A Question For Americans

[boedicca]

Where does it say the military can be used to attack U.S. citizens? The only mention I can recall is that Congress may approve military actions to suppress insurrections.

The military take an oath to protect and defend The Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's an interesting question: would the military view federal orders to attack civilians as an abuse of power and refuse?

How a person answers is a big clue to that person's opinion of the integrity of those who serve.

 

[boedicca]

Ever heard of martial law.

Martial Law only works if the military cooperate.

 

[Samson]

Ever heard of martial law.

Martial Law only works if the military cooperate.

Yes, thus the term "Martial."

 

[uscitizen]

Where does it say the military can be used to attack U.S. citizens? The only mention I can recall is that Congress may approve military actions to suppress insurrections.

The military take an oath to protect and defend The Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's an interesting question: would the military view federal orders to attack civilians as an abuse of power and refuse?

How a person answers is a big clue to that person's opinion of the integrity of those who serve.

umm George Washington and the whiskey rebellion?
George was no teabagger that's for sure.

 

[uscitizen]

QFT.

Given that members of the military swear to protect The Constitution, I doubt most will comply with orders to shred it.

Where in the constitution does it say that the military cannot be used against it's own citizens?

Ever heard of martial law.

Yep and we have pretty much had it a time or two. During both WW1 and WW2.

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPXL3iEVnCM]YouTube - Gordon Lightfoot - Black Day in July[/ame]




1967 Detroit riot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

West Grand Blvd. at 12th Street in Detroit forty years later.The Detroit 1967 race riot or the 1967 Detroit rebellion,[1][2][3][4] or more commonly referred to in Detroit and Michigan as the Twelfth Street riot, was a multiracial civil disturbance in Detroit, Michigan that began in the early morning hours of Sunday, July 23, 1967. The precipitating event was a police raid of an unlicensed after hours bar on the corner of 12th Street and Clairmount on the city's near westside. Police confrontations with patrons and observers on the street evolved into one of the deadliest and most destructive riots in U.S. history, lasting five days and surpassing the violence and property destruction of Detroit's 1943 race riot.

To help end the disturbance, the Michigan National Guard was ordered into Detroit by Governor George Romney, and President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in United States Army troops. The result was forty-three dead, 467 injured, over 7,200 arrests and more than 2,000 buildings burned down. The scale of the riot was eclipsed only by the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The riot was prominently featured in the news media, with live television coverage, extensive newspaper reporting, and an extensive cover story in Time magazine and Life on August 4, 1967. The Detroit Free Press won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage.

1967 Detroit riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

December 15, 2006
Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.

(Are You Living In A Constitution Free Zone? See the interactive map >>)

We urge you to call on Congress to hold hearings on and pass legislation to end these egregious violations of Americans' civil rights.

LEARN MORE
> Fact Sheet on Border "Constitution-free Zone"
> Border Security Technologies
> Remarks of Craig Johnson
> Constitution-Free Zone: The Numbers

Are You Living in a Constitution Free Zone? | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Intense]

Fact Sheet on U.S. "Constitution Free Zone"
October 22, 2008
The problem
Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
But what is &#8220;the border&#8221;? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the &#8220;external boundary&#8221; of the <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />United States.
As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland &#8212; on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints &#8211; legally speaking, they are &#8220;administrative&#8221; stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation&#8217;s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation &#8211; places far removed from the actual border &#8211; agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.
Much of U.S. population affected
Many Americans and Washington policymakers believe that this is a problem confined to the San Diego-Tijuana border or the dusty sands of Arizona or Texas, but these powers stretch far inland across the United States.
To calculate what proportion of the U.S. population is affected by these powers, the ACLU created a map and spreadsheet showing the population and population centers that lie within 100 miles of any &#8220;external boundary&#8221; of the United States.
The population estimates were calculated by examining the most recent US census numbers for all counties within 100 miles of these borders. Using numbers from the Population Distribution Branch of the US Census Bureau, we were able to estimate both the total number and a state-by-state population breakdown. The custom map was created with help from a map expert at World Sites Atlas.
What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States&#8217; population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That&#8217;s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Part of a broader problem
The spread of border-search powers inland is part of a broad expansion of border powers with the potential to affect the lives of ordinary Americans who have never left their own country.
It coincides with the development of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems such as the Automated Targeting System (ATS) traveler risk assessment program, identity and tracking systems such as electronic (RFID) passports, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), and intrusive technological schemes such as the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet) or &#8220;virtual border fence&#8221; and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka &#8220;drone aircraft&#8221.
This illegitimate expansion of the extraordinary powers of agents at the border is also part of a general trend we have seen over the past 8 years of an untrammeled, heedless expansion of police and national security powers without regard to the effect on innocent Americans.
This trend is also typical of the Bush Administration&#8217;s dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security. Instead of intelligent, competent, targeted efforts to stop terrorism, illegal immigration, and other crimes, what we have been seeing in area after area is an approach that turns us all into suspects. This approach seeks to sift through the entire U.S. population in the hopes of encountering the rare individual whom the authorities have a legitimate interest in.

If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of &#8220;border protection,&#8221; we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.

Fact Sheet on U.S. "Constitution Free Zone" | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[AVG-JOE]

YouTube - Gordon Lightfoot - Black Day in July




1967 Detroit riot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

West Grand Blvd. at 12th Street in Detroit forty years later.The Detroit 1967 race riot or the 1967 Detroit rebellion,[1][2][3][4] or more commonly referred to in Detroit and Michigan as the Twelfth Street riot, was a multiracial civil disturbance in Detroit, Michigan that began in the early morning hours of Sunday, July 23, 1967. The precipitating event was a police raid of an unlicensed after hours bar on the corner of 12th Street and Clairmount on the city's near westside. Police confrontations with patrons and observers on the street evolved into one of the deadliest and most destructive riots in U.S. history, lasting five days and surpassing the violence and property destruction of Detroit's 1943 race riot.

To help end the disturbance, the Michigan National Guard was ordered into Detroit by Governor George Romney, and President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in United States Army troops. The result was forty-three dead, 467 injured, over 7,200 arrests and more than 2,000 buildings burned down. The scale of the riot was eclipsed only by the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The riot was prominently featured in the news media, with live television coverage, extensive newspaper reporting, and an extensive cover story in Time magazine and Life on August 4, 1967. The Detroit Free Press won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage.

1967 Detroit riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you envision stuff like this in your neighborhood today? I'd have to say "Maybe."

 

[Intense]

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other&#8217;s troops in civil emergencies
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other&#8217;s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

February 22, 2008


Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other&#8217;s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military&#8217;s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

&#8220;It&#8217;s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,&#8221; said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

&#8220;Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?&#8221; he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. &#8220;We don&#8217;t know the answers because the government doesn&#8217;t want to even announce the plan,&#8221; he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is &#8220;benign&#8221; and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

&#8220;But there&#8217;s no agreement to allow troops to come in,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The &#8216;allow&#8217; piece is entirely up to the two governments.&#8221;

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a &#8220;North American union&#8221; where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

&#8220;Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!&#8221; notes one website. &#8220;The next time your town has a &#8216;national emergency,&#8217; don&#8217;t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember &#8212; Canadian military aren&#8217;t bound by posse comitatus.&#8221;

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn&#8217;t been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other?s troops in civil emergencies

 

[AVG-JOE]

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other&#8217;s troops in civil emergencies
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other&#8217;s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

February 22, 2008


Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other&#8217;s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military&#8217;s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

&#8220;It&#8217;s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,&#8221; said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

&#8220;Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?&#8221; he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. &#8220;We don&#8217;t know the answers because the government doesn&#8217;t want to even announce the plan,&#8221; he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is &#8220;benign&#8221; and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

&#8220;But there&#8217;s no agreement to allow troops to come in,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The &#8216;allow&#8217; piece is entirely up to the two governments.&#8221;

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a &#8220;North American union&#8221; where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

&#8220;Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!&#8221; notes one website. &#8220;The next time your town has a &#8216;national emergency,&#8217; don&#8217;t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember &#8212; Canadian military aren&#8217;t bound by posse comitatus.&#8221;

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn&#8217;t been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other?s troops in civil emergencies

I still say the real test will not be unrest or a riot - expect those to quashed by local authorities if possible, federal if necessary - the real test will be when 51+% of the voters in any given state vote to sue for divorce from the rest of us.

It won't matter if some, all or any troops follow a politicians order to shoot Americans, the story will be the politician and his or her order.

 

[midcan5]

Would soldiers turn against the citizens of the nation they protect. Of course they would given the right circumstances. Those here who think not are naive at best. Soldiers are under orders to follow their leaders.

Mercenaries or private soldiers are a bigger threat to order than the military is - at least in the US. During the depression and during the days of Union organizing corporations paid for private armies that caused many deaths, but work was so bad then, Unions fought back, and eventually won a great many rights. FDR also used the turmoil to pass laws for workers and child working rights. See my link below.

Waco was caused by David Koresh's messianic insanity. Had he given up after a warrant was issued, Waco would not have happened. That all involved screwed up is evident as too many died for one nutcase. But killing officers of the law carrying out the law is a definite crime.

911 was external terrorism so it is not relevant. The nuttiness afterward against some Middle East citizens, and the fear that lead to Iraq are always possible and demonstrate the fragility of civilization when fear raises its ugly head.

Power does strange things to the minds of some. Anyone who has served in the military has seen that too clearly once a certain type of person attains a position of authority. Soldiers are no more saints than the rest of us.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/106687-bef-vets-and-the-great-depression.html

Waco frontline: waco - the inside story: Chronology | PBS

frontline: waco - the inside story | PBS

 

[sparky]

Army Times
September 18, 2008
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.


Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

Congress held a closed door session in March of '08, Paulson spontanouesly errupted in Spt '08, the Army has been staged here since Oct '08 for the above mentioned homeland security scenario(s)

Now i don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to piece together the fact that, if our economy went into the dumpster quickly , there might be some civil unrest that needs to be mitigated.

I also wouldn't think that, after Katrina's snafu, more attention beening placed on a military/civil authority interface (which is why we have NIMS btw) is abnormal

As to the secessionists, two distinct possiblities arise, 1) a violent rebellion 2) a peaceful sucession

1) the idea that some 2nd amendment rednecks with shotguns are going to actually stage a coup against the US military is so forkin' ludicrous it doesn't even bear debating here

2) in vermont we have a movement which, when confronted with sorting out the math finds that most of vermont is owned externally. Ergo, around 1/2 a million residents wouldn't have the $$$ to buy it's way out , even if all factions AGREED to allow it to happen

so they (the secessionists) are reduced to having key members dress up in period garb (like Ethan Allen), and gallop about on horseback to their events spewing colorful quotes of the day....

SO.....it's America, love it or (enter oppressive term of your choice) here in terms of going down whatever economic , enviromental, Obamatistic road there may be

YOUR in it for the ride!

~S~

 

[eots]

I didn't realize that publicprotector was a twoofer.

I wonder if he realizes you are a fool ?

 

[Intense]

Would soldiers turn against the citizens of the nation they protect. Of course they would given the right circumstances. Those here who think not are naive at best. Soldiers are under orders to follow their leaders.

Mercenaries or private soldiers are a bigger threat to order than the military is - at least in the US. During the depression and during the days of Union organizing corporations paid for private armies that caused many deaths, but work was so bad then, Unions fought back, and eventually won a great many rights. FDR also used the turmoil to pass laws for workers and child working rights. See my link below.

Waco was caused by David Koresh's messianic insanity. Had he given up after a warrant was issued, Waco would not have happened. That all involved screwed up is evident as too many died for one nutcase. But killing officers of the law carrying out the law is a definite crime.

911 was external terrorism so it is not relevant. The nuttiness afterward against some Middle East citizens, and the fear that lead to Iraq are always possible and demonstrate the fragility of civilization when fear raises its ugly head.

Power does strange things to the minds of some. Anyone who has served in the military has seen that too clearly once a certain type of person attains a position of authority. Soldiers are no more saints than the rest of us.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/106687-bef-vets-and-the-great-depression.html

Waco frontline: waco - the inside story: Chronology | PBS

frontline: waco - the inside story | PBS

A little bit revisionist, don't you think??? Still, when lead and emotions start flying, we all lose. The atrocities on all sides compound the equation. Your Unions are no closer to Sainthood than what they oppose. The end does not justify the means.

 

[ScottBernard]

I thought this question was settled back in 1865.
They tried. The Unionists said 'No'. Thus war. They lost. Matter settled. State laws do not supersede Federal law. The Constitution is supreme law of the land.
Keep in mind they picked the fight; not the Federal government. The Fed exercised incredible forbearance at its own expense.
They formed their own government on U.S. soil; they seized U.S. assets and arms; they absolved themselves of all debts U.S.; they colluded with foreign powers; and still the Fed patiently waited for them to come back in.
They fired upon a U.S. garrison. Only then did the Unionists muster their Armies and come forth to preserve the government of their inheritance.
The overarching thought of the ardent politicians and military officers of the time was, 'What would the world think of us if we can't manage our own house? We would be forever diminished upon the world stage and be in a state of eternal conflict upon a vast border'. It must all be one or the other.

 

[Toro]

I didn't realize that publicprotector was a twoofer.

I wonder if he realizes you are a fool ?

I consider a twoofer calling me a fool a compliment.

 

[midcan5]

A little bit revisionist, don't you think??? Still, when lead and emotions start flying, we all lose. The atrocities on all sides compound the equation. Your Unions are no closer to Sainthood than what they oppose. The end does not justify the means.

I think you guys have a pretty firm grip on revisionism, given the record, it is all you do. But please tell us which piece is revisionist in your mind so I can (try to) set you straight.


"In March 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated President and initiated a series of aggressive measures, collectively known as the New Deal, in an attempt to revive the economy from the Depression. New Deal legislation brought unprecedented Federal Government involvement to the economy.

The Great Depression also resulted in the unprecedented involvement of the Federal Government in labor-management relations. The passage of the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) of 1935 guaranteed the rights of workers to join labor unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. The impact of unionization on the wages and benefits of blue-collar workers in important manufacturing industries also spilled over into non-union workplaces and industries. Union membership rates, which had been about 1 in 8 workers in the early 1930s, doubled to more than 1 in 4 workers in 1940"

Compensation from before World War I through the Great Depression

A conservative on labor then.
http://www.conservativeissues.org/economic-issues-work-conditions-in-the-1930&#8217;s.html

Labor Unions &mdash; Infoplease.com


"I am not for a return to that definition of liberty under which for so many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few." FDR 1934

 

[Intense]

A little bit revisionist, don't you think??? Still, when lead and emotions start flying, we all lose. The atrocities on all sides compound the equation. Your Unions are no closer to Sainthood than what they oppose. The end does not justify the means.

I think you guys have a pretty firm grip on revisionism, given the record, it is all you do. But please tell us which piece is revisionist in your mind so I can (try to) set you straight.


"In March 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated President and initiated a series of aggressive measures, collectively known as the New Deal, in an attempt to revive the economy from the Depression. New Deal legislation brought unprecedented Federal Government involvement to the economy.

The Great Depression also resulted in the unprecedented involvement of the Federal Government in labor-management relations. The passage of the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) of 1935 guaranteed the rights of workers to join labor unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. The impact of unionization on the wages and benefits of blue-collar workers in important manufacturing industries also spilled over into non-union workplaces and industries. Union membership rates, which had been about 1 in 8 workers in the early 1930s, doubled to more than 1 in 4 workers in 1940"

Compensation from before World War I through the Great Depression

A conservative on labor then.
http://www.conservativeissues.org/economic-issues-work-conditions-in-the-1930’s.html

Labor Unions &mdash; Infoplease.com


"I am not for a return to that definition of liberty under which for so many years a free people were being gradually regimented into the service of the privileged few." FDR 1934

LOL!!! Sometimes You kinda come off like Hal from 2001 Space Odyssey.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeHdiszZmE]YouTube - Stop Dave, I'm Afraid[/ame]

Do You think Roosevelt reflected more on Madison/Jefferson or MARX, Midcan?
Our concerns are real and valid my friend, Our methods are incompatible, thats all. Progressivism has done much to remove the obstacle of Individual Will. My system celebrates Individual Awareness, Yours, sacrifices it at the Totalitarian, Utopian Alter of Self Denial and Enslavement of Conscience. I'll tell You this, Your True Self does matter to Me, I Value It. When It's realized, It's going to carry Much Weight.

 

[AllieBaba]

I vote "Marx".