Posts tagged ‘sovereign’

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

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

Muslim teacher

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 23, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the atrocious effects of this program include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

  • Canyon Lake Middle School
  • Lake Elsinore Unified School District
  • Principal: Dr. Preston Perez
  • phone number: 951-244-2123
  • webpage:

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

* * *

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

It is Time for Grave Concern
It is Time for Action



R Scan 1

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


R Scan 2

Five Pillars of Islam? Where are the Ten Commandments?

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

What about the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Mecca? A city for only Muslims?

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


R Scan 3

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

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


R Scan 4

Well, at least Europe gets a bit of attention.

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


R Scan 5

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

Why simply the geography of Islamic nations on untended conquests?


R Scan 6


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


R Scan 7

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


R Scan 8

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


R Scan 9

Who gives a damn where Islam was first preached?

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


R Scan 10

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


R Scan 11

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


R Scan 12

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


R Scan 13

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


R Scan 14

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

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

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


R Scan 15

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


R Scan 16

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


R Scan 17

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

Camp Lone Star – Massey is Protected by State Law

Camp Lone Star – Massey is Protected by State Law

Federal Government Violates State Law


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 28, 2015

There is a presumption in the minds of many people that the federal government has jurisdiction, anywhere. We even see the FBI investigating incidents in foreign, sometime hostile nations. Our purpose here however is to look at the extent, if any, of federal jurisdiction, within the geographic boundaries of the member States of the Union. It should be understood that there is a lot more to the extent of jurisdiction than will be discussed here. We are simply addressing those limitations as the apply to the recent events involving KC Massey and Camp Lone Star.

To its credit, the Texas State Legislature, in its wisdom and understanding of the relationship with the federal government, enacted Article 2.122 of the Texas Penal Code. This “law” provides for granting of certain authority to federal agents. The pertinent parts of that Act are as follows:


(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

(b) A person designated as a special policeman by the Federal Protective Services division of the General Services Administration under 40 U.S.C. Section 318 or 318d is not a peace officer but has the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state.

(c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].” We will address the limitation to the laws of the state, below.

BPS also has a greater degree of authority, but only at Ports of Entry and Checkpoints. So, at Sabal Palms, where the alleged “crime” took place, which may have been a violation of the laws of the state, the BPS agent who fired at Foerster had committed the only possible crime, and the BPS agent the only possible criminal. It might be stretching the point to say that Foerster, the only witness to the crime, might be detained, though that is a gray area that we need not address.

Clearly, Massey and Varner, not even witness to the crime, are well outside of the authority granted by the state to the designated federal agents. Take note, also, of the word “premises” in paragraph (c). We will also address that later.

So, the State of Texas saw fit to extend certain powers to certain agents of the federal government. The federal government has never contested the right of the State to enact such laws. If it had, and if they had the authority to refuse the state’s authority to limit their powers, then surely, there surely would have been a federal challenge, before now. If that is not correct, then, perhaps, the federal government needs to challenge that State authority now, or live by the law, as enacted.

Now, let’s revisit that word in paragraph (c), “premises”. Mr. Hagen has stated that KC was not on his premises, since he was not in his home. By that construct, we can assume that the word premises, in federal law led to Hagen’s presumption of the meaning under state law. However, I doubt that even Mr. Hagen would presume that the “premises of a port facility” would include ONLY the building that had “port facility” posted over the doorway. Surely, it includes the entire premises which comprises the entire port facility.

Now the federal government may have two definitions, though they have not provided an alternate definition. Texas Penal Code provides insight into the meaning of “premises”, under State law. Remember, the federal authority applies to felonies under State law. So, let’s look at Texas Penal Code:


(a)  A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:

(1)  after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later

(2)  after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Meaning that five years after the completion of all portions of the punishment, he regains the right to possess a firearm, subject to the limitation imposed by sub-paragraph (2).


(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

So, the “person commits an offense” if he is not “on the “person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control.” It also provides for en route travel, but our concern is what “premises” means. Then, from (a-2), we find that ” For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. So, the “premises” is where you live, if you have control of it. It includes real property, not just the house. And, surely, if you were a guest, with the consent of the owner, to live on his property, or a motel, whether temporarily or permanently, then the premises would include his land, and any other land that you were on, if you had the consent of the owner and he had knowledge of your firearm. So, unless argued to the contrary by the federal government, Sabal Palms would be the recreational premises upon which Massey’s stay was temporary. Likewise, the motel room, over which he had control as the renter, though temporary, for recreational purposes, would include those “premises” where he was arrested. To assume that he can have a firearm in the motel room, though he cannot leave the motel room, then cross that premises to his vehicle, with the firearm is the sort of absurdity that the government excels in. To assume such would be to assume that a law with a specific purpose is impossible, since the construction that federal government has applied would say that you have a right, though there is no way in which you can exercise that right.

The question also arises as to whether the detail of the intent and application of the State Law is properly heard in the Federal District Court, or if the original jurisdiction can reside only in a state court, with the State of Texas as the Plaintiff.

Now, it may seem as if I am stretching the right to travel with a firearm, in support of the other provisions. However, Texas did clarify the broadness of the right to possess framers in their state, with Section 46.15 (pertinent parts):


(b) Section 46.02 [prohibition of possession] does not apply to a person who:

(2) is traveling;

(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

Now, let’s ask ourselves just why Texas thought that they could enact these laws. Did they do so despite the Constitution and what other tend to believe is the federal government’s overarching authority to enact any law that they want? Especially if the law they are using specifically cites “commerce” as the authority for such enactment? Or, as has been discussed previously, are the stretching their authority under the commerce clause beyond the scope granted by the Constitution and affirmed by the authors and proponents of the Constitution? See Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause.

The ratification of the Constitution came with instruction for the submission of a Bill of Rights, to assure that the assertion of federal authority did not exceed that which was intended by the document. There are two amendments that are applicable, one with regard to the people, themselves, and the other with regard to both the States and the people.

First is the Ninth Amendment:

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

And, more importantly and appropriately to this discussion, the Tenth Amendment:

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

So, there can be no doubt that Texas, with powers not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the State, is, without question, acting within its purview, as were the Representatives in the State Government, in expressing the Will of the People in asserting their rights through the enactment of the laws cited above. None of those laws encroach, by any stretch of the imagination, on the powers granted to the federal government.


Camp Lone Star – Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause

Camp Lone Star – Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause

Lucy - psychiatric help 5 cents

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 20, 2015

The entire “Felon in Possession” federal law is hinged on Commerce. From its inception, it has been enforced by taxation, since the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is an agency of the U. S. Treasury department.

We are dealing specifically with 18 U.S. Code 922 (g):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person – [conditions omitted]

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

We are going to delve into the purpose of commerce, as defined by the Constitution. We can also wonder why someone charged with “felon in possession” is not taxed; instead, he is determined to be a criminal. We will start with some historical background.

Role of the Federalist Papers

James Madison, fourth president (1809-1817), and recognized as the “Father of the Constitution”, for his role in drafting as well as arguing for ratification, is the best single source for an understanding of the intent and purpose of the Constitution and the government created by that Constitution.

The Federalist Papers, being the arguments that led to ratification of the Constitution, have been used in legal justification to support, and to overturn, laws enacted by Congress. After all, the intent of the Constitution, as laid out in the Federalist Papers is what the American people, through their respective state conventions, relied upon as the original intent of the Framers, and therefore, must be what the Constitution truly means, wherever any ambiguity exists.

There are many hundreds of U.S. Supreme Court decisions where the Federalist Papers were cited in arguing and/or deciding decisions before that court. If the Federalist Papers, those words by Hamilton, Jay, and especially Madison, supported a decision, it was so supported. If they were inconsistent with an enactment, then the enactment was overturned.

An example of the strength of original intent might be demonstrated with an example. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Lopez argued that the federal law regarding “gun free school zones” was outside of the scope of authority granted to Congress by the commerce clause, “The Congress shall have Power…[t]o regulate Commerce… among the several States…” (Art. I, §8, cl. 3). Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, and in so doing, said [at 457-458]:

The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. As James Madison wrote, “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45. This constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.

The decision removed from enforcement the federal gun free school zone law, as a determination of that nature resided solely with the state, by those powers not granted to the federal government, rather, retained by the state government.

In another instance, Alden et al. v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), this case dealt with the sovereignty of a American state government, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court:

… Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10.

The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the Nation’s primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States “form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39.

Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation’s rejection of “the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States” in favor of “a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people–who were, in Hamilton’s words, `the only proper objects of government.'” (quoting The Federalist No. 15). In this the founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had “exploded on all hands” the “practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies.” The Federalist No. 20.

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (2015), with Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment, said:

When a party properly brings a case or controversy to an Article III court, that court is called upon to exercise the “judicial Power of the United States.” Art. III, §1. For the reasons I explain in this section, the judicial power, as originally understood, requires a court to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws.

Those who ratified the Constitution knew that legal texts would often contain ambiguities. As James Madison explained, “All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal . . . .” The Federalist No. 37.

One of the key elements of the Federalists’ arguments in support of the allocation of power to make binding interpretations of the law was that Article III judges would exercise independent judgment. Although “judicial independence” is often discussed in terms of independence from external threats, the Framers understood the concept to also require independence from the “internal threat” of “human will.” The Federalist No. 78, “The judiciary . . . may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment . . . “. Independent judgment required judges to decide cases in accordance with the law of the land, not in accordance with pressures placed upon them through either internal or external sources. Internal sources might include personal biases, while external sources might include pressure from the political branches, the public, or other interested parties.

Necessary and Proper

Article I, §8, clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This clause is worthy of additional consideration. What may be necessary and proper for the function, and the fulfillment of the duties, of the federal government is, without question, within the realm of the intent. That comes under the portion which states, “the foregoing Powers”, meaning those enumeration within Article I, §8.

Next, we have to consider, “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government”. Here, we can consider whether a “Power” exists, and whether, without express authority, the government can properly assert that “Power”. For example, Article II, §2 provides that the President is “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”. clearly, laws enacted to facilitate that function are within the scope of the intent of clause 18. So, too, would be laws that set forth the operation of other functions within the various “Departments or Officers”, though the existence of those Departments and Officers must, by their creation, be consistent with the Constitution.

Now, here comes a stickler. The Preamble to the Constitution provides a description of the purpose of the Constitution and the government it created:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let’s look at some adjectives (Definitions from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, the words as understood by the Founders):

establish: To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently. To found permanently; to erect and fix or settle; as, to establish a colony or an empire.

insure: To make sure or secure.

provide: To procure beforehand; to get, collect or make ready for future use; to prepare.

promote: To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement or excellence of any thing valuable, as, to promote learning, knowledge, virtue or religion.

secure: Free from fear or apprehension of danger.

(1) To set or fix firmly or unalterably a form of Justice; (2) To make sure that there is domestic Tranquility; (3) To procure beforehand, ready for future use, the common defence; (4) To forward (encourage) the general Welfare; and, (5) To make free from fear or apprehension, the Blessings of Liberty.

Of these, two are somewhat ambiguous, unless the on text is understood. How can enactments, for example, make sure that there is domestic Tranquility? Well, that Tranquility might best be described as the absence of government intrusion into our lives, so, it is absence of action rather than action that can produce the intended result. The other is to promote the general Welfare. It doesn’t say provide, therefore, providing the general welfare is not what was intended. Further, it says “general”, meaning creating a wholesome setting for the people to provide for their own welfare. These two, then, would, perhaps, require laws limiting activities of government that would be detrimental to the purposes.

The other three are rather straightforward. Establishing a judicial system that is focused on justice, rather than unconstitutional law. Providing for military protect for the country, should the need arise — it does say “defence”. And, to enact any law that assures that our posterity will enjoy the same “Blessings of Liberty that we intended to enjoy.

So, of these, “necessary and proper” must adhere to the achievement of the objectives. Anything contrary thereto would be unnecessary and improper.

Returning to “Departments and Officers”, the creation of Departments and the Officers within those departments would have to be within the confines of the defining powers of government. For example, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is created under the authority of excise taxes, then it is a tax collection agency, and its sole purpose is the collection of those taxes. Would a law be necessary and proper if it made a criminal of someone who chose to not pay the tax, or would it be limited to collection, not by force, rather, by judicial process, of any taxes owed?

This is the fine line of what the Constitution means. It is left to proper judicial interpretation, and that interpretation was made in the Supreme Court decisions cited above.

The Lopez case determined that the commerce clause was limited in its reach, and that it was encroaching on the rights and jurisdiction of the states to determine whether someone could possess a firearm within a specified distance from a school.

Alden reinforces the authority of the states to retain their sovereignty, if there is not a specific “necessary and proper” aspect to a federal law enacted by the Congress, or a Rule administered by an Administrative Agency.

The Perez case demonstrates the necessity of the judges and justices to interpret the original intent of a legislative act, as intended by the wording in the law, as well as to weigh the constitutionality, the “necessary and proper” aspect of an enactment of Congress, or a Rule promulgated by an agency..

The Commerce Clause

In Federalist Papers 41-46, he provides a thorough explanation of the three branches, their separation, and their powers and limitations. He also points out that there is a distinction between “necessary and proper” (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) and what is “unnecessary or improper”.

As he continues through these six Papers, he raises two questions:

1.  Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper?
2.  Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

And, into doing, he provides insight into:

[T]he several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects:
1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

Now, the one that we are concerned with is that dealing with is number 3:

[The Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

In particular, the second, “among the several States”, which he defined, above, as “3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States“.

One of the defects of the Articles of Confederation was that it had no means whereby it could control what one state did with regard to another state, as far as duties or taxes. If a ship came from a foreign port with goods to be delivered to a couple of different ports, in different states, it had an unfair impact on other than the first state visited. For example, if a ship came into New York, and had goods for New Jersey, New York would impose a duty on all of the goods aboard. Then the ship would cross the river to New Jersey, having already paid duties in New York, increasing the price of the goods offloaded in New Jersey.

Vermont and the already created Northwest Territories, being land bound, might be charged anything for any goods transported across any of the coastal states, to get to a shipping port — adding additional costs to those goods. Whereas the coastal states would have not additional charges on their goods.

It was with this problem, already existing, that lead to the inclusion of the commerce clause. Or, to put it in the words of James Madison (FP 42):

The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.

Now, to extend the ambiguous wording of the clause into means of enacting laws the step upon the toes, or the rights, of the States to determine what is acceptable within their sovereign lands, as, without a doubt, and abuse of the intent of that clause. It violates the very concept of a Union, making the federal government master of all, and the states, masters of naught, at least to the extent that the federal government intends to extend its influence.

So, when that provision for commerce becomes a uniform tax imposed by the federal government (Gun Control Act of 1934), rather than the intended purpose on not letting one state take advantage of another. Then the tax is removed and the act becomes a crime, (as discussed in Massey & The Clash of Laws) which is in opposition to the Texas Constitution and Statutes, we must, if the judiciary will not question what the intent is, and whether the federal “felon in possession” law is within that intent.

As was seen in the court decisions cited above, the Supreme Court does recognize the intent based upon the writings of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. So, in the name of justice, should the lower court rule, with the wisdom intended, in favor of the Constitution? That is what Madison told us was intended. Thus leaving any challenge to seek an interpretation contrary to the Constitution as a burden on the government, rather than imprison someone, leaving the obligation on this victim of government oppression, the loss of his job, his family, and facing starting over, with the stigma of “convict” attached to his name, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that the law, as interpreted by the government agents, is in error, with regard to any authority granted by the Constitution? Is that not his proper role?

Vermont – The Fourteenth Colony


The Fourteenth Colony

Vermont flag

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.


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.

Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Camp Lone Star – More like Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 21, 2015


In Camp Lone Star – “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” and Camp Lone Star – “a Fundamental Right”, I discussed the motions filed by K. C. Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, the former being a motion to suppress evidence and the latter a motion to dismiss the charges. The government, surprisingly, managed to respond to those motions within the statutory time (20 days), when they filed the


That is not an error on my part. The word “Indictment” is spelled, on the title of the document, as “Indictmnt”. Pretty good start for someone who receives over $100,000 per year plus amazing benefits from your hard earned money. You would think that they have spell-check on their computers, and that they would, to avoid error, have someone proofread what they write. But, heck, I guess that any form of diligence, whether as to grammar or truth, is not within their scope of responsibility.

Back on October 20, 2014, agents of the FBI and the BATF went to a home in Quinlan, Texas, to search for weapons (See Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey). Any authority to search this house would be based upon the assumption that it was where Massey lived — his residence. Based upon the “Conditions of Release” (See Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction), they also presumed that Massey lived in the Quinlan house as that is where his “Home Detention” requires him to be. The Response does point out that Massey “left his home and traveled to Cameron County, Texas during the summer of 2014“, confirming that Quinlan was his home, but that he had moved for an extended period of time, over the summer.

Subsequently, they had a search warrant issued to search the premises at the Value Inn motel in Brownsville, and at the time of the search, arrested Massey. So, it appears that they then presumed that he lived at the Value Inn. The question, however, is where did Massey live, during that summer. Well, he lived on the “Rusty” Monsees property, at Camp Lone Star, with the consent of the owner. The purpose was to protect the property and to assist Border Patrol in discouraging entry into the United States, or, if they did enter Monsees’ land, to turn them over to BPS. The room at Value Inn was arranged to provide a place to clean up, due to the limited facilities at Camp Lone Star, and allow others, as well as Massey, to get a good night’s sleep on a soft bed, from time to time. So, his primary residence was actually Camp Lone Star. This can be equated with a businessman who has a home in New Jersey and works in New York. He may have a room in New York that he uses five days a week, and then stays at his home on the weekends. Are they not both his residence? Or, is there a law that prohibits only the wealthy (the Clintons come to mind) to have more than one residence?

Let’s add another factor before we proceed. A Mr. Aguilar, curator of the Sabal Palms wildlife sanctuary, granted permission to include the sanctuary in the area to be protected from illegal entry by illegal immigrants (See Massey’s account of incident). This would put that sanctuary, along with the Monsees property, under Massey’s “control”, at least with regard to deterring entry on the property of trespassers.

Now, you may be wondering why I brought that up. Well, I brought that up because I am wondering why the government, in their Response, chose to bring up a law that was not within their jurisdiction. On pages 4-5 of the Response, they cite Texas Penal Code Sections 46.02 and 46.04. It seems that they want to use Texas law to justify their action under federal law, but Massey is not charged with violating Texas law.

Texas Penal Code Section 46.02 Unlawfully Carrying Weapons
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) On the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control

Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm
(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possess a firearm:
(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

The justification is based upon the fact that a Cameron County Sheriff’s Deputy was on the scene shortly after the shooting incident, however, the Sheriff didn’t charge Massey with a violation of Texas law, so that whole subject is moot.

The shooting incident warrants our attention. The only shooting done that day was by BPS officer Gonzales who shot at John Foerster. From the Response, “Senior Border Patrol agent [sic] Danny Cantu was nearby, heard the shots, and secured the scene for investigation“… “Cantu told Massey all members of his group must remain until shooting is investigated” (page 2). So, if you have an armed officer telling you that you “must remain”, the question arises, were you detained? Or, were you free to go?

I asked Massey whether he was free to go and he explained that within the first few minutes of the “investigation”, he asked, since he and the third member of the party, could leave, they were told “no”. He explained that he asked, a number of times, that he asked in one form or another whether they could leave, and were consistently told that they could not leave.

At page 3 of the Response, “It was reasonable for BPA Cantu to disarm Massey and tell him he could not leave the area where the shooting occurred.” Well, this might be “reasonable” if Massey were a witness to the shooting, however, he did nothing more than hear the shots fired. So, he couldn’t be “detained” as a witness, as he witnessed nothing. The only two people that witnessed anything were Foerster and Gonzales. If you heard shots from a bank robbery, two blocks away, would they; could they detain you as a witness or participant?

On page 4 of the Response, “Police are allowed to stop and briefly detain persons for investigative purposes if the police have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot” (pages 3-4). Where does the reasonable suspicion come in when Foerster never fired a shot and Massey and the third party did nothing more than hear the gunshots? What “criminal activity [might] be afoot”? Perhaps the BPS officer, Gonzales, fired his gun outside of the BPS policy for use of firearms, but is there any other possible “crime afoot” that would justify such action? So, it would appear that their argument would only apply to Gonzales, not anyone else — Sort of government doublethink or some other screwy effort at justification of something that is unjustifiable.

Also on page 4, we find, “If an officer develops—–and is able to articulate—–reasonable grounds to believe that a suspect is armed and presently dangerous to the officer, third parties, or himself, the officer may take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized.” So, did Gonzales or Cantu have any reason to make any person other than Gonzales a “suspect”? Was there anything in the cooperation of the three that lead them to believe that any of the three were “presently dangerous to the officer, third parties, or himself”? And, if those conditions were met, to “take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized”, would be what was required. However, by the times provided, and the absence of any apparent threat, we find that they were detained from 3:45 to 7:00. However, that final item not being, in the least, justified, how can anyone perceive 3 hours and 15 minutes in which you are not allowed to leave, anything other than being detained, without Miranda warning?

We cannot stop here, however. The guns were taken from the Massey side, I suppose as “evidence” of some sort, however, the pistol that did the shooting was not taken, as evidence, nor even inventoried or audited. It seems that five shots were heard but that only four shell casing were found. Hence, the Response, as previous documents provide, the uncertain “four or five shots”. What kind of incompetence on the part of government is this? They don’t know how many bullets were loaded in the pistol, or they never did any investigation of the shooting weapon. However, they saw fit to seize weapons that were not involved in the incident.

From page 3 of the Response, we find some very cheap rationalization with, “Massy [sic] was not provided Miranda warnings during the investigation“, and “Massey was never handcuffed…” Golly, gee, he was detained, but since he wasn’t handcuffed, he doesn’t qualify for a Miranda warning, only they use what he said, and what he may have possessed, against him. This, because he “cooperated in surrendering his weapons and providing statements.” Darn, isn’t that the whole idea behind the Miranda warning? They didn’t Mariandize him, they didn’t let him leave, they were armed, and they asked him questions and then took the firearms. Actually, the government said, “surrendered”. Surrendering is capitulating — giving into force or threat of force. However, the government argues that the “evidence” that lead to a subsequent Indictment was obtained, was given freely — perhaps Massey wanted to be charged with a crime. We will just discount the facts and draw some conclusions about around that “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.

Has the federal government run amuck? Do they lie to rationalize achieving their objective — by whatever means necessary? Is their sole objective to prove that the government can do no wrong? I leave the conclusion to the reader.

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws?
Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

gov const balance

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2014


“Felony Possession of a Firearm” is the feds’ way of charging someone who is a convicted felon and possesses a firearm, which is found in 18 USC 922, at (g)(1). In two previous articles, we touched upon various aspects of that law. In “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher, we addressed the interstate commerce aspect of that law. It explained that the law can only be properly applied if a person is directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm, as any other interpretation would result in unequal justice under the law, whereby a citizen of one state might be able to have both firearms and ammunition, in another state, one might be able to only have ammunition or a firearm, and in the remainder of the states, one could possess neither firearm or ammunition.

In a subsequent article, Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws, we discussed the conflict between state and federal laws. The Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

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

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power.

Now, supposing that is the case, could the federal government, absent such delegated power, pass a law, or promulgate a rule (See The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM), that was Constitutional, or is it without jurisdiction – unless supported by another power or authority granted to the federal government? The “Clash of Laws” article refers to a Supreme Court decision, United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995), which removes any doubt as to whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, “To regulate Commerce … among the several States” (Art. I, §8, clause 3) allows that regulation to extend to any use, once removed from interstate commerce. The Court ruled, “To uphold the Government’s contention… would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States”. The Court, in declining to decide in the government’s favor, ruled that the government was unable to extend its “Commerce Clause authority” to encroach upon the authority reserved to the States.

So, that is two strikes against the federal government, in their intent to broaden their authority where it was never granted by the Constitution. Is it possible that there might be a third strike that would, without question, prohibit the federal government from imposing any limitation of the right to possess a firearm, leaving that power solely to the state government to do as they wish?

The first eight Amendments are prohibitions – things that the federal government cannot violate. Let’s start with the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Before we proceed, it might be worth understanding what the definition of the most significant word in that Amendment is. This definition is from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — words as they were understood by the Founders.

infringe, v.t.
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

infringed, pp. Broken; violated; transgressed.

Well, that is pretty clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means that it is not within the granted powers and authorities granted to the federal government, for it to do “what is stipulated not to be done”.

That appears to be a good start, though we need to go a bit further to see if that infringement is contrary to a provision of U. S. Code that is very consistent with the Second Amendment, and in its provisions, does not exclude the right, under federal law, to possess a firearm — except, possibly, while directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, what about the militia? The government tells us how bad they are, but, what does United States Code (the Law of the Land, as per Art. VI, say about the militia? From 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

   § 311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

   § 312 : US Code – Section 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Nowhere in this law made in pursuance to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, does it prohibit a convicted felon from being in the militia. In fact, it is mandatory, since he is not exempted, that he be within those defined as “unorganized”. So, ponder this; can someone be in the militia that is unable to possess a firearm? That would seem to be contrary to the Constitutional provision pertaining for the militia. only the most absurd reasoning could devise to argue against a person’s right to possess a firearm, with the exception of that portion that prohibits direct involvement in interstate or foreign commerce.

Article VI, clause 2 tells us “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereofshall be the supreme Law of the Land.” So, if a law is made in pursuance, as opposed to without such authority, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, it is not.

So, do we allow the judges, who are constantly subverting the Constitution by ruling contrary to its provisions, or adding their personal beliefs, as enforceable points of law, to continue to rule in such a manner? Or, do we, as Americans, have every right to read, interpret, so long as we don’t err in that interpretation, abide by, and enforce the law as was intended by the Founders? Moreover, does this right extend to the use of whatever force necessary to free those shackled by government efforts to quash the Constitution in such a manner as to grant them powers that are tyrannical?


Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Clash of Laws

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 27, 2014


K. C. Massey was in the area when a shooting occurred that brought numbers of Border Protection Service (BPS) agents, and Cameron County Sheriff Investigator Sergio Padilla, to the scene. The BPS agents asked that the weapons of all three individuals be turned over to BPS for reasons of safety (Explained in Massey’s account of incident). They were then turned over to Padilla, though at no time was Massey read Miranda rights, nor was the transfer of the weapons voluntary. It was simply done because they were agents, with guns, and in the principle of “discretion being the better part of valor”, they relinquished the weapons.

Those weapons then became the object of a Criminal Complaint, charging Massey and John Foerster (See Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey) with felony possession of a firearm, based on 18 U. S. Code § 922 (g)(1).

Federal Authority and limitations

The theory behind laws, and the application of law, including ambiguity of the word, intent of the law, and misapplication of those laws is addressed in “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher (for those interested in that aspect of persecution), however, the purpose of this article is to discuss what might be termed “the clash of laws” between the United States and Texas, under a Republican Form of Government (Art. IV, § 4 of the Constitution, as a member state of the Union of these United States (yes, the plural is intended).

To understand this clash, we must first look at the powers granted to, and the limitations imposed upon, on the federal government, by the Constitution.

First, there is the inevitable, and truly sacred, Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, that reference to “free State” applies only to the states, not to the federal government, since the existence of a federal militia was never addressed in the Constitution, only the authority to call forth the militia. The first reference to what might be considered a federal militia occurred in 1916 with the enactment of law embodied in 10 U.S.C. § 311 (See A United States Militia). So, the Constitutional references to militia and bearing arms are contained in that Second Amendment and the following provisions in the Constitution”

Article I, § 8, clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, § 8, clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, Congress can call forth the Militia, which they could not “call” if they were already under federal authority, and next, they recognize that “Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Leaving, of course, officers and training, to the “parent” of the militia, the States.

The only other provision is found in Article II, § 2, which reads,

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

This makes clear that the Militia belong to the States, not to the federal government, except when called into service. Now, the only mention of “arms” is associated with that militia in the Second Amendment, which links any firearms laws only to the authority to the states (we will go further on this subject, later). The only applicability to federal authority, or should we say, prohibition, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It appears that it wasn’t until the 1930s when the government first crossed that line drawn by the Constitution, and has continued to expand overarching authority into those Constitutionally prohibited realms, since that time (See The Three Constitutions – Which One do You Defend).

There is one more concern regarding federal authority that must be addressed, before we get to the heart of the matter. That is the authority granted regarding Commerce, Article I, § 8, clause 3, says,

“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

It does not grant any power within the states, only “among the several States”. That is interstate, not intrastate, commerce.

Then, we have the only other “commerce” provision in Article I, § 9, clause 6:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Now, you need to keep these points in mind as we continue down a path of discovery — to determine what We, not the government, see as the powers granted and limitations imposed.

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Federal)

The only charge against Massey, according to the Criminal Complaint, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, let’s look at the obvious intent of the law. First, “It shall be unlawful“, well, no problem with that.

Next, if that person “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, that that criterion has been met — that Massey has such a criminal record. So, now we move on to the third portion of the Statute.

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm when you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating in or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.

So, let’s revisit what we said about Commerce. “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue… one State over those of another.” However, if we consider the implications of the law, if you live in a state that manufactures a firearm, then you can posses it, as it has not been involved in interstate commerce. However, if you have ammunition that was manufactured in another state, then you are guilty because of the ammunition. If you live in a state that manufactures both weapons and ammunition, you can posses those “firearms” and ammunition. However, if you live in a state that manufactures one, the other, or neither, then you may have but one, or none. That seems to give Preference to one state over another.

Further, this absolutely defies the concept of equal justice; it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.” And, it would mean that if one moved to another state, with what was legal, from the federal standpoint, in the state from which he began, he would criminal in the other state.


Texas Possession Laws

So, let’s see what Texas has to say about a convicted felon possessing a firearm. The applicable law is found in Texas Penal Code, Section 46.04. The pertinent part is as follows:

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:

(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or

(2) after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than.

(f) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States…

So, if one is convicted of a qualifying felony, after he has served his time gone through post conviction service, the clock starts. After five years, he cannot possess weapons, except at “the premises at which the person lives.” Now, premises, in legal terminology, is the house, outbuildings and land. This is to afford protection — once the five years has expired. It does not say house, it includes his whole dominion. He can protect his property.

Now, a question arises as to if he relocates, and lives elsewhere. In Massey’s case, he has lived at Camp Lone Star for four months. The land is owned by “Rusty” Monsees, and the camp is located on his property, with his consent. That is where he lives, so the premises, though not owned by him, is the premises that are applicable in the statute. He encountered the BPS on those premises, so he had every legal right to possess the weapons, under state law.

When he was arrested, he was in a motel room, where he lived the night before he was arrested. This may be a gray area, though it seems that since he lived in that motel room, that night, and that the obvious purpose of the law is for personal protection, that he would still be legal, under state law. The alternative would have been to either secure his firearms in his truck, or to leave them unattended at Camp Lone Star. Though this may be debatable, if we look at intent, it is probable. If not, the only violation, under state law, might be him having his weapons in the motel room. However, he was not charged with that. The initial charge came when he surrendered his weapons, without Miranda, while still fully in compliance with Texas law. The Complaint was based upon his lawful (state law) possession. The Complaint led to the arrest, which might be the only exception to state law. However, the Complaint, itself, admits to “forbidden fruit”.

So, where do we go, next?

Collision of Laws

Recently, Washington state and Colorado enact laws legalizing marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Justice announced that they were going to suspend prosecution of federal marijuana laws in those two states. Shall we ponder their reasoning for making such a decision?

Let’s suppose that state law says you can posses marijuana, and federal law says that you cannot. To begin to understand this, and the subsequent discussion, perhaps we need to interrupt, for a minute, and understand what James Madison told us in Federalist Papers #62:

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?

So, law is “a rule of action”, or, perhaps, a prohibition. But, it is there to guide us in remaining within the boundaries of law, or suffering the consequences of deviation from the law.

So, if marijuana is legal in Colorado, and criminal by federal law, which “rule of action” are we bound by? Well, the government did not want to face the consequences of a legal challenge to their presumed superiority of their laws over the state’s laws. Let’s look at Article IV, § 4, of the Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

So, we have the only “guarantee” in the Constitution, and that is that we have a “Republican Form of Government”. That guarantee is that so long as the state does not enact a law in violation of the Constitution, they have every right to enact any other law — such as the marijuana law. Gee, it also provides that the government “shall protect… them against Invasion”. Golly, gee, isn’t that what K. C. Massey and Camp Lone Star were doing, since the government was having so much trouble fulfilling this obligation?

However, the marijuana laws are the “Conflict of Laws”, and, perhaps, the felony possession laws are also a Conflict of Laws. After all, the same dilemma arises. Can K. C. Massey possess firearms, so long as he does so in compliance with Texas Law, under their Republican Form of Government? Or, is he bound by federal law that depends so much on the Commerce provisions of the Constitution?

Let’s look at what the United States Supreme Court said about the extent of authority granted by the commerce clause. The case is United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995).

The federal government had enacted the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990”, which forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone.” The District Court denied Lopez, as they claimed that the law was “a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.”

That decision was appealed to the Appellate Court, who then reversed the lower court decisions, when Chief Justice Rehnquist said,


The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute [as is the charge against Massey] that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined… Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite… nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

In a Certiorari to the Supreme Court, the case was heard. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. After a lengthy discussion, affirming most of what the Appellate Court had said in their decision, and extending even further into limitations of federal authority, the Decision concludes, “For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

So, the Supreme Court, back in 1995, imposed a limitation of authority on the federal government, regarding the utilization of the Commerce Clause beyond its Constitutional intent. And, the law that was overturned, 18 U. S. Code Section 922(q), a part of the same statute that is being used against Massey, requires that there be an economic nexus to commerce for a law to be valid.

The first portion of this article explains the wording of the law, (922 (g)(1), and how it is clearly tied to commerce. Whether it was rewritten after the Lopez decision, or not, it must have the nexus to commerce. If the ownership of the gun by Lopez does not have that nexus, how, possibly, can the ownership by Massey have what the other did not?

Commerce begins when somebody “ships” something in interstate commerce. It continues when someone “transports” something interstate commerce. It finally ends when someone “receives” something that has been sent and transported. At that point, the nexus to commerce ceases, and we are back to “Equal Protection under the Law”, where the state that you live in is the authority as to whether you can posses guns or ammunition.

The final point to be made on this subject is the fact that the state of Texas has three branches of government. They have, like every other state, a Legislative, and Executive, and a Judicial branch. The Judicial, of course, is to render justice. The Legislative, to enact laws, under its “Republican Form of Government”, and the Executive to sign such enactments into law, and enforce them.

If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist. On the other hand, the government of Texas should take a more aggressive role, as the Supreme Court did, in limiting the overbearing and abused authority of the federal law enforcement agencies.

Let me repeat two quotations from the above. First is by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision, the second, my observation, from over twenty years of reporting to the Patriot community, on the ramifications and consequences of the current round of persecutions by the federal government, contrary to the state’s constitutions and laws:

  • To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.
  • If what the federal government implies to be true by their persecution of K. C. Massey is true, then there is no need for the three branches of the government of Texas to exist.

Therefore, We must ask ourselves whether the people are here to serve the government, or, is the government here to serve the people? If the former, then we acquiesce to a condition of servitude. If the latter, then we must, in the Court of Public Opinion, rise above the government, and force them back to the limitations imposed on them by the Constitution, by whatever means necessary.


Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – The Arrest of K. C. Massey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 21, 2014


Yesterday, in the early afternoon, Kevin (K.C.) Massey, 48, was arrested in a motel room near Brownsville, Texas. Massey was one of the organizers of Camp Lone Star, which has been turning back, or turning over to the Border Protection Service (BPS), illegal aliens attempting to cross the Southern border. He was alone when the FBI and BATF arrested him, charging him with Felony Possession of a Firearm. He was convicted in 1988 of burglary – over a quarter of a century ago. To better understand the charge against Massey, I refer you to a previous article on a similar situation, “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher. It would appear that Massey is subject to the same intentional misinterpretation of the Federal Statute.

Sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 PM, FBI and BATF agents arrived at the home of Khristy Massey, Kevin’s wife, located in the Quinlan, Texas, over 600 miles from Camp Lone Star.. Massey had not lived at the home for the past four months, and the house is currently for sale. They wanted to search the house for firearms, though Khristy refused, absent a warrant. She was then threatened with arrest if she removed any firearms from the house. Interesting that one can be threatened with arrest for doing what they want with their lives and property – simply because the government went to search a house, though apparently unable to secure a warrant for that search. It makes you wonder if any laws, whatsoever, bind the federal government.

Massey was one of three members of Camp Lone Star involved in a shooting incident that occurred on August 29, 2014 (Massey’s account of incident). Massey, Allen Varner (Wolf), and John Foerster (Jesus), were patrolling on private property near the Texas/Mexico border. A BPS agent Hernandez, standing about 30 feet from Foerster, fired two shots at him, yelled “Stop”, fired two more shots, again yelled “Stop”, and then fired one more shot. Foerster placed his rifle on the ground, deescalating the situation. Hernandez claimed that he was pursuing some illegal aliens. It is noteworthy to understand that the BPS has been instructed not to fire on illegal aliens, unless fired upon — which did not occur, in this incident. Are we to surmise that the BPS IS instructed to fire on American citizens?

Subsequently, while meeting with a BPS Captain and other agents, Massey, Wolf, and Jesus, were asked to store their weapons in the Captain’s vehicle, for security — since there were still illegals in the area and they didn’t want the weapons unsecured and possibly stolen from the open “mule” which the three were travelling in. They also took Massey’s GoPro camera, with no explanation.

Additional BPS officials, Sheriff Deputies, FBI, and DHS agents arrived on the scene to investigate the shooting incident. A Sheriff Deputy then took possession of the five weapons, claiming that they were a part of the evidence in the investigation in the shooting incident — shooting by the BPS agent, not the three men legally possessing firearms on private property.

Shortly thereafter, Jesus was asked to leave Camp Lone Star because of suspected drug use. He had stayed away from the Camp since that time.

Moving forward to the recent events, Camp Lone Star had rented a motel room, a place to take a shower and get a good night’s rest. The evening prior to the arrest, the motel room was used by some of the Camp Lone Star members to conduct a conference call with militia members around the country. Earlier that day, at 1:58 PM, Jesus, for unknown reasons, called Camp Lone Star to say that he would be going over to the Camp. He never did show up. Perhaps he knew of the conference call, because he made two appearances during the course of that call, not at the Camp, but at the motel. He was described to me as fidgety and nervous during the two appearances during the conference call, as if he had something to hide. Is it possible that he was sent to the motel room to report if Massey was alone?

Well, let’s look into the background of John Frederick Foerster. Foerster served a prison term for three counts of burglarizing a building, beginning in May 2001. He was released from prison in August 2002. In 2009, he was charged with theft, in Missouri, disposition unknown. Foerster, however, has not, as of this date been arrested for felony possession of a firearm. He has also recovered his two weapons taken by the BPS and Sheriff on August 29. It has been alleged that Foerster was arrested again, for possession of cocaine, just four days prior to Massey’s arrest, though this has not been confirmed independently.

He claimed, in a phone call made late last night (20th), that he had heard about Massey’s arrest and had tried to call Archie Seals, of Camp Lone Star, numerous times — to find out what had happened with Massey. Archie Seals reports that he has had no contact, nor does his cell phone record show any calls from Foerster.

These occurrences (Beecher and Massey) should provide adequate warning to patriots, especially thus who have a felony record, that there is a concerted effort on the part of government to find cause to bring charges against you and take your guns away. They also provide insight into the tactics that the government is using to cull the patriot community of as many as they can, reducing the remaining numbers, and intimidating those who remain.

For an understanding of how informants and other infiltrators work, I would suggest reading “Informants Amongst Us?” and “Vortex“. To understand who the likely patriot targets of federal persecution are, I suggest “C3CM“.


Related articles:

Camp Lone Star – Update #1 on K. C. Massey

Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws

Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Camp Lone Star – Arbitrary & Capricious Justice?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 5, 2014

One question that is often asked of me, when the discussion involves the Bundy Affair is, “Was Cliven Bundy in charge of the militia?” Though it has been addressed, to some degree, in my previous writings on the incident in Nevada, many still have not grasped it.

So, let’s look at what happened when the entire matter went public. Cliven Bundy, the patriarch of the family, went public with a request for help and support from anyone who saw that the federal government was being unfair. This wasn’t new, since back in 1993, large numbers of people had gone to the ranch in support of the Bundys, in opposition to the aims of the federal government.

In 1993, the grazing fees were raised. Bundy refused to pay the increased fees, for a number of reasons — primarily that the fees were not going back into grazing land improvements, which was supposed to be the primary expenditure for the money raised by those fees. He was, however, willing to pay the old fee rate to Clark County, though they refused to accept them. Hundreds of people went to the Ranch in support of Cliven’s resisting what was apparently an effort to terminate grazing on public lands. Among those who put out the call, at the time, was Lou Epton, a popular radio host in Las Vegas. Lou even went to the Ranch, in support of Bundy.

Two federal judges, Senior District Judge Lloyd D. George (July 9, 2013)and Judge Larry R. Hicks (October 8, 2013) signed orders enjoining Bundy’s “trespass cattle” from grazing on “new trespass land” and allowing the BLM to “arrest” those “trespass cattle” if they grazed on the Trespass land. What the judges failed to recognize is that, first, cattle don’t read very well, and, second, that if the cattle were “arrested”, for any use to be made of them, they would require both Cattle Health certification and Brand certification, both of which, by law, require the signature of the owner of the cattle. Absent Bundy’s signature, transportation into another state, auction, even slaughterhouses, would have to violate the law by receiving the cattle. This made the BLM and the judges complicit in criminal activity — an oft-overlooked consequence of trying to rustle cattle, in this modern age.

Well, what worked in 1993 might also work in 2014. So, when the BLM began their effort to “rustle” the Bundy cattle, Cliven put out a call for supporters to came, as they had twenty years before, and stand against the chicanery of government.

Among those that heard the call, were Jerry Bruckhart and Ryan Payne, both of Operation Mutual Aid (OMA). Ryan arrived on April 6 and met with Cliven. He offered his services to act as a liaison and coordinate activates of militia members from around the country, who might arrive in support of Bundy’s position of defiance against irrational federal activity. Cliven made clear to Payne that he was not calling up the militia, nor was he encouraging them to help. He was only seeking support by anyone who was willing to contribute their time and effort.

The volunteers who answered the call can be classed in four different categories: Local supporters who were concerned over the intrusion of their community by an onslaught of armed federal agents; cowboys from the area who were willing to stand in defense of Bundy’s rights; Other supporters, many from other states, who felt that the government was, once again, acting contrary to the Constitution and against the people; and, Militia members, again many from other states, being willing to stand, armed, against government aggression — though only in a defensive posture.

Each of the groups decided what they wanted to do, often coordinating with another group. On April 12, 2014, all of the groups worked in concert to achieve the now famous “cattle unrustling”. It was not coordinated from above — by Cliven Bundy. On the contrary, throughout the entire event, he was unaware of much of what occurred, until reports came back of an incident. He simply had faith that those who came to support him would do so in a lawful and peaceful manner.

This doesn’t mean that some of his children and close friends were not working with others. How could you not do what you could to help such fine people as Cliven and Carol Bundy, whether related, or not. Consequently, there was a degree of coordination between groups, as they were all there for the same purpose. And, there were members of the family that were aware of what was going on, from day-to-day, though they never sought advice from, nor apprised Cliven, of what was going on — only reported things that had happened.

So, go back to the beginning question. There were essentially two militia groups. One was off the Ranch on public lands, this group providing a defensive perimeter — to insure that the BLM agents did not enter the Bundy property — which was not authorized by either court order. The other militia unit was detached from the militia and took a role, as individuals, to protect the immediate family, at the Ranch. They were not acting as militia, rather as a Personal Security Detail. They remained on the property and near the house, wary of the government, especially in light of incidents including Donald Scott, Vicki Weaver, David Koresh, and others who had managed to bring the lethal wrath of government upon them. However, Cliven didn’t control them any more than the President controls the Secret Service. Each have their job to do, and each will do all within its power to fulfill its mission.

The method of relationship established between the militia and the owner of the proper, in this incident. resulted in the making the establishment of such a relationship a principal element of the Organizational Plan for Militia Response, as a guideline in any future incident.

So, it’s time to put to rest the idea that Cliven Bundy was the Commanding Officer of the militia. It is much more reasonable to understand that Cliven Bundy was subject to the effect the militia had on the situation. It was independent, and only had a liaison with Bundy so that each would know what the other was doing, to the degree that there might be conflict between the two. It might best be said that Cliven was relying on Divine Providence, and, the militia was, also, relying on Divine Providence.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

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

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 23, 2014


Last October (29, 2013), I wrote an article on “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“. In that article, I addressed the appeasement, by the government, regarding both foreign and domestic matters.

At the time, it had not crossed my mind that we have a choice between “Liberty or Laws”, only that we had to try to change what was happening – though the methods of achieving that end varied, greatly. This current series, however, delves into the supposition that the country belongs to us, not the government. Not really a strange concept, as it was that very way of thinking that led to the Revolutionary War — that the country, in fact, belongs to the people of that country — that when government violates the trust, the people will either accept the condition, or the will take back that government. This concept is embodied in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when 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.

What happens, then, when the people continue with a doctrine of appeasement with government? Can there be any justification for such doctrine, and, if so, at what point in the invariable course of government do we determine to do our duty — for the sake of our posterity?

So, perhaps we should look at just how we are appeasing the government:

  • The Constitution provides that only Congress can declare war (Art. I, §8, cl. 11), though we have allowed both the President and Congress to engage in war, without a requisite declaration. Over time, it has become the “prerogative” of the President to engage in war, absent an objection by the Congress.       The provision in the Constitution was so placed so that the power and expense of war would not lie in the hands of one man.
  • The Constitution provides that only Congress call forth the militia to repel invasion (Art. I, §8, cl. 15), though Congress has failed to do so repel the invasion, in violation of existing laws regarding immigration, which can be described as no less than an invasion. If Congress called them forth, the President would be Commander in Chief but the obligation to utilize them to repel invasion could not be detracted.
  • The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to become a benefactor, taking money from those that justly earn it to give to those unwilling to earn their own livelihood. This has historically been an act of private people and organizations, and to some degree, within the local community (Not Yours To Give). It was never mandatory, until the government decided to buy the favor (chicken in every pot) of a class of people.
  • The supporters of the Constitution, in addressing at least five of the state ratifying conventions, explained that “direct taxes” would only be imposed in an emergency (to pay for war, or other extraordinary events – See “Ratification” by Pauline Maier). Instead, we pay a minimum of 1/5th of our earnings directly to government. This does not include the taxes paid prior to purchase of an item by every person involved in the production of the item — compounding the true tax paid.       “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance” (Declaration of Independence).
  • The First Amendment mandates that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion“.       This means that they cannot set one church above others (and, to Framers, Christianity was the acceptable religion, the various denominations being the object of the Amendment). However, by administratively creating and forcing churches into 501(c)(3) status, then limiting what they could include within their sermons (except Muslim churches), they have “established” a religion that has no moral values, and allowed another to espouse values foreign to our nature, without consequence.
  • The Constitution makes no provision for the control of education of the children of the People. Public Education belonged, for over 180 years, to the public, not the government.       The Department of Education was created in 1867, under Reconstruction), though abandoned after a year of existence. Its purpose, at the time, was to “educated” southern children to Northern values. It was reconstituted in 1953 as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and has become a source of absolute and arbitrary control over the education process throughout the country, in a form of indoctrination which exceeds anything ever imagined by Adolph Hitler, as a tool of government propaganda, to the point that basic skills have nearly been removed from the curriculum and social engineering programs have replaced them as the focus of the educational system.
  • With the recent militarization of police, and the ongoing efforts to restrict and outlaw gun ownership, we find that we are fast approaching absolute subjugation to government authority. We are far worse off than our English ancestors in the mid-seventeen-hundreds, when in Parliament, William Pitt said:

The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all of the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement

And, we find that concerns that are recorded in our document of Independence from despotic government included within its concerns:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us…          For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states” (Declaration of Independence).

For the sake of brevity, I will leave you to add your additional concerns regarding the intentions of government.

The question arises, do we stand for our Liberties, or, do we abide by fabricated laws? To continue on the path we walk renders us as guilty of appeasement as was Chamberlin prior to World War II, and our own government is today, as addressed in “Appeasement – Giving in, inch by inch“.

n. The action or process of appeasing.

v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.

Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful