The Bundy Affair – Vetting the Millers

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 9, 2014 (Revised June 10, 2014)

Note: In the first article, I explained that all of the parties had not yet been contacted. The article went to press because the efforts of Mainstream Media to tie the Millers to the Bundy Ranch had to be addressed, as early as possible. Though I seldom put out a story until all of the necessary research is completed, this was an exception. What follows is the same story as the first, though with corrections and clarifications, based upon input by the other parties that chose to provide what insight they had into the event.

The shootings that occurred in Las Vegas, on Sunday, June 8, 2014, were initiated by Jerad (age 31) and his wife, Amanda (age 22) Miller. There has been speculation of ties between the Millers and the Operation Mutual Aid support of the Bundy family and ranch. This is to set the record straight.

The Millers arrived at Bunkerville between April 12 and 14, though were never admitted to the ranch property or the operational militia base until the following events occurred. After a few days, questions were raised by other participants about the Millers. These questions were brought to the attention of Jerry DeLemus, Ryan Payne, and head of security on the Bundy Ranch, Booda. They were then brought to the area of the ranch and were interrogated by Jerry DeLemus, Ryan Payne, and Booda

Jerad Miller admitted that he was a convicted felon. The had a model 1911, 0.45-caliber handgun and a shotgun. The interrogation was conducted based upon reports from other participants regarding the aggressive nature of the couple and the apparent volatility displayed by Jerad.

This first interrogation resulted in a subsequent meeting between DeLemus, Payne and Stobel, as well as Stewart Rhodes and Mike Vanderboegh. The initial assessment was that they were not of the caliber of people needed to provide for the defense of the Bundy family and property. They were first directed to go to Mesquite and report on what was occurring there. Because of their disheveled appearance, Rhodes gave them “a couple hundred dollars” so that they could get a motel room, shower, and some new clothes, because they claimed that, they had given up jobs, their home, and were wearing the only clothes they possessed.

Prior to their leaving for Mesquite, it was determined that there might be a problem if they appeared to be working with the operation, and armed, so Miller’s gun was put in a tent.

As the discussion continued, the realization that there could be more serious consequences if the Millers were associated with the operation, it was decided that they should be asked to leave the ‘jurisdiction’ of the operation. Miller’s gun was given to Amanda, as she was not a felon, and they were told to leave the area. The operation was properly focused on defense of property and people, and did not have any facility, obligation, or right, to do other than what they did.

The Millers were sent on their way. Never were the Bundys apprised of this situation. It was dealt with by the shared command of the militia contingent that had evolved through the progression of the operation.

What subsequently developed is quite unfortunate. However, the rapidly unfolding of events at the ranch did not diminish the necessity of proper vetting of participants.

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

Mike Vanderboegh’s take, from a previous article at:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/05/there-is-no-teacher-but-enemy-bundy.html

“One afternoon a couple showed up at the camp: a young tattooed white male wearing a holstered pistol and his girlfriend toting a shotgun. In the entrance interviews, which Jerry insisted upon mostly conducting himself, it developed that the guy was an admitted felon, but he didn’t believe that it was constitutional to deny him his firearm rights. This came with a long, sad story about how they had quit their jobs to volunteer for the Bundys and do their part. Both Jerry and Stewart were inclined to accept their help until I called them over and explained the ramifications of accepting a self-admitted, armed felon into camp. They were impressed by the man’s “honesty and sincerity,” in admitting up-front that he was a felon. I said, among other things, that of course he admitted it. If he hadn’t, then they would have plausible deniability when later confronted about it. By stating it up front, it was actually worse for them because they could not later deny having known that fact.”

However, according to other reports, Mike was not the only one to bring others into reality and make the right decision.

Related articles:

The End of the Bundy Affair (maybe)

The Bundy Affair – The Battle Continues

The Bundy Affair – Who Was Not in the Front?

The Bundy Affair – Is Anybody in Charge Here?

The Bundy Affair – Oathkeepers vs. Militia

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

Stealing Valor

The Bundy Affair – Answering the Most Common Question

The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM

Appeasement
Giving in, inch by inch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2013

Appeasement
n. The action or process of appeasing.

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

So, what does appeasement have to do with anything?  Perhaps pacifying or placating someone would avoid potential problems.  It can’t be a bad approach, can it?

Perhaps a brief history of appeasement, as applied from a political standpoint, just about seven decades ago, will give us a better understanding of the consequences of appeasement.  So, let’s look at a brief history of appeasement leading up to the beginning of World War II.

Appeasement and World War II

At the close of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles set certain conditions on the losers, especially Germany.  Among those was a limitation of 100,000 troops in their army.  It also limited the size of their Navy in both manpower and ships.

In 1935, Germany began rearming beyond the limitations set forth in the Treaty of Versailles.  After discussions between Italy, Britain, France, and Germany, nothing was done to force Germany into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles.  This was appeasement.

In 1936, Germany, under Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, sent military forces into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty.  Though protests were made by Britain and France, nothing was done to stop this violation of the Treaty.  Britain claimed to lack the forces to back up France, leaving Hitler unopposed, and establishing a powerful strategic position.  This was appeasement.

In 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain.  The following year, Hitler sought the reunification of Germany and Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and sent German Wehrmacht troops into Austria to force the reunification.  Chamberlain’s reaction was to state, “The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force.”  This was appeasement.

In 1938, Germans, who found themselves living in the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, because of the boundaries drawn up in the Treaty of Versailles, under instruction from Hitler, sought autonomy.  Chamberlain warned Hitler that Britain might intervene if Hitler ordered an attack on Czechoslovakia.  Chamberlain went to Germany to meet with Hitler and Hitler demanded the Sudetenland be absorbed into Germany.  He convinced Chamberlain that refusal would result in war.  Chamberlain, with agreement from France, told the Czechoslovakian president that he must hand to Germany all of the territory with a German majority population.  This included over 800,000 people, substantial amounts of industry, and substantial portions of the Czechoslovakian mountain defense installations, thus providing an insecure Western Czechoslovakian border, ripe for subsequent invasion.  In late September, Hitler, Chamberlain, the French Prime Minister, and Mussolini of Italy, met in Munich, Germany.  They agreed that Hitler could complete his occupation of Sudetenland.  This was appeasement.

On September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland.  France and England were forced to enter war against Germany.  The policy of appeasement had only encouraged Hitler, and in May 1940, Chamberlain stepped down and Winston Churchill, who had consistently opposed appeasement, became Prime Minister.

During the years of appeasement, Hitler increased his military and armament, increased his strength, increased his access to natural resources and food supplies, increased his industrial capacity, and increased the size of Germany.  While other nations apologized for Hitler’s actions, he continued on a course that compounded the difficulty of dealing with the problem, when the appeasers finally recognized the error of their ways.

Had appeasement not been the practice of the day, and a firm position taken in 1934, the problem could have been dealt with and would probably have been but a minor incident in history.  As each step of the appeasement progressed, the magnitude of the problem became greater.  After a mere five years of appeasement, the solution to the problem resulted in deaths of many tens of millions of people and many trillions of dollars both in fighting the war that followed and rebuilding after the destruction of that war.

Appeasement Today

One of the elements of the greatness of America was an immigration policy that, until the Civil War, limited citizenship to those of European ancestry.  Even after the war, immigration was based upon quotas and other educational or experience criteria, and, for the most part, was open to any that chose to come to America, assimilate into the American way of life, and contribute to its greatness.

In the past three decades, immigration standards have been reduced to an open door policy.  The quotas that provided for limited immigration, resulting in assimilation, were dropped.  We began becoming a relocation destination for refugees who stood on our side in the wars that we continue to start, and to lose.  These newer policies have allowed entire communities to retain the heritage, culture, and lifestyle of their country of origin, and have effectively nullified the concept of assimilation.

Under the guise of multiculturalism, we have also opened our doors to just about anybody, regardless of their motivation, allowing floods of people who have no aspirations of assimilation, rather who come here for what they can get without effort, or, perhaps, with even more devious intentions.  However, to pacify world opinion created by our support for multiculturalism, and, to placate those who wish to come here, we have developed a policy of appeasement on immigration.

What might be the consequences of this policy of appeasement?  Perhaps we can take an American city and evaluate the consequence of this rampant immigration.  So, we will look at Dearborn, Michigan.  Of the estimated population of over 98,000 people, 40,000 are either Muslim or from Muslim countries (Wikipedia).  At this point, it is safe to say that they constitute 40% of the voting potential, regardless of the makeup of the remaining population.  Considering normal voting turnout, with a little motivation, the Muslims would have a majority in local elections.  The consequence would be that rather than assimilation into the American lifestyle, we would see a conversion of Dearborn into a Middle Eastern city and could eventually expect that local laws would be changed by that majority into laws foreign to the nature of America.  Putting it bluntly, they would, by utilizing the mechanism of democracy, convert Dearborn into a city ruled by Sharia Law.  As those laws change so, too, will the culture of a once American city.

That was one American city.  Let’s look at a county.  The population of Los Angeles County is 9.9 million people (LA Times blog).  The Hispanic population is 4.9 million people (Pew Research).  That constitutes over 49% of the population.  Based upon estimates (Los Angeles Almanac), the illegal immigrant population of Los Angeles County is over 700,000.  This would raise the number of Hispanics to 53%.  La Raza and other Hispanic organizations, asserting that California was stolen from the Mexicans, may soon be able to vote Los Angeles County out of the United States and into Aztlán.

Presumably, in the former, the population is a result of the lax immigration laws and open door policy.  In the latter, many are “old Mexican”, whose families have been here for generations, however, the remainder, except as noted, are comprised of those who became legal immigrants as a result of the 1986 amnesty, or, anchor babies and their associated families.

As these demographics continue to change, we can expect more cities and more counties to succumb to such consequences as we see in these two examples.  Appeasement, supported by court decisions, providing a spurious sense of blanket equality — even allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections (USA Today – Justices: Arizona voter registration rules go too far) — allows the growth of a problem that, as time goes on, will, as we saw in World War II, compound itself to the point that the solution becomes almost insurmountable, and will result in a hodgepodge of many pseudo-nations within the United States.

We have addressed to geopolitical aspects of appeasement and how they might affect the future of our once great nation.  Now, we can look into more subtle aspects of appeasement and the effect that they are having on our society.  You will note with both the above and those that follow, that one side (the appeaser) gives ground and weakens, while the other gains ground and strengthens.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on our children

ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a relatively new disease.  It has resulted in the drugging of hundreds of thousands of juveniles with psychotropic drugs.  Those same drugs appear to be associated with nearly every school shooting by a student.  If we look at the statistics, we will find that community referrals are 3 to 1 more likely to occur in boys than girls.  In clinic referrals, we find that the ratio extends to 10 to 1 (NIH/National Center for Biotechnology Information).  And in the female occurrences, it is defined as “inattentive type”, being less severe.  These numbers suggest that either the male is far more susceptible to ADHD than the female, or, perhaps, it is a consequence of the male tendency to be more active, and less passive, than the female.  Since our educational system has, by various means, endeavored to feminize the educational process by prohibiting physical contact sports, suggestions of guns or violence, and forced the male to participate in activities that were, just a few generations ago, considered to be in the realm of female passiveness.  Is it possible that the observation and determination of ADHD is a consequence of the depression that is a result of leaving the football field and having to participate in activities that are more feminine?  When you remove the “slugs and snails and puppy dog tails” and forced the masculine gender into “sugar and spice and everything nice,” can you expect the consequences to be other than what is described as ADHD?  Is acceptance of the government’s explanation appeasement?

Appeasement on militarization of police

“To Protect and To Serve” has been the motto of most police departments, for at least the last half century.  Recently, however, we have seen a marked movement towards that “protection” being redefined as “officer safety” (WSJ / Rise of the Warrior Cop).  As a consequence, and as the equipment becomes militarized, where officers are far more protected than they were decades ago, we see an increase in the level of violence directed at citizens, quite often in the comfort of their own home.  In 2005, there were 364 “arrest related deaths” (DOJ / Arrest-Related Deaths in the United States,).  In that same year, only 162 officers died in the line of duty, of which only 60 were shot (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial).  The government provides semi automatic and full automatic rifles to law enforcement, they provide military style helicopters to law enforcement, they provide military style armored vehicles to law enforcement, they have assigned drones to support law enforcement, and, they continue to provide additional military level equipment and training to law enforcement.  At the same time, many elements of government are attempting to restrict our right of self-defense, making us absolutely submissive to the law enforcement community.  Is this appeasement?

Appeasement on Christianity

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian moral values.  From courtroom to the executive office, the Bible has been the device upon which oaths were taken.  Christmas time and Eastertide have been celebrated throughout our history.  The United States Supreme Court building contains at least six depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments.  Recently, however, we have seen rejection of Christmas displays and Easter celebrations in our schools and other government locations, under the guise that the First Amendment prohibits them, though they had been celebrated openly on government property from the founding of our country until just a few decades ago.  There can be no doubt as to the role of Christianity in our history and heritage; however, as they are pushed out, we find that we have laid a red carpet out for Islam.  Many minarets, with speakers, loudly announce prayer early in the morning.  Muslims are allowed to lay down their prayer rugs and pray in streets, sidewalks, airports, and other public areas.  We are told that we are not to offend their practice of their religion.  Is this appeasement?

Conclusion

Appeasement, like any other disease, if treated early, lessens the damage.  Like cancer, if caught soon enough, total remission is quite possible.  However, if untreated, it will continue to grow, leading ultimately to the demise of the host.

Its introduction, like the Trojan Horse, is subtle and accepted.  If not recognized before introduction, where it can be denied admission, then as early as possible, as soon as it is recognized, remedial action must be taken.  Absent such treatment, the objectives of the interloper, instead of the host, will be achieved.

Its introduction is usually preceded by the utilization of “Political Correctness”.  Under the guise of Freedom of Speech, the host tends to drop its guard, often under the fear of ostracization, or even judicial punishment.  Political correctness is foundational to creating an air of acceptability, where ones true thoughts are suppressed – under the guise of being for the “common good”.

Appeasement is nothing less than the creation of an advantage for the opposing side.  Unless and until recognized, it serves none other than the host.  Once recognized, remedial action is absolutely necessary, at the earliest possible moment, to avoid the consequences that will ultimately follow.  Acquiescence to appeasement has only one conclusion — the social engineering of a society, contrary to its very nature.

Note: Outpost of Freedom first published this “Essay” in 1997. It is being republished in the blog so as to allow discussion, as the original posting at “An Essay on Hypocrisy“, where it will remain, though that page now has a link to this blog page to facilitate discussion. opf

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

As you read the essay, understand why I have always felt that McVeigh lit the fuse, but is not guilty of a crime. At this past weekend’s Jubilation 98, I met James Nichols and Bob Papovich {Freedom’s End}.  While speaking with Bob, and he, having glanced at my writings on the subject Oklahoma City Bombing, wondered why I could say that McVeigh lit the fuse, but was NOT GUILTY. Quite simply, the answer lies in each of our respective states of mind with regard to our relationship with the US government. McVeigh had determined that he was at war with the US government. I can empathizes with his feelings, for I judge my circumstance to be the same. It is only those who have not come to the point of that recognition that have difficulty in understanding this perspective. — opf

An Essay on Hypocrisy

By Timothy McVeigh

Editor’s (Media Bypass magazine) note: Timothy McVeigh, sentenced to death for his role in the April 19, 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, penned the following essay, dated “March 1998,” from his cell in the administrative maximum section of the federal prison in Florence, Colo. In a preface, McVeigh wrote “I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative — and I rather doubt that any mainstream media would touch it. [Note that although the enclosed is very provocative, it was written to provoke thought — and was not written with malevolent intent.]”

McVeigh apologized for the essay being handwritten, but noted his “current (unique) environment does not provide access to a typewriter, a word processor or a copier. (hell, I’m lucky they let me have a pen!), so I hope you understand why this is being submitted handwritten — and I hope you can overcome this shortcoming.”

McVeigh, whose interview with Media Bypass [February 1996] was picked up and dissected by the New York Times and major media outlets across the nation, also expressed concerns that reporting subsequent to this essay might be “printed out of context… but at least the original can be accurate.”

A decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War, McVeigh hereby offers his contribution to the debate over U.S. policy toward Iraq, a policy that McVeigh says is marked by a “deep hypocrisy.”

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) — mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that’s the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) — with respect to Iraq’s (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We’ve all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other “regional conflicts” that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of “weapons of mass destruction.”

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones– Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants — mostly women and children — in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of “mass destruction” — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes “a shield.” Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb — saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

Yet another example of this nation’s blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are “guilty by association” — they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don’t have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a “weapon of mass destruction.” If a two pound pipe bomb is a “weapon of mass destruction,” then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed “The Spirit of Oklahoma.”

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction — and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivilent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a “justified” response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

Sincerely

Timothy J. McVeigh

For the next post in this series What did Timothy McVeigh really say?

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 2, 2013

There comes a time when we are past the point of words; only action will achieve the goal that we have set.  That goal is founded upon our belief in, and our determination to support, the Constitution — and, the peaceful transition of the office of President.  Now, we must consider what to do when that transfer appears to be the harbinger of the total destruction of the way of life to which we are accustomed.

Every four years, the people of this country elect a new Executive to wield the reins of government.  To date, the United States of America is the only country in the world in which the government was truly created by the authority of the people.  In so doing, they required that the Executive take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

All subordinate offices, which require an oath, are similar to the following: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Interestingly, with the exception of the Executive, the oath includes, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  The stipulation “all enemies, foreign and domestic“, though omitted in the former, is included in all of the latter.

In a previous article (Sons of Liberty #14); the concept of self-government was discussed.  Part of that discussion dwelt upon the means by which governments are dissolved (dissolution).  First, they can be dissolved by force, by a conquering army, wherein they are absorbed within the government of the conqueror.

Second, they can be dissolved when an external force, not by outright conquest, instills a modified form of the existing government, albeit friendly to the external force, whereby through a slow transitional process, the existing government is modified to a new form.  (This, we impose upon countries under the guise of bringing them democracy.)

Thirdly, when an existing representative form of government is subverted by internal forces, such as: When the executive arbitrarily imposes his will on the elected representatives and the people; when the trust bestowed upon the legislative body is betrayed, by whatever means, whereby the ultimate authority is transferred from the people to arbitrary authority by the Legislative or the Executive, contrary to the document that brought the legislative body into existence; and, lastly, when the people become subject to the influence of a foreign power, thereby influencing the legislative body to pass laws inconsistent with the original foundation of the government.  It is of this last method of dissolution that we must concern ourselves.

Of these three forms of dissolution of government, we must concern ourselves with the third and its three basic elements.

Of the first, the Executive, we have seen in our history, a number of usurpations that don’t seem to be supported by the Constitution.  John Adams elicited legislative support for his Alien and Sedition Acts.  These Acts were to discourage dissent and criticism of the executive.  Of them, the Supreme Court overturned some; the remainder expired at the end of Adams’ term of office.  Later, Andrew Jackson refused to enforce laws enacted by the legislature.  During the Civil War, both Lincoln and the Congress enacted laws contrary to the Constitution.  All of these, however, pale when compared to recent usurpation of authority by the executive branch of government, resulting in their near dictatorial power, without regard to the Constitution, to which the executive oath was taken.

Of the next, the legislative, as discussed above, has been willing, under generally extraordinary circumstances, to enact laws contrary to the Constitution, has, recently, especially with the support of the judiciary, imposed upon the people of this country laws that are totally outside of any authority or power granted by the Constitution.  Beyond that, the judiciary has become legislative, and has broadened the interpretation of laws enacted by the legislature, and, by undermining the authority of the state governments to enact laws under their respective constitutions, provided us with, rather than interpretations of the Constitution, expansion of the authority of the federal government.

The consequences of the two above-mentioned usurpations has resulted in an electorate comprised of foreign interests, often illegally within this country, and often voting for those who promise them benefits and privileges that are greater than even those allowed to the people of this country.

The effect of the mis-administration of government according to the Constitution has resulted in a dissolution of government by the third method, which has been so subtle as to have been almost overlooked as it incrementally dissolved our freedoms.

Let’s look at some aspects of government, wherein we have seen the results of incrementalism and destruction of the foundations of our government.

Education:  In 1867, an “Office of Education” was established within the federal government.  Its purpose was to provide information and arrange for land grants to establish state colleges for agricultural and mechanical purposes.  Curriculum and all administrative matters were determined at the local level.  In 1953, a position was created and known as “Health, Education, and Welfare”.  At that time, curriculum and all administrative matters were determined at the local level, though in some cases subject to state intrusion.  Today, we have a dictatorial federal agency that mandates curriculum, testing, and social engineering, without regard to any more than token input from interested parties, leaving all decisions in the hands of a few select administrators.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Religion:  We have transformed the constitutional prohibition of government enacting any “law respecting an establishment of religion”, to an unconstitutional, and undesirable, “separation of church and state”, to the point that United States Supreme Court, with numerous engravings of the 10 Commandments or Moses on the edifices of that institution has summarily dictated that any representation of Christian belief cannot be demonstrated in, and in some cases even spoken of, in buildings owned by the public.  Meanwhile, atheism, through the same Court, has caused the forced removal of Christian symbols that have stood for decades, or longer, asserting that they are unconstitutional.  The tenets of Islam (Shariah Law) have, however, found standing in the lesser courts to justify actions that have been held as unlawful for centuries.  Likewise, they have allowed promotion of Islam in the same locations that they have denied the promotion of Christianity.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Police:  Even after World War II, police were courteous, helpful, protective, polite, and friendly, matching the phrase “to serve and to protect”.  Today, they serve search or arrest warrants, with no less than half a dozen militarily armed SWAT teams; breaking down doors, even if unlocked; shooting dogs and terrorizing the occupants; and, often at the wrong address.  The more they are equipped militarily, purportedly to provide officer protection, the more they are inclined to utilize force, even deadly force, in the conduct of their duties.  Their own personal safety has become paramount, with a total disregard for the safety of the public.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Criminal Justice:  “Hate crimes” have become the watchword in criminal justice.  If an act of violence is initiated by a white person (or even Hispanic), then the full force of justice will be imposed upon the perpetrator.  If, however, the act of violence is initiated by a black person on a white person, most often it will be asserted as a robbery, whether property was taken, or not.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Constitutional Justice:  Federal judges have, in numerous instances, determined that state constitutional amendments are unconstitutional, even though the amendments were enacted in accordance with state constitutions (Republican form of government) and are consistent with federal law (as in the federal definition of marriage, 1 U.S.C. § 7), or consistent with existing law and common sense (ruling barring Shariah law as a defense in Oklahoma).  These same federal courts have become the source of unlawful legislation to accomplish, by subjective means, social engineering, not authorized by the Constitution.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Debt:  They have imposed upon, not only us, but also our great grandchildren, a debt beyond comprehension.  The ability to pay down that debt is nonexistent, making it perpetual, though they continue to borrow and increase that debt, making us a destitute nation.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Welfare:  They have provided a smooth and easy path to dependency for those unwilling to fend for themselves.  With more people receiving food stamps, than there are working for a living, we can only wonder, should this trend continue, just who is providing for the food stamps.  The dependence upon government is at an historical high, and the continuation of this policy has no end in sight.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Immigration:  They have provided an open door, complete with financial incentive, to those who can find a better life, with less effort, by violating existing laws within this country.  This open door policy denigrates the very concept of what it means to be an “American”, which in times past, was the pursuit of those who entered this country abiding by the rules, with the intention of assimilation rather than invasion.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Veterans:  Young men are sent, by the government, to impose destruction and death upon perceived enemies of “our freedoms”.  Once returned, those who were willing to risk their lives “in defense of America” find that the same government that sent them on those dastardly deeds has now labeled them as enemies of the state.  Do we need to continue to pile incident upon incident to create a case?  Or has the time come for action?

Are those same veterans now willing to, once again, risk their lives for really protecting our freedom and liberty — from those who have used them and then tossed them aside?  Do they still have the courage and the desire to do what must be done?  Perhaps they need only look around and understand that the people, not the government, need their willingness, once again, to fight, and die, if necessary, to preserve those freedoms.

It has always, throughout history, primarily fallen to the young men of our nation, whether they have prior military service, or not, and those who support them, to preserve this “grand experiment” of self-government, the United States of America, or to abandon it to those who have corrupted that which was our birthright, and allow their children, their posterity, to submit to a slavery that they are becoming subject to, at this very moment.

There is no longer any need for “a line in the sand”, as it will surely be moved, once again, after we have allowed the incremental expansion of dictatorial government to remove even more of that which made us great.  It is now upon us — it is time to ACT.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Surrender is not an option, though if we continue to submit to the encroachments that are daily imposed upon us, it will surely be the result of our inaction.

Suggested reading:

Let’s Talk About the Constitution

The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

Introduction to Committees of Safety

The Other (not so) Thin Line

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

A Thought on Leadership

Some thoughts on the Zimmerman Verdict

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2013

For those who have decided that George Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, consider whether Trayvon Martin would agree with your advocacy of beating or killing whites. If Trayvon Martin would not support your advocacy, then that verdict was in error. If, however, Trayvon Martin would support such advocacy, then that justifies the actions of George Zimmerman and proves that he acted in self-defense.

So, what you have proven is that the verdict was correct, since those not involved in the events in Sanford, Florida, now must fear for their lives, as George Zimmerman feared for his.

Resistance to Tyranny Martino

By Joseph P. Martino

For over twenty years people have been talking about the ‘takeover’ of America, whether by foreign forces, or, by a government intent on creating a truly despotic government.

In 1984, a movie, Red Dawn, depicting one form of takeover was very popular throughout the country.  It was so popular that it was the 20th rated movie of that year.

Since then, movies and mini-series have depicted such a “takeover” and have captivated audiences.

What non off them present, and, what has eluded those who have endeavored to “prepare” for such and event , is the complexity of coordination that would be required of people who really wanted to prepare for “Resistance to Tyranny”.

Based upon real events of the past as well as his practical application of experience in his tenure with the Air Force, this book is a description of the ‘networking’ necessary, in today’s world, to carry out such a resistance.

Joseph Martino has compiled a complete primer to the organizational elements necessary to be able to affect such resistance.

This book is an absolutely necessary addition to the libraries of for Committees of Safety, Militia units, and Survivalist organizations, as well as anybody who wants to really understand what may be necessary, if we are to survive, as a country.  It should be read and understood by any person with any degree of responsibility in such organizations.

 Resistance to Tyranny

ISBN 9781450574280

Available at: Resistance to Tyranny

About the Author
Dr. Martino is a retired Air Force Colonel.  He served in Thailand where he conducted research on counterinsurgency.  He later was Chairman of the Counterinsurgency Working Group of the Military Operations Research Society.  He teaches a course in Just War Doctrine at Yorktown University.  He holds degrees in Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Mathematics.

Credentials

Served in US Air Force 1953 – 1975, retiring in grade of Colonel.  Service included 21 months in SE Asia 1962-1963, researching problems of counterinsurgency.  Served as Chairman, Special Warfare Working Group, 1963 – 1968.  Published A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1982, applying Just War Doctrine to use of nuclear weapons.  Several papers on counterinsurgency and special warfare at Vietnam Symposium, Texas Tech U. and in military journals.  Educational background: AB in Physics; MS in Electrical Engineering; PhD in Mathematics.  Worked as Research Scientist at U. of Dayton Research Institute 1975 – 1993.  Visiting Professor, Marmara University, Istanbul, 1998 – 1999.

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

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

The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government

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

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. H.

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

The Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some considerations for the evaluation of a ‘target’:

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

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

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

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

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

from the Waco White Papers:

From: Gary Hunt at the Outpost of Freedom in Waco, Texas
Date: December 21, 1993

I have often wondered what it was like when communities were small, and everybody knew everybody.

This thought occurred to me while I was driving through Tombstone, Arizona, site of the famous gunfight. As was reported in the papers of the day (not television news), the Earps and Doc Holliday were walking down the street, knowing that the Clantons and Lowery were at the corral. These factions had been at odds with each other for years, and on this day there appeared to be a plan, for as the Earps and Doc walked by the Clantons, the Earps threw some hateful words out. This, apparently, did not provoke the desired action, so Doc pulled his shotgun from under his coat, turned and fired. The Earps then joined in and only two of the others got away.

Similarly, here in Waco, one faction, with color of law, was able to open up on the other in a devastating gunfight that left 9 dead. The color of law was sufficient, at least for the time being, to vindicate the aggressors. In both cases the side with color of law would have, if circumstances warranted, been given time off, with pay, while adjudication occurred. The other side would have been incarcerated until adjudication was completed. Those with color of law would not be charged with a crime, but the others would be charged with serious crimes.

While I was here during the siege I ran across an interesting piece of Texas law. In the Texas Penal Code, §9.31 (C), reads as follows:

§9.31 (C) The use of force to resist arrest or search is justified:
(1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

There must have been a reason for this law to have been passed, so I went back and reread the definition of:

liberty 1. Exemption from slavery, bondage, imprisonment, or control of another. 2. Freedom from external restraint or compulsion (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).

LIBERTY Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. (Black’s Law Dictionary – Third Edition)

It appears, then, that the right for each of us to walk freely, subject to not harming or injuring another person or his property is the concept of liberty that the Founding Fathers spoke of, and we have let our liberty be lost in a myriad of regulation, rule and control.

What gives a “peace officer” the right to take a persons liberty, or property? Obviously the Texas legislators realized that excessive force could be used, unlawfully, justifying lawful retaliation. Perhaps they understood human nature and knew that personal bias might play a part when one person, operating under color of law, might exceed lawful exertion of force. Understanding that abuse of power might occur, isn’t it possible that both time and extension of power might result in “law enforcement” officers exerting an authority that is beyond lawful authority?

Wondering how, and why, the scope of law enforcement may have changed, I began searching further and ran into an interesting account of a significant change that came as a result of a major trauma in the history of the United States of America. During World War II, especially with the troops being an occupation army after the armistices, there was a rather carefree attitude among those who thought they may never see home again. To control the servicemen the Military Police had to impose arbitrary authority under the maritime jurisdiction that all soldiers were subject to. Meanwhile, back in the states, police officers approaching retirement during the war tended to stay on to help out in the war effort. As the MP’s began returning stateside (literally tens of thousands of them) they began to fill the ranks of local law enforcement, filing in the gap made by those now retiring. The attitude of arbitrary enforcement was ingrained in the returnees, and, although tempered by training as they joined the local ranks, still became a prevalent attitude which began a change of servant to master.

I looked further (American’s Bulletin, September 1993) and found an interesting article, portions of which follow:

This fundamental premise was upheld by the Supreme court of the United States in the case of John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 (1900) when the court stated: “…where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

“an arrest made with a defective warrant; or one issued without affidavit; or one that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is resisting, the killing will be no more than involuntary manslaughter.

In reviewing the case we find that:

“The court charged the jury: “The deceased, John Kills Back, had been ordered to arrest the defendant; hence he had a right to go and make the attempt to arrest the defendant. The defendant had no right to resist him. .. In this connection I desire to say to you, gentlemen of the jury, that the deceased, being an officer of the law, had a right to be armed, and for the purpose of arresting the defendant [John Bad Elk] he would have the right to show his revolver. He would have had the right to use only so much force as necessary to take his prisoner, and the fact that he was using no more force than was necessary to take his prisoner would not be sufficient justification for the defendant to shoot him and kill him. The defendant would only be justified in killing the deceased when you should find that the circumstances showed that the deceased had so far forgot his duties as an officer and had gone beyond the force necessary to arrest the defendant, and was about to kill him or to inflict great bodily injury upon him, which was not necessary for the purpose of making the arrest.

The jury, relying on these instructions, convicted John Bad Elk of murder and the case went to the higher court on error. The higher court stated:

“We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policeman had the right to arrest the plaintiff [John Bad Elk] in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff had no right to resist it.

“At common law, if a patty resisted arrest by an officer without a warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. .. So we can clearly see that something has happened that has had the affect of allowing us to be arrested (lose our liberty) by the design of a law enforcement officer when the Supreme Court has held that the officer has no right unless certain procedures (constitutional protections) are adhered to.

Perhaps we have been led to believe that law enforcement has superhuman rights. Perhaps the Founding Fathers, and those that followed recognized that no special privilege could be granted to normal humans who took a job that put them at risk. Perhaps arrest cannot be made, unless by indictment, properly obtained information or if a serious crime, not minor, is committed in the presence of the officer, and, perhaps not even in this last case unless property or lives are at stake.

As a general rule we have accepted the fact that we may shoot another person to protect our lives, property or money. But what is property or money if not a previous conversion of time. The time exerted to achieve the money or property surely had value. When someone attempts to “steal” that time prior to conversion are we not able to understand that even more is being taken away than when property is? Just because a man is wearing a badge gives him no right to take from us what we would not allow to be taken by someone without a badge. Why have we come to a point that we accept authority, such as that which invaded Mt. Carmel Center, Waco, Texas, without question? However, when the matter comes to life or death we are willing to protect our property, by any means necessary, when just the property is jeopardized.

P.C. (Popping Cops)
An interview with John

July 5, 1999

 

John is an old friend. He is a combat veteran and well versed on our country’s heritage. He was last interviewed by the Outpost of Freedom (OPF) in September 1995 (Sons of Liberty #18). Our discussion, then, was about the Murrah Building bombing and McVeigh’s choice of targets.

I was talking with John just a few days ago and we were discussing the events in Kosovo. I asked John if he would do another interview, which we completed this evening.

OPF: Well, John, Welcome! And, it’s good to talk with you again.

JOHN: Thanks, Gary. Good to be able to discuss things, again.

OPF: John, the other day, when we were talking about doing this interview, you mentioned that there might be some things that we could learn from the KLA. Why don’t we start there?

JOHN: Okay! Well, a couple of years ago we talked about McVeigh targeting the federal building. As I said, then, we should target the sources of the problem. Although the government is the problem, the Federal Reserve System is the source of the power and influence that directs the government.

We should also look at the front line soldier in the war. You realize, I know from your writings, that you believe that we are at war. I think that McVeigh made that same sentiment very clear. Gary, you are a veteran. When you were in combat, was your target the government buildings of North Vietnam?

OPF: No! In my role, the target was the person trying to shoot me. I wasn’t really a combat soldier. I was an airplane crew chief. We conducted no offensive actions, except by aerial/radio support or targeting. Risk generally came from when the aircraft or the airfield was attacked. Maybe even in convoy. So, any target I had presented himself.

JOHN: Well, I think you have the idea. Whether you were an offensive or defensive soldier, your primary target is the front line enemy soldier. Now, I mentioned the KLA on Kosovo. As you have pointed out in some of your articles, the KLA was assassinating policemen in Kosovo for nearly two years. The Serbs attempted to retaliate, but were looked on as the bad guy — at least by people like Clinton. But, face it, for nearly three years the KLA continued to kill police at every opportunity. The also killed the paramilitaries and Serbian Army, whenever the opportunity presented itself. The had the government frustrated to the point that the government had to start attacking people even remotely suspected of being KLA or harboring them.

OPF: John, I think that if that happened here, many would claim that it was the government doing it just to encourage public support to pass more laws against guns.

JOHN: Yes, I’ve read a lot of that recently. The High School shootings seems to have really fueled that fire. But, think about it. Is there any patriot that couldn’t be charged with a crime? Is there any person that couldn’t be charged with a crime? Passing those laws is just feel good sort of thing. You’ve written about how you still have all of your rights. As you said in your articles, you pity the cop that thinks you don’t still have the right to bear arms. Those friends of yours, George and Lynda, they weren’t willing to give their rights up. They knew they still had them, but the government, with the power they have behind them, will deny those rights whenever they want. So, what good does another law do? I’ve often wondered if the naysayers that constantly espouse not acting to restore our lawful government are working for the unlawful one. Do you think that the Founders would have submitted to such illogical arguments? Where do you think that we would be, today, if they had?

OPF: You’re right. The hard core of the Founders were Sam Adams, John Hancock and James Otis. The rest, even Washington, had constantly plead for negotiated solutions. There was, always, opposition to any form of force. But, if I remember correctly, the Sons of Liberty and other small gangs, even in the Southern colonies, would take more aggressive action — especially against tax collectors.

JOHN: That’s right. The tax collectors could call the King’s soldiers to seize property, if taxes weren’t paid. The soldiers, however, worked only under the direction of the civil authority. They didn”t make decisions, use their rifles, or any force, unless directed to by the Governor or an agent of the King. It was those agents who directly affected their lives that were the front line troops — the enemy which was first sought out and slain.

OPF: But, wait a minute. There weren’t that many killings. Most of the activity was against property, houses, offices, etc., wasn’t it?

JOHN: Yes, it was, but there was little regard for life. If they were going to burn someone’s house down, they usually vandalized it and then set it afire. They didn’t make anyone leave, or physically remove them. If they stayed in the house, it was at their own risk. And, many died in those fires. Also, many died of the tar and feathering they received. But, times have changed. Very few colonists were killed by the King’s forces. Quite a bit different, today, wouldn’t you say?

OPF: Yes. But, well, do you really think that there will be support for killing cops?

JOHN: There was in Kosovo. The Albanians were willing to put up with quite a bit, and seldom, if ever, turned in a KLA member. That’s why so many civilians were killed by the Serbs. If they had a group of people and knew that at least one was KLA, if the others didn’t talk, they killed them all. It didn’t seem to break down the fortitude of the Albanians. It seemed to strength their resolve.

OPF: So, do you think that it would have the same effect in this country?

JOHN: Gary, you know that there are still some who want to blame everything on the government. You know that there are a lot of people who think that things will change through the voting process. I’ve seen many articles on the Internet where people still believe that if they can circumnavigate the judicial maze, they can get justice. Are you asking me if those people will support the kind of action that is necessary to get our country back? To them, the answer is, No!

But, remember that two hundred years ago only a small handful believed that force would remove the burden the King had put on the people. Once the reality struck home that force would be method of change, they reconsidered their old ideas — and supported the cause. But, remember, too, that it was a very slow process. It never was a majority then, and it will never be a majority to effect this sort of change.

OPF: What sort of people would look favorably on this sort of action?

JOHN: The people that I know look favorably on action. You don’t read about all of the bombings and events that are going on, every day. It is only when the press can play something up that they do. You’ve read about the hundreds of bombings that occur in this country, each year. Do you read about them on the Internet? There is probably at least one bombing every day in this country, but nobody finds out about them, except maybe those that live in the same town. They know that these bombings and attacks against police are going on. Nobody seems to get caught, unless they make a stupid mistake. But, that’s not the real point of this type of action.

OPF: Yes, I’ve read the annual reports that point out how many bombings there are every year. I’ve wondered, but, I guess I realize that the press doesn’t cover it unless it serves a purpose — and, the police and FBI don’t want to know how many unsolved bombings there are. It seems like when they can ID [identify] someone, then it hits the press. But, you say that this is not the point. What is the point of this?

JOHN: Well, from a tactical standpoint, let’s suppose that you are a policeman. What happens when policemen start getting shot in random attacks?

OPF: I would guess that they would probably start putting two officers in a car to protect against it.

JOHN: Right! And, many places have put two men in every patrol car. But, what happens as it continues, and becomes even more common?

OPF: I think that I’m beginning to get the picture. If I took the job cause it paid well and gave me power, I would have second thoughts if the risk became too great.

JOHN: You got the idea. If people were to start Popping Cops, then cops would start to think twice before they continue don the force. Of course, there would probably be an over-reaction to this, at first. They might be more aggressive thinking that would protect them. But, then, maybe that is what s happening now. I think, though, that they are just under-qualified for their jobs. The government has put so many cops on the street that they have got to be running out of qualified people. Just like any profession — You’re a Surveyor. Could anybody be a surveyor with proper training?

OPF: Well, they could probably pass the exams, but there are a lot of people who have passed the exams, gotten registered and still aren’t very good surveyors,

JOHN: Do you think that the same is true with cops?

OPF: Well, some of the cops I know seem to have a good attitude for their work, but, they are arrogant and stick together. They will stick up for a friend, whether he is a cop, or not. I guess, though, that there has got to be a limit, like you said, as to how many people are qualified to be good cops. But, then, you know that I don’t believe that there is any such thing as a good cop.

JOHN: How many of those you know are really willing to risk their lives to help people?

OPF: Heh! I don’t think that I know any that would match the mold that existed years ago.

JOHN: So, do you think that they might find other work if the risk became too great?

OPF: I would think that that would be very likely. You said “Popping Cops”. That comes out to “PC”. I just realized the irony of it.

JOHN: Can’t think of a better way to describe it! But, back to where we were. What would happen, then, if cops were getting taken out, one at a time, here, there, all over the country? One in Detroit, a few days later, one in Chicago, a few days later, one in Miami and one in Dallas, each time, different bullets, different MO [Modus Operandi], nothing similar except the result — another dead cop? Any cell could do one job every six months. The likelihood of getting caught would be almost non-existent.

OPF: You heard about this guy, Benjamin Smith, in Indiana, didn’t you?

JOHN: Yes. He was a [loose] cannon. There have always been people like that. It seems like they have a death wish, and no sense.

OPF: Wouldn’t Popping Cops have the same consequence?

JOHN: No! The difference is targeting. That’s what we were talking about. Everybody would know, whether they admitted it, or not, why it was happening. It wouldn’t be murder, it would be killing. Killing the enemy, just like in war. That is the objective, isn’t it?

OPF: Yes. But, if the enemy is the government.

JOHN: Did you read Jack McLamb’s Vampire Killer 2000?

OPF: Yes, a number of times.

JOHN: Who is always there if there is an IRS seizure, a federal service of process, and even around the perimeter at Waco? Cops are the tools, the front line, the cannon fodder for the government. If they seize the rifles in California, who will seize them? Should we concern ourselves with them just because they haven’t participated in a direct action? Should we not shoot enemy soldiers who haven’t, yet, shot at us? Are troop trains of raw recruits military targets?

OPF: I se what you mean.

JOHN: Gary, remember, a long time ago, you told me that you used to look at cops and wonder if there family would miss them? Then, after Waco, you told me that you didn’t care, anymore. What their families would feel?

OPF: Yes, and I think that I still feel the same. But, then, I’m supposed to be asking the questions!

JOHN: Okay. Ask away!

OPF: Well, I guess I’m sort of at a loss, right now. This is a lot to digest. I guess that most of it has been there, all along, but I’ve never really thought it out like this.

JOHN: I think that most of us who really want the country back have all of those pieces inside. Our conversation the other day got me going on it, again. I think that time, you know, in history, in life, has a part of what makes sense, or not. Our conversation brought up the same thoughts I’d had before, but hey came together in a different way. Kept trying to resolve it, but it kept coming out the same way. I think that is how man and history is supposed to work.

OPF: John, I’m going to have some more questions, I’m sure, as time goes on. Are you gonna be willing to answer more about this, later on?

JOHN: Sure. I don’t know if I’ll have answers to all of your questions, but I’ll try. Same rules.

OPF: Okay. John, Thanks, very much. Again, you’ve provoked a lot of thought. Thanks! Stay safe!

JOHN: You, too!

C3CM

By Gary Hunt
 May 1, 1995

 I have been seeking information on a government program for over two years. As I traveled around the country, and met various people, I would ask those that might have knowledge if they had heard of the program. More recently, I have published the “Outpost of Freedom-Sentinel”, and in the “Journals of the Outpost of Freedom”. In the second edition, I ran what is contained below as a part of that story. I have not been able to confirm the validity of what is presented, however, like Operation Cablesplice, it is worthy to note that what is being presented here may be a part of the plan.

 I will get into more detail about what appears to be happening around the country right now, in the days to come. For those who have not heard, Norman Olson and Ray Southwell have stepped down, or so news reports suggest, as a result of their being set up to run a story blaming the bombing on Japan. Others are now reporting what appears to be a set up occurring, and those that saw NBC news Friday evening, know that there is an effort to associate me to militia. I will make clear here that I believe 110% in the concept of militia, but have chosen not to join because I want the mobility to travel to cover stories, and the autonomy not to be associated, for the sake of any organization, and for my own, with any groups, militia, or otherwise.

 From Outpost of Freedom – :Sentinel, Vol. II, No. 2, March 8, 1995:

 There were a few people that I knew of in the Orlando area that had, like myself, become “untaxed”, or whatever term you may prefer. At any rate, we were no longer filing income tax returns. Some had gone through seizure of property and/or bank accounts. I had my share of run ins with the IRS, but felt more comfortable with my position as it had developed over the past few years. As a result I came into contact with some people who were going through a program from the Southwest. Unfortunately, it eventually cost them their home, but, as is usually true, the seizure was based upon taxes previously acknowledged as owed.

 I bring these people up because they introduced me, via telephone, to someone they had met, on the phone, as a result of the “program” they were in. The person they introduced me to was someone (let’s call this person Carl Morgan) that lived in the Northeast. Carl had decided to come to Florida and meet some of the Citizen’s. I had agreed to put Carl up, since my office had plenty of room. Carl arrived around the 20th of February, and stayed over for about a week.

 Carl seemed to me to be very sincere. We spoke of many things that were of issue to the Patriot community. Realizing that there may be a need for an “underground railroad” for patriots, the discussion came, eventually, to aiding people in need of help. Carl’s sincerity had been demonstrated, at least in conversation, so decided to let him in on our secret. I have often wondered whether this was a wise decision. Being “in charge” of hiding Peter, Linda and Alex, I had demanded of all others involved, an absolute silence. I think that this was a key to our success, yet I had violated that “order” in bringing Carl in.

 As it was, however, benefits were derived from this inclusion. Carl, after returning home, had begun to make arrangements for “securing” people should the need arise.

 Another benefit derived was that of trust. Carl recognized our sincerity in the cause, and, apparently, recognized that we were who we had said we were. The evening that Carl met Peter, Alex, Linda and Sam we had all had a few glasses of wine. Carl seemed somewhat awed by this group we had formed. As a result, Carl had become a bit intoxicated, either by wine or awareness, or both. When Carl and I returned to the office Carl began telling me more of the work that was Carl’s tie to government.

 Carl worked for a defense intelligence agency sub-contractor. Carl’s job was to study reports by various government people and utilize them in the development of a program named “C3CM”. Carl may have overstepped what was intended in talking to me about the project that evening. The project has been a dominant thought in my mind since that evening back in 1993. Since, if it is true, it answers many questions and ties together much of what has been left hidden to the Patriot Community. Following is an overview of what I learned that evening, with some speculative comments of my own.

 “C3CM” is a national defense project designed to assist in securing the “favor” of people in any country in the world. The idea, quite simply, is to identify those that would oppose the government of choice of the United States Government (USG).

 The identification process actually applies to virtually everyone within the country, and they are identified in three main categories. I have been unable to make contact with Carl since the end of the Waco siege when Carl paid the remainder of my motel bill and we last spoke. Carl told me the names of the three categories, and I have kicked myself many times for not having made better notes at the time.

 The categories, however, can be defined as: Those who would speak out against the objectives of the USG, let us call these group “A”; Those who would listen to the A’s, let us call these group “B”; and those who would do their best to avoid involvement in the matter (some might call them sheeple), or serve the other side, which we will call group “C”. Within each of these categories there are sub-categories, most significant in A and B. The sub-categories are a prioritization of the need for neutralization. The more outspoken were, of course, more of a threat to the goals of the USG. By the same token, the B’s are identified as those more likely to act, or possibly, move into group A. Group C was not discussed in this context, but I’m sure there are those who would be favored by their identification within this category.

 The first part of the program (C3), then, is the identification and categorization of all within a country. This does not preclude the United States. In fact, I am inclined to believe that the program is being applied here, and has been for quite some time. (I will discuss more on this, later).

 The second part of the program (CM) is the application thereof. Let’s suppose that the USG wants to take over country X and install their lackeys in positions of power. Given a longer period of time, (say a couple of years), the objective of the application would be to undermine or discredit the efforts of the A’s identified as a threat to the goal. At the same time, selected members of the C group might be “presented” to the B group and represented as A type people. This would be accomplished by apparent “attacks” on the plants, or “promotion” by identifying them as leadership in articles being critical of the objectives of the A’s and B’s.

 The conviction and incarceration of A’s, where practical, would also be applied. Any charge, and excuse, any method that would discredit or remove from “power” any A would be within the guidelines of the long term approach.

 Given less time to “apply” the program, (the extreme in terms of time), every effort would be made to “take out”, or at least jail, those A’s that posed an immediate threat. The other A’s would also be targeted, based upon their priority. Any excuse would be sufficient. But, promotion of a “crime” as a perceived threat (especially one where “set ups” are easily achieved) to the society (say drugs) must be in place. By coloring the subject as a criminal, questions may not be asked at all, or, if they are asked, sufficient time will go by to accomplish the objective before answers are demanded.

 Variations of both the C3 and CM portions allow a very broad scope of application suitable to nearly any objective. And there is no reason to believe that this program is not being applied to those in the Patriot community today.

 Speculating – that this program is being applied to the Patriot community, let’s look at a tool that might be available to those in government who would be applying the program. Danny Casselara died while investigating the theft, by the Department of Justice, of the INSLAW software. INSLAW was developed, under contract to DJ and Interpol, to “track” “criminals” by Modus Operandi, habits, and other characteristics. DJ failed to make payments under the contract which forced Prometheus (the software company developing the program) into bankruptcy. DJ was then able to buy the proprietary rights to the software from the bankruptcy court, thereby cutting Prometheus completely out of the picture. Could the INSLAW software be the primary tracking and identification element in the C3 portion of the program?