SUGGESTION; How to conduct a war.
John:
What is your suggestion as to what must be done now, today, in furthering what you describe as "the real war".
This question is not being asked as a challenge, nor in a hostile
fashion, but is asked in all sincerity.
Best regards,
Brian Puckett
Wednesday, January 09, 2002
Well, Brian, I'm glad somebody finally asked what I'd suggest to
win the war against government usurpation. Allow me to tell it my way.
I recall this guy, Jimmy Carter. Do you remember him,
declaring "The Moral Equivalent of WAR"?
I can't remember what he declared the "moral equivalent of
war" on, but I had two immediate impressions.
The first was of the phrase, "The Moral Equivalent of WAR".
Hey, what a neat phrase. I wish I'd thought of it. I'll bet ol Jimmy don't know what the morality of war is, let alone the moral equivalent of it, because if he did, he wouldn't be using the phrase so lightly. But, it is a neat phrase.
The second was of the man who was declaring "The moral equivalent of War".
I had this image that kept creeping into my mind of Jimmy Carter
in a little fishing boat, standing up and swinging his ores at this
"wild rabbit" attacking his boat, yelling for his Secret Service man who was standing on the shore so as not to scare the fish, to shoot the god damn thing. But the Secret Service Agent was afraid to shoot the rabbit because there was nothing in the rule books that covered what to do when the President of the United States is attacked
by a wild rabbit splashing water at the President and scaring his
fish.
Anyway, I always kind of wondered if that is what Jimmy meant by
the "Moral Equivalent of War": Stand up and fight the atrocious bastards with whatever you can get your hands on.
But, I don't think so. That wasn't exactly Jimmy's style, and as a result, he didn't win many wars, or free many hostages. He didn't get re-elected either, as I recall. The former head
of the CIA, then running for VP, fixed a little "October Surprise"
for him.
Brian, you just ask some of this big burley heroes who are on
Peter's e-mail exchanges, who have their guns cleaned, loaded and at the ready, if we are in a war to defend the Constitution against government usurpation. "A war, now, in the present"? They'll inquire. "What do you mean? Are you asking if I'm ready
to kill or be killed for the Constitution? Of course I am. Just
point me at the enemy."
"Ehhh, what's that? We are surrounded? The enemy is all around
us? You mean we are out flanked and outgunned. Maybe we ought to talk this over first. I didn't know that you meant a "Real War". I thought you was just talking, well you know, we're not really in war with our government. We're just pissed off, you know what I mean, they don't take us seriously and so, some day, some day I'll just pick up my gun and start shooten. Say, buddy, got another beer?"
So, now you get the idea. Are we in war over constitutional
restraint on government, or not? If we are, where's our army? What do mean, we ain't got no army? There's me, and then there's .... Hey, hey, where you guys going? You can't run in the face of the enemy? Oh, you can because they don't know you and as long as you keep running, they'll never even know that you were on our side. Hey, buddy, you forgot your beeeeerrrr.
So, I listened in my spare time, while I am fighting a war that I have no doubt is real, to all of this bullshit, for six-eight months or so, and then I send out a little enquiry: Is anyone interested in figuring out strategy, (that I'm actually developing for immediate use) like how to enlist the UN on our side because the US has rights critical treaties that say what we, the American Patriots and trying to say, and our Government is ignoring those treaties just like it is ignoring us.
Oh, the silence was deafening ... at first, then the patriotic
moral outrage of those big burley outdoors type patriots with guns at the ready who know less about the Moral Equivalent of war than Jimmy Carter: "UN! Why, that's the enemy. If we use the UN and our treaties, that's is legitimizing them." And so on as Nero fiddles and Rome burns, Peter, now 57, gets solder and older and pretty soon, that will be his, and your excuse, for never having engaged the enemy in any way that counts.
You are too old. Hell, they were too old twenty five year ago,
and I hope, too wise. The rule is, as soon as you are old enough to
conceive of alternatives to force, you are to old and too wise to use it.
To give you a short answer: If you are in war, you fight to win;
every way that you can. If it is the moral equivalent of war, you do the same thing, except, you use your intellect to plan and design strategies that are very costly to the enemy, in the very thing that it can't aford to lose, its credibility; and forget all this gun bullshit that you wouldn't do if you could, and which is in any event, self defeating.
To give you a more tangible answer, support those who are
fighting for your liberty as if it is a war and they are serious. There are a few organizations like FIJA and J4J; and there are individuals like Larry Beecraft. Find em and support em.
Or in this round of discussion, "How the Judiciary Stole the
Right to Petition" is the result of five times to the Supreme Court. That wasn't all that resulted. There were lessons learned, and now I am putting those lessons again to the courts, to compel them to address the issues. I have two cases in the Ninth Circuit that raise issues like "Government Terrorism upon the People" under color of immunity and what it is and the federal judicial role in it; and I'm developing more.
And then, there's the UN thing. I was seeking to discuss among
all of those big burley intellectuals out there, how to best go about
bringing key figures into these lawsuits in such a way that government has to listen, and has to address real issues.
Those key figures include Tom Ridge, John Doolittle, Koffi Annan,
and maybe Gray Davis, to obtain a declaration of whether the US is in compliance with Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights ... a declaration in which the UN's Secretary General has to participate and hold the answer up to the world, and defend it. And there is only one answer that he can defend: The United States is in blatant violation of Article 8, of the Universal Declaration.
And what is Article 8? Why, that is the article of an
international treaty binding on the United States to provide EFFECTIVE judicial remedies for violation of our very own Constitution and its bill of rights.
Now you just think of what it means to have that Declaration by
the Nobel Peace Prize winning UN General Secretary Koffi Annon, published throughout the world:The United States systematically denies remedies to its citizens for violations of their constitutional rights by a little trick it calls "sovereign immunity" in blatant violation of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration Human Rights. Why, we might even withdraw from
the UN, but at least, the world would know our deep, dark, dirty judicial secret; and so would we.
But yo'all never mind, Brian. I wouldn't want you or Peter or
any of the others to bother your pretty little heads about this. It's my war and I'm used to fighting it by myself and people with guns are not invited because they'll fuck up a winnable war that takes brains and not guns. I'll fight it myself because I do know what the "Moral Equivalent of War" is:
That's where losing is not an option; and stalemates that go on forever while we grow older, is losing. It seems that the big burley K&BA rights advocates just don't have the stomach for the real thing, not when they can talk for ever about shooting and dying, and never do a god damn thing but burp and "Say, buddy, how about another beer".
Besides, talking about guns when Jimmy was president, was
plausible fun.
But now, GB II, that's something else. He do know how to make war
and the big burley guys with guns better not get him too pissed off. Times have changed. We have the choice of weapons and it behooves us to choose them wisely. Playing the libertarian side of the UN against the fascist side of the US, makes good sense to me. But then I have an advantage. I know that intellectual conviction and courage is not measured with guns and bullets, or even ballots: It is measured by the government's inability to answer obvious questions like, please explain how government immunity, the
right to Petition and Article 8, are all consistent?
But, I wanna thank you for asking. It show's that your heart's
in the right place.
Wolfgram
P.S. Brian, nothing personal. This response is really meant for
those who, like Peter, waste the choice of weapon's advantage on something stupid and self defeating, when they still have the life God gave them for serious fighting.
To return to our home page, click:
