War in the Name of God: Christianity Is No Less Addicted Than Any Other Religion

Tom Block is an author, artist, and activist whose book, A Fatal Addiction: War in the Name of God, explores the relationships between religion, spirituality and institutional violence.  In this post, Block (who you can follow on Twitter at @tomblock06 and learn more about at www.tomblock.com) summarizes some of the book’s core themes to debunk the notion that Islam is uniquely violent.

THOMAS

Tom Block

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Gary Gutting (a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) argued concerning what some call “radical Islamic terrorism:”

Islam has not yet tamed, to the extent that Christianity has, the danger implicit in any religion that claims to be God’s own truth.  To put it bluntly, Islam as a whole has not made the concessions to secular values that Christianity has.

This Western-centric, racist and arrogant attitude from the spiritually “advanced” Christian religion toward the unreformed and medieval Islamic one is all too typical. As I write this, Christian nations (mostly our own) rain bombs down from drones onto weddings, schools and other secular places and events in Islamic lands.  The difference between our bombs and their bombs, however, is (according to the narrative) massive: we drop our payloads in the name of peace and with a great sadness that they force us to, while they joyfully blow themselves up in evil acts of anarchy and murder.

At least Christian killers value their own lives!

One needn’t dig too deeply into the American story, or psyche, to discover specific examples of our country’s Orwellian “war is peace” paradigm, all tightly supported by the loving vessel of American Christianity.

Christian language and imagery are explicit in the American call to arms.  America’s wars have almost always been – and continue to be – spiritual/religious affairs in which young men and women are called to sacrifice themselves for the Christian God.  As was noted in an article in Newsweek:

In America, God and war have a particular kinship: evoking God in the midst of mass killing is inspirational…Divine sanction has been used to give meaning to the Constitution’s promise of equality, as well as to license genocide…This impulse to blend God and war owes much to the American temperament: Americans have always feared one (today, nine out of ten call themselves believers) and loved the other (the United States has fought in dozens of armed conflicts in the nation’s two-and-a-third centuries).  Not a few old warriors have admitted to thrilling to the words of “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

If you’re not convinced that this defines a current American attitude, consider the United States’ response to “Islamic terrorism” (the American existential threat du jour).  “In the weeks after the September [11, 2001] attacks,” Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges observed, “communities gathered for vigils and worship services.  The enterprise of the state became imbued with a religious aura…The state, and the institutions of state, became for many, the center of worship.”

On the first anniversary of the attacks, seven months before the 2003 incursion into Iraq, President Bush said: “Our cause is even larger than our country.  Ours is the course of human dignity, freedom guided by conscience grounded by peace.  This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind.”  As the British newspaper The Guardian reported:

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Nabil Shaath, Palestinian foreign minister said: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did. And then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.” And I did.’”

Bush’s politics of war were always framed for the public in a religious manner.  As Anglican Priest Jeremy Young noted, for example, Bush suggested in his 2003 State of the Union address “that America is Christ and that its role is to save the world.”  However, it is true that Bush hasn’t been president for nearly a decade, so it might be argued that now, finally, America has moved past the conflation of Jesus’s will and our military incursions.

Would that it were so.  President Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, has continued the starry-eyed vision of an American Christ of the sword.  Professor Robert H. Nelson, writing for the mainstream PBS website, notes that Obama, too, has infused religious imagery into his speeches.  And Obama has buttressed this faith with bombs.  According to Politifact, by the spring of 2016, Obama had ordered 500 drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen (as opposed to 60 by President Bush); 1000 drone strikes in Afghanistan in 2014 alone; and a smattering of others in Syria, Libya, Iraq and other far-off, generally Muslim locales.  The Huffington Post noted that “nearly 90% of people killed in recent drone strikes were not the target,” allowing Obama’s scattershot Christian murders to be assured of killing Muslims, though rarely the “correct” ones.  Far from shying away from these actions, our Christian leader has bragged about it: “There isn’t a president who’s taken more terrorists off the field than me, over the last seven and a half years,” he puffed in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace in April 2016.

None of that is to say that American Christians are in any way different or worse than contemporary practitioners of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, or even Buddhism.  It is simply the case that Christianity is no better, no more evolved, no more peaceful than any of the world’s religions – all of which (even Buddhism) are steeped within a tradition of sacred violence, and are currently involved in wars of choice in the name of God.  (While I am well aware that many will balk at the idea that Buddhism, too, is as bloodthirsty as the other world’s religions – gasp! – Buddhist practitioner Brian Daizen Victoria notes in his book Zen at War that “warfare and killing are described as manifestations of Buddhist compassion” and Buddhists are, in fact, committing violence today.)  All faiths utilize war-like language and imagery to describe matters of the spirit and exhort followers to religious catharsis through violence.  Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer stated in his book, Is Religion Killing Us: “Religiously justified violence is first and foremost a problem of ‘sacred’ texts and not a problem of misinterpretation of those texts.”  Since virtually all major religions have embedded within them violent images of God, people can selectively recall these texts and extract from them divine support for war, creating the foundation for what Nelson-Pallmeyer terms the “violence of God tradition.”

One central reason that contemporary leaders have such a willing audience when representing war as religiously sanctioned – and, in many cases, even a spiritual obligation – is the extensive history of uniting physical war and the spiritual path within the sacred teachings of virtually all creeds.  Though much of the religious language was undoubtedly meant as metaphor, the human mind runs quickly downhill to the literal, leaving reams of imagery and injunctions for leaders to utilize when discussing military campaigns within the secular culture, and influencing the minds of potential warriors.

American politicians, the media and even mainstream entertainers – like those of all other cultures and religions – do everything in their power to play up the similarities between the religious path and war, all for the poorly obscured purpose of exploiting human pawns to protect their own earthly power or to just simply make a buck (e.g., Boeing, General Electric, Northrup Grumman et al.).  Perhaps, to some extent, they might even believe their own words, especially if they themselves have fought in a war and come out more or less whole.  In this case they will be forced to trust in the lie of a mystical war, if only to help justify the horrors they themselves witnessed and perpetrated.

We need only examine the words of a man considered an American hero, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), to understand how war language explicitly borrows from the religious and even mystical lexicon.  Here’s how he eulogized a soldier fallen in Afghanistan:

He loved his country, and the values that make us exceptional among nations, and good…Love and honor oblige us.  We are obliged to value our blessings, and to pay our debts to those who sacrificed to secure them for us.  They are blood debts…The loss of every fallen soldier should hurt us lest we ever forget the terrible costs of war, and the sublime love of those who sacrifice everything on our behalf.

Note how the very real horrors of war are euphemistically referred to in the language of mysticism: “sublime love,” “obligation,” “good causes,” “moral purpose, “save the innocent,” “peace” and “sacrifice.”  This presentation persuades the general population to bypass the intent of their religious teachings, concentrating instead on its sometimes-grisly content.

For those who waver, the dead soldier is held out as incontrovertible proof of the necessity and worth of the war.  After all, how could one “force” the soldier to have died in vain, by questioning the worth of his action?  The war becomes worthwhile because someone has died undertaking it, a reversal of the normal assignation of worth, which defines an action’s merit before the risk is actually taken.  In a horrifying example of the “sunk costs” theory, the more people that die for a cause, however mistaken, the more religiously valuable the action, no matter what the true human or economic price really is.  Through the sacrifice of human souls for political ends, war becomes enmeshed with a true God experience.

Perhaps as dangerous as the ongoing conflation of spirituality and war are assertions like those from Gutting, who declares that American Christianity has “moved past” religiously sanctioning state violence.  This blindness allows our country to engage in wars for our victims’ own good – in much the same way that 12th-century Crusaders (a term used by George W. Bush in describing America’s response to the attacks of 9/11/2001) or 15th-century Spanish Inquisitors did.

It’s time for a dose of honesty: Christianity is in no manner more mature or less war-like than Islam or any other religion. To heal the illness of state-sponsored murder, we must first admit that.

26 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, Race and Religion

26 responses to “War in the Name of God: Christianity Is No Less Addicted Than Any Other Religion

  1. The use of sarcasm “At least Christian killers value their own lives!” and choice of words “puff” immediately betrays the bend of the writer.

    “America’s wars have almost always been – and continue to be – spiritual/religious affairs in which young men and women are called to sacrifice themselves for the Christian God. ” – is a massive jump in logic.

    The examples used are long stretches.

    The use of Christian talk by Christian leaders to justify the war to their Christian is political talk that does not automatically make it a Christian war.

    • Max Thomas S

      I agree with you, many of America’s wars have not been spiritual/religious affairs for which they need to sacrifice themselves. To say so diminishes the reality of the evils of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany during World War 2, the evil of harboring a known terrorist group as well as the less-significant evil of communism. It can be argued that many of the wars America has entered into to fight communism have been mistakes, but communism is not a good political system. If you want proof, just look no further than the difference between East and West Germany following reunification. Furthermore, the author neglects to mention the important separation of church and state in many western cultures. The author is fooling himself if he thinks that if wars were not framed in religious they would not be fought (or need to be fought).

      • I am not saying that America is in any manner exceptional in our conflation of religion and war (vis-a-via other countries and religions). What I am saying is that we are in no way exceptional in our peace, justice or secularism. We are simply the current empire on the block, and using the Christian religion to buttress our claims of international hegemony and warfare.
        We are equally at fault (along with Communists, Islamic jihadis, Jewish settlers, Buddhist murderers, Hindu slaughterers etc.) in the spiritual-religious genocidal application of modern warfare.
        Amen.

        • Max Thomas S

          You say that we are the current empire on the block as if to imply that all empires are as bad as each other, which I disagree with. For example, many nations that America has taken under its wing and which are now semi-dependent on America’s projection of force are currently enjoying their greatest prosperity ever (obviously there are some exceptions). An American empire is clearly better than a Nazi, communist or Imperialist Japan empire. It then follows that the ideologies these empires (and their associated wars) are filtered through are not equivalent. I agree with the fact that American empire is not exceptional (Manifest Destiny ideology has clearly been employed by countless empires including Great Britain to the great detriment of other people) in its benevolence, but to say it is on the same level as other empires is clearly false. Furthermore, the ideology that enables/perpetuates conflict also spills over into civilian life during peacetime (or peaceful times)*, and it is there which America’s ideology (which cannot be viewed through the prism of one religion, since there are now many atheists and conflicting strands of Christianity) shows. For example, people’s hands are now no longer chopped off for stealing a piece of bread in Australia or America, which, may I remind you, still happens in some countries.

          *There is no point discussing war without peace, after all, many, if not all, wars are the result of dissatisfaction with peacetime.

          In the other response, you say that the christian religion is arguably not more warlike than other religions, just more successful at it. But this neglects to explain the discrepancy of domestic policy between different nations. For example, the movement towards gender equality, which is arguably the most important and uplifting movement humanity will ever make (since women constitute a majority in almost all societies), has not played out equally across all nations. That is not too diminish the magnitude of problems facing women in western societies (i.e. less pay, reproduction rights, glass ceiling, objectification of their bodies, hypocrisy), but to say those problems are equal to the problems faced by women in other nations does disservice to the heroic efforts of women to gain rights from those not willing to give up their privilege.

          • Yes. There are many wonderful things about America. There are many things (abysmal healthcare, social safety net, gun usage, institutionalized racism, unfair criminal justice etc.) which aren’t as wonderful. However, my article in particular treats one aspect of Christian America (most leaders would agree that we are a “Christian nation” — and quite proud of it) and how the language of religion and spirituality are used to peddle war. And how deeply it resonates with the general population. And how this is not better or worse than the practitioners and politicians of any other religion.

            • Max Small

              Yes, that’s true, America has deep-rooted problems that will take generations to fix (even though the problems are frankly absurd, like gun control legislation). Yet most leaders are not representative of America’s population (given that most of them are white,male and evangelicalists), so drawing conclusions about what they say about America is dangerous. Given that Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, said that “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam” in contrast to Pope Francis, who said Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters, (who will both have significant followings in their own religions). It is hard to say that the two religions are equal in their perpetuation of violence and war.

    • Dear Lapsed, “The use of Christian talk by Christian leaders to justify the war to their Christian is political talk that does not automatically make it a Christian war.” I agree – however, my point is that “political” talk utilizing religious tropes is no different in Islam as Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism or any other religion. It resonates and it works to cause young men (and more recently women) to sacrifice their lives on the altar of the state.
      And my “bend” stems from the profound hypocrisy of my own nation, America, and the Christian nations (as represented in Gary Gutting assurances that Islam has not made the “leap” that Christianity has), as Christian nations have been BY FAR the most bellicose, hateful and genocidal nations since the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (between the Roman Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius) on 28 October 312.
      Christian nations perpetrated the Crusades, the Inquisition, the genocide of an entire hemisphere (the Wester one), World War II, World War II, the Holocaust, were the only nation to ever drop an atomic bomb (two, in fact) and more recently have been raining bombs down from drones around the Islamic world.
      This is not to say that Christian nations are more warlike than those of any other religion. Just more successful at it.

    • @Sommerize

      I’ll grant the Bush part, but the Obama paragraph is utterly lacking in evidence, as you point out. Obama doesn’t even use “Christian talk” when discussing drones and the broader war. He happens to be a Christian, but the reasons he states for counter-terror activities are explicitly, pragmatically secular: national security and regional stability. To suggest that his religious beliefs are behind the strikes is to play psychologist, just as his conservative haters do when suggesting he’s a secret Muslim who hates America.

      I don’t condone the drone strikes, but Obama doesn’t fit conveniently into the thesis of Christian militance, even though I think your broader point is correct.

      • Dear @Sommerize, thanks for the comments. I am focusing more on his use of religious language, than his intention. It is the language that resonates, even if he might not believe it (I don’t know if he does or not) when he uses the language. Although he is certainly not as explicitly religious or even messianic as Bush was, he still utililizes the language of religion to sometimes sell his bellicose actions. Though as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (itself ironic, as Nobel made his money from inventing dynamite, blasting caps, and later, blasting gelatin), one would hope that Obama veered a little bit away from Bush’s Orwellian “war is peace” paradigm.

  2. carlbradleyherman

    Great points; thank you, Tom. By the numbers, the US is the greatest war-murdering nation, surpassing Islam all be itself. With documentation below, the US has become a rogue state by definition:

    Violating international law, with focus on destruction of human life: the two most important international laws to follow for any nation are to not engage in Wars of Aggression, and not to engage in Crimes Against Humanity. The US ongoingly commits these crimes with:

    1. Unlawful and lie-began wars that have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. The sum of 30 million means the US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.

    2. Intentional policy to continue deaths from poverty that total ~400 million just since 1996; most in gruesomely-slow agony, and a death total more than all wars in human history. Policy choices for illegal and lie-started wars rather than repeatedly promised policies to end poverty with less than 1% of national income make the US the most viciously psychopathic and deadly nation in Earth’s recorded history.

    3. Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them (81%).

    Threatening other nations’ security: the US is recognized as Earth’s greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country. Educated people outside the US more easily recognize US ongoing unlawful wars and threats for more war.

    Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-introduction-define-rogue-state-perfect-match-us-illegal-wars-aggression-crimes-humanity.html

    • Thanks, Carl. And sadly, the vessel for all of this slaughter is all-too-often religion. Which theoretically is supposed to lead to peace, inner and outer.

      • carlbradleyherman

        It’s always “Orwellian religion,” Tom. Our “leaders” have to invert religion to be in power. The people must develop the intellectual integrity and moral courage to demand arrests for War Crimes rather than be duped these are Christian leaders.

        Until then, it will be one lie after another, one war after another.

    • Max Thomas S

      Actually, it’s more likely that the Mongolians under Genghis Khan were the worst, given that he killed 10% of the world population in his time. And if we’re going by the number of wars started, the British Empire set a pretty bad precedent given that it has invaded almost every single country on earth (more than the US). Also, your comparisons to Nazi Germany are a false equivalency given that the US has existed for 70 years since WW2 whereas Hitler was only in power for 11 years.

      • carlbradleyherman

        And at least one of your conclusions, Max, is that the current US lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression demand arrests of .01% “leaders” rather than academic comparison, right?

        If not, please explain how an exclusion of such a conclusion is responsible citizenship, or explain how these wars are lawful.

        • Yes, not certain that the “Nazis were worse” comparison really changes anything about how war and religious language are fused in the United States political and social conversation. Or Genghis Khan, for that matter. Or anyone else — in fact, a frank examination of their language might well bolster my argument (that all nation states mix war, religion and the state into a toxic stew).

          • Max Small

            Except that in his haste to emphasise his viewpoint about all nation states being equally horrific, he forgot some crucial facts. As do all of us in the best of times, me included. (As an aside, Godwin’s Law has struck again.) I thought your argument was that all nation states equally mix war, religion and state into a toxic stew, whereas I am arguing that this is not the case, and some religions do it more than others.

            • Max, I’d suggest that you peruse my book, “A Fatal Addiction: War in the Name of God,” which examines this issue and shows that conflating violence and the sacred is a human problem, and is infused (equally) into all religions. Killing is prayer. War is worship. Check out the book.

        • Max Small

          I mean this as respectfully as possible, but I don’t exactly understand what you mean when you say “the current US lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression demand arrests of .01% “leaders” rather than academic comparison, right?” I know who Orwell was, and I agree with many of his views (was he not also the person who said that having known about the governments that would replace the British Empire, he would be more inclined to view colonial government as the lesser of two evils), but I don’t know what the latter half of your sentence means. Does it mean that US leaders should be arrested for the lies they told, or that demanding the arrest of certain people is not conducive to academic discussion or that invoking a particular figure of hatred (i.e. Hitler or Stalin) diverts attention away from the real issue of american double standards? Please clarify.

          • carlbradleyherman

            And also with respect: Max, look at my comment that you’re responding to for explanation and documentation. It begins, “Great points; thank you, Tom. By the numbers, the US is the greatest war-murdering nation, surpassing Islam all be itself.”

            And yes, because we now know from official US disclosures that all reasons for current US wars were known to be false as they were told, and that these wars are indeed the very type targeted to end with treaties after both world wars (therefore Orwellian-opposite of legal), US .01% “leaders” that include Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Obama, and a few dozen other cheerleaders must be arrested.

            The documentation clearly demonstrates this, with those of us working in this field unaware of any refutation; that is, nobody who claims, “War law states (a, b, c), so the US wars are legal because (d, e, f).”

            Let’s start there before we discuss arrests. Are the wars lie-started and illegal?

            Again: documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-introduction-define-rogue-state-perfect-match-us-illegal-wars-aggression-crimes-humanity.html

            • Max Thomas S

              Some wars were illegal and others were not. World war one and two were definitely legal. Among current wars, Afghanistan was legal (although arguably Saudi Arabia would have been a better choice as there was significant evidence that they had sponsored errorist groups beforehand), Uganda** (yep), Somalia (maybe – given the danger that terrorists pose to shipping that passes the Horn of Africa), Pakistan (probably not, although militant groups in Afghanistan continued to use Pakistan as a way to escape detection in Afghanistan), Iraq (no), Syria (most likely yes – although difficult to say*), Libya (no idea), Yemen (no idea). Which, by my analysis, seems largely like America is neither here nor there when it comes to starting illegal or lie-started wars.

              As for your original points.
              1. I’ll take your word for it, but this kind of mass scale killing is not exclusive to America either. Mao Zedong (Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution) and Stalin (massive incompetence and the starvation of many of his civilians) killed that many people as well.
              2. I’ll take your word that 400 million died as a result of poor policy, but American policy has also helped millions. America’s corporations and free trade agreement with China helped lift 400 million people out of poverty (the only reason why the UN was able to meet its MDG poverty goal and it was also the biggest anti-poverty movement in a generation). Countries led by the US also helped women gained voting rights, the right to enter the workforce en masse etc, which are also anti-poverty measures. I think the issue here is not America is bad or good, it’s rather a question of the good outweighing the bad, and I think it clearly does.
              3. Another question of good outweighing the bad, has the presence of America led to more or less wars than otherwise? I’d say less wars, given that people are enjoying the longest life expectancy ever and violence across the world has continued to decline .(http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/stu-burguiere/fewer-wars-fewer-people-dying-wars-now-quite-some/ and http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180).

              *If you can recall, Barack Obama threatened to use force (at least more force than they are using now) against Bashar Al-Assad ( the ‘red line’ quote) to stop the gassing of civilians, but ended up backing down because he didn’t think it would be a good idea. So really, he was trying to use the threat of force to deter actual force, unfortunately it failed.
              **America deployed military advisers to help fight Lords Resistance Army (both Busha and BO) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/world/africa/barack-obama-sending-100-armed-advisers-to-africa-to-help-fight-lords-resistance-army.html?hp&_r=0

              • carlbradleyherman

                What do the two treaties state when war is and is not legal?

                If you know, you can state it in a sentence. If not, you can look at the documentation I provided and/or ask me to provide you the summary that is crystal-clear in letter and intent.

                • Max Thomas S

                  The treaties state that wars of aggression are only legal when there is clear justification for self-defense and that a war is legal if crimes against humanity are not committed. But this is really just a piece of legislation to to hide behind, because wars can be legal and still involve crimes against humanity. Furthermore, wars can not involve self-defense (and thus not be legal under the two treaties you mentioned), but they can still be the right course of action and justifiable.

                  • carlbradleyherman

                    This is just for when war is or is not legal, not War Crimes within a war (targeting civilians, torture, etc.).

                    War law is as clear as “stop sign law” for driving, or when a baseball runner is safe or out. You’ve made mistakes:

                    1. “War of Aggression” is what you call an illegal war. War is only legal in response to armed attack by another nation’s government. Because no government attacked the US, all US current wars are illegal. They are Wars of Aggression.

                    2. Laws are not meant to hide behind; they’re meant to be what American has: limited government under law. What we have in war (and other areas) is unlimited government dictating about the law to engage in Wars of Aggression.

                    3. You argue for unlimited and dictatorial government if you say wars are ok if “magic words” are said about “right course of action and justifiable.” What are you imagining would be an example, Max?

                    • Max Thomas S

                      1. The 9/11 attacks were committed by a non-state actor, but if a country harbors terrorists without a clear indication of bringing them to justice, then the responsibility of that attack is transferred to the country.
                      3. That is not what I argued, you are making the case that the number of wars will increase if foreign intervention in matters not pertaining to domestic security is legal. But if any country wants to go to war enough, they will manufacture a reason. Therefore, in the clear cases where foreign intervention is needed, such as deploying armed military advisers to help combat the Lords Resistance Army, it should be legal to enter into the war.

                    • carlbradleyherman

                      1a. You’re making this up; that is not the law. Agreed?

                      1b. Your history is wrong. The Afghan government agreed to arrest anyone connected to any crime upon presentation of evidence of criminal involvement. The US refused to provide evidence. The UN Security Council issued two legally-binding resolutions for international factual sharing, arrests, and prosecutions of the 9/11 criminals. The US chose to violate the UN, refuse standard legal practice to offer evidence of a criminal suspect, and chose unlawful War of Aggression. Agreed? Perhaps you’ll read the documentation I provided and/or look for yourself to verify.

                      3a. I am not making any case other than the US current wars are Orwellian unlawful and started on known lies.

                      3b. If a nation “manufactures” a reason to violate law, We the People have a choice to accept unlimited and dictatorial government for Wars of Aggression, or demand arrests.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s