Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

[KenH]

Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?



Chuck Baldwin
December 11, 2009

...

So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don’t know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people’s disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?

...

And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency–including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.

I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira’s sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity–resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit–and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is–as with most power-hungry Machiavellians–their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done!

- more at www.infowars.com/is-obama-really-preparing-for-civil-war/

 

[OldRegular]

Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?



Chuck Baldwin
December 11, 2009

...

So, do Wall Street and Russian analysts know something that we don’t know? Is this why George W. Bush initiated USNORTHCOM to begin with? Is this why Barack Obama is beefing up USNORTHCOM? This would help explain the reports of all those potential detention camps that have been constructed (including the abandoned military installations that have refurbished security fences, guard towers, etc., around them). Has the American people’s disgust with these crooks and thieves within the federal government and Wall Street reached a boiling point?

...

And as Vieira said, states need to adopt an alternative currency–including, and most especially, gold and silver. In other words, they need to develop their own private economies, complete with their own banks and exchange mediums. They also need to reject the multinational agribusiness and develop their own in-State agricultural and energy businesses.

I would dare say that the first State that determines to follow Vieira’s sagacious counsel (and rumblings of this have already begun in states such as Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, New Hampshire, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.) would have so many liberty-loving patriots flock there that its economy would explode with prosperity–resulting in a domino effect of many other states following suit–and the revolution that this country so desperately needs would indeed take place. Furthermore, such a revolution would be constitutional, lawful, moral, and, yes, in compliance with the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

In the meantime, is Barack Obama really worried about civil war? He might be. It is my observation that Washington politicians and bureaucrats are the most paranoid people on the planet. The problem is–as with most power-hungry Machiavellians–their paranoia often translates into more oppression and less liberty for the citizenry. And if this is true, it simply means that the states need to hurry up and do what needs to be done!

- more at www.infowars.com/is-obama-really-preparing-for-civil-war/

I will agree with the following quote from the source referenced.

"The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in ‘76."

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I can't wait for 2012 to hurry up and get here so I can vote for Baldwin again.

 

[Revmitchell]

I can't wait for 2012 to hurry up and get here so I can vote for Baldwin again.

Yea I did as well.

 

[MrJim]

I will agree with the following quote from the source referenced.

"The fact is, we do need a revolution! But not a revolution of anarchy and pitchforks. (The history of France should be ample evidence of the futility of this strategy.) We need a revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People). That is exactly what our forefathers did in ‘76."

That's what our Southern forefathers did in 1861~it was about states' rights...

 

[SolaSaint]

John Deere,

I love your tag line. It truly made me chuckle, Todd Friel is great, do you ever watch his TV show?:laugh:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

John Deere,

I love your tag line. It truly made me chuckle, Todd Friel is great, do you ever watch his TV show?:laugh:

Thanks. No, I don't watch the TV show, but I do listen to the radio show all the time.

Before he got famous and too busy to do so, we used to email one another about once a week. Then the show took off and now he doesn't have time. Sad but understandable.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That's what our Southern forefathers did in 1861~it was about states' rights...

Yep. The states' rights to allow people to own other people.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yep. The states' rights to allow people to own other people.

Actually, it was about quite a bit more than that. But then, liberals often take the lazy view of history.

 

[MrJim]

Actually, it was about quite a bit more than that. But then, liberals often take the lazy view of history.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[canadyjd]

Actually, it was about quite a bit more than that. But then, liberals often take the lazy view of history.

I hate the thought of being uninformed about the causes of the civil war.

Perhaps you could articulate a few other issues that were just as important, or more important, than the issue of slavery?

Please be specific so I know where to look to verify what you say.

peace to youraying:

 

[Winman]

Actually, it was about quite a bit more than that. But then, liberals often take the lazy view of history.

Yes. It was more about state rights. Here is a brief article on the subject.

By the way, I am Southern and my great-great grandfather owned slaves. The descendents of these slaves still live all around my mother and know my mother's family. They have always gotten along very well, in fact I would call it a loving relationship. Many of these descendents of slaves worked for my grandfather when he was alive.

Most people think that slavery was the only cause of the Civil War. Because of slavery, African Americans were discriminated against in the United States. In reality, southern slaves were often treated better than some northern factory workers. Because of the movement to stop slavery (the abolitionist movement) southerners concluded that all or most northerners were against them and wanted to destroy their way of life. Southerners developed the illusion that all northerners were against them and it united the southern states. For about 245 years, slaves had been used in America as free labor. Some slaves tried to escape to freedom, and some accomplished this goal. Once an escape was discovered, usually a man hunt followed. If caught, slaves were usually beaten or whipped. The basis of the southern economy was cotton, so slaves were a very important to southern life. Lincoln had said that he would end slavery so the southern population saw him as a threat to their livelyhood.

The northern economy was based on industrial things. Textile factories, forges, and general manufacturing are just a few examples of what held up the northern economy. Many low paid workers worked in those factories under horrible conditions and in an unsafe environment. Factory owners recruited the poor, women and children, and immigrants, so they didn't have to pay the higher wages required for a normal person. The southern economy was based on cotton and other agriculture. The south used slaves to do manual labor. this was viewed as bad by northerners when their own factory workers were no better or even worse off than slaves. Southerners didn't really attempt to stop this when northerners tried to stop slavery. Most southerners didn't even own slaves, they worked the fields themselves. Southerners didn't try to destroy the northern way of life, but northerners did attempt to destory theirs.

Most people do not know that only 3% of Southerners ever owned slaves.

People like to look down on the South and slavery in the 1800's when free men in Northern states often worked in far harsher and more oppressive conditions than slaves ever did. This does not make slavery right, but being a factory worker in the North was no picnic either.

 

[canadyjd]

Yes. It was more about state rights. Here is a brief article on the subject.

Most people do not know that only 3% of Southerners ever owned slaves.

People like to look down on the South and slavery in the 1800's when free men in Northern states often worked in far harsher and more oppressive conditions than slaves ever did. This does not make slavery right, but being a factory worker in the North was no picnic either.

Wow! That is just about the most polluted logic I have ever seen.

You quoted an article about "states rights", but the article was clearly about how abolishing slavery would harm the southern economy. The overwhelming issue is still slavery.

And, quite frankly, to say factory workers in the north worked in "far harsher and more oppressive conditions than slaves ever did" is simply a lie.

Were they, their wives and children considered the property of the factory owners, all supported by the laws of the state?

Were their wives and daughters raped at will by the factory bosses, all supported by the laws of the state?

If they decided to quit and look for another job, were they hunted down, beaten and maimed to discourage others from quiting, all supported by the laws of the state?

The article is pure propaganda at its worse.

peace to youraying:

 

[Winman]

Wow! That is just about the most polluted logic I have ever seen.

You quoted an article about "states rights", but the article was clearly about how abolishing slavery would harm the southern economy. The overwhelming issue is still slavery.

And, quite frankly, to say factory workers in the north worked in "far harsher and more oppressive conditions than slaves ever did" is simply a lie.

Were they, their wives and children considered the property of the factory owners, all supported by the laws of the state?

Were their wives and daughters raped at will by the factory bosses, all supported by the laws of the state?

If they decided to quit and look for another job, were they hunted down, beaten and maimed to discourage others from quiting, all supported by the laws of the state?

The article is pure propaganda at its worse.

peace to youraying:

No, it is not, but I could have found much better articles. It appealed to me because it pointed out that labor in the North was just as horrendous as slavery in many cases, which is absolutely true.

The South wanted new states entering the Union to have their own choice as whether to allow slavery or not. Of course, it would have been beneficial to them for new states to allow slavery. So, you cannot remove slavery from the issue. But what the South objected to was Federal law overriding state law. We see that today with the abortion issue for instance.

There was also the issue of population and representation. The South wanted to count the slaves as population, the North did not (the North was correct here). The North having many more representatives could pretty much push the Southern states around. This was the issue.

 

[NiteShift]

Yep. The states' rights to allow people to own other people.

The average Confederate soldier was a farmer. Was he fighting for his right to buy a slave that, in 2009 dollars, would cost between $40,000 - $60,000? I think not.

 

[canadyjd]

No, it is not, but I could have found much better articles. It appealed to me because it pointed out that labor in the North was just as horrendous as slavery in many cases, which is absolutely true.

I see you have changed your statement from factory workers working in "far harsher and more oppressive conditions than slaves ever did", to simply being "as horrendous as slavery in many cases".

Both are untrue, but at least the second isn't as obvious as the first.

Just point me to the articles where factory workers in the north were considered property of the owners, where their wives and children were considered property of the owners, where the wives and daughters were raped at will by the bosses at the factories, where anyone that attempted to quit and get a new job was hunted down/beaten/maimed and occasionally hung so as to discourage others from looking for a new job ... all of which was protected by state law:

When you can produce those articles, you will have made your point and I will believe it.

The South wanted new states entering the Union to have their own choice as whether to allow slavery or not. Of course, it would have been beneficial to them for new states to allow slavery. So, you cannot remove slavery from the issue. But what the South objected to was Federal law overriding state law. We see that today with the abortion issue for instance.

Except now, the evil is being propagated at the federal level instead of the state level.

As Christians, we should oppose evil whereever it is found. Slavery was evil, it needed to be opposed. The federal government got it right when abolishing slavery and overriding state's rights on the issue.

peace to youraying:

 

[poncho]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Down through the decades, Americans have wondered about Yankee brutality in that war. Lee invaded the North, but that sublime Christian hero forbade any forays against civilians. Military genius Stonewall Jackson stood like a stone wall and routed the Yankees at Manassas, but when Barbara Frietchie insisted on flying the Yankee flag in Frederick, Maryland, rather than the Stars and Bars, that sublime Christian hero commanded, according to John Greenleaf Whittier, [/FONT]


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]“‘Who touches a hair of yon gray head/Dies like a dog! March on!’ he said.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]But the Yankees, invading the South, were monsters, killing, raping and destroying civilian property. In one Georgia town, some 400 women were penned in the town square in the July heat for almost a week without access to female facilities. It got worse when the Yankee slime got into the liquor. Some two thousand Southern women and children were shipped north to labor as slaves. Didn’t you learn that in school? [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Sherman’s scorched earth March to the Sea was a horror the later Nazis could not equal. Why? Because the Yankees hated Negro slavery so much? There can be no doubt that the already strong Communist influence in the North, combined with that of the maniacal abolitionists, was at least one of the main reasons. Slavery was a tardy excuse, an afterthought they introduced to gain propaganda traction. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In retrospect, it appears that because nothing like this had ever happened here, Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals. Instead they went home, in the mistaken belief that the defeated Yankees would leave them alone. Lee did come to understand – too late. He said after the war that had he known at the beginning what he had since found out, he would have fought to the last man. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]What was the South fighting? [/FONT]​

CONTINUE​

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Wow! That is just about the most polluted logic I have ever seen.

You quoted an article about "states rights", but the article was clearly about how abolishing slavery would harm the southern economy. The overwhelming issue is still slavery.

And, quite frankly, to say factory workers in the north worked in "far harsher and more oppressive conditions than slaves ever did" is simply a lie.

Were they, their wives and children considered the property of the factory owners, all supported by the laws of the state?

Were their wives and daughters raped at will by the factory bosses, all supported by the laws of the state?

If they decided to quit and look for another job, were they hunted down, beaten and maimed to discourage others from quiting, all supported by the laws of the state?

The article is pure propaganda at its worse.

Actually, it's true.

There are a couple of problems with your logic.

The first is that you're confusing legal ownership of slaves with conditions.

Conditions among coal workers in areas of Pennsylvania and Ohio were horrific. Workers and their families were often indebted to the mining companies and purposely paid low wages that did not allow them to pay back their debts. They were worked as much as eighteen hours a day, sometimes more, under extremely dangerous conditions. No medical care was provided, nor was any compensation provided if the men were injured.

Entire families lived in these camps and towns and no consideration was taken to ensure the wellfare of the women and children who followed their fathers and husbands. It was not uncommon at all for miners' wives and daughters to have to satisfy their debts to the mining company or to have to bring in extra money for the family by prostituting themselves.

In New York City, particularly in the garment industry, young women were treated just as badly, if not worse.

While most slaves did not have an easy life, neither did these people and I think you'd be hard pressed to have found a miner or a garment worker who wouldn't have gladly traded places with slaves at some plantations, particularly Robert E. Lee's Arlington.

Now, it's your turn to respond with something clever.

 

[billwald]

Slavery was uneconomical in the north. Cheaper to lease poor whites and let them starve in the winter. We are not slaves, we are now leased. We sell our own leases.

 

[poncho]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Remember that slavery, for these Communists, was just an afterthought, a tool. Before the War for Independence, it was the Southern colonies that petitioned the King to stop importing slaves into the South. Did you know that Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration of Independence a complaint against the King because his government had forbidden the colonies to end the slave trade? [/FONT]


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Jefferson’s language was deleted to avoid giving offense to New England, which was making buckets of money trading slaves. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Indeed, did you also know that if slavery was what the South fought to defend, all it had to do was stay in the Union? Lincoln made clear that he would defend slavery and would not free slaves owned by a man in a state within the Union: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” [/FONT]​

SOURCE​

So what are we looking at? Obviously it is considerably different from the mostly mythical war to “free the slaves” your high school textbook told you about. Notice that it is motivated by an insane, messianic fury. The war criminals are enraged, utterly out of control. About what? Obviously not about slavery. Men outraged by slavery do not rob, rape and murder slaves. And remember that chief war criminal Lincoln was as foul a racist as ever lived, even discomfited other racists, staunchly defended slavery and wanted to ship American blacks “back” to Africa.​

No, what drove these Yankee war criminals insane was that the Southerners had dared to come out from under, to say no to the Leviathan state, to total government, to go their own way. They had expressed their freedom through secession. They had invoked their inalienable right to depart.

A debate endures about whether they had the constitutional right to secede. I don’t know why. I can solve the problem for all time. The Founding Fathers seceded from England. In the Declaration of Independence – the nation’s birth certificate – they said that whenever a people find their government oppressive, they have the right to alter or abolish it. To argue that there is no right to secede is to say that only a few years later, these same men, would concoct a document – the Constitution – in which they would deny themselves that blood-bought right.

Indeed, there were a few incipient attempts to secede before Lincoln. No one tried to argue that secession was illegal. One area that seriously considered secession was New England. What? Yes. And all through the Twentieth Century, did not the United States vociferously advance the right to secede for other people? We even fought a couple of wars, and lost thousands of the best of the best, to ensure the independence of South Korea and South Vietnam. Could there possibly be a straight-faced argument that other people deserve independence but we do not?

The Founding Fathers did not create slavery; they inherited 150 years of it. Many Southern slaves were sold to the South by Yankee slavers who no longer had need of them. Slavery was an intolerable stain on the American record. That stain could only be expunged by total abolition. Other countries, including Russia, abolished it without violence. Only ours did so at the cost of some 600,000 men and the destruction of the Union, by men who claimed to revere it and who had owned slaves themselves – and who did all this to keep the South in economic subjection.

But even this is not the core. Remember the strutting Yankee generals who confused themselves with God. Indeed, remember the terrorist assertion that insane mass murderer Sherman actually outranks God. Consider the messianic fury we have mentioned. Something more than mere greed was at work.

It is literally a satanic perversion of Christianity, a perversion pretending to be Christianity, which erupts time and again across the centuries. From time to time people who are smarter than God appear, usurpers who have the temporal power to do the job right. If you disagree with them they burn you at the stake. If you try to get out from under them, they scream you are a rebel. You have betrayed them. They will rob and rape you, they will kill you; they will invade and burn your country to the ground, to persuade you to see it their way. Either do that or die. They are disciples of Satan.

The reason this is so relevant is that this very mentality rules the nation today. That is why the federal juggernaut is so merciless, so confiscatory, so totalitarian. Reconstruction continues, not just of the South; this time of the whole nation, conducted by men consumed by hubris, who believe they can improve upon God.

But Sherman is still dead. God is alive.

SOURCE.

Is Obama preparing for civil war? Nope. I think he's making preparations to wage war on the next American revolutionaries. Those who dare to defend their inalienable rights from the endless attacks of a corporate fascist state.