JAMES MADISON: WAR “THE MOST DREADED” ENEMY TO LIBERTY
by Michael Gaddy, ©2016
(Oct. 19, 2016) — What is the point of no return? What could possibly happen to an individual that would cause them to abandon all sense of order and seek instead violent and deadly revenge against another human being or group of people, many of whom are personally unknown to the perpetrator(s) of violence? Is this human action a devotion to some fanatical practice of religion or simply a reaction to violent stimuli?
If religious fanaticism is the answer, is it possible such religious fervor exhibited in the acts of the “terrorist” creates in its opponent an overwhelming desire to abandon their professed religion? If we are truly fighting a war against radical Islam, is it OK to abandon the tenets of Christianity, a faith professed by the great majority of the so-called conservatives who support the perpetual war for peace paradigm of our government? If that has actually occurred, have the radical terrorists not already won the war? What else could constitute acceptance of the deaths of hundreds of thousands; many of them civilians, to prosecute wars we know are based on lies hatched in the halls of our own government and nurtured to maturity by a state-owned and controlled media?
This past week I read an email written by a professed man of the cloth writing in support of one of his military heroes who is credited with killing several hundred of our “enemy” as a sniper. His statement was “we can only imagine how many soldier’s lives were saved by this man’s actions.” Unwittingly, this preacher struck at the very core of the issue. To support the actions of a government we personally claim to abhor when it comes to our individual liberty, imaginations must be employed in order to salve our collective conscience as we go about supporting wars perpetrated on government lies, deception and propaganda.
It has been stated facts are the basis for rational thought, therefore supporting wars based on official government prevarication that creates more terrorists than it eliminates requires irrational thought and/or a very healthy imagination. Supporting these wars that make slaves of us and our posterity could only qualify as some form of mental illness. Could this be the exhibition of the Stockholm syndrome on a national scale with the government as kidnapper and the citizens the kidnapped?
Only a people suffering from such an affliction could believe that a people who lose those they love such as those killed in drone strikes on wedding parties could ever embrace the tenets of our government or our faith. It is really hard to accept a “democracy” when the promoters of that form of government killed your family and blew up your country.
Over 70% of the people who died so far in Iraq as the result of our war were civilians. What kind of hate and desire for revenge resides in the relatives of those civilians? Where in our religious beliefs is there any justification for such mass genocide? We euphemistically refer to these deaths as “collateral damage,” while the people in Iraq referred to them as family, friends, and neighbors.
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” rings rather hollow, does it not?
The history of America contains similar stories and reactions to the violence of war inflicted on the innocent.
John W. (Old Jack) Hinson just wanted to be left alone. As a farmer in Tennessee, he cared nothing for the war between the North and the South and even opposed secession. He just wanted to get on with his life, enjoy his family and farm his land.
At some point in time, the area around the Hinson farm was occupied by Union forces. Occupation by armed forces in any area is not unlike occupying someone’s home by force. It just doesn’t sit well. The occupiers don’t want to be there and the occupied resent their presence. Perfect ingredients for an act of violence.
Somehow, Hinson’s two teenage sons came to be at odds with the Union soldiers. The reports of the day indicate the soldiers accused the two boys of being bushwhackers. Subsequently, the soldiers killed the two boys, beheaded them and placed their heads on poles near the entrance to their father’s farm. I’m sure the man of the cloth previously mentioned above would defend such action claiming he could only imagine how many Union soldiers lives were saved by this heinous act. After all, were these Union soldiers not wearing the uniform of the same military that now occupies much of the Middle East?
Obviously, Old Jack Hinson was traumatized by the death and beheading of his two sons. His hatred and desire for revenge led him to have a special long-range rifle constructed and he then set out to avenge the death of his sons by becoming a sniper, directing his assaults on the occupying army that had taken the lives of his sons. According to available records, at no time did Hinson engage civilians in his quest for revenge. His preference gravitated to Union officers in uniform.
I’m absolutely positive the US government and Union forces saw Old Jack Hinson as a “terrorist” or “insurgent” as he went about summarily killing more than one hundred Union soldiers and was also credited with singlehandedly capturing a Union transport ship. Union Infantry and Cavalry forces and a specially equipped marine task force tried in vain to locate and eliminate Old Jack Hinson, who by all records always operated alone and was able to elude all Union forces for the duration of the war, even though he was near 60 years old at the time.
Occupying forces wearing the uniform of the United States military have created hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the wars being prosecuted in the Middle East. If only a small minority of their family and friends have the dedication and resolve of Old Jack Hinson, we have created a whirlwind of violence that will last for decades. Now, many officials in our government, supported by the pleas of plastic talking heads in the media and academia want to bring those people to our country and pay them money when they arrive. Where, indeed, is a better definition of insanity?
It is imperative that we understand that wars for empire, barely concealed by the rhetoric of wars to implement democracy, are in truth unwinnable on any level. As a supposed “Christian” nation we must also come to the realization that blind patriotism and Christianity are totally incompatible.
Perhaps a movie glorifying the exploits of Old Jack Hinson would constitute a beginning of understanding! How many would stand and cheer?
“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, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” ~ James Madison said by many to be the Father of our Constitution (Emphasis added)
“Continual warfare” and freedom cannot exist on the same plane. The last 15 years of continual warfare and the subsequent loss of Liberty and the creation of a police state unequivocally prove Madison’s warning to be true.
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY