REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND WAR CRIMES, NOTHING NEW HERE.

On April 28, 2004, decent Americans were shocked to see pictures of American soldiers torturing prisoners in a military prison in Iraq known as Abu Ghraib. While there were many who saw nothing wrong with such atrocities, many more were totally repulsed. “How the hell did these people get in our Army” was the response of Senator Ben “Nighthorse” Campbell from the state of Colorado. Strange comments indeed coming from an American Indian whose ancestors were tortured, raped, killed at the hands of the same army. (Northern Cheyenne)

Buried in the abyss that has become the study of American History are the true stories of Republican president Abraham Lincoln’s army and its war crimes extraordinaire perpetrated on both blacks and whites in the South during our Second War for Independence. All of the facts listed in an article included below, which I wrote in 2004, are readily available in the 126 volumes of “The War of Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.”

After the conclusion of the war in 1865, the Union army and its war crime infested leadership turned their attention on the American Indians, especially those in the West, which included Senator Campbell’s ancestors of the Northern Cheyenne. The facts of the atrocities mentioned in my 2004 article inflicted on the American Indians can be found in the National Archives. A thorough study of both resources listed above should prove to even the most dubious that torture and gross mistreatment of others are in the DNA of the American military.

May 20, 2004
It appears today there is a distinct division on how Americans are viewing the news of the war crimes perpetrated on Iraqi detainees by American troops. Although the President and the Secretary of Defense have both “apologized” for these actions, their minions in the press and their shills on the radio are trying mightily to rationalize these acts away.

Just the “horrors” of war some say. You know kind of like “collateral” damage. While there are others claiming the stories are much worse than reality, while even the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee are working hand in hand with their fellow Republicans to keep a great deal of the new evidence of sex crimes and murder, perpetrated against these Iraqis who had been convicted of no crime, out of the hands of the American People.

Perhaps, some of these photos and videotapes the Senate are hiding will find their way into the hands of the foreign press. Then they will be available for the whole world to see on the Internet. Even while our politicians on both sides work like cats in a sandbox to cover up the truth from the citizens of this country, and the world.

All of this is not new. The much-worshipped first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, conducted just such a war against the citizens of the South. Murder, rape, pillaging and theft were rampant, perpetrated by the Union Army. Charles Adams documents in his fine work, “When in the Course of Human Events” that some Northern newspapers called for the total annihilation of the entire people of the South.

Lincoln, the master of duplicity, had issued a “code of conduct” if you will, for the Northern Army. It was known as General Order No. 100, also known as the “Lieber Code”. As professor Thomas DiLorenzo points out, “The Code’s author was the German legal scholar Francis Leiber, an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized governmental power. In his writings, Lieber denounced the federal system of government created by the American founding fathers as having created “confederacies of petty sovereigns” and dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection of “obsolete ideas.” In Germany, Lieber was arrested several times for subversive activities.”

This code, while mentioning the illegality of waging war against the civilian populace, gave total discretion to the commanders in the field to dismiss the code if situations “warranted.”

Like the war against Iraq, the war Lincoln brought to the South, targeted civilians from the very beginning. Did not the sanctions of the past 13 years weigh much more heavily on the civilians than it did the military in Iraq? Do you really think for a moment that Saddam and his legions went without essentials?

Compare if you will these sanctions against Iraq and Lincoln’s “Anaconda Plan.” Lincoln’s idea was to blockade the Southern ports (an act of war) to starve the Southern populace into submission. Drugs and medicines were on the list of banned items. Ironic is it not that George W. Bush included vaccines for infants in the things to be denied Iraq by the embargo.

If Madeline Albright found the deaths of 250,000+ civilians, many of them children and elderly, “acceptable,” do you really think our government cares about a few thousand tortured detainees?

Lincoln certainly had nothing but praise for his commanders who perpetrated acts of violence on civilians in the South. In the early stages of the war, Commanding General George McClellan, reacting to acts of terrorism against the citizens in the South, wrote Lincoln a letter requesting the war be conducted in accordance with “the highest principles known to Christian civilization” and to avoid targeting the civilian population. Lincoln relieved McClellan of his command shortly thereafter and obviously ignored the letter.

In Iraq, as we did in Vietnam, the citizens are seen in the light of “collective responsibility” for acts perpetrated on soldiers. I’m sure the phrase “Kill them all, let God sort them out” is just as popular with the troops today as it was with soldiers I served with some 39 years ago. Try to explain to a foot soldier who lives with fear every moment, sees those who were obviously civilians blown to bits by U.S. rockets and bombs, that for him to shoot civilians is a crime. This creates a lose-lose situation. The more of these folks they shoot the more enemies they create. Just look at Vietnam. Many estimate their casualties exceeded a million or more, and our troops never lost a major battle. Yet, we left with our tails between our legs.

If our soldiers were used as they were designed to be, for defense of our country and our individual rights only, they would not be faced with this mind-destroying dilemma.

As we read about the battle for the city of Fallujah, think back to General Sherman’s acts against the city of Randolph, Tennessee in 1862. When Confederate Sharpshooters from the town fired upon federal gunboats, Sherman had the entire town burned to the ground. He took civilian hostages from the town and in some instances traded them for Federal soldiers or just executed them. Does the word My Lai come to mind here?

Jackson and Meridian Mississippi would face the same fate from one of Lincoln’s favorite Generals. They would both be burned to the ground even though there were no Confederate Armies in the area. Sherman’s soldiers then sacked the town and, as Sherman biographer John Marzelek wrote, soldiers “entered residences, appropriating whatever appeared to be of value . . . those articles which they could not carry they broke.”

Sherman would write of the campaign “for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire…. Meridian no longer exists.”

Professor DiLorenzo writes in his work, Targeting Civilians, that in 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people” of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for “a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing.” This has a remarkable resemblance to words I hear from folks at such Neocon worshipping sites as FreeRepublic.com

I’m sure the Neocons and John Kerry (who has said Bush is just not doing enough) would love to have Generals such as Sherman. He was a no holds barred kind of guy, just like they are. In October of 1864 Sherman ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, “burn ten or twelve houses” and “kill a few at random,” and “let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon.”

Professor DiLorenzo also says in his work “Although it is rarely mentioned by ‘mainstream’ historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a collection of thousands of diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities.”-Anyone beginning to pick up a pattern here?

DiLorenzo continues: “Sherman’s’ band of criminal looters (known as “bummers”) sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses.” As Grimsley describes it, “With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked.” A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.

Then there was the much heralded “March to the Sea” wherein Sherman claimed in his memoirs that his army “destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more.”

General Philip Sheridan perpetrated like terror on the citizens of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. In the autumn of 1864 Sheridan’s 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he “destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep . . .. Tomorrow I will continue the destruction.”

Again from Professor DiLorenzo, “One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined, “it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year.” A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that “the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy [by defenseless women]… I never saw or want to see again.”

It was no accident that these fine specimens of terrorism, Sherman, and Sheridan, were the leaders the government turned loose on the American Indians as they brought terror to their villages and homes in search of empire.

No one refutes today the terror that was brought to the American Indian by the Federal Armies. Even Blacks played their part. Have we forgotten the much heralded “Buffalo Soldiers?” Just exactly whom were they fighting? How can we today place such honor on a group of soldiers who were fighting and killing to take by force the land and property that belonged to another?

Take a look and see for yourself that the pattern of terror that was brought to the Southern citizen was then brought to the Indian.

Washita Creek
Before dawn, the troopers attacked the 51 lodges, killing a number of men, women, and children. Custer reported about 100 killed, though Indian accounts claimed 11 warriors plus 19 women and children lost their lives. More than 50 Cheyenne were captured, mainly women and children. Custer’s losses were light: 2 officers and 19 enlisted men killed. Following Sheridan’s plan to cripple resistance, Custer ordered the slaughter of the Indian pony and mule herd estimated at more than 800 animals. The lodges of Black Kettle’s people, with all their winter supply of food and clothing, were torched.

Sand Creek.
We will look at the Congressional Testimony of one John S. Smith, an eyewitness to the attack by Colonel Chivington, who by the way was running for Congress in Colorado.

Question: Were the women and children slaughtered indiscriminately, or only so far as they were with the warriors?
Answer: Indiscriminately.
Question: Were there any acts of barbarity perpetrated there that came under your own observation?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces.
By Mr. Buckalew:
Question: How cut?
Answer. With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors.
By Mr. Gooch:
Question. Did you see it done?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw them fall.
Question. Fall when they were killed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you see them when they were mutilated?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. By whom were they mutilated?
Answer. By the United States troops.

Wounded Knee

American Horse, Lakota
“There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce… A mother was shot down with her infant; the child not knowing what its mother was dead was still nursing… The women as they were fleeing with their babies were killed together, shot right through… and after most all of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed or wounded should come forth and they would be safe. Little boys… came out of their places of refuge, and as soon as they came in sight a number of soldiers surrounded them and butchered them.”

Dewey Beard, Lakota
“…I was badly wounded and pretty weak too. While I was lying on my back, I looked down the ravine and saw a lot of women coming up and crying. When I saw these women, girls and little girls and boys coming up, I saw soldiers on both sides of the ravine shoot at them until they had killed every one of them… Going a little further, (I ) came upon my mother who was moving slowly, being very badly wounded… When (I) caught up to her, she said, ‘My son, pass by me; I am going to fall down now.’ As she went up, soldiers on both sides of the ravine shot at her and killed her… (I) heard the Hotchkiss or Gatling guns shooting at them along the bank. Now there went up from these dying people a medley of death songs that would make the hardest heart weep. Each one sings a different death song if he chooses. The death song is expressive of their wish to die. It is also a requiem for the dead. It expresses that the singer is anxious to die too….”

Commanding General Nelson A. Miles
“…A detachment of soldiers was sent into the camp to search for any arms remaining there, and it was reported that their rudeness frightened the women and children. It was also reported that a remark was made by one of the soldiers that “when we get the arms away from them we can do as we please with them,” indicating that they were to be destroyed. Some of the Indians could understand English. This and other things alarmed the Indians and [a] scuffle occurred between one warrior who had [a] rifle in his hand and two soldiers. The rifle was discharged and a massacre occurred, not only the warriors but the sick Chief Big Foot, and a large number of women and children who tried to escape by running and scattering over the prairie were hunted down and killed.”

Compare if you will the following:

Black Elk, Lakota
“… My people looked pitiful. There was a big drought, and the rivers and creeks seemed to be dying. Nothing would grow that the people had planted, and the Wasichus had been sending less cattle and other food than ever before. The Wasichus had slaughtered all the bison and shut us up in pens. It looked as if we might all starve to death. We could not eat lies, and there was nothing we could do….”

L. Frank Baum
Editor and Publisher, The Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer
December 1890
“Sitting Bull, most renowned Sioux of modern history, is dead. He was an Indian with a white man’s spirit of hatred and revenge for those who had wronged him and his… With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians….”

Americans need to examine closely the words of Mr. Baum and see if they are not the seeds of our feeling of “moral high ground” as we deal with people of other nations today. Is this not the attitude that was carried into the War Between the States and the Indian Wars? Consider also that 140 years later many Indians and Southerners have never forgiven the Federal government for the acts of terrorism visited upon them.

Neither group enjoys the wonders of “democracy” brought to them by the governing elite cabal that controls the omnipotent State. Neither will the Iraqis!

Lincoln was the Commander in Chief when the horrible acts of the “Long Walk” were perpetrated on the Navajo. The entire campaign against the Indian was to make safe passage for the railroads and secure the land for population. Lincoln was the chief lawyer for many of the railroads before he was elected president.

Lincoln also presided over the largest mass execution of American Indians with the hanging of the Santee Sioux in Minnesota.

War against civilians in the quest for empire is nothing new for Republicans. Bush is just continuing with the program.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

NOT FIGHTING THE WAR WE CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE

“It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.” ~ George W. Bush 2006

“According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the “American Hiroshima” and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.” ~ World Net Daily

Recently, I have been going back over articles that I wrote from 10 to 20 years ago while assessing for myself if I have always been crazy and if my recent writings are inconsistent with what I wrote all those years ago.

In this pursuit, I happened upon the below article, written in May of 2004, in which I wrote on how and why our government, determined to fight a so-called war on terror thousands of miles away, could possibly be so haphazard as to leave our borders, especially our Southern border, so unprotected. I believed then, and still do, that protecting one’s borders while at war was a battle that must be won. Without a doubt, the great majority of our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, did not then, and still do not, agree with my assessment.

Recently, Donald Trump utilized similar beliefs in a campaign that produced his victory. But, at this late date, is that tantamount to closing the proverbial barn door after the horse is gone? Also, why was no one seeing this fatal flaw in military strategy back in 2004? Read my almost 13-year-old article below and form your own opinion as to its accuracy.

ON NOT FIGHTING THE WAR WE CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE

May 31, 2004
Today, our military is present in over 130 countries. We have active wars being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and military actions against other countries being recommended by the Neocon elements in the Bush administration. Yet, the war we cannot lose draws very little attention from most Americans and is being completely ignored by our politicians and our military. That war is the one not being fought for our Southern border.

In what will eventually prove to be one of the gravest military blunders of all time, we are leaving our Southern border almost completely unguarded as our enemies use our stupidity to destroy us financially, culturally and militarily.

While citizens of this country are subjected to humiliating searches and harassment at airports, supposedly to prevent acts of terrorism, thousands of potential terrorists simply walk across an undefended border.

While our soldiers are thousands of miles from home, attempting to impose democracy by force on a people who do not understand the concept, terrorists who could destroy their homes and their families here in America are simply walking into our country basically unopposed. Ironically, many of the bleeding heart socialist idiots in this country are providing food and water for them in the event they become thirsty and/or hungry as they negotiate the heat that is often so prevalent in our arid Southwest.

Just take the time to look at many of the Socialist representatives in our own government who want unfettered borders and are seeking criminal charges against landowners who have formed groups to protect their personal property from vandalism and theft by these illegal aliens, better known to their supporters as “victims.”

The effects on our economy generated by the millions of illegals in this country are devastating, not to mention our increased vulnerability to acts of terrorism.

Our citizens are being forced by this inane policy to endure a virtual crime wave, perpetrated by illegal aliens who in many cases cannot even be deported, thanks to our wonderful bureaucratic criminals at immigration and naturalization!

In many of our large cities, the local governments have actually created safe zones for these criminals to operate by making it a matter of policy not to report crimes committed by these illegals to federal authorities. In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) name illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in Southern California are aliens; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

Our government continually turns a blind eye to this invasion. Many believe that is because the politicians see all the illegals as future voters. This idea carries some merit considering Dubya’s proposal that all be granted immunity. That would immediately qualify most for at least some form of government give away and certainly get them on the rolls as voters when they go for their driver’s license.

There are those who would say these potential voters would not help the republicans because almost all would vote democratic. Considering the socialistic programs now being championed by the republicans, that argument just does not hold water anymore.

In addition, there is the politically correct element that makes it racist to say anything about anyone regardless of whether what they are doing is illegal or not. Political correctness is being used and supported by the government to destroy our culture as a nation. This has been one of the main strategies of socialism since its beginning. I firmly believe that this obvious open-border policy by those in power is nothing more than a continuation of the push for One-World-Socialist-Government by both parties and the power cabal that controls them.

The government is able to generate sympathy for these illegals by saying “they are just trying to build a better life.” Perhaps this is why we seldom see the plastic heads on TV relate to us the news of a Mexican Diplomat smuggling Arabs into the U.S.

Our government tells us only 19 Arabs perpetrated all the horrors of 9/11. Considering our highly flawed immigration policies allowed most of the 19 to be here without having to negotiate our Southern border, and our law enforcement officials failed to follow up on a myriad of warnings, can we take a chance on believing the Arabs who used this corrupt Mexican diplomat to infiltrate our country are here just to better themselves?

How convenient it is that folks of Middle Eastern ancestry are using our Southern border. How many of us could actually tell an Arab from a Mexican national without hearing them speak?

Without exception, all of the people I speak with who support wholeheartedly Bush’s illegal war with Iraq are dumbfounded when asked, “If this war is to stop terrorism, then why does Bush do nothing to stop the free flow of potential terrorists into this country across our Southern border?”. The total absurdity of the concept does not seem to dampen their support in the least. Why would you allow the government to take your children 6000 miles and put them in harm’s way and do nothing to protect their homes and families here in the US?

Bush’s failure to protect this country’s Southern border by allowing an unfettered flow of potential terrorists into the country is proof positive the war in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism or “keeping us safe.” Once that façade is stripped away, like all the other lies for war; why does anyone support this fool and his administration?

With our military stretched so thin meddling in other countries and very few of them left at home, what would happen if some foreign military force invaded across our Southern border? Is the mad rush by our government to disarm its citizens a part of the overall plan to make such an incursion relatively easy? (Think “New World Order”)

The very quickest we could have a fighting force back in this country, equipment and all, would be two weeks at best. How much damage could a dedicated force inflict in that time frame? Anyone who believes that Mexico would not allow their country to be used as the staging ground for such an event should take the time to read the speeches Vicente Fox has delivered in other countries. Besides, don’t most Mexicans believe that Texas, California and other states of the Southwest were stolen from them anyway?

The Mexican military has made hundreds of forays into this country (new link) in the past few years. Probing for weaknesses or just an accident?

I have talked personally with several citizens of the Tohono O’odham village of San Pedro, some twenty-five miles west of Tucson, Arizona who were held hostage by Mexican soldiers with Humvees, night vision and automatic weapons for two days. All the Mexican troops would say is that they were “looking for someone.” Since the village is some 50 miles north of the Mexico/US border, I’m sure they were not simply lost.

So, here we have it: Bush is fighting a war, killing our sons and daughters and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians so he can “stop terrorism”. In the meantime, thousands of potential terrorists are simply walking into this country across a virtually unprotected border. Once they get here, socialists in our government are working overtime to make sure they have food and water and are able to steal anything else they want with impunity. In fact, the government is attempting to make criminals of any who would attempt to stop them.

Those who are not terrorists, per se, become a burden on the overtaxed working citizens of this country or slip into a life of crime where they enjoy immunity from prosecution and expulsion to satisfy the politically correct element in our society.

There are millions here now. The government wants nothing to do with curbing the flow of millions more. Still, untold legions of Americans support our “war on terrorism” thousands of miles away.

A thinking man would have to say as a country, WE ARE TOAST.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY