The Curse of Abraham Lincoln


The Curse of Abraham Lincoln

 by Mustang


Americans today remember Abraham Lincoln as one of their greatest presidents.  I completely disagree with such a proposition.  The facts of our history leading up to the American Civil War, and those following it, simply do not support such a conclusion.

1860 election

Abraham Lincoln O-26 by Hesler, 1860 (cropped).jpg John C Breckinridge-04775-restored.jpg
Nominee Abraham Lincoln John C. Breckinridge  
Party Republican Southern Democratic
Home state Illinois Kentucky
Running mate Hannibal Hamlin Joseph Lane
Electoral vote 180 72
States carried 18 11
Popular vote 1,865,908 848,019
Percentage 39.8% 18.1%


President Lincoln didn’t start the American Civil War, of course.  The road to civil war began long before Lincoln entered politics.  No — what started the civil war was a drastic shortage of thoughtful, tolerant, patient men serving in high political offices.  Lincoln’s election to the presidency simply galvanized the southern state’s refusal to obey laws passed by Congress that they (the southern states) believed were unjust.


Several markers led to civil war, but ultimately, there were two key issues — their order of importance depending on who one is talking to — state’s rights and slavery.


 Slavery.  There is no justification for human bondage.  It is not only abominably sinful, but it is also a dumb idea.  Slavery, as an institution, cannot be economically sustained.  The USA was well on the way to abolishing slavery in 1808 when the slave trade was officially outlawed.  So, there was no “continuing pipeline” of human slaves coming to the United States after that year. 

Even so, maintaining a large number of people in bondage was economically unsustainable.  Suppose a planter owned ten slaves: five males and five females.  In five years, the grower could end up with forty people in bondage.  If one imagines how much it cost to house, feed, and clothe ten people, how much more would it cost to care for 35-40 such persons?  In 1800, the slave population in the United States was 894,000; In 1830, around 2-million.  Slavery was always a stupid idea, and (or so I believe), slavery would have imploded on its own without emancipation through carnage.


State’s Rights


a.       If the founding fathers formed the United States on the notion that the people controlled their government and destiny through the selection of representatives, why would Abraham Lincoln deny the people their “God-given” right to choose their future?  The question is significant because I do not believe the American people have ever been “united” in matters of the greatest import.

b.       What did the average farmer in Indiana or Georgia know about nullification?  My guess is “not much.”  But what the average citizen understood about the nullification principle was a matter best left to the states, not the federal government.  Either the people were, as stated ad nauseam, empowered to choose their government and destiny, on what basis did Lincoln have to “preserve a union” that (1) never actually existed except on paper, and (2) no longer served the interests of the people?


1.       Only about one-third of the American people thought the revolution was a good idea.


2.       Hardly any American supported going to war with Great Britain in 1812.  Those who did support the war had something to gain from it.


3.       The American people did not have any input to the Louisiana Purchase or subsequent territorial expansion — which played an essential part in leading up to the civil war, particularly relating to the admission of states.

c.       People today argue that such discussions have no merit because the “matter” has already been resolved.  The northern union won the war — the war settled the matter.  But has the issue of individual liberty been fixed?  Do the American people continue to express their will through their respective state governments?  Should the states, therefore, have the most influence on formulating national policy — and the US Congress “less” influence?  Shouldn’t the federal government, as set forth in the U. S. Constitution, have limited power over “we the people?”

Let’s test this for a moment.  Suppose there had never been a civil war.

a.       Six-hundred fifty-thousand Americans would not have lost their lives.

b.       There would have been no need for national reconstruction, which was nothing shy of a horrendous experience for southerners and a disaster for the industrialized north, as well.  Poor southerners, for example, did not become consumers for northern-made products.  It took the American people sixty years to recover from the US reconstruction policies imposed upon the country by “radical Republicans,” men hell-bent on teaching the southern people a  lesson they would not soon forget — while concurrently punishing the entire nation.  I wonder, too, without reconstruction, would there have been such lawlessness in the old west?

c.       Likely, there would not have been a Spanish/American War and no quest for overseas colonies.  During the resulting Philippine Insurrection, 300,000 people lost their lives.  Another 100,000 people lost their lives during the Boxer Rebellion in China.

d.       Would the American people, whether as separated into northern and southern states, or even as diplomatically re-united at some point, have involved themselves in the dreadful affair of World War I?  We gave up 120,000 of our young men in World War I; we gave up another 650,000 lives because of influenza brought home to America from Europe by our soldiers  (1918-1920).

e.       Without American colonialism in the Pacific – an example not lost on the island nation of Japan, who in focusing on United States behavior, embarked on their own version of Manifest Destiny, the Pacific War cost the American people another 388,000 casualties and, in terms of current dollars, $2 trillion.

f.        There may not have been a Korean War without American colonial meddling, which cost the American people another 140,000 casualties and another $320 billion.

g.       Without American colonial meddling, there would not have been American involvement in the Vietnam War, which cost the American people another 60,000 casualties and another trillion dollars in 2019 valuation.

My questions remain: Was President Abraham Lincoln truly one of our best chief executives?  Was he good for future generations of Americans?  Should Lincoln have allowed the southern states to “go their own way?”  Without such gross expenditures and the loss of so many American lives from colonial adventurism, would the US spend itself silly in 2021?  Would we have a “homeless” problem today?  Would our tax rates be so high?  Would half of our population so quickly embrace communist/socialist policies today?

My guess is that the divided states would have come back together in due course, on a more equitable basis, perhaps, under an improved constitution and one that actually governed the behavior of the federal government.  But that’s just me thinking …

What say you?

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Fanaticism – We have been there – now as then



Now As Then

by Mustang

We are living at a time when fanaticism obscures our national decency.  It may be difficult for a good person to understand those who call for a president’s assassination, for the murder of people who disagree with them politically, for punishing “white” people for no other reason than the color of their skin or their gender, or who beat anyone wearing a MAGA hat to a pulp.  This is the state of affairs in the United States today, but it isn’t the first time we Americans have entered this hell.

John Brown

When John Brown raided the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in 1859, he received overwhelming support from America’s northern intellectuals.  It did not matter that John Brown was (likely) clinically insane, or that when measured by any standard, his actions were completely irrational.  Not even men in chains supported him, but the northern elite did … in terms of propaganda and fund raising by which he was able to carry out his murderous escapade.

The northern elite not only funded John Brown, they called for the mass murder of every plantation owner in the United States.  In its proper context, (ignoring his escapades in Bleeding Kansas) the John Brown affair was a small matter and easily dealt with by Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee and a detachment of U. S. Marines.

Yet, in the minds of the northern intellectuals, even if John Brown was insane, it was easy to forgive his sins because his compelling motive was “divine.”  It is hard not to lose one’s breath considering that this psychotic behavior pushed America into a conflict where close to a million men, women, and children starved to death, froze to death in winter, lost their limbs, and ingloriously bled out in our pastures and fields of green.

Horace Greely thought that John Brown’s actions were those of a madman yet had “not one reproachful word.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson thought of Brown as a saint.  Thoreau, Longfellow, and Bryant led the entire northern pantheon of intellectuals to claim Brown as an “angel of light.”  Whitman and Hawthorne were the only two northern intellectuals to abstain from such hypocrisy.  It wasn’t John Brown who was mad —it was the society that hanged him.

Thoreau, for example, was willing to be imprisoned rather than supporting a war with Mexico but had no qualms about shedding American blood to further his own ideologies.  It was a period of mass puritanical fanaticism—and not at all unlike what is going on in our society today.  The difference between then and now is that rather than religious puritanism, it has become Marxist puritanism.  In 1859, it was the planter that had become public enemy number one; now it is any white male who prefers reason to emotional (often nonsensical) discourse.  William Garrison once said, “Every slave holder has forfeited his right to live.”

How mad was that?

In contrast, presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln observed, for as much as he opposed slavery, ending it could not excuse bloodshed and treason.  But Mr. Lincoln became a useful tool for the northern intellectuals to achieve what they wanted all along: fire in the lake.  They did get what they were hoping for.

For every action, there is a reaction.  The US Congress investigated the Brown affair and its result did nothing to quiet anxieties, north or south.  In the south, there evolved a suspicion of widespread conspiracy among northerners to foment slave insurrections.  It did not help matters that congressional investigators revealed that John Brown received $23,000 in only four months, from the city of Boston (in 1858) to support a guerrilla war.  Behind this effort were ministers, Harvard graduates, professors, surgeons, philosophers, lawyers, capitalists, and philanthropists.

Meanwhile, among most southern whites who did not own slaves, or ever supported slavery, there evolved a fear of what northern insurrectionists might do and they did what all red-blooded Americans do when threatened: they armed themselves, and placed themselves under the authority of their respective states, “in the common good.”

We have come full circle.  Fanaticism is clouding American decency.  We are again confusing ends and means.  The acceptance and encouragement of civil violence throws a somber light over our “grand experiment” in democratic republicanism.  Amazingly, now as then, the number of intellectual elite threatening America’s institutions is very small.

Now, as in 1861, radicals have taken over the US congress.  Now, as then, the American people are being held captive to sheer madness.  Now, as then, paranoia is feeding on itself.  What is yet to be proved is whether the American people are smart enough to see through the intent of these “small numbers” of people who form the basis of the deep state.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Welcome readers from Whatfinger news.

For the best in conservative news push the button.


DEA spied and collected data on those who bought money-counting machines



By now, most of us probably are aware of the massive amounts of data collected on each and every one of us and is maintained out at the “Utah Data Center” aka NSA Spy Center. Add this gem to the collection pile. I for one want to know more about these “blanket administrative subpoenas” that are being used that I keep hearing about. Easy to pass this off as a “who cares.” Money counting machines you say?  But it is the arrogance of our government that should be chilling.The government is collecting anything and everything. How much more that we don’t know about?

The Drug Enforcement Administration maintained a database of people who purchased money-counting machines as part of a “legally questionable” effort to identify suspected drug dealers for further surveillance and enforcement efforts, the New York Times reported on Saturday.


Beginning in 2008, the DEA began issuing “blanket administrative subpoenas to vendors to learn who was buying money counters,” all of which had “no court oversight and were not pegged to any particular investigation.” They then assembled a database of “tens of thousands” of individuals who had purchased the devices, using the information as leads in investigations.

Before we get to the meat of this abuse, let’s take a refresher as to why we should care and why this must be stopped.


NSA Utah spy center revealed – 100 years of total data stored

Filmed from Redwood Road, you can see the progress of the NSA’s Utah Data Center as it was being built also called the NSA Spy Center. There are quotes from various individuals who are knowledgeable or have worked for the NSA.




Back to the story:

The public version of the report, which noted that the program might not be legal, was heavily redacted as part of a DEA-inspector general joint process. But the Times wrote that due to a mistake, the inspector general failed to redact a section where it was mentioned that the DEA was not mentioning where their leads were coming from in case files:

Human Rights Watch researcher Sarah St. Vincent, who first flagged the redaction mistake, noted a 2008 email in which a DEA official wrote, “Unless a federal court tells us we can’t do this, I think we can continue this project.” Vincent told the Times that was curious, as the secrecy of the program precluded any judicial review. She also noted that it appeared to be an example of parallel construction, in which investigators attempt to conceal how a particular investigation began to avoid scrutiny in court.

According to the Times report, the DEA program was one of those shut down after Snowden leaked a massive archive of U.S. government secrets, including the existence of an NSA program to collect bulk metadata on Americans’ domestic phone calls; that program was later declared illegal by courts and replaced by Congress with a scaled-down program. (That successor program itself may be on the way out.) The controversy surrounding bulk records collection programs appears to have spooked the DEA.

Another DEA program “that used administrative subpoenas to collect bulk logs of outgoing international phone calls from the United States to countries linked to drug trafficking” was shut down in 2013, the same year as FBI agents raised their suspicions about the money-counter sales records program and it was discontinued, the Times wrote. According to the Washington Post, the inspector general report “came as close as it could to” declare the phone-data operation illegal.

The collection of the outbound international calls was “not connected to specific investigations or specific individuals under investigation” as would be necessary to justify it under law, Deputy Inspector General Bill Blier said in a statement. “This use of the subpoena authority conflicts with court decisions stating that a federal agency’s issuance of administrative subpoenas must be for records relevant or material to a specific investigation.”

More at  Gizmodo

Below, William Binney describes in detail how the whole system works.

NSA Utah Spy Center Holds Ribbon Cutting ceremony -Videos




NSA collecting phone records of millions – sent to secret Utah Spy Center?

Thanks to WhatFingerNews for the coverage


UNC and ‘Silent Sam’



At the entrance to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stood the statue of a confederate soldier.  The statue has been dubbed “Silent Sam.”



Silent Sam

by Mustang

There are three fields of study that deal with the past.  Anthropology is the study of human behavior within societies, past and present; an off-shoot of this is archeology, which evaluates human activity through the recovery and analysis of archeological records, such as artifacts, architecture, and cultural landscapes.  In these areas, scientists attempt to learn about periods of human development before history, some of these dating back more than 3-million years.  History is the accumulation of knowledge through investigation of past written records.  The value of history, or so it is argued, is that by investigating the causes and effects in the past, we may avoid similar mistakes in the present and future.

At the entrance to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stood the statue of a confederate soldier.  The statue has been dubbed “Silent Sam.”  It was erected in 1913 to memorialize the students who attended UNC at the outbreak of the American Civil War, who left school to serve their state by joining Confederate military or naval forces.

This is not how modern UNC students view Silent Sam, however.  They viewed the statue as a symbol of white racism.  How they came to this conclusion can only be explained by the fact that America’s public schools deny their students a proper or adequate education in history.  And, judging from these student’s behavior on campus, their destruction of the statue Silent Sam, a state-owned property, we might also conclude that they have also been denied an adequate education in American Civics.

A civic minded person may very well object to such symbols of the past, perhaps believing that the statute is inappropriate or offensive for any number of reasons.  But a civic-minded individual would not violate the law or the sanctity of personal or state-owned property by destroying things that do not belong to them.  A civic minded person would investigate the proper steps that needed to be taken to address their concerns and follow those processes toward the fulfillment of their goals, which in this case, I would assume might be the removal of the statue from campus grounds.  There is a state historic council whose task it is to make these kinds of decisions.

What did happen is that pathetically under-educated students took the law into their own hands; they tore down the statue and then attempted to destroy it.  What these students did is behave in a manner reminiscent of the white supremacist organization, Klu Klux Klan —which, as we all remember, was the militant arm of the Democratic Party— in the Jim Crow states.

Silent Sam was not a real person, of course.  The statue was merely a symbol to remind us of the men who served, and may have died, doing what they believed was their solemn obligation at a very fractured and unhappy time in our history.  The morons who destroyed Silent Sam probably do not know that if any rebel soldiers own slaves, it was a miniscule number.  For the most part, these Confederate soldiers were dirt-poor tenant farmers.  Most of them had been forced off their land to fight in southern armies.  One wonders if in 1860 these poor white soldiers were actually worse off than the plantation slaves who were quartered on the other side of the county. At least the slaves had hot meals, a roof over their heads, and access to medical treatment.

Whether Silent Sam symbolized a soldier in rebellion or an African-hating Yankee from Boston doesn’t really matter today.  What does matter is that our society is producing young men and women who do not know their country’s history.  They do not know how to investigate facts, how to weigh them, or how to use facts to develop opinions.  The events of history have a peculiar context; we are only able to understand history through context, which is to say that we cannot view history through the rose-colored lenses of our modern-day experiences.

I think that rather than Silent Sam serving as a symbol of racism, the students themselves have demonstrated that they are symbols of something much worse: foolishness.  I would like to ask these same students, given the history of the Aztecs, should we also tear down the pyramids in Mexico?  Surely there can be no worse example of intolerance than to rip out the heart of a man or woman while they are still breathing.


Sunday Respite – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

This is supposed to be a “respite.” I will let Adrienne express my views with her post:

What the hell is wrong with people? Crazies are running rampant in Virginia…

I first posted this song back in 2015. I picked it then because the news was full of the push to rid the history of the Civil War and any remembrance of the South’s participation. 650,000 lives were lost. Enough said.

This is a song about a confederate soldier named Virgil Caine and his days in the American Civil War. It is a very emotional and haunting narrative.

“The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”

Virgil Caine is the name
And I served on the Danville train
‘Till Stoneman’s cavalry came
And tore up the tracks again

In the winter of ’65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It’s a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, “Na, na, la, na, na, na”

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
Said “Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes the Robert E. Lee!”

Now, I don’t mind chopping wood
And I don’t care if the money’s no good
You take what you need
And you leave the rest
But they should never
Have taken the very best

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, “Na, na, la, na, na, na”

Like my father before me
I will work the land
And like my brother above me
Who took a rebel stand

He was just 18, proud and brave
But a Yankee laid him in his grave
I swear by the mud below my feet
You can’t raise a Caine back up
When he’s in defeat

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, “Na, na, la, na, na, na”

The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, “Na, na, la, na, na, na”


A Nation Divided – Take a Civil War Quiz

Here is something for a Saturday that is a bit different. How stuff works put this together. On the one hand, I was surprised how many answers I could manage to retrieve from the old noggin, yet missed some of those that I thought I was sure of. Here we go:

As the bloodiest war in American history, it tore a nation and even families apart. Although it ended more than a century ago, the scars of the Civil War are still with Americans today. Think you know more than the average Billy Yank or Johnny Reb about the blood spilled and the politics behind the war? Find out by taking our Civil War quiz.

NSA Utah Spy Center Holds Ribbon Cutting ceremony -Videos

UPDATE:  Snowden: I could have wiretapped anyone’s e-mails, including the president’s personal account.

Is it insane to think that a 29-year-old NSA/Booz IT guy could be reading Barack Obama’s private e-mails if he wanted to?

And just what did the Senators and Congressmen think where all of this spying info was going to be stored? In a two Billion dollar storage facility in Utah. Never approved by congress. Is it just the bloggers who are recording events?Whistle blower Binney has been out there for years telling us exactly what Snowden told us.

Buried deep in an unrelated story over at the Salt Lake Tribune, we find this gem. Earlier post of mine:  NSA Utah Spy Center Revealed: 100 years of data stored on Americans.

Ribbon-cutting schedule

Invitations have been sent to a select group of Utah politicians and dignitaries inviting them to the Utah Data Center ribbon cutting on May 30. The invitation says the event is unclassified and reporters will be there, but an NSA spokeswoman this week declined to discuss the festivities or say whether the event means the facility will be starting operations. The NSA has previously said the Utah Data Center would be online this fall.

The EFF wants the information because of its current lawsuit against the NSA (i.e. Jewel vs. NSA) that alleges the U.S. government operates an illegal mass domestic surveillance program. Three NSA whistleblowers—including William Binney—agreed to provide evidence that the NSA has been running a domestic spying program since 2001.

 The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is suing the Justice Department for details of last month’s ruling by a secretive U.S. court that National Security Agency’s domestic spying program violated the U.S. Constitution, Jon Brodkin of arstechnica reports.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) found that “on at least one occasion” the NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment’s restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Filmed from Redwood Road, you can see the progress of the NSA’s Utah Data Center also called the NSA Spy Center. There are some quotes from various individuals who are knowledgeable or have worked for the NSA. Apparently they are far enough to hold a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The filmmaker Laura Poitras profiles William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the National Security Agency who helped design a top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data. Chilling video and story link here: “The Program”

NSA Gov Site with their spin.

Other Sources: NY Times NSA Domestic Spying Center tells the tale of the mass surveillance of Americans.

Other posts I have done that may be of interest:

Barack Obama’s Surveillance Society.

Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Obama” ‘Prolonged Detention”, otherwise known as FEMA Camps.

B-Ville Follow Bunkerville

Obama and his tinkering with Miranda Rights

This is a part of a post I did back in 2011 with disturbing updates. We were concerned then, and we need to be more concerned now. Obama and Eric Holder have indicated that there is no need to Mirandize the Boston terror suspect right way. We will do some sort of a hybrid thing. No, not a military court but sort of a civil court with well……maybe 48 hours is permissible before he gets read his rights. Where does the constitution or court decision state this is “subject to interpretation.” But here is the concern. Recall that now Obama has deemed the whole of the United States a potential battlefield. Which means any of us could caught in his web. Worse, he now promulgates “Preventive Detention” and “Prolonged Detention”.

The Senate voted on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. UPDATE: The New American has a great analysis… Be sure and look at this ACLU link.

Then we have “Prolonged Detention” that even Rachael Maddow had a problem with.  “Prolonged Detention” is the term being used. This is not your father’s Gitmo.

Tinkering with Miranda… is this another step… “Obama can unilaterally change Supreme Court rulings should be concerning to all Americans”. Obama has contempt for the Supreme Court, the Constitution which he says is flawed, and Congress. “Domestic Terror” suspects…my guess he has in mind American Citizens who he may feel are a threat to his growing usurping of all powers which belong to other branches of government.If he gets by with this one, what will be the next change to Miranda or any law for that matter. What is your guess?

Obama has already given Miranda rights to foreign terrorists and Somali pirates waging jihad against U.S. soldiers and civilians.

Now Obama and Holder have revised Miranda rights for what the Wall Street Journal describes as “domestic-terror” suspects. The policy is so vaguely described here, if at all, and who the new Miranda policy applies to and how Obama can unilaterally change Supreme Court rulings should be concerning to all Americans. via Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects –

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.

The Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.

The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.

“I don’t think the administration can accomplish what I think needs to be done by policy guidance alone,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “It may not withstand the scrutiny of the courts in the absence of legislation.”

More at Creeping Sharia

NSA Utah spy center revealed – 100 years of total data stored

This concludes the last part of my three-part post. Written for those who would dismiss true patriots with derision. These posts are well documented with reliable sources. You owe it to anyone who still disbelieves the unthinkable. Acquaint your self with what is out there. This final post should be the coup de grace. Video at end of post.

I first started out with Obama: ‘Prolonged Detention’ otherwise known as FEMA Camps

Obama talks about the FEMA camps and explains their purposes in the video. “Prolonged Detention” is the term being used. This is not your father’s Gitmo. Before the speech, one not to be missed, let us look at the new position that just might be the perfect fit. Rachael Maddow of all people does a surperb job of dissecting his speech at the post. For those who still doubt about detention without trial, this is for you.

Yesterday I posted Barack Obama’s Surveillance Society. Check out the excellent videos. Included in the post is Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Obama mouthpiece suggested to Judge Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would,after all,have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer,the Judge continued,“Several years,right”? (In Yesterday’s post, Obama seemed to think that ten years might be about right) -prolonged detention. Keep that phrase in mind.

So now, the final conclusion. Read it, and pass it on to anyone who still doubts what the future holds.

Filmed from Redwood Road, you can see the progress of the NSA’s Utah Data Center also called the NSA Spy Center. There are some quotes from various individuals who are knowledgeable or have worked for the NSA.

These are quotes and information about the Utah Data Center that has received serious scrutiny by many people. Let me know what you think.

Barack Obama’s Surveillance Society

Yesterday I posted a story Obama” ‘Prolonged Detention”, otherwise known as FEMA Camps. Even Rachael Maddow took him on. He posited that it was now permissible to detain without trial as a preemptive move.Now on to part two. Before we get to the heart of the matter via the video, here is a bit of History.

From August, 2012 post: Obama fights injunction against unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Obama fights the preliminary injunction granted to American Citizens against unlawful imprisonment. But Obama is not through with us yet. They are fighting it big time, and the rationale gets even more creepy. The argument goes something like this, if we are thrown in jail, we can always appeal, even though it may take years to prove our innocence. Guilty until proven otherwise, typical Marxist justice.

On May 16th,federal judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Barack Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA),striking down those sections of the Act that provide the president the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without benefit of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. As a reminder, keep in mind it was Obama that insisted that the language in the NDAA bill include Citizens:Obama lies-he insisted that detention of Americans be in defense bill

“But… It was his administration that insisted that the language be included in the bill”.

From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Under the terms of the Act,Obama had been given exclusive authority to direct members of the US military to arrest and imprison anyone he believed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda,the Taliban,or “associated forces.” When pressed by plaintiff’s attorneys about the practical extent of this authority,government lawyers admitted “…the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists,” admitting that “…even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.”

Yet incredibly,when pressed on the issue,this Obama mouthpiece suggested to Judge Forrest that concerns about the president’s detention powers were excessive as American citizens would,after all,have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus should they be illegally or improperly jailed! “How long does [such a] petition take,” asked Forrest? When Torrance refused to answer,the Judge continued,“Several years,right”? (In Yesterday’s post, Obama seemed to think that ten years might be about right) -prolonged detention. Keep that phrase in mind.

Keep this in mind:

On July 2nd, 2008—Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a “Civilian National Security Force.” He further promised it would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”

It is well known amongst dictators, the world over, that a private army is necessary to control the great unwashed masses over which they force their rule.

We have seen Obama steadily assume dictatorial powers over apathetic Americans in just four and a half years. He has all but hushed the people’s voice in government, the US Congress, by simply by-passing them and ruling by executive order—just like any other two-bit dictator. Some feel even the US Supreme Court has lost the steel from its collective spine under withering pressure from our budding domestic dictator, Obama.
If one did not know better, one would think there is a move afoot to institute a complete Marxist insurgency in America with Obama at the top—and —at the leading edge.
“The things done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.” … Retired Lt. General William G.”Jerry” Boykin says in a new video he has just released . Boykin is a decorated former Delta Force Commander, US Deputy Under Secretary for Defense, and a recipient of the Purple Heart

%d bloggers like this: