Thoughts on Tiller the Baby Killer

Feminists, Liberals, and Marxists (but I repeat myself) are still railing against Pro-Lifers as being "violent radicals" due to the "murder" of Dr. Tiller the Killer of 60,000 babies... The sad irony is that since Roe v Wade passed, a total of 5 abortion doctors have been killed; meanwhile, almost 50,000,000 babies have been murdered in the womb.

This makes Feminists the greatest mass murderers in all the history of all the world.

Feminists retort... well, abortion is legal. So what... Genocide was legal in NAZI Germany, but that doesn't make it right.

The Common Law Grand Jury

The people of Georgia have done something VERY interesting. They convened a citizen's Grand Jury under the Common Law. This Grand Jury has indicted Obama for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, which... if (and I stress "IF") they can get any prosecutor in Georgia to pay attention to the law, President Obama will have to face his day in court.

For those of you who do not know, Grand Juries have come a long way from what they originally were...

Grand Juries are supposed to be chosen by lot, much like regular jurors. The only difference is that Grand Jurors are not sifted based on biases. The jurors are chosen and seated.

A typical Grand Jury has 23 members to serve every 3000 populace (a town of 6000 people would have 2 Grand Juries). A Grand Jury is supposed to hear the evidence a prosecutor has, and then judge whether or not he has a case for indictment. A mere majority vote of the Grand Jury grants indictment. There typically is no judge in the proceedings.

Grand Juries are allowed to deliberate, ask questions and hear additional witnesses if they desire, however, they are not there to try the case... simply to judge whether or not there IS a case to be tried. If a Grand Jury votes against indictment, the Prosecutor should NOT be allowed to try again with the same case and a different Grand Jury.

A Grand Jury typically sits for a week (5 business days) and hears several cases; however, it is not uncommon to have a Grand Jury sit for Months, meeting once or twice a week during those months. The proceedings are typically secret.

Example:
You get a jury summons. You show up at court, and they say they are seating a Grand Jury. Aside from being excused for medical/personal reasons, you should be placed without question.

Let's say that the Grand Jury you are on is being seated for 6 months, meeting every Monday and Wednesday during that time. You might hear 4 cases 1 week, 1 case the next week, 6 cases the next week, and 1 case that consumes 2 weeks, and so on. After your 6 months is over, the Grand Jury is dismissed, and another one is seated.

Grand Juries seem inclined to side with a prosecutor as far as indictment goes... however, Grand Juries (when properly applied) can exclude the prosecutor from an inquisition and can subpoena witnesses and issue indictments themselves if necessary. This typically happens when a Grand Jury feels that the prosecutor is corrupt, or part of a corrupt system.

According to the Common Law (upheld by the Supreme Court) a Grand Jury acts as a protector of the citizen against "arbitrary and oppressive government action" and that Grand Juries may "deliberate in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry" (US vs Calandra, 414 US 338 (1974)).

A Grand Jury is independent and is “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation” (Branzburg vs Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972)). It has been ruled that “Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” (US vs Sells Engineering, 463 US 418 (1983)).

Grand Juries are a right protected under the 5th amendment to the Constitution, however, most people today believe that a Prosecutor or Court has to assign a Grand Jury, but the reality is, under the Common Law the community may assign a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury has considerable power.

Under Common Law, Grand Juries can be have between 12 and 23 members, with an indictment allowed upon a majority vote, with no less than 12 jurors voting to indict (in other words, a GJ of 12 would have to be unanimous, but a GJ of 13 to 23 would only need 12). They are not governed by the Prosecutor or Court, and (as stated above) may even by-pass or exclude the Prosecutor, Judge, etc. and issue its own subpoenas, indictments, etc. Especially if the GJ has reason to believe the system or persons involved are corrupt or misapplying the law. Grand Juries also have the power to investigate public officials without interference from the government. Historically it has always been their JOB to pin government corruption to the mat.

In US vs Williams, 504 US 36 at 48 (1992) the Supreme Court decided:
"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). '"

...and...

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]"

Historically, and under the Common Law, Grand Juries have the right to be assembled by the community, to investigate and independently determine a case should not proceed to trial, or hand out indictments; and to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers or otherwise circumvent the law.

Many will try to dismiss this indictment as "frivolous", or that it has no legal merit... but anyone who still has an understanding of Natural Law, the Common Law, and the the beliefs and aims of the Founding Fathers to which this entire system of government was founded, knows better.

Human Livestock

There is a section of a film that is fairly well done, and it spoke many truths... however it also had some things in it that I thought took away from the message; was antagonistic to faith; and had some other “problems”. There was too much good in the film to discard it, and too many “issues” for me to embrace it fully.

I thought long and hard about it, and would revisit it from time to time; and then I realized that I needed to get this information out. I had several choices, I could simply send the link to the film and add “disclaimers”; I could write my own take on the subject; or I could edit the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film.

After careful consideration, I decided that there were too many things that were phrased too well in the film to allow it to go to waste. So what I have decided to do is to take the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film, edit it, and add some of my own words to smooth out the editing and strengthen some of the concepts. I am also going to give the link to the original film so that anyone who is so inclined can watch it (it is worth watching).

True News 13: Statism is Dead – Part 3 – The Matrix
The video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

It is just over 16 minutes long. (the edited transcript below is very reduced, taking maybe two typed pages)

I give full credit to Stefan Molyneux (the filmmaker), and I want to thank him for much (but not all) of what the film has to say. With that in mind, I now present the edited (and "revised") version of the transcript.

Human Livestock:
The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

Of course not.

This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

We, the people, end up as slaves to the Government that was put in place to serve us. We act as nothing more than livestock upon a State-run farm. To the State we are nothing more than cattle.

Just as owning cows is advantageous because they provide surplus milk, meat, and other goods, having “slaves” upon Human “farms” is looked upon by the elite as being advantageous. However, simply caging an animal and “milking” it for all it is worth can have great disadvantages.

For example, when cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom."

Similarly, it is advantageous to grant additional liberties to the human livestock… not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm."

State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

Without enthusiasm depression and despair begins to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

The solution to this is the need for propaganda, “medication”, superstition, wars, the creation of "enemies", the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, the promotion of hedonism, paranoia, and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because your government approves of these rights in principle - since it constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock" is so much cheaper to own and so much more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all livestock management approaches.

The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and other parts of Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

The illusion of freedom, enabling willful slavery can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

Through the children, the “livestock” learns to love the farmer, and embraces the farm… all the while chanting that they are free.

Reason and courage will set us free.

You do not have to be livestock.

Take the red pill.

Wake up.

Violence and Race: A Lecture to the Politically Correct

I am directing this post squarely in the face of all of the Marxists, Liberals, Race-Baiters, Politically Correct, and the Misguided; to be used by the intelligent of any race, creed, or color that chooses to do so.

It is my hope that the era of "White Guilt", "Liberal Guilt", and "Black Victimhood" will END sometime in the near future.

Note: All statistics taken from the US Census Bureau and the Department of Justice.

As of 2005 in the "White/Black" paradigm there was a total of:

72% of population = White, 12.9% of population = Black
Total population in US in 2005 = 295,160,302

212,515,418 = White
38,075,679 = Black
44,569,205 = Other

Victims of Violent Crime:
3,201,320 reported victims who were White. (1.5% of White population)
507,210 reported victims who were Black. (1.3% of Black population)

Per Capita, the numbers are pretty much the same regardless of race.

In those cases of violence, if you take out the "attempts" and leave only the completed crime there was a total of:

916,130 victims who were White (.04% of White population)
192,040 victims who were Black (.05% of Black population)

...again, Per Capita, the numbers are pretty much the same regardless of race.

Of those victims of a completed violent crime:

Black committing the crime against White: 18% [+ 11.5% (Other Race)]
White committing the crime against Black: 4.7%

Here is the first disparity... it seems Blacks are 3.8 times more likely to be the perpetrator against someone of another race than Whites are.

White committing the crime against White: 66%
Black committing the crime against Black: 78.9%

Here it shows that there is a higher predatory rate with Blacks among their own race.

Of the Black victims of violent crime:
100% of rapes were Black vs Black
100% of robberies with injuries were Black vs Black
The percentages of the other key crimes are in the 80 percentile Black vs Black

This shows that when there is a Black victim of a violent crime, there is an overwhelmingly high chance the perpetrator was also Black.

Of the White victims of violent crime:
53.2% were raped by non-whites (33.6% of total attackers were Black)
54.5% were robbed by non-whites (36.3% of total attackers were Black)
57.8% were injured during theft by a Black attacker
The percentages of the other key crimes are in the 50 to 70 percentile committed by Non-White (Blacks being at least half that total)

This shows that when there is a White victim of violent crime, there is a majority chance the perpetrator is Non-White... with the odds in favor of the perpetrator being Black.

Murder:
Of all the murders in the US, 50.9% of the victims are White, 46.9% of the victims are Black
Blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered than Whites
94% of the Black victims of murder were killed by Blacks.

These statistics show a high propensity of violent crime being perpetrated by Blacks, with Blacks being the most likely to cross racial lines.

"What is the point of all this?" you may be asking... the answer is simple.

The next time you hear someone whining about how a majority of the prison population is "non-white"; or how the racist Whites go around committing "Hate Crimes", etc. just pull out these stats and tell them:

1. The reason why 35.4% of the prison population is comprised of Black males is because there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Black males.

2. White's are almost 4 times more likely to be the victim of a Black criminal than the other way around, even though White's outnumber Blacks 6 to 1.

3. If you truly want to do something for the "so-called" Black Community, you can start by stop enabling their victimization; tell them to pull the Government IV out of their arm; stop listening to the race-baiting prostitutes that try to herd them; and to understand that educating yourself, speaking clearly and intelligently, wearing clothes that fit, and not acting like an animal are NOT signs of being "too White"... they are signs you are a Human Being. Act like one.

If anyone thinks that these statements of fact are racist, then by all means think so... as for the Intelligent, they know better.

The Founding Father's View on Immigration

I can safely say they were not advocates of "Open Borders".

Overall, the Founding Fathers believed that we should be selective about who we allow in our Country; citizenship should not come easy; the immigrant should assimilate; and that land ownership should be reserved to citizens or those immigrants that have established a legal, reasonable length of residency in the Country. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers believed that immigrants who wish to be citizens should leave their ties to their former Country's form of government behind and learn, understand, and cherish America's unique form of government.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists were mostly in agreement on the subject, with minor debates occurring over a few issues, such as land ownership (some wanting immigrants to have NO ownership rights), length of residency required, preferential treatment given to scholars and skilled tradesmen, and so on.

Here are some of their own words on the matter:

From Federalist #2:
"...Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..." -- John Jay

From a letter from George Washington to John Adams:
[Immigrants should be slowly integrated into the United States so that] "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people." -- George Washington

From a 1790 speech to Congress:
"welcome every person of good fame who really means to incorporate himself into our society, but repel all who will not be a real addition to the wealth and strength of the United States." -- James Madison

From "Notes on Virginia":
"Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours...is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty." [Instead we must gradually acclimate newcomers] "to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a philosophy, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs." -- Alexander Hamilton

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"…it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner." -- Roger Sherman - Connecticut

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"…It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of." -- James Madison - Virginia

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"I would let the term of residence be long enough to accomplish two objects, before I would consent to admit a foreigner to have any thing to do with the politics of this country. First, that he should have an opportunity of knowing the circumstances of our Government, and in consequence thereof, shall have admitted the truth of the principles we hold. Second, that he shall have acquired a taste for this kind of Government." -- Michael Stone - Maryland

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"I think, before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privileges of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence amongst us is necessary. I think he ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the term, be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior; no man, who would be a credit to the community, could think such terms difficult or indelicate: if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should decline to emigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect; for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it." -- James Jackson - Georgia

Did the South try to reconcile before Seceding?

From my "Confederate Handbook":

From There to Here:
In 1776 our Founding Fathers broke away from Tyranny and established a Democratic
Republic among a Confederation of States. These States assembled together UNITED in a cause; UNITED in their resolve; UNITED in their desire for liberty; but remained
independent and sovereign nevertheless. This is why the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution of the United States both listed the whole of the States as the “united States of America”. Notice the little “u” in “united”. That is because the Founding Fathers believed in State Sovereignty, and they (aside from the plans of the
Hamiltonians) believed that the States should not be bound by a strong central
government.

Over the next 84 years, constant battle raged between the Anti-Federalists (Jeffersonians) and the Federalists (Hamiltonians), finally coming to a head in 1860 when the South seceded from the Federal Union. At the very moment the South seceded the North ceased to be the “united States of America”, a collection of Sovereign States; and instead became the “United States of America”, a single nation under a strong central government.

The Federal Union then invaded and militarily conquered the Confederate States of
America, conscripting her against her will as a part of the Federalist’s vision of America.To this day, the Federal Union has continued to grow unabated in its power and has stripped away the liberty of the individual, and the Sovereignty of the States.

It is the contention of “The Confederate Handbook” that the Confederate States of
America (CSA) is, and has been, a Sovereign Nation held in occupation by the Federal
Union of the United States of America. Furthermore, it is the contention of “The
Confederate Handbook” that the CSA is an extension of the country founded in 1776, and that the Federal Union of the United States of America has grown into what men like Thomas Jefferson fought to free themselves from.

Moving on from the pages of "The Confederate Handbook"...

Were there peaceful attempts to reconcile:
The answer is an unequivocal "YES". The South spent decades (or longer) trying to remain at peace in spite of the abuses of the North.

Fairly enough, I have been asked to give examples of peaceful attempts by the South to reconcile their differences with the North in order to avoid the need for secession.

In order to do this, I will have to go into a little history. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the major areas of contention between the North and the South.

(Much of the following on the "points of contention" are from the Confederate Handbook)
Historical and Cultural Differences:

Those who settled in the North were primarily of English and Danish decent. Those that settled in the South were primarily of French, Scottish, and Irish decent. As you know, the English and the Danes had a long history of animosity with the French, the Scottish, and the Irish. That animosity continued during the settling of the United States.

The North has always been more “progressive” in terms of culture, while the South has always been more conservative.

There were, and still are, vast differences in cuisine, music, slang, etc.

Political and Philosophical Differences:

The North held a Federalists (Alexander Hamilton) view of government while the South held an Anti-federalist (Thomas Jefferson) view of government. The power of the Federal Beast was growing, much to the dismay of the South.

Religious Differences:

The North was primarily of a liberal theological belief; and Unitarianism thrived within the populace. The South was primarily of a conservative theological belief, and Unitarianism was primarily rejected.

The Economic Issues that Lead to Secession:

Here is where we get to the crux of what pushed the South over the edge; just like our forefathers in 1776.

There are a few facts you should know before we proceed in order for you to keep everything in perspective.

In 1861 the population of the North was about 20 million, while the population of the South was about 9 million.

The South had an agrarian economy which relied heavily on exports to Europe. The North, however, was heavily industrialized. Comparatively, the South only produced about 10% of all manufactured goods. Regardless of these facts, if the South of 1860 was assessed as its own Nation, it would have been the 4^th wealthiest Nation in the world with Southern exports accounting for over 70% of all exports from the United States up to the time of Secession.

Slavery:
Slavery was an important factor to the operations of large plantations. There had not yet been developed Tractors, Combines, and other machinery by which today's farms are run.

Though immoral, and to be quite honest, antithetical to Natural Law Theory (a topic best saved for another discussion), slavery was a very economically viable means by which large plantations could remain profitable and keep up with demand.

This is not to say that there was a Slave on every farm, because there wasn't. Only 6% to 9% of the population (including Black slave owners) owned slaves.

As the North began to industrialize, they began to sell their slaves to the South. As time progressed, much of the North then saw no real "need" for Slavery (Ironically though, the North used "sweatshop" employment tactics... moving from "Slavery" to "Indentured Servitude")

There are many myths, and a vast history about Slavery in the ENTIRE US... but that is for another discussion.

Tariffs:

Tariffs were in effect since the inception of the US Constitution of 1787; however they did not begin in earnest until after the War of 1812. The North had a “Protectionists” attitude when it came to tariffs which contradicted the South’s desire for “Free Trade”. With the South being the chief exporter of goods, high tariffs hurt them the most.

A tariff enacted in 1816 of 25 cent per yard of cheap cotton cloth (a major export of the South) was used to shelter New England mills from English competition by making Southern cotton so expensive to buy that it virtually removed it from the American marketplace.

The fierce opposition of New England shipping interests and Southern plantations led to the Tariff of 1828, called the “Tariff of Abominations”, which almost caused the South to secede at that time. The Tariff of 1828 forced the South to buy manufactured goods at inflated prices, while at the same time facing reduced income due to the loss of sale of raw goods.

In late 1832, South Carolina attempted a protest by enacting an Ordinance of Nullification stating that the States had a right to nullify a Federal law that the State found aberrant. The Order essentially made null the Tariffs imposed in 1828 and 1832.

President Andrew Jackson responded by sending seven naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston. He then issued a proclamation against the nullifiers stating they “stood on the brink of insurrection and treason”. President Jackson then appealed to the citizens to reassert their allegiance to the Union. Congress then passed a “Force Bill” authorizing the President to take whatever action he deemed fit to enforce the law.

The situation was defused in early 1833 by Senator Henry Clay (a protectionists and rival of Jackson’s, and who would serve as a mentor to Abraham Lincoln) who pushed through a compromise measure. The compromise stated that the Tariffs would be steadily reduced over the course of 10 years to the level of the 1816 Tariff.

The conflict in 1832 and 1833 showed the South that any attempts to avert economic tyranny would result in physical tyranny; however, it also showed the South that they did not have to put up with the Federal Government, which planted the seed of secession.

In 1857 the biggest of many “Panics” occurred when Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. collapsed due to embezzlement. On top of this event, there was a series of other setbacks, including British investors removing money from the US Banks, the fall of grain prices, Russia’s re-entry into the global markets after the Crimean War, the stockpiling of manufactured goods causing layoffs, and widespread railroad failures; all of which contributed to severe economic setbacks which primarily impacted the North.

In 1857 a new, lower tariff was put in place to allow the South better income, however, the North then instituted higher interest rates on the South; essentially burdening the South with the task of pulling the North from its economic problems. Tensions between the North and South began to increase dramatically.

By 1860, the South was paying 87% of all tariffs, 83% of federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen; as well as payments totaling $35 million to Northern shippers who had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports (keep in mind, the Federal Government controlled Trade). The South was essentially paying all of the bills.

In 1860, the final straw was placed on the camel’s back… the Republican Lincoln was elected President. Among the Republican platform was a call for higher tariffs; which was enacted as the Morris Tariff in 1861, signed by President Buchannan prior to Lincoln taking the oath of office.

The Morris Tariff was the highest tariff in US history, imposing a 50% duty on iron, 25% on clothing, with other rates averaging about 47%.

What did the South do to try and fix it?
Dating back as far as the birth of the US, the South has tried to work with the North from within "the system" to keep at peace.

In 1787 a Constitutional Convention was called (pushed primarily by Northern "Federalists") in order to "amend" the Articles of Confederation. However, a brand new document emerged.

The subject of Slavery was a hot-button issue from the days of the Declaration of Independence, and the Founders avoided, as best they could, the mention of it by name in official documents.

As the idea of representation began to be debated, the controversy arose in which the South wanted Slaves to be counted in the census as "people" so that representation in the Federal Government would reflect how many people actually resided in the South. The North rejected that idea as they believed that this would give the South too much power.

Eventually the 3/5ths Compromise took place in which everyone would count... except for slaves, who would only count as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation.

From the Constitution:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

"Other Persons", of course, meaning "Slaves".

Another compromise was the idea of Electing 2 Senators to represent the States, so that the States would be on equal footing, while allowing the House to reflect population (to which the North would prevail).

To further deal with the Slave issue, the South agreed to various "Compromises" in order to keep the balance of power "even" in the Federal Government.

Examples include the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise... though most Southerners thought the Compromises were not particularly in their favor.

The South often believed the North would not abide by those compromises... and they were right.

For example:
In 1847 a vote was held on whether or not to continue to adhere to the line set in the "Missouri Compromise"... the entire South voted to adhere to the agreement, the entire North voted not to. The North Won.

Jefferson Davis, a Congressman at the time (in which the "Line" was being "nudged" Southward by the North) stated "Pacification had been the fruit borne by the tree, and it should not have been recklessly hewn down and cast in the fire."

Note: the "Line" was the geographical division through the "Louisiana Purchase" to prohibiting slavery north of 36 degrees 30 minutes (essentially, any State North of that line would come in as a "Free" State, South of that line would be a "Slave" State).

Northern control of the Federal Government allowed very divisive legislation to pass, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which shattered the Missouri Compromise, and almost caused secession in 1854).

Note: Even after a compromise was struck regarding the admission of Kansas, the North managed to block (via the Congress) the entrance of Kansas as a slave state.

Note 2: The determination of the balance of "Free" and "Slave" States was important to the "balance" of power between North and South.

Note 3: Ironically, and little discussed, there was a Convention in Worcester, MA in 1857 to discuss the disunion of the US along the North/South border... essentially what happened after the South seceded. However, it was NORTHERNERS that called this Convention.

The South tried, in vain, to work out legislation and compromise in regards to the high Tariffs and unfair Trade practices, but the North held predominant control of the Federal Government blocking the South every chance they had.

(Think of it like a Democratically controlled Congress of today with the likes of Ron Paul trying to get things passed).

The Southern Congressmen and Senators attempted with all their might to avert sectional aggressions that were being legislated; however, the North maintained control.

Several political parties were formed, protests and petitions were filed, all in an attempt to get the North's foot off the South's throat. The last hope the South believed they had was the election of a friendly President.

With the election of Lincoln the final straw was laid, and the South seceded.

Immediately upon voting to secede, Mississippi sent word to their Senator, Jefferson Davis, that he was to vacate his seat in DC.

Upon getting word, Jefferson Davis immediately addressed the US Senate for the final time stating:

"I do think she [Mississippi] has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when their convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I find in myself perhaps a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators of the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot say in the presence of my God, I wish you well, and such I am sure is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent.

I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed or for which satisfaction has not been demanded. I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which in the heat of discussion I have inflicted.

I go hence unencumbered by the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered, Mr. President and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."

Unfortunately, Lincoln had other ideas...

Thoughts on the "Libertarian Movement"

I have absolutely no problem with the definition and idea of "libertarian" and find that term a suitable label to describe an overall view that (in my opinion) is positive. In fact, I have even called myself a "conservative-libertarian (not to be confused with the party)" on many occasions. It is that "not to be confused with the party" part that is the kicker. You see, while I have no problem with the term "Libertarian"... I have a MAJOR problem with the Libertarian Party and, well, much of the "Libertarian Movement"... that is to say, I prefer to associate myself with a "Liberty Movement" instead.

You may be thinking... "isn't that the same thing?" The answer is an unequivocal "NO!!!"

The reason I say this is because there are many in the "Libertarian Movement" that have more in common with the "Libertarian Party" than "Liberty"... and NO, those two things are not the same either.

I'll jump right to some examples of why I say what I say... and then try and put it all together.

There are quite a few Libertarians that hold up Ayn Rand and her philosophies... below is a look at a few of Ayn Rand's thoughts on most "Libertarians" and "Anarchists"; and a few thoughts by one of her heirs. Though Ayn Rand is upheld by many Libertarians, the comments below, oddly enough, do not defend the "Libertarian Movement" but instead lead directly to my point.

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." -- Ayn Rand

I personally put the viability of "Anarchy" on par with the existence of faeries, all you can eat diets, and unicorns... Furthermore, Anarchy is every bit as detrimental to Liberty as the most vile, corrupt, authoritarian dictator. Anarchy begets chaos, begets mob rule, begets fascism and the tyranny of the majority.

"...‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism" -- Ayn Rand, given as a reason why she did not join ideological movements or groups (such as the Libertarian Party).

"Libertarianism is a Perversion of Liberty" -- Peter Schwartz

"...the libertarian interprets liberty to mean the license to do whatever he feels like doing...to him, any obstacle in the path of people's whims is undesirable." -- Peter Schwartz

"IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his "liberty"—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain "wings" of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of "liberty" can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental "restraint" upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism." -- Peter Schwartz

A good example of evil would be the Libertarian stance that murdering the unborn is fine as it is in keeping with a woman's freedom to do what she will with her body.

Another example is that gay marriage can be forced upon a society that overwhelmingly rejects it so as to pacify the "liberty" (i.e. militant activism) of the homosexual. Though few seem to consider the fact that legislative and judicial tyranny engaged to "liberate" someone is just as fascist as legislative and judicial tyranny used to enslave them. (I will elaborate more on this point in another essay)

Oftentimes some members of the "Libertarian Movement" confuse "Libertarian" with "Libertine"... they go beyond "tolerating" immoral actions, to embracing them. They do not seem to understand that just because someone "can" do something doesn't mean they "should" do it... or that you are not treading upon someone's liberty because you denounce or object to that which another has done. It is as if they believe shame, embarrassment, public scorn, or objection felt by one party somehow renders one or another incapable of being free. The ironic thing is... these "libertine libertarians" (keeping a straight face) claim they believe in "accountability".

On many issues (such as the ones listed above) elements of the 'Libertarian Movement" shows an almost complete lack of understanding of what liberty is, instead clinging to those things liberty is NOT, such as amorality, immorality, indifference, self-indulgence, selfishness, nihilism, and so on.

I am not saying that members of the "Libertarian Movement" are bad people... in fact, I am pretty confident that many of them are trying, as best they know how, to make a better world. However, the same can be said of some Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and yes... even Fascists. In other words, just because you have a good heart, and mean to do the right thing doesn't mean you are not inadvertently engaging in a social evil.

The "Libertarian Movement" (for the most part) lacks a great deal of rationality, with too wide a range of viewpoints (ranging from the Anarchist to the Liberal Statist), and is too focused on "me, me, me" to be able to step out of their self-imposed "fishbowl" long enough to see how much damage they are doing to themselves; and, in the long run, society.

If the "Libertarians" are not careful, soon the term "Libertarian" may no longer retain the meaning it was supposed to have, and will go the way of the term "Liberal"... a word that was synonymous with liberty which evolved into an ugly epithet.