Forty States Desire to Secede From the Union: Treason or Act of Liberty?

FORTY STATES DESIRE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION: TREASON OR ACT OF LIBERTY?

By Fahim A. Knight-El

I am advocate of legal and peaceful dissent because our United States Constitution affords us that right and it would be hypocritical, if I did not acknowledge that these individuals and States who filed petitions to secede from the United States Government have the right to express dissent and present their grievances in a lawful manner. This is protected under the First Amendment Right of the United States Constitution and I do not think that they should feel any repression from the U.S. Government for seeking separation and sovereignty from the United States Government. This is how Washington State framed its secession petition: “Peacefully grant the State of Washington to peacefully withdraw from the United States and to form its own government. Under the auspices of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America the Citizens of the State of Washington take this grave action in an attempt to wrest sovereignty back unto itself so as to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity”.

Yet, I have always maintained that race is still unresolved in the United States in particular in these neo-confederate States such as Texas (80,000 signatures), Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, etc; (the last time I checked over five hundred thousand people had signed onto the various petitions to secede) have been using the election and now re-election of President Barack Obama to antagonize and instigate the fears of mainly poor and oppressed whites in which to appeal to their historical emotions of their ancestors losing the Civil War. I was visiting Savannah, Georgia, perhaps two years ago and there was a convention being held at the Marriott hotel off General McIntosh Boulevard and the Riverfront under the banner of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans and it was a sight to see this nostalgic era being played out in the costumes and replicas of Civil War weapons, etc. The aura in the hotel gave the impression that they were gearing up to fight and reclaim the South for a second time.

Our Government has become tyrannical, totalitarian and Fascist in which some people are angered about the direction that our nation is headed and view the federal government as impeding on their personal rights and State's rights with impunity. I would agree with this much of their argument; it is no longer a government of the people by the people and for the people. Some Patriots feel that their liberty has been further stomped upon by the reactionary policies of President Barack Obama and the election served as proof positive for the necessity to declare themselves free of Union rule (I would be the first to admit that this sounds like an 18th or 19th century scenario and debate and not an issue of serious modern relevance applicable to the 21st century). Yet, if you do not know by now, these people are serious about seceding from the United States (I must also admit that this is no homogenous or monolithic voice echoing these sentiments, it is perhaps more like a woven together blanket of various ideologies, which ranges from the Ku Klux Klan, Militia groups, strict constitutional constructionist, Tea Party loyalist, Sons/Daughters of the Confederate Veterans, etc., to the far the rightwing of the Republican Party and many other dissatisfied white Americans. They consider themselves as so-called good and God fearing Christians who want to separate from a nation that has become increasingly black and brown. We better play close attention because these petitions could gain momentum. I am of the belief that even the submission of the petition of itself could be considered acts of treason and sedition.

I am assuming that this is a white led movement and if secession is granted, how do some of these states deal with large populations of Latinos (Hispanics), Asians and African Americans and would they be accepted as part of the seceding sovereignty? Many that hold this rightwing agenda of seceding from the Union believe that race—interpreted to mean that black and brown is the problem with America and represents that 47% class that Mitt Romney depicted as looking for government handouts. The variable of race serves as an antagonist contradiction; they could not imagine the Super Pacs spent almost 6 billion dollars collective during this 2012 election season and spent over 2 billion dollars just on the presidential election in which Karl Rove assured the Rightwing that he would deliver them the presidency. Will the elected governors of these states serve as the new presidents of these various proposed new sovereign nations and territories? How will the mineral rites and natural resources be dealt with? Will these sovereign nations be allowed to have their own independent arm forces on U.S. soil and most of all will they be permitted to enter into international treaties and agreements with enemy nations of the United States? What will be their arrangement with the United States relative to who will control the vital and strategic ports and waterways that are of most important to the United States national security? The notion of seceding as one can tell is a complex theory and will pose problems for the petitioners and the United States.

There is conservative website named RedState led by Erik Erickson who has from time to time endorsed the idea of Texas (the lone Star State) having the right to secede from the Union and even Texas Governor and United States Presidential candidate Rick Perry has endorsed the seceding movement from time to time. Now, reason with me, because I have to point out the double standard in order to bring some balance to this article and this is where me and most white patriots part ways; just take a moment and imagine if Muslims in the United States were to have filed this same type petitions and ask for a state which to secede and separate from the United States and declare themselves as a government inside a government. There would have been tremendous outrage spewed by the ignorant that Muslims would establish a sovereign state based on Sharia rule and some of these same liberty seekers would be opposed to Muslims seeking to secede from the Union; moreover, they would not even be allowed to have this type conversation without persecution and prosecution. This automatically would have called for intense Federal Bureau of Investigation scrutiny and surveillance, and no doubt it would have been met by the long arm of the U.S. Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Anti-Terrorism Acts, National Defense Authorization Act, United States Justice Department and any other arsenal at the disposal of the office of Homeland Security could use to halt such an action that would be viewed as anti-American and the question of secession in of itself could be considered a declaration of war. These individuals filing these type petitions and anyone associated with them relative to post 9-11, perhaps could be argued that they should be classified as Enemy Combatants and enemies against the State (this government recourse is not without precedent).

For example, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale (founders of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) and George and Jonathan Jackson (Soledad Brothers) and other black revolutionaries were prime targets of the United States Government counterintelligence program dubbed Cointelpro by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. The United States Government implemented massive and widespread acts of repression aimed at all levels of the Black Power Movement for daring to declare themselves a self-defense organization that advocated Black Nationalism and who evoked the Second Amendment Right to bear arms and even raised the question of secession. Many of these black freedom fighters lost their lives and others received long term prison sentences like the Panther 21 and others like Elmer ‘Geronimo’ Pratt who was wrongly convicted and after serving over 25 years in California State Prison system was exonerated, Mumia Abu-Jamal (Philadelphia Chapter of the Black Panther Party) who still languishes in the American penal institution with a death warrant over his head.

The Black Panther Party had a 10 Point Plan; which number 10 stated: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are most disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

The United States Government took all actions to disrupt and neutralize militant and radical black leadership and worked to compromise their organizational effectiveness by sending U.S. Government agent provocateurs who were used to instigate and cause internal confusion in order to incite police, which led to many Panthers losing their lives at the hands of racist police. Eldridge Cleaver in 1968 published his most famous book titled, “Soul on Ice” in which he wrote a very interesting letter to then Governor Ronald Reagan requesting that he be pardoned and sentence be commuted (Cleaver declared himself a political prisoner). Many do not know that Cleaver while serving prison time had converted to the Nation of Islam and teachings of Elijah Muhammad. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad also advocated separation and secession and many do not know that the Black Panther Party "10 Point Plan" was drawn from the Black Muslims and Nation of Islam Program “What the Muslims Want” and “What the Muslims Believe” Muhammad stated: “We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own--either on this continent or elsewhere. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years--until we are able to produce and supply our own needs”.

“Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America, justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own”

They hailed one bright spot in this recent presidential election relative to electing close to 30 Republican Governors (or adding to the Republican count of conservative governors) and I am willing to bet you these are some of the States who filed petitions to secede from the United States. Here is how the state of the Commonwealth of Virginia petition read: “As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government..."

They are masters at disguising their real intent by hiding behind politics. Many of today’s secession movement still possess a 16th and 17th century colonial mentality in which in their worldview, as well as their paradigm has been shaped by historical nostalgia and from this mindset, Chattel Slavery and the Civil War (1861-1865) are also unresolved (the Dred Scott Decision and the Missouri Compromise) and other slave legislation (they believe that at some point they will redeem themselves relative to losing the Civil War and will one day physically fight to regain their great, great great, great grandparents glory). These States are hiding behind their so-called political dissatisfaction, but from a white supremacy perspective, they are more angered that our country is being led by President Barack Obama, a black man and they would rather secede from the Union, then to remain under his ruler-ship for another four years. But here is the contradiction they claim to be advocates of patriotism and democracy and possess a deep seated belief in liberty. But I thought in theory the Revolutionary War (1770-1776)—Declaration of Independence with the 16 Colonies breaking away from the ruler-ship and domination of Great Britain and the U.S. Constitutional Conventions held in Philadelphia (the city coined the city of brotherly love, which is direct Masonic lingo) and culminated with the formulation of the U.S. declaring itself one nation. Furthermore, U.S. Constitution in 1787 was rooted in the principles of freedom, justice and equality (and I was taught that the Civil War was fought to keep this nation one and unified). Many revisionist historians agree and maintained as Charles A. Beard wrote in his treatise titled: "An Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution" (1913) the constitutional language in principle and intent favored white male property owners. Thus, white women and blacks were permitted from voting, which lie the bases of American democracy. Blacks were written in the U.S. Constitution as chattel (property) and were deemed 3/5 of a human being.

The South lost the Civil War and most reasonable historians would agree that slavery was the central issue of the Civil War (1861-1865) because it was the economic driving force of the nation at that time and perhaps the most value commodity in the History of America; but one should not be mistaken because the North and the South benefited from slave labor. I recently read a piece authored by Donald W. Livingston titled, “Why the War Was Not About Slavery” Livingston stated: “We think of slavery as an alien and "un-American" practice confined to the South in the 19th century. But an honest look at American history reveals a quite different picture. Slavery was woven into the economic, political, and cultural fabric of the Northern states from the beginning. The first African slaves were brought to New England in 1638 in exchange for enslaved Indians. Boston began importing slaves from Africa in 1644. For 164 years New Englanders sold slaves throughout the Western Hemisphere”. Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee, the faces of the Confederate South had declared that the South would secede from the Union before they would capitulate and give up slavery. The South viewed slavery strictly as an economic necessity (we have always questioned the moral ineptness of this evil institution) and these wealthy white property owners were not willing to cripple their profitable economic enterprise by giving up their labor force without a fight. Some African Americans view Abraham Lincoln as a hero because he so-called freed the slaves on September 22, 1962 with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation (but actually it would ultimately be the Thirteen Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1965 that truly abolished slavery); however the slaves that he freed in the Confederate South, he had no jurisdiction over those slaves.

Lincoln used the issue of slavery as a strategic and tactful maneuver to create social and political tension for the Confederates and to create military discord in order to disrupt South‘s efforts to succeed from the Union. Most Historians have argued that if Lincoln could have maintained the Union and kept slavery as an institution, he would have done exactly that and for that reason this writer does not view Lincoln as a philanthropic humanitarian who valued black people in this over-all conflict. J.A. Rogers gives this assessment in his book titled, “Africa’s Gift to America: The Afro-American in the Making and Saving of the United States : With New Supplement, Africa and Its Potentialities”.

I have been a harsh critic of President Barack Obama since he appeared on the radar as a presidential candidate in 2008 as a Rothschild, Rockefellers and Kissinger agent, but to those who are not aware of these entities, perhaps view his two elections as the greatest form of democratic expression—this was seen in Obama receiving over three and half million of the popular vote (surely one could argue that the people had spoken) and received over 300 electoral College votes. This negative sentiments and backlash represents the racial and historical divide in the United States.

However, some would further, argue that the Civil War was about States rights and this has been debated since the formulation of the United States as a government and nation in 1787—federal authority (central government) versus States right to exercise self-determination; but no one could deny that slavery created a political rift and social tension between two bourgeoisie classes of white men (aristocratic property owners from the North and South). This was the primary reason the southern states were literally up in arms. The North (the Union Army and leadership) were mandating that the south give up their most valuable asset, which was free slave labor. Agriculture and farming was the economic way of life for the South and it was African slaves for 310 years who plowed, planted, excavated and worked from dawn to dusk (never even received the 40 acres and a mule for their servitude).

This free labor created a power Elite aristocratic class and even to this day their wealth has transcended time and eventually was used to establish banking houses. The cotton gin was a relatively new invention and technology had not advanced enough to do away with the need for human labor. And to this very day the farms and fields (agri-business) of America are full of brown hands (migrant workers who moves with the planting seasons and is even allowed work visas to enter the United States from Mexico and other Central and South American nations) picking the cotton, tobacco, vegetables, fruits and all manner of produce that sustains this nation (the Latinos are the new slaves). Slavery was an integral part to making America a wealthy society; thus, before the factories in the North became the focal point of American business, it was agriculture (numerous of cash crops ranging from cotton to tobacco). Also the early American settlers could not have survived without the Indians who literally saved the very people who would later exterminate them, and the African Slaves who built the early infrastructure of the United States have been left as second class citizens and vagabonds of the earth. The U.S. economy was built and dependent on slavery; many of the Founder Fathers of this nation and the framers of the U.S. Constitution were vast landowners and slaveholders.

Will these people who are looking to secede from the United States represent the impetus and beginning of an internal Civil War?

Fahim A. Knight, Chief Researcher for keeping it Real Think Tank located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of goodwill, of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolism and reinterpreted the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlightened world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EI can be reached at fahimknight@ yahoo.com.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
1 year 7 weeks

*chuckle* sombunall Americans...anxiety monkies...

There is a series of islands off of British Columbia's coast that used to be called the Queen Charlotte Islands. Very beautiful place. Very wild.

In the 2010 the name was changed to Haida Gawaii after years of discussion. The federal government asked if they were still going to allow people to come and go (yes) and if they were going to have their own currency (no) so they said knock yourself out.

There are many different ways to deal with the issues that one finds one's self living in, more so then 'us' vs. 'them' mentalities that are encouraged by anxiety and fear that encourage the ego to strike out and go "I am the most important thing. I must get my way"

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think the question of secession in particular like the state of Texas has been on and off the table for a very long time. But the re-election of President Obama has exacerbated long standing historical tensions and the seceding rhetoric is the last resort of a dissatisfied sector in mainly old Confederate States. Their action and behavior demonstrate that they do not fully believe in Democracy and the Democratic process. I may not agree with some of President Barack Obama's policies, but he was duly elected by the people or may be I should say by the Cabal.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

Quite a bit of the secessionist rhetoric is about things that are undemocratic such as The Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the TSA gropings. To characterize these people as being "undemocratic" is disingenuous.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think it is even more disingenous to desire to secede not just because of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the TSA gropings (these are valid concerns that I share), but the one that you left off the list was the racism variable and factor, which is also a motivation to secede.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

You are trying to corral the secessionist movement into one homogenous script. It doesn't work that way. Just because there is a racist element doesn't mean you can generally call secessionists racists. The first state to make serious overtures of secession was Vermont, and there was no racist overtone to their complaints. You can't paint these people with a broad brush though that is what the White House is trying to do.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

No, I think you have totally missed the point. I am going to use Muslims and Islam as part of my argument relative to secession. I am using this analogy to show a double standard in which I am not trying to paint the canvass with a broad brush. This argument is about; lest say a minority ethno or religious group seeking to secede and separate from the United States, the analogy is given to show forth the political contradiction relative to a non-white group making a legal and official petition to secede from the United States Government (how would they be received by the status quo and the powers-that-be?). The petition itself would have automatically been dealt with as an act of treason and sedition and may have even been viewed as a declaration of war and no doubt would have been met with the long and short arm of the office of Homeland Security, FBI, local and State law enforcement and these petitioners would be subjects of the National Defense Authorization Act and other Anti-Terrorism Executive Orders and Judicial legislation. For example, historically there have been Nationalist and Pan-African groups and organizations such as the Republic of New Afrika, Universal Negro Improvement Association (Marcus Garvey's Movement), the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Nation of Islam, etc., all these organizations had ideological planks dealing with separation and seceding. But J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI deemed their petitions as criminal and were not being assessed from a constitutional perspective (which speaks to the legal right to dissent, but these 47 states who has made these petitions are receiving the benefit of the doubt—their dissent is being viewed strictly from the lens of legality). The Nationalist and Pan-African leaders and their organizations were criminalized and were labeled as militant and radical groups (these labels led to a justification of the state coming against these people) that required the attention of law enforcement from the highest levels of government (the best example that I can give you is Cointelpro). What my article speaks to the double standards as it relates to black secession movements versus white led secession movements.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
1 year 7 weeks
fahim knight wrote:

I think the question of secession in particular like the state of Texas has been on and off the table for a very long time. But the re-election of President Obama has exacerbated long standing historical tensions and the seceding rhetoric is the last resort of a dissatisfied sector in mainly old Confederate States. Their action and behavior demonstrate that they do not fully believe in Democracy and the Democratic process. I may not agree with some of President Barack Obama's policies, but he was duly elected by the people or may be I should say by the Cabal.

When people are stressed, certain psychosocial programs get triggered. Older, more powerful ones.

Like in the Islamic ME -- Islam has a program that resists proselytizing that has been activated by the presence of 'the West'. Until that more powerful program gets deactivated, there isn't going to be progress.

I agree with you that there are programs (based on experiences and taught culture -- both intentional and not) that sombunall people aren't aware of and they just REACT.

Like when Dems complained at Bush Jr. Like when Repubs complained at the Clintons. Those who are not 'of the tribe' are to be treated as less than your tribe and are to be treated with less rigorous rights. When stress happens, the notion of tribe can shrink...

The great experiment of America is an attempt to try to make an overarching tribe for people of differing tribes to consider themselves to be a part of...

I do hope it doesn't break apart...but I think that depends on something like meditation being taught in schools...some sort of mindfulness training so when these stresses happen (and they will continue to happen), people stop reverting to these powerful old programs...

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I do not think that if Mitt Romney would have won the presidential election; these states would not have filed these petitions to secede from the Union because NDAA and U.S. Patriot Act is convenient excuses; for example, the Patriot Act has been on the books since 2001 and other reactionary Executive Orders and legislation have been on the books. But other than the State of Texas who from time to time has consistently advocated secession, the others in my opinion disagreed with the outcome of the election and now are yelling secession. Thus, after the election it has become politically expedient to use the reactionary and oppressive police state policies as an excuse to justify the rhetoric and not publically man-up that real motivation to secede is racism. Many of the southern Confederate States has never gotten over losing the Civil War.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
1 year 7 weeks

Here's something to add to the pot:

"Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals."

--from here

This brings up the idea of freedom of speech -- how much freedom should be 'allowed' vs. responsibility toward the Greater Good. What ideas, if any, should be policed; what ideas should be encouraged...

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

Does culture unconsciously and unintentionally create bias and we as human beings rely on and adopt predisposed attitudes and prejudices which have been passed on; this train of thought eventually affects, shapes and alters our worldview and ability to accept others unconditionally without referencing what we have learned about individuals, groups, society, cultures, etc? Our stored mental stimuli seems to always be the driving force relative to our ability to recall what we have been taught—good, bad or indifferent are forever guiding our assessment and evaluation of others. May be our social programming is the root cause of man’s inhumanity to man—our ability to commit all types of atrocities against humanity ranging from acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, violence, institutionalize racism, hate crimes, and our capability to carryout all forms of oppression and repression against other human beings is rooted in this phenomenon; moreover, only because people may differ from us in racial and/or ethnic make up, having different religious beliefs, different sexual orientation and express life from a different cultural persuasion at times drives us to be intolerant.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

I think secession is a wonderful idea and there is not a racist bone in my body. The seriousness of the claim matches the seriousness of the usurpation of democracy abetted by the Obama administration when it bolstered the Patriot Act and the NDAA even though Obama had campaigned in the first election that he would beat back these insults. I could really care less what other peoples' motivations for secession might be, and you will not catch me trying divine what the true motives of others might be. I have my reasons for advocating secession, and if others have other reasons that is not my concern. We do agree on one thing though. The Feds have become serial liars with a serial liar at the helm, and enough is enough which is what we said many years ago when we desired to "secede" from England. No doubt that secession movement was populated with all sorts of folks including racists and whatever.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I cannot question what's in your heart or your motivation relative to the question of secession and how you see it, but I believe the impetus of this movement is rooted in the history of American racism. They were not looking to secede prior to the 2012 presidential election and the conservative right boasted that they were going to make President Barack Obama a one term president and they put over a billion dollars up insure that he was voted out of office. Now, many of these southern racist Confederates are relating back to the language of the American Revolution and Civil War; we are living in the 21st Century under a so-called Republic that is based on democracy. Here is the problem and issue that I am having, the American people voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, he received over 3 million popular votes and he won over 300 of the Electoral College votes (this by all standards was a convincing win within a so-called democratic process). The masses of the American electorate rejected Mitt Romney and the conservative Rightwing Agenda and it was that 47% that he openly condemned who sent him home packing. I thought voting was rooted in liberty and represented the highest form of Democracy. The entire sucession rhetoric looks suspcious, in particular right after losing the election now this small minority wants to break off from the United States.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

I don't care. I am not a racist, and I know plenty of other people who find the idea intriguing who are also not racists. There are for instance racists in both political parties, but most people still vote with their party. My parents for instance vote republican mostly, but they are not racists. There are racists in the party, but you cannot let that affect your own political desires if on certain issues you are in alignment with an overall goal.

When I expose Israel's involvement with the 911 false flag the internet trolls just love to then call me an "antisemite." It is the usual cheap tactic of association fallacy. There are no doubt people within the 911 truth movement who gravitate to it because they are antisemites. What am I supposed to do about that? Drop my claims that Mossad was a big player in the op? Certainly not.

Charges of "racism" are nearly always a two lane thing as witness this video of Obama laying it on so thick about racism that he in turn coudl be called a reverse racist.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-...

I became interested in secession years ago when Vermont first suggested it. It has nothing to do with racism or who won the last election. If racists want to glom onto the idea well that is their problem. I think that the idea is being tarred and feathered lately by falsely associating it with Confederate racists. Vermont is not exactly a confederate state you know.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

The history of America speaks for itself. Your motivation might be whatever it is, but no one can convince me that many of these secessionists have not found the opportunity to shield themselves behind these petitions (claiming constitutionality and liberty). I live in the south and some of these folk still believe we are in the Civil War era and their interpretation of these historical events are colored and rooted in the history of American style racism. I know what they mean when they say that wanting to go back to the 'old south'. I think it is unfair to lump the Zionist and anti-Semitism analogy to this argument. I am not suggesting that people should not have the right to assess, criticize, evaluate and condemn any behavior that would be deemed unjust. I think those who are much more powerful than African American use their influence and power to stifle debate and label any criticism of Jewish (Zionist) behavior as being anti-Semitism; thus, it takes away from the deep seated moral question—the question of what is right and wrong relative to Zionism without being falsely labeled an anti-Semite. I do not think that’s my motive.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

I sometimes run into people who think that all 911 truthers are antisemites. They "suspect" our motives just because we dare show the mechanical linkage between the Likudniks and 911. Sorry, but a "suspicion" is not going to cut it Fahim. Any secessionist who wants to reinstate slavery will sure as hell not get a warm reception from me, but in the meantime I am not about to abandon the idea of rescuing our country from an executive branch which has assumed dictatorial powers. No way.
This reminds me an awful lot of the charges of "racism" that were leveled against the people who dared to bring up the very legitimate problems with Obama's photoshopped birth certificate that was shown online. All sorts of experts demonstrated in detail how the thing was a forgery, but when sherifff Arpaio first brought up the legalities the Obamaites called him a racist with racist motives. He may very well have been a racist, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues of Obama's photoshopped birth certificate and his insistence that the hard copy then be flown back to Hawaii and forever "sealed" in the state records of Hawaii, so that no one would be able to inspect the orginial.

See video

People have had enough of the Big Con that is being run on them and the breakdown in the legal system. That my friend is what motivates many of us to call to account our country in the manner most serious to its identity. If the various King Georges in the executive branch are going to strip us of all civil rights the we want out.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think you already know by the various post and threads that I have posted on the TDG for the last five years, thus, how I feel about the false flags and my position on 9/11, it surely is not rooted in the governments version of these events. I have consistently maintained that President Barack Obama is controlled by the Hidden Hand and the Invisible rulers (like all prior U.S. presidents) such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg. I know there are a lot of smoking mirrors and I do not think anybody on this forum has consistently hammered this position perhaps more than I. But once again George W. Bush literally stole an election and bankrupt our government by being the front man (Rothschild’s puppet) that sent our nation into an economic depression not seen since the Great Depression of 1929. He and Bernanke used the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England and induced an artificial economic crisis in 2008 that has devastated the lives of the American people even to this very day. But guess what as terrible as Bush polices were in particular in greasing the palms of international bankers and Wall Street financiers to the detriment of the American taxpayers (surely his policies reflected taxation without representation in my opinion was tyranny) his criminal conduct was allowed to coexist in our democracy. But guess what again his 2000 stolen election mirrored something that you would have expected to occur in a developing nation; not in a so-called first world democracy. However, after the United States Supreme Court upheld his election; I cannot recall any 'liberals' mandating succession (although many felt democracy was not served) and looking to breakaway from the Union. Our democracy sustained itself until the next election in which Bush won a second term (for better or worse this election was a little more legitimate). No secession was advocated. I did not hear these Confederates filing petitions to secede and based on Bush running a foul of the United States Constitution they in my opinion would have had more legal justification to seek secession grievances. So yes I am very suspicious of the underline intent of these secessionists.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

You are talking about the early years of this century before the accumulated weight of constitutional insults had come to bear. Things accumulate - it takes time. When a breaking point is achieved we get a radical reaction. That is what is happening now.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

May be you are right about the culmination of time. But it is the timing of these secessionist that has driven me to take the position that I have taken. The evidence is clear that 9/11 was a hoax and we were duped on relinquishing our civil liberties in the name of national security; our national treasury was heist by Bush and the international bankers—Robbery Barons and money changers. He led the charge in turning the U.S. Constitution into a worthless piece paper. He also, led the United States into two senseless wars in the false name of patriotism, I would argue what other convincing evidence would one need to draw the determination that the time for dissent has been imperative for over 10 years. Many who understand the nature of False Flags have been sounding the alarm. You see President Obama is not the problem he only inherited the script.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

Are you kidding me? Obama strengthened all of the provisions of The Patriot Act and the NDAA. Even Cheney has congratulated him on this.

Valerie Jarrett “There Will Be Hell to Pay” for Obama’s Critics

by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com

November 18, 2012 - Activism, Main
Tagged: FEMA, goldman sachs, government, new world order, obama, police state, wall street - 12 comments
It was shocking when President George W. Bush stated “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Senior White House Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, has taken these words to a significantly more dramatic level when she stated that “there will be hell to pay” for Obama’s critics in the second term.

Iranian-born Communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama’s Senior White House Adviser is strongly rumored, from multiple sources, that just prior to the recent general election, to have issued a clear threat against the rank and file members of the American public who do not support Pres. Obama. Allegedly Jarrett said “After we win this election, it is payback time. For those who supported us, there will be rewards, for the ones who opposed us, they will get what they deserve. There will be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. With no election to worry about, we have two judges ready to go.”

Although allegations against Jarrett for having said the statements are sourced in multiple outlets, I can find no audio recording of the statements by Jarrett. Nor, can I locate an actual official transcript for these alleged threats against Americans who would dare not to support the President. However, in the theater of “actions speak louder than words,” it is highly likely that Jarrett did indeed utter these threats, given her extreme Communist leanings and her very un-American past.

Valerie Jarrett comes from a family which intermarried with the Bill Ayers family. Yes, that would be the Weathermen Underground terrorist leader, Bill Ayers. That would be the same Bill Ayers who told FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, “that when we take over the United States, and that we will forcibly detain 50 million Americans in re-education camps in which they will probably have to murder 25 million American citizens who cannot be re-educated.” Grathwohl repeated the Ayers statement on the August 18th edition of The Common Sense Show. This is the same Valerie Jarrett family which was also involved with Frank Davis the former head of the Communist Party in the United States. This is the same Frank Davis who Joel Gilbert exposed as Obama’s real father. Additionally, the Jarrett family is also affiliated with other so-called “Red Diaper Babies” in which this young group of intellectual elites called for a communist takeover of the United States in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s. For those that know their history, you will remember that the same people engage in terrorist acts involving the detonation of explosive devices in which people died, including a San Francisco police officer. Bill Ayers wife, Bernardine Dorne served a prison term for her participation with this group. And we also know, that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne, close friends of Jarrett to this day, funded President Obama’s Harvard education. These facts have led many to believe that Valerie Jarrett is making the major decisions in the White House.

I prefer the judge a rabid dog by its bite potential and not the volume of its barking. The bite potential of the Obama administration, in a nothing-to-lose second term, is the most frightening thing I have ever considered. Below is just a partial list of whether, or not, we should take Jarrett’s words seriously.

The NDAA, ushered in by Obama allows the government to “disappear” and murder American citizens without due process of law. Under the President, FEMA camps have become operational. This alone, gives the President the power to carry out Jarrett’s threat of “hell to pay..” for Obama non-supporters.

The National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order permits Obama to declare martial law, seize all critical assets in the country including food, and this can be done just on Obama’s say so.

Under Obama’s watch, we have 50 million Americans on food stamps, and the economic numbers are the worst that they have been since the Great Depression and they are getting worse.

With the passage of Obamacare we have socialized almost 20% of the economy and have instituted death panels with promise to euthanize the elderly and other infirm people in the same manner as they are doing in Great Britain.

Prior to the election, I stated that some of us (Obama’s detractors) would not be around in four years if he was elected. I have never wanted to be more wrong in my life as there is no doubt that America has been not only been hijacked by an immoral group of international bankers who are plundering our country’s assets and resources, but we are being ruled by the bankers’ puppets who are proving to be ruthless Communist dictators who will not hesitate to “purge” their political opponents in the same manner as Stalin and Hitler. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, mix a little Zionism in with the ruling elite banking cartel, and now all of you have a pretty good idea of what we are up against.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

No, I am not kidding you, it is valid that President Obama continued what George W. Bush initiated, but you have still not acknowledged this point. Once again I had thoroughly condemned and criticized some of the same points made by Dave Hodges in the article that you reference. But Hodges and others like him shocks me by loosely throwing out communism as some boogieman theory and they use this 1950 Marxist analysis to scare the hell out of the ignorant—communist are taking over the country this is ludicrous (Wall Street Bankers have always been the Masters of our country). Thus, Communism did not put us in this present crisis, but CAPITALIST international bankers are responsible for our misery.

However, I am not willing to overlook the racial component in this hold idea of secession and you have explained that there are other motivations associated with secession other than race, which I partially agree. But the dismantling of individual rights and State rights were in full effect when Bush started his reign of revoking our civil liberties. The United States Patriot Act was enacted 43 days after the 9/11 hoax in which he and our government flat out lied that it was an Al-Qaeda attack led by Saddam Hussein out of Iraq (not Osama Bin-Laden) on the World Trade Center and the U.S. financial capitol and our mass silence made us culpable because there was no mass resistance or outrage and the results speaks for itself and we have now come full circle.

If these secessionists were genuine they would have called for mass revolt and resistance during Bush's tenure. But I am also smart enough to know that these 50 states filing these petitions is more of a symbolic gesture because everyone knows that very few of them (States) could maintain and sustain their sovereignty politically, economically or socially—the geopolitical factors and variables are totally against them without some assistance from the United States Government. So in reality they would be back at square one (looking towards President Obama and the U.S. taxpayers to subsidize their independence).

But in this symbolic secession argument it is shrouded in the complexity of racism that has allowed them a privilege status who for over 200 years has been the benefactors of living in 'a pigmentocracy'. They would rather stir people up—often poor whites and appeal to a demographic who thinks they share privilege with the white Elite and they do not understand that we all are pawns regardless of ethnicity, nationality, race, skin color, etc.

The secession idea and the timing of such is a serious reverse play on the race card but many of the pundits will only say what is politically correct. I am pointing that factor out. America has a serious history of divided race relations and the secession movement is a prime indication of such.

Stay Awake Until Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

Forget "communism." I don't think Obama is a communist. He is a social corporate welfare brat hired to stay out of the way of the banksters, the multinationalist "persons," and the NWO move to destroy civil liberties. All of that "communist" stuff is just a distraction. I was more interested in the fascist nature of Jarrett, and since Obama just sits around the White House watching sports in his skivvies most of the time and leaves the delegating to Jarrett, it is of the utmost importance that we take the gauge of this woman. She sounds like a dangerous fascist to me. She always has - it is just that now she feels free to unleash it on us in who knows what fashion.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think the entire Valerie Jarrett scenario it is just propaganda and poor journalism. Here is a writer/Blogger or social critic Dave Hodges who admits that he found no primary source evidence to corroborate that Ms. Jarrett in deed said these things that she is being accused of saying; he has no proof to substantiate the allegations. Thus, the basis of the journalistic piece immediately loses credibility relative to being objective and empirical. Journalist and even historians (social scientist) used to have to at least observe the scientific method of reporting and disseminating information.

I think it is highly irresponsible journalism for the author of the piece to build a premise around allegations and with no factual evidence; moreover, and for good measures throws in Communism to create an even bigger phobia. The U.S. Government used this same tactic during 9/11 hoax to create fear and panic, which was ultimately designed to shape public opinion and allow people to voluntarily surrender their freedoms and civil liberties. We have to move beyond the culture of fear. President Obama is not the face of the new boogieman. The Rothschilds claimed that image and power over 200 years ago

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

Actually it is well known that Jarrett is a nasty piece of business. Stay tuned. Actions will speak louder than words.

Actions have already been doing so. There are many devious ways in which citizens can be tormented by cracked politicians:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/columbia-clas...

Her is another behind the curtains peek at what really goes on in this White House:
http://theulstermanreport.com/2011/12/05...

And finally there is this interview with a documentary film maker describing what she saw taking place at the 2008 democratic convention. A little known fact - the Clintons were the first "birthers," and when they dared broach the subject of Obama's eligibilty there was hell - and murder - to pay.

See video

I think this Obama White House is one of the most dangerous ever to sit the office. I am very concerned what is in store for us now that Obama has the NDAA enabling him to incarcerate people with no stated cause and no legal representation. This is an unprecedented time of danger for the nation, and with Jarret already sounding more and more like a fascist there is no reason to think we are going to be spared a lot of crap from these people.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

This is where we might disagree, Jarrett does not have the power or authority to alter the agenda nor does President Barack Obama; they are commissioned to follow the script. William Cooper authored his book "Behold the Pale Horse" I believe in 1991. He had thoroughly pointed out that United States had transitioned into a Fascist State and the United States Government pre 9/11 had already enough in its arsenal to trod upon the Civil Liberties of the United States citizens. There was a Black Nationalist leader named Yahweh Ben Yahweh (leader of the Nation of Yahweh, a Black Hebrew Israelite sect out of Miami, Florida one may not agree with his theology, but what happened to him was of the utmost importance); in November 1991 he became a trial run (litmus test if you will) and pilot project for how the United States Constitution became unbinding as jurisprudence rule of law of the land. Yahweh was held/detained for months without being formally charged, denied bond, denied the right to an attorney and his 14th Amendment right of due process was denied and this is pre so-called Islamic terrorist being held in Guantánamo Bay Cuba.

It was Florida's U.S. Federal Attorney named Janet Reno that delivered Yahweh to the sacrificial alter. Here is my point, the encroachment of the Civil Liberties of the American people has been in full affect before the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). For example, in 1979 the Iranian Revolution with Ayatollah Khomeini overthrowing the U.S. puppet Shah of Iran in which the Iranian Government had billions of dollars in U.S. and American Banks and based on seizure and forfeiture laws and policies they have frozen Iranian money and assets for over 30 years (one again this sound like what’s written in the U.S. Patriot Act before it was enacted); I am talking about the government having this authority in 1979. Please go back and read the King Alfred Plan and there is a book that I read many years go authored by Samuel Yette titled: "The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America". My point is Jarrett and Obama are pawns; nothing happens without the approval of the Hidden Elite and lastly we had transition into a full fledge police state long before President Obama was elected commander-in-chief.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

The Patriot Act and the NDAA formalized the assault on the Constitution. Before that there were of course criminal acts going on under the radar. That is what intelligence services do at times. The difference between then and now is it is no longer illegal to arrest people without probable cause and detain them indefinitely without legal representation, and that now includes American citizens. Big difference. That is a huge difference between then and now. Codifying the destruction of the Constitution is what allows Obama for instance to play his little drone blow 'em games right out in the open.

Of course, we are in total agreement that the White House are just pawns. Do not however expect me to just give up and be resigned to that. I intend to go kicking and screaming into the night, and I intend to loudly proclaim the guilt of whoever is sitting the oval office for being empty suits and placeholders. Not doing anything is as dangerous as doing something. Obama and Romney are the new template for presidents - they are supposed to stay out of the way of the globalists and do what they are told, and they are supposed to go along with a subverted legal system and the break down of the rule of law. Of course, what is particularly disgusting is that Obama campaigned that he would roll back the Patriot Act. He did no such thing. he did not lift a finger to do any such thing. He reneged on so many of his promises that it is difficult to keep it all in one binder. Obama crawdaded out of so much he promised that at the end of his first 4 years he wasn't even "recognizable." I don;t give a darn whether Obama is some lightweight caught up in games he can't do anything about. He and his ilk should be getting the full brunt of our criticism. It is a criticism of the burgeoning fascist police state. You have to start somewhere.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

No doubt, in the second part of your comments, you make some very valid points but although, I agree that NDAA has taken the concept of the police State and Big Brother is Watching You to another level relative to diminishing of our so-called civil liberties and it is a very scary era. But these measures have been in the makings for a very long time and unless the American people wake up from their slumber and begin to show and demonstrate some resistance to the increasing police state concept it is going to get more oppressive and reactionary. It does not matter if it’s President Obama or and other controlled dictator occupying the White House—the results are going to be the same. Our democracy had become seriously compromised since the 9/11 hoax because our so-called system of checks and balance pursuant to the three levels of government—Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches lost the original intent of what the constitution was trying to prevent (Fascism and Totalitarianism), but we allowed them to transfer all the power to the Executive branch of government. This is where we are in space and time.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks

Fahim A. Knight,

According to Thomas Jefferson, it is an Act of Liberty.

According to Abraham Lincol and Obama, it is Treason.

I don't care!

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think those of us who live in the United States probably need to care about the course of action that our government has taking, because if the notion of dissent is going to be interpreted as treason, then just the idea along violates the legal ramifications and the bases of our jurisprudence system, which is the United States Constitution and will continue to give more way to the undermining of our Civil Liberties and our so-called basic rights granted to us as American citizens. Now, if I totally accepted your reasoning it doesn't have any real political enthusiasm and/or passively gives us any optimism to resist. But those of us who live inside the United States of America should care because of the reactionary and dangerous public policy that has been enacted against the freedoms of the American people since 9/11. I think it is our God given right, as well as our constitutional right to continue to advocate and fight for Freedom, Justice and Equality. So, I disagree with you in the care the department: I do not have far to look when it comes to justifying my disagreement and position: Here are a few examples that should have all of us alarmed: The U.S. Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, Military Commission Act, Anti Terrorism Act, that you are well aware, etc., and there are many more Executive Orders and Judicial legislation that has already been enacted against the American people. And eventually no one will be safe any place in the world.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks

Fahim Knight

Since I walked out of the U.S. in September of 1985 with no intentions of returning, I do no feel that it is proper for me to take a position with regard to internal U.S. politics; but, I'm happy that 70% of the U.S. Jews voted against Israel. I'm also happy that Obama, the better of two bad choices, won the presidential election by getting 70% of the Latino vote. From now on, its the Latino vote that matters, not the Jewish vote. Besides, Obama is much better for Japan in my opinion. Politically, the only thing that I care about is Japan!

Don't over estimate the real influence of the U.S. on the world. The U.S. Dollar is history. We don't need it! Our currency is pegged to the Chinese Yuan which is, in reaity, backed by gold. Besides buying large quantities of gold, China mines more gold than any country in the world and China doesn't sell any gold!

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

Ok I am glad that you clarified your position because ultimately what affects the United States affects the globe. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated: "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Stay Awake Until Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks
fahim knight wrote:

Ok I am glad that you clarified your position because ultimately what affects the United States affects the globe. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated: "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Stay Awake Until Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

I first heard of Dr. King and Rosa Parks during the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycot. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Why do people ignore the unjust way that Israelis treat the Palestinians and others? Why do people ignore the Israeli genocidal ethnic cleansing program in Gaza?

I disagree with you about the importance of the U.S.. There was a time, a long time ago, when I would have agreed with you. To paraphrase a Betty Davis line from the movie "All About Eve", "Fasten your seat belt; because, the U.S. is in for a very bumpy ride!" Please, try to gain a more complete understanding of Asia. U.S. and European main stream media do not understand Japan and Asia in general. Japan has contributed to every U.S. and E.U. bailout since 2008 and Japan has a fund to buy gold which has about *JPY100,000,000,000,000 left in it. *{ JPY = JaPanese Yen }

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks

Fahim Knight,

1} Lincoln promised not to abolish slavery when he ran for President.

2} In the final analysis, preserving the Union was Lincoln's only concern.

3} Some slave states did not succeed from the union, i.e. Maryland and Delaware.

4} The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states that succeed from the union, not in Maryland, Delaware, and other slave states that did not succeed from the union.

5} Slaves in Maryland, Delaware, and other slave states that didn't succeed from the union were freed when the 18th ammendment was ratified.

6} If no states had succeeded from the union, the 18th ammendment probably wouldn't have been proposed which is a pity.

7} An even greater pity is that, in my opinion, there probably would be slavery in the U.S. today.

8} The point of the U.S. civil war is that states do not have true sovereignty.

Trivia Questions: What is the Mason-Dixon Line? Why was the Mason-Dixon Line Drawn?

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

Let me first make the most important premise in which we must first understand that Chattel Slavery was an evil and immoral institution. Most American historians begin slavery with the date of 1619, but the first African slaves arrived to the Americas in 1555 on a slave ship named Jesus piloted by Sir John Hawkins (Some have traced this interchangeable name to John Hopkins; the name of John Hopkins University in Baltimore).

The Portuguese were the first maritime slavers who took 20 West African slaves to Lisbon and introduced African slaves as a commodity (but more like Indentured Servants) in southern Europe. The Catholic Church under Pope Alexander VI (1493) and later Bishop Bartholomew Las Casas (1517) had the un-ceremonial duties of religious blessing and sanctioning slavery in which the Spanish and Portuguese were initially at the forefront of the African Slave trade.

They also signed the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 (an agreed slavery pact between two European nations dividing and determining how slaves would be distributed in the “New World”). Spain and Portugal in addition, signed the Papal Bull of Demarcation where these two nations drew and imaginary line dividing the world between these two European powers. Spain was awarded all the territories in the so-called "New World" interpreted to meaning all the lands in the Caribbean, Central and South America with the exception of Brazil were awarded to Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella.

These signings led to the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the Middle Passage where anywhere between 15 million to 100 million Africans were transferred by force to the Western Hemisphere. Yet, even prior to slavery in the Antebellum South it was the Massachusetts—Plymouth Rock in around the Boston area where Chattel Slavery began to flourish (so initially slavery was a Northern institution before the Mason-Dixon line were drawn I am referencing the early 1600s). Also, before Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863; blacks had already started to rebel against the institution of slavery, thus, there were internal tension festering between white slave plantation owners and black slaves who desired to be free.

Perhaps one of the most famous slave rebellions took place in 1831, in SouthHampton County, Virginia under the leadership of Nat Turner in which Turner believed that God had spoken to him in which he was given the mission to liberate the slaves and he and some other slaves went on killing spree to free themselves from the yoke of slavery; killing slave masters, plantation owners and their families.

Turner and his men were eventually subdued, but not after they had killed hundreds of white plantation owners. Turner was eventually caught and hung. And there were other rebellions like in Stono South Carolina led by Demark Vecey and 1829 David Walker wrote his "Walker's Appeal, in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of the World, but in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the United States of America, Written in Boston, State of Massachusetts, September 28, 1829" .

So there was growing social tension amongst some of the slaves who desired to be free by any means necessary. Most of this has been documented by American historian Kenneth Stamp's book titled. "Peculiar Institution" and Stanley Elkins' book titled, "Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life". So I believe the Civil War (1861-1865) was inevitable and it was going to happen whether it was Lincoln or some other social or political phenomenon (the quest for black freedom was starting to brew).

However, Lincoln was extremely intelligent, he knew that if he so-called freed slaves in the South this would serve as a strategic and tactical political maneuver with an objective of weakening the South; although the South in theory had succeeded from the Union and Lincoln had no jurisdiction and/or power and authority over the governance of South—yet both sides, the North and South used the black slave as a political football.

I think many black and white historians have depicted Abraham Lincoln as this great philanthropist and humanitarian (he was more like an opportunist) who passed what appeared on the surface to be positive slavery legislation. But in reality, Lincoln's motives were to cripple the South economically and incite blacks to become disrupted, which would ultimately affect an agriculture economy that functioned off slave labor.

The Aristocratic white property owners incited poor white Confederates by imparting a false sense of white pride, which was rooted in the ideology of white supremacy and they believed that they had a mandate from god to ensure that black slaves remained their property who were considered unequal to whites and according to the language in the U.S. Constitution; blacks were considered 3/5 of a human being. The Confederates built a racist patriotic theme of why they were going to war—to so-called defend their sovereignty, but beneath the patriotism and liberty was the idea to maintain slavery.

It was not totally about States sovereignty, but this was the only route left during the Civil War era to challenge the federal government by breaking away and declaring themselves free of federal laws and Union legal restraints. The wealthy white property owners financed the Civil War and used poor white Confederate soldiers as mere cannon fodder. The objective was to fight to maintain slavery surely a most profitable institution. It would actually become the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution that freed the slaves in 1865.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks

Fahim Knight

The Mason-Dixon Line is the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. Pennsylvania offered Maryland a little more land if they would ratify the U.S. Constitution. So, Maryland ratified the U.S. Constitution. Then, Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon surveyed and drew the new border. Washington D.C. is south of the Mason-Dixon Line!

I totally agree with you about slavery; but, I disagree about the Cival War. I know that there was slavery in the north before the constitution was ratified, not after. Indentured servitude is not the same as slavery and it started in Europe before Africans went to Europe. Furthermore, I am a charter member of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, a member of the Palestinian Human Rights Movement, a member of the Islamic Human rights Movement, and Proud Of It!!!

First of all, the roots of the U.S. Civil War go back atleast to the Missouri Compromise of 1850, Missouri entered the Union as a slave state and Maine entered the Union as a free state. California also enter the union in 1850 as a more or less free state with some slavery in it. Nobody, i.e. Blacks, could be forced into slavery in California.

The first slaves in the south were native Americans who had no natural resistance to European diseases and died too quickly; but, they were free! So, poor whites who had no resistance tropical diseases, i.e. Malaria, started to be used as slaves and they died too quickly; but, they were free! Blacks had natural resistance to all of the above; but, they were very expensive. So, Africans represented a major financial investment to southern slave holders.

I agree that the southern economy depended on slavery and the expansion of slavery. In general, the southerners didn't rotate crops and cotton depletes the soil very quickly. So, southerners kept clearing more wilderness areas and turning them into cotton fields. So, from an economic perspective, slavery was important to southerners, not northerners. So, from a southern perspective, slavery could be viewed as one of the economic roots of the U.S. Civil War. But, States Rights was the main cause of the U.S. Civil War.

From a norther perspective, States Rights was the only issue; because, you can't have a strong central government if individual states have sovereign rights. So, President Lincoln basically scraped the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln was an opportunist and the U.S. Civil War was a straight power grab by the north.

I'm one of the black horses of a northern family; because, I support Civil Rights. My family origionally comes from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and North Dakota. Northerners, in general, hated a blacks until comparatively recently. The real reason that there was no slavery in the north is that they didn't want blacks living in the north. Northerners wanted a strong central government and an obedient south.

The Mason-Dixon Line had nothing to do with the U.S. Civil War!

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

There were a lot of slavery Supreme Court decisions; the Missouri Compromise actually was not in 1850, it was 1820 in which the Dred Scott Decision in 1857 declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney decision declared that no black slave or free could ever be considered a citizen of the United States of America.

A white Abolitionist such as John Brown and Fredrick Douglas was fighting for abolishment of slavery. However, Judge Taney's legal decision was in support of the southern institution of slavery and thereby fueling white plantation owners to stand their ground because according to them blacks had no legal rights and they would forever remain Chattel (property). The framers of the Constitution wrote and believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

It was this racist fervor that was driving the southern Aristocratic plantation owners to dupe the Confederate mindset into think that they had a divine right to keep blacks in a lowly servitude position because in their mind the "Negro" was inferior. The poor rank and file Confederate bought the second part of the argument (hook, line and sinker) that it was a battle for States Rights and sovereignty (or Liberty and Freedom), but really Civil War was about money—an economic arrangement that had made huge white plantation owners extremely wealthy, which was rooted in racism.

Thus, even President Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union and maintain slavery he would do just that. Lets not get it twisted blacks fought on both sides of the Civil War. We will always see the Confederate as a racist American dilemma in which people of African descent were forcibly worked for 310 years and no reparations were ever made to the ex-slaves. Just like you are proud to support the Palestinian plight against the Zionist in Israel; I will always stand against American style injustice and racism. What is the difference between the Confederate and the Zionist as far as historical behavior?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks

Fahim Knight

Sorry, I got the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 confused with the Missouri Compromise; but, there are similarities between the two. Furthermore,in effect, the Dred Scott Decision reinforced the presumption that black persons have no rights that a white persons need to respect. I believe,however, John Adams and, maybe, Thomas Jefferson rejected this presumption. In their correspondence, they discussed the morality of slavery for about 40 years. In my opinion, the Dred Scott Decision marks the low point in U.S. Judicial history.

Everything has its roots in economics one way or another and the Zionist ethnic cleansing is no exception. The presumption in Zionist Israel{Occupied Greater Palestine} is that Palestinians have no rights that Zionists need to respect. And, church membership is in the economic interest of Christian Churches. So, Christian Churches in the south were preaching that slavery was ordained by God according to the New Testament Book of Philemon. In the Book of Philemon, Paul tells the run away slave Philemon that he should return to his master Onisimus; because, it is right for him to do so!

Both sides used black soldiers for a variety of reasons. The north used black soldiers; because, white soldiers kept getting sick fighting in the south. Black soldiers had stronger immune systems. The south used black soldiers mainly out of desparation in my opinion. And, there were other reasons for the use of black soldiers on both sides.

I don't see a moral difference between the Confederate and the Zionist; because, they basically do the similar things in different ways. They both lie and use pseudo religious propaganda to get their own way. Zionism is also a political philosophy. The difference is that Confederates bought people; whereas, the Zionists conquered the people in Palestine, occupied their land, and forced the palestinians into economic slavery. Neither the Confederates nor the Zionists are indigenous to the land that they occupy. The Ashkenazi Zionist Jews are a Mongoloid-turkic people who migrated from the Asian steppes to the Caucases circa 500 c.e. and they converted to Judaism in 700 c.e.. The Biblical Hebrews were blacks of east African desent and so was Jesus. The holocaust is not an excuse for the immoral barbaric actions of the Zionists in Greater Palestine. Furthermore, this Zionist url which basically restates a teaching of the Babylonian-Talmud-Torah "Gentiles{non-Jews} exist only to serve Jews" helps to make my point!!!
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/201...

New evidence is coming to light. Things are changing. And, I may comment later about the holocaust; but, for now, let me point two things out that can be verified by anyone. The sign infront of the Aushwitz complex in Poland now claims that one million{1,000,000} people, both Jews and non-Jews combined, died there during WWII. Furthermore, it has been proven that there were no gas chambers in the Aushwitz Complex!

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think one must come to the realization that slavery was wrong and evil; it was justified based on theology and the American jurisprudence system (law and God). There is no other way to look at that; moreover, it was this compromised labor force that propelled the United States and the South in particular to becoming extremely economically prosperous to the detriment of the African slaves who were victims of systematic brutality.

The Civil War (1861-1865) was fought to maintain this economic interest and the Confederate system would have been debunked years before the Civil War was fought, but the dehumanization process was the foundation and driving entity that kept those who did not see blacks/Africans as human beings during the de jure and de facto time periods of empowerment and it was this psychology that was so entrenched and the glue that held the Confederate ideology together by depicting white skin as superior and black skin as inferior. How could one ignore that racism and the Confederacy ideology were equally tied and yoked?—there was an interest to keep this system of inequality in place because it allowed for a set of norms to go unabated and the beneficiaries would always be the wealthy white plantation owners.

It was a vicious system of control and people of African descent will never see any humanity in the Confederate justification of fighting the Civil War other than the understanding that racism undergirded this historical reality at that time in history in which America was a racially divided nation. The foremost State rights that the Confederate South wanted was to maintain slavery and having a free labor force to sustain a cash crop economy. The right to keep on enslaving black people was part of this priority. Thus, one must also understand that right after the Civil War, we ventured into the Reconstruction period from 1865-1877 what W.E.B. Dubois referred to it as "Black Reconstruction". Blacks gain an enormous amount of economic and political power in former Confederate States during this twelve year period.

For example, PBS Pinchback became Governor of Louisiana and Blanche K. Bruce became a Senator of Mississippi and Hiram Revels also became Senator a from Mississippi, Robert Small (a Black Civil War Hero) and a five term member of the House of Representatives from the State of South Carolina became a powerful black political personality. This was proof positive that when the political and social playing field was equal African Americans soared to great political heights. Also during this same time period in1866 the Ku Klux Klan (White Knights) was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee to reset racial and black social progress back to the old South concept. The U.S. Federal Government betrayed the interest of Blacks by removing the Federal troops from the South and the South after Reconstruction became even more repressive.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

cnnek's picture
Member since:
28 June 2006
Last activity:
1 year 21 weeks

Fahim Knight

I agree that slavery is evil and wrong; but, slavery is also despicable, unjust, sick, depraved, etc. in all of its forms and so are all institutions and people that practice slavert and/or support slavery whether religious, Confederate, Zionist, etc..

What do you think?

cnnek

{You Can Teach People How To Think Critically Or What To Think; But, You Can't Do Both! It Is Better To Teach People How To Think Critically!!!}

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I think that I have always argued the inhumanity and immorality of Chattel Slavery and from that vanish point it does not matter what the Confederate intentions were or were not, but we do know there was a historical crime that had taken place and the inhumanness of it was catastrophic, which devastated real people. It is extremely difficult to overlook this reality of this 310 year crime and nothing could ever make these people whole again. I do not think the quest for States rights (sovereignty or secession) during the Civil War era even came close to superseding the importance of a segment of humanity enduring the tragedy of slavery. They were fighting for the right to be considered human beings and free from the yoke of this evil institution.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

Obama's Latest "Insider Threat" Memo

On the day before Thanksgiving with little or no media attention, President Obama wrote a memorandum, which is an unofficial directive, to the “heads of executive departments and agencies” that addresses “insider threats.” While the corporate media has largely ignored this memo, there has recently been much speculation in alternative media as to why Obama felt the need to address insider threats at this time.

The subject heading of the memo is “National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs.” It is short enough to reprint in its entirety:
This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.

The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.

The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.

Much of the speculation regarding this memo is a result of the brevity and ambiguous wording. For example, what exactly defines an “insider threat” and why are “violent acts against the Government or the Nation” mentioned? Recent events raise even more questions. After a closer look at some of the theories regarding why Obama felt the need to write this now, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Stifling whistleblowers

This memo obviously urges an expansion of powers granted to the Insider Threat Task Force that was created by an executive order in October 2011, ten months after Army Private Bradley Manning retrieved roughly 250,000 diplomatic cables from a government computer and turned them over to Wikileaks. Bradley Manning is facing hearings this week that could lead to him being imprisoned for life, after already being imprisoned is solitary confinement since May 2010. If that is not enough of a deterrent for whistleblowers in the military, what is?

Jesselyn Radack, writing for the DailyKOS, correctly points out that this memo “serves to reinforce the Obama administration's woeful confusion of whistleblowing with espionage [and]…is completely redundant as agencies already have internal policies on classified information and secrecy agreements.”

Radack continues to advance the theory that the memo is meant to stifle whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou. Yet she once again correctly notes that “the memo equates disclosure of classified information with ‘violent acts against the government’ and ‘espionage,’ a certainly inapt and chilling comparison considering that…an employee taking violent acts to overthrow the government or conducting espionage…is a rare occurrence whereas classified information appears on the front pages of national newspapers daily.”

In fact, the New York Times pointed out last year that anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be made public.

Kevin Gosztola, who has been following the Bradley Manning case, appeared on RT with a similar assessment (see video). “During the clip, I point out the policy is extraneous as it is already official policy for national security agency employees to not release classified information without proper authorization. This adds another layer of procedures meant to chill speech and whistleblowing.”

Gosztala takes it one step further when writes, “it is an indication that the Obama administration, which prosecuted more whistleblowers or leakers in the past four years under the Espionage Act than any other previous administration, has a disposition against the free flow of information.”

It is quite possible that Obama wrote the memo with Manning’s case and other whistleblowers in mind, yet many speculate that there is much more to it. Obviously, none of these whistleblowers were plotting violent acts against the nation and it is a safe assumption that a President who is an ex-constitutional law professor can make a distinction between whistleblowing, espionage and violent acts against the nation.

Expansion of executive powers

Beginning with the Bush administration, there has been a rapid expansion of executive powers in government and the Obama administration has continued that trend with unprecedented bills such as the National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867) and the Federal Restricted Building and Grounds Improvement Act (HR 347). It is a legitimate concern that the insider threat memo is a directive authorizing a further expansion of executive powers.

David Hagmann, writing for the Canada Free Press, makes some good points when he interprets Obama’s memo in a broader perspective. Like others, he points out the ambiguity in the wording and acknowledges that it could just be geared at stopping leaks. Hagmann, however, takes note of a key word in the memo. The word is “centrally,” and when it is considered in the context of Obama’s agenda seen being implemented over the last four years, it is chilling:
The key to understanding this memorandum is to understand that we are witnessing the greatest consolidation of power and control under the Executive branch of the government in recent U.S. history. This process creates a closed system of surveillance that cannot be easily penetrated by other branches of…government. Accordingly, it becomes a self-policing network that has the ability to silence critics and individuals opposing a particular agenda or activity, even if such dissent is lawful…it gives Barack Hussein Obama the ability to redefine what constitutes a threat to the government, including treason. It is he, not laws enacted by congress or the workings of the judicial branch, who will now determine who and what constitutes an ‘insider threat.’

It is the very essence of ‘Big Brother’ within the government itself. Everyone needs to wake up and understand exactly what’s happening not only in the U.S., but across the world. We are witnessing the consolidation of power that historically precedes a war for absolute control.
Hagmann’s analysis encompasses the stifling of whistleblowers and takes it a step further to the stifling of any dissent within government agencies. Like Gosztala and Radack, he acknowledges the ambiguity in the wording. Unlike both, however, he fails to mention that the mechanisms for stifling whistleblowers and any form of dissent were already in place before this memo was written. So, the question still remains, why would Obama feel the need to write this memo now?

Real insider threats

The words “violent acts against the government or the nation” have rang the alarm bells of several writers who have covered this memo. Most seem to think they are out of context with the insider threats vaguely described in the memo. But that may not be the case. President Obama may be beginning to feel threatened by not only people within his administration, but also by people in this country.

One context to put that into is that President Obama has received more death threats than any President in U.S. history. At least two blogs have referenced Secret Service sources that say death threats to the President have increased by over 400 percent since Obama took office in 2008 and amount to about 30 per day. That's 43,830 death threats for his first four years alone. Of course, that is impossible to verify because the media and not even the President is made aware of all threats against him. As the Secret Service says, "the sheer number would be overwhelming and, frankly, distracting."

Combined with the recent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the spike in gun sales after the election, and many who have signed petitions for secession, the words “violent acts” and “insider threats” make more sense. Some writers, such as Gordon Duff writing for Press TV, have gone as far as to claim that Obama’s memo may be a preemptive response to an Israeli assassination attempt or an effort by AIPAC-backed groups to overthrow the U.S. government. Whether or not real threats of violence are from domestic insiders or foreign infiltrators, they cannot sit well with any President regardless of party affiliation.

As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. The question then becomes, in between what? A simple silencing of whistleblowers or preventative measures against an assassination and/or overthrow of the U.S. government? Neither one seems good for Americans right now.

Gregory Patin writes for the Examiner where this article first appeared. Patlin earned a B.A. in political science from U.W. - Madison and a M.S. in management from Colorado Technical University. He is currently a freelance writer residing in Madison, WI who considers himself politically independent.

fahim knight's picture
Member since:
22 December 2007
Last activity:
20 weeks 12 hours

I really do not think there were anything new relative to President Obama constructing this memo; I think myself, Emlong and CNNK and perhaps others on the TDG forum over the last few years have been sounding the alarm about False Flags and the negative affect the 9/11 hoax has had on the American people and the globe. Many of these initiatives had been put in place by President George W. Bush right after 9/11 in which he began dismantling how our government was structured based on the three levels of government, i.e., the Executive branch, Legislative branch and the Judicial branch—our government was structured this way to ensure Democracy and to add a dimension of checks and balances with the separation of powers.

Some would argue that the United States Congress, the elected officials of the people who were involved in passing the United States Patriot Act and establishing the office of Homeland Security gave the Executive Branch of government to much power (in unchecked Executive Orders, law enforcement powers, and was the Patriot Act essentially a violation of our Constitutional Rights?) and did this legislation actually upset the balance of powers we have in our three branches of government.

The Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Bill and other anti-Civil Rights policies gave the United States Government and the United States Department of Justice unprecedented authority; in particular over American citizens and the citizens the world over in general. The Justice Department can now detain, conduct unwarranted search and seizure acts (Illegally eaves dropping without due cause) , illegally arrest, concoct indictments via grand jury, seize real and personal assets, impose long term prison sentences, etc., if the government label you as a terrorist (this label could now be applied to ordinary citizens), the government has the right to treat you in any manner they deem acceptable and in many cases deny American citizens basic civil rights.

The American people have giving the United States Government this type of authority over them in the name of fighting terror. The Justice Department has developed terms such as “Enemy Combatant”, which allows them the legal ability to extradite American citizens who commit acts of terrorism and/or are in collaboration by way of a conspiracy with foreign dissidents on international soil (they even reinterpreted the Geneva Convention and rights giving to prisoners of war). The government now can use various legal and military techniques (specifically under the Military Commissions Acts of 2006) in its arsenal when it comes to so-called fight terrorism.The have expanded the military powers of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to function beyond the scope of natural and man made disasters; it now has the capability to function as a military arm who acts at the pleasure of the president and is on call just like the U.S. National Guards.

For example, wiring tapping, detaining suspected terrorist individuals without due process (violating the14th amendment), monitoring dissent activist and speeches (violating the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), monitoring suspected violators banking transactions by expanding the powers of the United States Treasury Department. But many view this massive legislation, legal, and law enforcement build up and guidelines giving under the Patriot Act as being essential and necessary in the United States efforts to fight and combat terrorism and to secure its boarders and secure its international interest in the area of foreign policy.

The Patriot Act redefined how immigration would be viewed and in the name of National Security and as a result, many new offices were founded and existing law enforcement office (FBI, CIA, ICE, DEA, ATF, IRS, INS, federal, local and state law enforcement agencies, federal, state, and local courts) were giving expansive authority in the name of so-called making the American people safer in this era of fighting terrorism. Thus, perhaps in doing so the question that remains is, did we compromise too much of our civil liberties in allowing the passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism Bill and the Military Commission Act just as the citizens did in 1798 allowing the passing of the Sedition Acts?

These articles often appears to continually overlook the massive reactionary Executive Orders and legislation and laws that Bush enacted during his tenure that has brought us to this space and time. Bush and his administration waged some of the greatest assaults on American's civil liberties under the guise of the U.S. Patriot Act and under the Office of Homeland Security. So to lay this Big Brother and eroding of American civil liberties totally on President Barack Obama is a little disingenuous, but no doubt he has been as equally and or if not more dangerous than President George W. Bush. But make no mistake about this, Obama's policies are only a continuation of what Bush started, which was a war on the American people.

The former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura wrote about the False Flags and war against the civil liberties of the American people in his book titled, "American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us". So I think some of these pundits have hidden ulterior motives and many of them backed Bush in 2001 because they were duped into believing that we were at war with Islam and that Bush Doctrine had a motive of ridding the world of the "Axis of Evil" and crushing the so-called "Rogue Nations" thus, type language was the epitome of Western imperialism. Americans applauded that we had attacked the defenseless nation of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and never thought twice that they were putting Executive Orders and laws in place to attack the ordinary American citizen.

The 9/11 hoax was used to compromise the United States Constitution and to strip the American people of any rights that were guaranteed to protect us as U.S. Citizens. They in particular wanted legal measures to offset our right to due process under the law (set forth in the 14th Amendment). They used fear and scare tactics to get us to accept and believe that Islamic Terrorist were coming to get us and that the Islamic so-called extremist had compromised our National Security interest. No, Bush and Barack were coming to get our assess.

Yet, we are now moving toward 2013 and 85 percent of the American people are still sleep and have no knowledge of what is going on around them (I do not feel sorry for us anymore the handwriting has been on the wall for a very long time). President Obama in my opinion had sealed the deal with implementing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which has given him unprecedented and unilateral authority to bring the hammer down in any direction that he chooses. It is not about defining new legal perimeters to controlling internal threats and/or espionage—those measures are already in place.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
2 hours 37 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPn-vYH2eYc