Liberty or Slavery? It's Time to Decide

by Tom Hudson and Scott McPherson

On March 18 the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in March 2007 that the Second Amendment guarantees and protects an individual rather than a “collective” right to bear arms. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for an appeal. The Supreme Court will settle the matter.

The freedom or slavery of future generations of Americans depends on their decision.

The drafters of The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution all knew that without the right to keep and bear arms government would eventually take all rights away from the people. It has been over 200 years since these documents were written. Today such ideas are no longer taught to our children, and the people sit idly by as their liberty is stripped away.

The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of what we have let this country become. In just the last few years our Fourth Amendment protections have been attacked by the Patriot Act. Habeas Corpus has been seriously undermined by the Military Commissions Act. The National ID Card intrudes on the rightful powers of the States, and threatens the citizen's freedom of movement within our nation's borders. Finally, the Federal Government has stated clearly that citizens do not have the right to have their petition for redress of grievances answered (see We the People Foundation v. United States).

All of these laws have been passed openly and in the name of security. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said: “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” Rest assured that if we allow our government to continue on its present course, sooner rather than later we will have neither.

If ever there was a time to stand up and demand that our government respect the rights of citizens, it is now. We strongly encourage every man or woman who cherishes their freedom to take action, and send a clear message to the Federal Government that We the People are willing and able to take our government from the clutches of any who would reign over us.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787,

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

The following actions are strongly encouraged:

1. Contact your state representatives, state senators and governor, and tell them that our freedom is not negotiable. If necessary, they should do their duty and interpose themselves between the citizen and the Federal Government.
2. Contact your US Congressmen, US Senators and the President, and tell them that our freedom is not theirs for the taking. We will not become slaves.
3. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper(s) and contact other media outlets, declaring your intention to stand firm in defense of your rights – and encourage others to do the same.
4. Join a pro-liberty organization (Gun Owners of America, Free State Project, Fully Informed Jury Association, etc.)
5. Get involved with a pro-liberty candidate for public office this year, or consider running yourself. Run for any office – from school board on up.
6. On March 18, the day arguments begin in the Heller case, purchase at least one firearm and ammunition.

   “[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” --Tench Coxe, 1788

7. Spread this message far and wide.

Tom Hudson lives in Gonic, New Hampshire.
Scott McPherson lives in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

For original post, please click here.

Curt's Lexicon: 2

Just War:
(See "What is a Just War?")
A Just War is a war that you have little choice but to fight, you fight with honor and dignity, and you terminate with justice.

Natural Rights:
(See "Treatise on Natural Order")
Natural Rights are those inalienable rights, freedoms, and privileges granted to us by God. These rights are so intertwined with our Humanity that they cannot be traded, given away, or stolen from us. The only way that we can be denied our Natural Rights is by being held accountable via due process of a just and fair law... Natural Law.

Natural Law:
(See "Treatise on Natural Order")
Natural Law is the law written into the hearts and souls of just and reasonable men from which the norms of all human law must be derived.

Common Law:
(See "Treatise on Natural Order")
Law based in custom, tradition, usage, and court rulings setting legal precedent (evolved, discovered, and interpreted via custom, tradition, and reason).

The "Boxer":
(See "The Global Elite and the Boxer")
The Boxer is an analogy that is used to represent the manner by which "The Oligarchy" manipulates society to bring about their dream of One World Government.

Boxers use an intermix of hits from the left and right, fancy footwork, endurance, time, and strategy to beat their opponents into submission.

The Left Hand is represented as the Liberals/Democrats.
The Right Hand is represented as the Neo-Cons/Republicans.
The Fancy Footwork is represented by the media, loss of freedom for "noble causes", indoctrination via public schools, utilizing various "philanthropic" organizations, etc.
The Body is represented as the agenda of The Oligarchy.
The Head is represented as The Oligarchy.

Feminist (Femi-Nazi):
(See "Feminism: A Scourge on Society")
A vindictive, Liberal, baby killing, woman destroying, family ending, man-hating and/or emasculating tool of The Oligarchy that is utilized as "Fancy Footwork" for The Boxer. A scourge on society.

The Right of Revolution (Right of Rebellion):
(See "The Right of Revolution")
A Natural Right of the People to defend themselves against government.

The Pledge of Allegiance:
(See "The Pledge")
A jingoistic tool created by Marxist-Socialists, aimed originally at children, to instill a love of Country over a love of individual liberty for the purpose of desensitizing Americans to the encroachment upon their freedom.

Kwanza:
(See "What is Kwanza?")
Kwanza is a Marxist, Black Nationalist, Anti-Religious Holiday invented by a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic, kidnapping, raping, torturing, racist in 1966.

Curt's Lexicon: 1

So that there will be no misunderstanding as to what I mean when I use a particular word or "label", and to avoid anyone dismissing MY use of the word as "Ill-Defined", I am beginning "Curt's Lexicon".

As time goes on, and the need arises, I will put out more editions of the lexicon. I hope you enjoy reading (and even using) these definitions as much I had writing them.

When I use a term in a manner different from the definitions given in the Lexicon, I will note it then (unless it is self-evident to most reasonable people).

Note: Nested definitions (a definition to explain or define a term in the definition) will be marked by an asterisk (*).

Liberal:
A Liberal is defined as a lunatic that acts out in the political arena by espousing (to varying degrees) Marxism, Fascism, Hedonism, Feminism, Collectivism, Socialist to Communist economic philosophies, Positivism, and often displaying an open hostility toward Traditionalism and Faith. A scourge on society.

*Scourge: Something that causes misery or death; to lay waste to; to devastate, ravage.

Conservative (or "Paleoconservative"):
A Conservative is defined as someone in the political arena that promotes Natural Law, Natural Rights, Individualism, Personal Accountability, Free Market economics, Capitalism, Limited Government, Family, Morality, Regional Heritage and Culture, Non-Interventionism, and has a high regard for Tradition and Faith.

Neo-Conservative (or "Neo-Con"):
A Neo-Conservative is defined as someone who claims to be a Conservative, and may hold Socially Conservative views (pro-life, traditional marriage, etc.), but in reality has roots in "Liberalism" and often promote Fascism, Big Government, Interventionism, light Socialism, Jingoism, and varying degrees of Collectivism.

The "Oligarchy":
A group of so-called "social elite" (which include bankers, politicians, and businessmen) who are actively seeking (openly in some avenues, secretly in others) to bring about a Marxist, Authoritarian One-World Government, placing themselves as its sole leadership. These men comprise a "Shadow Government" that have a huge influence and effect on world (particularly Western) politics, economics, and society via nefarious dealings and manipulation/control of public figures, institutions, and the media.

*Shadow Government: A government that is waiting for the proper time to emerge and assume control. In the instance of "The Oligarchy", the Shadow Government already has its tendrils deeply implanted into the "mainstream" and will take its place through a combination of Entryism, Covert manipulations, and Overt action.

Marxism: (See What is Marxism?)
Marxism is the philosophy that seeks to separate Man from his family, wife, God, self-restraint, community, individualism, liberty, property, ability to defend himself, ability to improve his station, freedom of association, truth, prosperity, growth, independence, free will, and inalienable rights; thereby creating an automaton that is easily controlled and manipulated, with no will to fight... a slave among slaves.

What is a Just War?

The concept of a “Just War” has been around at least since circa 400 AD, when Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote “The City of God” to soothe Christians after “Barbarians” (the Visigoths) sacked Rome.

Augustine had a great influence on Saint Thomas Aquinas, who, between the mid-to-late 1260's and the early-to-mid 1270's AD, wrote “Summa Theologica”, which set the groundwork for modern day Just War (as well as Natural Law) Theory.

In 1625, Hugo Grotius advanced Just War Theory with his book “On the Laws of War and Peace”:

“Fully convinced...that there is a common law among nations, which is valid alike for war and in war, I have had many and weighty reasons for undertaking to write upon the subject. Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war, such as even barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a general decree, frenzy had openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes.” -- Hugo Grotius

So, you may be wondering, “What exactly is a 'just' war”?

The Just War Theory traditionally was broken down into two sections: Jus ad Bellum, or “The Right to War”, and Jus in Bello, or “Behavior in War”. In recent history an often debated third section has been added... Jus post Bellum, or “Ending a War”.

Each of these sections refer to the criterion and rules by which a war is justified in taking place, the manner in which it should be executed, and the terms by which it should end.

Not all Just War believers agree to all terms in all sections of the Just War Theory, and some will set aside (or add) elements for reasons that vary as much as the men who profess them, as you shall see as we progress.

The Right to War:
What gives a nation a right to go to war? According to Just War theory, the right to go to war exists if done for a Just Cause, the Right Intention, and as a Last Resort; even then, it may only be waged by the Legitimate Authority.

A “Just Cause” includes correcting a great evil done to the people; a massive violation of civil rights or other great injustice; or in self-defense.

The “Right Intention” is to correct a great wrong and support a just cause. Interventionism, material gain, and punishing those you disagree with do not fall under “Right Intention”.

A “Last Resort” means that you have exhausted all reasonable, viable means to resolve the situation peacefully; or that viable alternatives were not available (i.e. you don't have the luxury of holding a discussion when attack planes are strafing your landscape).

The “Legitimate Authority” is a public authority as outlined in the nation's Constitution. The declaration of war should be made known by the Legitimate Authority to the public of both nations.

Note: Rebellion, Civil War, and Secession have been areas of dispute as to who, or what, the Legitimate Authority is; the answer, however, is quite simple.

When a government has become tyrannical, unlawful, or corrupt, it is the right of the people to alter, reform, or depose it. When rebelling against (or seceding from) such a government, the people are acting in self-defense; and as it is upon their authority that government exists, it is upon their authority that the leaders of a rebellion will take the role of Legitimate Authority in their endeavor.

Note: Keep in mind that historically, when a people secede and then find themselves in a war, they are usually fending off an invading nation. The American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence are two examples of this.

There are three other criteria that many Just War Theorists include that I have omitted. They are “Probability of Success”, “Comparative Justice”, and “Proportionality”. I will explain my reason for omitting them as I explain what they are.

“Probability of Success” means that one should not take up a war that may be futile or gives a low chance of success. The reason I omit this one, is because one cannot determine if a war is Just by the odds of success. If the Founding Father's had thought that way, our Democratic Republic would never have been born.

“Comparative Justice” means that the wrong that one nation suffered must outweigh the suffering of the other nation. This is just nonsense. If you wage war by having a Just Cause, with the Right Intention, as a Last Resort, enacted by the Legitimate Authority, you should not have to weigh out whether the suffering you endured at the hand of the aggressor outweighs his suffering.

“Proportionality” is the understanding that the benefits of waging the war must be proportional to the harm the war will cause. I omit this because NO ONE can or will truly know the answer to this question until all is said and done.

These last three criteria, to me, come across as a means for absolute pacifists to find a way to avoid ever going to war under any circumstances whatsoever. These same individuals would find a reason not to lift a finger against an aggressor that worked them head to toe with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.

To sum up the Right to War, if you have a Just Cause, and fight for the Right Intention, but only as a Last Resort; and so long as the War is conducted by the Legitimate Authorities, a War can be Justly fought.

Behavior in War:
A civilized nation should conduct itself in a civilized manner, even in times of war. To that end, to fight a war Justly, you must utilize “Distinction”, “Proportionality”, and “Military Necessity”. I have added a fourth criteria, “Rights of Soldiers”. I will explain my reasoning below.

“Distinction” means that you direct acts of war toward enemy combatants and do everything in your power reasonably possible to avoid non-combatants caught in the crossfire. To engage in “Distinction” is to omit terrorism, targeting residential areas, looting homes, crime against the civilians, etc. However, if a normally civilian building (such as a church, school, etc.) were to be utilized for military purposes (housing ammunition, acting as barracks, etc.) it would cease to be a civilian target and would then become a military target.

“Proportionality” is conduct in war governed by the belief that any force used must be proportional to the wrong suffered. In other words, when conducting the war, there is no reason to do such damage that the country will be crippled for decades after the hostilities end. Furthermore, it would NOT be proportional to destroy (at least in the long term) crops, livestock, drinking water, forests, etc.

“Military Necessity” means that an action must be a military objective intended to defeat the enemy without utilizing unnecessary and/or excessive force. In other words, try to keep the death and destruction to a minimal.

“Rights of Soldiers” should be of concern in the manner in which a war is conducted. Enemy soldiers that are killed should be allowed to be collected and buried, and should not be mutilated or have personal effects stolen. Enemy soldiers that surrender assume the status of prisoner, and should be treated for illnesses and wounds. Prisoners of War should be humanely treated, given adequate food, water, shelter, and exercise. Prisoners should not have personal effects stolen, and should have access (within reason) to items necessary to practice their religion. In a nutshell, treat enemy soldiers as humanely as possible.

To sum up the Behavior in War, a nation that utilizes Distinction, Proportionality, and Military Necessity, while maintaining the Rights of Soldiers will be conducting war in a civilized manner.

Ending a War:
As stated previously, a new (and debated) entry into Just War Theory has recently come into being... a criteria for Ending a War. The proposed Criteria includes, “Just Cause for Termination”, “Right Intention”, “Public Declaration and Authority”, “Discrimination”, and “Proportionality”.

“Just Cause for Termination” means that the terms of war have been met, violations have been reasonably vindicated, and/or the aggressor is willing to surrender. To continue a war after these goals have met would be unjustified.

“Right Intention” means that when terminating a war the victor may not exact revenge, must objectively investigate war crimes on both sides, and must be reasonable with the terms and demands made upon the vanquished enemy.

“Public Declaration and Authority” is the premise that terms of peace must be made by the Legitimate Authority of each side, and all such terms shall (within reason) be made known to the public of each nation.

“Discrimination” means that the nation who is the victor must differentiate between the political/military leaders, combatants, and non-combatants when inflicting punishment.

“Proportionality” is utilized when the victor in a conflict makes the terms of surrender proportional to the wrong being vindicated. The victor may not conduct itself in a retaliatory manner, nor attempt to cripple the country, or disallow the vanquished nation the right to participate in the world.

To sum up justly Ending a War, a nation must end a war upon attaining “Just Cause for Termination”. The victor nation must terminate the war using the Right Intention, upon Public Declaration and Authority, while utilizing Discrimination and Proportionality.

What is a Just War? A Just War is a war that you have little choice but to fight, you fight with honor and dignity, and you terminate with justice.

The concept of Just War has been around roughly 1600 years, and yet few (if any ) nations utilize the theory. When a nation embraces the concept of a Just War, it takes a major step toward civility and gaining the respect of friends and enemies alike. Perhaps, someday, the people will figure that out and demand compliance from their government.

Ron Paul's Viability

Okay, Super Tuesday has come and gone...

1191 Delegates needed:
McCain = 559 delegates
Romney = 265
Huckabee = 169
Paul = 16

McCain currently has just under half of what he needs to gain the nomination.
So far 1009 of the 2380 delegates have been assigned; which leaves 1371 delegates.

Depending on what the voters see when the remaining primaries occur, Paul could pick up more delegates. What I mean by that is this... there are people out there who support Paul, but now may believe that they are "wasting their vote" by voting for him.

My thoughts are as follows:
As long as Ron Paul is in the race, and you feel inclined to support him, you should. The reason why is simple.

Ron Paul may not attain enough delegates to get the nomination, but he may get enough to have a voice at the Convention. He may even get enough to be able to swing a close race.

Example: Let's say RP ends the race with 200 delegates. Let's further say that Huckabee throws in with McCain and together they are just shy of the nomination (even 1 delegate). Let's further say that Romney is shy of the nomination by a larger margin, but within the scope of RP's delegates. RP could then demand a prime time speech during the convention, an adoption of some of his agenda, a place within the administration, and the bragging rights to have his message considered viable come the next election cycle (even if RP is not the one carrying the message).

This would put RP in a position to have the voice that the MSM and GOP have been trying to silence.

RP has viability in Kansas, and (if they count ALL of the votes) may well win Louisiana... these contests happen in 3 days.

RP may also have viability in Texas... in fact RP's district is a heavily populated area (Houston area), and RP is so popular there that no one really runs against him there. It is possible RP could gain a considerable number of delegates over the next few weeks; and even if those delegates do not get him close to the nomination, they may put him in a position to do some good.

Think about it.