Posts Tagged ‘Taxes’

Barbeau Qued in Seattle – Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License

Sunday, December 20th, 2015

Barbeau Qued in Seattle

Search Warrant Affidavit or Fishing License

 Court FBI composite


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 20, 2015

As we continue to investigate the curious circumstances that on December 6, lead to an arrest, the search of a car, and the search of a ranch some 280 miles away, in what appears to be a simultaneous effort, more revelations to come to light. Why were the Search Warrants served on the Aenk Ranch? What did that have to do with Schuyler Barbeau? Was the government grasping for straws?

The Affidavit of Special Agent Michael Baldino (BA), in support of the search warrants, provides additional insight into what led to those events of December 6, 2015.

The Affidavit starts out nearly identical to the Criminal Complaint (CC). However, we see some deceptions revealed in this second document. For example, in the CC, paragraph 5, we find, “On June 5, 2015, the Seattle Division of the FBI received information from a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) regarding potential threats to law enforcement made by Washington State resident, Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau.” This would lead one to believe that Oliver Murphy approached the FBI. However, in paragraph 9 of BA, we find, “On June 5, 2015, the Seattle Division of the FBI received information from another law enforcement agency that resulted in FBI Special Agent Daniel Bennett contacting a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) regarding potential threats to law enforcement made by Washington State resident, Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau1.” So, now we see that there was another law enforcement agency involved, although we have no idea what led them to Murphy. However, the footnote to the superscript provides even more insight, when we read that footnote, “1The FBI has paid the CHS for his involvement in this matter over $3,500.” That’s right; Oliver Murphy sold his friend, Schuyler Barbeau, out to the government. So, now, we have to evaluate whether what Murphy told the government is truthful, partially truthful, or fabricated. After all, that is an incentive to make sure that the feds get what they want so that he gets his “paycheck”.

Interestingly, as well, in the CC, it appears that Baldino has personal knowledge, where in the BA, we find that SA Bennett is the contact with Murphy. So, we can see from the beginning that they are just throwing words on paper in order to achieve their rather nefarious ends. And, that they bought a source to go after Schuyler Barbeau.

Interestingly, in CC paragraph 13, and again in BA paragraph 14, we find, “the CHS [Oliver Murphy] met with Barbeau and informed him that he/she had a buyer interested in purchasing his SBR for the 5,000 dollars Barbeau had asked for previously.” Rather ironic, in that on December 5, 2015, Murphy’s Facebook page shows that he started a relationship with Sam Erickson, which is confirmed on Sam Erickson’s Facebook page. However, the government was simply trying to protect the gender of the informant, but, rest assured, we will out the informants, as they arise.

The CC ends with paragraph 17, which is the same as BA paragraph 18. This is a rather interesting statement, as I spoke with the person that was with Barbeau the day (November 22) that he dropped the case off at Murphy’s house. The case contained a receiver and 2 barrels. This paragraph tells us that “ATF Special Agent Claudia Grigore inspected the SBR at the FBI’s office in Seattle and certified that the barrel was less than 16 inches in length“, however, they don’t mention that there were two barrels, nor do they say whether they had to affix one of the barrels to the receiver, to make that statement. Not very professional, but, it does appear to suit their purpose of demonizing Barbeau to omit such a crucial detail.

The Affidavit, however, continues, and this is where the justification for the raid at the Aenk Ranch begins.

On December 4 (this is the day before Oliver developed a relationship with Sam), in a recorded phone conversation, Murphy asked if the Aenks knew how much money Barbeau was getting from the sale of the parts. Was this an effort to try to implicate the Aenks in criminal activity? Barbeau’s answer, “They know what’s going on“, is rather innocuous, but it just might help to demonize the Aenks for having a friend like Schuyler Barbeau.

In paragraph 20, the Affidavit states that according to Murphy, “Barbeau said that he had stolen some blasting caps and detonation cord from his U.S. Army National Guard unit.”

In paragraph 21, FBI SA Bennett spoke with the National Guard on June 29 and 30. This then would be the first investigation after Barbeau came onto the government radar (June 5). However, they do not receive any information regarding the possible theft at the National Guard until October 19, over four months later. I suppose that the FBI has some mystical crystal ball with which to determine the course of an investigation, before the investigation develops information — or they are lying, or otherwise purposely excluding something.

However, it is interesting that in contacting the National Guard, they find that Barbeau had an Honorable Discharge from both the Marines and National Guard, over the course of his eight years of service. They do point out that he was a “combat engineer” suggesting that he would know what to do with blasting caps and detonation cord. However, whether they asked, or not, they do not tell us if any blasting caps or detonation cord was missing. If none was missing, it would blow the story. If some was missing, then surely they would have so stated. Either that, or their investigative skills are lacking.

So, we have no definitive proof that what might just be bragging, “I stole some blasting caps and detonation cord”, is supported by any evidence that any blasting caps or detonation cord is missing. However, if you want to “get your man”, why quibble over facts or details.

On November 8, Barbeau, Carrie Aenk, and Murphy met at a restaurant. According to the BA, Murphy was wired for sound. However, rather than providing quotations from the recording, we get Bennett’s interpretation, which does not let us know the context of anything said, or whether all present were privy to what was being discussed. Then, after the meeting, Murphy informs Bennett that they were planning to retrieve a bag from the woods. Why would Murphy have to inform Bennett, if Bennett has a recording of all that transpired? Bennett does provide some quotes, but the context that would suggest knowledge, as opposed to observations, demonstrates that deficiency is indicative of inability.

After the meeting, incompetence on the part of “law enforcement” is demonstrated, when Barbeau and Aenk left the restaurant. The tail apparently lost contact with the vehicle.

Later, that same evening, the FBI observed Aenk in the car, but does not mention Barbeau. Twenty-seven minutes later, the vehicle was gone. Boy, that’s twice in one night that law enforcement and/or the FBI could not keep track of a vehicle. No wonder that Muslims can shoot up Christmas parties, even though they are on the watch list.

The BA continues, with superfluous information, mostly to try to establish that Barbeau was a tough guy. The end result was that the Search Warrants were issued on December 5, and executed the following day.

Perhaps most interesting however, is the fact that the search yielded nothing that led to any additional charges being filed against Barbeau. The original charges, based upon the Arrest Warrant for tax violations, are all that the government can prosecute Schuyler on. They have simply gone through these additional exercises to be able to demonize him by referencing “stolen federal property”, which they cannot find, and cannot even prove that it was stolen, in the first place. The accusation of possessing a machine gun, based upon no direct observation, only upon a conversation (included in the BA), and, most recently, the effort to describe Schuyler as a “domestic terrorist“.

Oliver Murphy

Since we have a little more paper, let’s look at the primary witness against Barbeau. Oliver Murphy has been described by friends and family as a very close friend of Schuyler. I have been told that Schuyler began suspecting Murphy of being an informant, about a week before he was arrested. That would also be about a week after Schuyler delivered the case of firearms parts to Murphy (November 22). Perhaps this played out when Schuyler contacted Murphy to ask for the $5,000 (purchase price), and Murphy said that he didn’t have it. Then, Schuyler probably said that he wanted the parts back. But, Murphy would have to say that he didn’t have them — because he had given them to the FBI. So, no money, no parts. That might raise Schuyler’s suspicion of Murphy’s role in what was soon to play out.

There is more to Murphy, which has been alluded to, previously. Murphy had a wife and three daughters, according to sources. WhenOliver and Sam he was first identified as CHS, there was concern that he may have been coerced by the FBI — charged with a crime and made to plea out so that he could continue to provide for his family. However, with the amount ($3,500) that he was paid as an informant (which is what the FBI refers to as Confidential Human Source (CHS)), and his new relationship, that theory speculation apart.

As can be readily understood, Murphy had abandoned family life for a new (and unfortunately rather common) queer relationship. Rather than concern for family, perhaps needing money to start a “new life” was instrumental in Murphy turning on his old friend.


Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau

Wednesday, December 9th, 2015

Barbeau Qued in Seattle
The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau

Schuyler Barbeau

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 8, 2015

In the late morning of December 6, 2015, Schuyler Barbeau had been helping Allen Aenk by rescuing service dogs as a business service run from the Aenk family Ranch, in Stevens County, Washington some 280 miles away from where the following events begin to unfold.

At the Weigh Station

After dealing with the dogs, Schuyler wanted stop to collect some money owed him by Oliver Murphy. Murphy texted to Schuyler to meet him at a weigh station at Interstate 90 and Washington Highway 18 (between Preston and Snoqualmie). When they arrived at the weigh station, Oliver’s car was there, but Oliver was nowhere to be seen. So, they parked next to Oliver’s car and Allen got out of the car, cell phone in hand to call his wife and to take the dog to the Dog Walk.

Before he could complete his intended tasks, he saw between 10 and 12 battle dressed people encircle the him and the car. He was told to lie down on the ground. He complied, though he questioned why they were being treated this way. They then handcuffed Allen, and since Schuyler was on the other side of the car, he didn’t really see what happened to him. Allen did note that he saw FBI, US Marshalls, and Coast Guard, though there were no apparent BATF agents on the scene. But, we’ll get to the charges shortly.

The agents were going through his car, but they had no warrant with them, they simply stated that they did have one (There was a warrant to search the car at the premises – ranch, but nothing identifying the car specifically).

They then moved Allen away from the car and began asking questions about Schuyler, but were told to ask Schuyler, not him.

After they had searched the car, one of the agents, acting rather rudely and assertively, asked Allen to sign a “Receipt for Property Seized”, which Allen refused to sign, and Special Agent Kera O’Reilly (did you ever wonder why gimp kids are special, and so are FBI agents?) affirmed that he refused. However, he was provided a copy, and it shows the following items seized from the car:

— Green “Bad Inc” Vest with visible firearms magazine with unknown contents inside pockets, bags, etc

— Grey “Universal” bag with yellow straps, with green sunglasses on strap and unknown contents

— FNH VSA pistol (FNX-45 Tactical Serial # FX3U025994) w/ [intelligible]

Inforce tactical light

1 round loose, 15 in magazine full metal jacket 45 cal

— Cellular telephone, Android platform,

Droid Turbo, w/ other box (grey w/ yellow outline)

Allen was not allowed to verify some of those seized item, in particular, the “Grey Universal bag with yellow straps”, so the feds can do anything they want with the contents. It was Special Agent O’Reilly who, rather rudely, refused Allen’s request to review the contents.

Just so we know who the rather rude agent that dealt with Allen is, she was Kera Wulbert, and may have been Kera Wulbert Wagner, prior to that. Around 2013, she married Brendan Gerard O’Reilly (age 46) and quit-claimed her house at 2914 S Hill Street, Seattle, to herself and her new husband. Enough of that, so, on with the show:

The other Special Agent was Matthew Acker, who acted courteously, as we should be able to expect our public servants to act toward us. These two agents were, apparently, assigned to Allen, while we can suppose that the rest of the jackboots were needed to assure that Schuyler did take over the surrounding forces, though we will have to get that information from him, when he is removed from sequestration and allowed visitors and phone calls.

The Criminal Complaint

Though we have no proof of the existence of an Arrest Warrant being issued prior to the arrest, we do have the Criminal Complaint that resulted in the arrest, as well as the search warrant.

The only Count in the Complaint says that Schuyler “knowingly possessed a firearm which was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, as required by law, namely, a particular black, semiautomatic AR-15 5.56 mm caliber assault rifle with a 10.5 inch barrel and holographic sight, a rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length”, for which the government wants a $200 tax The refer to Title 26, US Code, §§5861(d) and 5845(a)(3) as the violations. Title 26 is the tax code, so they are assuming that Schuyler owes a tax, and that he failed to pay it. Can you imagine how much it cost the government to persecute Schuyler, as opposed, say, to sending him a bill?

It appears that what he had was a Rainier Arms UltraMatch .223 Wylde Complete Upper – 10.5. This is advertised by Rainier Arms, and the add states that “ALL NFA Rules Apply”.

So, we know and understand that a Class III license holder has, by obtaining the license, agreed to do certain things. Among them would be to verify that if he sold such an item, alleged to be illegal in the Complaint, he would have to run a background check, provide the necessary paperwork to the purchaser, submit the paperwork, and fulfill all of the duties that the regulations require of him. But, that is because he contracted, by obtaining the license, with the government to perform those tasks required by those regulations. This would include 18 USC (criminal) and 26 US Code (tax), and perhaps others. But, it is only the licensee that has agreed to abide by those regulations.

However, the Second Amendment has confirmed our right to bear arms, without infringement. This leaves the government with only limited jurisdiction, via the Commerce Clause (interstate commerce) and the taxing authority, as the means of the government to try to circumvent the limits imposed upon the government by the Constitution. However, if someone hasn’t contracted with the government, they, as well as the government, should be bound only by the Constitution. Schuyler’s right to possess that firearm is sacred; there is no justification for the government to attempt to, by force of arms, pay a tax on that right — regardless of what the government thinks. And, it is his right to do so that we, the People, need to “support and defend”.

Back to the Complaint. Special Agent Michael Baldino executed the Complaint. He is a member of the Seattle Division’s Domestic Terrorism Squad of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). Those are the guys that let Muslims kill people in California, while they mess with Americans that are intent on defending America against those Muslim terrorists, and BLM wannabes.

In paragraph 5 (page 3/6) we see that a Confidential Human Source (CHS) provided information (snitched) to the FBI about Schuyler. The Complaint is a substitute for the constitutionally required affidavit, and a poor substitute, at that. An affidavit is sworn as to personal knowledge, and is not supposed to give any validity to hearsay. However, since Baldino didn’t “swear” to the document, well, he can say anything that he wants.

Back to the CHS. It has been confirmed that the CHS in the Complaint is none other than Oliver Murphy. Yes, that is the one that baited Schuyler and Allen to the Weigh Station, but it doesn’t end here. Before we proceed, perhaps we ought to look at Mr. Murphy. His father, Patrick Murphy, was Snohomish County Sheriff. He was appointed to that position in 1995, when then Sheriff Jim Scharf stepped down to become the Everett Police Chief. Murphy, however, didn’t stay long. He was charged with four counts of felony possession of prescription medication. Patrick died in 2006, so maybe Oliver wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and become recognized in “law enforcement”. At any rate, Oliver was in from the beginning to the end of Schuyler’s ordeal.

Paragraph 7 (Complaint) tells us that CHS was invited to the trailer that Schuyler was staying in at the Aenk’s ranch, on October 19, 2015. The Aenk’s have confirmed that it was Murphy that stayed with Schuyler, on that date. There is only one CHS (if there are more than one, they are numbered), so it is Murphy in every instance in the Complaint.

Next, we have Baldino going to Facebook to see what “dirt” he could get on Schuyler. He found photographs where Schuyler acknowledged that he owned a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR), which would be the Rainier Arms UltraMatch. So, when Schuyler suggested that he wanted to sell it. Murphy, being such a nice guy, let Schuyler know that he had found a buyer for the SBR.

On November 22, Schuyler dropped the SBR off at Murphy’s “residence”. So now, Murphy possess the SBR, but he has not been charged, and, according to the available information, he is not law enforcement, nor is he exempt from any regulation that might be imposed, legally, or not, on Schuyler. But, Murphy was never charged with a crime, but, then, that is the nature of a police state, isn’t it?

Schuyler has given up the SBR, Murphy gives it to the FBI, but nobody has paid Schuyler for the purchase the SBR. That sounds awfully like what is commonly referred to as theft, fraud, swindle, or some other real crime that has an injured party, namely Schuyler. But, in this modern world where it is always somebody else’s fault, the only one that didn’t hurt anybody by stealing property was Schuyler.

It was probably to collect the money that Murphy was supposed to have sold the SBR for that was the enticement for Schuyler and Allen to go to the Weigh Station.

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

About the same time that those events were occurring at the Weigh Station across the state in Springdale, Carrie Aenk was facing her own ordeal. The following is based upon an interview and documents that have been provided.

Thirty to 35 people showed up in 7 or 8 vehicles. Carrie, when she saw them driving in, tried to call Allen. There was no answer. however, the used a battering ram on the back door of the house. They also released some of the dogs from their kennel.

The search warrant is marked “X in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.” (Page 1 of pdf). It says nothing about “no knock”, so it must be served in a civil manner. A battering ram at the back door of the house hardly satisfies that expectation, but, then, we you give thugs a license, they can do as they please — the Constitution notwithstanding.

I think we need to note here that the search warrant among other things, states that “I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and seize the person or property.” However, no affidavit, or recorded testimony, has been provided. And, if we were to assume that the Criminal Complaint somehow satisfies that requirement, then even more curious is the fact that the search warrant brings in charges that were not included in the Complaint, or anywhere else in any of the currently existing court documents.

As far as the Warrant, it gives permission to search for the person or property described in “Attachment A”. “Attachment A” says, “This warrant authorizes the search of Schuyler Pyatte Barbeau for any cellular phones. This warrant authorizes the search of any such phones for the items described in “Attachment B”. Then, it remarks that Schuyler resides in a trailer on the property. So, the warrant only allows them to search Schuyler for any phones, and then to search any phones for items in “Attachment B”. So, to make this clear, Schuyler can be searched for phones. Presumably, if phones are found, those phones can be searched for the items identified in “Attachment B”. There doesn’t appear to be any authority to search beyond that limitation. So, let’s look at attachment be to see just what might be found in the phones.

“Attachment B” begins with, “Items to Be Seized from the Phone Described in Attachment A.” Before we continue with Attachment B, let’s reflect on what they just said. The items to be seized are to be seized from the phone. I know that the concept of seizing items from a phone is difficult to digest, unless, of course, you are a government agent. I realize that smart phones are a bit over my head, but I still have a problem understanding how items can be seized from them. But, let’s continue and see just what those federal agents can “seize” from a phone.

Continuing in Attachment B, “All documents and items reflecting evidence and/or fruits of the commission of the crimes of (a) unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(3); (b) possession of stolen federal property, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641; and (c) possession of a machine gun, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o), including:”, then it goes on to list, not items, rather, telephone serial numbers; sent, received, and missed calls; stored contact information; and, any stored photographs or Facebook posts –that might show something illegal.

This brings to mind an important part of the Constitution, you know, where they itemized some of the inherent rights of the People, not as grants by the government, rather, prohibitions against the government violating them. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, if information stored on a cell phone (since it can’t be the items that were to be seized) is simply a modern substitute for “papers and effects”, then it requires that the probable cause must be supported by “Oath or affirmation”. Unfortunately, the government has failed to provide such.

The Complaint was for a tax violation, only, and being singularly concerned with that SBR. If we assume that the “affirmation” (that is really stretching our language to an extreme), then the extent of that affirmation must be limited to the SBR and Title 26 (taxes). So, where the hell does “possession of stolen federal property” and “possession of a machine gun” come into the picture? Do this just make this shit up while sitting around the water cooler? Also, consider the judge, Thomas O. Rice; does he even read what he signs? And, all of these idiots, even the judge, probably make over $100,000 a year — of our money. It seems more like the Mafia than a government.

Just to throw a little confusion into the mix, both of these attachments mentioned above bear the case number directly below the title. There are two more attachment “A”s, but neither of them have a case number, so they are either sloppy, inserted these from some other source, or they could care less about the identification of legal documents. Take your pick, but when you are dealing with incompetence, it can only be a wild guess.

Given the limits of what could be searched for, let’s look at what they found “on the phone”:

1) Plastic bag with .223 ammo

2) Seven (7) 223 magazine

3) Verizon bill, ID cards, record book

4) Motorola mobile phone, model XT 912

5) Nylon bag with camping tool, tape (?)

6) Plastic box with gun parts

7) Large plastic bag with gun parts

It is hard to believe that any of those items, except No. 4, could satisfy the conditions of the warrant

However, the act of the service of this warrant, after the battering ram entry, gets even more interesting. After they entered the house, they flash-banged every room they entered. Carrie counted at least eight of them in the house. That’s right, they threw flash-bang grenades into each room, in order to clear it, perhaps, from evil spirits, since it would be difficult to otherwise understand the necessity of causing intentional damage, including gaping holes in walls, windows blown out, not to mention the back door that was battered open, and one helluva mess to prove that the government has come to “help you”. If there is an assumption being made here that the government will perform restitution for the damage they caused, especially if the charges are dropped against Schuyler, then you are sadly mistaken.

While this “search” (and destroy) was going on, Carrie was held handcuffed for about an hour and a half, and she was not allowed to contact her attorney. They also held a gun on Carrie throughout this entire ordeal. Perhaps there is reason for concern when there is just one pissed off woman, and only 30 to 35 armed men to keep her under control.

While searching the rest of the premises, they used at least ten more flash bangs, some of them apparently only to scare the dogs, which resulted in laughter by some of the agents, who apparently were enjoying themselves immensely while terrorizing Carrie. I will conclude by stating that this is, by far, the most egregious abuse of presumed governmental authority that I have seen since my visit to Waco, back in 1993.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on whether we are truly a self-governed nation, or have become subject to a government far more despotic that that one cast off by the Founders, 239 years ago. And, to reflect upon our obligation, as that “Posterity” identified in the Preamble to the Constitution, to assure that this once great nation returns to its intended object, for our own Posterity.

For the follow up; Schuyler’s description of what happened, see:

Barbeau Qued in Seattle – The Arrest of Schuyler Barbeau – Part II – In Schuyler’s Own Words

Greenmail Income Tax, Flat Tax, or, No Tax?

Monday, June 22nd, 2015

Income Tax, Flat Tax, or, No Tax?

inverted man shaking coins out of pockets IRS

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 22, 2015

For those who believe that the federal government should tax us, either by income tax or a fair tax, or any other direct means of taxation, must understand that doing so only creates socialism among the states (taking from one to give to another), as the following table shows (A more complete table can also be found at Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State).

The table is from 2005 (I haven’t found a newer one, yet), so I would suppose that the only changes, absent minor redistributions of moneys, would be that the numbers have gone up, proportionately, in the last 6 years.

Note that $2,084,247,000,000 was taken in through taxes and that $2,210,184,000,000 was sent back to the states. This results in nearly $126 billion that was added back to the states’ side (to the benefit of the state). This additional money is likely a debt passed on to our posterity. And, this does not account for the many trillions spent by the federal government, each year, to support wars, foreign aid, and the expense of operating the government and its administrative agencies.

So, if the money never went to the federal government (income taxes), then the states would have had less revenue, even if they retained that which would have gone to the federal government for redistribution back to the states.

Now, there is also a loss in the administration of the distribution of the money. First, it is collected (IRS); then it has to go to the various agencies (accounting) for distribution back to the states (with all of the strings attached); then the state has to distribute the funds according to those strings, which, surely, requires a significant staff to assure that no money goes where the federal government does not want it to go, and vice-versa.

How much less would it cost if the states collected that money (and, being closer to home, might be more cautious in their raising taxes and spending recklessly, or to comply with federally mandated programs), and determined where it was to go, without federal intervention?

Now, if this does not convince you that a federal direct tax is unnecessary, and that it is used to manipulate social change and to bring the states into subjugation, then I would appreciate your explanation as to why it does not.

You should also note that Washington, D.C. gets back nearly six times, per capita, what it contributes, which amounts to over $65,000 per resident of that “model” city.

You can understand that rather than calling this blackmail, it is more appropriately defined as “Greenmail”.

Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received*

Total Dollars ($millions)

Dollars Per Capita

Federal Taxes Paid to Washington, D.C. Federal Spending Received Federal Taxes Paid to Washington, D.C. State Rank     (1 is highest) Federal Spending Received
DC $6,735 $37,859 $11,582 1 $65,109
NM $9,891 $20,604 $5,153 47 $10,733
MS $12,434 $26,181 $4,281 51 $9,014
AK $4,830 $9,230 $5,434 19 $13,950
LA $20,563 $39,628 $4,565 50 $8,798
WV $8,815 $16,087 $4,861 49 $8,872
ND $3,829 $6,608 $6,031 37 $10,408
AL $24,675 $42,061 $5,434 43 $9,263
SD $4,840 $7,481 $6,256 29 $9,669
KY $22,003 $34,653 $5,283 46 $8,321
VA $60,185 $95,097 $7,981 11 $12,610
MT $5,228 $7,814 $5,605 40 $8,378
HI $8,519 $12,699 $6,709 21 $10,001
ME $7,728 $11,365 $5,868 39 $8,629
AR $13,926 $20,387 $5,030 48 $7,364
OK $19,572 $27,637 $5,532 41 $7,811
SC $22,711 $32,044 $5,364 44 $7,568
MO $35,171 $48,273 $6,078 35 $8,342
MD $49,178 $66,720 $8,812 5 $11,956
TN $35,872 $48,288 $6,041 36 $8,132
ID $7,728 $9,598 $5,440 42 $6,756
AZ $35,988 $44,639 $6,099 32 $7,564
KS $17,434 $20,492 $6,350 28 $7,463
WY $4,209 $4,782 $8,286 8 $9,414
IA $17,830 $20,345 $6,019 38 $6,867
NE $11,261 $12,785 $6,415 27 $7,283
VT $4,085 $4,645 $6,568 23 $7,468
NC $52,547 $59,162 $6,084 34 $6,850
PA $87,940 $99,503 $7,093 20 $8,025
UT $13,134 $14,823 $5,311 45 $5,994
IN $38,081 $42,347 $6,088 33 $6,770
OH $70,304 $77,881 $6,130 31 $6,791
GA $55,952 $59,846 $6,160 30 $6,589
RI $7,969 $8,423 $7,414 18 $7,836
FL $135,146 $134,544 $7,649 17 $7,615
TX $146,932 $148,683 $6,437 26 $6,514
OR $23,583 $22,792 $6,503 25 $6,285
MI $66,326 $64,787 $6,568 24 $6,415
WA $49,682 $46,338 $7,923 13 $7,390
MA $63,003 $55,830 $9,792 4 $8,677
CO $35,880 $31,173 $7,721 16 $6,708
NY $168,710 $144,876 $8,737 6 $7,503
CA $289,627 $242,023 $8,028 10 $6,709
DE $6,622 $5,495 $7,898 14 $6,553
IL $99,776 $80,778 $7,824 15 $6,334
MN $40,578 $31,067 $7,928 12 $6,415
NH $10,649 $8,331 $8,162 9 $6,386
CT $40,314 $30,774 $11,522 2 $8,795
NV $20,135 $14,089 $8,417 7 $5,889
NJ $86,112 $58,617 $9,902 3 $6,740
$2,084,247 $2,210,184 $342,368 $457,528


* During fiscal years in which the federal government runs deficits some spending is financed through borrowing. This creates implicit tax liabilities for states that must be repaid eventually. To incorporate these implicit tax liabilities into the analysis, the following adjustment was made to state tax burdens: First, the total federal tax burden is increased by the size of the federal deficit. Next, this total burden is allocated among states based on each state’s proportion of the actual federal tax burden. Finally, adjusted spending-per-dollar-of-tax ratios are calculated by dividing actual expenditures by the adjusted tax figure, effectively making figures deficit neutral.

Source: Tax Foundation Special Report No. 158, “Federal Tax Burdens and Spending by State,” and U.S. Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report for 2005.


Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Friday, August 22nd, 2014

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


Taxation without Representation

Wednesday, March 12th, 2014

Taxation without Representation

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2002

Early this past year, we were still being told how gracious President George W. Bush (George III) was in allowing the taxpayers (American citizens) to keep the surpluses created by a healthy economy. After all, it was their money, wasn’t it?

The current estimate for the cost of a war (police action) in Iraq is set at $200,000,000,000.00 (two hundred billion dollars), and that is assuming that a government project falls within its original budget.

So far, defense spending, in normal budgetary terms, is at its highest in many years. Though it doesn’t appear that this extremely high budget is any part of the estimated 200 billion.

Two-hundred billion dollars! Just how much money is that? Well, it is over $765.00 for every man, woman and child in this country. A family of four will be contributing over #3,060.00 dollars to a ‘war’ that, we are told, is to protect us.

Early in this century, the mobs ran protection rackets in major cities. For a few dollars here and there, the mob would assure you that you would be protected from the violence that occurred, from time to time, to those who had not chosen to participate in the protection ‘racket’.

Has the government learned from the mob? If so, they are doing far better at it than the mob had ever anticipated. First, the mob numbers, even accounting for inflation, would never amount to over three thousand dollars per household.

Secondly, the mob only sought protection from people who were involved in a business. In the current situation, every taxpayer is going to have to participate, whether an employer or employee, and his participation will have to be increased proportionate to the ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Loosely, he will have to pay about four times what his “fair share” really is. Yes, that’s a whopping $12,000.00 for each and every taxpayer.

But, don’t be discouraged. The government, you see, is much easier to work with than the mob. First, you needn’t anticipate immediate harm, if you fail to pay. In fact, the threat that is the cause for the “protection racket” is rather speculative, to say the least. It is best upon conjecture that Saddam Hussein: has weapons that can cause great harm in this country; has the means of delivering those weapons; has the motivation to deliver them (which, we are trying desperately to provide); and, finally, that he would be willing to deliver them.

Secondly, the government, has much better credit than the mob, is willing to allow your obligation to be carried, from year to year, until satisfied. Realizing that there is no way for each taxpayer to come up with his “fair share”, in addition to the regular protection money that he has been paying, regularly, the government will just “mark up” the debt, and chisel away at it, in years to come (perhaps, many, many years – hopefully, slightly faster than interest will increase the burden).

I’ll bet that you are wondering what this has to do with taxation. Well, let’s see if we can pull the pieces together. First, we must have an understanding of “representation”. I know that we all know that we think that we know what it means. After all, we all know who our “representatives” are, both in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C. They are there to “represent” us.

Let’s begin with a few definitions. First, from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (considered the language of the Founders):
” Representative… 2. In legislative or other business, an agent, deputy or substitute who supplies the place of another or others, being invested with his or their authority. An attorney is the representative of his client or employer. A member of the house of commons is the representative of his constituents and of the nation. In matters concerning his constituents only, he is supposed to be bound by their instructions, but in the enacting of laws for the nation, he is supposed not to be bound by their instructions, as he acts for the whole nation. ”

From Black’s Law Dictionary (fifth Edition): “Representative. A person chosen by the people to represent their several interests in a legislative body.”

So, it appears by Webster’s (as the Founders would have understood it) that a representative, with the exception of passing “laws” in the interest of the nation, is bound by the instruction of his constituents. The time has passed whence instructions were given, specifically, to the representatives. This process has been replaced in what has become known as “campaign promises”.

In campaign promises, a candidate tell the constituents what he will do when he is elected. The candidate that seems to best represent, ideologically and specifically, the interest of the greater number of voters is elected – and, sent to represent the “several interests” (Black’s) of the people.


Now, if your candidate had campaigned under “no new taxes”, he would have to carry that “campaign promise” as an indication of the “several interests” of the people.

So, the question arises, “Does an elected representative, once he violates his campaign promise, cease to represent his constituents?”


Congress has specific responsibilities assigned to them by the Constitution. One of those, and one which is very significant in the limitations of power which were desired and inherent, when the Constitution was written and ratified, is the “Power … To declare War”.

So, the question arises, “Should an elected representative shirk his Constitutional responsibility, does he cease to represent his constituents?”


There is little doubt that real war (declared in accordance with the Constitution), which without might cause a failure in the governmental obligation for “common defense”, is a situation which warrants incurring debt. Like any family, it is the duty of the head of that family NOT to incur such debt as to force his children, and their children into debt before their lifetime begins. The Constitution even assured that a means of bankruptcy would preclude the necessity of burdening posterity with debt of which they had no part.

It should be evident that our representatives in Congress, likewise, except in cases of necessity, cannot burden those yet unborn with obligations to repay debt of which they had no part. To do so, without extraordinary cause, would be to tax those who one could not possibly represent.

So, the question arises: “Should an elected representative impose a tax on someone yet unborn, except under extraordinary circumstances, is he taxing without representation?”


The government of the United States of America exists ONLY because the people caused it to exist. Unlike any government that preceded it, its source is the people, and the people, only.

All other governments, prior to the founding of the United States, were lead by people who had acquired leadership (ownership) of the country by either force; or, divine right (from God).

The creation of that government was under certain conditions. The authority of the government to govern was first granted by the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient authority for the federal government to be able to maintain itself sufficiently to conduct its business.

The Constitution, in order to provide a “more perfect Union” of independent and sovereign states, was created with very specific powers, authorities, and limitations. It was endowed, by the people, with authority and RESPONSIBILITY. As such, it exists ONLY at the will of the people. It represents (stands in the place of) only those to whom it has kept its promise.

To think that we could walk away from government; abolish it by our consent, especially in a representative form of government, is, without question, impossible.

On the other hand, if that contract is breached by the government, they, by their very act of violation, have removed themselves from the contract. The have divested us from that government.

If any of the questions above are answered in the affirmative, the government has violated your consent to be governed by them. They have ceased to have any authority over your life, except that which they can impose by force. Similarly, the only effect you can have on them is by force. You are without (proper or lawful) government, and they are without authority to govern. They could only do so if you were to, again, give your consent to be government under a new contract (whether written, or not).

Have you given your consent?

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

Monday, December 2nd, 2013

“None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
Understand what went wrong, forty years ago, and lead us to what we see, today.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 2, 2013


In 1971, Gary Allen wrote a book, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”. And though there are, currently, many who continue to yell “conspiracy”, the true conspiracy is laid out for us in explicit detail in this book. You will recognize much of what is discussed, and, you will see the beginnings of much of what you see, now.

First, some quotes from the book:

“We… most emphatically disagree with this network’s aim which the Professor [Carroll Quigley] describes as “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” In other words, this power mad clique wants to control and rule the world. Even more frightening, they want total control over all individual actions. As Professor Quigley observes: “… his (the individual’s) freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.” It wants control over all natural resources, business, banking and transportation by controlling the governments of the world. In order to accomplish these aims the conspirators have had no qualms about fomenting wars, depressions and hatred. They want a monopoly which would eliminate all competitors and destroy the free enterprise system.”

Well, there it is, the stated objective of the conspiracy.

Now, to understand how we have, so often, failed to comprehend just what was happening, because we only had a part of the story:

“Have you ever had the experience of walking into a mystery movie two-thirds of the way through? Confusing wasn’t it? All the evidence made it look as if the butler were the murderer, but in the final scenes you find out, surprisingly, that it was the man’s wife all along. You have to stay and see the beginning of the film. Then as all the pieces fall into place, the story makes sense.”

With this in mind, we are near the end of the story, however, the insight provided by this book will take you back to the beginning, so that you can understand without doubt, just what the whole story is.

In telling us about then President Nixon, a well respected conservative (Republican), and the beginning of “decentralized” government, we see the beginning of a process I often refer to as “Greenmail”, where our money is used to buy favor from the state government — to our detriment.

“The second major segment of the President’s “New Federalism” is revenue sharing with the states, touted as a step in the decentralization of power from the federal government. Actually, the program does just the opposite. The money must first go from the states to Washington before it can be shared.”

We can also see the seeds of the many government funded institutions whose objective is the denial of our form of government.

“John Gardner, a “Republican” and member of the C.F.R., has established a grass roots proletarian organization called Common Cause. This may become the biggest and most important organization in American history. Common Cause’s goal is to organize welfare recipients, those who have not voted before, and Liberals to lobby for Socialism.”

The examples given above are just of few of the insights provided within the book. As you read, you will find that many of the concerns that you have, now, had their seeds planted long before you became aware of the misdeeds that have lead us steadily down the course that we now find ourselves enslaved by.

If you cannot find time to read this book, you will simply have to remain without foundation, only conjecture, to explain the evils that beset us, today. However, armed with the knowledge presented therein, you may better be able to formulate a means of extricating us from the subjugation we find ourselves submitting to.

If there is no PDF attached to this email, the PDF can be downloaded at “None Dare Call It Conspiracy – PDF

For those who would prefer a Kindle (PRC) version of the book, it is available at “None Dare Call it Conspiracy – Kindle

The Supreme Dilemma

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013

The Supreme Dilemma

Posterity and Perpetual Debt

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 8, 2013

The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, which sets out the purpose of the government therein created, concludes with the following, “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, is a mighty powerful phrase, if taken as intended by the framers of our government.

A concept that was advanced among the people, over 10 years prior to the Constitution, dwelt upon the fair and just contribution of the people to the expense of government.  The phrase most often use, with regard to this contribution, was “no taxation without representation.”  This meant that only those selected to represent the people could impose taxation upon them.  Unless directly represented, there could be no justification for the imposition of a tax upon the people.

Let’s look at how “Posterity” was viewed in the past:

Primogeniture, as a concept of birthright and inheritance, goes back, in Biblical times, to before Isaac and his two sons, Esau and Jacob. The oldest child inherits, and the siblings are, for the most part, at the mercy of the oldest, or are simply on their own.  Over time, the right to “testament” allowed the patriarch to divide his estate as he saw fit. Under both systems, there was no appreciable cost imposed upon the inheritance.

In 1215 the Magna Carta was signed.  Articles 2 through 11 address the rights of heirs.  Only descendents of Lords and Knights paid any fees (Lords, 100£ and Knights, 100 shillings) to retain the estate, which included subsequent pensions.  Those of lower social standing received the estate, providing that only debt, without interest, could be taken, and that land could not be taken so long as personal property was sufficient to cover the debt.

In 1898, the first inheritance tax was enacted in the United States.  However, at the time, it was only on personal property, not real estate, and was based upon amounts over $10,000 (a very large sum, at that time).

Since that time, we have seen an escalation in the destruction of an estate that provides that only the very wealthy can pass nearly the entire estate on to their children, unaffected by ‘contributions’ to the government.

Beginning in 1913, with the advent of the “income tax”, we find that the “income tax” becomes the source whereby money is taken from the family, for the general good. We also find that a direct tax, in contradiction to the intent of the original direct tax provision of the Constitution, begins to take more and more of the annual earnings, as well as substantial portions of the estate, upon the death of the parents.

Beyond that, based upon the Congress having the power “to pay the Debts…”,  we find, now, that even after we have had our earnings taken from us, the “Debt” extends to an obligation upon our posterity, which, at this time, we can see no end.

What effect does this have on our descendents, “our Posterity”?  If we look simply at the current publicly acknowledged $16 trillion current debt of this country, without consideration of interest, we are looking at an obligation of about $50,000 per man, woman and child.  However, this is based upon only external (money owed to those outside of government) obligations.

Just for starters, let’s look at what USA Today report, in May 2007, with regard to the true debt.  Their estimate was $59 Trillion (with a “T”, being $59,000,000,000,000), which would put the debt at about $200,000,000 for every man, woman, and child. But, that was 6 years ago.

Let’s look at what that current debt obligation, as explained in a National Review Article,  which is an average estimate at $106,000,000,000,000.  This gives an average debt of $331,000 for every man, woman, and child. So, without consideration of additional annual costs, which will have to be added on each year, for the operation of government, we see that if someone works 50 years, simply paying on the past debt, it will be an obligation of $6,600 per year, for each man, woman, and child.

Looking at the annual proposed 2013 budget, we see that outlays will amount to $3,803,000,000,000. This means that every man, woman, and child, will have to fork over nearly $12,000 to meet this annual expense. However, little, if any, goes to the reduction of the debt outlined above.

To put this in hopefully simple terms, if every man, woman and child paid, this year, $343,000 ($331,000 plus $12,000), we would relieve the debt, completely, and only have to pay $12,000 next year, and subsequent years, so long as Congress doesn’t begin spending, again, like a drunken sailor (my apology to all sailors, drunk or sober).

Now, it is true that the government has revenue from other sources, and those must be taken into account. However, we must also look at just where the money comes from to supply those other sources with the means to pay their share of the annual contribution. Quite simply, that money comes from “Excise, Impost and Duties”, which simply add that cost to what we pay for certain goods. So, though all of the $12,000 won’t be directly on you, it will, without a doubt, be indirectly upon you.

So, what does this have to do with “Posterity” and “No taxation without representation”? Well, the reality of the numbers presented above is that we, the People of the United States of America, and our Posterity, have an insurmountable debt. It is perpetual, as was only intended of the Union, though now it is also of the debt. It cannot be retired (paid off), by any means currently within the grasp of government. It can only result in either an increase in taxes, or, the perpetuation to even more generations, yet unborn, or both.

So, from the days of the Magna Carta, where posterity was protected, and unburdened by future debt, we have evolved, as a free people, to the point that the “Posterity”, which was of great concern to the founders of this nation, has now become the scapegoat, burdened with perpetual debt — that can be described as no less than slavery.  They are without representation, as clearly, those unborn can have none to speak for them.

We have gone from “Last Will and Testament”, intended to pass on to our heirs what remained of our fortune, to one where though there may be a small residual, it can never approach the obligation we have burdened them with.

Is this what the framers intended? Is this what we intend to leave to our Posterity? If not, what do we intend to do about it?

Independence Day 2013

Thursday, July 4th, 2013

Independence Day 2013


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 4, 2013 – Independence Day


This day has come to commemorate one of the greatest events in human history.  That event, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, pales in importance to what followed.

The road to independence began 10 years prior to that date when the colonists first began resisting the imposition of regulation and taxation by the British government.

The sincerity of the commitment of the colonists was demonstrated 15 months prior to that date, when colonists resisted British troops on April 19, 1775.

Then the colonies, acting on behalf of their citizens, formally declared separation from Great Britain, on July 4, 1776.

This, however, was just the beginning of this greatest event in human history.  It wasn’t until 11 years later, that representatives of the people of the various colonies came together, without political parties and only regional special interests, and, working with a clean slate, began to create the first, and only, government in the world that was truly created by the people, through their representatives, without the need for haste.

This absence of the necessity of haste makes this event unique.  Other countries, immediately after the throes of the revolution, must establish a government as quickly as possible.  In so doing, the powers that be, the influence of those who have led the use of force, have undue influence over what form of government that country will be bound by.

When we celebrate the 4th of July, we should keep in mind our obligation to continue that noble experiment, unique in the world, and commit ourselves to restoring that government to its proper relationship with the People.

By whatever means necessary, our goal was set 237 years ago, we must, for the sake of our posterity, obligate ourselves, and our lives, to that purpose.


Thursday, May 24th, 2012


The threat that keeps us apart


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 24, 2012



Noun:   1. a mass of whirling fluid or air, esp. a whirlpool or whirlwind.
2. Something regarded as a whirling mass.

So, why Vortex?  Well, when something goes down into the bottom of a vortex, it is spun around and emitted in a different form than when it went in.


A recent discussion brought up an issue that has been close to me, for quite some time.  I have seen many succumb to entrapment, or, just plain deceived, by agents, informants, infiltrators and other such ilk.

It seems that many think the government is squeaky clean, or, that issues, not being of national security levels of interest, don’t warrant the effort that would be necessary to ‘move in’ on the patriot community.

A few years ago, I learned that as many as fifty percent of the members of Richard Butler’s Aryan Nation Church (Randy Weaver country), and of the old Posse Comitatus, were people who, for whatever reason, had changed sides, or were not quite honest in their dealings with the respective organizations.

I had read the following memorandum, which is included in the Appendix of Congressman George Hansen’s book, “To Harass Our People”, while traveling through the Washington, D.C. area, after Waco.  I met with an associate of George Hansen.  He gave me a Xerox copy of the memorandum, and I have no doubt as to its authenticity.

As you read the excerpts from the memorandum, take note of the extent in which the government is willing to ‘get involved’ in the “Tax Rebellion Movement” (see note 5 to District Directors).  Remember, also, that this memo was written nearly 40 years ago.  It would be ludicrous to think that they have not enlarged and perfected their program. [Emphasis, mine]

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

FEB 26, 1973

to: Participants in Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement
from: Western Region
subject: Tax Rebellion in California

I am sending you the minutes of our meeting of February 9, 1973, on the Tax Rebellion Movement.  These minutes enumerate action items for the Los Angeles and San Francisco District Directors and for Regional Office officials.

I appreciate your past attention to this serious matter, and feel confident that all of us working together can successfully overcome this challenge to our tax system.

Homer O. Crossman
Regional Commissioner

Mr. Howard advised he has been conferring with state tax officials who are anxious to cooperate with IRS in the attack on tax rebels who also do not pay state taxes; often the state can move quickly to close up a tax rebel’s business or revoke his license; that we should see that the State uses its enforcement machinery on those cases which are not our targets.

Mr. Crossman reported on his discussions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Courts and Judge Crocker, Fresno, and of their interest in enforcement of the law in tax rebel cases.  Mr. Hansen commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on a belief that IRS is “highhanded”.  Mr. Howard reported on a change of attitude in federal judges in San Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents.

There was a general discussion of the importance of meeting with U.S. Attorneys and federal judges to acquaint them with the full picture of the tax rebellion movement.  Mr. Crossman pointed out that after his meeting with Mr. Couris and Judge Crocker, they requested background information on the Movement which was furnished them.

Mr. Kingman suggested the possibility of requesting religious leaders to warn their following against participation in the movement, pointing to the beneficial effects of Mormon Church President Lee’s message.


Mr. Krause pointed out the importance of close planning on common targets by the tax rebellion project supervisors of the Los Angeles and San Francisco districts with planning meetings as needed.

Action items for District Directors:

1. Maintain the initiative in the attack on the tax rebels.
2. Know their plans before they arrive at our door to execute them.
3. Identify the leaders of the Movement and concentrate on them.
4. Have a plan of action in coordination with the Region rather than hit and miss defensive reactions.
5. Continue to step up the infiltration in-depth of the Movement.
6. Use all available federal, state, and local laws.
7. Use civil penalties on Porth-type cases.
8. Wage a campaign to educate U.S. Attorneys and federal judges with the importance of prison sentences on cases.

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

At the same time that the IRS was acting out the above to deal with what the termed “tax rebels”, the federal government also had to contend with the anti-war (Vietnam) movement.  In dealing with what was going on at the time, infiltration into that movement was also a part of the government’s program.

One of the larger groups that were active in the anti-war movement was a broad based group known as Student for a Democratic Society (SDS).  They were of so much concern to the government that the government actually started some of the SDS chapters so that they had a degree of control, and, received intelligence from other SDS chapters.  If they didn’t start them, they, at least, had agents and informants join the various chapters.

Another target of the government, during the anti-war movement, was Vietnam Veterans against War (VVAW).  Some of the VVAW members were from Gainesville, Florida.  Among them, however, were informants and agents.  The agents fed them information that the 1972 Republican National Convention (Miami Beach) was being set up to set up the anti-war demonstrators.  They were told that the police would shoot some protesters.  This would lead to sealing off Miami Beach by raising all of the drawbridges, trapping the protesters, and making for shooting fish in a barrel.  To counter this tactic, the Eight made plans to attack government buildings, police and fire stations, and then force the lowering of the drawbridges.  This was to draw the police away from the Beach and allow the demonstrators to leave the Beach, avoiding the catastrophic scenario that had been fed to them.  Of course, the informants and agents testified against them, however, their correspondence (which was seen by the jury) said that their plan was “for defensive purposes, only”, which lead to an acquittal.  However, it does demonstrate that forty years ago, the ability, means, and practice, of infiltration and entrapment were standard government tools.

For a detailed study of the infiltration of the anti-war movement, see


Who are the agents and informants?

There are any number of reasons and means by which some people will become agents of the government, or informants for the government.  Though there are variations of each of these, we will cover the more general types of people and what their relationship to government is.


Starting at the top, we have undercover agents.  They can be undercover agents for nearly any branch of the federal or state government.  Most often, they are very well trained, to include psychology, so that they can get close to the people they are supposed to encounter and infiltrate.  They generally receive very explicit instructions when they go on an operation, though they can also adjust, quite well, when a “Target of Opportunity” arises.  They are full time agents (Type I) and will become very close to those in leadership.  They will engross themselves in their work, often living a life outside of what would be normal for an FBI agent.  They have “handlers” that are often, for months or years, the only contact they have with the parent organization.

There is second type of agent, Type II, who is called in for support; for example, the FBI agent who alleged to have explosives and other material for sale in the Georgia Militia bust.  Often they have desk or other duties and are called only when needed.

A good example of the Type I is FBI agent Steven Haug.  Haug, who went by “Jersey Steve”, had infiltrated the Hutaree Militia.  He got so close to the Hutaree leader, David Stone, he was asked to be the best man at Stone’s wedding.  Later, he would testify against Stone.

Another was a man, back in the nineties, who went by the name of Bob Chapman.  Later, when he testified against the Florida Common Law Court, he identified himself as Robert Quigley, “IRS deep undercover agent” and instructor at the IRS undercover school. (See “Let me tell you about a man named Quigley”)

These agents are often ‘wired’, and the recorded conversations are transcribed to be used for evidence, when their task is completed and they have turned witness against former ‘friends’.  A partial transcription of such a recording can be found at “Record of Activity“.  BC = Bob Chapman = S/I Quigley is the agent.  You may note how he tries to blend in but does ask some questions attempting to entice information that can be used against the parties, later.  This is from the 1995 investigation of the Florida Common Law Court that sent all but one of the defendants to prison for 12 years.

These paid agents, regular employees of the government, on special duty, are a blight on our concept of self-government.  Though such agents go back to the Revolutionary War, where Washington had a staff of agents that mingled with the British to gain intelligence information, they did not join the British army or other government forces.  It wasn’t until early in the 20th century that the practice became common, to deal with organized crime.  However, currently, the government claims to have thousands of agents working within various patriot or political groups.  Must we assume that political activism is now criminal?

The other form of agent is the paid agent of a private organization.  These are best described as “infiltrators”.  One such organization using this tactic is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that claims to have many infiltrators within the various patriot groups, from militia to Tea Party groups, and everything in between.  Their primary purpose is strictly information gathering, though if given the opportunity, they will exploit a situation.



Informants come in different varieties.  Some are induced into informing on friends and associates when they are charged with a crime, themselves.  They will sign a “plea agreement” (plea agreement informants) and exchange their efforts for, most often, a “withheld adjudication” — meaning that so long as they provide good information (not necessarily truthful), and testimony, if required, they will not be prosecuted for the crime that they are alleged to have committed.  See “Informants Amongst Us?” for an explanation of this process.  In desperation, these informants are capable of lying (since they have already given up their integrity) and participate in entrapment, to ‘save their own skin’.  They are, by nature, weak and unwilling to stand up for their convictions.

A lesser version of this is the “states evidence” witness that will tell all to save his own neck.  Though not an agent, active informant, or infiltrator, he is often the source of conviction of patriots because he does not have the fortitude to be a true patriot.  An example of this is one of Schaeffer Cox’s fellow Alaska Peacemaker Militia members, Michael O. Anderson.  Cox, Lonnie Vernon, and Coleman Barney are currently (May 2012) on trial.  Anderson, who was arrested, along with the other, in March 2011, has had his charges dropped and will be testifying for the state, against the other three. (Reference: Alaska Militia Trial Opens With Former Defendant as Key Witness)

Others might become informants in custody (jailhouse informants), seeking favor, or reduction of sentence.  These jailhouse informants will usually testify to anything that is requested of them, to bring “jailhouse confessions” to trial.  They are often used to ‘enhance’ the evidence against a defendant to assure conviction.

Volunteer informants come in two categories.  First are those who have been charged with, or know that they have charges pending, for a crime.  They will contact a government agency and offer their services, hoping for a reduction, withheld adjudication, or dismissal of charges.  This is the probable scenario in the Joe Sims involvement with the Georgia Senior Militia, this past year.  Joe, according to an Esquire magazine article, was in jail pending child abuse charges.  He contacted the FBI and volunteered to provide information about members of the Georgia Militia.

Other volunteer informants are often James Bond wannabes or government employees seeking beneficial treatment by freelance work to aid law enforcement.  There was the Viper Militia, Phoenix, Arizona, in 1996, where about a dozen concerned patriots prepared for a Red Dawn type of event.  An aspiring firefighter joined the group.  In his John Wayne machismo, he began suggesting more active pursuits.  Later, he brought in an undercover Sheriff’s Deputy, and both encouraged testing bombs, often made with materials provided by the informant or agent, and making plans to attack government buildings.  Prison was the outcome for those that followed the lead of the informant and agent.  What bright future lay in store for the informant, we do not know.  Presumably, however, he was rewarded favorably.

Another type of informant, though not always intentional, is the “easily swayed informant”.  These sort don’t usually have any idea that they are an informant, though they are, just the same, because they pass on information that might have destructive ends, or, they are duped into passing information that is erroneous and, potentially, destructive to the patriot community.  They have, usually,  been contacted by a law enforcement agent (often FBI Special Agents), or even others down the chain, including others who have been easily swayed,  who convince them that they are really good guys, and an asset to their country.  They are then beguiled, and act in concert with agents against the best interest of the patriot community, most often thinking that they are doing right to the community.  Often, they will sway others (usually larger numbers) away from any activity that is not easily controlled.  If the person is susceptible to the charms of the agent, he can go beyond that easily swayed and become a de facto agent, and never realize that he is being used.  It is the psychological training that the agent uses to manipulate the person and use him to influence others, most often away from a professed course.  He is, in essence, a sleeper, and can always be put to greater purpose, if the need arises.  These relationships tend to be long-term, and quite congenial between the parties.

Of these last, a friend refers to them as “useful idiots”.  However, I think it more appropriate that they should be referred to as “guess what I know” types.  Often, they pass on information just because they have found it and think that everyone should be apprised of this “wonderful;” or “dreadful” information.  Rumors of foreign troops across the Mexican border, for example, have been circulating for twenty years, each time, with new adherents and a new life, with only minor revisions to the original story, and, most often, without any identifiable source.

All of those described above are contrary to the Framers concept of government.  They are, by their very practice, violating the concept of the Fourth Amendment, the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”.


How do they function in the patriot community?

All of the above identified sources of benefit to the government enter the patriot community, though they do so in various ways.

First is the coward who turns state’s evidence, but began by believing in a cause.  Once the chips were down, he cowers and turns against those that do hold the principles highly.  The turncoat, in a sense, is the worst of those who find themselves on the wrong side of the battle.  There is nothing, except his nature, that would lead one to believe that he is not really on the right side — since he was on the right side until imminent threat to his future freedom caused him to turn against those who had every reason to believe that he was as sincere as they were, and had nothing to hide.

Next, are those who become paid informants.  Often, they have joined with a true belief that something is wrong; however, somewhere along the line they change ideologies.  It may be the result of less conviction toward the cause; the fear of doing something ‘illegal’ (as the Founders did); or simply a change of heart.  However, they are in and, perhaps, they can make a little money by offering their services to the government.  This sort is as bad as the first; perhaps even worse, for he continues to gather and pass on intelligence, and may even go further, acting against the best interest of the Patriot Community and those he has gotten to know.

Next are those informants who have been charged with a crime and decide to “cop a plea” and become an informant for the government.  Like the first, those that turn state’s evidence, they are cowards and will send others to prison to avoid their own stay in the “gray bar hotel”.  However, since they continue to “play along” with you, they can pass on even more information, and often will set traps for you to fall prey.

Finally, in the informant category, are those who have joined in hopes of increasing their “job opportunities” with the government.  Most often, they are already employees of government, as noted above, but they are playing the “spy game” in hopes of enhancing their resume. (Reference: My Life as a White Supremacist)

Now, we get into the realm of professional spies.  These are the agents whose job is to invade your privacy, get dirt on you, and even more, which will be discussed later.  We’ll begin with the Type II agent.  His job is to be available and act the part, when the need arises.  Otherwise, he is just an employee with other duties.  He will be a witness only to what transpired during the course of his brief interlude with the subject of the investigation.

Next comes the Type I agent.  His dress, his manner, his whole life, revolves around his active participation in the group that is the target, or contains the target, of an investigation.  Since his job is playing spy, he will do whatever is necessary to obtain the accolades he will get for obtaining a conviction and getting the job “well done”, regardless of what techniques he uses to achieve that end.

Often, this person, let’s call him the Vortex, will use others to insulate himself from exposure, if things don’t go smoothly.  He will also use others to achieve specific ends.  He is, however, the point of contact between the government and the patriot community, hence, Vortex.  The information swirls in and out, on the patriot side of the Vortex.  His job is to sort out, manipulate, control that information, and pass it thorough to the government for their nefarious purposes.  He is also the source of misinformation, coming from the government side, and then thrown into the swirl on the patriot side, though more about this, later.

Often, the Vortex will never even see a patriot, though he could be directing the operation from a distance.  This is common with certain types of informants, where the Vortex is most often referred to as the “handler”.  However, for any such investigation, there will always be a Vortex; the agent or other government employee who passes information in both directions; plans, or passes on plans, for the control or expansion of the operation; and is the person, who, if exposed by the patriot community, damages or defeats the government’s operation.

These agents have a plan when they go into their job.  That plan can be revised to meet the exigency when circumstances warrant a change, or an expansion, of an investigation.  They will also know who most of, if not all of, those who are lower level informants involved in any case they are working on.  However, the informants will seldom, if ever, know who the agents are, until both find themselves on the witness stand.  (Reference for Type I and Type II agents: Patriot Games)

Agents, especially Type I, will seldom be used to testify, if informants can became the “fall guys” and provide sufficient testimony to obtain a conviction.  Once an agent testifies, he has probably blown his cover and will have to retire to some other duties.  His effectiveness is lost, so he is a commodity that has to be protected, unless exposure is absolutely necessary.

Often, these agents will create an organization to give itself legitimacy within the patriot community.  In so doing, they have established their “credentials”, though you may have never heard of the organization before meeting the agent.  If he can demonstrate that he has created a following, you will drop you guard, as he has apparently, achieved what all are trying to accomplish.  (See Patriot Games link, above)

In all cases, if the abilities of the individual, in whatever capacity, are such that he can move up the chain of command of an organization, he will do so.  This allows him to obtain access to information that others might not have access to.  It allows him to obtain information from individuals in casual conversation, when that individual doesn’t suspect that anything he says is going beyond the two of them.  It also allows him to move upward in command, and perhaps, replace the existing command, once it is taken out because of his efforts.


Objectives of infiltration – Surveillance, profiling, disruption

We must begin to understand just what capabilities the government’s has to keep track of patriots.  They have an identification program that includes anybody who is likely to read this article.  It will include most militia members, even those who have never gone on line, through use of informants and other means.  It will include almost any attendee at a Tea Party gathering, and, probably, anybody who had gone to a Ron Paul rally, if the participant gave a name, by any means.  Intelligence gathering is the source/foundation of the entire government verses the people program.

Once they get the information, they have to retain, store, manipulate, and provide access, to that information.  They also have to sort that information into meaningful data.  So, we’ll begin by looking at what the sorting aspect entails.

The government has developed a program for categorization of everybody in this country (except, perhaps, illegal immigrants).  The program is called “C3CM“.  It defines three major categories, though we will only concern ourselves with the first one.  That is those who have, to some degree, expressed their disenchantment with government — the patriot community.  This doesn’t require disobedience, or even advocacy.  It only requires that you don’t believe that the government is working the way that it should be.

If you are among this group, you will be categorized into one of three sub-categories.  Those who are simply dissatisfied, those who are prone to act because of their dissatisfaction, and, those who are capable of leading others into exerting effort to effect change.  It doesn’t matter if those leaders are of a violence oriented militia, or a group that encourages voter registration and voting outside of the mainstream agenda.  The fact that they are leaders and can obtain followers poses a problem for government, though the government may direct more resources at the more militant.  This does not mean that the peaceful sorts are beyond efforts of government to affect their ability to lead.  On the contrary, each of us has entered the patriot community rather naive, and has learned, as time went on, which can  move us, inevitably, toward the more extreme means of dealing with the despotic government that we find in control of our country.  If someone can influence large numbers, he is more of a threat than a few isolated die-hards.

Where would the government be able to store and manipulate such a large amount of data?  Well, that goes back to a story from the past.  Inslaw, Inc., had a contract with the Department of Justice to develop some tracking software — “Promis” could be plugged into the 12 petabyte (if you were wondering about the next level, a petabyte is 1,024 terabytes) database that Sybase (the company that developed SQL for Microsoft) is developing.  So, once all of the pieces fall into place, there will be little that you can do to keep from being tracked, along with almost everything that you do, by the government.  (References: see

Now, as they take out any leadership, if they have moved their resource up into the upper echelons of any organization, they have attained a position that may soon leave the government resource in charge of the organization.

We began this article with a memo from the IRS Western Division, nearly forty years ago, about a tactic to be used to disrupt the “tax rebels’.  Not that this was the beginning of government efforts to manipulate both people and truth, only to demonstrate, with a provable piece of evidence, that influencing, by whatever means, including judges and churches, is and has been a part of the plan for total control of the people and their actions.  Would we be doing ourselves any favors to think that they would not use these same tactics, today, enhanced by both technology and experience?

Methods of Disruption

So, now, let’s look at objectives that the government might pursue through their various types of informant, agents, and infiltrators:

  • Discredit, or, take out, leadership or those who pose a threat to the continuation of the government’s effort to gain absolute control over the people, removing them from their means of influence over those who might follow them.
  • Discredit those who might bring attention to government tactics by suggesting questionable behavior, or, accusations, that will occupy them and remove them from any effective contribution to the patriot community.
  • Move those who are within government control or influence into positions of influence within the patriot community
  • Create division, wherever possible, any organization that begins to grow and may become effective.  If possible, splinter the group into two, or more, factions, so that they don’t flee elsewhere, and the government can retain controlling interest, or at least positions of influence, within each faction.
  • Use of a group the government has control of to create conflict with another group, creating doubt, disenchantment, and, perhaps, dissolution of the targeted group.
  • If a group has a structure (rules) that would make it more difficult to create disenchantment, challenge, ridicule, or ignore the rules, to create as much disturbance as possible — hopefully to disrupt any group that might really organize into a cohesive and effective group working together for a common goal.
  • Stimulate discussion of controversial subjects (Waco, Oklahoma City bombing, 911, Birth Truthers, etc.) to bring division and, perhaps, conflict, oral or physical, between adherents of each side of the issues.
  • Promote identification of theoretical enemies (Rothschild, Illuminati, Free Masons, etc.) so that members pursue un-provable resolution, thereby creating endless squandering of time on insignificant objectives.
  • For those with legal pursuit as means of attacking the government, direct them on fanciful flights with erroneous objectives such as Admiralty Law, Maritime Law, Uniform Commercial Code, United States government is a corporation, etc. (reference for the last three items: Divide and Conquer)
  • Use of “trolls” on Internet discussion groups and other forums to detract from discussions that  might cause some to think; includes ridiculing opponent, specious arguments, diversion from the subject of discussion, and other tactics intended to discourage active participation in what might otherwise be productive discussions.



The consequence of the government meddling in our affairs, if we are truly self-governed (We the People), is that the government manipulates us to achieve an increase in power and control over us.  It is not our disenchantment with government that is the problem; it is the government overreaching its authority that has caused us to be concerned as to the direction of the government and its impact on us and our posterity.

To achieve their goals, they must devise means for keeping the will of the people from being manifest and force them into compliance with that will.  By their efforts to fragment the patriot community, they have achieved their goal and will continue to do so.

When their efforts have identified targets of any effort at political change, outside of the two controlling parties (Democrats and Republicans), and have manipulated the others into ineffectiveness, they have effectively created a one party system, not unlike the Soviet Union’s Communist Party where all power was granted only to party members.

Effectively, the government has become the master and we have been subjected to their will — through the divisive means explained herein.


The solution to this otherwise overwhelming problem is to resist the infiltration, by whatever means necessary.

To begin with, look in to the background of all who join your organization.  In the modern world that we live in, we are obliged to provide a Social Security Number (SSN) to arrange for utilities to be turned on, to borrow money or establish credit, and for many other purposes.  If we wish to get a job, we are obliged to provide background information regarding previous work history, education, criminal and military records.

Why should something as important as our Liberty not require at least such evidence of background and personal history as our daily lives do?  After all, there is far more at stake than whether I can buy something when I don’t have the money, or even having electricity at my home.

Thorough background information should be required of all who wish to join any patriot organization, even those currently members.  If someone is reluctant to provide such information, then you must wonder if they have something to hide from you that they don’t have to hide from their employer or bank.  If the position they are seeking might have potential risk to others, then not only the background information, but a review of records* would be in order.  If any questions arise that are not properly addressed, then realize that absent satisfactory answers, you may be subjecting yourself to influence that is not in your best interest, or, worse, being set up to take a fall..
[*There are a number of sites on the Internet where court, criminal, and other records can be purchased for very nominal fees – perhaps a good investment for the security of your organization]

If someone has been charged with a crime and adjudication withheld, then they may have worked a deal with the government.  Don’t put them in a position that would allow them to work a deal with you.

If someone demonstrates any characteristics that lend to the possibility that they are pursuing any of the “Objectives” listed above, there may not be an indication that they have someone else’s interest at heart, though the method by which they pursue such objectives should be carefully considered.

Disagreement can be resolved through reasoned discussion/debate.  It should be organized and open to all, or many, of the existing members.  It should be void of both personal attacks and unsubstantiated (with real evidence) accusations.

Any organization would be wise to adopt some rules and methods of evaluating all of its personnel, including existing officers and members, as well as recruits.  They should be based upon the above information as well as interviews with the individual concerned.

Any organization should include within their structure a means to evaluate new members, investigate any member who comes into question, and, establish a review procedure that includes a review board, composed of already approved members, to evaluate any information, conduct hearings, and, proscribe remedies, including removal of membership.

There is no doubt that on occasion, someone may have the appearance of having the characteristics that would lead one to believe that their interest is elsewhere, though it may only be that the person’s personality brings about such suspicion.  However, is it better to exclude someone by error rather than allow a potential risk to the entire organization.  Weigh the risk against the lesser objection to hurting someone’s feelings.

These are the times that try men’s souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and women.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain to cheap, we esteem too lightly — Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Tom Paine, The American Crisis (December 19, 1776)


Absent our policing ourselves, our groups, and, our own patriot community, we only leave ourselves open to the disruption that the government has desired to create.



At this point in time, we have many thousands of people being deprived of their productive time and participation by “chasing ghosts” created by the government to do just that — deprive us of time and confuse us with distractions.


At the same time, they have addressed and attacked many who would be useful to our purpose by accusations of crime, as explained in the IRS letter, in violation of federal, state, or local laws.  The have, thorough seminars, advised judges to “throw the book at” patriots charged with made up crimes, removing them from any active participation in our cause.

The time has come for us to change the game.  They laugh at us, now, because they are far more in control than we want to recognize.  We don’t recognize it because we have faith in the government — we just want some changes that return us to the Constitutional government that is our birthright.

They, however, are playing a serious, and often deadly, game, with every intention of winning.

We fear them, yet they have no reason to fear us — because they have subverted most elements of our movement, and have at least some influence or control on the reminder.

It is time for us to change the game around and get them to fear us.  Not through violence, rather, through exposure and removal of those who would seek to undermine our ability to function productively.  It is time for us to be as serious about ridding ourselves of these subversive elements as we are about our individual causes, for all are doomed to failure unless we regain control of our own activities.



A PDF version of this article: Vortex PDF

Some Thoughts on Public Education

Monday, November 29th, 2010

Some Thoughts on Public Education

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 29, 2010


Public Education in America has a long history.  In the Cape Code area, a public school was established in the early seventeen hundreds.  The pay for the schoolmaster was in the form of part of the catch of fish.  Public Education was not established by government, rather, by the parents and members of the community.

Today, we have a “public education system” that has deviated from that original intent to such a point that, except for the name, they bear little resemblance to each other.

The current form has become an administrative nightmare; a means of social reform (indoctrination); and, fails, miserably, to achieve its intended purpose as a mechanism for the diffusion of knowledge, focusing instead, on an institutional evaluation of the failure of that system.

So, let’s look at what public education was, from Jefferson through the end of the 19th century.

Historical perspective

Thomas Jefferson, the principle advocate of public education, is probably the finest source of the intent of that system.  Below are a number of historical quotes by Jefferson regarding the subject:

“I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.  2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.

Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

“The present consideration of a national establishment for education, particularly, is rendered proper by this circumstance also, that if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it more eligible to found it on a donation of lands [this applied beginning with the lands acquired under the Treaty of Paris — Ohio Territory], they have it now in their power to endow it with those which will be among the earliest to produce the necessary income.  The foundation would have the advantage of being independent on war, which may suspend other improvements by requiring for its own purposes the resources destined for them.” –Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

A bill for the more general diffusion of learning… proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square;… to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive at the public expense a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at an University where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

The less wealthy people… by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government; and all this would be effected without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” –Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction.  This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.

Nearly a century later, we can observe the view and understanding of the public school system from, “Elements of Civil Government, A text-book for use in public schools High schools and normal schools and a manual of reference for teachers, by Alex. L. Peterman, 1891″. From that book:


Introductory. — When children reach the age of six or seven years, they enter the public school and become subject to its rules.  We are born under government, and we are educated under it.  We are under it at home, in school, and in after life.  Law and order are everywhere necessary to the peace, safety, liberty, and happiness of the people.  True liberty and true enlightenment can not exist unless regulated by law.

Definition and Purposes. — A school district or sub-district is a certain portion of the town or county laid off and set apart for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a public school.  It exists for educational reasons only, and is the unit of educational work.  The public schools are supported by funds raised partly by the State, and partly by the county or the township.  They are frequently called common schools or free schools.  It is the duty of the State to provide all children with the means of acquiring a plain English education, and the State discharges this duty by dividing the county into districts of such size that a school-house and a public school are within reach of every child.

Formation. — The limits of the school district are usually fixed by the chief school officer of the county, by the town, by the school board, or by the people living in the neighborhood…

Functions. — The functions, or work, of the school are solely educational.  The State supports a system of public schools in order that the masses of the people may be educated.  The country needs good citizens: to be good citizens the people must be intelligent, and to be intelligent they must attend school.


The members of the school district are the people living in it.  All are interested, one way or another, in the success of the school.  In most States the legal voters elect the school board, or trustees, and in some States levy the district school taxes.  Those who are neither voters nor within the school age are interested in the intelligence and good name of the community, and are therefore interested in the public school.

Children. — The children within the school age are the members of the school, and they are the most important members of the school district.  It is for their good that the school exists.  The State has provided schools in order that its children may be educated, and thus become useful men and women and good citizens.


Parents, their Rights and Duties. — All parents have the right to send their children to the public school, and it is also their duty to patronize the public school, or some other equally as good.  Fathers and mothers who deprive their children of the opportunities of acquiring an education do them lasting injury.  Parents should use every effort to give their children at least the best education that can be obtained in the public schools.


The school has rules to govern it, that the pupil may be guided, directed, and protected in the pursuit of knowledge.  Schools can not work without order, and there can be no order without government.  The members of the school desire that good order be maintained, for they know their success depends upon it; so that school government, like all other good government, exists by the consent and for the good of the governed.


Duties. — In most States it is the duty of the district officers to raise money by levying taxes for the erection of school-buildings, and to superintend their construction; to purchase furniture and apparatus us; to care for the school property; to employ teachers and fix their salaries; to visit the school and direct its work; to take the school census; and to make reports to the higher school officers.


Powers. — The teacher has the same power and right to govern the school that the parent has to govern the family.  The law puts the teacher in the parent’s place and expects him to perform the parent’s office, subject to the action of the directors or trustees.  It clothes him with all power necessary to govern the school, and then holds him responsible for its conduct, the directors having the right to dismiss him at any time for a failure to perform his duty.



Introductory –In our study, thus far, we have had to do with special forms of government as exercised in the family and in the school.  These are, in a sense, peculiar to themselves.  The rights of government as administered in the family, and the rights of the members of a family, as well as their duties to each other, are natural rights and duties; they do not depend upon society for their force.  In fact, they are stronger and more binding in proportion as the bands of society are relaxed.

In the primitive state, before there was organized civil society, family government was supreme; and, likewise, if a family should remove from within the limits of civil society and be entirely isolated, family government would again resume its power and binding force.

School government, while partaking of the nature of civil government, is still more closely allied to family government.  In the natural state, and in the isolated household, the education of the child devolves upon the parents, and the parent delegates a part of his natural rights and duties to the teacher when he commits the education of his child to the common school.  The teacher is said to stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and from this direction, mainly, are his rights of government derived.

The school, therefore, stands in an intermediate position between family government and civil government proper, partaking of some features of each, and forming a sort of stepping-stone for the child from the natural restraints of home to the more complex demands of civil society.  The school district, also, while partaking of the nature of a civil institution, is in many respects to be regarded as a co-operative organization of the families of the neighborhood for the education of their children, and its government as a co-operative family government.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public, a. [L.publicus, from the root of populus, people; that is, people-like.]

1. Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state, as opposed to a private statute or resolve, which respects an individual or a corporation only.  Thus we say, public welfare, public good, public calamity, public service, public property.

Education, n.

The bringing up, as of a child, instruction; formation of manners.  Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations.  To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.

Knowledge, n.

1. A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas.  Human knowledge is very limited, and is mostly gained by observation and experience.
2. Learning; illumination of mind.

Public Schools

Jefferson realized that knowledge was essential, in the people, if the government was to be of service to those people, when he said, “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” He also provided that such knowledge would “enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.”

It is clear that education was not a service to or by the government, only to be encouraged and provided for by the government, when he suggested that parents could utilize the public or private schools, though the minimum education would be that afforded by the public school.

He further suggests the limitation of federal government involvement in education by allowing that they only provide “donations of land” which would “endow” the schools to “produce the necessary income”.  Though he suggested the division of land into districts, he never suggested that the government was a player in that education, rather, that it would educate all, thereby “defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts“.  How could you entrust those of birth and wealth with controlling education if the purpose was to defeat their control of that education?

The ultimate purpose of the public education was to assure that the less wealthy people “would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government,” warning, also, that ” our present state of liberty [is] a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.”

In establishing that the responsibility for providing the public education is not a function of government, he says, “Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government.”

Now, it is possible that what Jefferson has told us could be considered as conjecture, not of practice.  This would suggest that he was in error and the government must take a greater role in the education of our children.  If that were the case, surely, practice would have changed shortly after Jefferson left the scene and would have removed itself from that “public” sphere and into the realm of government control by the end of that century.  So, let us look at public education as it was described and practiced in 1891:

From “Elements of Civil Government”, we find government is a rather broad term.  It applies “in home, in school, and in after [later] life.”  That “[i]t is the duty of the State to provide all children the means of acquiring” an education“.  So, here we come to a crux in the difference between public education and what we have, today.  The means of an education versus the education, itself.  Providing you the means of fishing does not provide you the fish — only the means to acquire the fish.  Education is, likewise, from the standpoint of government, only the means, not the education.

The members of the school district are the people living in it.  All are interested, one way or another, in the success of the school.”  This would exclude people not living in the district, say, in the State capital, or, Washington, D.C.  What conceivable interest could politicians totally unrelated, and, probably, unaware of the nature of the district, should be interested in the outcome of the education?  Surely, if they were other than simply pretending to be interested, we could expect that any true interest would be divisive, and, perhaps as was suggested by Jefferson, a result of their “ambition under all of its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers and defeat its purpose”.  After all, if the truth is what is legislated, there is no role for the people to judge what the government is doing.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a “perversion of power into tyranny“.

Looking at the relationship of the teacher to the student, we find that “The teacher has the same power and right to govern the school that the parent has to govern the family.  The law puts the teacher in the parent’s place and expects him to perform the parent’s office.”  This is further supported by the fact that when we look at the Civil District (city or county), we find that there are “special forms of government as exercised by the family and the school” that are “peculiar to themselves“.

To assure a proper understanding of the relationships stated above, let me repeat from that source that:

“School government, while partaking of the nature of civil government, is still more closely allied to family government.  In the natural state, and in the isolated household, the education of the child devolves upon the parents, and the parent delegates a part of his natural rights and duties to the teacher when he commits the education of his child to the common schoolThe teacher is said to stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and from this direction, mainly, are his rights of government derived.

“The school, therefore, stands in an intermediate position between family government and civil government proper, partaking of some features of each, and forming a sort of stepping-stone for the child from the natural restraints of home to the more complex demands of civil society.  The school district, also, while partaking of the nature of a civil institution, is in many respects to be regarded as a co-operative organization of the families of the neighborhood for the education of their children, and its government as a co-operative family government.

So, when you send your child to school, you have made the teacher in loco parentis.  If you have not assigned that right to the federal government, the state government, or even the school district, then, should that authority apply only to those to whom you have granted, should it extended to people unknown, in places unknown, for purposes unknown?

Government Schools

The United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Welfare has since been changed to “human services”) was formed in 1953.  Given that the Founders and Framers only saw fit to provide grants of land, at the federal level, for the support of the public education system, we must wonder why this expansive move into the rights previously held by the parents.  However, these intervening 57 years have clearly established the consequences of the establishment of that Department.  It has resulted in a near complete takeover of the education process and moved it into absolute (despotic?) control of the federal government, including denial of the parent’s right to involve themselves in the education process.

Along with the expansion of federal authority in the realm that was previously reserved to the community, the State governments have also encroached well beyond their original enrolment in education.  BY submitting to federal dictates, mandates and funds allocation, they have become co-conspirators with the federal government to undermine the purpose of public education, as envisioned by the Founders and practiced, for over a century, as a right of the local community and the parents, resulting in the subjugation of our children to an indoctrination program the prescribes social relationship, undermines religious and moral values, and, subjects the children to a belief in the absolutism of government’s authority.


The Constitution stands mute on the subject of education and schools.  The only authority that the federal government had was with regard to the “public lands”.  That authority underlay Jefferson’s desire to found the federal support only to the “donation of lands”.  Clearly, no authority was granted by the Constitution to subvert the rights of the parents and the school district in matters of education.  Even an expansive misrepresentation of “the General Welfare” could not subordinate the authority of the parents and the school district, even if they were failing, miserable, in the pursuit of a proper education.  After all, who but the parents could determine whether there was a failure in the process? 

That ascension of authority to the federal government made way for the ascension of State authority, well beyond that which was intended.  Initially, states could set certain guidelines, and, historically, these were quite limited and included the matter of taxation for funding, usually granted to the county or district, and protections to be afforded the district and schools for protection from abuse.

Taxes for the support of public schools were, for many decades, raised through ad valorem (on property) taxes.  This did provide for inequality in education, however, this inequality was no different from the inequality in housing and diet.  Those who worked harder received greater benefit.

This did not demean education.  The basics of reading, writing, mathematics, and science were necessary as a foundation for subsequent learning, whether through the educational system or the ability to acquire additional knowledge by reading books, periodicals, and newspapers.  It was the foundation that was the necessity of public education.  Those who proved themselves worthy were able to take advantage of scholarships to increase their education, though that route was, and should only be, available to those competent, desirous of, and willing to pursue such higher education.  It was, and should be, the foundational education that came within the purview of “public” education.

The consequence of attempting to assure that all people had such higher education available was that the higher education has been lowered in quality to accommodate those who were not mentally capable of such aspirations, though they had been convinced that it was their “right” to achieve what would otherwise be beyond their abilities.  This has resulted in college graduates with 6th grade reading skills, and, and overall reduction of the equality of education of the higher levels, except where wealth has afforded certain individuals with access to expensive private colleges.  The entire country has suffered as a result of this malaise in education by allowing those to have degrees that are not indicative of their scholarly achievements, rather, the fact that they have completed a course of education without regard to the quality thereof.

Public education, to serve the intentions and practices under which it was first instituted, must return to that which serves the people rather than the government.  To allow the government to impose any more than the “means” to educate; to allow the government to subvert the needs of the people, as defined by the people through their school boards of local, interested parties; is to allow the government the means of indoctrination of the people, especially the young, into acceptance of despotism and subjugation.