[Note: This post had been removed at the request of TJ Lezcano (see first comment). Once removed, a scathing email demnouncing all white men was received from Lezcano, which warranted to the re-posting. GH]

Tony Lezcano and RifleStock

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

May 20, 2011

Someone referred me to a YouTube video made by Tony Lezcano, aka TJ, aka, Tyrannicide, aka, aloy0102 (YouTube), phone (786) 553-1553, because it claimed to know why RifleStock had been cancelled.  The YouTube video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qpolDjDA2o

I had a rather interesting conversation with Mr. Lezcano, this morning.  I called him to clarify what caused RifleStock to be cancelled, since, being one of the organizers; I had direct knowledge of what happened.  Not only that, I contacted the US Forest Service personnel that were involved in what is described in my article on the subject (RifleStock 2011 – Canceled – A more thorough explanation).

Mr. Lezcano informed me that he was going to convoy, with hundreds of people, to RifleStock, but they cancelled their plans when it (RifleStock) began to fall apart.  Interestingly, they apparently intended to either crash the event, or buy tickets at a premium price (the price was held down until a certain date, and then went up), though only about 60 people had bought tickets.  He did assure me, however, that his explanation of why it was cancelled was accurate, and that he had “thousands” of people who had confirmed it (infiltrators in the skinhead movement, according to Mr. Lezcano).

I asked Mr. Lezcano if he realized that Freebyrd, who he attacks in the video, and, I believe, accuses of being a racist, by grouping him with the others mentioned at the end of the video, has an Hispanic name and heritage.  He claimed that he didn’t mean that Freebyrd was a racist.  I guess you will have to judge what was implied by the video, for yourself.  Maybe it was just poorly presented, and I will go along with that.

He also decided that I was a hick from Kentucky, based upon my “accent”, and that I was just a country boy.  I do believe that I have traveled through Kentucky, but I do not believe that I stayed long enough to acquire an accent.  As far as being a country boy, I was raised having horses to ride, though I have spent much of my life signing contracts with clients, representing them to city and county boards, testifying, on occasion, for them, in court, and otherwise representing them and designing subdivisions, surveying tracts of land, while making a decent living that allowed me to get back into the country to do the field surveys of their property.  So, perhaps, I am a country boy, though mischaracterized by Mr. Lezcano (a plumber, by trade).

Mr. Lezcano told me how he had helped Charles Dyer (July 4 Patriot) become what he was, though he would not answer my question (interrupted, a couple of times), about why he turned against Mr. Dyer.  My question was whether he turned against Mr. Dyer because Mr. Dyer would not do what Mr. Lezcano wanted him to do.

Mr. Lezcano claims to have (it appeared to be rather possessive) thousands of patriots that want to restore the Republic, on his webpage (ARM).  Interestingly, I happen to be one of them, though I cannot say that I support Mr. Lezcano’s’ philosophy, conclusions, nor his accuracy in reporting fact.

He also claimed that he was trying to create cohesion in the patriot community.  I do find this hard to believe, because he suggested that I was associated with these people and therefore, I did not want to restore the Republic (I prefer restoring the Constitution).  Based upon the name calling that I encountered in this conversation, it appears more likely that Mr. Lezcano wants all patriots to think as he does — fall into lockstep with what he believes — if they are, truly, patriots.  This would seem to be about the most divisive approach one could take, where one man dictates what is to be, and, what is not to be.

To those who take up Mr. Lezcano’s offer to “call me, my number is out there, I am easy to find” (phone (786) 553-1553), you may find, also, that he is not as willing to talk as he suggests (since he hung up on me rather than answer my question about Mr. Dyer), and said that he was a very busy man.

Finally, if a reporter of facts fails to get the facts on one story, when the facts are very clear, it must make you wonder whether he has done equally well on other stories.

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

Note: Offensive language, below.

This is a transcription of what was said about RifleStock on the video referenced above:

12:34 – What’s this guy Freebyrd.  I don’t even know who they fuck you are dude.  You have my phone number. Everyone has my phone number.  You don’t like the fact that I made a video that says Norm Olson, Rick Light, and WRAM, are a bunch of neo-Nazi, racist Fucks?  And that RifleStock was shut down because it was going to be invaded by neo-Nazis?  We’re all going to be hanging out there, whoo, having a great time. RifleStock!, and a bunch of fucking Nazi guys, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, were about to roll in to RifleStock, to crash the party.  That’s why you shut it down, Freebyrd.  Don’t fucking lie. You got a fucking, you got a problem with me?   Call my number. You can find it.  People have it. It’s out there.  I don’t need to contact you for shit.  Cause I don’t know you.  And, I don’t care about you.  I care about my people.  My people in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas.  We’re solidifying the south.  You all wanna keep pouncing around like little babies?  Pointing fingers at each other?  Ahh, you did it.   Ahh, he’s a dirty Mexican.  Ahh, Ahh.  We are not.

Comment: This leads me to wonder, if everybody is a neo-Nazi, why would they cancel RifleStock because neo-Nazis were coming to the event?

Are Committees of Safety Illegal?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 9, 2012

That is a question that has been posed to me a number of times.  So, let’s look at it both from the perspective of the past and how it fits within the Constitution.

I have found reference to “extra-legal” in certain writings about Committees of Safety. Extra-legal means outside of the protection of the law.  It does not mean illegal.  I have found nothing that indicates that they were deemed illegal by the Crown, though once they became active, their actions, in many instances, were considered to be illegal.  I have found nothing where any effort was made to “arrest” any Committees of Safety, though Sam Adams and John Hancock were surely targets of such effort on April 19, 1775.

Now, we shall visit the Constitution — specifically, the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A Committee of Safety, if its concern is to establish an infrastructure, to be implemented in the event of a failure of the existing government, so that “Civil government” can be maintained, as was only existent in our Revolutionary period, then it is nothing more than Freedom of Speech in a body Peacefully Assembled.  Like the spare tire in your car, there is always the hope that it will never be needed. There is little doubt that the same is true of this infrastructure that the infrastructure created by the Committee of Safety is, likewise, something that we hope will never have to be utilized.  To meet and discuss and plan for something as important as the protection our lives, families, and property, by planning for the maintenance of civil government, cannot be illegal, by any stretch of the imagination.

By being outside of the protection of the law simply means that it is not protected, specifically, however, at the same time, it does not fall outside of the retained rights addressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, to wit:

Amendment 9:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment 10:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Freedom of Speech

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 23, 2012

A while back, I wrote an article, The Three Boxes, about the loss of both ballot and jury boxes, tools intended by the Framers, which allowed the people a degree of protection and redress against usurpation of un-granted (unconstitutional) powers by the government.  A comment I received regarding that article was the proclamation, “We still have Freedom of Speech”.  Well, that struck me as not quite so, which has led to this article.

To properly evaluate whether we still do have, intact, Freedom of Speech, we must go to the beginning or we find ourselves simply jumping to a conclusion based upon what we have been told.  So, if we are to start at the beginning, it behooves us to think about Speech, and exactly what it is.

Now, the first reaction to this question often elicits the response, “the words that I say, I can say anything I want”.  Well, there is no doubt that Speech is the utterance of words.  However, we must consider that words uttered, absent conscious thought, are more aptly described as gibberish.

It appears, then, that we can likely agree that Speech, that protection afforded in the First Amendment, must surely be intended to also protect the Freedom of Thought.  Otherwise, it would be best described as “Freedom of Gibberish”.

So, now that we have expanded the concept of Freedom of Speech to the point that thought has to be the conscious source for the words to be uttered, we can proceed.

Well, we know that we can go stand on the street corner and speak, all that we want.  At first glance, that would seem to imply that we do have Freedom of Speech.  However, what if we said something that was, well, not really an advocacy of a crime, a threat, or some other expression that would, under the Constitution, be unlawful?  Of course, yelling “fire” in a theatre, which might result in injury as people flee a perceived peril, is prevented by virtue of reason and common sense.  Also, slander and libel, directed at a specific individual, are, likewise, subject to judicial scrutiny as civil matters.  However, at what point must we “restrict” what we say?  And, what if we do find that we have, by law, or other means, been prohibited from expressing our thoughts, whatever they may be?  I think that we can, rightfully, construe Freedom of Speech, as suggested earlier, to be, in actuality, the Freedom of Expression of Thought — so long as that expression does not result in an unlawful act.

To fully investigate the theory as to what Freedom of Speech really entails, perhaps it would serve us to pick a topic and evaluate whether, as a consequence of other factors, we are, in fact, denied Freedom of Speech.  Since most states, at some point in time, had moral laws regarding the subject, it is probably safe to look at homosexuality to begin to delve into the consequences of the social engineering, and if, in fact, it has had the effect of suppressing Freedom of Speech.

Let’s go back about fifty years.  The commonly used term for a homosexual, accepted even in academic circles, was “queer” or “homo”, or, the more offensive “faggot” or “fag”.

Queer (all definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary): “At variance with what is usual or normal; differing in some odd way from what is ordinary; odd; singular; strange; whimsical; as, a queer story or act”.  Well, there can be little doubt that homosexuality is “at variance with what is usual or normal”.

Fagot: “A bundle of sticks, twigs or small branches of trees…”  The term was applied to the wood bundles used to kindle the fires with which witches and queers were burned, during the Inquisition, and “fag”, the abbreviated form.

Back then, there was nothing wrong with calling a homosexual a queer.  Even if you called him a fag, there were no social consequences, unless, of course, you were in a queer bar.  That was the accepted — the norm — at the time.  After all, Freedom of Speech (and the inherent ability to express thoughts that led to the Speech) was still intact, as they had been since the ratification of the Constitution and long before.

Social engineering, however, provides us a different twist.  Social Engineering is the art of manipulating people with the purpose of having greater effect on the social structure of society.  The very act of manipulating is contrary to the Constitution; however, the much more subtle social engineering is nothing less than offensive to a free people.  However, we must understand that once exposed, the ability to manipulate is negated by virtue of knowing that an effort is being made to cause one to think differently than he would, without such manipulation.

So, to continue our understanding of Freedom of Speech, we need to understand that Freedom of Thought is based upon our free will, or, as the Framers would have described it, natural law and natural rights.

When a concerted effort is made, regardless of who is making the effort, to intrude upon those fundamental rights, we have social engineering with the intention to sway common opinion into acceptance of what might, otherwise, be unacceptable.

So, suppose we take a word that has a very positive definition and substitute that word for the word that was, before, commonly acceptable.  Of course, we would pick a word that could otherwise also be associated with the word being replaced, so, let’s choose “gay” as the word to be used for the purpose of social engineering.

Gay: “Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome.  It denotes more life and animation than cheerful”

The connotation of gay, even four decades ago, was quite different from what many would expect.  If you were going to a party, it could be a poker party, a bridge party, birthday party, or, perhaps, a gay party.  The last being a party where, most often, drinks were served and jokes and humorous stories told — everybody had a gay time.  Surely, a positive word, even in a morally sensitive world.

That morality, however, whether Biblical, or simply a moral judgment that sex was for procreation, left homosexuality on the fringes — “at variance with what is usual or normal”.

So, a concerted effort was made by the homosexual community to replace the traditionally, morally judgmental, phrases then used with the now stolen word, “gay”.  Wait just a minute, did I say stolen?  Well, if I have something, or the use of something, and someone takes it away from me so that I can no longer use it for the intended purpose, is it not “stolen”?  At the same time, they have taken a word that had an acceptable connotation and applied it to a practice that was not deemed acceptable.  The effect is to add an air of legitimacy to what was once outlawed.

So, what affect does this have on us, especially with regard to Freedom of Speech?  Well, let’s just think (Freedom of Thought) about it.  We know that it is politically correct to use the current attribute to the sexual activity, so our minds tells us, “You can’t say queer, anymore.  You have to refer to them as “gay” (or the even more recent “same sex”).  Subtle, but, heck, through these past few decades, we have slowly begun to accept this subtle inference — and, in the process, have rejected that which was common in favor of the socially engineered word.  We have, essentially, conditioned our mind to reject that which was and replace it with that that is — even to the point of correcting someone who uses the now archaic term, queer and wondering why they would use such a vulgar term to describe an acceptable activity or condition.  Now, instead of rejecting what was once immoral activity, we tend to reject those who have not succumbed to the engineering, as if they were worse than the gay people, who have every right not to have any aspersions cast upon them.  The good have become the bad, and, the bad have become the good — the world, truly, turned upside down.

So, in a mere fifty years, we have seen that Freedom of Speech has not only been suppressed, rather, it has also developed into suppression of thought — by such subtle and manipulative means.

We must question our willingness to be socially engineered, however subtle and long term that effort might be, or we will find that we have, by Orwellian means, allowed ourselves to remove our once assured rights.

What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 11, 2012

This is not intended to be a book or video review, at least in the normal sense. However, both a book and a video will be mentioned. The each cover opposite sides of recent events, though you will see the common ground — that both sides agree on.

It begins with Congress (and, yes, let’s include presidential candidates, as well) and their desire to seek or retain their office. This is often referred to as “The Campaign Trail”. Of course, that sounds nice, but when we think of a trail, we think of a dirt path with minimal effort in its constructions. The Campaign Trail, however, is paved with gold. It entails hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, to move the candidate into the public eye and, hopefully, get him elected.

When you consider that nearly half of Congress are multi-millionaires, you begin to understand that they are a part of an “economic aristocracy” to begin with. They move and shake with the wealthy, and rely upon those wealthy to assist them in securing their election.

These wealthy, however, have already learned that the fastest way to wealth is to have the law on your side; and, whenever possible, that their competition have the law against them. So, the question arises, how can they possibly grow and retain their wealth with the best assurance of their success? Quite simply, the answer is to manipulate the Congress to enact laws to their benefit and to enact laws that would hurt the competition. It is the legislation that provides “economic favor” to one and the legislation that denies “economic favor” to the other that is the motivating factor for what has become the mainstay of politics in Washington, D.C. That end is achieved by assuring that under the right conditions, those who are seeking to enter or retain office need a source, beyond mom & pop, to contribute to their campaign — for a job that pays about $200,000 a years plus benefits. The goal is to raise tens or hundreds of millions for “The Campaign Trail”. Now, if mom & pop were to pitch in say $200, to the campaign, it would take half a million such contributions to make the campaign fund come to the $100 million mark. It would be a lot easier if contributions in the tens or hundreds of thousands were made available, so, let’s put ethics aside and go for the easiest way to achieve the funds necessary for election or retention.

Now, to really understand how this works, I would suggest that you read Jack Abramoff’s book, “Capital Punishment” (available at Amazon). It is a self serving story of what led him to serve a prison sentence. He, of course, didn’t really realize that what he was doing was illegal, though he did manage to create a number of organizations so that there was, often, no direct trail from his lobby client to the Congress critter. All the Congress critter knew was that if he supported certain legislation, substantial contributions ended up in his campaign fund. Of course, he wasn’t smart enough to understand the causal relationship between the two, though he is smart enough to enact laws that have, to say the least, begun to destroy this country (more about that, later).

The other side, however, is a bit more enlightening. There is concurrence with much of what Abramoff says in his book, but the divisiveness of his activities comes out, clear as a bell, in Alex Gibney’s documentary, “Casino Jack” (available through Netflix and other on line sources). Abramoff’s downfall came when he received over $40 million from an Indian tribe to aid them in securing the right to reopen their casino, which, ironically, earlier activity by Abramoff caused to be closed. The bill was attached as a rider to an Election Bill. When a Senator refused to go along, Abramoff’s house of cards began to crumble, as did the leadership of the Indian tribe who had spent so much money on “a sure thing”.

As you review the events described in the book and video, you will read, or hear, names of many well known people (including a President). You will, in many cases, understand their gratitude for the “contributions” they received, just for being good Congressmen. When you are finished, you will wonder why only two Congressmen served time, and why their sentences were so short.

Finally, you will see that hundreds of millions of dollars began flowing from the Financial industry through lobbyists, just a few years ago, resulting in deregulation of the Banking industry and the subsequent failure of our economy.

If you have never before thought that something was too broken to fix, I’m sure that when you read and watch, you will then begin to understand that Congress has set up a creature that serves only them and their campaigns – and it is too broken to fix…or, if you prefer…”too big to fail.”

When Johnny Comes Marching Home…

Gary Hunt
Outpost-of-Freedom
December 22, 2011

The well known song, “When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again”, a song of praise and gratitude that gained popularity in this country during the Civil War, derived from an Irish anti-war song (“Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye”) from about 1820.  At the end of both World Wars, the song came back to us as our victorious soldiers returned from Europe, and in the Second, Asia.

If we look at the emergence of the multitude of wars since the end of World War II, we find that those words of pride and gratitude have lost their meaning, or, at least, have not found a place in our hearts, as they once did.

On December 18, 2011, “the last American Soldiers” left Iraq, after nine years of combat; 4,500 American lives lost (not included the tens of thousands who have been disfigured mentally, physically, or both); $800,000,000,000 dollars spent, and, according to 86% of the people, the goals of the “war” have been accomplished.  Of course, those goals have been constantly changing since our first incursion into the country (ignoring, of course, the first Gulf War back in 1991).  I find myself at a loss to understand just what the goals really were.

Though the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein might be considered a goal, it was denied as an objective, at the beginning.  We never found the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that were touted as the initial purpose, along with the claims that Hussein was buddy-buddy with Osama bin Laden — a wholly unsupportable pretext.  But, heck, we have to have some reason to peddle our success.

However, rather than signing “When Johnny Comes Marching Home” in every city, town and village, as was done in the past, it will only be sung in secure military installations, as troops arrive from the third, fourth or fifth tour of duty — and with the inherent mental dysfunction that has been ascribed to such service.

Soon, perhaps, we can expect the same for those who have given their lives, “fighting for our freedoms”, in Afghanistan.  And, most assuredly, we will be blessed with a list of goals accomplished in that land of American corpses, as well.  It is become blatantly obvious that “getting bin Laden” is not the ruse for that war, though it was the only pretext given to us after the events of September 11, 2001.

Let’s venture back even further, to just a few years after World War II, when we entered Korea to stop communist aggression (in a Korean civil war).  I still remember relatives coming home to no fanfare, with heads down and simply a desire to hide from the evils of what they had experienced.  Essentially, Johnny had to sneak in the back door.  Yet, with only an armistice, after half a century, we still have soldiers on duty securing the border of a foreign country, absent a surrender.  Fifty years of Johnny sneaking back to our own country, through the garden gate rather than Main Street.

Just more than a decade later, returnees from Vietnam not only had to sneak in the back door, they had to withstand abuse and ridicule for a war that was lost.  With so very few exceptions, the only “Welcome Home” greetings were from one veteran to another, at least until not too long ago.

Unlike Korea, where the war was not lost, only temporarily discontinued, Vietnam was an unequivocal loss, though through no fault of those soldiers who fought and suffered that “war”.  Still, there never have been real accolades on behalf of those millions who served there.

Perhaps we should look a bit more closely as our soldiers return home after any conflict.  If the outpouring of gratitude and praise is unprovoked, and from the heart, then the action they were involved in is, without question, one of national necessity — at least in the eyes of our citizens.  However, when the expression of gratitude and pride is non-existent, or at best, well orchestrated by government and press, we should, perhaps, begin to question just what and why that event warranted our involvement, in the first place.

Let me leave you with one additional thought.  The recent headlines regarding the last troops to leave Iraq are absent an essential truth.  They should read, “the last combat troops”, since we have left our legacy in Iraq, just as the British did in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, the largest United States Military Air Base outside of the United States (Latitude 30°56’12.39″N, Longitude 46°5’31.99″E, though if you look this up on Google Earth you will find that they are using February 2002 imagery, and the runways and much of the beginning of construction can be clearly seen).  Now, just how are they going to man this massive and expensive installation without troops?

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: http://youhavetreadonme.com/resistance_to_tyranny.html

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.

Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part IV

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part IV of IV Parts

Utilizing factions for political purposes

Let’s suppose that a faction (a group of people with power and control in mind) wanted to create a situation where this country was filled with factions; each being against one or more of the other factions. As in times past, coalitions will be formed, but they will be weak.

However, at that point, it would be easy for those who have the best control, now, to increase that control; under the guise of maintaining “law and order” — without regard to the Constitution.

This would allow them to manipulate the lesser factions, turning them one against the others.

So, if we were looking from the government’s perspective, what is the first step in the implementation of that plan?  Well, first we need some factions.  However, our immigration policy was designed to foster assimilation, not faction.  So, we will have to revise the immigration policy (quotas, education or experience requirements, criminal records checks, etc.) so that we can remove what we can, without exposing our plan.  We can even provide amnesty to allow large amounts of people, even those who could care less about being Americans; only concerned about what they can get for free and how much money they can make to send home.  By granting amnesty, we will have removed any requirement, or for that matter, any incentive to learn the language and assimilate into the American way of life.

That, however, will not be enough to get the job done as quickly as we would like.  So, what can we do to create factions large enough to generate the conflict that we need to strengthen our control over the people?

Suppose we ignore the laws on immigration that are on the books, and then we can also keep the states from enforcing federal law, since it is “our duty”, not theirs.  We can allow hundreds of thousands to cross the borders, illegally.  If they are caught by the charade we have in front of the people to catch them (U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement), we can let them go on their own recognizance until their hearing.  That will give them the opportunity to ‘disappear’ and still stay within the country.

Everybody that comes in will be a part of a faction, so we will set no limits on what/who is allowed to bypass our immigration laws.  That will shorten the time to the uprising of the factions, considerably.

So, what else can we do?  Well, if we can create inflation, the purchasing power of the average citizen will be down, so they will be primed and ready to blame any faction for whatever befalls them.  They will not blame us because we are going to act like we know what we are doing, and that it is not the government, rather, the foreigners, who are creating the problem.

We can aggravate the situation even more by having looser laws for immigrants than we have for citizens.  We are trying it in California, where when someone is stopped for DUI, if they are a citizen, their car gets impounded.  If they are not a citizen, we will let them keep their car — even if they don’t have a driver’s license.  That should really begin to create tension, and, if it works, we can spread it to other states.

We will also keep the wars going so that people are thinking about waving the flag, while we trample it into the dirt.  They think that we are protecting them, though we are actually distracting them and keeping their attention on the wars rather than seeing what is “behind the curtain”.

Our final tool has been in place for many years.  It includes the sociological implications of “political correctness” and “diversity”.  We have planted that seed well, so that if anybody steps out of line, those around them will force them back into compliance.  We can see how well that is working by not allowing anybody to recognize that different factions with different interests, working at odds with each other, even exist.

I don’t believe that it will be very long before we are “forced” to rule this country, with an iron fist.  Our plan is so well laid that we cannot fail!

Conclusion

On December 12, 1774, the Deputies of the province of Maryland passed a number of Resolves. Perhaps the most significant was the last, to wit:

“Resolved unanimously, that it is recommended to the several colonies and provinces to enter into such or the like resolutions, for mutual defense and protection, as are entered into by this province. As our opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and liberties.”

Four months before the outbreak of war, the colonists had realized the necessity of having a common interest. Avoiding any factionalization that might be detrimental to the cause.

Though the goal at the time was for “rights of Englishmen”, over time, it evolved into independence from British Rule. Our goal is much simpler, it is simply restoration of Constitutional government.

However, if we cannot learn from the past, and realize that the Principle Faction is our common element — and, that subordinate faction issues must be, at least until such time as we have returned to government, in obedience to the Constitution, buried in oblivion.  We cannot expect the success that Providence granted to the Founders, and us, their Posterity.

Adherence to the Principle Faction, above all else, is the goal that we need to pursue, and achieve, in as short a time as possible. For, until that goal is achieved, and we have identified those who are in opposition to that Faction, we cannot even begin to pursue that ultimate goal of restoration.

To all who are members of the subordinate factions, consistent with the Constitution, it is only necessary to set aside the lesser for the more important faction.

For those who are members of subordinate factions, inconsistent with the Constitution, you have a more difficult decision to make. Can you subordinate your faction so that it is not inconsistent with the Constitution? If not, then you should find a country that allows and supports such a faction as you choose to adhere to.

To achieve the proper recognition of the Principle Faction, we cannot allow ourselves to succumb to the political correctness, which has relegated our Constitution to the back seat.  To allow lip service to the Constitution to undermine its very tenets and purpose is to fail before we have begun.

Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part III

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part IIII of IV Parts

Factions in conflict with the Principle Faction

Illegal immigrants:  It is often said that the first impression is the most important impression that you will make upon others.  Suppose that the first impression that you make is an unwillingness to abide by the rules/laws of the host, when you are a guest; suppose someone came, invited, or not, into your home and started telling you that the wall colors were wrong, that they didn’t like the pictures you had hung, that they didn’t like carpeted floors, or that you should prepares them a meal and a bed.  It would not be surprising if you caused them to exit your home, and assured them that they would never, again, have entry into your home.  That impression that they gave was not what is expected of the guest, and any reaction you had to that belligerence is justified, even if force is necessary to remove them.

We are the collective owners of the country (our collective home), and, as such, have established rules/laws for entry into that home. They were enacted in accordance with the Constitution and are, as such, the law of the land.  Those who enter with their first step being a violation of those rules/laws have, as the unwanted guest in your house, established an impression that is lasting, and totally unacceptable.

Those who wipe their muddy feet on your clean carpet are not a part of any acceptable class of people, visitors, or those here by right.  They have, by their actions, spit in the face of what this country stands for.  It is not a melting pot for the entire world, nor was it intended to be destroyed from within, by a cancer that grows at astronomical rates, and, quite often, at the expense of our own depleted treasury.  Each person that enters illegally, or overstays their permitted visit, is a greater threat to the future of our country than any military threat, from any other country, without comparison.  The military threat, we have proven, cannot prevail against us.  This insidious intrusion, however, eats away at our country’s soul with every day that they remain.

Illegal immigration advocates:  Those who would advocate forbearance in dealing with these intruders are not adherents to the Principle Faction, nor are they adherents to the laws, concepts, traditions, manners, customs, nor anything else, that we hold dear — and must continue to hold dear, if we are to survive as the United States, our birthright.

These people, though they may otherwise not be in conflict with the Principle Faction, and may even be of the class of “We the People”, or “citizen of the United States”, are, by their support of violation of the law of the land, in conflict with the Principle Faction.  They have denied the concept of assimilation, and have thereby provided a means of destruction of the entire purpose of the Founders and Framers, for the creation of this great nation.

Anti- religious groups, Atheists, Agnostics:  When we understand our heritage, we recognize that the Founders and Framers were religious, though perhaps not pious, men.  Both Washington and Jefferson had problems with organized religion, as many of us do today.  Regardless, they had beliefs founded on both Old and New Testaments, and adhered to the Christian moral values, without question.  Never did they challenge the concept that was, eventually, embodied in the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court Building (built 1932-35) in Washington, D.C., contains over a dozen depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandment, sculpted in stone, and permanent not only in that building, but in the hearts and heritage of this country.  Congress begins each daily session with prayer, and has done so from their first gathering.  President’s have called for days of prayer and thanksgiving, in official proclamations, throughout our history.

However, there are those advocates who have challenged the right of a state, a county, school, or even a small town, to begin with prayer; display the same representation found in the Supreme Court building, or erection of seasonal displays of Christian holidays on public land.

And, in a somewhat surprising response, they have found proponents of their advocacy in those very halls of government mentioned above.  All under the guise that such actions and displays are “unconstitutional”.

How can that be unconstitutional which was practiced by the very authors of that document, and those who ratified it?  Their practices and beliefs were not in question then, and there is the more serious question as to whether even an amendment to the Constitution would be Constitutional if it abrogated the First Amendment.

Surely, we cannot even begin to consider that we may remain as even a vestige of the United States if we allow the denigration of those practices considered by most to be fundamental to the establishment of the country — by those very people who caused to be carved in stone the underpinnings of the moral compass by which we found our course.

So long as they adhere to the Principle Faction, and otherwise meet the requirements of class, and distance themselves from those who advocate to the contrary, they may be considered to be of the Principle Faction.

Those who continue to advocate legal sanctions, removal of displays, or any other means of undermining that which has stood so long, are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place in this country, since they choose not to assimilate, rather to change that which is our heritage.

Homosexual rights groups:  Some will argue that homosexuality is a disease, others that it is a lifestyle choice.  Each is a diversion from the crux of the matter.  It is considered by the Christian moral values adopted by this country, 220 years ago, to be immoral.  Though with the exception of some local jurisdictions, and some states, it has not been considered criminal — just immoral.

Even when criminal, it was seldom prosecuted, since it was conducted between consenting parties, in private circumstances.  To intrude on that privacy was as much a crime as the behavior itself, at least under the principles of the Constitution.  However, if we look at a few of the steps taken to endeavor to assign legitimacy and morality to the practice, we will find an excellent example of the destructiveness of factions.  The common terminology used to describe homosexuals was often “queer” (which is rather what their behavior was considered to be), or the more objectionable “fag” or “faggot” (a derogatory term).

As late as the fifties and sixties, homosexual, or, queer, bars and clubs were not uncommon.  Their public behavior was normal, and their private behavior, in such facilities, was, to use the expression of the time, “done in the closet”.  And, very few had objection to such behavior, so long as it did not “spill onto the streets”.

There was an effort in California, back in that period, to establish a homosexual community in the village of Alpine, in the High Sierra.  Even then, there was no general outrage, since the village would be their own ‘closet’.

Next came a change in terminology.  A word that was frequently used to indicate jovial, happy, light, was adopted by the homosexuals.  Back then, people would go to a “gay party” meaning that it was going to be sitting around in a light and humorous atmosphere, perhaps telling jokes and stories.  However the theft, yes, I mean theft, of that word, which had only positive connotations, was a move to give an air of legitimacy and acceptance to a behavior that was, heretofore, considered immoral.  A major coup by this faction managed to change the image of the homosexual, and to remove from usage a word that was commonly used, even then.

Since that time, this once frowned upon group has managed to use the courts and legislative process to provide special protection and special privileges from what was, through most of our history, a subject unworthy of discussion.  They have taken a word, “marriage”, with millennia of understanding of the definition, and still recognized in US Code as between a man and woman, and have managed to steal that word for their own uses and economic gain.

They have successfully lobbied for legislation that forces the government schools to encourage such behavior, contrary to the wishes of the parents who are clearly among the Principle Faction, and are advocating a moral degeneration of our society.

Those advocates of homosexuality are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place, with the exception of the closet, in our country.

Black  rights advocates:  As explained in the “We the People” series (linked above), a second class of citizen was established by the Fourteenth Amendment, and confirmed by a subsequent amendment and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. However, through a subtle process of indoctrination, beginning in the late fifties and early sixties, the intent of that Amendment has been converted to an application that has generated havoc, loss of property, and even loss of life.

The “civil rights” movement of that period moved us from a society that recognized the Principle Faction (basically, a fundamentally white culture) to one that has legislated, encouraged, and enforced against, that society, undermining it,  in favor of granting privileges to those citizens of the United States, as well as other without such standing, under the guise of equality, greater even than that afforded to “We the People”.

Society, itself, had moved in that direction, at the rate that was warranted by the people, not the government. Whether Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, or Fats Domino; acceptance of negros as a part of our culture, was in the works.  Society, itself, was approaching a degree of equality, voluntarily.

Instead, it turned to demonstrations (not the preferred form of legislative influence), by both sides.  And, since those early days of civil rights demonstrations, they often turned to violence, instigated by both sides. America has been in a near constant state of turmoil, since the time that the government stepped in and tried to privilege the second class even above the first class.  And some of that violence, today, perpetrated by those who believe that “change has not come fast enough”, is nothing more than rioting and thievery, perpetrated under the guise of equality, couched in phrases about social and economic ‘justice’.

These, groups, relying upon judicial intimidation and violence, have proven that their methods and goals are in conflict with the Principle Faction, the Constitution and its principles, and our way of life.

Woman’s right advocates:  Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, is probably the best known advocate of women’s rights.  However, as much as she discussed the subject in correspondence with her husband, he never did advocate such a change in the legal relationship of women within that society.

Over the years, the nation evolved, not turning against the Founding principles, rather, in a social or societal form, with Wyoming being the first to enact women’s suffrage laws.  Rights of ownership of land and/or inheritance were becoming common, and barriers were falling, as well as advancing women in the society, without intervention by the federal government.

Finally, in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the federal government intervened in an area that was reserved by the Constitution to the states.  As with the Fifteenth Amendment (race suffrage), the right of the states to determine who could vote in elections, both state and national, as protected by the Constitution, was now being assumed by the  federal government.

Not that it was a bad move, rather, that it was the abrogation of the right of the states to make such a decision, that was so appalling.  It was just seven years earlier that the right of the states to be represented, by senators chosen by their respective legislatures, in Congress, was removed by the Seventeenth Amendment.  This was, effectively, the end of states’ rights.

As contrary to the original construction of the Constitution as this was, it also opened a means of the presumption of federal authority in manipulating the society to the will of the powers in Washington, D.C., and those who influence such social change.

Over time, unconstitutional legislation has resulted the reduction of the male to a subordinate position in our society, where lawsuits and intimidation work in only one direction, to the detriment, and at the expense of, one half of the society.

Our society, which was based upon rewards for performance, was converted to one where rewards are mandated by quotas, with little regard to ability and performance.  This denies to society the making of the choices that were assured and protected by the Constitution.

The advocacy of federal intervention, as opposed to the normal evolution of these norms in our culture, is in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and is inconsistent with the Principle Faction.

Christian militia:  Militia, the right to collective self-defense, is embodied in the Second Amendment, and has been a part of our heritage and culture since the Magna Carta.  Since 1215, that right has existed, and, since that time, the Militia have always been subordinate to civil authority and have been geographic in their composition.  From the Shires of England, to the counties, townships, villages and plantations of the seventeen hundreds, participation in the militia was a right and was a duty. The only exceptions were exclusions for certain people because of vocation, and those that were “inimical to the cause of American Liberty” (Tories).  To exclude people who do not claim to be of the Christian faith is contrary to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded.

Christian militia are inconsistent the Principle Faction

Islamic groups:  Islam is not just a religion.  Islam, in its current manifestation, is a social and political system, as well.  It is a social system that includes a number of practices that are considered abhorrent, by our culture. Its social/judicial system manifests extreme punishments for what our culture might perceive to be a minor transgression or no crime at all.

Though two hundred years ago, “Mohametmen” simply practiced as a religion, and were accepted as a religion by the Framers, their character has changed to be anything but just a religion.

We can look to Europe and see the consequences of the intrusion of Islam into a society.  Eventually, the demand for change or legal reform to comply with their social/political system takes many forms, including physical abuse against people that oppose them; and the obstruction of roadways so that they can hold collective prayer absent a facility for such service; exercising their form of justice, including capital punishment, contrary to the host country’s laws, and often exempt from prosecution for crimes that would otherwise result in incarceration, or worse.

Much like the illegal immigrants, members of the Islamic faith come here with a total disregard for our laws, our culture, and our society.  They come with the intention of forcing change, by intimidation, by their numbers, or any means that suits them.  Their presence in the country, under their present manifestation, is contrary to the Constitution and its principles, and contrary to the Principle Faction.

The Congress:  Congress, especially after their vote for the Debt Ceiling Increase, has demonstrated that they are a faction unto themselves, without regard for the Constitution or the will of the people.

The Congress acts in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country.

The Executive Branch:  The Executive Branch, tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, has continued to ignore existing laws regarding immigration, and when forced into enforcing such laws, does so with a leniency that is more encouraging to the violation of the immigration laws than deterring them.

The Executive Branch has declared that Tea Party members; Constitutionalists; Gun Rights (Second Amendment) advocates, combat veterans, and others, who fall well within the Principle Faction as “terrorist”.

The executive Branch of the government is in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country

The US government:  The government “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”,  to lie, steal and even murder, members of the Principle Faction, and has done so with immunity from prosecution.

The Administrative Branches of government are in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

State governments:  State governments, with rare exception, do not defy federal intrusions against the Principle Faction, and often participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional polices and laws, receiving compensation from the federal government for the submission to its assumed and unconstitutional authority.

The state governments are acting in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

Of course, within each of these factions are members who are adherents to the Principle Faction and the Constitution, though they may be facilitating that faction in opposition to the Principle Faction.  Rather than suffering guilt by association, they would be well advised to understand that adherence to the Principle Faction and assimilation is imperative.