Killing, Murder, and War

From May 2006 until May 2007, I served with a military intelligence battalion in Iraq. I didn’t see combat every day, but we were regularly mortared, rocketed, and fired upon with small arms. Our unit was blessed…we all came home in one piece.

Compared to most of my colleagues, my combat tour was a cakewalk. But I saw enough violence and battle results in our installation hospital and during my years working in hospitals.

Killing a human being is a serious matter. Life is not created by people, and we are not programmed to take it away. In the past, I met and talked with Soldiers and civilians who killed. In most cases, they live the rest of their lives with a dark cloud over them. The ones who do not concern me.

I hear amateurs in biblical theology preach that killing violates the Ten Commandments. “Thou shalt not kill!” they say. But they also don’t seem to note that the texts also instruct the Israelites to kill their enemies in combat. There is a distinction between killing and murdering in Deuteronomy.

Killing is the taking of a life. It encompasses all motives and means. Some killing is immoral, but some killing is not. An example is the accidental taking of a human life. A person is chopping wood, the blade falls off the axe, and strikes an innocent person in the chest, piercing the heart. Such a death, while regrettable, is not punishable.

Murder is another matter. Such killing is done for personal reasons: revenge, lust, and anger are examples. Murder is a crime. The perpetrator of murder forfeits her or his own life if found guilty. It is among the highest felonious behaviors possible for a human to commit.

The Bible does not call killing in defense of oneself or on behalf of one’s country murder. It is killing. A person who kills an enemy combatant from a nation acting on behalf of their government is granted a reprieve from punishment.

But does that mean there are no consequences for killing in combat? Experience is clear on this point. Even when a person is justified in taking a human life or lives, there are scars, especially under certain conditions. Killing innocent babies and children is especially difficult, causing severe psychological trauma in many people.

Another consequence occurs in the human soul after killing. Some people reach a state of psychosis. Some get that state because their moral compass becomes skewed. They become desensitized to killing and need help rebuilding their souls. Others find killing pleasurable and hunger for more. It’s an addiction to them.

This is why I am an opponent of war and killing.

Those Infernal Republicans…

The Infernal Republicans

The GOP (which is short for “Grand Old Party”) emerged as a political party in the mid-19th century as the anti-slavery party. The old “Whig” party was destroyed by its own corruption, so there was a political vacuum for a political entity to embody their political principles while also advocating for the swift elimination of chattel slavery.

The election of 1860 gave America their first Republican president in Abraham Lincoln. The 1860 election was a serious battle between the Democrats (pro slavery), Constitutionalists, and the Republicans (GOP). Lincoln emerged the clear winner, but he got zero southern support.

Lincoln ran on a platform of keeping the union together, not freeing slaves. In fact, his inaugural speech made clear that keeping all the States together was his most important goal. But the Southern States were having none of it. One by one, the states below the Mason-Dixon Line began to withdraw from the Union, starting with South Carolina.

At that point, Lincoln had a choice. He could respect the independence of the several states to make their own decisions about the Union. He could enter into negotiations with the secessionists in the hope of finding a compromise to keep the states together. Or he could slap the “traitor” label on those states who left and put together an Army to force the seceding States back into Union.

He chose the last option.

Lincoln believed that the nation was first and foremost a federation of subservient states…that the very nature of the “United States” was…”United”. Anyone or anything intent on separating individual states from that could not be countenanced. Lincoln attempted to levy 75,000 men from each state of the Union to form an army to invade the south and force them back to the federation at the end of the bayonet.

The result of this was the secession of more southern states. The battle lines were drawn.

The Republican Party in 1862 then introduced a new reason for the war. It wasn’t to put down a rebellion against a proper government…but rather a holy war to free African slaves from their cruel slave masters. All this, even though Lincoln had said keeping the Union together with slavery was acceptable to him.

The end of the Civil War ushered in the end of the free states. Under the Republican Party, the United States was an ascendent federal government served by individual states. And for the next 150 years, this belief carried weight as the US Constitution became weaker and weaker.

The Republicans from 1865 to 1901 expanded the power of the federal government and the territory of the United States in the western part of North America. The Republicans were “in bed” with big business, whose thirst for power and expansion of their commercial markets at the expense of the native tribes, racially non-Europeans, and former slaves could never achieve satiety.

In 1901 the United States had the first Progressive president. Was he a Democrat like Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Delano Roosevelt? No…it was a Republican.

Theodore Roosevelt wielded the federal government far beyond the scope of the United States constitution. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act legislation used the power of the federal establishment to reign in business monopolies even though there is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having that power. Roosevelt also expanded the power of the President by adding departments to the executive branch who often acted through the courts to expand government power.

Here is my point: The GOP has never been a party of limited federal government…it has always been about using government towards a “virtuous” end. In short, the GOP is a Progressive party.

Since the ascendency of Theodore Roosevelt, the federal establishment has tyrannized the individual states and their people. It is the federal government that steals upwards of 60% of the money earned by the most productive Americans. It is the federal government that regulates far beyond the scope of the Constitution, choking entrepreneurs and absconding with their resources while adding horrible layers of bureaucracy. And now, thanks to the federal government, Ponzi schemes like Social Security, Medicaid, and Obamacare rape families of their money and destroy their access to healthcare by inflating costs beyond the capability of working people to pay.

A few weeks ago, the American people overthrew a corrupt and incompetent President. There is hope that the second term of Donald Trump – the GOP candidate – will bring transformation of the government and unleash economic growth and prosperity.

But Trump is a Progressive in the image of Teddy Roosevelt. He is not a libertarian of the Austrian / Chicago school…he is Keynesian. He supports tariffs, which the American customers pays. He supports providing minuscule tax cuts, but plans to expand government services. With a $36 trillion debt, the thought of balancing the budget by ending government programs and reducing spending doesn’t appeal to the populist…President Donald Trump.

I do not expect any significant change to the destruction of America’s soul from Trump.

Neither should you.