Potential of the Committee of Safety in this troubled nation

Potential of the Committee of Safety in this Troubled Nation

If we wish to understand just what potential exists if Committees of Safety were created once again, to deal with the problem of government, we might begin, as the Founders did, with consideration of a voice directed at the government.  As fruitless as our organized efforts have been, by writing, faxing, calling and by any other means available to us as individuals, to affect the course of legislation, there is hope that these efforts can be harnessed and directed in a manner that is assured to have the desired effect.

In March, 1765, the Parliament enacted what was known as the “Stamp Act.”  Immediately, scores of resolutions were passed by colonial Committees, directed at the Parliament, or, proclaiming the position of the community in regard to the Act.  The colonists, who were not represented in Parliament, had no member to “petition” for repeal of the Act.  The unity they displayed by their numerous methods of opposition resulted, however, in the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766.  Among the proclamations with which we have become most familiar, “No taxation without representation” is probably the most well known, and was a result of this effort against the Stamp Act.

Representation, then, is one of the results that evolved from the actions and attitudes of the time.  Had representation, chosen by free election, existed then, the outcry against the Stamp Act would surely have been directed at those who represented the colonists, and probably would have reduced, considerably, the amount of time from enactment to repeal.

With the unitydemonstrated by the communities, and their respective Committees, the repeal of the Stamp Act was inevitable.  Should we apply, through the modern Committee of Safety, a concerted effort at effecting pending legislation, or even initiating legislation.  Unitydemonstrated by the Committee would become one of the most significant lobbying efforts in the country.

Suppose, for example, that a local representative (House or Senate, state or federal) indicated that he was going to vote to enact legislation that the Committee determined would be detrimental to the best interest of the community.  If that Committee represented even one percent of the community, they would also be able to influence, by their numbers, many more votes in subsequent elections.  And, they would have a memory (suspense file) that would assure that the outcome of the vote would remain relevant come Election Day.  A legislative delegation from the Committee, representing the confirmed position of the Committee, meeting with the representative would probably have a much more significant effect than any lobbyist’s checkbook in Washington, D. C., or that state’s capital.  This ability to affect legislation would not be unlike what the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) has accomplished by their representation of gun owners in legislation regarding gun owner’s rights.

When the significance of this “lobbying” power is expanded to a number of community Committees within a state, or even a state Committee of Safety, the desires of the people could be expressed in a manner unlike any other since the days prior to the War for Independence.

This ability to affect legislation could easily be applied on local issues, and might become the catalyst to bring together many advocacy groups that have otherwise remained unaffiliated because of their diversity of interests.  The common elements of the return of authority to the will of the people, and the restoration of constitutional government are the only common elements that are necessary to achieve results in effecting legislation to achieve those goals.

Perhaps an anecdote might illustrate the potential of the Committee of Safety:

Shortly after the first meeting of the Central Florida – Committee of Safety, I was contacted by a detective from the Orlando Police Department.  This was in April, 1995, shortly after the bombing in Oklahoma City.  We agreed to meet at a restaurant and talked for quite a while.  I had arranged, for my own safety and to avoid any concern over the consequences of the meeting, for a number of fellow patriots to be sitting in a booth adjacent to where the officer and I met.

The officer’s concern was what the purpose of the Committee of Safety really was.  I explained to the officer that the primary objective was a unified voice, as was outlined above.  As the discussion continued, he asked whether there was any affiliation with the militia.  My response was that the term “well-regulated” militia, according to what history reveals of the matter, is one that is subordinate to the civil authority of the people, and that this civil authority was, in the early period in our history, the Committee of Safety.  I assured him that if all militia in the country were willingly subordinate to the Committee of Safety, as they properly should be, the likelihood of a group of militia taking any action such as what had occurred in Oklahoma City would be absolutely minimal.

I continued to explain that the Committee of Safety could also be considered a double-edged sword.  Although restraint would be applied to militia, should the government ever give good cause to the militia to act in defense against enemies (foreign or domestic), the unity created by the Committee of Safety would enhance the ability of the militia to achieve their objective, especially if the action was in response to a national emergency.

We have examined the national potential of the Committee of Safety, let us go a little further.  For the sake of understanding, the Committee of Safety concept, as it is employed by more and more communities, would provide a means of communication and coordination unlike anything existing today.  Sharing of information, on nearly any level, would enhance our proper understanding of issues.  Any research with regard to matters such as income tax, legislation, legal issues, even the results of accurate investigation of news events, could be disseminated, confirmed or verified, and cooperative efforts at reaching proper conclusions to matters would be a result.

Likewise, a concerted effort could be made to deal with legislative issues, as outlined above.  Every community would expand their sphere of influence to have the desired effect.

When sufficient communities had established their Committees, a state Committee of Safety could be established to address, in statewide assembly, matters of statewide concern.  The state Committee would also be in a position to send delegates, or deputies, to national meetings whenever the issue is one of a national concern.

For example, on June 3 and 4, 1995, a Common Law Grand Jury convened in Wichita, Kansas.  The Grand Jury was composed of many volunteers from around the country.  However, each represented only himself, and was there by virtue of his means and willingness to volunteer to attend.  Although the results of the Grand Jury were probably very representative of the sympathies of those with any knowledge of the matter being considered, the fact is that the assembly in Wichita can only claim to be ‘representative’, but can not demonstrate this to be true.

Had each state Committee of Safety been able to send two deputies to the Grand Jury, as well as allowing the meeting to be open to voluntary participants who chose to attend, the Grand Jury would truly have been an extension of the people themselves, by virtue of a valid historical process which achieved similar successful results some two hundred years ago.

Returning, again, to the matter of communication between the Committees, whether within the state or nationally, we can easily understand that the ability to compare information, exchange information, establish meetings of common interest, establish a qualified speaker’s bureau, establish verified press credentials, etc., would be greatly enhanced by this process.

Two hundred years ago, Committees of Correspondence dealt with the dissemination of information and active communication between communities and colonies.  In this day of telephones, fax machines and computers, an effective network of communication that would exceed the circulation of any newspaper in the world could be created and operated at minimal cost.  Information could be broadcast over this network and reach virtually every corner of the country within hours and could operate as a committee of the Committee of Safety.

The ability of the community of patriots/Constitutionalists to work together in a united manner would present an awesome obstacle to those who would do away with our Constitution and create a new world order.

I submit, that if there are any valid objections to what is laid out above that they be brought forward publicly for all to consider.  If there are attempts to undermine the implementation of this asset to Freedom and Liberty, the beneficiary of those attempts must surely have other interests than those of We the People.