Normally I'm a pretty skeptical guy, so the thought of a government planning to go to war on its citizens is one that makes me ask, "what would they gain from such an action?" After all, if you are going to do something, then you are probably doing it to gain some sort of advantage in either the short or long term.
But two years ago I would have told you that federal agents would never violate the federal laws they were sworn to uphold in order to move weapons across the border to Mexico where they would end up killing Mexican citizens and American citizens when they came back across. Clearly the cries for "more gun control" from the usual suspects in Congress stating that their agents broke the law because they were hampered by the law not allowing them the freedom to do whatever the fuck they'd like whenever the fuck they'd like were part of the "long term gain" from that action. They wanted more gun control, and damn the bodies they were going to get it.
So I am a little less skeptical about insiders in the .gov telling a truth that sounds too outlandish to be real. I may not see exactly how tearing this country apart with another civil war would be in anyone's best interest, unless that party expected to be a victor, ruling unhindered by any pretense of constitutional law or restriction.
What does our current dear leader have to say about Constitutional laws and restrictions?
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Ok, I see it now. In order to bring about the utopian dream of Marxist wealth redistribution we have to
Now I am still skeptical, often times "war games" or "emergency response scenarios" are discussed and worked at high levels (you want your people to have a plan to respond to an earthquake or massive power outage). So this report of "planning to go to war with America" could be both true and inconsequential. But what if it is not? That is the question, isn't it?