The dovetail with the South Park Outsiders
The so-called Head Accountable for the South Park Outsiders believes, among other things, that a “…people’s Grand Jury…” will eventually hold former Commissioner Ray Douglas and sitting Commissioner Dick Elsner accountable for the crime of violating their constitutional oaths of office. These “violations” were alleged to have occurred when Douglas and Elsner dared to accede to the state’s edict concerning public health orders in the face of the COVID pandemic. Unfortunately, the Head Accountable and others apparently misread the commissioner’s oath of office. It not only requires them to support the Constitution of the United States but also the Constitution of the state of Colorado. Indeed, political subdivisions in Colorado, even home rule jurisdictions, must provide mandatory functions, services, and facilities prescribed by state law, including providing for public health and safety.
What caught my eye, though, was the Head Accoutable’s use of the phrase “…people’s Grand Jury.” For me, it reflected a nostalgic return to the wild west. A time when a bunch of yahoos on horses became judge and jury. Or when good Christians in white robes with pointy hoods took it upon themselves to further the cause of White Supremacy.
What Ku Kluxer didn’t find righteous comfort in fashioning nooses and burning crosses?
It wasn’t long before I realized the Head Accountable, her associates, and other self-identified constitutional scholars had latched onto something called Tactical Civics. Indeed, the South Park Outsiders are offering Tactical Civics monthly learning experiences.
Commissioner Dave Wissel’s greatest fans during the 2022 election cycle were the South Park Outsiders. The SPO’s raison d’être was embodied by the Good Ol’ boy from Fairplay.
To be sure, not all right-leaning folks espouse or even consider the components of Tactical Civics. But many do. And, in doing so, they bastardize American history. Shaping it into what fits comfortably into their dangerously skewed perception of reality where God is always in his heaven; all is right with the far-right of the world.
The Tactical Civics folks plant their boots upon the idea that the people are the ultimate sovereign. Founder, David Zuniga, says their mission is “inspired by, and serves at the pleasure of the Creator of the Universe.” They cast aside the Founders’ and Framers’ intent to construct a constitutional republic. Instead, they focus on We, the People. Yes, those lofty words resonate even today. But let’s be honest. Who are We, the People? Is it fifty-one percent of us? Or will only thirty percent suffice? Or, as we’ll later see, is one-half of one percent of the People the magic number? The purest form of We, the People is unbridled democracy. But even that doesn’t guarantee a society of like-minded intent.
Naturally, the Tactical Civics folks believe themselves to be We, the People, relegating those who disagree with them to some amorphous category of rabble outside their bubble. They won’t even let public employees and Muslims into their club.
But hell, they’re doing what they do at God’s pleasure. So what could possibly go wrong?
Here’s what David Zuniga, Tactical Civics founder, says about himself on his Amazon profile: “David is a native Texan and former engineer, missionary pilot, SCUBA instructor, Christian school founder, cattleman, and general contractor. Deeply disturbed at the 9/11 gaslighting and government corruption, David took a sabbatical from his engineering practice to study the core drivers of our collapse, praying for direction and answers.” He tells us, “American Communism exists in every school district, town, county, and state; Americans are not allowed to own private property. …We can never own private property in America because in Communism, the takers are on the top, and the makers—the productive people—are on the bottom, from the cradle to the grave. …We understand that our daily stand for Jesus Christ as LORD and King will drive some people away, just as our bedrock policy of not accepting public employees or Muslims as members will drive some people away. But our ‘red pill’ mission is dedicated to truth.”
Interestingly, the Head Accountable of the South Park Outsiders uses the phrase “red pill,” too.
Well. I guess public employees and Muslims are strangers to We, the People. And clearly, Christian Nationalism is at the heart of Zuniga’s Tactical Civics.
I greatly respect and am interested in the true history of America, which has survived spasms of revisionism and remains as close to fact as possible. World history, too, though the farther back it goes, the less anyone can expect it to be wholly factual, witness the lore-ridden Bible.
If for no other reason than my respect and interest in history, I can tell you that the teachings of Tactical Civics are baloney. Pure and simple. Unadulterated crap that stinks as you might expect it to. Disingenuous diatribes that, no doubt about it, fool some people all of the time.
They claim the rule of law lasted only for 73 years in America. From when the Constitution was ratified in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1862. Believing Lincoln’s federal army was unconstitutional, they aver the Civil War was only a smokescreen for counterfeiting, the replacement of gold and silver with “worthless paper.” They tell us the Civil War was the sordid creation of wealthy and powerful men ingesting the poison of the European Enlightenment. Through “urban newspapers,” these elites roiled the populace to engage in civil war, only to enable them, the wealthy and powerful, to seize the federal government. “Posing as the liberator of slaves, a powerful new federal government enslaved the formerly sovereign people and states who had created it.”
Ahem…
I wonder if Tactical Civics expounds upon whether or not the rule of law ever returned to America. Was the Constitution forever lamed and defuncted in 1862, never again to serve as the country’s foundational and guiding document? Or, for one bright and shining moment, did Donald Trump return the rule of law to America?
The Constitution was imperfect, despite some believing it was produced through divine grace. Notably, for example, the compromise the Framers fashioned to ensure ratification. Though nowhere in the Constitution is the word slavery mentioned, the 3/5ths compromise, as it was called, sanctioned it.
The “self-evident truths” affirmation in the Declaration “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” certainly sounded great. But, yes, those words were exposed as winky-wink bombast when it came to the Constitution. That imperfection, condoning slavery, haunted the Constitution for those 73 years. Indeed, it had plagued the country since 1619. And in correcting that imperfection, Abraham Lincoln filled in many imperfect lapses in the Constitution. As a result, the Civil War and Lincoln’s determination to preserve the Union catalyzed fundamental corrections to the Constitution. Not the least were the Civil War Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
Nowhere is the word secession in the Constitution. Clearly, Abraham Lincoln expanded the authority and powers of the Executive beyond those intended by the Framers. Yet, in all their wisdom, the Framers left the Constitution silent on secession. Was it, for them, unthinkable? Did they believe the words “…in Order to form a more perfect Union…” necessarily rejected the notion of secession? Was it left to Lincoln to correct their lapse? Did the clear and present danger of the collapse of the Republic require Lincoln to act in its best interest? “Was it possible,” Lincoln said, “to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the Constitution if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.”
The supposedly divinely inspired Constitution was forever changed by the Civil War. So was the Republic itself. Yet, Tactical Civics would have you believe that Lincoln’s “illegal” war eventually “enslaved the formerly sovereign people and states who had created [the Republic].” TC explains that while Lincoln’s government “posed as the liberator of slaves,” the war was only “a smokescreen for counterfeiting.”
Among many other things, Tactical Civics believes the triumvirate of Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, and Charles Darwin was the ruinous lynchpin that destroyed our God-given Republic.
The first Congress of the United States considered twelve amendments to the Constitution. Ten were ratified by the states in 1791. The states ratified one of the remaining two, dealing with Congressional pay in 1992. It became the 27th Amendment.
Tactical Civics asserts that the sole remaining unratified Amendment to the Constitution dealing with the ratio of congressional representation to district inhabitants must be ratified after 200-plus years of dormancy. The Amendment limited House representation to one for every 30,000 people. It adjusted that to 40,000, then 50,000 according to the number of representatives up to 200. The proposed Amendment ended with “…that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”
If the proposed but not ratified 1st Amendment were in force today, there would be 6,638 members of the House of Representatives. That’s fine and dandy, say the TC proponents, because wee rural communities would have their own representation in Congress. What they forget, or possibly didn’t even think about, is that large metropolitan areas would increase their congressional representation too. Denver, for example, would get fourteen representatives, while Grand Junction would get one.
What, then, is to be gained?
Let’s return to what I started with: the People’s Grand Juries. Please note the Tactical Civics folks believe one-half of one percent of registered electors in the county is a magic number. Not even active registered electors, but all of them. I guess that’s all it takes to define who We, the People are. So, in Park County, as of March 2023, there are 16,186 registered county electors. One percent of that would be 161.86. Half of that would be 80.93.
It’s alleged by the Tactical Civics folks that they have chapters throughout the county. One source says over fifty chapters, while another says there are over a hundred.
One thing we know for sure is Montana has a chapter. Witness their efforts to amend the Montana Constitution to include the TC take on what grand juries should look like. TC even provides a template to change state government constitutions to reflect their skewed perceptions.
Recently before the Montana Legislature was HB0405, a proposal from the folks who’ve digested Tactical Civics as a nutrient rather than the poison it is. An apparent advocate for, if not the originator of HB0405, Bart Crabtree, touts the bill on his website. “[A grand jury] is the People’s sword and shield because it WORKS for the People to arrest evildoers and to PROTECT any individual against corrupt, vindictive and overzealous governments,” the website reads. “Citizens impaneled on Grand Jury are top of the pecking order, not judges or attorneys! WE THE PEOPLE have the authority and lawful power to arrest corrupt actors.”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA: Section 1. Article II, section 20 of The Constitution of the State of Montana, is amended to read: A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at the discretion and order of the district judge or as follows:
(a) Whenever one-half of one percent of the registered electors of a county have signed a petition to summon a grand jury and have submitted the petition signatures to the county election administrator, a grand jury shall be summoned and empanelled [sic] by the judge of the district court for the county receiving the petition. A grand jury so summoned and empanelled [sic] shall:
(i) first consider any cause advanced by those who have brought and signed the petition, but the grand jury is the sole judge of its duration and the breadth and depth of its inquiry; and
(ii) conduct selected open proceedings to allow the public to present information or ask questions, and conduct other proceedings open or closed as it chooses, consistent with Article II, Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Constitution of the State of Montana
(b) An indictment brought by a grand jury must be prosecuted by the county attorney for the county in which an alleged offense occurred, regardless of prosecutorial discretion. A county attorney who fails to prosecute within 90 days an indictment being handed down by the grand jury may be indicted for obstruction of justice and official misconduct.
(c) If a grand jury summoned under this section is unable to obtain the prosecution of an indictment by the county attorney of the county where the alleged offense occurred, the grand jury may compel prosecutorial assistance from the attorney general or the grand jury may retain a private prosecutor whose fees shall be a lawful claim against the county where the alleged offense occurred.
(d) A grand jury summoned under this section may, in addition to indictments, seek court orders to remedy situations under its investigation and may hire counsel independent of the county attorney’s office.
The hypothetical scenario in Park County would begin with the Head Accountable for the South Park Outsiders rounding up 81 of her closest comrades. Then, they would sign a petition specifying Dick Elsner’s and Ray Douglas’ high crimes and misdemeanors. Next, the petition would be presented to Mel Kassel, the Clerk and Recorder. Kassel would presumably then advise the 11th District Court, which would impanel a grand jury. The grand jury would then consider the “cause” in the petition and have the latitude to “expand the duration and the breadth and depth of its inquiry.” The grand jury could bring in their friends and neighbors to expound on the “cause.” Suppose they bring an indictment, and the county attorney tells them they’re nuts and will not prosecute. In that case, the county attorney can be indicted for obstruction of justice. The grand jury can then go to the attorney general for help. If s/her refuses to prosecute, no problem. The grand jury can “retain a private prosecutor” to pursue the “cause.” And Voila! The county will be on the hook for whatever costs are associated with this inquisition, er, grand jury process.
I can’t wait for a people’s Grand Jury to be impaneled to investigate that house in Belize Commissioner Dick Elsner is building with absconded county tax funds. Or all those blue bags with ballots inside Monica Jones hauled into her office on general election day in 2022. Or, actually, any wild hair anybody has that one-half of one percent of the county’s electors would sign their name to.
You know, anyone can believe any damned thing they want to. They can advocate for any cause that tickles their ego or self-satisfied righteousness. At some point, though, it’s probably up to anyone to ask the pertinent question. So, since you’re not dealing with facts and your perception of American history is deplorably skewed, what credence am I to give to your cause? Why would you describe it as hateful for me to point out your logical lapses and questionable motivations?
The answer, of course, will be that truth isn’t truth. Facts aren’t facts unless they bolster our side of the polemical aisle. We, the People, have the God-given right to create our own truths with impunity. Those who don’t breathe the rarified “red pill” air inside our bubble are haters.
Yeah, we got trouble, and it’s not in River City.
I just stumbled upon a Twitter/X 🙄 post by the guy who leads this group. I had never heard of them, so I went searching and found your blog. Thanks for the enlightening read. Between these nuts and the militia group Ammon Bundy has put together, plus more I probably haven’t discovered yet, I agree with you. We’ve got trouble. Dark times ahead?
I have one question for you: If a state/territory can opt into The Union why can it not opt out? Surely a process more preservative than the Civil War could have been envisioned whereby the Confederacy could have gone its way without destroying half the country and killing almost 3/4 of a million combatants.
I don’t know much about TC – after an hour’s research it seems more like a way to discredit what could be truly meaningful tactics than a real movement. That’s the only way I can account for such a strong religious tone in what should otherwise be civics-based discourse.
But I think that you attacking them on the grounds of building on a ‘skewed history’ is a bit of the pot and the kettle. The commonly held doctrine of Lincoln saving the country and freeing the slaves grossly neglects the reality of our Civil War and its context. By adhering to it to attack another’s view of those events puts you in the same camp, just a different tent.
I only comment because I like to see argumentation carried out properly and with integrity. I’m not saying your position is intentionally slanted to make your points, but only that we all have our blind spots and you may have taken a stand dead center in one of yours.
To answer your question, there is no Constitutional mechanism for states to secede from the Union. Arguably secession was unconstitutional. The Constitutional mechanism for territories to join the Union is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.
Suggesting I am naively representing my version or my opinion of the Civil War by embracing what you refer to as the “commonly held doctrine of Lincoln saving the country and freeing the slaves” recklessly assumes you know my mind, my background, and my knowledge of factual American history, specifically that of the Civil War era. Your first question regarding what I would call a blasé characterization of secession–your use of the words “opt out”—cannot help but reveal your apparent misunderstanding of Lincoln’s Constitutional charge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It further suggests a lack of understanding of what inspired the framers to construct the Constitution. Opting in or opting out tends to reveal a perception that the Constitution was formulated willy-nilly, that its intent was as ineffectual as the Articles of Confederation.
One indisputable fact, however, was how willy-nilly the framers were when it came to the question of slavery in the Constitution. Although the word slavery was not mentioned, the framers set to stage for the inevitable: a Civil War that would result in more than 600,000 American deaths. May we then question the framer’s wisdom? That the Constitution was divinely inspired, something the Tactical Civics folks believe, is a shibboleth, embraced by the same folks who believe they, as “remnants,” constitute the sum total of We the People.
You don’t seem to understand the preservation of the Union was tantamount in Lincoln’s mind, his every effort extended to that purpose. You say, “surely a process more preservative than the Civil War could have been envisioned” for the Confederacy to, again as you say, “opt out.” Curiously you use the word “preservative.” How do you preserve the Union by allowing secession?
Nowhere is the word secession in the Constitution. The Framers left the Constitution silent on secession. Was it, for them, unthinkable? Did they believe the words “…in Order to form a more perfect Union…” necessarily rejected the notion of secession? Was it left for Lincoln to correct their lapse? Clearly, Abraham Lincoln expanded the authority and powers of the Executive beyond those intended by the Framers. Did the clear and present danger of the collapse of the Republic require Lincoln to act in its best interest? “Was it possible,” Lincoln said, “to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the Constitution if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.”
To suggest that the Tactical Civics view of history is anything but skewed is to accept the contention the Civil War was only a smokescreen for the counterfeiting of money, i.e., paper vs gold and silver. If one truly believes that was the case, one’s historical perspective of the Civil War is dismally misinformed. If you share Tactical Civics contention that the three-headed cabal of Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx contrived in some manner to remake America in their collective image of what it should be, your sense of factual history is dangerously skewed. If you accept, as Tactical Civics preaches, that the 2020 presidential election was “The most brazen crime since 9/11.” And that “everybody knows that the election 2020 and our entire republic was highjacked by enemies of the Constitution and don’t think for one second that We the People with sit by as communists and organized crime transmogrify America into a cheap imitation of Europe. If you believe the Tactical Civics “historical” line is a valid representation of history, then I urge you to join one of their chapters. Exalt in the comfort that may give you.
Finally, if, as you say, you value argumentative integrity, spend a wee bit more time looking at the historical record, and do a bit more research on the subject at hand.