Dow closes at 14,253.77 – Celebrating Inflation

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
March 6, 2013

The news over the record closing of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, yesterday, March 5, 2013, is hailed as an achievement that demonstrates the recovery of the economy, in no uncertain terms.  The Dow, after all, is the indicator of the health of the economy – in most eyes, anyway.

So, let’s just look at what we are celebrating. The previous record of 14,164.53 set October. 9, 2007, nearly six years ago, became the benchmark for future records.  Six years to regain that which was lost, and has remained so, through the entire current administration. There is little doubt that the government was doing everything they could to demonstrate the success of their oft questioned economic policies.

So, is this really an advancement in the economy?  Well, I’m a not an economist, nor do I have a grasp of the complexity of economics. I am but a simple man who must endeavor to see the world in the dim light of my experience. So, put on your night vision goggles and follow me into the realm of reality.

In 1963 you could buy a nickel candy-bar for, well, 5 cents – hence the name, nickel candy-bar. The last time I bought a nickel candy-bar it cost me about $1.50 – that about 30 nickels. Now, I don’t really know what a nickel candy-bar costs, but I do know that the “purchasing power” of the nickel is now equivalent to what would then be 0.17 cents (5÷30).

In 1963, the Dow record was 714.81 (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dow.html). Now, if we consider the 714.81 to be dollars, we can see that it would take 14,296 nickels to be equal to the value of the Dow.  Today, however, it would 285,075 nickels to equal the value of the Record Dow closing of 14,253.77.

Now, this might be a little confusing, so, let’s look at it from the other side. If we take the 14,253.77 and divide it by 30 (The approximate change in purchasing power), we end up with 475.13. That is just about two-thirds (66%) of the then closing of 714.81. So, in realistic terms, the exalted record of yesterday is not even close (“in current dollars”) to what the value of the Dow was just 60 years ago.

Now, this consideration does not address the manipulation of the content (included stocks) of the Dow. Over the years, certain stocks were removed since they were “volatile” (can you say lowers, which would bring the average down) and were replaced by more “stable” stocks (which kept the average up), making, from a pure economic standpoint, and even more drastic disparity between the then and now.

So, we must consider whether the economists who so cheerfully praised yesterday’s closing are really, in all honesty, celebrating a manipulation that has one appearance, though, in fact, celebrates the effect of inflation on the pure numbers of the New York Stock Exchange?

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.

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.

Factions — The Chains of Oppression – Part I

The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

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

Factions

Factions are rather interesting, though often ignored by most, in the world we live in.  Factions are “somebody else”, and we, individually, have no part in them, except those that we are a part of — though we don’t really see them as factions, only truth.  We know what we believe; we know our moral values; we know what right and wrong are; we know what we want to know; everybody else is, if they don’t agree with us, simply wrong.

So, let’s begin by understanding what a faction is.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

A party, in political society, combined or acting in union, in opposition to the prince, government or state; usually applied to a minority, but it may be applied to a majority. sometimes a state is divided into factions nearly equal.

… whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Or, the more simplistic:

A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.

Factions are, however, a way of life.  We are all in factions and in many different areas.

For the most part, people perceive, with very few exceptions, that there are two political factions in this country; Democrats/Liberals, and, Republicans/Conservatives.  What the political philosophies of the two “factions” are is inconsequential, at least at this point, to the discussion.  The point to be made here is that we have perceived that there are only two factions, and anything else is hardly worthy of our consideration.

With regard to other aspects of our lives and our society, there are minor factions that we see, all of the time.  For example, the queer community is recognized as a faction, though most fail to recognize that there is a large faction, which is opposed to the smaller, recognized, faction.  That larger faction is those of us who, whether Christian, or not, understand the necessity for moral values and standards within a country.

However, legislation, political correctness, and/or influence through the press tend to either render illegal, or, at least minimally subject those who are a part of that larger faction, to ridicule for expressing themselves, in dispute with the faction’s principles.

The net effect is to render that larger faction as inconsequential, or illegitimate, providing a strong platform for the assertion of the values of the lesser faction, even to the point of additional legislation on their behalf.

Factions in history

We can look at history, and around the world, today, and see the affect of factions.

Let’s start by looking at revolutions.  After all, there have been many revolutions throughout history, though there has only been one that provided a rather smooth transition of government.  And all of them have been lead by factions — sometimes one, sometimes multiple, and, sometimes, begun by one faction where another faction became dominant before the job was done.

The French Revolution began in 1789, the same year that our Constitution became the framework of our own government.  That revolution lasted for a number of years, and during the entire course of it, the control of government passed from hand to hand, each hand being the one that, at any given time, had the most influence and power.  Often, those in power for the moment would require the execution (guillotine) of someone that was a partner in power, just months before.  The groundwork was laid, as the Revolution needed, to restore monarchy and the emperor, Bonaparte (twice).  So much for a smooth transition.

The Russian Revolution began in 1917.  The Mensheviks began the turmoil, and, eventually, the Bolsheviks gained control.  Then, the Bolsheviks became factionalized, Red verse White, leading, eventually, to Lenin obtaining power.  Again, not a very smooth transition.

Revolutions, at least those of the ordinary sort, tend to have factions that vie for power, even while the revolution is going on.  The resultant government is, generally, unstable and retains its authority by force.

Today, we see the beginnings of revolution in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, and Yemen.  These “street” revolutions are lead by factions.  Most often those factions have a religious foundation, though often, there are factions within a religious group, of an ethnic nature.  There can be little doubt that the stronger faction will take control, though the conflict will not cease — until the opposition is exiled, imprisoned, or killed.

Factions in the United States

So that we can put in perspective the factions and the roles that they play in the maintenance of a country, or its destruction, we must first understand just what factions exist, what their role is, and whether they are acceptable, in terms of maintaining the United States of America, as intended.

In a recent series of articles (“We the People’, but, who are We?” – five Parts, linked to Part I), a review of the Founding documents, subsequent amendments, and, Supreme Court Decisions, provides us an understanding of just who “We the People” are, and, as Justice Taney described in one Decision, that this country is only for these “We the People”, but for no one else”.

Now, right there, with that last statement, I would expect that many would cringe and began to react in accordance with the decades of conditioning that we have been subjected to.  After all, haven’t we been raised to believe that this country was made for anybody who wants to come here, for any reason, even if their purpose is to change the nature and purpose of what the Founders willingly gave their lives for?  But, is it in the best interest of this country, our future, and our progeny, to accept that what was created just over 200 years ago should fall prey to changes which will destroy that which is our birthright?

So, let’s begin by understanding that though there may be smaller factions, with their own respective interest and objectives, that there is, and should be, a Principle Faction — upon which all else is subordinate.

Principle Faction

As explained in the “We the People” series, there are two classes of people that comprise the Principle Faction.  These are those who are described as the cause and purpose of the existence of the United States and its Constitution; and, those who were made citizens, though not fully empowered with the rights inherent within the Constitution, through the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are, or should be, of the Principle Faction.

However, within both of these classes, there may be many who, though of the nature and class of “We the People” or citizens of the United States, for other reasons, reject the principles upon which the country was founded.  These, though they may have rights, privileges and immunities, as described in that series, that do not adhere to the principles are no more a part of the Principle Faction as one who joins an organization to change its nature.

Absent adherence to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded, makes one a citizen by birth, though a traitor by attitude — as much as any spy who endeavors to subvert the country by his actions.

Subordinate, or lesser, factions

Factions are created when a significant number of people, having similar ideologies or purposes, realize that they are sufficient in number to create a “body politic” to champion their purpose.

That purpose can take two forms; First, to achieve a recognition, though in so doing, not to affect the Constitution, the laws, or obtain any favor other than those enjoyed by all of the people; Second, to achieve recognition for the purpose of political gain, changing of laws, and obtaining favor that is not enjoyed by others.

The former has existed in this country throughout its history, and is comprised of people who were born into or have assimilated into the American culture — without intentions of changing that culture.

The latter, on the other hand, is inclined to adapt the culture to his beliefs, to effect change that is inconsistent with that which the Founders gave us, and, will often employ the pretense of Constitutional right, though the result will be the diminishment of the rights of others, in favor of their object, whether financial, legal, or both.  They choose not to assimilate, rather, to force change upon the Principle Faction and force that Faction to subordinate to their will.

Now, as we begin to look at lesser factions (any subordinate to the Principle Faction), they will come under two categories.  First will be those who are not in serious conflict with the Principle Faction.  Second, those who are in conflict with the Principle Faction.

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part IV

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2011

In Part I, we established what the Supreme Court determined to be “We the People”, or, “citizens of the United States”, prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Part II, we saw that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred to those not of “We the People”, regardless of prior status, a new class of people who are granted “privileges and immunities”, though not the rights inherent with “We the People”.

In Part III, we see that within a few years of ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court confirms that “rights” were not conveyed by the Amendment.

This must lead us to question whether there is any substance to these very significant acts and decision. Is there any long-lasting affect, as a result of them?  If so, has anything changed them? If there have been no changes, are there still two distinct classes of people in this country?

Do answer these questions, we need only jump forward another 34 years, to 1908.  This Supreme Court decision will clearly lay out that there are, indeed, two classes of people, and that one is subject to federal jurisdiction and protection, while the other is not.

The case is Twining v. State of New Jersey – 211 U.S. 78 (1908). It has two elements, at least pertinent to this discussion.  First was whether there was jurisdiction, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to a state citizen; and, what did the Fourteenth Amendment extend to a “citizen of the United States”.

Albert C. Twining and David C. Cornell were indicted by a Grand Jury, and, convicted of providing “false papers” to a state banking examiner.  They were sentenced to prison terms, and Twining appealed the action of the New Jersey Court.  He held that the requirement to turn over papers to the examiner, absent a court order, denied him “due process” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  He lost that case and pursued a remedy in the Supreme Court.

Justice Moody provided the decision of the Supreme Court.  In summing up the case, he posed the following:

“. . .  whether such a law [state law] violates the 14th Amendment, either by abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or by depriving persons of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  In order to bring themselves within the protection of the Constitution it is incumbent on the defendants to prove two propositions: First, that the exemption from compulsory self- incrimination is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution against impairment by the states; and, second, if it be so guaranteed, that the exemption was in fact impaired in the case at bar.  The first proposition naturally presents itself for earlier consideration.  If the right here asserted is not a Federal right, that is the end of the case.  We have no authority to go further and determine whether the state court has erred in the interpretation and enforcement of its own laws.

Well, that last point, “If the right here asserted is not a Federal right, that is the end of the case.”, will lead to the final decision of the Court, though we must first look at why they denied Twining the protection, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that he sought.

The Court brought out that two states, Iowa and New Jersey, had provisions that did not allow compulsory testimony against one’s self, and, that those two did have limits on compulsory testimony, though not as broad as the other states.  This was felt to satisfy the intent, since it was a state decision based upon their view of the intention of the Fifth Amendment (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”), that established the right of the state to enact a law requiring the turning over of the papers to the examiner.

So, the question resolved itself to whether the federal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was superior to the state law, and, if so, under what circumstances.

Since Twining and Cornel were both citizens of New Jersey, and the case was not between parties of different states, or any other qualifiers for federal intervention, they retained their status as state citizens, dealing with the laws of that state, without “Federal right[s]” being conferred to them.

Let’s separate the points of significance in this case:

1. Is there a difference between state citizens and “citizens of the United States”, as established by the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. If so, to what extent does the Fourteenth Amendment confer rights to those who are protected thereby?

The Court goes on to give us some insight into the second point.

“It is obvious . . . that it has been supposed by the states that, so far as the state courts are concerned, the privilege had its origin in the Constitutions and laws of the states, and that persons appealing to it must look to the state for their protection.  Indeed, since, by the unvarying decisions of this court, the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action, there was nowhere else to look up to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the state, at least until then, might give, modify, or withhold the privilege at its will.”

So, the states were within their rights, as they existed prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that those rights did not, until the Fourteenth was ratified, include the restrictive first ten amendments.  Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court recognized that the Constitution did not apply to the states, so long as they were not in conflict with the Constitution.  Essentially, they are conferring all privileges of those first ten amendments, to those who so qualify, for the protections afforded by the Fourteenth.

The Court continues:

“The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise.  There is no doubt of the duty of this court to enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist, and there has been no hesitation in the performance of the duty.  But, whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state, so necessary to the perpetuity of our dual form of government, and changes its relation to its people and to the Union.”

So, the Court recognizes an obligation to “enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist”.  This implies that they are addressing both points, mentioned above.  First, to determine the extent of the authority (jurisdiction of the state) imposed by the Fourteenth; and, Second, to determine to what extent the first ten amendments convey obligations to the state.

The Court continues:

“The defendants contend, in the first place, that the exemption from self incrimination is one of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which the 14th Amendment forbids the states to abridge.  It is not argued that the defendants are protected by that part of the 5th Amendment which provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,’ for it is recognized by counsel that, by a long line of decisions, the first ten Amendments are not operative on the states.”

Twining has asserted that he is of the nature of a “citizen of the United States”, and, therefore, the state may not abridge those “privileges and immunities”.  He has declared a status as a “citizen of the United States”.

The Court then, referring to a previous case (subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment), In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), and citing with the decision of that case, given by Justice Miller, in affirming that there were two classes of citizen.

“The 14th Amendment, it is observed by Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, removed the doubt whether there could be a citizenship of the United States independent of citizenship of the state, by recognizing or creating and defining the former. ‘  It is quite clear, then,’ he proceeds to say, ‘that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

So, this Court is affirming what the Court decided 34 years prior, in that there are distinct differences between the “citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State”.  One case, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and another, three decades later, that affirm the conclusion of just who are “We the People”.  Can there be any doubt as to the existence of a distinction between the two classes?

The Court, after a lengthy discussion of “due process”, concludes:

The decisions of this court, though they are silent on the precise question before us [due process], ought to be searched to discover if they present any analogies which are helpful in its decision.  The essential elements of due process of law, already established by them, are singularly few, though of wide application and deep significance.  We are not here concerned with the effect of due process in restraining substantive laws, as, for example, that which forbids the taking of private property for public use without compensation.  We need notice now only those cases which deal with the principles which must be observed in the trial of criminal and civil causes.  Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction.

And, they conclude that the court that has jurisdiction over the parties will prevail in a conflict of interpretation.  Since they leave the interpretation to the state court, there must be an absence of federal jurisdiction in the current case.  The Court sees Twining and Cornell to be state citizens, therefore, not afforded the” privileges and immunities”, meaning that federal jurisdiction fails to include them — an absence of federal jurisdiction.

In affirming that view, the Court said:

“Much might be said in favor of the view that the privilege was guaranteed against state impairment as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, but, as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view.”

They tighten up on that conclusion, to wit:

We do not pass upon the conflict, because, for the reasons given, we think that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the states is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution.

Now, this would not be true if the case involved a party of one state against a party from another state, nor would it be true in the extension of “privileges and immunities” conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment, to “citizens of the United States”.

So, we can conclude that the “citizen of the United States” is a separate and distinct entity than the citizen of a state.  That the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court extends only to those who have been brought into jurisdiction by the Constitution (parties of different states, etc.) or by virtue of they being the subjects brought into that jurisdiction by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, some will say that this case is over one hundred years old, and things have changed, since then.  But, have they?  And, if so, how have they been changed?  I can find no amendment that changes what is presented here, and must suppose that nothing has been changed.

So, in the next Part, we will see if this decision, from 1908, still has merit over half a century later.

* * * * *

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

Part II can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

—

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

“We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part II

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 19, 2011

In the first part, Justice Taney [Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the Decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)], speaking from the past, explained who was, and, who was not of that class of people known as “We the People.  Recapping that post:

We think they [descendents of slaves, whether free, or not] are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.  On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

* * *

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.  It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States.  And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

So, the rights and privileges were not conferred upon those who were not citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, and their descendents and others.  Those rights, too, are defined as inclusive, regardless of whether he is in his state or another state.

So, in 1867, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  However, it did not convey rights, only privileges and immunities, to wit [Fourteenth Amendment]:

Section 1–All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, this Amendment did not change or undo that which Taney had described as the “citizens of the United States”, though a new class was created by the 14th Amendment.

Now, I know a lot of people don’t see it that way.  They believe that the 14th Amendment merged the ex-slaves and their descendents into the same class of people that had previously held the title of “citizens of the United States”, or, “We the People”.  However, if you will note the wording of the 14th Amendment, you will see that “rights” were not conveyed, only “privileges and immunities”.  Now, this may seem small, or insignificant, though that is because we have been subjected to “political correctness” and mountains of legislation establishing “civil rights”.  However, the Framers never referred to the rights protected by the Constitution as civil, since civil implies granted by government — which is exactly what the legislature has done — enact laws granting civil rights.  These fundamental rights granted by God are not granted by government, and, they are not civil rights.  They were the object and goal of the colonists from April 19, 1775 to the ratification of the Constitution, 14 years later.

What is very important to understand is that when a law is enacted, or a constitution or amendment ratified, the intent at the time of enactment or ratification is, and must be, what was intended — at that time.  To think otherwise is to allow the legislation, or even the Constitution, to mean what was not intended by the sleight of redefining words, concepts, or even enforcement.  If that is how we are to operate, we are not a nation of laws rather, of man, and that man who sits in Washington; Member of Congress, President,. Justice or Administrative Agency head is free to promulgate what he wants the law to be and applies not what was intended to be, rather, what he desires it to be.

As James Madison said, in Federalist Papers #62:

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

So, as you contemplate what is said in this Part, understand that only the words of those who were alive at the time of these activities can tell is what they meant.  It is only their words, not what some ACLU lawyer might try to make them out to be, that we must be obedient to.  To be obedient to any other interpretation is, at best, disobedience to the Constitution.

We have seen the affect of the 14th Amendment on the right, privileges and immunities of those who were and were not of the class known as “We the People”.  Now the question arises as to whether the 14th Amendment changed who “We the People” are, and, if so, what proof do we have that only “privileges and immunities, not rights, were conveyed by that Amendment.  That will be the subject of the Part III.

Part I can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? – Part I

—

Part III can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part III

Part IV can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part IV

Part V can be found at “We the People”, but, Who are We? — Part V 

Jim Stachowiak; Committees of Safety; and, Shades of Grey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2011

There is a self-proclaimed “leader” of the patriot community who goes by many names.  He is Jim Stach; Jim Stachowiak; Freedom Fighter; and, probably more.

Though he claims to have been a patriot for 34 years, an Internet search finds results no older than 2008.  I suppose we all can make such claims, though if we are active in the community, it would seem that something that was noteworthy would show more than just 3 years ago.

Now, I did not know who Jim Stach (I will use the easier to pronounce and spell version of the name) was until Riflestock was being put together.  I received a response to my posting of the first announcement of RifleStock (RifleStock 2011), from Jim, claiming that neo-Nazis were behind RifleStock.

Now, I cannot say how Jim got on my mailing list, though I only put people on that list that have requested to be there, though I do not recall any prior communication with him.

I contacted Jim, in response to his claims, explaining that I was not a neo-Nazi; that Mike Freebyrd has an Hispanic surname, and in my conversation s with him, there was no indication that he was a neo-Nazi; and, that Joe Racer said nothing to indicate that he was a neo-Nazi.  Since I was involved as one of the organizers, I had more insight into what was happening with RifleStock than someone who simply read what I had written, and made such determination.

We then discussed the patriot community.  Jim had bad things (accusations) to say about a whole handful of people, some of whom I knew.  We talked about not calling names within our own community, since the government only benefits when we cannot get along amongst ourselves.  He agreed, and agreed to stop making such accusations.

I also explained Committees of Safety, in our rather lengthy discussion.  All seemed well, and he invited me to be a guest on his January 20, 2001, radio program (Freedom Fighter Radio), to discuss Militia and Committees of Safety.  I agreed.

The next day, he called me and ranted (I can’t find another word for what he had to say) about other patriots (contrary to what we had agreed to, the day before).  He went on and on and on, and I was unable to get a word in.  Finally, I reminded him that he had invited me to be a guest on his radio show.  If, however, he was inviting me to be on the show so that he could rant, and I were only be allowed to speak as little I was in the current conversation, I would have to decline the invite.  Without another word, he hung up.  I was not on the program.

The next I heard from Jim was after I posted Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation), which was also sent to the mail list.  His knee-jerk reaction was, well, let me quote from the email:

“this is a joke lol as wram and arm have proven neo nazi connections” (April 11, 2011).  Interestingly, Jim’s email address is “arm1776@gmail.com”.  Even more interesting is that he associated the Committee of Safety with WRAM (Well Regulated American Militia).  This is telling, since he claims “wram” is run by Neo-Nazis, and, he must know that I posted that article on the WRAM site.  Does he have an infiltrator; does he have a friend that is a neo-Nazi; or, does he cloak himself in even another name, to sneak into where he finds such “filth”?

I also posted it to about 30 others, including Tea Party and Glenn Beck sites, and I may have posted it to some sites that were controlled by those evil Republicans and Democrats, who have done far more to take away our rights than WRAM or even the neo-Nazis.  After all, I do try to get what I have to say out to all (not a selective few) who might be interested in it.  This, of course, is because I believe that we all have to work together to amass the number of people that we will need to regain control of the government and return it to its Constitutional foundation.  And, in the hope that some who think wrongly may, by reading something, may just decide to begin thinking rightly.  But, then, that is trying to bring together, not to tear apart.

On that same day, April 11, Jim informed me that:

” iam only doing news now i have given up on a national movement our group here is now calling ourselfs a a fdf family defense force of family and only close friends no recruiting.”

So, we will have to see if he means what he said, or, if he is simply insincere and unpredictable.

That same day, he provided the following, ” there is no way to insure fairness n this plan no way as the movement is infiltrated from the very top to the bottom i have unti recently been in movement since late 80;s “.  So, here, he is in the “movement” from the late eighties.  Being generous, let’s use 1985.  Then, then would be a total of 26 years in the “movement”.  Let’s just keep that under advisement.

Then, three days later, he says, ” gary your idea cant and wont work for example if someone has a problem with me they have no power to drag me in if i wont participate the militia movement has to many who call nazis patriots wram is proof of this 706-394-8019 at least after today maybe july4 patriot will be where he belongs jail.”

This is interesting in that the Common Law Court is voluntary.  That is what was intended.  If someone makes claims, then he is charged with making false claims, he can answer (defend and prove those claims), or not.  Each will speak for itself.  And, the ultimate judge of what is right will be the judgment, not of the followers or the parties (accuser and accused), rather, of the patriot community, as they will have the opportunity to review all of the information presented (or not presented), and judge for themselves, what the truth really is.  This, at least, would put an end to name-calling, unless it was provable, and would work wonders in doing away with false accusations.  Especially those made which provide no opportunity to respond (as we will get in to, later).

His next response, that same day, was, ” well only if both parties participate and iwill never take part as i know the movement is dead and controlled by anti Semitic racist pricks you may call me i will address this common law bs on my show sometime and encourage non involvement i do get thousands of downloads each week too”.  I’ll let you take that, for what it’s worth.

Now, we come to the current round of discussion.  Though I had spend quite some time, on numerous occasions, explaining to Jim what Committees of Safety were (and, are), he decided to take them (not me) to task.  He posted “Whats Up Doc? Neo-Nazi WRAM and ARM Member Arrested June 1, 2011 Doc [ NAZI] Sacramaniac In Jail” (link no longer valid), and sent me the link and asked me to call him.

First, the pertinent part of that “exposé” by Jim:

“Freedom Fighter Radio Challenges any and all Patriot websites to publicly denounce the NSM, such as Oath Keepers (Stewart Rhodes), Committees of Safety (Gary Hunt) and all Militia forums.”

So, first I went to NSM and found that they presented 25 points, which I assume stand for the principles of the NSM88 group.  When I read their points, I see that they are as socialistic as the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Congress, except, they want to impose limitations on the socialism, such as requiring drug tests for those on welfare.  Well, in that regard, I hold them in a higher light than the Democrats, Republicans, and the Congress, since, at least, they think that there should be some accountability on the beneficiaries of free money.  However, it is not Constitutional, so I object to any transfer of wealth.

Now, there is little doubt that the 25 points have racist (or, is that racialist) tones to them.  But, then, it is only political correctness that says that we are criminal if we have human thoughts of hate (though love, even between people of the same sex is okay), the Democrats, the Republicans and Congress, support this by enactment of laws that, generally, only work in one direction.

Now, don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that I believe in what they say, though I do believe that the Congress, and the Democrats and Republicans, have created a very fertile ground for overreaction to the emotions that exist in a normal society, love and hate.  When either is outlawed, both being the character of human nature, you are made criminal for being human.  On top of that, you see that there are those who support such laws because they are selective, not in writing, rather, in enforcement.  When put in that position, it is, again, human nature, to look for those who are willing to say what you want to say, and, even though they may be more extreme in what they say, they, at least, are willing to say it.  The rest of the people will only say it in whispers, for fear of being caught, and charged with a crime, or, being castigated as not being “politically correct”.  It becomes the only refuge for those willing to speak what they believe (freedom of speech), and, then, they are made (by another form of “patriotic political correctness”) out as criminal by those who should be their support of the Constitution, allow them the right to express their sentiments.  This, then, tends to push them even further into their chosen refuge, and defend themselves against attackers — who should be on their side, if not philosophically, at least, lawfully and Constitutionally.

This is all a result of “political correctness” achieving a polarization (making everything black or white), though it is target specific, and does not apply to all.  Whatever happened to the shades of grey that allowed us to disagree and get along, at the same time?  After all, if you study the history of this country, you will find, whether with regard to reconciliation or independence, or, what form of government, there was never absolute agreement.  They shades of grey were weighed, and a consensus made, in both cases, and the country followed that course.  Each was allowed to choose, and was not cast out if his ideas were not consistent with the majority.  He was respected for his input and the thoughts that he brought to the table.  Likewise, he respected the result, even though not what he, personally desired.

You see, it was those shades of grey that allowed the thought and discussion that lead the Founders to what they, finally, gave to us, their posterity.  It was a living society that, through free expression, allowed debate and discussion, without resorting to the current government tactic of demonization, in place of reasoned debate.

Now, since I had done my homework (gone to the NSM site), I was ready to responded to Jim’s request that I call him.  He wanted J. T. Campbell to join us in the call, to which I had no objection — until I found that neither one of them, apparently, had intention of hearing what I had to say.  If I managed to get a complete sentence out, in the conversation, I had two people responding, not to what I had just said, rather, to what they wanted me to say.

My first explanation was that I am not Committees of Safety.  Committees of Safety is a concept with heritage in our English traditions; an historical concept that goes back to long before the creation of the United States.  As such, I cannot speak for the Committees of Safety — since each Committee would be local, then county, then state — and that they can only speak for themselves.  It is not an organization with a leader who must be followed (the unfortunate consequence of our current society having lost the concepts embodied in our creation as a nation, and the ideals of the Founders), rather, it is a number of organizations, each representing those who live within its realm, and, who make the decisions, for themselves.  That by tradition, Committees did not act in a legislative capacity, except in establishing laws to deal with Tories and laws regarding the Militia.  As such, I don’t believe that they would be within their authority to make such a decision to support, or denounce, any other organization.

Now, all for this about Committees was left unsaid, due to the interruptions.  This made it apparent that the request that I call was not to get answers, rather, it was an effort to intimidate me into acceptance of what they chose to dictate.

In his effort to justify the attack on NSM (the 25 points are linked, above), and the demand for denouncing them, Jim did say that he has read many posts on that site that are of a much more threatening nature than the 25 points.  So, I guess we can ask some questions here:

• Do the thoughts of any single member, or members, of an organization speak for that organization?
• If so, what if what they say contradicts the espoused purpose of the organization?
• Should that organization disassociate with other organizations that don’t follow the exact same ideology?
• Can one man dictate what an entire organization stands for?

After I spoke with Jim, and since he and J. T. did not want to hear what I had to say, I wrote an email, to set the record straight.  Jim has chosen to post portions of this email dialogue, though they are hard to follow, and out of context.  Below is the entire discussion:

1.  Gary to Jim (after the phone conversation was over):

Jim,

Since your blog does not allow for responses, even from those named in the blog, I will try to make clear, in writing, the position of the Committees of Safety, with regard to such denouncements that you seem to be demanding.

First, I am not the Committee of Safety.  I am, however, a student of the historical Committees of Safety.  I cannot make a decision pro, or con, with regard to your request.

Second, Committees of Safety are local entities that are, for all intents and purposes, local governing bodies, elected by the people in a community (the Association), to fill the place, in the absence only of existing government’s failure to provide, for the safety and needs of the community (Association).  Any decisions to be made are made at that local level, not by me, who is only a student of the Committees of Safety.

Third, historically, the Committees of Safety did not enact laws, nor did they take any position in political, matters, except when they denounced Tories (people inimical to American Liberty).  Tories were those who supported the Royal government, once the division between what the constitution and charters meant came into question.  (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence for an example of that division.)

Fourth, with the exception of Tories.  Freedom of Speech was supported by the Committees of Safety.  Absent a law prohibiting something (NSM88, Nazi Party, Socialist Party, .  Democratic Party, Republican Party, etc.), there is no position that the Committees of Safety can take regarding either denouncing or supporting and other group.

Now, I know you are trying to leverage support for your beliefs.  I do hope that you are open-minded enough to understand that you are asking for something that would allow personal, or, individual, influence in an organization that is in no position to make such proclamations.

I do trust that you and J. T. Campbell understand the position that has to be taken in the matter.  I can assure you that if you don’t, there will be no action taken by the Committees of Safety, regardless of what efforts to denounce the Committees of Safety you take, since, by virtue of the explanation, above, the same would apply to you, regardless of what assertions you make about Committees of Safety.

Please forward this to J. T. so that he, also, understands what I was trying to tell you on the phone.

I do apologize for hanging up, but since you would not hear me out, I felt that putting it in writing was the best solution.

Respectfully,

Gary Hunt

2.  In an effort, again, to try to explain why Committees of Safety could not take a position, I sent the following:

Jim,

An example of the attitude taken by Committees of Safety in 1774:

On December 12, 1774 (before Lexington and Concord), the Maryland Provincial Congress, which was the colonial substitute governing body, created by the local Committees of Safety, set forth a series of Resolves.  The last on, Number 7, sets forth the sense of the Congress, with regard to personal animosities.

“(7.) 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.”

Again, please pass on to J. T.

Thanks,

Gary

3.  Jim to Gary (this was replied to my mail list post, Committees of Safety and the General Association:

so you have not met the challenge we will be putting it out there on a regular basis and point out the neo nazi connections to wram and arm this is for the cause of freedom to expose the nazis from with in like doc sacramanic and jt  ready more to be exposed

4.  Gary to Jim:

Threats and intimidation will only bring dishonor to you.  It will come, and, I suspect, it will come soon.

That is not the way that free people should be expected to act.  It is more along the lines of the Southern Poverty Law Center tactics.

Have at it, but, understand that your tactics have cost you any support I could offer you.

5.  Jim to Gary:

gary dishonor in exposing nazis lol  you are buying into bullshit and my audience is worldwide not just those you reach wake up i have been at this a long time

6. Gary to Jim:

When you believe that you have the right/authority to decide what is, and what is not, acceptable, you have, well, become a dictator.

As I explained (or, tried to, since you and J.T. didn’t really want to hear what I had to say), if you took it to the court, and got a verdict, then you would be justified.

Instead, in your self-righteous arrogance, decide that you can decide for all of the rest.

I have nothing to discuss with someone who decides what is best for all.

7. Gary to Jim (I was curious about his claim of how long he had been in the “movement”:

Jim,

You have been at this a long time.  How long?

8. Gary to Jim

Dishonor has to do with how you do something, not what you do.

9. Jim to Gary:

34 years will be posting these emails and quote you on calling Michigan militia bigots

10.  Gary to Jim:

Have at it.  However, if you say that I said something that I didn’t say, you might find that you have hell to pay.

Walk softly!

Let’s make some other things clear, I never said “Michigan Militia”, during the entire conversation.  Jim seemed come to that (or at least first make the claim) in his last email – #9, above.  Any comment I made regarding bigot was in this context: “Jim you call me a bigot because I because I won’t do what you want me to do.  Does that make you a bigot?”

Somehow, then, this was construed, by Jim, to mean that I called the Michigan Militia bigots.  Apparently, that message was passed on to someone who goes by Thumper”, who responded, according to Jim’s post, by saying, “bite me”, which appears to be directed at me.

Now, since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, they have to stand on their own, There was no response that I could make on their behalf, since I am only a student of Committees of Safety and attempting to pass on what to other what I have learned.

This did not mean that I couldn’t be concerned about the Michigan Militia, since in the nineties I was in contact with Norm Olson and Mark Koernke.  And though I haven’t been in contact with the Michigan Militia, since then, I was concerned that they might think that either I or the Committees of Safety (which can’t even have a voice), I decide to see if I could find someone in the upper echelons in the Michigan Militia, and set the record straight.  After all, the post made it appear as if I was trying to denigrate them, based not upon what I said, rather, what Jim said that I said (and interesting tactic, used frequently by the SPLC).

My intention was to try to get through to “Thumper”, though I found an intelligent voice on the other end of the phone, so we discussed what had occurred.  The person on the other end of the conversation seemed to understand both what I was saying, and, the nature of Jim Stach.  We talked about other aspects of the patriot community, and seemed to be on agreement on just about everything.  I told him that if we are fighting amongst ourselves we would never be able to take on the government.  That the division in the patriot community is more destructive than anything that the government can do (overtly), and that we are doing it to ourselves.

He asked me if I thought that there was anything wrong with the Michigan Militia not allowing neo-Nazis the right to join the Michigan Militia, and I told him that I believed that if that was what Michigan Militia wanted, they had every right to limit their membership, though they didn’t have the right to try to intimidate others organizations from making their own decisions.  We seemed to agree on that last point, and the conversation was concluded.  I will say that I believe that the other person felt rather uncomfortable that the Michigan Militia was even made party to the dispute between Jim and me.

Well, I thought that this was the end of it.  I had explained to the Michigan Militia that what Jim said I said was not what I said.  Since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, there was nothing left for me to do.

Friday (June 10) evening, I received an email from Jim, making clear that his efforts to intimidate by demonization were over.  The email provided a link (http://freedomfighterradio.net/2011/06/10/gary-hunt-of-outpost-of-freedom-and-committees-of-safety-calls-michigan-militia-racist-bigots-and-turns-down-challenge/[link no longer valid]), and, though I have no capacity to defend the Committees of Safety, the Outpost of Freedom has now been named, and that brings on a whole new battle. Outpost of Freedom has been what I have been writing under since January 1993.  It was the name of the newspapers I published; the fax network (in the nineties); and has been the name of my webpage since 1995.  It is not an organization, nor is it an association of people (as the Committees of Safety).  It is mine, and I will defend it.  Neither of Jim’s posts have provision to respond.  Since, if I respond by email, Jim will cut and paste and manufacture, to suit his objective (whatever it might be), I will go public with what has transpired, and, I will be open to response by Jim (comments section, at the bottom of this blog).  I have always believed that both sides of any story must be heard, and, that any judgment be made with a fair hearing of both sides.

I will not pretend to speak for Committees of Safety, though I will speak for Outpost of Freedom.  “Thumper” seems to think that he speaks for the Michigan Militia (though that is not the impression I got from the conversation, above).  Jim Stach seems to speak, also, for the Michigan Militia, though not even a member, as well as the entire Militia community, since he knows that they must submit to his “challenge”, or subject themselves to his insignificant and infantile tantrum of wrath.

Now, return to what Jim said about what some said on the NSM page.  He suggests that they speak for the NSM, regardless of what their policy (25 points) says.

Jim also presumes that he speak for the entire Militia community, regardless of what each Militia determines its own policy to be.  He suggests that, if you don’t do what I say, you are not a patriot.  If you do what I say, I will kick everybody out of the patriot community, by use of this demonization process, that I think doesn’t belong here.  It is not your decision, it is my decision.

So, there, you have my side of the story.

You be the judge.  Comments are welcome, so long as they are presented in a decent manner.  If you resort to name-calling, you may find that certain remarks may be edited, though the context will not be changed.

The
Fourteenth Article
in Amendment to the Constitution

From the Ratification of the Constitution through today

What affect has it had on the concept of government intended by the Framers of the Constitution; on our Liberties and our Lives; and, is it really what we believe it to be?

A study of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment
and its effects

By
Gary Hunt

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

For nearly thirty years, I have attempted to resolve a series of questions that are common to the patriot, or constitutionalist, community.  These questions relate to what has happened to the legal system that we were supposed to have adopted, at the time of the formation of this country, based upon both the Common Law of England, as it existed on July 4, 1776, and, a concept of justice that removed us from the arbitrary control of government.

Over the years, I have listened to what others had to say I have watched their actions to see the results.  I have read cases that seemed to bear on the subject, and, I have “experimented”, when the opportunity to do so arose.

Over time, as will be explained in the following, the pieces seem to fit a pattern.  Rather than trying to wrap the facts around a theory, I developed a theory that fit all of the facts that I could find.  However, in finding that some of the facts were, inexplicably, unwilling to fit any theory, I realized that there must be two theories, and it was a matter, then, of determining which theory fit which facts.

The two outstanding theories, neither of which will recognize the other, are:

• We are subject to all laws enacted by the government, unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
• We are subject to no laws enacted by the Congress; instead, we are only subject to the common law.

The two sides (theories) have advocates who faced off with the other side, each insisting that they are right and the other is wrong.  While, in fact, both sides are partially right, and, partially wrong.

* * *

It does, however, appear that many of the intermediate jurisdictions (other than courts), institutions, and even private corporations, believe that the nexus is there, and, that they are bound by such laws they are told to abide by.  They assume that you, too, are bound by such laws.  To argue the point with them is fruitless, and, at best, will only create dissension.  They, too, have been duped, along with most of the people in this country, into believing that which is not true.

It is for the purpose of exposing that deception that the following has been prepared, for your consideration.

* * *

This Essay will provide insight into the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution; the effect that the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination; Court decisions and Congressional enactments have had on our relationship with the government.

You may be sorry after you have read it, but you will understand how the subversion of the Constitution has been achieved.

The entire Essay can be found on line at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh04.htm

The PDF file can be download from The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution – Essay (PDF)