Ending War

 In envisioning a future without war, we can explore the possibilities of a world where conflicts are resolved through peaceful means and global cooperation prevails. While achieving the complete elimination of war is a lofty goal, assuming it for the purpose of this exercise, let's explore how technology systems could contribute to this vision:

1. Advanced Diplomatic Tools: Future technology can revolutionize diplomacy, providing advanced tools for communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) platforms could allow leaders and diplomats to engage in immersive and empathetic dialogue, fostering deeper understanding and cooperation. AI-powered language translation systems could bridge language barriers, facilitating smoother communication during negotiations.

2. Global Governance and Collaborative Decision-Making: Technology systems can support the development of global governance structures, where nations come together to address global challenges collectively. Online platforms and AI-powered decision-making tools can enable collaborative decision-making processes, ensuring that the diverse perspectives and interests of nations are considered. This inclusive approach to governance can help prevent conflicts and promote peaceful resolutions.

3. Advancements in Energy and Resource Management: Future technologies could lead to significant advancements in energy generation, resource management, and sustainability. Access to abundant clean energy sources and efficient resource allocation can help address some of the underlying causes of conflicts, such as competition over scarce resources. By reducing resource scarcity and promoting sustainable practices, technology can diminish the drivers of conflict.

4. Virtual Conflict Resolution and Simulations: Advanced virtual simulations and conflict resolution systems can provide a platform for nations to resolve their differences without resorting to violence. Through immersive simulations, nations can test various scenarios and assess the potential outcomes of their actions. This can promote understanding, de-escalation, and the exploration of peaceful alternatives to conflicts.

5. Enhanced Global Intelligence and Surveillance: Technology systems can evolve to provide comprehensive global intelligence and surveillance capabilities aimed at preventing and deterring conflicts. Advanced satellite systems, AI-powered analysis, and real-time monitoring can detect and address emerging threats promptly. Such capabilities can enable early intervention, mediation, and the prevention of conflicts before they escalate.

6. Emphasis on Education and Cultural Exchange: Education and cultural exchange play a crucial role in fostering understanding, empathy, and peaceful coexistence. In the future, technology could offer even more innovative ways to connect people across borders, promoting cultural exchange, and facilitating educational programs that emphasize peace, conflict resolution, and global citizenship. Virtual classrooms, language-learning platforms, and AI tutors could provide accessible and inclusive educational opportunities to people worldwide.

It is important to recognize that the complete elimination of war is a highly idealistic vision, and achieving it would require profound societal, political, and cultural changes in addition to technological advancements. While technology can contribute significantly to peacebuilding efforts, it must be accompanied by efforts to address deep-rooted causes of conflicts, such as inequality, ideological differences, and geopolitical tensions. Nevertheless, by leveraging the potential of technology, we can strive for a future where peaceful resolutions prevail, international cooperation thrives, and the devastation caused by war becomes a thing of the past.

Is government obsolete?

Technology may be the solution to maximizing individual liberty and minimizing the role of government in people's lives. While completely replacing the government with technology systems is an ambitious idea, I can outline some solutions that incorporate online polling, artificial intelligence, peer-to-peer transactions, and high-speed analysis to achieve a more efficient and less oppressive form of governance while reducing taxation.

1. Online Polling and Direct Democracy: Utilizing online polling platforms, citizens can directly participate in decision-making processes. Rather than relying solely on elected representatives, individuals can vote on important issues, laws, and policies, ensuring a more direct and participatory democracy. This empowers citizens and reduces the influence of special interest groups.

2. Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis: By implementing advanced AI algorithms and high-speed analysis, we can streamline the decision-making process. AI systems can analyze vast amounts of data, identify patterns, and provide evidence-based recommendations to policymakers. This reduces political biases and ensures more objective and efficient governance.

3. Peer-to-Peer Transactions and Decentralization: Embracing decentralized technologies, such as blockchain, can facilitate peer-to-peer transactions and contracts, reducing the need for intermediaries and minimizing government control. Smart contracts can automate certain aspects of governance, ensuring transparency, efficiency, and security in areas like property rights, business transactions, and dispute resolution.

4. Reducing the Tax Burden: By implementing these technological advancements, we can significantly reduce the need for bureaucratic structures and excessive government expenditures. This, in turn, allows for lower taxation and frees up resources for individuals to allocate as they see fit. The goal should be to shift from an intrusive taxation system towards voluntary and market-based funding mechanisms for essential services, such as private charities, community initiatives, and mutual aid societies.

5. Emphasizing Individual Liberty: The focus of this technological transformation should be on safeguarding and enhancing individual liberty. By minimizing the role of government, we protect personal freedoms, privacy rights, and property rights. This includes reducing surveillance, limiting the regulatory burden on businesses and individuals, and promoting the principle of non-aggression, where the use of force is only justified in self-defense.

However, it is important to note that while technology can enhance governance, it may not completely replace the need for certain functions of government, such as national defense or the protection of individual rights. The transition towards a more technology-driven governance system should be gradual, ensuring that checks and balances are in place to prevent the concentration of power and protect against potential abuses.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a system where individual liberty is paramount, and individuals have more control over their own lives, while ensuring that necessary collective actions are carried out efficiently and voluntarily.

Life During Wartime

Heard of a van that is loaded with weapon
Packed up and ready to go

Heard of some grave sites out by the highway
A place where nobody knows
The sound of gunfire off in the distance
I'm getting used to it now
Lived in a brownstone, I lived in the ghetto
I've lived all over this town

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
This ain't no fooling around
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey
I ain't got time for that now

Transmit the message to the receiver
Hope for an answer some day
I got three passports, couple of visas
Don't even know my real name
High on a hillside trucks are loading
Everything's ready to roll
I sleep in the daytime, I work in the nightime
I might not ever get home

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
This ain't no fooling around
This ain't no mudd club, or C.B.G.B.
I ain't got time for that now

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
This ain't no fooling around
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey
I ain't got time for that now

Heard about houston? heard about detroit?
Heard about pittsburgh, PA?
You oughta know not to stand by the window
Somebody might see you up there
I got some groceries, some peanut butter
To last a couple of days
But I ain't got no speakers, ain't got no headphones
Ain't got no records to play

Why stay in college? why go to night school?
Gonna be different this time?
Can't write a letter, can't send a postcard
I can't write nothing at all
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
This ain't no fooling around
I'd love you hold you, I'd like to kiss you
I ain't got no time for that now

Trouble in transit, got through the roadblock
We blended in with the crowd
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines
I know that ain't allowed
We dress like students, we dress like housewives
Or in a suit and a tie
I changed my hairstyle so many times now
Don't know what I look like
You make me shiver, I feel so tender
We make a pretty good team
Don't get exhausted, I'll do some driving
You ought to get you some sleep
Burned all my notebooks, what good are notebooks?
They won't help me survive
My chest is aching, burns like a furnace
The burning keeps me alive

War

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

James Madison

Fear is the Foundation of Government

That's how John Adams put it in an important 1776 letter (back when he was still one of the good guys). He also pointed out that fear makes people "so stupid and miserable" while leading to bigger and more dangerous government. The Founders sure didn't mince words. And neither should we.

I couldn't think of a better reminder for September 11th...18 years ago, that horrific event lead to what some call the culmination of an already-steady path towards the destruction of freedom. A path that started long ago - from the mid 19th century to 1913, WWII and beyond.

These days, to question the wisdom of this insane government that spies on us, lies to us, destroys the dollar, runs up trillions in debt, wages almost endless war, attacks our right to keep and bear arms, uses indefinite detention, takes away due process - and so much more... questioning or rejecting this gets you called a "conspiracy nut."

But James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," would've been called the same today. Check out this warning from a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson:  "Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad."

It's a universal, timeless truth - that government will use fear of foreign threat to grow their own power and take our liberty.  And fear drives people to make the absolutely stupid choice of letting them - or even encouraging them.

III%

‘The Three Percenters - Original’ is a national organization made up of patriotic citizens who love their country, their freedoms, and their liberty. We are committed to standing against and exposing corruption and injustice.



We are NOT a militia. However, we do have meetings on local levels. These meetings are to help members network together and to learn from each other. Being a Three Percenter is more of a way of life rather than a club to join. As such, there are no membership fees or dues and we will not charge people to participate in a movement that defends civil liberties. However, some events may be held at facilities that require admission. This can be paid individually, as a group, or through a legal means of fundraising. Operational costs (Website hosting, forum, domains, store, etc) are paid for privately by the National Leader with aid from proceeds from the online store. Mostly, we are an “open source community” meaning, we help each other and try not to rely on third parties or institutions that cost money for our operations. We consist exclusively of volunteers and no member at any level is on any payroll provided by our organization.


We are NOT anti-government. In fact, we are very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution, doesn't overstep its bounds, and remains “for the people and by the people”. Our goal is to utilize the failsafes put in place by our founders to rein in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny. We are working to preserve the intent of our government as designed. We do not intend to implement our own government. There is often a misconception that we are wanting to overthrow the government. This is simply not true and a false rumor to try and paint our movement as anti-government.



We do not seek to incite a revolution. However, we will defend ourselves when necessary. We are not here to create violence. Violence should always be a last resort and even then should only be defensive in nature.

​

Our National Facebook page is at www.facebook.com/threepercenters/

HISTORY


In the mid-1700’s, the British colonies of North America had many reasons to be disgruntled with the British Empire and the ruling class in England. Recognizing that things would get worse before they got better, many amongst the people banded together to push an ideology they all shared. This ideology identified and acknowledged that every person has from birth certain rights. These are not granted by any authority other than their Creator. The limitation or denial of these rights is defined as tyranny and oppression. These bands of people worked together to peacefully resolve the abuses of their government, but recognized that peace was not a guaranteed solution.


Eventually, an idea was coined of having “Minutemen” available at a moment’s notice should the King’s tyranny show up in their town, on their streets, or at their door. These Minutemen would meet, train, and prepare to defend themselves, their family, and their townships from an ever encroaching empire. It is from these Minutemen where the 3% name originated. It is a rough estimate that only 3% of the colonists were actively fighting in the field against British forces at any given time. Today we recognize with this 3% in being that we will be the last defense to protect the citizens of the United States if there ever comes a day when our government takes up arms against the American people.

3 PRINCIPLES OF THE THREE PERCENTERS


All Three Percenters must abide by the following principles. Anyone who cannot accept these principles as a self-imposed discipline are not welcome in this organization, nor should ever consider themselves a part of the Three Percent movement.



1. Moral Strength - Knowing what is right and wrong and acting accordingly. Being trustworthy, truthful, and holding high values and principles. Strength to stand up when something is morally wrong.

2. Physical Readiness - Physical readiness is defined as the ability to meet the physical demands of any task in order to accomplish the objective at hand. There are some III%ers that have disabilities that prevent them from meeting physical demands and for these there is an exception.

3. No First Use of Force - "Don't fire unless fired upon". We are not the aggressor nor antagonist. We are purely defensive and only as a last resort.

OUR GOAL


The goal and main focus of ‘The Three Percenters - Original’ is to get patriots to network, prepare, and petition together on a local level. We intend to provide a framework and guidance that ‘The People’ can use to make positive change in restoring the founding principles of our Constitutional Republic. We plan to leverage incorporated fail-safes and laws to ensure success in preserving the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Leadership roles in this organization were created to achieve this goal and to serve, not command, those they are appointed over.

Is Iran waging a hacker war?

Iran has increased its offensive cyberattacks against the U.S. government and critical infrastructure as tensions have grown between the two nations, cybersecurity firms say.

“It’s important to remember that cyber is not some magic offensive nuke you can fly over and drop one day,” said Oren Falkowitz, a former National Security Agency analyst. It takes years of planning, he said, but as tensions increase, “cyber impact is going to be one of the tools they use and one of the hardest things to defend against.”

Any highly centralised energy system—pipelines, nuclear plants, refineries—invite devastating attack. If terrorist groups could sufficiently damage safety systems to cause a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant, and/or sufficiently damage spent fuelpools, such an attack could lead to widespread radioactive contamination.

Suspected for years of plotting to dismantle the U.S. electric grid, American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country's power system. One nuclear warhead detonated at high-altitude over the United States would blackout the national electric grid and other life sustaining critical infrastructures for months or years by means of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A nationwide blackout lasting one year, according to the Congressional EMP Commission, could cause chaos and starvation that leaves 90 percent of Americans dead.

Crypto currency makes government obsolete

“The gun has been called the great equalizer… It ensures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed.”

            –Ronald Reagan

If the gun is the great equalizer, protecting the people from tyrannical government, then crypto-currency will be the next great equalizer by eliminating the very source of government tyranny. If a gun in the hands of an average citizen allows him to stave off the incessant advances by a government that is bent on obtaining totalitarian control and centrally planning every individual’s life, then Bitcoin in the hands of the average citizens of the world will make it impossible for any government to even attempt such gross violations of our individual rights. What a concept, fighting off government tyranny before it even starts! Bitcoin can work even better than a gun; governments can ban guns and forcefully remove them from the possessions of the citizens. They can do no such thing with Bitcoin. Crypto-currency is necessarily untraceable. Its decentralized nature makes it essentially impossible for anyone to find out who you are. The only information that is displayed in a Bitcoin transaction are the two addresses engaged in trade and the amount of bitcoins being sent. None of those things have any link to your personal information, given that you implement solid cybersecuritymeasures.

Why is decentralized money such a devastating weapon against governments when wielded by individuals operating in the free market? Because money is the source of all government power. Governments attain all things through their monopoly on the issuance of money and the control of its supply. Some may say that it is not the government’s monetary monopoly that gives it such power, but that it is in fact the government’s monopoly on violence that gives it power. Without a monopoly on violence, governments would never be able to establish a monopoly over the money supply of its nation. But a monopoly on violence presupposes total control over the country’s money. Violence requires bodies, weapons, and transportation. None of those things can be conjured from thin air. But money can be, when put in the hands of the government. When in a monopolistic position over the issuance and supply of money, a government can alter the production structure in any way it deems beneficial to itself. Enormous contracts to military-grade weapons manufacturers so that they can go to war, subsidies to businesses that will benefit them, and handouts to special interest groups so that they will get reelected. All the government has to do to acquire the money for these things is sell an infinite amount of treasuries to the central bank, who will then create infinite amounts of money from thin air, at the expense of the average person.

Governments do not need a monopoly on violence to establish a monopoly on money. That monopoly is voluntarily given to them by the citizens under their rule. Due to a tacit assumption that there should be only one prevailing currency in each country, and that those currencies must be controlled by the governments, the citizens automatically assume that their governments must monopolize the supply of money. So they hand that power over to the government willingly, without being extorted by the government with a threat of violence. Once the government has control over the money, then they can establish their monopoly control of violence. Fire up the printing press, run deficits, and build armies to suppress the people, should they dissent. In the meantime, business cycles are produced because of inflation and the people suffer. And the people have no escape; the citizens are bound to their governments by their currencies.

Money is the strongest chain that ties individuals to governments. Break that chain, and the government loses all of its power. Threats of violence mean nothing if the government cannot pay anyone to carry those threats out. The government cannot throw anyone in prison if they cannot afford to fund the prison. Decentralize the money supply and the government becomes nothing more than a small group of angry old men stomping their feet and making empty threats. Decentralizing the money supply, Bitcoin does just that.

If Bitcoin becomes widely adopted, it will be impossible for governments to print however much money that is required for them to fund their violent escapades. Their revenue will be restricted to only what they can bring in from “legitimate” taxes. But, given that Bitcoin gives extreme anonymity to its users, it will become next to impossible for governments to actually collect even the “legitimate” taxes authorized by their constitutions. With the power of compulsory taxation taken away from them by the very nature of Bitcoin, the governments will only be able to survive through voluntary donations from people who value the services the governments provide. Governments then would have to actually satisfy people in order to make money; if the people do not like the quality of the services the government provides, they can pay another firm to provide the same services at a better quality. The government will, in effect, become nothing more than a private business competing with other firms on the free market. The reign of totalitarianism and central planning will be over. This historical paradigm shift will come from a seemingly mundane market activity. There will be no guns, no explosives, and no blood. People will not take up arms and violently remove their governments from power. They will just start using a different currency, one that cannot be controlled by any government.

Naturally, governments will try to rid decentralized currency from the world so that they can maintain their dominance over the money supply. China, for instance, has already been actively working to remove Bitcoin from its country by implementing a number of unsuccessful bans on Bitcoin. A government will not be able to ban something if they cannot realistically enforce the ban. A simple prohibition of Bitcoin will not suffice, the inherent anonymity of Bitcoin removes much of the risk involved in using illicit goods. So the governments would have to go after the technology itself. The only way to get rid of the blockchain technology completely would be to get rid of all computers and smartphones. What a task it would be, if a government were arrogant enough to attempt such a thing! It is quite humorous to imagine a situation in which a government attempted to confiscate every single computer and smartphone within its boundaries. It is an impossible task.

Governments will never be able to completely rid the world of decentralized currency, now that it has been unleashed. The only thing standing between the oppression of the people and the starvation of the State is the wide acceptance of Bitcoin. The spread of Bitcoin must be encouraged and facilitated through education and social activism. Decentralized currency can be successful only if the people choose to use it. If they do so, they will liberate themselves. Crypto-currency is the next, and final, great equalizer.

How Federal Surveillance and "Parallel Construction" Undermine the Rule of Law

by Mike Maharrey

When we talk about NSA spying, most people’s eyes glaze over. They just don’t think it will have any impact on them. After all, the surveillance agency only spies on foreigners and terrorists, right? And if some Americans’ data ends up in NSA databases in the process, well, that doesn’t really matter. It’s the price we pay for security.

But in fact, federal surveillance and the investigative practices it fosters undermines and subverts the fundamental rule of law in the United States.

State and local law enforcement agencies use the reams of data the NSA collects to prosecute Americans. Most of these cases have nothing to do with terrorism or national security. In fact, the vast majority relate to the so-called “war on drugs.” In the process, these state and local cops shred due process, obliterate the Fourth Amendment and make a mockery out of the “rule of law.”

Using a secretive process known as “parallel construction,” police build cases on illegally obtained, warrantless data collected by the NSA and other federal agencies without anybody ever knowing. These investigations take place in complete secrecy with no judicial oversight. Oftentimes, suspects and defense attornies have no idea how police obtained information.

Former NSA technical director William Binney called parallel construction “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War.”

Reuters revealed the extent of NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases “rarely involve national security issues.” Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations.

Through fusion centers, state and local law enforcement agencies act as information recipients from various federal departments under Information Sharing Environment (ISE). We also know that ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella covering 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. While fighting terrorism was always held out as the reason for dragnet spying, Binney said it was bound to be abused.

“That’s what happens when you allow this kind of assembly of information – that’s so much power. That’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super-steroids,” Binney said. “This is not compatible with any form of democracy at all.”

The feds share information gathered without a warrant and direct the local police force to make an arrest. Using parallel construction, investigators then build their case using normal policing techniques, getting warrants for information they’ve already obtained. The process serves to hide the illegally gathered information, creating the illusion of a legitimate case.

“You use that data to substitute for the NSA data that was originally used to arrest them. And you substitute the parallel constructed data in the courtroom, which I’ve called perjury. They’re lying to the courts and they’re subverting our entire judicial process,” Binney said.

Human Rights Watch issued a report on parallel construction earlier this year, noting that the process subverts the Constitution and undermines “fundamental fairness.”

“The United States Constitution draws on lessons learned from the abuses of the British colonial era in placing firm restrictions on how the government can behave when it wants to prove someone has done something wrong. It establishes criteria for rights-respecting searches and seizures, requires the prosecution to turn over to the defense any evidence favorable to the accused, and demands that all trials and proceedings take place in accordance with ‘due process’—that is, fundamental fairness. However, parallel construction—when sustained through the end of proceedings—means defendants cannot learn about, and therefore cannot challenge, government actions that violate these or other rights.”

Even so, a lot of people simply shrug and parrot the tired, worn “I don’t have anything to hide” mantra. Ironically, a lot of “law and order” Americans will simply shrug off gross violations of the supreme law of the land – the Constitution – if it serves to put some criminals in jail. If you really care about “law and order, the fact that the government routinely ignores the fundamental legal framework intended to keep it in check should concern you – even if you don’t personally think you have anything to hide.

And the fact is you may well have something to hide. Human Rights Watch offered a poignant warning about what can happen if government agents can cobble together cases based on illegally gathered information obtained in secret.

“This impact is not limited to criminal defendants. If government agents can potentially create privacy-violating, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful programs or patterns of behavior in secret and without facing any negative consequences, the rights of every member of the public are in jeopardy. Taken to its worst logical conclusion, parallel construction risks creating a country in which people and communities are perpetually vulnerable to investigations based on prejudice, vast illegal operations, or official misconduct, but have no means of learning about these problems and holding agents to account.”

The secrecy inherent in parallel construction creates a two-way street. Not only do the feds share information with state and local police, data also flows the other direction. Local police gather data using technology often funded by the feds and then shares the information with massive federal databases. The process not only facilitates the prosecution of individuals based on secret information, it also allows secret surveillance programs to remain hidden. Oftentimes, prosecutors will even drop cases if defense attornies or judges start pushing them to reveal the source of information. Judges never have the opportunity to scrutinize surveillance technologies or practices because their use remains secret. Human Rights Watch Described how this can play out in practice.

“For example, if the government were to identify a suspect in a robbery by scrutinizing a store’s security video using a new but flawed facial recognition technology it does not want to reveal, it could send an informant to talk to the suspect and report what he said—then suggest in court records that this conversation was how the investigation began. Such possible uses of parallel construction are especially troubling in human rights terms because new technologies may be inaccurate (including, in the case of facial recognition software, for people of certain racial or ethnic groups) or raise new legal concerns. Unless judges are aware that such new technology has been used, they will not be able to assess whether the technology violates rights.”

In late 2013, the Washington Post reported that NSA is “gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cellphones around the world.” This includes location data on “tens of millions” of Americans each year – all swept up without a warrant.

Despite concerns, Congress has done nothing to rein in NSA spying. In January, Congress reauthorized the FISA Sec. 702. Before approving the six-year extension, the House voted to kill an amendment that would have overhauled the surveillance program and addressed some privacy concerns. Provisions in the amendment would have required agents to get warrants in most cases before hunting for and reading Americans’ emails and other messages that get swept up under the program.

Just one day after Trump signed the extension into law, news came out about the infamous FISA memo. This memo was available to members of the House Intelligence Committee prior to the vote to reauthorize FISA. None of this information was made available to Congress at large. Most telling, every single Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee voted to reauthorize Sec. 702, and in a heartwarming show of bipartisanship, six of the nine Democratic representatives on the committee joined their colleagues.

This is yet another indication we can’t count on Congress to limit its spy-programs.

But state action can take on parallel construction. A bill that just passed in Michigan would not only hinder federal surveillance by denying spy agencies material support or resources, it would also have the practical effect of blocking parallel construction. By barring state agencies from “participating with” federal warrantless surveillance, states can end parallel construction. Under the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, police would be legally blocked from using information passed down through these federal information sharing systems.

More states need to follow Michigan’s lead. If enough states begin to reject federal spying as a viable investigative tool, we can box them in and shut them down.

The Second Amendment Isn’t About Hunting or Self-Defense, But Revolution

After Orlando, some are calling for stricter gun laws, or even a repeal of the Second Amendment. But gun rights and liberty are inseparable.

By John Daniel Davidson

Last week, Rolling Stone published an article by David S. Cohen, a law professor who thinks the Second Amendment should be repealed. “The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact,” writes Cohen. “When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.”

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, Cohen reasons, “now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth—the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned.”

This isn’t the first time liberals have mused out loud about whether the Second Amendment is really necessary, or whether it really means individuals have a right to own guns. But tragedies like Orlando seem to revive all the old arguments. Not that commentators are very knowledgeable about the weapons they’d like to ban. An AR-15, for example, can’t fire 700 rounds per minute, nor can any guy who’s taken a shop class modify a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic in five minutes, as Michael Moore seems to think.

But even if an AR-15 only fires once every time you squeeze the trigger, even if it can’t be easily converted into an automatic, just taking the rifle for what it is, liberals want to know: who needs a gun like that? How many rounds do you need to be able to fire per minute to kill a deer, or ward off a burglar? Does anyone really need a 25-round magazine? Isn’t the only reason for such firepower to make killing people as efficient as possible? Isn’t this a weapon of war? Why would American civilians need to own weapons of war?

The Second Amendment Guarantees the Right of Revolution

Turns out, that’s precisely the right question to ask. The Second Amendment, after all, doesn’t recognize our right to hunt deer or protect ourselves from criminals. Owning guns certainly makes doing those things easier, but it’s not why the Founders bothered to codify gun rights. They were getting at something else—the right of revolution.

Simply put, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the means to overthrow the government in the event it becomes tyrannical.

Most gun control advocates scoff at this. Indeed, it’s an argument that even some conservatives are hesitant to make. How could the people, armed with rifles and 

pistols, overthrow the government? On its face, it seems absurd.

More on that in a minute. But first, consider that the Second Amendment is unique among the amendments enumerated in the Bill of Rights because it contains a kind of explanatory preamble: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Edward J. Erler, a political science professor at California State University, San Bernardino, and an expert on the Second Amendment, has argued that the right of revolution is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed”—not every power, only “just powers,” which the people delegate to a government that is by definition limited to the purposes for which it was established, “the Safety and Happiness” of the people. Furthermore, the Declaration states that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Erler says this is what has come to be known as the right of revolution,

an essential ingredient of the social compact and a right which is always reserved to the people. The people can never cede or delegate this ultimate expression of sovereign power. Thus, in a very important sense, the right of revolution (or even its threat) is the right that guarantees every other right. And if the people have this right as an indefeasible aspect of their sovereignty, then, by necessity, the people also have a right to the means to revolution. Only an armed people are a sovereign people, and only an armed people are a free people—the people are indeed a militia.

In recent years an argument has become popular on the American Left that the Second Amendment means only that a “well regulated militia” has the right to bear arms, not individuals. The idea is that, say, the State of Texas can form a militia and arm it accordingly, but individual Texans have no inherent right to the private ownership of firearms.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court repudiated this idea in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority and quoted Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which recognizes “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” Scalia insisted that the Second Amendment acknowledges rights that predate the Constitution, such as the right of revolution.

But Erler argues that Scalia “was wrong to imply that Second Amendment rights were codified from the common law—they were, in fact, ‘natural rights,’ deriving their status from the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.’… Like the right to revolution, the right to self-defense or self-preservation can never be ceded to government.”

In Case of Civil War, Americans Need to be Armed

So what does this mean in practice? Are we to conclude that the Founders imagined a day when civilians armed with AR-15s and Glocks might one day march on Washington DC if the government ever became tyrannical? If the Second Amendment guarantees our right to the means of revolution, does that mean civilians should also be allowed to own tanks and artillery?

Not quite. The Founders thought standing armies were a threat to liberty, which means they surely would have thought that standing private armies constituted the same threat. Self-preservation and self-defense might be natural right, but even in Heller the Supreme Court indicated that there could be reasonable limitations on gun ownership.

To answer the scoffers on the Left, though, imagine what an American revolution—the exercise of first principles—might look like in the twenty-first century. The government, or a branch of it (most likely the executive) becomes destructive to the ends for which it was established. It tyrannizes the people, takes their property, deprives them of their rights, destroys their lives. A revolution, or an abolishment of that government, would likely not be a civilian undertaking but a military one. Working in conjunction with other branches of the federal government and perhaps some state governments, the military would effect a coup d’état.

It would likely be a kind of civil war, and civilians would likely be caught up in it at some point. Perhaps they would form local militias to defend their homes and businesses. Perhaps they would volunteer their services to military commanders or state police forces. Perhaps they would simply want to ensure the safety of their families.

To do any of that, they would need to be armed. Just as the Founders envisioned.

Freedom

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion” 

- Albert Camus

The Edge

“So it was always at night, like a werewolf, that I would take the thing out for an honest run down the coast. I would start in Golden Gate Park, thinking only to run a few long curves to clear my head….but in a matter of minutes I’d be out at the beach with the sound of the engine in my ears, the surf booming up on the sea wall and a fine empty road stretching all the way down to Santa Cruz…not even a gas station in the whole seventy miles; the only public light along the way is an all-night diner down around Rockaway Beach.

There was no helmet on those nights, no speed limit, and no cooling it down on the curves. The momentary freedom of the park was like the one unlucky drink that shoves a wavering alcoholic off the wagon. I would come out of the park near the soccer field and pause for a moment at the stop sign, wondering if I knew anyone parked out there on the midnight humping strip.

Then into first gear, forgetting the cars and letting the beast wind out…thirty-five, forty-five…then into second and wailing through the light at Lincoln Way, not worried about green or red signals, but only some other werewolf loony who might be pulling out, too slowly, to start his own run. Not many of these, and with three lanes on a wide curve, a bike coming hard has plenty of room to get around almost anything…then into third, the boomer gear, pushing seventy-five and the beginning of a windscram in the ears, a pressure on the eyeballs like diving into water off a high board.

Bent forward, far back on the seat, and a rigid grip on the handlebars as the bike starts jumping and wavering in the wind. Taillights far up ahead coming closer, faster, and suddenly–zaaappp–going past and leaning down for a curve near the zoo, where the road swings out to sea.

The dunes are flatter here, and on windy days sand blows across the highway, piling up in thick drifts as deadly as any oil-slick–instant loss of control, a crashing, cartwheeeling slide and maybe one of those two-inch notices in the paper the next day: “An unidentified motorcyclist was killed last night when he failed to negotiate a turn on Highway 1.”

Indeed…but no sand this time, so the lever goes up into fourth, and now there’s no sound except wind. Screw it all the way over, reach through the handlebars to raise the headlight beam, the needles leans down on a hundred and wind-burned eyeballs strain to see down the centerline, trying to provide a margin for reflexes.

But with the throttle screwed on there is only the barest margin, and nor room at all for mistakes. It has to be done right…and that’s when the strange music starts, when you stretch your luck so far that fear becomes exhilaration and vibrates along your arms. You can barely see at a hundred; the tears blow back so fast that they vaporize before they get to your ears. The only sounds are wind a dull roar floating back from the mufflers. You watch the white line and try to lean with it…huwling through a turn to the right, then to the left and down the long hill to Pacifica…letting off now, watching for cops, but only until the next dark stretch and another few seconds on the edge…

The Edge…There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are ones who have gone over. The others–the living–are those who who pushed their control as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later.”

- Hunter S Thompson

Corripiendi sunt inquieti, oppressi liberandi

“The turbulent have to be corrected, the oppressed to be liberated."

Saint Augustine of Hippo (/ɔːˈɡʌstɪn/; 13 November 354 – 28 August 430) was an early North African Christian theologian and philosopher whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity and Western philosophy.

Augustine asserted that Christians should be pacifists as a personal, philosophical stance. However, peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defence of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority. While not breaking down the conditions necessary for war to be just, Augustine coined the phrase in his work The City of God. In essence, the pursuit of peace must include the option of fighting for its long-term preservation. Such a war could not be pre-emptive, but defensive, to restore peace. Thomas Aquinas, centuries later, used the authority of Augustine's arguments in an attempt to define the conditions under which a war could be just.

He rejected homicidal attitudes, quoting part of prophecy, namely "Slay them not, lest they should at last forget Thy law".

He wrote that God "did not intend that this rational creature, who was made in his image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation – not man over man, but man over the beasts". Thus he wrote that righteous men in primitive times were made shepherds of cattle, not kings over men.

St. Augustine’s ideas towards the nature and morality of the state, which holds that far from being the positive good it was often assumed to be, it was in fact a necessary evil and in terms of morality the so called great emperors’ of the earth were in fact not much better than a common pirate, the difference between the two lied not in any real moral difference, but rather in the size of their respective forces.

By viewing the dominion of man over man as not a result of the natural order God intended as well as viewing the state to be a gang of robbers writ large and seeing war as inherently problematic and difficult to justify he laid down the groundwork that eventually became the classical liberal, libertarian and even anarchist movements.

Hundreds killed: American mass shootings in context

Bloody Island Massacre - May 15, 1850: 

Nathaniel Lyonand his U.S. Army detachment of cavalry killed 100 Pomo people on Bo-no-po-ti island near Clear Lake, (Lake Co., California).


Bear River Massacre - January 1863: 

A daybreak raid carried out by U.S. soldiers on a winter village of the Northwest Band of Shoshone, killed as many as 250 men, women and children.


Camp Grant Massacre - April 30, 1871: 

Led by the ex-Mayor of Tucson, William Oury, eight Americans, 48 Mexicans and more than 100 allied Pimaattacked Apache men, women and children at Camp Grant, Arizona Territory killing 144, with 1 survivor at scene and 29 children sold to slavery. All but eight of the dead were Apache women or children.


Battle of the Big Hole - August 8, 1877: 

US troops under Colonel John Gibbonattacked a Nez Percevillage at Big Hole, in Montana Territory. They killed 89 men, women and children before being repulsed by the Indians.


Wounded Knee - December 29, 1890: 

More than 150 Lakota men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300.


Mỹ Lai Massacre - March 16, 1968: 

U.S. Army soldiers killed 504 unarmed Vietnamese civilians in South Vietnam. Victims included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated.

Ike

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower / April 16, 1953



"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower / January 20, 1961

The South is being vilified in the civil war discussion

by Martin Kelly

Updated September 13, 2017 

The U.S. Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865 and led to over 618,000 casualties. Its causes can be traced back to tensions that formed early in the nation's history. While the issue of slavery was at the heart of the division between North and South, a complex array of issues led to the South's secession and the "War Between the States."

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIFFERENCES

When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable.

This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. At the same time, the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor such as slaves. The southern economy became a one-crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery.

Though it was often supported throughout the social and economic classes, not every Southerner owned slaves. The population of the South was around 6 million in 1850 and only about 350,000 were slave owners. This included many of the wealthiest families, a number of whom owned large plantations.

In contrast, industry ruled the economy of the North and less emphasis was on agriculture, though even that was more diverse. Many northern industries were purchasing the South's raw cotton and turning it into finished goods.

The North saw a population boom as industrialization took over as well.

The birth rate was greater than in the South and it was a great time for immigration. It's said that seven of eight immigrants settled in the North and many of their traditional beliefs looked negatively on slavery.

This disparity between the two regions of the country set up a major difference in economic attitudes.

The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. The South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order. On both sides, economics influenced people's political views.

STATES VS. FEDERAL RIGHTS

Since the time of the American Revolution, two camps emerged when it came to the role of government. Some people argued for greater rights for the states and others argued that the federal government needed to have more control.

The first organized government in the U.S. after the Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the U.S. Constitution.

Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states 

to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts.

This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun—who resigned as Vice President to represent South Carolina in the Senate—fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and many of the southern states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards thoughts of secession.

SLAVE AND NON-SLAVE STATES

As America began to expand—first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War—the question arose of whether new states would be slave or free. An attempt was made to ensure that equal numbers of free and slave states were admitted to the Union, but over time this proved difficult.

The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820. This established a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase north of the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes, with the exception of Missouri. 

During the Mexican War, the debate began about what would happen with the new territories the U.S. expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. This was shot down to much debate.

The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states. It was designed to protect both northern and southern interests. When California was admitted as a free state, one of the provisions was the Fugitive Slave Act. This held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states. 

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was another issue that further increased tensions. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians, called "Border Ruffians," began to pour into the state in an attempt to force it toward slavery. 

Problems came to a head with a violent clash at Lawrence, Kansas, causing it to become known as "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the Senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beaten over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT

Increasingly, Northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. Many in the North came to view slavery as not just socially unjust, but morally wrong.

The abolitionists came with a variety of viewpoints. Those such William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass wanted immediate freedom for all slaves. A group that included Theodore Weld and Arthur Tappan advocated for emancipating slaves slowly.

Still others, including Abraham Lincoln, simply hoped to keep slavery from expanding.

A number of events helped fuel the cause for abolition in the 1850s. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and that popular novel opened many eyes to the reality of slavery. The Dred Scott Case brought the issue of a slave's rights, freedom, and citizenship to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, some abolitionists took a less peaceful route to fighting slavery. John Brown and his family fought on the anti-slavery side of "Bleeding Kansas." They were responsible for the Pottawatomie Massacre in which they killed five settlers who were pro-slavery.  Yet, Brown's best-known fight would be his last when the group attacked Harper's Ferry in 1859, a crime for which he would hang.

THE ELECTION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

The politics of the day were as stormy as the anti-slavery campaigns. All of the issues of the young nation were dividing the political parties and reshaping the established two-party system of Whigs and Democrats. 

The Democratic party was divided between factions in the North and South. At the same time, the conflicts surrounding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 transformed the Whig party into the Republican party (established in 1854). In the North, this new party was seen as both anti-slavery and for the advancement of the American economy. This included the support of industry and encouraging homesteading while advancing educational opportunities. In the South, Republicans were seen as little more than divisive.

The presidential election of 1860 would be the deciding point for the Union. Abraham 

Lincoln represented the new Republican party and Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat, was seen as his biggest rival. The Southern Democrats put John C. Breckenridge on the ballot. John C. Bell represented the Constitutional Union Party, a group of conservative Whigs hoping to avoid secession.

The country's divisions were clear on election day. Lincoln won the North, Breckenridge the South, and Bell the border states. Douglas won only Missouri and a portion of New Jersey. It was enough for Lincoln to win the popular vote as well as 180 electoral votes.

Even though things were already near a boiling point after Lincoln was elected South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession" on December 24, 1860. They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. 

President Buchanan's administration did little to quell the tension or stop what would become known as "Secession Winter." Between election day and Lincoln's inauguration in March, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. 

In the process, the South took control of federal installations, including forts in the region which would give them a foundation for war. One of the most shocking events occurred when one-quarter of the nation's army surrendered in Texas under the command of General David E. Twigg. Not a single shot was fired in that exchange, but the stage was set for the bloodiest war in American history.