 |
 |
 |
 |
Draft Will Return in 2005 Under Different Name; Christians Should Resist
There are numerous signs that an increasingly desperate federal government is planning to re-institute the military draft in 2005.
Anticipating an uproar that Bush II and the Republicrats broke their promise not to bring back the draft, Congress will call the draft by a new name,
probably the “Homeland Service Requirement.”
Why the federal government is desperate
It’s no secret that the federal government is losing its Middle Eastern War.
First, the feds grossly underestimated the dangers and difficulties of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. This misjudgment is epitomized by longtime
neoconservative Kenneth L. Adelman’s prediction that the Iraq war would be a “cakewalk.”
Second, despite having plenty of time to prepare, the feds sent American
soldiers into Iraq and Afghanistan with inadequate weaponry and armor. A
recent Los Angeles Times report describes a National Guard unit being
mobilized and sent to Iraq with only three of its twenty-one guns in working
order.
Illinois Senator Richard Durbin claims the armor shortage is due to the fact
that only one factory inside the United States is currently fabricating the
steel that is necessary to produce armor.
No one should be surprised by the careless shortsightedness and reckless
ill-preparedness of the Bush II administration. Almost to a man, the
architects of its Middle Eastern War avoided service in the active-duty
military - Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith.
As a result, they lack personal experience and real understanding of the
rigors and demands that war imposes. This ignorance was compounded by their
stubborn refusal to consult outside their clannish coterie. Patrick J.
Buchanan recently referred to them as the “cakewalk crowd.”
Those in the Bush II administration who served in the active-duty military
either opposed the war at the start, as did Colin Powell, or are now being
scapegoated for the mistakes of the administration as a whole, as is Donald
Rumsfeld.
The weapons and armor shortage has resulted in higher than expected casualty
rate for American soldiers. Currently, the toll is over 1328 of our
soldiers dead and 9981 or our soldiers wounded. Among the American wounded
are many maimed soldiers and amputees. The Middle Eastern War is also
thought to be responsible for the deaths of approximately 15,000 Iraqi
civilians.
So far, the federal government has stubbornly refused to admit or correct
any of its mistakes or misjudgments. Instead, that government simply
decided to send more ill-equipped and untrained soldiers into Iraq and
Afghanistan. These unfortunate soldiers are sitting ducks for Islamic
guerillas. The high demand for soldiers and high casualty rate is
exhausting the supply of active duty Armed Forces, Reserves and National
Guard. The high casualty rate is also hurting the feds effort to recruit
soldiers on a voluntary basis.
Predictably, and outrageously, the federal government is planning to address
the problem by forcible conscription.
Preparing America for a Draft a/k/a the “Homeland Service Requirement”
Conditioning Americans to accept a draft in 2005 might at first blush appear
to be a daunting task, given that the Republicrats spent most of the
preceding year promising that there would be no draft. But then one should
never underestimate Washington’s aptitude for tergiversation - not to
mention lying and betrayal.
The backstabbing of longtime neoconservative ally Donald Rumsfeld is one
sign of desperation to bring back the draft. Rumsfeld had steadfastly
refused to expand the size of the military or to call for a draft, instead
stating his preference for a “small, fast and agile force.” Within weeks
after the election, neoconservative mouthpiece John McCain led the charge by
declaring he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld.
McCain’s attack was quickly followed up by the Jewish press. William
Kristol pounced first in a Washington Post editorial, demanding Rumsfeld’s
resignation because of his “refusal to increase the size of the military.”
Then the International Herald Tribune, owned by the New York Times, attacked
Rumsfeld for his “ideas about a small, light and "agile" force” and for
making “one bad tactical and organizational choice after another.”
The IHT also taunted Bush II by criticizing his “politically inspired fear
of conscription” and calling him a “draft dodger.”
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, heir apparent to Senator John McCain as chosen
mouthpiece of the neoconservatives, spent his Christmas recess telling the
children of a Catholic grammar school they might be morally obligated to
accept a draft.
"A moral societal concern" is also at issue, he said: "Is it fair to ask a
very few people to carry all the burden, do all the dying?" Hopefully, he
said, the nation can avoid reinstituting compulsory military service.”
The week before Christmas, Lt. General Helmly of the Army Reserves told the
Dallas Morning News that:
[...] the need to bring in some kind of national draft to rapidly boost the
size of the armed forces could become a necessity overnight.”
Sieff’s neoconservative sources pitch with a straight face that Bush II can
circumvent his pledge not to bring back the draft simply by calling it a
different name. This almost comically transparent ploy reveals the true
depths of neoconservative duplicity. It is a mendacity rooted in the
philosophy of their guru, Leo Strauss, who taught that elites should
manipulate language to fool the masses.
A likely replacement name for the draft is the “Homeland Service Requirement.” In 2002, neoconservatives ventriloquized that name into the mouth of - you guessed it - Senator John McCain.
In theory, the “Homeland Service Requirement” will be able to be fulfilled by a variety of nonmilitary or non-active duty service. In practice, as was the case in the past, those options will be available only to the children of ruling elites.
Various Armed Forces recruiting stations throughout the United States are being fortified in preparation for the storms of protest that are expected to break out after the announcement that the draft will return.
According to the landlord of an Armed Forces Recruiting Office, who must go unnamed:
Christians should not be surprised that the federal government plans to
conscript its citizens. How could anyone be surprised when a tyrant demands
involuntary servitude?
The tyranny of the federal government is already well-established. This is
a government that denies equal protection to the lives of unborn children,
based on the lie that the Constitution contains a right to kill them. This
is the government that requires States to allow a partially born child to
have his brains sucked into a canister. This is the government that
promotes the spread of AIDS and other pestilence by mandating the acceptance
of sodomites. This is the government that is trying to eradicate every
sign, word or symbol that points to America’s origins and history as a
Christian nation.
No, my brethren in Christ, the same government that is doing all of these
wicked things is not waging the Middle Eastern War in order to defend the
Biblical nation of Israel. Neither is obedience to the Bible a concern of
the United Nations, which together with Zionist terrorists created the
counterfeit State of Israel. But the federal government, the New World
Order and the Zionists are only too pleased that Christians are willing to
fight their wars for them. And Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and the rest of the
false prophets, are happy and well paid to convince you that God wants the
United States to wage the Middle Eastern War.
As fully outlined in The Idolators of Zion
, the Middle Eastern War is being waged to achieve a secular Zionist supremacy throughout the Middle East, and
to allow Bush’s oil cronies to commandeer that region's oil and gas reserves.
They are supported in this endeavor by the elites of the New World Order,
who hate Islam with the same fervor they hate Christianity. According to
former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, religion, not terrorism, will be their
enemy in the 21st Century:
Given the foregoing, how will Christians respond to the military draft?
To date, America’s Christians have complained about, but for the most part
have accepted, the tyrant’s incremental infringement of their freedoms.
Clearly, they have not resisted.
Resistance entails more than complaining. Resistance is not about filing a
lawsuit or lobbying Congress. The defining characteristic of resistance is
that it is a flat and unconditional refusal to yield.
Resistance is not violent. To refuse to comply is not to attack.
Resistance is not aggressive. But resistance may elicit an aggressive and
violent response from the person seeking to force compliance.
From the counterrevolutionary standpoint, the military draft is an almost
singular event. Up until now, the tyrant’s preferred methods have been
incremental and gradual. He prefers to steal our freedom and property
little by little, day to day, in the hope that we will not notice, or at
least not terribly mind. So far, this method has proven successful for the
tyrant.
But the military draft does not comport with that method. Conscription does
not come little by little, bit by bit. One day you and your family are
somewhat free to go about your business. The next day, some of you are
totally unfree - conscripted into compulsory military service, transported
against your will to fight overseas in an undeclared and unjust war. The
military draft represents a quantum leap forward in the project of tyranny.
The Christian Tradition
Since its earliest days, the Christian Church has rejected conscription.
In the United States, many Christians churches have successfully resisted
conscription under all circumstances. For the most part, these
denominations have hailed from the margins of Christendom, e.g. the Quakers,
Church of the Brethren, and the Amish. These and other American Christian
denominations have established a right to resist conscription by means of
their conscientious objection to all forms of war.
On the other hand, larger Christian denominations, e.g., the Roman Catholic
Church, have allowed for the possibility of a “just war.” These churches
do not object to their members’ being conscripted to serve in a just war.
The Middle Eastern War is Not a Just War
The Middle Eastern War meets none of the criteria imposed by Christian just
war theory, the very first of which is that the war is declared by the
proper authority. Under our Constitution, that authority is Congress.
[Article 1, Section 8] Congress has not declared war; it voted to allow
George W. Bush to make that decision.
A second criterion is that the war rests upon a just cause. No reasonable
person can dispute that George W. Bush invaded Iraq upon his false assertion
that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.” His bad faith is amply
demonstrated by his administration’s lurching about for months before that,
trying to find an excuse to make war. He and his administration put forth
various excuses: their desire for “regime change,” the need to uphold
resolutions of the United Nations, implying (but not asserting) that Iraq
was in some way responsible for the 9/11 attacks and disarming Saddam
Hussein of “weapons of mass destruction”, the fraud upon which they finally
settled.
Third, a just war must be fought with “right intention”
According to St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, this means the war is fought
only to correct the wrong, not to exploit the conflict for material gain.
Once the federal government determined that no “weapons of mass destruction”
were present in Iraq, it should have withdrawn its Armed Forces, instead of
using them to commandeer Iraq’s oil fields, which is what Bush II in fact
did. Once the federal government gave up on the search for Osama bin Laden,
it should have withdrawn its Armed Forces from Afghanistan, instead of using
them to secure a route for an oil and gas pipeline, which is what Bush II in
fact did.
Fourth, in order to be just, the war must have a “reasonable chance of
success.” This criterion requires that the war’s means be proportionate to
its ends, i.e., that the war not result in more killing than the provocation
for the war.
The “Bush Doctrine” held that a preemptive war against Iraq was justified.
The reason the Bush Doctrine had to be invented was because Saddam Hussein
had killed exactly zero persons with what turned out to be his fictitious
weapons of mass destruction. The war’s death toll as of this writing is
approximately 11,300 American casualties and 15,000 Iraqi civilians killed.
Fifth and finally, those who would fight a just war are required first to
exhaust their pursuit of all other means to resolve the conflict. Given
that weapons inspectors were requesting more time when Bush II invaded Iraq,
this criterion was not met.
Whereas a just war would have to satisfy all five of these criteria, it is
obvious that the Iraq War satisfies none of them. Instead, the Iraq War
appears to be the archetype of an unjust war: prematurely rushed into,
unconstitutionally declared, pretextually justified, wrongfully continued,
and already a failure, since it has caused tens of thousands more deaths
than it prevented.
Since the Middle Eastern War is not a just war, Christians are obligated to
answer some difficult questions.
May Christian soldiers lawfully be compelled to serve in an
unconstitutional, undeclared and unjust war?
Even for those Christians who subscribe to the just war doctrine, there is a
point beyond which they may not allow their government to compel their
military service. The reason in that the Christian religion teaches that
each individual is ultimately responsible for his own actions. As Pope John
Paul II stated in Evangelium Vitae:
A continuing theme of eXileMM is the metaphysical law first stated by St.
Augustine:
The federal government is evil. It produces nothing; it only destroys. Like
all other evil things, it lacks the capacity to sustain itself; it survives
and grows by feeding off the good. The federal government has grown in size
and power in direct proportion to its oppression and corruption of its
citizens. Its courts are unjust. Its elected leaders are bribed and
corrupted. Its apparatus of bureaucracies oppress its citizens.
But the parasitism of evil has a terrible price: by corrupting the good,
evil destroys the conditions necessary for its own survival. The federal
government’s deChristianization of its citizenry undermines its ability to
recruit soldiers to enforce its will.
A corollary of the proverb: “There are no atheists in foxholes” is that
“Atheists make lousy soldiers.” Because they do not believe in God,
atheists will not sacrifice their earthly lives for a heavenly one. Unlike
Christians, atheists do not believe in laying up treasure in heaven. An
atheist government will not be adequately served by soldiers who are
atheists.
Historically the federal government has relied on European Christian men to
be its soldiers. That reliance continues today.
In order to wage its unjust wars and continue its tyranny, that evil
government needs the cooperation of its many good and Christian citizens.
And by resisting the military draft, Christians have the opportunity to
deprive that evil government of the ability to sustain itself, to carry on
its evil agenda of unjust wars, conquest and plunder abroad, tyranny at
home.
What happened when the first Americans refused to serve their first tyrant?
When the first Americans turned against King George and declared their
independence, he became desperate and had to look elsewhere for his
soldiers:
“He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the High Seas to
Bear Arms against their Country”
If, this year, America’s Christians resist the tyrant’s attempts at
conscription, who will enforce the tyrant’s will abroad? More importantly,
who will enforce the tyrant’s will at home?
Christians should not fight unjust wars.
Christians should not serve tyrants.
Christians should resist the draft.
Sic semper tyrannis.
X - In Hoc Signo Vinces
Luke Exilarch“Army Reserve recruiting was in "precipitous decline." Helmly said that the
downturn, if not reversed, could generate discussion of a return to a
military draft.”
The week before Christmas, unnamed Pentagon sources leaked information to
UPI reporter Martin Sieff that the draft is not a matter of “whether”, but
“when” and “how much.” In an article captioned “Neo-cons want to dump
Rummy”, Sieff wrote:
“In fact, Pentagon sources have told United Press International that they
believe the building manpower constraints and pressures on the U.S. armed
forces because of the unexpected long-term commitment in Iraq are already so
great that some form of selective service will have to be comprehensively
introduced before the end of Bush's second term. But the current system,
even though it is already breaking down, will be stretched out as long as
possible to put off that evil day. The administration, these sources said,
hopes that they will not be forced to seriously consider some kind of draft
-- although it certainly will not be called that -- until after the 2006
midterm elections are safely out of the way. But that is by no means clear.
Sieff’s Pentagon sources stated that their desire is to have Rumsfeld
replaced by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a known Zionist
fanatic. And as to whether Wolfowitz would be confirmed, and his subsequent
demand for a draft be acted upon, Sieff concluded:
“And up to now, whenever the neo-cons have wanted something really badly
from George W. Bush and the Republican majority in Congress, they have
always gotten it.”
Sieff’s final remark is at once honest and disingenuous. He nods in
acknowledgment that neoconservatives hold sway over Bush II and
Congressional Republicans. He also looks away from the fact that neocon
allies in the Israeli lobby rule over Congressional Democrats.
“Right around the time of the elections, a representative from the SHAW
GROUP appeared in the building, and stated he had to
do some building modifications and security upgrades for “homeland security”
purposes, including “domestic terrorism.” This work included eliminating
the building’s mail delivery slot, installing a carbon monoxide detector,
installing another fire extinguisher, expanding and fortifying walls around
the recruiting office, and covering the windows with “bomb film” or “blast
film” I was told that recruiters for other branches of the Armed Forces
might be needing additional space. When I asked for identification, he said
“Nobody is supposed to know we’re here” and “We’re not supposed to leave
paperwork here for security reasons”.
The draft is just another example of federal tyranny:
“The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be
between modern civilization and [...] those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority.”
Will Christians Comply or Resist?
“It is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs
when an action [..] can be defined as a direct participation in an act
against innocent human life [...] This cooperation can never be justified
{...] by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it.
Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he
personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on
the basis of it everyone will be judged by God Himself (cf. Romans 2:6,
14:12)”
A Metaphysical Law: Evil Needs the Good to Survive
“Evil cannot exist without good, or in anything that is not good.”
Evil has no capacity to sustain itself. In order to further its destructive
purposes, it needs to consume and corrupt the good.
“He is, at this time, transporting large Armies of Foreign Mercenaries, to
compleat the Works of Death, Desolation and Tyranny already begun”
Unable to command the loyalties of his colonial subjects, the first King
George had to recruit foreign mercenaries and prisoners to be his soldiers.
With them, he tried to suppress the American revolution. He failed.
January 3, 2005