Mark Dankof's America

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Posts Tagged ‘Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Lincoln Myth”

Mark Dankof talks to Reza Saieedi and Tasnim News: On American Exceptionalism and Other Untruths

Mark Dankof and Ice Cream After the Chat with Reza Saieedi.

Mark Dankof and Ice Cream After the Chat with Reza Saieedi.

Reza Saieedi of the Tasnim News Agency of Iran recently interviewed Mark Dankof on the doctrine of American Exceptionalism and other related controversies. The questions and answers follow:

Reza Saieedi: Regarding the idea of American Exceptionalism, in an article for the Heritage Foundation Matthew Spalding wrote: “America is an exceptional nation, but not because of what it has achieved or accomplished. America is exceptional because, unlike any other nation, it is dedicated to the principles of human liberty, grounded on the truths that all men are created equal and endowed with equal rights. These permanent truths are ‘applicable to all men and all times,’ as Abraham Lincoln once said.”

     In spite of decades of effort to achieve equal rights, we still see minorities–notably blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans–who suffer from injustice inside the US borders. So what does this notion of exceptionalism really mean in terms of daily life in America?

Mark Dankof: I would reject the mythological interpretation of the reign of Abraham Lincoln as a defender of the Constitution and human rights as the 16th President of the United States.

     Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo has written the definitive book on the Lincoln Presidency in my view. It is entitled The Real Lincoln. I reviewed the book some years ago on one of my web sites. In that review, I stated that: “DiLorenzo’s analysis of Lincoln, accompanied by copious historical documentation, shatters the mythology surrounding the 16th President’s motives and agenda in pursuing the War Between The States. The author provides convincing evidence for Lincoln’s overt racism as expressed in his documented views on racial supremacy as manifested in his desire to colonize all American blacks outside the continental United States (p. 4); that Lincoln’s views were matched by a palpable majority in the North who utilized such tools as state constitutional amendments to prohibit the emigration of black people into Northern states like the President’s home state of Illinois (p.4); and that Lincoln’s war which killed 620,000 Americans [equivalent to 5 million deaths in 2002 population numbers and percentages] and destroyed 40 percent of the American economy, was a singularly terrible, unjustified conflict given the proven success in the 19th century of the peaceful end to slavery through the policy of compensated emancipation (p. 4). DiLorenzo duly notes that, ‘Between 1800 and 1860, dozens of countries, including the entire British Empire, ended slavery peacefully; only in the United States was a war involved (p. 4).’”

     What then, does The Real Lincoln lay out as the actual road map for understanding the war and the accompanying strategy and psyche of Abraham Lincoln in resorting to armed force against the Southern states? In his tome, DiLorenzo underscores the mythological President’s political and moral failure in pursuing the bloodshed of fellow countrymen with an evil, unnecessary, coercive methodology. The author insists that the prevailing world-wide trends between 1800-1860 would have resulted in the irenic end to the institution of slavery by; 1) compensated emancipation; 2) an encouraged advance of the industrial revolution in the South with capital-intensive agriculture and manufacturing (p. 277); and 3) the inevitable furtherance of Enlightenment philosophy in the American mind and culture, a philosophy which in the end game would have been ideologically incompatible with the continuation of the institution, as had been the case throughout the British empire (pp. 276-277).

     For the Loyola College Professor of Economics, the real Lincoln agenda in the War Between the States is located in the fact that: “. . .the War Between the States so fundamentally transformed the nature of American government. Before the war, government in America was the highly decentralized, limited government established by the founding fathers. The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today. The purpose of American government was transformed from the defense of individual liberty to the quest for empire. . . . Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition, which sought a much more centralized governmental system, one that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies financed by protectionist tariffs and the printing of money by the central government. . . . It was Lincoln’s real agenda. . . . Henry Clay’s ‘American System.’ For his entire political life Lincoln was devoted to Clay and Clay’s economic agenda. The debate over this economic agenda was arguably the most important political debate during the first seventy years of the nation’s existence. It involved the nation’s most prominent statesmen and pitted the states’ rights Jeffersonians against the centralizing Hamiltonians (who became Whigs and, later, Republicans). The violence of war finally ended the debate in 1861. . . . A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession. (Introduction)”

     So essentially, the worst aspects of the modern Imperial American Presidency that would be seen in Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, the Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, are all based on the Lincoln reign. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts agrees essentially with DiLorenzo and with me in these conclusions.

Mark Dankof: Beware of the Lincoln Myth.

Mark Dankof: Beware of the Lincoln Myth.

     Lincoln’s use of the U. S. Army to engage in the mass murder of American civilians in the American South became the prototype of what would later happen to the American Indians in the Manifest Destiny-driven expansion of the United States westward. This is but one example of where White Americans and Non-White Americans were both victimized by the same dynamics and the same ideology of the allegedly Exceptional American Empire. In the present historical milieu White and Non-White Americans are equally oppressed by a Government destroying the American economy with Globalist Trade Agreements, destroying the legitimacy of American elections with a financing mechanism embodied in the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions, destroying the American dollar by the fiat money policies of the Federal Reserve Board, destroying the lives of American and non-American alike with the endless wars in the Middle East pursued to further the aims of Israel, the International Central Banking establishment linked to the Petrodollar, and the Energy Consortiums, and destroying the earlier cultural mores of a society rooted in Western Christianity and replacing it with a wholehearted endorsement and promotion of the legitimacy of homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and euthanasia.

     Scott McConnell of Buchanan’s The American Conservative recently quoted historian Walter Russell Mead in
demonstrating how Zionist Neo-Conservatives have wedded the doctrine of American Exceptionalism to the notion of Israeli Exceptionalism. The perversion of historic Christian orthodoxy on eschatology in the interest of affirming the heresy known as Christian Zionism is the glue that holds much of this dangerous ideological poison in place in the United States:

     “. . . Norman Podhoretz’s son-in-law Elliott Abrams backed Netanyahu, quoting in his favor this four-year-old passage from historian Walter Russell Mead:

     ‘Israel matters in American politics like almost no other country on earth. Well beyond the American Jewish and the Protestant fundamentalist communities, the people and the story of Israel stir some of the deepest and most mysterious reaches of the American soul. The idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism is profoundly tied to the idea of American exceptionalism. The belief that God favors and protects Israel is connected to the idea that God favors and protects America.’”

The Result of Linking "American Exceptionalism" to "Israeli Exceptionalism."

The Result of Linking “American Exceptionalism” to “Israeli Exceptionalism.”

Reza Saieedi: Given the details in the newly released Senate Intelligence Committee report of inmates in America’s prisons being tortured, it seems that human rights violations are implemented in both US foreign and domestic foreign policy. What is your take on this? After the Senate Intelligence Committee report compilation and release, now what? Nothing is accomplished by simply stating that these illegal actions took place without some form of punishment for the offending parties. What is the next step?

Mark Dankof: Thomas Jefferson and America’s other Founders recognized that a government dedicated to promoting global Empire abroad would be the same Government destroying the rights of American citizens at home. The revelations about CIA torture are accompanied by the revelations about illegal NSA spying, the USA Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Much of this is aimed at suppressing the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional protections of Americans at home. When you add to all of this the fact that companies linked directly and indirectly to the Zionist State of Israel are procuring contracts with American intelligence, law enforcement agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Transportation Safety Administration, one can say that the best way of understanding what has happened to the United States in this increasing evolution toward evil internationally and domestically, especially since September 11, 2001 is inextricably linked to the fact that our Government has increasingly adopted the attitudes and the ethos of Israel since 1948. This has included the demonization and marginalization of Americans who have protested these developments.

The release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture is mere public relations window dressing.

Nothing will be done to punish the people involved, or to insure these actions will not be regularly repeated. Ominously, most of the American public doesn’t seem to care. Much of the rest of the public will buy the notion that these actions are justified by “national security.”

Reza Saieedi: The US has recently issued sanctions against Venezuela because of reported police brutality. What is being done to remedy the large number of incidents of police brutality inside America? What entity should issue sanctions against America for their own violations?

Mark Dankof: Nothing is being done. Nothing will be. This is the grim reality.

Reza Saieedi: We call Israel the only true democracy in the Middle East and continue to throw our unconditional support behind it, in spite of its terrible human rights record. Does the meaning of democracy lie in the examples we see in places like Palestine and Ferguson?

Mark Dankof: Israel is an illegitimate State founded in a Talmudic racial supremacist ideology and land theft from its inception. The King David Hotel bombing in 1946 and the Deir Yassin slaughter are microcosms of the larger truth I have stated. It bleeds dry America’s credibility in the world, bleeds dry our economy, and destroys the integrity of our elections and what was once a semblance of journalistic integrity in the mainstream American press. I would be most cautious in comparing the Palestine tragedy with the Ferguson, Missouri tragedy. The American media has deliberately spun the latter in a way which blinds both White and Black Americans to considering the Zionist, Globalist, Neo-Conservative hijacking of our Government and basic institutions. Domestically, the American media has spun Ferguson in a way which intimates that only racial minorities have serious vulnerabilities in the United States to irresponsible police actions against citizens; the American media spin on Ferguson similarly diverts attention from the absolute statistical truths on police crimes against White Americans, and the fact that the most overwhelming problem statistically with violent crime in the United States involves African American crimes against other African Americans, and against White Americans.

Reza Saieedi: Israeli PM Netanyahu has ordered actions that brought about the killing of thousands of women and children and continues a policy of siege in Gaza, prohibiting vital supplies and resources from reaching needy Palestinian families.However he was present at the recent Paris vigil denouncing religious intolerance. What can explain this ironic situation? Can these two attitudes co-exist?

Mark Dankof: Netanyahu’s presence at the Paris vigil in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo incident is a sick combination of tragedy and comedy, as is the presence of the illegitimate President of the Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who was installed by a coup d’etat launched by the United States, the European Union, and Israeli oligarchs opposed to Vladimir Putin’s rule in Russia. Netanyahu’s routine criminality in Gaza is supplemented by the criminal actions of the Poroshenko regime in eastern Ukraine against Russian ethnics as seen by the Odessa Trade Union fire and a shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, a crime with all the finger prints of the Kiev cabal. The United States supports Netanyahu and Poroshenko.

You can draw your own conclusions as to what the larger implications of this happen to be.

Mark Dankof Profile: www.ExpertClick.com/19-2281

Written by Mark Dankof

February 17, 2015 at 11:52 am

Fort Sumter, False Flags, and The Empire’s Coming Crusade Against Iran

Mark Dankof in Washington, D. C. in November of 2011

     It is no accident that Michael Gerson, a major schill of the Establishment Corporate Media’s (ECM) chorus for a Zionist-inspired war with Iran, has stepped forward in the Washington Post to broadside Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and to concurrently publish a breathtaking synthesis of ignorance and duplicity regarding the American War Between the States in the 19th century.  Gerson is joined in his transparent machinations for the Israeli Lobby against the Presidential campaign of the Texas Republican Congressman by fellow agents Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash of CNN, who pulled the plug on U. S. Army Corporal Jesse Thorsen during an on-air interview with the Corporal on the night of the January 3rd Iowa Caucus.  It seems the young man’s comments on why the United States didn’t need to be a surrogate military force in the Middle East for the Jewish State were too much on target to be placed before the American people for honest examination and consideration.  George Orwell lives.  The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), which has ruthlessly exposed the backgrounds of Blitzer and Bash, has the video of the latest version of the Hasbara Project online.  Check out the following synopsis from WRMEA:

Blitzer is a former employee of AIPAC, Israel’s behemoth Washington, DC lobby (see former Sen. James Abourezk’s “Wolf Blitzer, AIPAC, and the Saudi Peace Initiative” in the July 2007 Washington Report, p. 16, also posted on our Web site). The CNN anchor also is the author of Territory of Lies: The Exclusive Story of Jonathan Jay Pollard: The American Who Spied on His Country for Israel and How He Was Betrayed (the title seeming to imply that it was Pollard, rather than his native country, who was betrayed).

Senior congressional correspondent Bash joined CNN as Dana Schwartz, her maiden name. Her father, Stu Schwartz, is a senior broadcast producer at ABC News and her mother, Frances Weinman Schwartz, is, according to Wikipedia, “an educator in Jewish studies and author of the book, Passage to Pesach, and co-author with Rabbi Eugene Borowitz of two books, Jewish Moral Virtues and A Touch of the Sacred.” In 1998 the CNN correspondent married her first husband, Jeremy Bash, chief of staff to Leon Panetta in his capacities as both defense secretary and former CIA chief. The son of the chief rabbi of the Arlington Fairfax (VA) Jewish Congregation, Bash was chief minority council to the House Intelligence Committee when the pro-Israel Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was its top Democrat prior to the 2006 elections. The Bashes divorced in 2007. The following year Dana Bash married fellow CNN congressional correspondent John King, who converted to Judaism prior to their marriage.

     But we are not to worry.  There was no conspiracy to silence Corporal Thorsen on international television on January 3rd.  And there is nothing to the allegation that Jews disproportionately control major American and world media outlets.  . . .

     We return to Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, the author of The Real Lincoln. He dissects Michael Gerson this week in print, exposing the latter for the historical ignoramus he truly is.  Di Lorenzo’s post is essential reading, as is my review of his magnum opus on Lincoln penned during the beginning of King George’s War on Terror which commenced a decade ago and continues to unfold as a tragedy with eschatological dimensions under King Barack.

     The essential point clinched by DiLorenzo is this: The pattern of Presidential duplicity, criminality, and mythologically-wrapped spin which legitimized unnecessary state-sponsored violence and war, was foundationally established by the 16th President of the United States, a pattern which was expanded in relentless application by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the typological 20th century Presidents of the American Empire.   Wilson and Roosevelt, in turn, have strengthened the hand of either the 44th or 45th President of the United States in the 21st century in launching the genesis of World War III, at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu and the cabal of central bankers and Zionist agents utilizing the American government as their personal instrument in the achievement of global conquest and the solidification of the New World Order.

     The pattern of Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Bush, and Obama has essential components and ingredients.  Chief among these are: 1) The understanding of each of these Presidents that their continuance as a Chief Executive of the United States necessitated the furtherance of the power agenda of a central banking cabal; 2) This furtherance would require the involvement of their nation in a war; 3) Hostilities would commence courtesy of a false flag incident, used to disguise the identity of the real perpetrators and their agenda;  4) The war would of necessity involve the employment of mass media in legitimizing the rationale for the conflict among the masses with a barrage of viscerally powerful images and metaphors soaked in notions of moral crusade, absolutism, the sanction of Divine Providence, blind nationalism, and religious visions containing distorted notions of Manifest Destiny, messianic fervor, and millennial fanaticism; 4) Legitimate dissent from the Crusade, rooted in sounder notions of Constitutional restraint, diplomacy, and what Jesus Christ actually teaches about the Kingdom of God, would be met with demonization, economic impoverishment, persecution, imprisonment, and death.  What worked for Lincoln in this final regard, is being arranged nicely for Obama in the form of the National  Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as demonstrated recently by Jonathan Turley in The Guardian (UK).  Building on the foundations of the two Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the jettisoning of Posse Comitatus laws, the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretap program, and the circumventing of the  Federal Court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the NDAA has formally codified George W. Bush’s observation that the Constitution of the United States is nothing but a “Goddamned piece of paper.”  Presumably the lives and liberties of American citizens, not to mention The Empire’s victims abroad, fall into the identically condemned status and subsequently fateful demise.

     Thomas DiLorenzo (“The Lincoln Myth“) and Frank Conner, author of The South Under Siege 1830-2000:  A History of Relations Between the North and the South, largely agree on the fundamental causes of the War Between the States and the agenda of Abraham Lincoln and the banking/mercantilist cadre which instigated its ignition.  Conner’s contribution is especially valuable in outlining the path of America’s 16th President in arranging for the “First Shots” at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, an installation on an island in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.  As for DiLorenzo, he reminds his readers of what they are not likely to have ever been told in an American grade school, or by Michael Gerson and Wolf Blitzer, about Lincoln as the prototype for Bush and Obama and their ongoing war with Persia.  The Loyola College professor debunks the six (6) most prominent myths about the most mythologized Chief Executive in American history as follows:

Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it . . .”

Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not “interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states” (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union “with the rights of the several states unimpaired.” At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.

The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect “the duties and imposts” and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that “the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed” in the states that had seceded.

Myth #2: Lincoln’s war “saved the Union.” The war may have saved the Union geographically but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as “free and independent.” They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves. This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union “depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone. The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from “a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves.” The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.

Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.. His words and, more importantly, his actions, repudiate this myth. “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races,” he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas. “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” And, “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. . . . We cannot, then, make them equals.”

In Springfield, Illinois on July17, 1858 Lincoln said, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” On Sept. 18, 1858 in Charleston, Illinois he said: “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”

Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power “to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment “express and irrevocable.”

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of “colonization” or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti – anywhere but here. “I cannot make it better known than it already is, “he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862 Message to Congress, “that I strongly favor colonization.” To Lincoln blacks could be “equal,” but not in the U.S.

Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution. Quite the contrary: Generations of historians have labeled Lincoln a “dictator.” “Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms,” wrote Clinton Rossiter in Constitutional Dictatorship. And, “Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal.”

James G. Randall documented Lincoln’s assault on the Constitution in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln’s apologists say he had “to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.”

Myth #5: Lincoln was a “great humanitarian” who had “ malice toward none.” This is inconsistent with the fact that Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians; massive looting and plundering; rape; and the execution of civilians (See Mark Grimsley, The Hard Hand of War). Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in Marching through Georgia that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in “stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command” as war criminals.

Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery. During the 19th century dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish Colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. (Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves. He failed to see it through, however). Only in America was war associated with emancipation.

In sum, the power of the state ultimately rests upon a series of myths about the alleged munificence of our rulers. Nothing serves this purpose better than the Lincoln myth. This should be kept in mind by all who visit the new Lincoln statue in Richmond.

     The essential connection of the dots provided by DiLorenzo with contemporary events is this:  Just as Lincoln’s war of aggression against the South had nothing to do with the moral issue of slavery, but the agenda of the Northern banking cabal, the ideology of British economic mercantilism, Henry Clay’s “American System,” and the preservation of Lincoln’s personal power, the coming war with Iran has nothing to do with any credible military threat against the United States.  It has everything to do with preserving Israel’s regional supremacy in the Middle East; forcing Iran at gunpoint to fully integrate its banking system into that of the Globalist Cabal’s; protecting the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency; and purloining oil and natural gas deposits and pipelines for energy consortiums.  It is inextricably linked with the money trail which bankrolls American Presidential and Congressional elections, and Establishment Corporate Media (ECM).

      Discerning readers worldwide have already concluded that the American-Israeli conflict with Iran is based on the overt aggression of the former, and being perpetrated for publicly stated reasons that are palpable falsehoods soaked in mythology and the American commitment to “democracy,” the “rule of law,” “human rights,” and the  “security of the international community.”  These convenient canards are belied by the employment of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdish PJAK, and the Jundallah terrorist organizations for bomb detonations and assassinations of Iranian citizens within their borders, acts of criminality etched with the fingerprints of the Israeli Mossad. Covert incitement of ethnic/tribal tensions by Western intelligence in Iranian Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, and Balochistan Provinces is a supplement to this strategy.  Violation of Iranian airspace with American drones will continue.  As Ron Paul has underscored, the economic sanctions aimed at the Iranian banking and oil sectors are additional overt acts of war.  It is also crystal clear that the American Fifth Fleet in Bahrain is being publicly touted as the ace in the hole of the War Party in an escalating war of words that may well make the Strait of Hormuz a 21st century Fort Sumter.

     And for what?  To remove the “threat” of an Iranian weaponized nuclear program, an accusation unsupported by the last American National Intelligence Estimate on this issue and the ambiguity of recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports?  Even as Israel, a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), sports a nuclear monopoly in the region with supplemental chemical and biological stockpiles and the area’s premier conventional military?  The smell of the putrid stench of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and their “substantiation” of Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” is in the air.

     And for Americans who dissent from their government’s policies in the Middle East, especially in the last decade, Lincoln’s 19th century Crusade against the Constitution of the United States stands as a warning.  Chapter Six (6) of The Real Lincoln warns us that America’s 16th President launched an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declared martial law; blockaded Southern ports; suspended habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoned without trial thousands of Northern citizens; arrested and imprisoned newspaper editors critical of him; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized railroads; created several new States without the consent of the citizens of those States; ordered Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters; deported United States Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing the administration’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the 2nd Amendment; and eviscerated the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

     DiLorenzo puts a 19th century historical perspective on the current vulnerability of those Americans who oppose the codification of the suspension of habeas corpus by Barack Obama and a complicit American Congress in the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

Secretary of State William Seward established a secret police force that made thousands of arrests on mere suspicion of ‘disloyalty,’ broadly defined as disagreement with Lincoln’s war policies.  Prisoners were not told why they were being arrested, no investigations of their alleged ‘crimes’ were carried out, and no trials were held.  There was no legal process at all, and many Northern citizens were imprisoned for such alleged infractions as ‘being a noisy secessionist,’ selling Confederate trinkets, or ‘hurrahing for Jeff Davis.’  An Episcopal minister in Alexandria, Virginia was arrested for omitting a prayer for the President of the United States in his church services as required by the Lincoln Administration.  A New Orleans man was executed by General Benjamin Butler for merely taking down a U. S. flag. [The Real Lincoln, page 138]

     And as the Loyola College professor ominously reminds us, Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor came to be known as the ‘American Bastille’ [read Guantanamo] because it housed so many political prisoners during the Lincoln Administration [more than 13,000 is the consensus among historians].

     I will say again on this day of the New Hampshire Republican Primary:  World War III is coming; it will be accompanied by a catastrophic destruction of American citizens domestically whose lives and Constitution will be eradicated forever by its ignition in an unjustifiable attack on Iran; and the not-so-hidden Hand behind it all is the government of Israel and the domestic Zionist lobby in the United States which owns the American Presidency, the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Establishment Corporate Media [ECM].

      Ron Paul:  Will you finally connect the dots and step up to home plate on this in your remaining time in this Presidential campaign, or will your equivocation and obfuscation continue?  The clock is ticking toward midnight.

      The clock is also ticking toward the ultimate irony and tragedy in human history, if the 44th President of the United States, from The Land of Lincoln and mythologically “emancipated” by the 16th President, proves to be the ultimate consummation in history of the utilization of capricious and usurped powers that destroy the Constitutional freedoms of his countrymen, even as the planet itself is engulfed in mass murder and death.  We may live to see the fateful lifting of the Seventh Seal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers