From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Tue Feb 7 02:39:29 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:39:29 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] New Colony Media - A new Interest media for Patriots Message-ID: <001001cce4f6$47807370$d6815a50$@com> Recommended listening.. Roger Root (the guest) wrote " Are Cops Constitutional? ". I'm sure that he will have a lot of very interesting, well researched, information. This is an ideal inaugural show for New Colony Media. New Colony Media is a new patriot project using radio, writing and video to reach out and win hearts and minds. New Colony Network is NCM's Blog Talk Radio channel. NCM has a different host and topic each night. The hosts as well as guests are established and acclaimed in their fields of concentration ranging from prepping to good happenings to firearms. Wednesday, Feb 8th @ 8pm Eastern time, New Colony Media's first episode will feature Investigator Darren Wilburn interviewing Dr Roger Roots about his article "Are Cops Constitutional?". This will be the first of Mr. Wilburn's weekly segment called "Police in America". Dr. Roots is a nationally recognized criminologist, legal scholar and civil liberties activist. He is active in libertarian politics, and in the ongoing promotion of a freer, fairer and more just world. He is the author of more than two dozen noteworthy, scholarly articles, and some of his research has been relied upon by federal courts. He is an advocate for the rights of the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, and the politically estranged. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/newcolony/2012/02/09/police-and-the-constit ution-episode-1-with-guest-roger-root -- Thank You Amelia Foxwell NCM Producer Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking. John Kenneth Galbraith It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120206/4cff1705/attachment.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Thu Feb 9 09:26:44 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:26:44 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Learn about the history of law enforcement since the Founding times. Message-ID: <009b01cce6c1$814c2730$83e47590$@com> Just a reminder that in about half an hour, a potentially very interesting radio program will provide some insight into the history of law enforcement (peace officers) in this country. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/newcolony/2012/02/09/police-and-the-constit ution-episode-1-with-guest-roger-root Roger Root, the guest, wrote "Are Cops Constitutional? ", which is well worth the time to read it. Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom An American, without apology; and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would rather be alive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120208/4875e654/attachment.html From truth at truthpress.org Thu Feb 9 11:53:13 2012 From: truth at truthpress.org (=?windows-1252?Q?truth=40truthpress=2Eorg_=A9_=99_original_works?=) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:53:13 -0600 Subject: [OPF List] "We the People", but, Who are We? - Part V/ Patcon and Trentadue Message-ID: 15 Apr 2011 Interview 314 ? Jesse Trentadue Posted by Corbett Podcast: Play in new window| Download Trial lawyer and former law professor Jesse Trentadue joins us to discuss the death of his brother Kenneth Trentadue at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center, and how his fight to find out the truth about that death has led him on a remarkable journey of discovery about the Oklahoma City Bombing. We discuss the cover up of Kenneth Trentadue?s murder, the declarations of Terry Nichols, the government?s foreknowledge of the bombing, the surveillance tapes from the Murrah Building, and much more. Documentation *Documentation ? Terry Nichols 2007 Declaration* Description: Information from co-conspirator Terry Nichols on how the bombing was carried out, and who was behind it. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Testimony of FBI Informant Carol Howe* Description: FBI informant testifies that she cased out the Murrah building with a group of white supremacist months before the bombing. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Woman informs FBI she knew of bombing beforehand* Description: FBI 302 of woman who indicated that Mark Thomas had talked about bombing a federal building months before the bombing. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Various FBI Documents Showing Information That Suggests Others Were Involved* Description: The fruits of Jesse Trentadue?s FOIA labors. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Second Declaration of Terry Nichols* Description: More information from Nichols about the bombing and who was really involved. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Carol Howe debriefing* Description: FBI notes of debriefing of their informant who had prior knowledge of the bombing. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Information on FBI/CIA source at ABC News* Description: From the FBI?s own documents. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Secret Service Timeline* Description: A secret service timeline of the events after the bombing on April 19. Includes mention of the surveillance camerasthat captured the actual blast. Link To: The Corbett Report *Documentation ? Eric Holder and The ?Trentadue Mission?* Description: Incredible internal government documents showing the complicity of Attorney General Eric Holder in the Kenneth Trentadue murder cover-up, referred to as the ?Trentadue mission? and compared to the invasion of Normandy. Link To: The Corbett Report On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gary Hunt wrote: > *"We the People", but, Who are We? - Part V* > > Gary Hunt > Outpost of Freedom > August 3, 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 that Amendment.**** > > In Part IV , we found that > the Supreme Court did recognize that there was a difference between a > citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States, and that the latter > was protected (jurisdiction existed) by the Fourteenth Amendment and to the > former, it did not (no jurisdiction).**** > > Now, we will move forward, 56 years, to 1964, to a case that reaffirms the > classes of citizen, though begins to erode the protections previously > provided to citizens of the United States. **** > > The case is Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, and involves a discussion by the > Court of just which Amendments (Bill of Rights) are extended to those who > seek protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, when it says:**** > > "*It was on the authority of that decision that the Court said in 1908 in > Twining v. New Jersey, supra, that "it is possible that some of the > personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National > action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of > them would be a denial of due process of law."***** > > So, the question that arose in this case is, to what extent does the > Fourteenth Amendment apply to the protection of rights, and, which rights > are protected. It redefines what was said in Twining, and requires that > any right being protected "*be a denial of the due process of law*". > This is a simple paraphrase of "the equal protection of the laws", from the > Fourteenth Amendment. So, it simply expands that singular authority to > include speech, press, and other rights within the first eight amendments, > so long as "due process" can be brought into the equation.**** > > It did not, however, even begin to address anything that would remove, or > affect, the nature of the two classes of citizen. They remain unimpaired > and intact.**** > > Since the Courts will use a stepping stone process in "revising" laws to a > more modern "interpretation", Malloy afforded the Court the opportunity to > undermine the distinction between the two classes. However, they chose not > to walk upon that sacred ground. Their absence of comment on the two > classes leaves that distinction intact.**** > > So, we can see that from Dred Scott (Part I), in 1854, the Court > established a foundation of this country as being built upon, by, and for, > a certain class of people. This is probably best defined by the wording of > Justice Taney, in that decision, to wit:**** > > "*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 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.***** > > For the sake of discussion, this sacred class (within the United States) > shall be referred to as "We the People". But, perhaps, we should endeavor, > with a bit more precision, to define just what/who those "We the People" > were/are, in light of what Justice Taney said.**** > > After much thought, I can only come up with three possibilities that might > shed light on Taney's description of that class known as "We the People". > **** > > 1. That it would include only those who are defined by the rather > common acronym, "WASP", meaning "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant". When we > consider that in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Jews were not > allowed to reside in some of the colonies; that loathing of Catholics > (Popists) was common through most of the colonies, during that period, more > effectually demonstrated by the objection to the Quebec Act of 1774, > allowing Catholics to vote and hold office in Canada, are indicative of the > sympathies of the times;**** > 2. Caucasians of European descent, which would include perhaps 99% of > those who had immigrated to the colonies to begin life, anew; or, **** > 3. Those of Indo-European language groups (first defined in 1647 and > including English, Dutch, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, Slavic, Celtic and > Baltic languages), thus having a common heritage and culture, at least in > the distant past.**** > > There is no way that we can interpret, from what Justice Taney said, just > who "We the People" were, though it is clear by the context of his > description that it would include those above described peoples, or > combinations thereof, "*but for no one else.***** > > Then, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and granted citizenship to > people who were not of this class, "We the People". Further, it granted > then only privileges and immunities. It did not grant them rights. **** > > This position (distinction between classes) is further supported by the > ratification of the 15th Amendment (granting the *right* of suffrage > (voting), regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". > **** > > Then, in 1874, the Court, in Happersett (Part IV), made clear that the > Fourteenth Amendment did not convey rights. However, the Constitution > makes clear that there are rights retained by the people (We the People), > so since there cannot be conflict between the Constitution and an AMENDMENT > (unless expressly resolved in the amendment), the distinction is further > enhanced.**** > > So, for all intents and purposes, there are four classes of people in this > country, today:**** > > - "We the People", those descended from the Framers, or otherwise > within the principles of the original Constitution, who have retained their > rights;**** > - Those made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment, with the privileges > and immunities granted therein, and any rights specifically bestowed, by > subsequent amendments; **** > - Those who are here, lawfully and in accordance with all laws, as > visitors, and who have not violated any conditions of the permission > granted to visit; and,**** > - Those who are here unlawfully, that have entered in violation of our > laws or have violated the conditions of their permissive visitation.*** > * > > The foundation of this country, then, rests upon an understanding that the > purpose of the Constitution, and the country, is to provide a home for > those of the class, "We the People". That others who choose to assimilate > into the American Culture do so with that understanding, and the > understanding that they are the beneficiaries of all privileges and > immunities, though only those rights specifically granted.**** > > It can also be concluded that any who have designs contrary to the support > and continuation of the United States, as intended by the Framers, and > described herein, are inconsistent with the purpose of the country, and, as > such, are against the Constitution and should be deemed unacceptable and > unwanted visitors.**** > > If the United States is to return to its former stature as the beacon to > the world of freed enterprise by a free people, we must return, also, to > the concept that allowed such concepts of freedom to prosper, and grow, in > a rather short history, to what it had become by the end of the Nineteenth > Century. **** > > It can return to that stature only if we do return to those principles > that made this nation great. Absent a dedication to that purpose, we are > destined to be nothing more than a footnote in history. And, that will be > our rightful place, if we fail to act to secure that which we hold so dear. > **** > > Thus concludes this series.**** > > This article can be found on line at "We the People", but, Who are We? -- > Part V **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Gary Hunt** > **Outpost of Freedom *** > > An American, without apology; **** > > and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would > rather be alive.**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > OPF mailing list > OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com > http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120208/9692c2e3/attachment-0001.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Sun Feb 12 12:56:42 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:56:42 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces? Message-ID: <002501cce93a$555ff9f0$001fedd0$@com> 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." This article can be found on line at: What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces? Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom The past is infinitely important. However, it pales in importance to the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120211/9d6e8099/attachment.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Sun Feb 12 13:58:55 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:58:55 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Arizona Committee of Safety to be discussed on New Colony Media Message-ID: <005401cce943$066ed830$134c8890$@com> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/newcolony/2012/02/15/cos-az-with-gary-hunt- 1 Please join us at the above link for an informative interview with Gary Hunt about Committees of Safety. Committees of Safety were the means by which a relatively peaceful change of government occurred through, and after, the Revolutionary War. We will be discussing Committees of Safety and their historical significance. We will also be discussing the Arizona Committee of Safety which has formed and is actively creating an infrastructure so that if the time ever arises where the Committee needs to take the reins to protect the community, the plans, means and manpower will already be prepared to do so Tuesday, February 14 at 8:00 PM Eastern -- Thank You Amelia Foxwell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120211/037ccab4/attachment-0001.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Wed Feb 15 02:50:02 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:50:02 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Freedom of Speech Message-ID: <004701cceb41$142a9b80$3c7fd280$@com> 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. This article can be found on line at Freedom of Speech Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom The past is infinitely important. However, it pales in importance to the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120214/3bf4bac9/attachment.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Wed Feb 15 08:00:35 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:00:35 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Committees of Safety and the Arizona Committee of Safety on New Colony Media Message-ID: <00d401cceb6c$7f584b70$7e08e250$@com> In about 2 hours (8:00 PM Eastern) Committees of Safety and the Arizona Committee of Safety on New Colony Media Host: Amelia Foxwell Guest: Gary Hunt Committees of Safety were the means by which a relatively peaceful change of government occurred through, and after, the Revolutionary War. We will be discussing Committees of Safety and their historical significance. We will also be discussing the Arizona Committee of Safety which has formed and is actively creating an infrastructure so that if the time ever arises where the Committee needs to take the reins to protect the community, the plans, means and manpower will already be prepared to do so. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/newcolony/2012/02/15/cos-az-with-gary-hunt- 1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120214/f3936aa3/attachment-0001.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Thu Feb 16 03:20:54 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:20:54 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] More information regarding turning Congress over to Market Forces Message-ID: <001501ccec0e$98a74ca0$c9f5e5e0$@com> More information regarding turning Congress over to Market Forces: From: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/15/opinion/wertheimer-super-pacs/index.html?e ref=mrss_igoogle_cnn Super PACs a disaster for democracy By Fred Wertheimer, Special to CNN updated 12:39 PM EST, Wed February 15, 2012 (CNN) -- In 1907, Congress banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in the wake of the robber baron-era scandals. In 1947, the ban was formally applied to corporate expenditures and extended to cover labor unions. In 1974, Congress enacted limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and political committees in the wake of the Watergate scandal. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case declared the corporate expenditure ban unconstitutional, holding that independent expenditures could not be constitutionally limited in federal elections, and implicitly that corporations could give unlimited amounts to other groups to spend, as long as the expenditures were made independently from the supported candidate. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the SpeechNow case held that the limits on individual contributions to groups that made independent expenditures were unconstitutional. Thus was born the super PAC. And thus was born the national campaign finance scandals that are unfolding daily in the 2012 elections. Super PACs are federally registered political action committees that raise unlimited contributions from the super rich, corporations, labor unions and other entities and spend these funds to make "independent" expenditures in federal elections. They are an unmitigated disaster for the American people. A recent study by Demos and the U.S. Public Interest Group found that, as Politico reported , "Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people." The study also found that 93% of the itemized contributions raised by super PACs came in contributions of $10,000 or more, with more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more. Super PACs are a game for millionaires and billionaires. They are a game for corporations and other wealthy interests. Meanwhile, citizens are pushed to the sidelines to watch the corruption of our democracy. In the 2012 presidential election, an even more insidious version of the super PAC was born -- the candidate-specific super PAC. Every significant presidential campaign has had a super PAC -- created and run by close associates of the candidate -- that raises unlimited contributions to spend only to support that presidential candidate. Presidential candidate-specific super PACs are simply vehicles for the presidential candidates and their supporters to circumvent the limits on contributions to candidates enacted to prevent corruption. Most of the super PAC money has been spent on attack ads. We already have seen Sheldon Adelson and his wife give $10 million to the presidential super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich. One couple! $10 million! The claim that these presidential super PACs are operating "independently" from the presidential candidates, as is required by law, is absurd and has no credibility. Last week, President Barack Obama reversed course and agreed to send Cabinet members, White House staff and campaign officials to speak at and participate in fundraising events for Priorities USA Action , the allegedly "independent" super PAC supporting Obama's re-election. Days later, Mitt Romney's campaign announced that senior Romney campaign aides would do the same and appear and speak at fundraising events for Restore Our Future, Romney's allegedly "independent" super PAC. Sound independent? According to the Supreme Court's view, a corporation that spends $30 million to elect a senator will not be able to buy corrupting influence over the senator's positions because the corporation has not "coordinated" its expenditures with the senator. Democracy 21 believes these super PACs are indeed engaging in illegally coordinated activities and is requesting the Justice Department to investigate. Super PACs corrupt our political system in two ways. First, super PACs allow a relatively few super-rich individuals and other wealthy interests to have greatly magnified and undue influence over the results of our elections. Second, super PACs allow the super rich and wealthy interests to buy influence over government decisions, in the event the candidate wins. The Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case that unleashed this is built entirely on a fiction: that "independent" expenditures by corporations cannot have a corrupting influence on federal officeholders. This is fantasy, not reality. Important steps can and must be taken to deal with candidate-specific super PACs within the boundaries of the destructive Citizens United decision. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, has introduced the DISCLOSE 2012 Act to close gaping loopholes in the disclosure laws. It requires super PACs immediately to disclose their donors and campaign expenditures, and requires the PACs' top five donors, and the amounts they gave, to be listed on each of their ads. This legislation is essential to inform citizens about who is providing the money to influence their votes. In addition, Democracy 21 is preparing legislation to shut down super PACs that are closely tied to the candidate they are supporting. The legislation would treat these super PACs legally as arms of the candidate's campaign and subject to the contribution limits that apply to the candidate. Five Supreme Court justices have done enormous damage to our country with one of the worst decisions in the history of the court. This will not be allowed to stand. Citizens will rise up to demand and achieve fundamental reforms, as we have before when threatened with the systemic corruption of our government and officeholders. Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom The past is infinitely important. However, it pales in importance to the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120215/a4645643/attachment.html From jon.roland at constitution.org Tue Feb 21 05:33:57 2012 From: jon.roland at constitution.org (Jon Roland) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:33:57 -0600 Subject: [OPF List] Proposed Court Administration Reform Act Message-ID: <4F42AE35.6020009@constitution.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120220/ff30ca21/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 2433 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120220/ff30ca21/attachment.gif From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Sat Feb 25 08:07:57 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:07:57 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Is Liberty compatible with Equality? Message-ID: <005501ccf349$25e3ccb0$71ab6610$@com> With the intention of provoking a dissuasion, I pose the following question: Is Liberty compatible with Equality? Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom An American, without apology; and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would rather be alive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120224/f412157a/attachment.html From theunrepentantpatriot at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 08:49:03 2012 From: theunrepentantpatriot at gmail.com (The Unrepentant Patriot) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:49:03 -0500 Subject: [OPF List] Is Liberty compatible with Equality? In-Reply-To: <005501ccf349$25e3ccb0$71ab6610$@com> References: <005501ccf349$25e3ccb0$71ab6610$@com> Message-ID: Liberty does not imply equality; nor does equality in any way ensure or vouchsafe liberty. In fact, the over-zealous, misguided pursuit of "equality" is the slipperiest slope down to the abdication and banishment of individual liberty. Forced "equality" is in no way compatible with individual liberty. Provision of "equal" (i.e., unfettered; not unnaturally obstructed by official or organized contriving) *access* to the *opportunity to pursue*one's maximum potential implies acceptance of the selfsame exposure to the possibility of maximum failure, and maximum loss. One must accept both sides of that coin in a society moored to the bulwark of true liberty. In the moral morass we currently call our American Republic, "equal opportunity" has come to simply mean government assurance of equality of * outcomes* by way of sanctioned theft, the redistribution of the rewards of labor, and the leveling of potential by the promotion of indolence and the subtle discouragement of diligence and industriousness. Jefferson would have us all pilloried. The starving masses of Marxism enjoyed almost perfect equality of outcome. I think they would have preferred having the liberty of the opportunity to fail on their own. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Gary Hunt wrote: > With the intention of provoking a dissuasion, I pose the following > question:**** > > ** ** > > Is Liberty compatible with Equality?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Gary Hunt** > **Outpost of Freedom *** > > An American, without apology; **** > > and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would > rather be alive.**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > OPF mailing list > OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com > http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf > > -- * **THE CONSTITUTION: **"I read it for the Articles......."* * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120224/8a583617/attachment.html From billmay at wvi.com Sat Feb 25 13:51:34 2012 From: billmay at wvi.com (Bill M.) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:51:34 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Is Liberty compatible with Equality? References: <005501ccf349$25e3ccb0$71ab6610$@com> Message-ID: <048d01ccf379$27193ea0$0200a8c0@computer1> In regard to equality my concern is for equal rights - not equal privileges. We do not have and never have had equality in America. The whites were secured something unique and important by the different state constitutions - the right to justice, a right secured under the rules of the common law. All other races were exempt, except the indian if they applied to a state for citizenship and renounced his allegiance to his tribe or nation. All other races, including the free negroes, were under civil law exactly as has always existed in DC. When we look back to the pre-60's we see this. Whites had liberty because they had constitutionally secured rights. Other races were treated as subjects and thus had little liberty. The civil rights era did not extend rights to other races so much as it took them from whites and only due to this is the gov able to pretend everyone is equal under the law. This is only a pretense because no constitution has been amended to extend white style rights to other races. Today the gov pretends everyone is a US / fed / 14th subject. Yes, US citizens are actually subjects - study the history. Today there is a form of equality - but no true liberty for anyone except those in ruling positiongs. Is liberty compatible with liberty? I think the answer is yes. Modify the constitutions to at least extend the common law right to justice to all races, then the whites will have it back authomatically. In this respect, there will be equality in regard to justice over gov domination and that will secure some liberty. So, the answer is yes, equality and liberty are compatible. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Hunt To: OPF List Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:07 PM Subject: [OPF List] Is Liberty compatible with Equality? With the intention of provoking a dissuasion, I pose the following question: Is Liberty compatible with Equality? Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom An American, without apology; and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would rather be alive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ OPF mailing list OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.455 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4226 - Release Date: 02/22/12 19:34:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120224/0823fac2/attachment.html From filtergarb11 at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 18:02:24 2012 From: filtergarb11 at gmail.com (Quisno Rodonovich) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:02:24 -0700 Subject: [OPF List] Is Liberty compatible with Equality? In-Reply-To: <005501ccf349$25e3ccb0$71ab6610$@com> References: <005501ccf349$25e3ccb0$71ab6610$@com> Message-ID: wouldnt justice be more prudent with equality . for to have justice is to mean that there has to be an equality of purpose . in peoples lives and in actions and in despensation of a level tenant of judicial founding and establishment.for the rights in that equality. just because they all work at different jobs and believe in different ways it would seem to me that a common law would be best to have an adjudicated even level than laws like today that at best have gray outer areas. and are used to punish the lessor for the wants of the greater. So justice would be a basis for equality. Liberty to me is have the ability to do as i pleased as long as i hurt no one else or their property and dont cause undo hardship or stress upon their beliefs under God. Not religion thats mans assessment not our creators. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Gary Hunt wrote: > With the intention of provoking a dissuasion, I pose the following > question:**** > > ** ** > > Is Liberty compatible with Equality?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Gary Hunt** > **Outpost of Freedom *** > > An American, without apology; **** > > and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would > rather be alive.**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > OPF mailing list > OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com > http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120227/ca0049cf/attachment.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Tue Feb 28 03:07:46 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:07:46 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] You Have Tread On Me Radio will be discussing Infiltrators, Agents and Informants Message-ID: <003401ccf57a$b5f613c0$21e23b40$@com> This Tuesday, Feb. 27th, Gary Hunt will be joining us on You Have Tread On Me Radio, for an episode of Tar and Feather, to discuss infiltration. We will look at the governments use of infiltration to take over, and control organizations, implicate individuals for crimes, promote criminal activity, and other nefarious activities. We'll also be discussing recent events involving a case of infiltration. Join us this Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at www.youhavetreadonme.com/radio at 9 pm EDT; 8 pm CST; 7 pm MST; 6 pm PST Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom An American, without apology; and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would rather be alive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120227/38d92268/attachment.html From hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com Tue Feb 28 04:36:14 2012 From: hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com (Gary Hunt) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:36:14 -0800 Subject: [OPF List] Corrected - You Have Tread On Me Radio will be discussing Infiltrators, Agents and Informants Message-ID: <007501ccf587$12115e60$36341b20$@com> This Tuesday, Feb. 28th, Gary Hunt will be joining us on You Have Tread On Me Radio, for an episode of Tar and Feather, to discuss infiltration. We will look at the government's use of infiltration to take over, and control organizations, implicate individuals for crimes, promote criminal activity, and other nefarious activities. We'll also be discussing recent events involving a case of infiltration. Join us this Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at www.youhavetreadonme.com/radio at 9 pm EST; 8 pm CST; 7 pm MST; 6 pm PST Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom An American, without apology; and one who can think of no other time and place, in history, that I would rather be alive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20120227/51d05918/attachment.html