I Demand a Plan!
by Rick Osmon
I was recently drawn into an online discussion about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that it was intended to protect the people, the various States, and the United States from domestic tyrants as well as foreign invaders as well as personal, family, and property protection for the individual. The “discussion” morphed into a debate with rather stereotypical “for and against” and stereotypical name calling (for=me, Rhonda, and Max, and against=Sheeple, Maddag, and Charlie. Of course, those are not their full names).
The thread was started by a very long time friend of mine (since high school), Max. His original post was this (supposed) quote from one of the Founding Fathers.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Rhonda: True that!
Maddog: I really do not think we have to worry about that anymore. We are no longer fighting the kings men
Rhonda: It kinda feels like we are to me.
Rick Osmon: http://youtu.be/bFALonjLay0
For more information, go to: www.rampantinjustice.com
Charles: This quote although attributed to T. Jefferson by some cannot be found in any of his writtings [sic]. Why use false quotes from dead people to make your point? It just negates your veracity.
Charles: When this country was new and shiny the idea of a milita [sic] was to protect our country from outside forces that wanted to destroy it. We did not have a standing army at the time and it was necessary for national defense.
Rhonda: Perhaps Thomas Jefferson did not make this statement. But, the gist of it holds true.
Max: I am not aware that this is a false quote. I do feel strongly that guns in the hands of responsible people promotes the my [sic] safety and the people around me.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello
This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson’s three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft.
[RO: So Jefferson wrote the sentiment three times for the same document. Numerous other Jefferson quotations show that Jefferson believed that no matter how carefully a constitution could be written, some nefarious would be dictator would find a way around it.]
[Writing to William Smith (1755-1816), John Adams’ secretary and future son-in-law, Thomas Jefferson seemed to welcome Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts: “god forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.” Jefferson was confident that rather than repression, the “remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. – Note that Jefferson wrote “god” without capitalization, but wrote “Liberty” as capitalized. Also note that Jefferson was no fan of John Adams or the policies Adams carried out at the time.
[Thomas Jefferson’s December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America.
Note: Jefferson was traveling as a diplomat throughout Italy and France during the entire process of the writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so there was a lag in correspondence that could exceed a couple months and was never less than a month each way. Further, the labeling of the document by the Library of Congress as a “ Federal Constitution” would likely have raised Jefferson’s hackles. It is a Constitution of the United States that delineates, limits, and defines the powers and duties of the government of the United States, with the rights of the “various States” and of the people protected in fairly specific terms. It did not establish a “federal” government, rather a closely held union of individual sovereign States.
Rick Osmon: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” – Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
[James Madison was the main author of the 2nd Amendment and the date of the letter, definitely penned by Jefferson, is during the preliminary stages of drafting of the US Constitution and Jefferson knew Madison would be part of that process. -RO ]
Rhonda: The price if [sic] freedom is eternal vigilance.
Rick Osmon: The Civilian Marksmanship Program was established by Congress in 1903 “in order to help fulfill the requirements” in connection with the 2nd amendment. It was administered by the US Army until 1996. During that time, CMP “redistributed” nearly 17 Million firearms, mostly semi-automatic battle rifles, to the US civilian population or, those it didn’t want were sold or “gifted” overseas. All of a sudden, the 2A doesn’t mean what it did for 209 years, we who are gun enthusiasts are “making up our own history” (and are evil), and the rest of the world can have guns that we already paid for (at least) once. We did indeed have a standing army after 1795 (The League of the United States, organized by “Mad” Anthony Wayne at the insistence of George Washington after the Whiskey Rebellion). So 201 of the 209 years between the ratification and Slick Willy getting his way were side by side standing army and civilian militia. And even today you can still buy an M1 Carbine (and 30 round mags) from the CMP as well as M1 Gerands, Enfields, .22 training rifles, air rifles, and even some pistols.
Rhonda: You are awesome Rick. Thanks for the video and info.
Charles:The standing army that Anthony Wayne commanded was 3,861 men. Hardly enough to defend the republic from enemies. The militia were the backbone of the American army in those days. Washington called out the militia during the Whiskey rebellion in order to force tax evaders to pay up. Hardly a benevolent government, in fact, if President Obama called out the military against citizens of this country we all know what he would be called. George Washington the “Father” of our nation had no problem with using the militia against US citizens who refused to pay a tax.
Perhaps if we got rid of some of our bloated military and went back to a militia where able bodied people were compelled to serve then the 2nd Amendment would make sense as written. Otherwise I personally don’t see a need for civilian to own military style weapons. I have hunted and never needed 30 rounds to take down a deer. In fact I never fired more than once at any one animal. I am a gun owner and see no reason why we as a nation cannot have a discussion about reasonable ways to limit access to weapons capable of mass murder of the scale that we have seen in the last few years.
[The standing army of the US today is about 1.4 million. Of those, about 400,000 are actual combat troops. The PRC has a standing army of over 200 million troops, of which some 60 million are actual combat troops. According to the PRC publication (CIA Translation)“Unrestricted Warfare”, terror attacks, cyber attacks, economic manipulation, and psychological warfare are all fair game in taking over the United States. All those tactics lead up to an all out invasion under their published plan. Of the 400,000 US combat troops, about 20,000 are “special operators”. What does that mean? They are Us Navy Seals, Us Army Special Forces, US Air Force Special Operations, and USMC RECON. They have an average age of about 36 (rather than the average age of 19 years, 3 months among the rest of the combat troops) and as we all know, reaching old age in that profession means you never ever fought fair. Even so, they could not possibly turn back an invasion force of say 30,000,000 soldiers, not without well armed citizen militia numbering 80,000,000. http://tinyurl.com/bkn6pqs]
Rick Osmon: The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, never did. It had everything to do with guaranteeing that no person could transcend the other parts of the Constitution. However, when an executive has the entire Congress over the barrel, it is only the States (10th Amendment) and the people (2nd AND 10th) who can defend the Constitution. The last 3 administrations have screwed the 4th and 5th, tried the 1st to distraction, and ignored the 10th at every request. None have let a good crisis go to waste. Now that pesky 2nd is still in the way of total autonomy. One of two things will happen in the next few months: Either the 2nd Amendment is gutted, or the national debt goes into default.
The gov’t, as of last Tuesday, is operating off of Max’s pension and my social security. This situation will be used by Obama as a bargaining chip when the right side of the aisle puts up a fight about 2A or the debt ceiling. One will lose. Either the people lose the only thing holding back total intrusion by big government or the government defaults on $16,700,000,000,000 in loans [and another $100 Trillion in unfunded commitments]. The country and its form of government are dead if that happens and the Occupiers and far left of the aisle get their way. If you think I’m full of it, look up “Agenda 21” and the UN Small Arms Treaty.
Rick Osmon: Oh, and there has never, ever been a “benevolent government”, here or anywhere, which is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Rhonda: And the constitution and the bill of rights.
Rick Osmon: Yeah, those work well for unarmed deer.
Rhonda: @[Sheeple] at least.
Charles: I never said that hunting had anything to do with the 2nd amendment. It does however have everything to do with militias. The 2nd amendment was crafted to defend this country not because of some undefined, future tyrannical government dreamed up by paranoid delusional OWG’s. Get a grip, you are full of it.
[It was both. See Jefferson’s, Madison’s, Adam’s, and even Washington’s writings]
Sheeple: I’m sorry I can’t do this, as, as much as I would love to call you all crazy and paranoid, maybe ya’all smoke to much refer madness that makes you think the way you do, but ya’all have to to come to grips with the reality that for the past 200 and some odd years no one has or wants to take away a persons right to bare arms. But you guys can keep screaming it from the roof tops so that others will join you in your fear campaign, gotta run, need to take a shit which is more important than listening to all of your guys crap.
Rick Osmon I have a firm grip and I intend to keep that grip. I don’t own any Bushmasters, SKS’s, or even Glocks. I don’t own or want any fully automatic firearms. Nor do I have a desire to rush out and buy any. I do, however, have more than one firearm that was sold through the CMP. What I understand, though, is the intent of James Monroe, the author of the 2A. So does the Supreme Court, which has handed down 7 separate decisions in the matter. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. The court did not distinguish the nature of the firearm from the Right to have it or have it outside the home.
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to “organizing”, “disciplining”, and “training” the militia, but also to “arming” the militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production. Congress did subsequently pass “[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines” on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection. Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia’s poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C. and the White House being burned down in 1814. This was well after Wayne was poisoned, Burr was was in self exile, and James Wilkinson was still playing both sides against the middle with Spain.
Now, we can’t have M4’s, but we can give them to the armed forces of Yemen and to Lybian rebels.
Sheeple: Tell it to the families of the 26 people killed senselessly by an assault weapon that should not exist outside of the hands of the military or law enforcement!!!! I’m not sorry to say once again, nobody wants to take away your second Amm., make the stupidity stop!!!!!
[Those victims in Newtown were killed by a person using a tool. If the person had had an axe, the children would still be dead and no one would be trying to outlaw axes. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. Nobody outlawed fertilizer. The September 11th hijackers used utility knives and now we can’t take nail clippers on a plane, but a five year old can still buy a utility knife.]
Rick Osmon: And how much does a guy on prescription psychotropic drugs care whether it’s against the law? Nothing, absolutely nothing in the presidents proposals would prevent that from happening again. Nor is it really intended to address that part of the problem – or even is related to it. Feinstein (who carries a gun) wants us to all turn ours in (and has said so). So when you say “nobody wants to take your second Amm…”, you are mistaken. It is her bill that is being touted as the end all do all. The number of gun homicides in Chicago, where “assault weapons” are already illegal, exceeded 400 in 2012 and are on the way to surpassing that number this year.
While in Switzerland, where nearly every head of household is either active duty or ready reserve and has a real assault rifle (and maybe a rocket launcher or two) in the house, there is virtually zero violent crime. And near zero firearms accidents, too.
Rhonda: The rifle was not an assault weapon. It was a .223, not a large enough caliber to hunt deer legally in most states. And it was a semi-automatic, not full auto. The way the rifle stock looked was why the media termed it ‘assault’.
Rick Osmon: True, Rhonda, that’s why I made the distinction on the Swiss “real” assault rifles. For the US, only the M-16 and M-4 are true assault rifles. And is only by dicta, not by legal definition, that certain classes of firearms are restricted. Probably the most effective weapon for home defense is one we can’t own – a sawed off shotgun.
And let’s look at just how effectively draconian Mexican gun laws have stemmed gun violence.
Rhonda: Now there’s a ‘benevolent’ government.
Rhonda: I used to hunt in an eastern state and only needed a .22 and a 12 gauge.
Rhonda: I don’t usually speak up about issues, but I am getting scared with our government.
Sheeple: I give up,you guys win the stupid game! Shucks, I hate that I never win that game, Oh watch out for the boogie man and the tooth fairy instead of your tooth they might take your guns. Good luck with living in fear.
Rick Osmon http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0
Choose Your Own Crime Stats
Crime stats they’d rather you not hear. https://www.facebook.com/AmidstTheNoise …
Rick Osmon: Let’s see, [Sheeple]. You want nobody, not even law abiding citizens, to have a gun that can actually hurt somebody, but we’re the ones living in fear? It is the government that is living in fear. And I’m absolutely sure that Thomas Jefferson would think that is a good thing. You see, one of Jefferson’s best friends and colleagues ever, Merriwether Lewis, was killed by an evil .69 caliber flintlock pistol. Lewis shot himself, though, twice. Yeah, that’s the official version, committed suicide by two shots from a flintlock.
Sounds a whole lot like Vince Foster…
Sheeple: New day,New game…….. Let’s see Rick,maybe today aaas
Sheeple: This is for the kids in the back of the class that can not hear me or anyone in the front of the class that may not be able to read the board, NO ONE , NOT THE GOVERNMENT OR THIS PRESIDEDNT [sic] ARE TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!! I fear hillbillies with the with the mental awareness for dueling banjos, thinking it’s the National Anthem, I fear religious zealots, I fear what the education system has produced when what people read they don’t comprehend, I fear people, large groups of people that listen to Rush Limbaugh for their news, I fear people that are living in the 1700’s because,if you don’t realize it, the times have changed!!! Because you are such a scholar Rick, a product of our education system, you must have sat in the front of the class, you should know a famous Quote from a fairly famous person, ” the only thing to fear is fear itself”. Oh by the way Rick, I too am a gun owner, for protection only.
[Sounds like the psyops are working really well on you, Sheeple. And if Senator Feinstein has her way, you will no longer be able to protect yourself using a gun. But she will.]
Rick Osmon: I’m glad you chose an FDR quote [even if you did get it wrong]. And that one is particularly poignant. It comes from his first inaugural speech. It is almost as original as the speech he gave after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the “Day that will live in infamy” speech. So why didn’t the Japanese choose to invade the west coast? We certainly didn’t have a fleet to stop them. We didn’t have much of anything militarily to stop them. They chose not to invade because they knew the civilians would stop them. But civilians without military grade weapons are a mere nuisance to be swept aside and dumped into mass graves or forced into slave labor, as the Japanese did in Korea, China, Philippine Islands, Burma, and everywhere they were able to subjugate a population.
But back to FDR: He still holds the record for the number of Executive Orders issued. Understandable to some degree since he had a war going on in the last of his four terms. But let’s look at his first week in office. The banks were a mess and financial panic was rampant. He ordered that civilians / citizens could no longer have gold. All the gold, silver, and bearer certificates backed by those metals were to be turned in, exchanged for paper borrowed from the Federal Reserve (a cabal of privately held banks, not a government entity). That was in 1933. By 1937, the Fed had gleaned all the gold they thought they could from the American public. It quintupled their reserve. The banks then turned around and used the fractional reserve system to loan up to 97.4 times as much to anybody who wanted large sums, like Nazi Germany. And Japan. And Mexico. And the US. And Britain. And the Soviet Union. After it was all said and done, the only country in the conflict that actually had a decent gold reserve was Germany.
[But that German reserve was moved to France and the US after the war to keep it out of the hands of the Soviets. Now Germany wants it all back. All seven hundred tons. Incidentally, the bulk of the German gold has been held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City. In other words, it was evacuated from Germany by the Allied military occupation forces under the Marshall Plan, transported to NYC and Paris on military transports, and handed to private banks, who then used it to back loans under their fractional reserve system. – included after the fact / after the chat, to relate to later reference]
Now, as too my education and qualifications. I attended the Air Force Academy. I have a degree in laser and electro optics technology. I worked in that field for the US Navy for fifteen years. Working in the
industrial side, I built and tested laser guidance systems that went into a dozen different aircraft. I later worked with the United States Special Operations Command as the assistant Program Manager for Special Operations Peculiar Modifications Program for the night vision, lasers, illuminators and related accessories that can be attached to an M-4 Carbine. I also developed a laser aiming sight that allows day or night delivery of a 40 mm grenade launched from an M203 or M203A grenade launcher, putting that into a fifty five gallon drum at 300 meters – in the dark. I know the M-4 Carbine like few others on the planet. It is an assault rifle. It has select fire. It mounts a grenade launcher, a slung under short barrel shotgun, a bayonet, and a whole family of audio suppressors. And when you use the gizmos I helped to develop, you have to work at missing your target. It is the preferred weapon for most special operations folks, including Yemeni paramilitary police, the King’s Guard in Jordan, and even many in the British Special Airborne Squadrons. All that comes with a price in heavy maintenance costs and frequent catastrophic failures when used predominantly in full auto.
I also worked test and evaluation programs for other weapons and technologies, including proposal evaluations for the Joint Small Arms Program. Yes, I worked on a team that made technical and ergonomic recommendations for all branches of military as well as some paramilitary for other agencies. And just so you know, test and evaluation of a small arms competitive sample includes firing at least thirty thousand rounds through that sample.
I probably worked with some members of the team that entered bin Ladin’s compound.
So you see, I know a thing or two about what constitutes an “assault weapon”. An AR is a very long way from a military assault rifle.
We are already prohibited from having real assault weapons. That is, we the people. However, the Federal Reserve has quite a few. So do Pfizer, Monsanto, Tennessee Valley Authority, Coast Guard, New York Port Authority, and even the National Park Service. The Border Patrol does not. What is wrong with this picture?
Sheeple stopped talking after that. But I’m far from done.
So what is the definition of “federal”?
Pertaining to a league or treaty; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, especially between nations
A lot of people have been conditioned to believe that federal law trumps state or local law. The word “federal” does not appear in the Constitution of the United States of America. This definition would imply, and Constitution states specifically in the 10th Amendment, that each of the various States is a sovereign nation and government unto itself. Some Michigan lawmakers are ready to put this to the test, crafting a law designed to effectively bypass any national ban on sales either semi-automatic rifles or magazines as long as those products are made and sold only in Michigan. I think it will stick. And I am prepared to say why I think It will stick. My reasoning involves the case of Tommy Chong. Yeah, that Tommy Chong.
The Feds (DoJ) went after Tommy’s company simply because the company made bongs. Incidentally, as long as the company didn’t sell outside California, the DoJ could not apply the laws that stem from interstate commerce provisions within the Constitution (the infamous “Commerce Clause”). Well, the Feds set up a sting in which the fed operatives cajoled one of Tommy’s salespeople into shipping interstate. Only then did the feds swoop in and raid the company, although they certainly had been working up the plan for more than a year. Well, Tommy served 6 months in federal prison and is now touring with a whole new batch of stand up comedy material. So what is the lesson to be learned? Don’t give the feds a reason. That may not mean you can’t manufacture, own, sell, or transport guns. Just Don’t Cross State Lines. Don’t let your business, guns or otherwise, fall in that crack the DoJ has carved out of the commerce clause. This is where the fallout of the Colorado and Washington pot laws are going to shine a bright light on the 9th and 10th Amendments, the same references cited in the Michigan law.
The test could go even further. If the Michigan law stands in the face of federal law, then we can get into an area that has not yet been tested: What if two States decide to enact a reciprocity law where you can sell your guns, Michigan, in Indiana if Hoosiers can sell theirs in Michigan. Such an act would test the commerce clause to its limits if a federal ban is in place.
Illustration 2: Components of US money supply (currency, M1, M2, and M3) since 1959. In January 2007, the amount of “central bank money” was $750.5 billion while the amount of “commercial bank money” (in the M2 supply) was $6.33 trillion. M1 is currency plus demand deposits; M2 is M1 plus time deposits, savings deposits, and some money-market funds; and M3 is M2 plus large time deposits and other forms of money. The M3 data ends in 2006 because the federal reserve ceased reporting it.
However, I have a feeling that within 12 or 13 years, no one, foreign or domestic, is going to have to worry much about the feds. In that time, the Treasury will be so depleted and borrowing power of the United States so deteriorated that the feds won’t be able to buy a plane ticket. That is the normal lag time from the enactment of economic policies to the manifestation of long term real effects of those policies. By that time, no one will want to hold debt of the United States. The people who got us into this mess died a very long time ago, so there are many people to blame for this lasting so long, but we should really blame ourselves. We should have been more assertive with our Congress. It is they who hold the purse strings. However, for far too long they have just dumped the purse (and that’s everybody’s purse) on any whim they thought would buy a vote. And we didn’t do anything to stop them. Rather, too many of us saw “free money” or “free services” and gave no thought to what would be handed to future citizens. And it all goes back to that German Gold reserve.
As I said, the German Gold was used by the Federal Reserve Bank Of New York City to back loans under the fractional reserve system, even though that gold was not theirs. That is financial fraud on such a massive scale it is unimaginable. Now, the Fed will not have anything to back those outstanding portions of $16.2 Trillion dollars in loans made to the US Treasury over 75 years. And certainly, the US will not be able to meet its commitments on “entitlements”. In other words, the table holding up the shell game has collapsed. This is the makings of a perfect financial storm that could easily drive the world economy into the gutter.
The illustration at left shows that Fed loans far exceed the actual currency supply (green). What it doesn’t show is that even with the German gold, they were already way past what could be backed up with real assets.
As I’m writing this, President Obama is at the National Archives, standing directly in front of the enshrined Constitution of the United States describing how he plans to deal with the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Whatever rules he establishes to justify suspension of Habeus Corpus will be equally applicable to folks in Omaha, Orlando, and Oxnard.
Which folks? You folks!
The reasons cited will be the same that “Honest Abe” used between 1861 and 1865 (extending after the end of the “Civil War”), to “preserve the Union”. Well, nothing can destroy the Union as quickly or as efficiently as circumventing the Constitution. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and “indefinitely detained” newspaper editors and publishers who disagreed with his tactics, never bringing specific charges or allowing them trial, bond, or attorneys, thus violating the 1st, 4th, 5th Amendments and the Supreme Court findings in Marbury vs. Madison. But that’s ancient history, right? Not entirely. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization” by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.
The bill was introduced to the House as H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007, and passed on Oct 23, 2007. It was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007 as S-1959. The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,” which have provoked controversy from some quarters. The bill failed to become law during the 110th Congress, but Senator Joe Leiberman’s office was still pursuing its provisions well into 2008. Most of those provisions were incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This monster codifies “indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.” That includes you folks in Omaha. Obama and the Senate accomplished, for the time being, what Lincoln could not.
Now, let’s get back to that Chinese book, Unrestricted Warfare.
Weaknesses of the United States
The book argues that the primary weakness of the United Statesin military matters is that the US views revolution in military thought solely in terms of technology. The book further argues that to the US, military doctrine evolves because new technology allows new capabilities. As such, the book argues that the United Statesdoes not consider the wider picture of military strategy, which includes legal and economic factors. The book proceeds to argue that the United Statesis vulnerable to attack along these lines.
Alternative methods of attack
Reducing one’s opponent, the book notes, can be accomplished in a number of ways other than direct military confrontation. The book notes that these alternative methods “have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare, and they have already produced serious threats different from the past and in many directions for…national security.”
Lawfare, or political action through transnational or non-governmental organizations can effect a policy change that would be impossible otherwise. Because of the international nature of the modern world and activism, it is much easier for nation-states to affect policy in other nation-states through a proxy.
Owing to the interconnected nature of global economics, nations can inflict grievous harm on the economies of other nations without taking any offensive action.
[The two previous headings are consolidated in the organizations: Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund, the G5 and G 20, the Trilateral Commission, and others, all of whom have made deals amounting, effectively, to international laws and agreements, all without consulting any national body or even the UN. I’m pretty sure there would be grounds for grand jury on individuals who carry out these activities, except they nearly all work either within government or within “foundations, commissions, or think tanks” that are virtually unassailable from a criminal justice standpoint. They could, however, be construed as acts of war and possibly acts of high treason. ]
- See iWar
One of the better-known alternatives in this book is the idea of attacking networks. Networksare increasingly important in not only data exchange but also transportation, financial institutions, and communication. Attacks that disable networks can easily hamstring large areas of life that are dependent on them for coordination. One example of network warfare would be shutting down a network that supplies power. If there is a significant failure in the power grid caused by the attack, massive power outages could result, crippling industry, defense, medicine, and all other areas of life.
Another famous instance of Unrestricted Warfare policy is terrorism. Terrorismis used by a group to gain satisfaction for certain demands. Even if these demands are not satisfied, a terrorist attack can have vastly disproportionate effects on national welfare. One only has to look at the economic crisis that followed the terrorist attacks against the United States, or the extensive security measures put in place after those same attacks. Terrorism erodes a nation’s sense of security and well being, even if the direct effects of the attacks only concern a minute percentage of the population.
Defense against unrestricted warfare
The authors note that an old-fashioned mentality that considers military action the only offensive action is inadequate given the new range of threats. Instead, the authors advocate forming a “composite force in all aspects related to national interest. Moreover, given this type of composite force, it is also necessary to have this type of composite force to become the means which can be utilized for actual operations. This should be a “grand warfare method” which combines all of the dimensions and methods in the two major areas of military and non-military affairs so as to carry out warfare. This is opposite of the formula for warfare methods brought forth in past wars.”
I would argue that the best defense against unrestricted warfare is an unrestricted populace. That is also the best defense against more conventional aggression. Just ask the Swiss. It is clear that the government of the United States is its own worst enemy and is swiftly becoming a worse enemy to United States citizens than any other force on the planet while at the same time building a coalition of enemies against us. By trying to “protect” us, the government has had to turn the screws on the citizens, both for more wasted tax revenue and by deteriorating personal and state freedoms, the government of the United States has fulfilled and codified the very thing that al Qaeda intended: the stripping of our freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom from intrusion, security in our papers and effects (both business and personal), surety of protection from unjust accusations, right to face our accusers, and total erosion of personal sovereignty.
I demand a plan!
fuck your Asshole
Nice command of the English language.