Congress, We Don't Need No Stinking Congress!

I find the following video deeply distrubing. The Secretary of Defense thinks that Obama can act unilaterally, or with the approval of the United Nations, and can ignore Congress. Specifically Obama can institute a war with Syria without anyone's permission but his own-no congressional approval needed. 

Of course, it would be better if the United Nations approved. But that is not going to happen with regard to Syria-Russia and China would veto it. So instead, Obama can tell Nato to approve the war, and then claim that Nato's approval gives him the right to have a short victorious war. 

I do not think that Obama is reading the Russians and the Chinese correctly. This is a recipe for disaster. 

In any event, to declare war without congressional approval is an impreachable offense.

And if you want to see the movie clip that inspired my title, here it is. 

Snow Is Falling

In keeping with my recent theme of War, here is my favorite anti-war song. 

I Cannot Tell A Lie. I Did Cut It With My Little Hatchet.

Stacy and I are going through Early American history. I appreciate the curriculum we are using as it is less dogmatic than one would expect from conservative Christians. This curriculum is “Sonlight.”

Do we remember the stories, the hagiography (“a worshipful or idealizing biography”) we were told as children? How George Washington cut down his family's cherry tree? Do you remember his response? "I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet.'' An early biographer, Mason Weems, just invented the story. Nor did Washington throw a silver dollar one mile across the Potomac. 

Patrick Henry may not have said, "Give me liberty, or give me death."  It is possible, I would say even likely, that a biographer invented that catchy slogan. But my purpose here is not to rehash the lies we learned as Americans in school, no more true than Paul Bunyan, or John Henry "was a steel driving man." My purpose  is to ask the question: "Was the American Revolution justified in light of Romans 13?" 

 The French and Indian Wars were pivotal in the background of the American Revolution. The continental European rivalries were transplanted to the new world. In addition was the question of who would control the potentially fecund Ohio Valley? The French were allied with the Indians, who controlled this region. The "Americans" were still subject to the English Crown. England won the war. Since the Englishmen who lived in American colonies were the primary recipients of all this land, and protection from the Indians, it seemed reasonable and just that the colonies pay their fair share. The colonists did not agree. 

Remember what Romans 13 said? 

^6-7That's also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.

I do not look upon this as an absolute—yes, there are times that excess taxes are a cause for revolt. But it must be remembered that Paul’s advice here was to obey the Roman Empire. Rome was an almost absolute monarchy where the traditional Senate, while retaining some powers, was not in charge anymore. Yet Paul told us to pay our taxes.  

In the case of Rome, there was no representation, yet Paul expected his readers to pay their taxes. Were the taxes that England imposed outrageous? 

Adopting the policy that the colonies should pay a token proportion of the costs associated with defending them, Britain imposed a series of direct taxes followed by other laws intended to demonstrate British authority, all of which proved extremely unpopular in America despite the level of taxation being only 1/26 that paid by British taxpayers.  

What was the real unspoken reason for the Revolution? The Indians had land and the colonists want it: 

The British sought to maintain peaceful relations with those Indian tribes that had allied with the French, and keep them separated from the American frontiersmen. To this end, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains as this was designated an Indian Reserve. Disregarding the proclamation, some groups of settlers continued to move west and establish farms.

As John Wayne said, "We needed the land and the Indians were selfish." 

The slogan, “taxation without representation is tyranny,” was just a propaganda piece. The leaders of the rebellion did not want representation in Parliament. They wanted independence. One of the fears of the leadership of the rebellion was that representation would have been offered to the colonists! 

While I said recently that the Texas Revolution was justified, I cannot say the same for the American Revolution based on Romans 13. The average American just replaced one master for another. They could not vote unless they were well-to-do. 

The point of this is simple: do not believe what you are told by the media. It does not matter if it is Fox, or the newspapers of 1776. Instead look for the money. Look to see who financially benefits. They are the ones to watch. Look behind the scenes—they do not hide all that well. You can see them if you look. I suggest you look. 

To Oppose Hitler is to Oppose God

There is a certain type of Christian that advocates the obedience of Christians to Government, almost no matter what. They will admit that one has to obey God rather than man, but in practice they restrict this to such a degree that it is not meaningful, at least not in modern western society. The passage that is used is Romans 13:

 ¹Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. ²Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

So I ask those who interpret Romans 13 this way. Was Hitler ordained by God? I remember one conversation in particular. My "opponent" would not answer the question. I can be a bull dog in such situations, so I grabbed on and would not let go. Eventually the person was forced to admit that Hitler was ordained by God. When one comes to an absurd but logical position, it is wise to examine one's assumptions. I do not think I asked the next logical question as the "internet rule" is that if you invoke Hitler the conversation should end. But let me ask it here rhetorically for those who interpret Romans 13 this same way. Was opposing Hitler the same as opposing God?  

A lot of these issues only occur among those that use the King James translation—you know… the one Jesus used! But I often find it helpful to look at other translations. Here is The Message:

 ^1-3Be a good citizen. All governments are under God. Insofar as there is peace and order, it's God's order. So live responsibly as a citizen. If you're irresponsible to the state, then you're irresponsible with God, and God will hold you responsible. Duly constituted authorities are only a threat if you're trying to get by with something. Decent citizens should have nothing to fear.

 ^3-5Do you want to be on good terms with the government? Be a responsible citizen and you'll get on just fine, the government working to your advantage. But if you're breaking the rules right and left, watch out. The police aren't there just to be admired in their uniforms. God also has an interest in keeping order, and he uses them to do it. That's why you must live responsibly—not just to avoid punishment but also because it's the right way to live.

 ^6-7That's also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.

It seems to me that the Message understands the point here better than the King James. As a general rule, yes a law-abiding citizen has little to fear from most governments. But this does not mean that every government is fair to every citizen. Nor does it mean that opposition to a government is bad in and of itself. It was Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who wanted the United States' Motto to be 

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." 

In the next entry in this series on war, I will discuss the Revolutionary War. Was it justified? Was General George the hero, and King George the villain? Is taxation without representation tyranny?

We Are Americans

In God We Trust, Pass Me The AmmunitionIn the Election of 1844 the country was evenly divided into two political parties—the  Whigs and the Democrats. Henry Clay was the candidate of the Whigs, and James Polk was the candidate of the Democrats. James Polk was elected with 50% of the vote verses Clay's 48%. The big political issues of the day were slavery and tariffs. 

Polk was a believer in Manifest Destiny. Here is the first use of the term:

In 1845, he (John L. O'Sullivan) published a piece entitled Annexation in the Democratic Review, in which he urged the U.S. to annex the Republic of Texas, not only because Texas desired this, but because it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions".

How could America have gone against the will of God? Yet the war did not go unopposed. 

Whig politicians, including David Wilmot, Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams contended that the Texas Annexation and the Mexican Cession enhanced the pro-slavery factions of the United States. Unsatisfactory conditions pertaining to the status of slavery in the territories acquired during the Polk administration led to the Compromise of 1850, one of the primary factors in the establishment of the Republican Party and later the beginning of the American Civil War

How did the powers that be encourage a war with Mexico?

John Stockwell, former CIA agent, summed it up this way:

“they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.” John Stockwell, “The CIA and the Gulf War,” Speech, Santa Cruz, CA, Feb.20, 1991, aired by John DiNardo, Pacifica Radio.

The independence of Texas was never recognized by Mexico.  There was also the issue of conflicting claims as to where the boundaries were, as Stockwell mentioned. Wikipedia provides us with the details about the conflict over this strip of land north of the Rio Grande but south of the Nueces: 

President Polk ordered General Taylor and his forces south to the Rio Grande, entering the territory that Mexicans disputed. Mexico laid claim to the Nueces River—about 150 mi (240 km) north of the Rio Grande—as its border with Texas; the U.S. claimed it was the Rio Grande, citing the 1836 Treaties of Velasco. Mexico, however, under the leadership of General Lorenzo Chlamon, rejected the treaties and refused to negotiate; it claimed all of Texas. Taylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces. He constructed a makeshift fort (later known as Fort Brown/Fort Texas) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war. On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 16 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after Captain Thornton, who was in command.

Americans In Mexico CityNote that the United States provocatively entered the disputed area. The size of the force was large enough to cause a response by the Mexican Army, yet small enough that their defeat was assured. This was of course the plan. 

This was the false flag of the war. The superior party maneuvers the inferior into attacking. This led to the "self defense" of the country against the "aggressor." Well, we did need the land. 

One of the things that amuses me is the selective use of the Bible to justify these kind of thefts. Yes, God did order the removal of the Canaanites from Palestine. But somehow I doubt that God was whispering in President Polk's ear. This was a war between one “Christian nation” and another. 

Manifest destiny was opposed by the Whigs because it was felt that it would lead to the extension of slavery to the new territories. It seems likely that the expansion of slavery and the Mexican War led to the American Civil war. U.S. Grant, Civil War general and president, agreed. 

President GrantPresident Ulysses S. Grant, who as a young army lieutenant had served in Mexico under General Taylor, recalled in his Memoirs, published in 1885, that:

Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Grant also expressed the view that the war against Mexico had brought punishment on the United States in the form of the American Civil War:

The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

Grant knew his Bible, as this echoes the book of James.  Here is James 4, from the version The Message, where James tells us where war ultimately comes from. 

^1-2Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don't have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn't yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it. ^2-3You wouldn't think of just asking God for it, would you? And why not? Because you know you'd be asking for what you have no right to. You're spoiled children, each wanting your own way.

Words to consider as we probably head toward another war in the Middle East. Do we think that we will be immune from the inevitable consequences of the war? Many do think that—after all, we are Americans.