Constitution Party - California

A friend sent me a link to an interesting video:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_pe...

We've been discussing it via e-mail, but I'd like to move the discussion onto this web forum.

I need to learn more about the relevant subjects, but here are my thoughts at this point in time. Please comment.

> However we have to have what everyone lovingly refers to as an exit
> strategy. It's not really an exit strategy per SE. It's really a,
> I'm going to make you less unhappy that we have bombed you into a
> 3rd world country status.

First, the US should clarify what we mean when we say "war":

1. I define war as government-sanctioned mass murder and destruction of property.

2. By necessity, war must total; lesser efforts only result in prolonged suffering for everyone. War must be quick and lethal.

3. We must accept that there will be suffering and death on all sides; this is yet another reason why war should be avoided.

4. When we declare war, we are saying to the enemy and to the world, "Here we come; you can stand up and fight, you can try to run, or you can surrender. If you fight, we will capture or kill you. If you run, we will hunt you down and capture or kill you. If you surrender, we will give you quarter; but we reserve the right to put you on trial for any crimes you may have committed before or during the war. In any case, we won't stop shooting until our declaration of war is finished. We recommend that any and all persons who do not wish to be caught up in this war immediate distance themselves from our enemies."

5. As a people of faith, we must accept that we will be held accountable by God for declaring and/or making war. We pray that those innocents who are injured, disabled, or killed will be compensated by God.

Next, the US must clarify what a declaration of war contains:

1. A clear definition of who the enemy is, and why.

2. Clear conditions for preventing or ending the war.

3. Authorization amounts and a schedule of payments for the Treasurer to release funds to the President for making war.

4. Authorization for our President to spend funds, to raise a volunteer army, and otherwise to prepare for war. (I view conscription as slavery; it deprives a person of their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property.)

5. A date for commencement of military operations, should the conditions for preventing war not be met or the declaration of war not be withdrawn.

6. Authorization for our President and our military forces to use any and all means necessary to prosecute the war, and indemnifying them of criminal and civil liability subject to some bounds that will need to be very carefully worded, if and when the date for commencement of military operations is reached.

If, after the US has done the above, some nation still chooses to provoke us to war, I suggest:

1. If and when, and *only* if and when, the *American people*, not the President, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, nor anyone else, have decided that diplomacy has failed, then the US Congress should prepare a declaration of war and make extraordinary efforts to communicate it to everyone on the planet, especially those defined therein as an enemy -- e.g. translate the declaration into hundreds of languages, submit copies to the governments of all nations, submit copies to all the news channels, post it on thousands of web sites, air-drop copies on the enemy, etc..

2. The President begins preparing for war.

3. If the conditions for preventing or ending war are not met by the date for commencement of military operations, then the President makes war.

4. Once the conditions for ending the war have been met, the prisoners are tried, punished, and/or released, and our army returns home (to be disbanded).

5. The people in the former enemy nation are free, and responsible for, rebuilding their country as they see fit.

6. The world is free to send in all the humanitarian and economic aid they want, but anyone who meddles there against our interests risks become our new enemy.

> Now you may disagree that we may ever need to go to war.

History has proven that war is sometimes necessary.

> Unfortunately, a lot of [the Founding Fathers] process was
> isolationism, after winning freedom from England.

I say that is disinformation. Please read the Federalist Papers or other writings of the Founding Fathers and decide for yourself.

> We just may have to modify how [the Constitution] is enacted inside
> and outside of our country.

The Constitution of the United States [1], Article VI, states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; ...

As I understand it:

1. The Constitution, (constitutionally-valid) Federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law within the US. (Note that treaties can trump the Constitution; this can and does cause problems.)

2. Outside the US, treaties are law.

> Do you agree with Guantanamo being closed?

As there is no current declaration of war by the US against any other nation, I think *all* US military installations on foreign soil should be closed and *all* US military personnel on foreign soil should return home.

> A lot of people were incensed about the supposed torture that went on.

Torture is not acceptable. If we want our country to stand for integrity, then we must demand that our government not use "evil" means to achieve "good" ends.

> ... it's pretty reasonable to assume that the reason we haven't had
> another 9/11 or similar catastrophe is because of our War On Terror
> (I hate this misnomer), and all of the threats that are associated
> with our W.O.T.

Perhaps, but building and operating a global police state seems to have an ever-increasing cost. At some point (already past?), we won't be able to afford it. Then what? A bankrupt and collapsed USA with 5+ billion people around the world who hate us?

> It's not fool proof, but honestly, the world is way to complicated to
> have an exact step by step directive. We are to chaotic.

I agree than human beings have a tendency for self-destruction. My hope is that if enough people try their best to live their lives according to the laws of God, and limit their governments accordingly, we can all receive His blessings.

> What do you think might be better (again not advocating): A world
> government controlled by the anti American/Anti Jew UN? A world
> government controlled by the US? A world government controlled by
> USSR (and yes they are definitely trying to come back as a super
> power as well as garner a world government!)? Or an world government
> controlled by Fundamental Islamists?

The fundamental problem has always been, and will always be, concentration of power. The Founding Fathers felt that a community of many sovereign nations living in mutual respect and profiting from fair trade is the proper and best solution. That's what I want.

David

[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html