Liberty or Laws?

Justice or Despotism?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 10, 2017

When the colonies severed their allegiance to England, in 1776, through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, they had to have some form of law upon which to deal with matters, both criminal and civil.  To do so, they adopted the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776.  This, then, became the foundation of laws upon which both the federal government and state governments began the process of developing their judicial systems.

What is important to understand is that the laws that they adopted were concerned with Justice.  For example, though Webster’s 1828 dictionary has no definition of “judicial”, an adjective, it does have one for that body that is responsible for that function of government, the Judiciary:

JUDI’CIARY, n.  That branch of government which is concerned in the trial and determination of controversies between parties, and of criminal prosecutions; the system of courts of justice in a government.  An independent judiciary is the firmest bulwark of freedom.

Through our history, there have been legal scholars who stand well above the current lot, in that their concern for justice was paramount in their considerations, and the subject of much of their scholarly writings.

Perhaps the best known of these legal scholars was Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), and his seminal “Blackstone’s Commentaries.  From Book 1 of those Commentaries, we find some familiar phraseology:

“[A] subordinate right of every Englishman is that of applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries.  Since the law is in England the supreme arbiter of every man’s life, liberty, and property, courts of justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein.”

“And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property.”

Of course, personal security is best defined as “life”, as without it, we have nothing.  And, Blackstone used the common term, “property”, as did most of the declarations of independence that predate Jefferson’s more poetic version.

What else did Sir Blackstone tells us about justice that was of extreme importance then, and should be equally so, now.  When he discusses Felony Guilt, he states his understanding and then refers to another scholar, Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), from Book 4:

“Presumptive Evidence of Felony.  All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.  Sir Matthew Hale lays down two rules: (1) Never to convict a man for stealing the goods of a person unknown, merely because he will not account how he came by them; unless an actual felony be proved of such goods.  (2) Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter, till at least the body be found dead.”

This subject can easily be set aside by the government simply stating that “times have changed”, since Blackstone wrote the Commentaries in the 1760s.  However, that discounts the fact that justice cannot change, only the misapplication of justice can change.  That latter is quite simply defined as injustice.

The Constitution provided two means by which the constitutionality of a law could be challenged.  The first, found in Article I, § 9, clause 2:

. Continue reading ‘Liberty or Laws – Justice or Despotism’ »

Independence Day 2016

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, in the year of our Lord, 2016, and of Our Independence, 241

“But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.”

Thus wrote John Adams, to his wife Abigail, on July 3, 1776. The Independence from Britain had been approved the day before he wrote to Abigail, yet the final wording of the Declaration of Independence wasn’t completed and its final form wasn’t approved until July 4, 1776.  John Hancock did sign the document on July 4, though it was many months later when the final signatures were affixed thereto.

Now, 240 years after those men were willing to “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”, most have lost sight of what their intentions were, what was created from their fortitude, and what so many have died in the cause of, until recently.

Six years ago, I set out to identify what that Declaration would look like, today, should we, once again, cast off the yoke of despotism. I did not refer to it as a declaration of independence, rather, as a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, since we still have a Constitution, and there is no government that we want independence from — only a return to the limitations imposed upon that government by the Constitution that created it.

The grievances that were set forth in that document were as follows: Continue reading ‘Independence Day 2016’ »

Burns Chronicles N^o 8
Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots

image © 2016 Militia News

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 16, 2016

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution’ it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies”.

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson      August 24, 1815.

I believe that Adams’s description of the Revolution, being the period in which the populace transitioned from faith in government to distrust of government, is probably appropriate for the 18th century as well as today.

Since Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas, we have seen a very substantial change in the attitude of large portions of our people, with regard to the government. The recent murder of LaVoy Finicum, with the full knowledge that those who murdered him will have absolute and complete protection from the government, is indicative of that distrust. The question, however, is not about that distrust, rather, which of us are truly Patriots, and which are only pretend patriots?

There was a transition, 241 years ago, where those who were loyal to the Crown and presumed that they would never fight against their government, found a moment in time had come to decide as to whether to maintain that obedience to the government, or take up arms against it.

On April 19, 1775, that time had come. Those within a reasonable distance of Lexington and Concord, thousands of them, picked up their arms and ventured out into the beginning of a struggle that would last for another six years. They left home and family, not knowing if they would ever return. They crossed the line, not because of what had happened to them, but rather what had happened to their neighbors, many of them from other colonies.

As word spread through the other colonies, many thought the problem was only between Massachusetts and the Crown. In time, they realized that the violation of the British Constitution and the loss of their “Rights of Englishmen” were in jeopardy, just as in Massachusetts. They, then, chose their course. They became Active Patriots.

The passive patriots that had not bought or drunk tea were split. Some became Active Patriots, while others remained passive patriots, throughout the Revolutionary War.

We are at that point in our history where we are facing quite similar circumstances. Some have already become Active Patriots, while others, though appearing to be active patriots, are, in fact, passive patriots, or worse.

The passive patriot simply needs to sit back and watch the world go by. Perhaps he might express support for the Active Patriots, or for their cause, or even make contributions to that cause, financially, or otherwise. But at best, he is a sideline supporter. Some might be more active by participating in interim forms of government, such as Committees of Safety.

Some of those passive patriots went to Burns, Oregon, recently. They were willing to demonstrate, carry signs, sound off in public meetings, and show support for those Active Patriots who had taken a step in Civil Defiance by opening the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration area to the public.

Of course, the Active Patriots went armed; the Second Amendment does provide for the “security of a free State”, which they had declared the Refuge to be. However, they made clear that the arms were solely for self-defense, and those who had the opportunity to visit the Refuge during these events found that the people inside were peaceful, unoffending, and courteous to all who visited them. They were not the haughty bureaucrats who normally occupied those buildings. And, those who visited them, without nefarious thoughts on their minds, were clearly passive patriots.

Now, there is a third side to this equation. We don’t find them in the historical context. But, we find them in proliferation in our current era of “revolution”. These are the ones that would have traveled to Concord to discourage colonists from firing on the Redcoats, diverted them to another activity (perhaps carrying signs or pitchforks), or perhaps even have told the British what the Active Patriots were up to.

Today, however, they are comprised of people who want to take charge; they want to control the situation; they may even want to help save the lives of Active Patriots by convincing them to submit to arrest. And, they will tell others that they were simply trying to avoid any bloodshed — even after blood had been shed. Let’s refer to them as false patriots. (See The Burns Community)

Those who went to Concord knew that blood was to be shed. The idea is to shed the blood of the enemy, and endeavor to keep your own from being shed, however, that consequence was a part of the effort.

During the course of events in Burns, there were many who contacted me, and others, asking whether the time had come. These were Active Patriots, simply waiting for that day we all know was coming, but not wanting to simply go to an event (Sugar Pine Mine; Montana Big Sky Mine) and camp out, away from family and digging into their own purses to act out a role. They really wanted to know if the British had fired on colonists, and if the colonists were going to fire back.

Some went to Burns. Some remain, and some have since left. They were insufficient in number to have any effect, because the false patriots had done everything that they could to divert as many as possible in the wrong direction.

If others are ready to go to a barricade and protest, or possibly for other purposes, they might divert them to over fifty miles away in a gesture of sympathy for a life lost. So, let’s look at the three, and put them in rather simple terms.

Active Patriot — One who is ready and willing to take up arms, regardless of costs, affect on family, or fortune, and is committed to the cause to that extent. These would properly be considered the real III% that are willing to take up arms.

Passive patriots — These are those who will go to varying extent to support the Active Patriot, by any number of means. They are the support every army needs, and they do so, willingly. Often, their activities might put their lives at risk, but that is inconsequential to the completion the efforts that they have begun. Time and money are their primary contributions. These are the Supporters of the III%.

Finally, we come to the false patriot. His actions tend to support the enemy, whether through disruption, diversion, intelligence gathering (frequent communication with the enemy), and often the attempt to discredit or ridicule those who are of the other classes. These people are not patriots; rather, they are, in fact, simply false. In years past, they would be referred to as “culture vultures” or “patriots for profit”, if their concern was primarily their monetary gain. However, others might be more accurately defined as “snitches”, “informants”, “spies”, or worse.

Since we have progressed from Civil Disobedience, where one might get arrested and spend a few hours or days in jail, to Civil Defiance, where we stand, firmly, against the enemy, and endeavor to turn the continued encroachment of our rights, then we can fully expect that the time will come, soon, in which the line is drawn and the point of no return has been reached. It behooves us to identify which role our neighbors will take. If they are to be Active Patriots, or passive patriots, then we are in need of both. However, if they are false patriots, then they need to be excluded from any aspect, no matter how mundane, of our work. They need to be expelled from our community, for they serve no useful purpose, except that purpose which serves the enemy.

Burns Chronicles N^o 4
Stand Up; Stand Down

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 7, 2016

On the morning of January 26, 2016, I traveled to the Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), formerly known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, from Burns. I had arranged to get the necessary information for some articles I intended to write.

When lunchtime came, I went to the mess hall. The Sharp Family had just begun with one of their songs, and I saw Ammon Bundy sitting with others at a corner table. I walked up and asked if I could sit at that table, and Ammon, graciously said, “Yes, please sit down.”

I had spoken with Ammon a number of times, in the months prior, though we had never met. As I introduced myself, I realized that he had been looking forward to our meeting, as I had.

We discussed the stories I intended to write, and he was fully supportive of the story lines, especially the one that would be about the people of Burns and their reactions to certain events, both in and out of town.

Before I left, the Sharps began another song. I had heard audio tapes of their singing during the Bundy Affair, but they didn’t compare to the live performance I heard that day.

After lunch, I located Ryan Payne. We had spent over a week together in November finishing a PowerPoint Presentation for Committees of Safety (CoS). This presentation had been used to explain the concept of CoS to some of the residents of Harney County. They then formed their own Harney County Committee of Safety.

I gave Ryan an inscribed copy of a biography of Robert E. Lee, which now still sits where he placed it. I had also forgotten to bring long johns, and needed some bottoms. Ryan went to the storeroom and retrieved a pair, explaining that they were from the delivery made through III Percent Patriots, just a few weeks before.

Both Ammon and Ryan had expressed their interest in the upcoming meeting at John Day, Grant County, and another meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer. Little did we know, then, what was soon to come.

I returned to my room in Burns and began writing. About an hour later, I received a phone call that reported that there had been a shooting and that LaVoy Finicum and Ryan (later to learn it was Ryan Bundy, not Ryan Payne) had been shot. About 15 minutes later, after some confirmation of the shooting, I headed back down to the HCRC. Realizing that most of the leadership at the HCRC was traveling to Grant County, and recognizing that it was imperative that some additional forces might be necessary to retain the public lands open to the public, I picked up my role of Public Relations for OMD. We had previously discussed and approved a call out to bolster the efforts at the HCRC. We felt there was time to prepare a call out, but suddenly, that call out became imperative.

I contacted my team (not a part of OMD, rather some wonderful, unpaid, people that assist me in research, audio/video editing, and other mundane tasks) and began dictating a call out, as I drove the thirty-three miles to the HCRC. Though not properly proofread, it was prepared and the remaining requirement was to get affirmation from those at the HCRC — that they wanted their forces supplemented.

Upon my arrival, I found a number of team leaders and other higher-level members discussing the shooting, the determination to hold their ground, and a refusal to accept orders from outside. It seems that a lot of people calling the individuals tried to talk them into abandoning their mission. I asked if they wanted a call out, and to a man, they said, “Yes”. So, I instructed my team to spread that dictated call out around the Internet. It was sent out at 7:56 PM PST, January 26, 2016:

From Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom in Burns, Oregon.
Attention all Oathkeepers, Idaho Three Percenters, Pacific Patriots Network, especially Brandon Curtis, Joe Rice, Eric Parker, and Stewart Rhodes.

This is a call-out to the membership of Operational Mutual Defense (OMD) and friends.

You have an obligation to proceed to the Harney County Resource Center (the wildlife refuge), immediately, in order to protect the patriots still there. If you fail to arrive, you will demonstrate by your own actions that your previous statements to defend life, liberty, and property were false.

To members of Operation Mutual Defense, this is an emergency. The purpose of Operation Mutual Defense is to respond to overbearing actions by the federal government that has become threatening to life, liberty, or property. Lavoy Finicum has been murdered by the FBI, and Ryan Payne [Bundy] has been shot.

They were en route to a meeting where had been invited by the Grant County sheriff to address the citizens in Grant County, a peaceful mission.

The time for all good men to come to the aid of their country has come — to the Harvey County Resource Center, which is 30 miles south of Burns, Oregon.

Stand by your oath. God Bless America.

You will note that it was directed at certain organizations present in Burns since January 2, or earlier. Though we didn’t know what the government’s next step would be, time was of the essence. There were a number of members of those organizations just 30 miles away, and they were absolutely necessary if the HCRC was to be held. They were present in order to discourage a “Waco type” raid, according to all of their public statements.

In my haste to get to the HCRC, I had failed to take my computer. I had mail lists that went to upwards of 800 people, and getting the call out to them was imperative. The “hot spot” at the refuge was no longer active, but efforts were being made to get it reestablished, so I opted to return to Burns to get my computer. When I returned to HCRC, I learned that women and children, as well as many of the men, especially from those organizations, had left. However, there was hope that they would soon be replaced by some of those who had been staying in town.

I had stopped at the bridge on Sodhouse Lane (the road to the HCRC) where a front-end loader had been placed on the bridge to prohibit traffic. Jason Patrick was there, as was a wonderful “young” lady named Barbara Berg. I found that the hotspot had not been restored, so I decided to wait in the press area (west of the bridge) and assist Jason in coordinating interviews with the various press. This task ended up going until about 7:45 the morning of the 27th.

Shortly before, a press crew had come in and said that a roadblock had been set up on SR 205, the direct route to Burns and the last of the available roads out from the area. They had been told that once you go out, you could not return.

At about 7:45, a lady from ABC called the press together and explained that she had received a call from the FBI. They had told her that there were “armed forces” on each side of us, and that the FBI could not provide for anyone’s safety, unless they left the area.

About that time, a friend called and said that she had been told that I would be assassinated when I left. I knew that the government did not like my writing, but I shrugged off the warning. However, that message remained in my mind and created a bit of apprehension.

I had intended to go to the Narrows (restaurant, store, and campground) about six miles west and cover what I could from there. Instead, I decided that I might be better off returning to Burns, though I was still a bit anxious about the message. I determined to place discretion ahead of valor, and return to Burns.

I asked one of the press members who I had spoken with, before, if I could leave with him so that there was someone present if the rumor were true. He said that he could not ethically do so, but informed me that he would be leaving shortly.

Most of the press proceeded to the Narrows, where he and I also went. When he was ready to leave, I pulled out behind him. At the stop sign, he remained conspicuously longer than necessary, so I pulled around him as he nodded at me.

As I approached the checkpoint, I saw that the woman in front of me had gotten out of her car, held up her hands, and walked toward the motioning agent. I was behind her about 50 feet, where the first stop was implemented. I removed my bulky jacket, not wanting to appear to have any place in which to hide weapons.

Finally, her car was driven forward by an agent, and I was motioned to the next stop. I arrived with head and hands out the window, except to the extent that I had to steer the truck. I then exited, walked across the road, then forward, hands raised, to the awaiting agent. I was patted down, asked my name, did I have weapons, and showed identification. He asked if I was press, I told him yes, he asked for my press credentials, I told him they were on the dashboard of my truck. Another agent verified that they were there.

Then, on to what was referred to as “Clearance #1”, where I was again questioned. By then, I was shivering; perhaps both from cold and apprehension, and the agent asked if I wanted a coat out of the truck. I affirmed, and as the agent drove my truck by, I was able to retrieve both coat and hat.

My truck, again, left me, and I was escorted up to “Clearance #2”, where I stood and talked with the agent. He was from the mid-west, and I asked him where he was staying. He said he had just arrived and immediately went on duty.

Finally, he received a report that I had passed clearance at #2, and I was allowed to go to my truck and drive up to “Clearance #3”.

At #3, I found that the agent was from “up north”, and had not stayed in Burns. So, it appears that they were deployed from their home bases directly to duty. This would explain why there were so few battle dressed agents staying in Burns or at the airport.

While waiting for my final clearance, the reporter behind me was passed through, drove around me and up the road. About 600 feet up, he stopped, and both he and his partner got out and took pictures, showing that I was still alive at Clearance #3, and the last of the checkpoints.

However, his passing me was a cause for apprehension. This was heightened when the next vehicle behind him was cleared and drove by me. I had been at #3 for almost twenty minutes, when I was finally cleared when he repeated what had been transmitted through his radio, “White hat is cleared”, and allowed to continue on toward Burns. A total of fifty minutes, filled with rising anxiety, and finally relief.

I had agreed to an interview with a reporter, in exchange for lunch, but first, I had to attend a press conference at eleven o’clock. After the press conference, we did the interview, and I returned to my room and a mountain of phone calls. After returning the calls, I was finally able to, after 34 hours, lie down and get some sleep.

When I awoke, I found that nobody had shown up at the HCRC to bolster the force, and even worse, that more had left. Concerned that many might be driving toward Burns, and not sure how long the few remaining there (down from the 8 or 9 that had been there at last report), I realized that circumstances, as they were, could not be improved by additional people arriving, with no place to report to, and the final door being shut. That 12-hour window when people could easily enter the area was closed. So a stand down was in order. I sent out the following at 9:21 PM PST January 27, 2016.

From Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom
In Burns, Oregon

Based on existing circumstance, support is too late, and would be dangerous, or at least result in your arrest if you attempted to get into the Refuge.

As I left the Refuge, this morning, troops were still arriving, according to those I talked with were arriving from various points as far east as Iowa, and further north. They appeared to have been staged at their home bases until they deployed directly to their field assignments. My estimate of perimeter troop strength would be 200-300, and one of these that I spoke with explained that he was “external perimeter”; they had even developed a protective perimeter concept, so that there were two lines that had to be overcome to gain entry.

At this point any effort to provide support for those inside by joining them would serve no useful purpose, and would be a fool’s errand.

OMD is currently working with others to establish a foundation upon which to build, so that the work begun in freeing public lands can be completed.

Timothy McVeigh v. Lon Horiuchi

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 30, 2015

From time to time, on Internet radio shows or various discussions, I am accused of supporting Timothy McVeigh. This accusation has been leveled more frequently, of late, including from an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), in opposition to a series of articles I have been writing.

This recent case, consistent with some of the previous accusations, are responses born of the inability of the other side to offer any viable refutation to arguments I have set forth. This is most commonly known as argumentum ad hominem. It is more accurately and understandably described as, ‘if you can’t counter the argument attack the messenger’.

First, understand what I have said –that has been converted to a simple and blanket “support for Timothy McVeigh”. I have always said that I am supportive of McVeigh’s motivation for bombing the Murrah Building. After all, for the two years since Waco, as I traveled the country, I heard many patriots say that we should bomb a government building. I still stand behind that, though I always qualify that support, explaining that if it were my job to do, I would have done it differently. I would have bombed the building at night. However, McVeigh had to make the call, as it was his mission. And, though little known, he did explain why he bombed it in the daytime. He offers his explanation in an article he wrote, “An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh“, and goes into more detail in “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“.

I have also written my assessment of McVeigh and the bombing in “The Passing of the Torch“.

This most recent accusation, from an AUSA, someone who is “supporting” the FBI in the case he is prosecuting, brings to mind a consideration of who he “supports”.

There was an FBI sniper present at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in support of the government’s effort to put down a man, Randy Weaver, who had refused to turn informant for the government. This sniper, Lon Horiuchi, from just a few hundred feet away, managed to miss his claimed target and hit a mother, Vicki Weaver, holding her infant child in her arms, and killing her instantly. The Rules of Engagement, later determined to be unlawful, provided that snipers could shoot any male holding a firearm. Vicki was, without any doubt, not of the male sex — a fact easily determined through the sniper rifle scope.

RUBY RIDGE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, August 22, 1992
1) If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement [of surrender], deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.

Now, after the first murder by Horiuchi, the FBI continued to keep him on staff, an obvious act of support, and brought him to a scene where his skills could, again, be put to effective but illegal use. It was just a few months later that Sniper Horiuchi went to Waco, Texas, and participated in the killing of over 80 men, woman, and children, including one “coffin birth” and one unborn child.

Some were shot to death by sniper fire and others burned to death by fire started by the FBI or other government agents. (Note: Ron Cole and I found three sandbagged sniper positions, in May 1993.) However, he is assured a pension from his employment for the government, both military and FBI.

I am sure that the AUSA would support Lon Horiuchi, either tacitly, or openly, if asked to do so.

So, if I am to take sides in what is surely inevitable in this country, then I will be required to support either Lon Horiuchi, or, Timothy McVeigh. In weighing the intent behind the actions of both Horiuchi and McVeigh, I find that McVeigh did not specifically target children, while Horiuchi acted with depraved indifference to the presence of children, in both instances.

It is possible that the AUSA would never openly support Lon Horiuchi, though he will surely never damn him. The fact that Horiuchi is now comfortably retired lends credence to the supposition that both government agencies and personnel continue to overtly support Horiuchi.

I would like to extend my thanks to the AUSA for bring this subject to my attention. Absent his criticism, I might never have broached the subject.

“No bended knee for me”
Who Does the Patriot Fight For?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 15, 2015

Almost every patriot I have met, when asked, “What are you willing to fight for?”, will answer, my family – my children and grandchildren. The Founders chose the word “Posterity” to explain their objective in both fighting and establishing a new government comprised of member States. What they did, they did for us, their posterity.

So, what happened when that government established upon those principles, as well as others, becomes the enemy of that very protection that they were, and we are, willing to fight for?

In 1997, Jennifer McVeigh was threatened with a charge of treason and the possibility of the death penalty (McVeigh’s Sister Tells Why She Aided U.S. Case Against Him) if she refused to testify against her brother. As tough at is it was, she opted to testify against her sibling.

Robert Beecher recently faced a similar situation. His daughter, Jessica, had owned two .22 caliber rifles that were found on the property that Beecher lived on, and one of which was included in the Indictment. She had also bought her father a .30-30 rifle for his birthday. This, too, was included in the Indictment and a picture of Robert holding the 30-30, pasted in Facebook, was instrumental in the government filing a Criminal Complaint, and securing search and arrest warrants for the property and Beecher.

During the initial interrogation of Beecher, FBI Special Agent Slater, having already ascertained that Jessica had purchased the firearms, suggested, “Maybe we should arrest her, instead”. Though the applicability of federal law is, and ought to be, questioned, 18 U. S. Code §922 (d)(1) does make it criminal to transfer a weapon to a know felon, regardless of state law (See “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful).

With the possibility of Jessica serving ten years in prison for giving a birthday present, Robert had the unfortunate necessity of making one of the most difficult decisions of his life. It was whether he, or Jessica, or both, would spend ten years in prison.

The only decision that could be more severe than what Robert faced would be whether he would give his life for her. Now the latter decision, I think we all would agree, has only one proper answer. So, we must consider that the former also has only one answer.

Some questions arise as to whether the threat to go after Jessica would be carried out. Would it have gotten Robert off on his charges? Would the government even stoop so low as to make such a threat — to coerce someone into pleading guilty to what should not even be a crime, unless there was criminal intent in the activity?

We have been taught that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. So, just what laws are we a nation of?

In 1982, the Justice Department tried to determine how many federal criminal laws there were. Their answer was that there were over 3,000 criminal laws (however, many of those laws have multiple conditions that may be met, increasing the actual crimes to considerably more) contained within the 23,000 (currently 27,000) pages of U. S. Code.

When there are that many laws, we are not a nation of law; rather, we are a nation subject to the will of the men that administer those laws.

This brings to mind a quote from James Madison in Federalist #63:

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

In Robert’s first letter to me, he said, “No bended knee for me”. Against what Robert was faced with, he stood firm to the principles that guide true patriots. He refused to bend a knee, though the force was overwhelming, and he had no choice but to succumb to that force. He was willing to sacrifice a portion of his life — for his Posterity.

His plea agreement, which he entered into to protect his family, especially his daughter, Jessica, committed him to 10 years in prison and 5 years supervised release. The government has promised (if any weight can be attributed to a government promise) to file for a sentence reduction within 360 days. Only time will tell if, and what, that will be.

In the meantime, we must all understand that those who speak out will find that the government will pull out all of the stops to put us in prison, if they can find just one violation of those 3,000 laws. This will continue to be true UNTIL such time as we find the need to replace the government that has deviated so far from what the Founders intended.

April 19, 2015

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 19, 2015

Twenty years ago, today, the Murrah Federal Courthouse, in Oklahoma City, was bombed by a patriot who intended to light the fuse of violent resistance to the government’s overarching, and deadly, imposition upon the rights of the people. Some of the motivation behind this act was a response to the efforts of government, just two years earlier, to divest some people of their right to bear arms, and other infringements of the Constitution.

Twenty-two years ago, today, agencies of the federal government murdered over 80 people; in Waco, Texas; men, women, and children, in their own home/Church. Again, divesting the right to bear arms, and other constitutional infringements were the underlying elements in this event.

Two-hundred and forty years ago, today, more than 80 men stood on Lexington Green to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the government’s effort to divest them of their constitutional and sacred right to keep arms.

Today, K. C. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, filed (electronically) a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment upon which the government’s case against Massey rests. That motion is an objection to the government’s attempt to divest Massey of his right to bear arms, by overreaching constitutional authority.

There are two elements in each of these events. First, arms; Second, the Constitution

Now, the government and Mainstream Media downplay the latter and demonize the former. And, that has become the underlying creed of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the short (45 second) video clip, “Sheriff’s Deputy Admits MRAPs Are For Constitutionalists“. Though the jurisdiction and the date of the video are not known (unless someone comes forward with that information), it is apparent that the two deputies are serious in what they say:

Deputy #1: “We’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, a lot of ammunition, and they have [intelligible] weapons here locally.”

So, the first Deputy sees danger in “constitutionalists” stockpiling weapons and ammo. He sounds a lot like General Gage, military governor of Massachusetts.

Deputy #2: “It’s worldwide. The world is unstable now; you look anywhere, you watch the news.”

As to the second, what is “worldwide”? The fear of constitutionalists is an international problem? “Hey, buddy! Yeah, you, the deputy, don’t you work for this county? What are you doing dealing in international matters?”

As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.“

Have we learned? Can we remember? What, possibly, can the government do to return to the Constitution, and avoid the violence that they have already begun?

Let us not slide further into that abyss of abject slavery and obedience to a government that was supposed to belong to us.

Government’s purpose is to govern the Government,
Not to govern the People.

Vermont

The Fourteenth Colony

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 1997 (Revised March 23, 2015)

There is no doubt among Americans that there were thirteen colonies engaged in the struggle with Great Britain just over two hundred years ago. Most will recognize names such as the Green Mountain Boys, Ethan Allen and the Battle of Bennington. Few, however, recognize the role played by this isolated area in our quest for independence.

Vermont, geographically nestled between New York and New Hampshire, was, without a doubt, part of the number that cast off British control of the colonies. Both geographically and evidenced by their full participation, they were as much a colony, that arose from the conflict as, any of other thirteen colonies.

In an area known as the New Hampshire Grants, in lands which were disputed between New York and New Hampshire, lay some rugged and mountainous terrain. The people carved their niches and felt no allegiance to either of the two colonies. After their declaration of independence from Great Britain, they also declared themselves free from New York and New Hampshire.

In 1777, Vermont established its Constitution, basing the right of Vermonters to establish self government on the Declaration of Independence, with its declared right to self government. Ironically, the authors and defenders of the right to self-government and separation from ALL British control denied Vermont the right to self-government and chose to abide by geopolitical boundaries established by the British Parliament. They failed to recognize the right of the people in the disputed lands to establish their own government, in direct opposition to the words by which they declared themselves “free and independent.”

This is not to say that Vermont was denied recognition. From 1777 through March 4, 1791, when Vermont became the first state entering the Union under the Constitution, there are many historical passages that recognize the importance of this state and its true relationship with the War for Independence.

The primary source of political opposition to Vermont’s admission to the Union came from New York. Some of the lands within Vermont were claimed as lands granted to New York. These outstanding claims by the very large and powerful New York caused the Continental Congress and subsequent Constitutional Congress to refuse to even discuss the entry of Vermont as a member of the Union. It wasn’t until 1790, when Vermont agreed to pay $30,000 for the disputed lands, that New York finally removed its opposition, opening the door, finally, to Vermont’s admission.

Vermont, during the course of these events, was the only true “free and independent” colony among the fourteen who had taken on the British. Of all of the states to enter the Union after the first thirteen, only Vermont was required to ratify the Constitution as a condition of entry. Although the entry of Kentucky was approved by the Congress on February 4, 1791 and Vermont on February 18th, the entry of Kentucky was delayed until June 1st so as to allow Vermont’s entry prior to Kentucky, on March 4, 1791.

Further proof of the recognition of Vermont as a true member of the original Union lies in the fact that it is the only state, other than its 13 brothers, allowed a vote to ratify the Bill of Rights, ratifying the ten amendments on November 3, 1791.

Vermont’s admission was recognized, at the times, as a closing of a circle. From the Vermont Gazette of January 24, 1791:

ALBANY [New York], January 13.

XIVth PILLAR OF OUR FREE AND HAPPY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Yesterday morning, the pleasing intelligence of our sister state, VERMONT, having adopted the american constitution, by a state convention, was received by a gentleman of character from that quarter — and at one o’clock, the independent company of artillery paraded, in uniform, and fired a federal salute of 14 guns from Forthill, which was followed by three cheerful huzzas, from a number of our most respectable citizens. This agreeable event, which closes the circle of our federal union, cannot fail of being received with the utmost satisfaction by all americans, of every description, who are friends to order, unanimity, and good government, and to the true welfare of our happy country.

Escalation – What’s Next?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 12, 2015

We need to get a perspective on the patriot community that has been overlooked, probably because most of the people within our community are, although sincere, focused only where they stand on the “progression of involvement” (See The Other (not so) Thin Line) within their own community. Quite simply, many have still maintained that the election process is able to effect the change that we seek, while ignoring the failure of that process over the past many decades. Next, we have those who have recognized the failure of that process, but don’t know where to go. Then there are those who realize that nothing will change without violence, though they are not motivated, for whatever reason, to pursue that objective. Finally, there are those who are ready to act, though they are constrained by their fear of other patriots as much as their fear of the government.

Let’s put another perspective on the relationship between various groups of people who are known to commit violent acts. First, we have the Muslims. They are, by Mainstream Media (MSM), divided into two categories, Extreme and Moderate. The Extremes perpetrate violent acts such as the well-known beheading of Westerners, directed attacks with rifles, as in Canada and Paris, France, and many other activities such as the Boston Bombing, that have cost the lives of innocent people without any justifiable targeting of those killed. The moderates, however, sit quietly by, acting as if nothing is going wrong, yet they won’t object to the actions of the extremes. (See Can Muslims fit into our society? Is There a Difference Between a “Moderate Muslim” and a “Radical Muslim”?)

Next, let’s look at law enforcement in our own country. Most tabulations of the number of unarmed people killed by law enforcement, this past year, approach or exceed 1,000. This doesn’t count those with serious, even lifetime, injuries, damage, or loss of a family pet that “threatened” the officer. Let’s call those cops that conduct these activities, even if only one, or many times, “extreme” cops. The remaining “moderate” cops, even though their job is to enforce the laws of the land, state, etc., do not arrest or charge their fellow officers, they do, however, offer support, if only by inaction, and will readily defend those officers who have, “for their own safety”, committed such acts. Not much different from those moderate Muslims, are they? (See To shoot a cop, or, not to shoot a cop)

Finally, we get to the Patriots who realize that things are getting worse with each administration of government. Within that group, we have both “moderate” patriots and “extreme” patriots. The extreme patriots are those who are ready and willing to act, and often those contemplated acts, though directed, might result in the loss of innocent lives. A example of this would by the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. (See below)

Where the moderate patriots are making a mistake, to use the words of Chief Mark Kessler, is that we all “have an obligation to turn in to the government anybody who is going to do something that will cost innocent lives”. That quote is from a recent conversation I had with Kessler. What happened resulted in the arrest of three men in Georgia is explained in Mark Kessler – The “Screw” Turns – Part 3. The FBI promulgated the suggestion that innocent lives would be lost when they interviewed “Blood Agent” This theme was carried on by Kessler and the MSM, that their acts would be random and would take innocent lives. However, recently the government has, in their official Indictment, made clear that “The three men were being monitored by the FBI in an online chat room where they discussed launching attacks at an Atlanta police station and other government agencies.” Initial MSM reports did not detail the limitations that the FBI placed upon the acts that the three had intended, making their plot to be far more sinister than it really was.

Mainstream Media often plays an important role in demonization. An example of this is the Hutaree Militia (2012-13), as explained in Thought Crimes, where the media, probably at the instigation of the government, laid out a story that was, well, fabricated. Otherwise, the Court would not have eventually dismissed the charges.

Our susceptibility to these divisive means of splitting our ranks is a result of “propaganda” and our willingness to judge those within our movement, turning against them if what they may, or may not, have planned is beyond our current (where we are along that Thin Line – linked above) conviction as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

So, Muslim moderates and Law Enforcement moderates both support their extreme elements. Patriots, however, turn against our extreme elements, and, we turn them over to the government — our enemy, in our efforts to restore proper constitutional limits upon the government.

We will have to visit the past to get a better understanding of what I mean. In 1995, Tim McVeigh bombed a government building. Outrage was the response of the patriots, since there were innocent women and children in the building. McVeigh explained why he targeted a government building when he wrote “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“. Now, where could he possibly get the idea that it was a “retaliatory strike, and that federal agents had become soldiers… it was a preemptive or proactive strike… against their control center.”

In a Philadelphia Enquirer article, dated April 9, 1999, during NATO’s Yugoslavia (Kosovo and Serbia) War, declared, with full support of the Pentagon, that,

“In the air war, Pentagon officials said NATO’s warplanes would increasingly target government buildings, industries and state-run television relays in an attempt to shake the foundation of President Slobodan Milosevic’s regime [5th paragraph in the article].”

This practice has been carried through in all subsequent “wars” that we have been involved in, unless the government buildings were deemed friendly.

Let’s suppose that anybody that is a patriot can find the point on this list where they would feel comfortable. Go ahead, pick your number. Now, think back. Where were you a year ago? Two years ago? Presumably, you have progressed, as you realize the failure of your earlier position.

1. Voting for a political party
2. Voting for individuals (based upon their record)
3. Mass meetings to discuss problems (Tea Party, or other participation)
4. Street demonstrations (Overpass, etc.)
5. Trips to Washington for demonstrations (OAS, Veterans, truck drivers, tractors, etc.)
6. Civil disobedience (subjecting yourself to arrest by expressing yourself – Freedom of Speech)
7. Civil defiance (willing to retaliate with force, such as Bundy Ranch or the WWII veterans memorial)
8. Sabotage of government property (vehicles, etc.)
9. Breaking into government facilities (intelligence information, equipment, & supplies)
10. Sabotage of government property (destroying electronics, communication towers, etc.)
11. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in injury or destruction of property
12. Targeting individuals with proven abuse of authority resulting in death/serious injury of unarmed people
13. Targeting individuals who work for government
14. Sabotage of government property (destruction of facilities)
15. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities (Primarily serving Government facilities)
16. Prison breaks (selectively releasing political prisoners)
17. Ambushes (of targeted government vehicles or convoys)
18. Destruction of a Government Building (night time)
19. Raids (police stations, fusion centers, etc.)
20. Destruction of a Government Building (day time)
21. Prison breaks (releasing all prisoners)
22. Destruction of Infrastructure Utilities – Primarily serving general population

Just for kicks, now suppose where you will be if Hillary becomes president, or the police kill another thousand unarmed people this year, or, well, use your imagination as to what events may change you position — move higher in the numbers of the list. That should bring to light what was explained in “The Other (not so) Thin Line“.

We should be able to understand that each of us has, through our own experience, found that we continue to move into a greater sense of necessity, if we are to restore constitutional government. The problem arises when we insist that others cannot go beyond where we are.

Unfortunately, if we continue to pursue this course, we chop off the experienced head, those who have, by their experiences, moved further along that line. Does it make any sense, at all, to have such a detrimental effect on our community, just because we want to constrain them to what we impose upon ourselves?

Think very hard before you do anything that sets us back rather than moves us ahead.

The Declaration of Independence Has Been Outlawed

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 9, 2015

“[W]hen long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

With those words, the War for Independence from British Rule began, in earnest. That Declaration of Independence is the premier founding document, for, absent the fortitude of those who supported it, with their lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and their willingness to die in the battle to contest the overreaching authority of British Rule, in violation of the British Constitution, the United States Constitution would never have been conceived. Instead, for the first time in the history of man, the people were the source of the authority that created the government.

Murder and theft, crime against people and property, are broken down into degrees of severity. That is the means by which certain crimes are graded, and punished, based upon the people assembled in a jury — so that the will of the people is supreme, and the government simply carries out the administrative function of the process of Justice.

What happens when the government enacts laws that make it a more serious crime to kill because of an emotion? They call them “hate crimes”, though they seem to be applied in only one direction. The result is that only a certain class of people can have harsher penalties applied, because the government says so, than if the killing was for money, jealousy, rage, or even random. Simply, the idea is to outlaw certain forms of thought (See Freedom of Speech and Thought Crimes). It is a form of social engineering, or more accurately, reconditioning to comply with the dictates of government’s control of not only our speech, but also our thoughts and actions.

Every state constitution, as well as the United States Constitution, recognizes that the creation of their respective governments, grants of authority, and limitations of power, are sourced from the people, themselves (“We the People”). It was presumed by the Founders that the authority of the people was such that they could, as so stated in the above quote from the Declaration of Independence, abolish a government that violated the limitations, and usurped authority, at the discretion of the people, not the discretion of the government. In fact, if you read closely, they even imposed the responsibility as a “duty”, to assure the perpetuation of the Great Experiment that they had initiated.

The FBI recently (August 20, 2013) published as an FBI Press Release, a description of the United States Code definition of Terrorism (Definition of Terrorism in US Code).

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

“International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines “international terrorism” in a nearly identical way, replacing “primarily” outside the U.S. with “totally” outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

* * *

So, just to get you thinking about the ramifications and the authority presumed by the government, but not granted by the Constitution, let’s look from the other side. If police use force to “influence or affect the conduct of [people] by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against [people’s] conduct”, then they, too, should be guilty of terrorism, especially when they are armed as an army, and protected against most means of assault by use of armor far more invincible than knights of old.

However, like hate crime laws, terrorism is a one-way street. The government cannot be guilty of terrorism, whether around the world, or within the States of the Union, any more than a White person can be the victim of a hate crime.

Despotism (as understood by the Founders – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Absolute power; authority unlimited and uncontrolled by men, constitution or laws, and depending alone on the will of the prince; as the despotism of a Turkish sultan.

If we simply replace “prince” with “president”, and then evaluate whether we have reached that definitive point in our history, then we understand that there is a mandate from our source documents (the Declaration of Independence) that has, in effect, been outlawed by a despotic government.