It was Obama!!
It was Obama that required the Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens as part of the wording!
Well now we know, for those who have been holding out "hope" that Obama will veto the 1031 Indefinite Detainment Bill against holding U.S. Citizens without rights to a trial or lawyer or charges for the rest of their lives.... It was Obama who required the bill have the
language of U.S. Citizens being held without rights in the bill! The only reason he would veto it, is because it does not give him the absolute power as he wants!
First of all, where does Levin get off of culpability by declaring that the Senate complied with the request of the Administration to include the language subjecting US citizens to inclusion in the Bill? Don’t we have “separation of powers”? And beyond that, what about the US Supreme Court? How can they remain silent when this is CLEARLY unconstitutional? It would seem if we have a bunch of “yes” people that bow down to the Administration it is game over. We are CLEARLY living under tyranny, and the people pulling the strings are the central banks. All one needs to do is note the membership of the Fabian Society and the pronouncements of some of their members, like David Rockefeller.
Further, the infrastructure is now in place to confine large numbers of people. Perhaps Reagan understood this when he closed the mental hospitals in that state. Note that in the OWS movement that mass media talking heads commonly refer to those who protest in these movements as “mental cases”, “kooks” and worse. You can draw you own conclusions as to whether protestors were “plants” putting on an act to discredit demonstrations nationwide and, in fact, worldwide because of the dollar’s “reserve” currency status.
The Constitution does not defend itself. Someone with standing will have to mount a challenge, if the can, from possibly somewhere deep inside the American gulag.
So, ask yourselves this: If the government begins to spirit Americans away to inter them in the bowels of the government's penal system or just to a FEMA camp, ostensibly to rot, have they raised the ante to where armed resistance is now justified?
For most alive today, things are as they always were. That means the truth must war against a well established lie and a new paradigm must emerge to replace the first. That's what we are witnessing and it is gaining momentum. One day, and probably very soon, the older one will pass away succumbing to the juggernaut that is the truth.
Perhaps the H&S pattern in the DJIA and other major indices that continue to form are the warning of things to come very soon. All should protect themselves accordingly, for when/if it completes “truth” will arrive with a vengeance.
I concur with a goodly portion of your assessment. Had market forces been left to act on the situation, slavery would have been shuffled off as a matter of it's declining economic viability.
It seems though that history books now paint a picture that would have students conclude that slavery was limited geographically to solely the Southern States and that is a lie of omission.
Slavery was alive and well above the Mason-Dixon. The buildings in Washington, DC were whitewashed with slave labor. Union general and later President, Ulysses S. Grant from Ohio had slaves working his property and is on the record having said that had he thought for a moment that the war was about slavery he'd have offered his sword to the South. And some here may well recall the artifacts of slavery and a graveyard, too, in New York City a couple of years ago.
Moreover, even a brief examination of the Rum Triangle from which the term Yankee Trader arose will broaden one's understanding of the scope and locality of the profiteering of the slave trade.
I do not endorse or support the institution of slavery, but I have a strong desire to see the facts represented in a fair and truthful matter, not one that allows the North to control a moral high ground that they do not deserve.
The first and perhaps the strongest evidence that the war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery was Lincoln himself. Had slavery been the primary cause of the war, or even an ancillary cause then Mr. Lincoln would have never attempted to make a deal with the Southern States to support an Amendment to the Constitution to forever protect the institution of slavery, all they had to do was agree not to secede. It was a deal that the South could have easily accepted especially if that was the reason for the South's secession, but that was not even the reason the South craved disunion. The Southern People could have avoided the entire conflict and destruction of their country had they simply accepted Lincoln's deal, but the deal did not address the real reasons behind the South's desire to Secede from the Union.
Even the act of Secession itself was not the cause of the War, nor was Lincoln a dye-hard Unionist prior to the events that lead up to Secession. Lincoln and indeed, the entire country was well aware of the Right of Secession because it had been taught and espoused by just about every educational institution and politician from the time of the Ratification of the Constitution. In fact, every single Resolution for Constitutional Ratification included clauses declaring the Right of Secession if the federal government or a majority of the Several States did not adhere to the Articles of the Constitution. It was taught in every Military Institution in the country, including West Point, until after the War when the doctrine and all textbooks that expounded the Right were systematically purged by the Radical Republican Party.
So, if slavery and secession were not the real reasons behind the War, what was? It appears that money was the only reason for the War; it was the only reason behind Lincoln's actions. This fact becomes evident when reading excerpts from many of the Northern Newspapers, many expressing the view even prior to Lincoln's Inauguration. For a few years prior to 1960, many of the Northerners, including newspapers and politicians, including Lincoln expressed that the South should Secede and the sooner the better in their minds.
The War of Northern Aggression was all about money as most wars are and will be. Abe Lincoln, upon hearing of the lawful secession of the Sovereign State of South Carolina, said, "What then will become of my tariff?"
I was taught in school (back in the 30s) that the reason for the civil war was protective tariffs. The North was industrial and wanted the South to buy Northern goods and ship their cotton north. The South wanted to buy English good and ship their cotton to England.
The North won the war and saved both the Union and protective tariffs. Te repeal of protective tariffs are again destroying this country.Buying foreigh goods is and should be Treason!!