restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations
Please Dont Call Me a Conservative
It really is becoming quite a nuisance when one attempts to engage in honest intellectual discourse with neo-conservatives concerning the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. If I had a dime every time a self-described conservative has labeled me a liberal concerning my position on the War in Iraq, there would be no need for me to worry about the American economy (at least with regards to myself).
Most folks today seem to enumerate a list of issues under conservative and liberal and tend to apply the former or latter to themselves without regard to reason or why they believe what they do. Of course, this tends to trivialize the issues and it usually boils them down to partisan politics. I believe that the neo-conservative position on these issues stems from the fact that if George W. Bush says so, it must be true. Therefore I would contend that in the unlikely and almost unthinkable event that Mr. Bush orders our troops to leave Iraq, the neocons would praise Mr. Bush for his decisive action and superb leadership.
If Mr. Bush pushed us into whole scale communism, the neocons would support it. Although some of them might snarl at the idea, most of them would remain faithful to the Republicrat party (this is evidenced by the fact that many neocons were upset by the Medicare fiasco but have put that aside for the victory of the party). Their reasoning seems to stem from the fact that Big Brother is our friend and that if Big Brother says so, I must pledge my eternal allegiance to the Republican high priests.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that the neocon position regarding government is particularly dangerous: because it involves blind allegiance to a political party and to the state with no questions asked. It is rare to find a neocon that is bold enough to question the leadership of the Republican Party such is the unpardonable sin. As in Nazi Germany, we are beginning to see Christianized reasoning dupe believers into believing that the state is returning to God and has not really eliminated the acknowledgement of God. I know many people who have even suggested that things are looking up. But are they? Absolutely not! The state thinks it is God and this war in Iraq is the perfect example.
Lets consider first the concept behind the War on Terror. Question: how many times has the Empire declared and won a war on an abstraction? Well, so far, I can think of many times when a war, whether it be domestic or foreign, was declared but I cant recall ever winning any of these wars. McCarthyism is a good example of the type of madness we are seeing today. Being labeled a terrorist is to 2004 as being labeled a communist is to the mid-th century. Did we win the war on communism? No, it still exists today. We did, however pour mounds of money and American lives into the doctrine of containment for several decades. The Truman doctrine of 1947 was just another way the Empire has paved the way to massive political imperialism, and we are still seeing its fruits today. Moreover, this idea that we had to fight communism anywhere and everywhere it existed led to the draft and was conducted under the guise that we were paving the way for their freedom.
No wonder I had a strange sense of déjà vu concerning the War on Terror; Dave Black might well be correct that there is another draft coming. And I, being unmarried and young, will be a superb candidate to kill in the name of the expansion of the godless Empire but I guess Im being selfish, as most neocons would suggest.
Another good example of a policy whereby the Empire has declared war on an abstraction is the War on Drugs. Have we won the War on Drugs? No. The only thing that has resulted from the War on Drugs is a larger national deficit and a massively expanded Gestapo-like federal police force (actually, this should probably be in the plural and is also another result of the War on Terror). We have poured mounds and mounds of money into the War on Drugs and drugs are still a problem today. Will the Empire ever learn that declaring war on abstractions has never worked historically? My educated guess (i.e., obvious observation) is no. The Empire has too much to gain from such actions, namely political influence and massive domestic expansion of our already over-centralized government. We are now seeing yet another indication that the Empire is so fiscally irresponsible that it does not even care about spending money it does not have (perhaps it is wrong of me to even remotely imply that the Empire has ever cared about such things it hasnt).
I am almost scared to research how much money has been poured into the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the like and the total proportion that these things have had on our national deficit. The Empire is spending money that it doesnt have to expand its godless, secular, all-powerful police state and as such, I suppose the Empire doesnt mind financing this war on behalf of our great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids. I like the way Mike Peroutka puts it: terror is not the enemy; it is merely the tactic of the enemy. Terror, unfortunately, will exist so long as men are depraved and wicked. Those who want a quick high will continue to take drugs, and spying on law-abiding citizens will not ameliorate drug abuse just like it wont decrease terror. Communism will exist as long as there are liberals. So, these ideas cannot be attacked with any expectation of success; they are too broad and unfocused.
With the issue of the War on Terror addressed, I would like to look at the legality of the war. There was no formal declaration of war by the United States Congress, and the Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war Congress cannot transfer that power and no other branch of government may usurp it. Does anyone see why our Founders designed our government this way? It is to prevent a single person from having the power to engage in frivolous wars. We should, however, not be surprised about this because the Empire has burned the U.S. Constitution long ago and has been illegally operating ever since. I find it rather comical how most neocons focus solely on the illegal acts of the judiciary but overlook the illegal acts of the remainder of the Empire. Moreover, they desire to fix the problems by either usurpation of more illegal power or by adding a redundant amendment to the Constitution that would not have to be added if the Empire would simply constrain itself to the Constitution.
Of course, legality is not the only reason that we should not have entered Iraq. I am finding it quite meticulous to actually understand why we are currently in Iraq. It seems that the reason tends to vary depending on the amount of evidence that has exposed the problems with the previous reason. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was ever a threat to America. Sure, there has been massive speculation, but massive speculation and massive evidence are two completely different things. We have had high-ranking intelligence officials suggest that WMDs did not exist in Iraq did the Empire expect Saddam to drive over to his nearest Fina station and pick up a few packs of nuclear warheads so they could confiscate them (and most likely add them to the Empires arsenal)?
Now that Saddam has been apprehended and the WMD excuse becomes more and more weakened as the days go by, we are hearing more and more talk of spreading democracy. This irritates me more than the whole issue of WMDs for three reasons. First, it shows how completely ignorant and naïve or willfully deceptive our leaders are concerning the form of government that the Constitution grants us. It is not a democracy; democracy is a hideous form of government, and our Founders rejected such a notion. There have been many cruel regimes that have existed under the premise that such a regime was a democracy. Currently, Europe is the modern socialist capital of the world. Europe is also a self-described democracy.
Secondly, it is not the job of the United States to police the world. Many neocons are completely against involvement in the United Nations; I too hate that organization with a burning passion and call for immediate and swift withdrawal. Yet, interestingly enough, the neocons fail to see that when we meddle in everyone elses affairs, there will be a time when the U.N. will demand a chunk of our sovereignty. Also, I cant help but wonder if these people seriously sat down to consider why it is that much of the world hates the United States? It has nothing to do with their usual excuses of God, prosperity, and democracy (ugh) and everything to do with imperialism. In fact, the idea that many of them even suggest God as a reason is scary. To which deity are they referring? They most certainly arent referring to Christ Jesus so it must be the state. In that case, the feelings of dislike and fear are mutual.
Finally, given the jargon that the U.S. is on a democracy spreading crusade I cannot help but ask whether the United States is really serious about giving the people of Iraq a democracy. If so, I find this to be one of the queerest forms of irony about the situation in Iraq. If we give the people a democracy, chances are fairly good that these people will vote themselves back into the same form of government they had to begin with; a good chunk (60-65-) of the Iraq population is Shiite Muslim. The other option would be that the Empire intends on giving the leaders that we leave there democratic powers, thus resulting in a form of government that would mimic an elitist form of democracy. Of course, we will have to institute a massive propaganda machine similar to the one we have here at home consisting of a large media and a government printing office; but this is another story.
We are now beginning to see large amounts of civilians being murdered. Such is the natural consequence when people stand in the Empires quest for GLOBAL DOMINATIONer, I mean democracy spreading crusades. I heard a story the other day of rockets that were fired into a Mosque killing many. Folks, this is wrong. Murder is murder no matter how the Empire attempts to justify it. There is a difference between shooting a soldier who is shooting at you and shooting a little kid or an unarmed civilian regardless of whether that someone is throwing rocks or not. How many U.S. casualties have died due to rock wounds?
Lets try to reverse the situation here for just one second and stop buying into excuses that the Empire gives us for its irresponsible actions. What do you think would happen if American children or American civilians were being murdered here in the states (of course, we are talking about all viable life here the Empire has been murdering its children for over thirty years now)? Folks, these excuses that are being thrown around are baseless. The Empire will not tolerate those who defend themselves from its tyrannical influence. Domestically, such was the case at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Why do you think that the Empire is not only working to perfect the ultimate police state with the passage of the (Un-) Patriot Act but is attempting to deny gun rights to its citizens? Folks, I would trust my fellow neighbor with a fully automatic M4 carbine with attachable grenade launcher more than I currently do the Empire and the Empire has monopolies on all such weapons (why do you think that is?). Let us re-examine history and predict what the Empire will do to dissenters after it has taken their guns away. The preview of domestic coming attractions may be found in parts of Iraq coming to a no-longer sovereign state near you.
I have not even touched the tip of the iceberg so to speak concerning the situation in Iraq I havent discussed these issues in detail, let alone the loss of liberty through the (Un-) Patriot Act. I have only attempted to give a very brief outline concerning my objections to King George IIs War in Iraq (I could have just as easily put a III there, I suppose). So the question really is, what is the more conservative position concerning the War in Iraq? Well, that depends on what type of conservative you are I suppose. If you are a pre-Lincoln Jeffersonian conservative (the only type of Jeffersonian and true conservative, I would contend) then I would submit that the War in Iraq is legally, politically, and morally wrong.
However, because true conservatism is highly misunderstood due to all the neocons going around waving flags, giving blind allegiance to the Empire, and engaging in a dangerous level of pre-WWI nationalism, I have decided that I no longer wish to be called a conservative. I respectfully dissent.
P.S. For those of you who are interested in a true conservative this upcoming election, one who understands the implications in the Iraqi war and will end this madness, then I would suggest making a visit to Michael Peroutkas campaign website. It may be the last chance we have. 
April 27, 2004
Matt Gamel is a graduate student at Texas A&M and eventually desires to go to seminary to study to be a biblical scholar. He may be reached for comment here.