel US government has done everything that they could to delegitimize the militia. Most states have followed suit, even to the point of trying to redefine militia as the National Guard. Most states, however, retain laws which make all able-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 45 (may vary from state to state) members of the militia, and require no registration.

Committee of Safety – There is an effort afoot that is attempting to build Committees of Safety from the top down, much like the Continental Congress (above). They claim that all of the Committees were composed of existing legislators. They have, however, put the cart before the horse. Their page refers to a book by Agnes Hunt about the Provincial Committees of Safety. These colony level Committees came long after the original Committees had called for and conducted the Continental Congresses. The Provincial Committees of Safety, for the most part, came after the Declaration of Independence. The foundation for organization, leadership, and, equipping of the militia came first from the local Committees of Safety. Relief for the people in Boston, during the embargo, was provided by the local Committees of Safety. They were, without a doubt, the foundation of the American Revolution. They were not supporters of candidates, nor did they support issues. They were a single focus group that was intent on providing guidance to the community for its own defense and well-being.

Problem: Through the educational process and the qualifying of text books, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has managed to relegate, nearly to oblivion, the role played by the Committees of Safety. They have attempted to destroy any understand of true Grass Roots Activism, by so doing. The problem is — we do not have any Committees of Safety upon which we can depend for lawful guidance of our activities, should the need arise.

In reviewing the above issues, and realizing what the outcome of each will provide as a result, we can see that we are facing myriad task, none, or few of which will result in more than a very singular accomplishment — which might easily lead us down another path to pursue.

If the particular objective is reached and the results are adequate, this leaves us only to join another battle.

If, after years of effort, a battle, which has been waged, is won, leaving no residual to encumber us into a continuation of that battle, we can choose another battle to pursue.

However, who is to believe that if a battle is won, finally and decidedly, that another objective will not appear to take its place.

If a New World Order, dominated by a few, against the many, is truly being waged, the tactic of ‘divide and conquer’ will surely be continued. It will drain our resources from now to eternity, if we choose to pursue our goal, one issue at a time.

The division of our forces is inherent in the struggle that we are pursuing. Each, due to his personal ideology, has chosen one, or another, of the objectives, and is willing to give 100%, not realizing the futility of success, once the battle is completed.

If our forces are so divided as to assure the success of the New World Order, we are only passing time until, battle completed, or not, we realize that failure is the only course that we have pursued.

Is there an alternative course that can achieve all of the objectives?

If we were in a battlefield where an effort was made to divide the forces, giving advantage to the enemy, we would, if our objective was to win and we had superior forces, refuse to divide our force. The enemy would have anticipated being successful in creating the division (as they most certainly believe to be the case), and would not anticipate an all out attack on their main base, leaving them divided simply by believing that we were divided.

In this psychological, or, political war that we are engaged in, what strategy would overcome the division that has given such an advantage to the enemy? Could it be to concentrate our forces in a single issue (of those above mentioned)? Most assuredly, it would be unsuccessful, since even though that battle may be won, it would only lead us to the next battle. Each battle fatiguing us even more, as we trudge through dozens of issues, and leaving the door open for the creation of even more issues to string along our forces until exhaustion and frustration finally lead us to accept defeat.

Where could we concentrate our efforts to expect that we could ‘attack their headquarters’ and achieve success on all fronts?

Unfortunately, in this world of rapid and advanced communication, their headquarters are spread all over the world. There are, however, many identifiable ‘sub-headquarters’ where their leaders work, meet, relax, or live.

If we were to begin an effort to attack them on terms that were advantageous to us, rather than them, we would begin by going to these locations and finding the culprits. We would tar and feather them, and we would destroy the buildings that they used to enjoy that which they have reaped from our toil.

Yes, they will arrest us for doing such things. They have established a support base (police, courts, etc.) to protect them, since they realize that the Founding Fathers did not face such protection for the taxmen and politicians of the day. However, arrest is a small price to pay for the goal that we seek. And, if the juries are fully informed, there will be no convictions.

Create such discomfort and generate fear in their hearts, and, perhaps, they will find another country to plunder. It is for us to take back our country, and, in so doing, all of the problems enumerated above, along with the dozens unmentioned, will be capable of solution by We the People.

If we take to heart the last two mentioned items (Committees of Safety and Militia), we can begin forming a substitute government (as did the Founding Fathers), which, once installed as the true Government of the United States, we can dispense with the problems, one after another.

Would we rather pay lip service to George Washington? Or, would we rather do that which is necessary to achieve the removal of a despotic government? He was willing to do what was necessary to expel those who resisted allowing freedom and liberty to prevail in the land. He supported those peaceful efforts, when there was hope for them to succeed. When peaceful methods had convinced the Founding Fathers that they would be of no avail, the efforts were stepped up, as necessary, to force the hand of the despotic government. Retreat was not in the dictionary. How extensive an effort would be required was unknown, and every effort was made to escalate only to the extent necessary. The desire of the despots to retain control was the force that was needed to compel the colonists to risk all, when all else had failed.

We have tried petitions. We have tried demonstration. We have been ignored by those in power for every effort we have exerted. Perhaps, now is the time to extend our efforts into a minimal physical effort. Create displeasure and discomfort of those in power, and those who support them. In addition, we must be sincere and thorough, for if we fail in this effort, there remain but two choices – Victory by force of arms, or, defeat by failure to be willing to commit to the cause.

view Divide and Conquer on line

download a PDF of this article Divide and Conquer (PDF)