Friday, September 18, 2009

Bank of America CEO Coerced

Link to article. In this article it states:

"Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he warned Bank of America (BAC) CEO Ken Lewis that regulators could remove him and other executives at the company if they pulled out of a deal to buy Merrill Lynch, he told a congressional committee investigating the deal..."

In another article, "...Federal Reserve threatened to force the ouster of Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis if he didn't follow through..."

This may have taken place months ago, but when the Treasury Secretary, backed by the unsurmountable power of the Federal Reserve can just up and threaten to fire you, how is that Capitalism? Who is the owner of Bank of America, it's the Federal Reserve Chairman, and considering that Lewis didn't want to purchase Merrill Lynch is perfectly understanding.

No one in their right mind would have bought it, unless they were coerced by the most powerful people in the World. Oh wait that is what happened. Then they had to use some of that mythical TARP money to pay off it's losses. Who's money is that? Oh right, the taxpayers.

You could have saved that money for something that wasn't needed, yet you have to use fascist tactics, and fascists principles to continue this corrupt flow of politics. Oh right, we need to not politicize monetary policy, that would just ruin everything. Do you know what kind of mess this country would be in if that happened?

The Dow Jones might drop to 6000! Banks might fail! The dollar might collapse! Please, think about this, why was a CEO job threatened by the Government, where do we live? Is this Italy in the 1930s or is this the Land of the Free?

H.R. 1207: 290 Co-Sponsors!

There is 290 co-sponsors as of September 17th, 2009, the annual celebration of Constitution day! If your Representative has so far refused to co-sponsor this bill, urge their support. If we can just get it on the floor to be voted on, it will pass, who in their right mind in today's atmosphere of the desire to hold the Government accountable would vote no to this? It would ruin their re-election!


Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism

Here is a video of John McCain claiming Ron Paul to be an Isolationist:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0QpCs0XpRY


Here.. Senator John McCain claims that American Isolationism brought about the force of Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and the same such policy would allow Islamofascists (which makes one wonder how tribal nations like Iraq and Afghanistan would become fascists). to grow in power and be able to unite under a single banner to defeat the powers of the free world.

However, we are not isolationist. Never in our two-hundred plus years of existance have we ever been isolationist. What is Isolationism one may ask then? It is the process of executing a foreign policy of no trading or extremely limited trading with nearby nations and no acts of war or aggression, and conducting essentially no diplomacy anywhere. This was evident with many Asian cultures and most noteworthy was the Japanese.

However, America did follow a non-Interventionist foreign policy. It is one of humble intentions and has been a minority opinion in empires of old and today. Here is a quote from Jefferson's inaugural address in 1801 that is the best explaination I can think of this foreign policy:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801

In other words, if you don't trade and don't wage war, you are a isolationist, but if you trade and do not wage war, or entangle yourself with alliances, you are a non-Interventionist. This is what so many of our founders, and Presidents and politicians subscribed to for so many years.

Where did we go wrong? How did we change? After the Civil War, northern politician began to look for dragons to slay, so to speak, and the Progressive Era began.. it all started with President McKinney with the Spanish-American war, and then with Roosevelt in championing the idea of imperialism. However, it did not come to pass as a real policy until Woodrow Wilson jumped into a war that had no threat to American security and used a two-year old sunken ship as an excuse to jump into the fray.

Politician today call it isolationism and say that it props up tyrants and threatens our national security but think about this:

Americans involvement in WW1 lead to Germany losing the upperhand in the war and later the creation of the monster of the Treaty of Versailles that lead to the rise of Hitler.

Americans involvement in the European theatre in WW2, with no threat from Germany lead to the rise of the Soviet Union and it's tyrant Joseph Stalin.

Americans involvement in the Korean Civil War and fifty year stay has lead to starvation to the northern part of the Korean Pennisula.

Americans involvement in Vietnam lead to millions of dead, more wounded and a nation that deserved not war.

Americans involvement in the Afghan-USSR war lead to the creation of the Taliban and the Radicalism of muslim "Freedom Fighters" or as they are called today.. "Terrorists"

We are not the land of the free anymore when we practice these interventionist foreign policies and support tyrants, wage war and kill more civilians than we kill "terrorists". It goes on and on, our foreign policy does not work. This foreign policy is what empires use to kill freedom and liberty. You do not wage war to defend democracy, that's an invention of Woodrow Wilson and it is a dangerous invention at that.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Our Money: Where has the value gone?

Imagine a world with nickle stores instead of dollar stores. Imagine a world where bankers do not sit around in complete secrecy, bailing each other out with tax-payer money. Imagine a world in which when deciding on a bank to use, you look at what they do with your money, whether or not you want to get a potential interest gain on that money.. imagine it.

This is a world that is not run by a cartel of bankers, one that does not keep secrecy as the most important part of monetary policy. People claim that oversight or abolishing the Federal Reserve would bring politics into monetary policy and that just CANNOT happen. Why?

Why do people believe this.. why oh why? Politicization of monetary policy would be way better than we have now. Right now, I can't really tell you a whole lot but provide some statistics for you:

Interest rates are 1% or lower all around the world, and here in America the Fed has reduced them to .25%, which is frighteningly low, and they have trillions of dollars sitting in the Federal Reserve waiting to be pushed onto banks to encourage lending once again.

Gold was once around twenty dollars an ounce.. that was before the existence of the Federal Reserve system. In 1914, when the Federal Reserve opened it's doors to the banking world and became the third central bank of the United States of America, it brought along with it was fractional reserve.

Not to get too far into what factional reserve is and what it entails, let me just say the dollar fluctuated around $20 to a gold ounce for a VERY long time, and it even deflated slightly through the 19th century. However, by the time the Bretton Woods agreement was made after World War II, gold at that time was already $35 to one ounce of gold.

What is it at today? Hovering around $1,000 and it is only going to go higher. The true problem with the policies that the Federal Reserve pursue do not help our economy but are on the verge of making the Wiemar Republic a reality here in America. Hyperinflation can happy here, we are not invulnerable and unless the reality of the Fed is realized in time, we will all pay for the benefit of a very few elite members of the political society.

I strongly urge the support of H.R. 1207, S. 604 and H.R. 2424.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

H.R. 1207 To Have Committee Hearings

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has officially agreed to hold hearings on HR 1207! The hearings are tentatively scheduled for Friday, September 25 at 9:00 am.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Why the Pledge of Allegiance is Wrong

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


This is an interesting allegiance that one would pledge to their country. Especially considering it is incorrect! This is a case, that it would be made our 'National' pledge of allegiance. The first sentence is quite correct, " I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands" and I have no real concern or dismay with that, although I would rather pledge allegiance to the State of Texas and it's obligation of cooperating with the Union as it is a member State of the United States.

However, "one Nation under God", is very incorrect. We are not, and never have been a nation. There was a passage of a constitution that went into effect in 1781 and it was called the Articles of Confederation. Later, in a convention in Philadelphia in 1787, a constitution was proprosed and would be debated and argued over for quite some time. By the year 1789 it would finally pass and by 1790 all thirteen States would enter this Union. However if we read the preamble of the Constitution it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


We the people of the United States, it is not States United, the people of America, etc. It is a set of States that have agreed upon a Union. That is a farcry from a nation. During the convention in 1787, there was a small group of people from the northern larger states that wanted a monarchy to placed in as government, which would mean that there would be united Nation in America. However, the other two groups, one smaller representing the smaller states with a desire for a Republic with just a Senate, and another much larger group with a median of the two views. These last two groups however, only wanted a Union which we had under the Articles of Confederation.

Also, each State ratified the Constitution themselves, and it took a majority of nine of thirteen States to ratify. Therefore, this is definitely a Federal Union and not a Nation.

Another part of the pledge says we are "indivisible". However, as I just explained, each State is sovereign and ratified and joined the Union at their will in its conception. With Jefferson and Madison's theory of Nullification it re-instutited the theory that the Federal Government was a creation of the State's and should stay that way. Indivisible would mean Texas.. New Hampishire.. New Mexico... Arizona are not sovereign but are a region of the Nation. Which is not true, each State has representation in the Senate and has demographical representation in the House. We are the people of the United States not the people of America.

Secession is legal.. we are not a Nation. We are a Confederate Republic, and it's about time to re-assert this principle and stop transforming our 'more perfect Union' into a complete monarchial society we see all over the world.

Besides.. it was a written by a Socialist..

Monday, April 20, 2009

Geraldo Rivera: Seccession is treason!



Geraldo, my fellow American, secession is not treason. Matter-of-fact, look up Aaron Burr who was even conspiring with a Spainish general to secede in the old West, and was not even convicted of treason.

Here is the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now.. if you can find where in the Constiution it says that the Union cannot be dissolved or State's cannot leave, show me. If you can't, then State's have every right to secede.. and as Jefferson Davis said, it is one of those "inalienable rights".

Also, the United Colonies, which on July 4th, 1776 named themselves the United States of America, seceeded from Great Britian, were they treasonous? How about when the Republic of Texas seceeded from Mexico and won it's indepedance in the Texas Revolution? How about when countries seceeded from the USSR?

Every state has every right to secede, unless you have some invisible ink revealer that I might be able to use to find these texts that say State's may not secede. Also in the annexation of Texas, Texas wanted to make sure it could secede if the Federal government became overbearing.. as Sam Houston is known for saying that Texas will never know oppression.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

[T]axed [E]nough [A]lready!

April 15th, the dreaded Tax Day, was also a day full of TEA parties this year. Full of people fed up with big government, high taxes and corruption in Washington. The sad part about this is, it took this long to outrage people!

We had a revolution over 5-8% taxes and we have 12% - 40%+ income taxes today! We have a federal reserve printing money like it's a video game, causing a terrible boom-and-bust cycle that creates a bubble over and over again. However, there are three things that we should focus these protests on:

Taxes, Big Government and the Federal Reserve.

High Taxes

High taxes have come from originally high tarrifs, on exports and imports. During the ninetenth century the South and West, being the primary exporters of the USA, were the biggest effected by these tarrifs, and usually the North used the collected taxes more. So naturally, they wanted low tarrifs, and the North wanted high taxes.. this caused much disturbance in the Union and eventually led to the War for Southern Indepedance. Matter-of-fact, to prove my point that the war was over tarrifs and not slavery, go on read their constitution, sure it mentions slavery a little bit, but they knew it was on the decline, while protective tarrifs are clearly stated throughout! (http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

In 1913, these tarrif wars were soon to be ended. They said the Income Tax would not exceed 1% and that tarrifs would stay low. Ha! Is that a joke? Tarrifs are pretty high, and income tax reached the height of 90% during World War II! Also, to those who think Abraham Lincoln did have socialist tendenacies, he enacted the first income tax ever, and created a collector that would become the IRS.

Federal Reserve

Ah.. Jekyll Island.. international bankers... inflation! It's a beauty! Alexander Hamilton, for everything I dislike him for, knew one thing.. we need a National Bank not a international bank that the federal government does not control. Hamilton did have great character, even if his economic philosophy was deeply flawed. However, the Federal Reserve was not an amendment, and it transfered the power to coin currency from the House of Representatives to a private corporation with special priveleges. However, it was still limited in power by the Gold Standard.. however, as we know, the Federal Reserve will destroy any limit it has.

June 1971, Richard Nixon announced we would go away from the Gold Standard and just like the dismantling of the Second National Bank of the United States of America, inflation and economic panic ensued!

Big Government

Both of these two things lead to Big Government. Big Government is controlled by a secret group, in this case the Federal Reserve, suppresses the people through taxes (Income Tax, Inflation) and wages wars. Now.. we are in over one hundred countries, we give everyone our weapons technology just so we can make better stuff! Then we occupy countries when we are trying to destroy Al-Qaeda, wow what a good idea! Remember Jefferson fought terror, but he never occupied Tripoli or Morrocco now did he! Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia, Korea.. come on! Wake up! These wars are full of crap!


And, of course Support H.R. 1207!

Monday, April 6, 2009

Obama: The New FDR

FDR ran on small government, cutting spending, cutting debt and getting away from socialism. Obama has denied being socialist, and said Bush started "socialistic" policies in the New York Times. Obama says that the Republicans gave him huge debt and big deficits. In October, we had a stock market crash.. since November 2007, the Stock Market has tumbled from as high as the 14000s to as low as the 6000s.

We are not in for a short recession, and if we are, we are postponing the wound to it's true effect. This may bleed, but what will happen when the infections reaches its endgame? Is the endgame in 2009, 2010 or five years from now? It doesn't matter much when it happens, but there is no denying it will happen.

Obama threatened the economy would blow up if we didnt get a stimulus and that our government would collapse without a big government spending bill. Now he wants a 3.5 trillion (for now) budget. Hoover spent and taxed like crazy, but he failed in comparison to FDR's radical policies. Bush bailed out banks and gave aide to the Automobile companies, however Obama is taking over both, and his Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, is asking for fascist controls over any and all big corporations in America.

This correction is coming, of that I believe is true, I just hope that America's freedom and will can survive the beating..

For the Great Myths of the Great Depression by Lawrence Reed:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/great-myths-of-the-great-depression/

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Causes of the "Civil War"

I did not write this, but I think this puts what the CSA and the war was about. I have no love for Lincoln or the New England aggression in 1861. This was written by James King and I read this article here: http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=1507.

-

The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. Thus it represents the same principles as the Betsy Ross U.S.flag--the principles America was founded upon. As America experiments with Globalism, Socialism, and Secular Humanism it is important for patriotic American's to fly the Confederate flag as a reminder of these basic principles. America has 2 choices--1.Reclaim our heritage or 2.we will eventually surrender our Constitution and Sovereignty to the New World Order--a Godless Socialist United Nations. Many black Americans have been indoctrinated by Northern Liberal Marxist Socialists to view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and bigotry. They are being used and manipulated for political purposes to assist in the conversion of America to socialism and secular humanism. The infamous Communist Karl Marx said "A people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded". This is the real reason they want to destroy and ban Confederate heritage and symbols which are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to Socialism and Secular Humanism. The Communist Lenin coined the term "useful idiots". Many white liberals fit this catagory as well as Southern politicians who are helping destroy Confederate principles, heritage, and symbols. White Southern Christians who fly the Confederate flag are not the enemy of black Americans. It is true that KKK and other groups have misused, misrepresented, and abused the Confederate flag but this should not invalidate the true meaning of this honorable flag in the minds of educated knowledgeable Americans.
The song "Dixie" is one of the many Southern-Confederate symbols the Liberal Marxist Socialists are trying to ban and destroy for the aforementioned evil purposes.

Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern
perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the
study of original documents of theWar Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published
by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.

Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The
only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to
Northern aggression.

I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the
States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the
Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my
opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex
political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill
stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most
unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of
America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United
States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American
Independence ( 1775-1783 ) and the War for Southern Independence.

There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession) ---one of which was slavery--
which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North
and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to
get the South's resources ( land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals ) for pennies
on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and
decentralists.The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even
if slavery had never existed.

A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South
Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the
tariff rate on imported products to 40% ( known as the tariff of
abominations in Southern States ). This crisis had nothing to do with
slavery. If slavery had never existed --period--or had been eliminated at
the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime
prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner
or later.

On a human level there were 4 causes of the war--New England Greed--New
England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During
"So Called Reconstruction" ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got
what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES
ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic
interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern
secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the
population.

1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal
Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional
tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern
states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20%
of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were
being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John
Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820
demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to
preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of
the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and
increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay
for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue
bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War
Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South.
Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would
increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States.
Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of
Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832
era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that
was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New
England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern
secession movement.

2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS---The United States of America was
founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited
Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter
the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States
of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as
established by America's founding fathers who were primarily Southern
Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights
that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields
of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The
Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against
the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a
Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution.
The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations
after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists
came to America and fought for the Union (North).

3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM--The South believed in basic
Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible.The North had many Secular
Humanists ( atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians ). Southerners
were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had
its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that
man,science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates
human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner's book "The
South Under Siege 1830-2000."

4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES--Southerners and Northerners were of different
Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original
Britons),Scottish,and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be
of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at
war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our
ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon
princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD --516 AD ). The cultural
differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had
existed for 1500 years or more.

5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES--The North wanted to control Western
States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed
Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were
politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that
Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners
they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about
control--slavery was a scapegoat.

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES. The Northern
Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources
for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would
influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow
them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought
up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The
Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New
England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the
slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned
fleets of ships.

7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties
in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning
about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The
Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the
North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to
a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern
Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their
neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created
hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the
animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites
in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day
( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were
fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of
old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the
South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living
conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern
factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and
slander.

8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE
SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New
England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These
fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would
result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were
aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era
and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists
published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the
South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John
Brown raided Harpers Ferry,Virginia in 1859 the political situation became
inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies in the
South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the
Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform
in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including
Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Browns terrorist
activities.. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that
existed between the North and South.

9.. SLAVERY. Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners
did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery.
However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free
slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there
were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North.
Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of
slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system
of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without
economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were
responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the
morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to
legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed
primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the
port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave
ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts.
Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is
found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern
Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern
Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had
been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted
men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate
General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis estate) prior to 1863
whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after
the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution.
Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was
fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South.
Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for
the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History
she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 )
than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics and estimates also show that about
300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union.
Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been
fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated " the
Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug
designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern
states."

10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham
Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter
incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox
shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South
Carolina into firing on the fort ( A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was
politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot
so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional
proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with
a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and
returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war
and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort
Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000
troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union
troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia
and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and
criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State.
Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern
States.

On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to
Washington DC: " I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be
furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they
have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the
requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not
within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be
complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we
will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited
toward the South."

The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes
and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that "the war was
over slavery" or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the
Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of
the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred
between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and
opinions.

The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting.
Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme's contention that the people of the South were "defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats", and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes' assessment of yankee motives - the creation of "Empire"!
Semmes: "Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North", and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law"
Captain Hillyar: "All this is new to me", replied the captain. "I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question".
Semmes: "That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that 'No slavery' would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property - it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence.

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in
America,which had been so cherished by America's founding fathers as the
principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher
Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England,
understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former
Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton wrote "
I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the
sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction
but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles
of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that
which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was
saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates
stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had "
tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate
against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government
is that which governs least.

Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated " I
Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our
Inheritance". Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt
stated " Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are
Beyond Redemption".



James W. King

Commander Camp 141

Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson

Sons of Confederate Veterans

PO Box 70577 Albany, Georgia 31708

229-436-0397

jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net

Monday, March 16, 2009

Islamic Republic of Iran: Are They Even A Threat?

First of all, they do have democratic elections, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected. So, whatever we did through force of arms, or whatever Israel did through force of arms, etc. would do little to change what is Iran today. All that would happen is there would be a Pro-Israel or Pro-American, or at least Pro-West dictator put in place who would then probably get overthrown and a more radical form of Islam would be in place than there is already.

Iran is probably one of the better Middle East Arab countries, as well. First, they are already in a democracy, albeit a far from perfect one, but one none-the-less. They are much farther than American ally Saudi Arabia (which is a hotbed for young radical islamic terrorists, by the way).

People say it's dangerous if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and it would destroy world peace. First of all, Iran has never broken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty once. That's right, never. Second of all, Pakistan, who harbors terrorists like Al Qaeda, as once notorious Taliban did in Afghanistan.. has nuclear bombs and we don't think it's dangerous at all. North Korea, who hates the United States and vice versa, has nuclear weapons as well, yet all we do is ask them to put the arms down.

Iran alleged supports non-State terrorist groups (which I agree they sponsor), and has never once broken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has only been seen by the U.N. and NATO to be pursuing Nuclear energy for civilian purposes. They have no military, they are peaceful with almost everyone except America and her allies. Why should Iran be, when Iran is labeled as an Axis of Evil, terrorist country that if given Nuclear weapons would attack Israel (as if that is realistic) or give them to non-State terrorist groups which would not be in the interest of Iran.

All an invasion of Iran would do, as it did in 1953, is increase hatred towards America around the world, make our country less safe, and help the 'neo-conservatives' and internationalists agenda come to life. Iran has a right to nuclear power as much does America, France Israel, Britain, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea.. do I need to go on? This is retarded! Iran is not a threat!

Sunday, March 1, 2009

The Fascist Revolution

In Washington we have the anarchist who destroy the government and then rebuild it themselves as a tyranny. However, in this case, it is simply they have economist who are their personal advisors who give them advice and say what is right and what isn't. This advice has led us to where we are now, this advice has been wrong and this advice is what will deepen our future.

You can go back to the 70s to hear Ron Paul warning of hyperinflation and bubbles, you can hear Peter Schiff calling this recession, what is growing into a depression (projected to be 2 consecutive -4% growth quarters), in 2006. Jim Rogers has said as Fed Chairman he would abolish the Federal Reserve and resign. (Although, I think there is better ways of combating it, such as competitive currency and tender)

Austrian economist saw this crisis coming from no where, because the government won't even acknowledge that Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and others like them have predicted these very things. Ludwig von Mises warned of all these symptoms and problems that will not only destroy an economy but destroy the freedoms thereof.

It has come to the case and point, these anarchist are now telling us they have the solution, and it is more of what we had, but on a larger scale. In the beginning it was Jeffersonians (Strict Constitutionalists) pitted against the Hamiltonians (Loose Constitutionalists), and Jefferson won! That was then, this is now. Since Abraham Lincoln's infallible presidency, where have we gone? Since FDR's New Deal and greatness what has happened? The Federal Government has outreached, we have become a welfare state, and we are not just on the brink of socialism, but to an even more extreme, people are scared of communism, but it is a different breed of socialism.

What we have brooding is corporate fascism. I'm not scared to admit it, not anymore. This is where we are headed, and we know just how well it worked in Italy and Germany. There are other players here though, that weren't then. African Union, European Union are alive and well. North American Union and Asian Union are being speculated.. how far will it go, will fascism encompass the globe like it is streching into the America? Will social and economic freedom be eliminated like it was across Christendom?

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Ron Paul: "Let's end the 'Fed'."

The time is now! The Federal Reserve has undermined the American economy since the 1920s, and it is time to eliminate this un-American entity. It is given special privileges that no other business or corporation has ever been granted. It is absolutely crazy, and this empire of counterfeit needs to come to an end!



"If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson

Peter Schiff's Reaction to Obama's Joint-Congress Speech

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Silver and Gold Bullion

In times like these, when inflation is causing stress and what not. When the government is out of control spending it's way into more and more debt, raising taxes and just flat-out ignoring economic sense, it is time to think about how to preserve and save wealth. Federal Reserve Notes do NOT preserve wealth, it is only the value that the Federal Reserve and it's confidence gives it. It is backed by NOTHING and means just that.

I've decided the time to act is now. After seeing Barack Obama's plans, and seeing our Congress act, I have finally come to this. No longer will I spend money on games, or buy anymore recreational novels. I will deal with what I have and embrace the coming times. I will start buying up as much Silver Bullion, Coins, etc as I can. I would love to grab Gold, but Silver is an easier and better step-by-step way to what I want to achieve.

Peter Schiff has said to grab commodities while you can, and invest in foreign stocks. I'm not sure I want to start investing, but that might also be a good idea. I'll stick with Silver for the time being. If Hyperinflation comes, I will feel a lot safer and a lot better, especially considering it is known for Gold to be confiscated, but Silver has been untouched by the U.S. Government.

My personal advice is to do the following:
- Buy Silver, Gold, other commodities
- If you want to get into foreign stocks and don't know of how, visit www.europac.net
- Subscribe to Peter Schiff's Newsletter and Video Blog

I don't know that these times will be as tough as Peter says they will, my god I hope not. If they are, we will be all the better, if he's wrong, no harm will be done, you will have the same wealth you had before.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Peter Schiff on the Financial Crisis

I didn't come to these conclusions myself, don't take my word for it. Peter Schiff has been calling this since 2006 on MSM, and Ron Paul has been warning about this on the floor of the house since 2002. Anyway, here's a video of Peter Schiff talking about the coming crisis.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Hyperinflation: The Real Problem

The real problem is hyperinflation, these inflationary policies have been going on for years. It happened in the 80s, what makes us immune? Matter-of-fact, 1923 Germany might be a better example. What do I know, though, I'm just another crazy libertarian..

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Campaign for Liberty

This is a video made for citizens of Michigan, but found it to be a quick and easy video to watch, and encourage anyone who took the time to read my blog to head on over to www.campaignforliberty.com

The 10th Amendment

It is a great thing to know that over twenty (Yes, 20!) states are re-stating and re-emphasizing the tenth amendment. This is great, we can begin talks about the USA being a confederacy and not have ignorance stand firm that we defeated any talks of a confederate country during the Civil War.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This here is important, the most important clause or amendment in the entire constitution. It means the State is more important than the central government. The state decides it's education or energy policy.. it decides it's health care or how to deal with the private sector. We do not need the Federal Government policing them.

Please, please, look up your legislature and see if one of your states are voting on a bill to bring back this most important amendment, and ask any of your state Representatives to co-sponsor this bill, or to bring this bill to the table.

Too many people have died for liberty, and it's sadly looking like more people will have to die. Liberty is worth more than life, and more than a politician's pocket book. I stand with Patrick Henry.. give me liberty or give me death!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

War on National Security

We have been told that this is a War on Terrorism, however just as the War on Drugs and Poverty went, so has this war. Terrorism has not decreased, but increased! American security has been reduced and oil prices have risen! Coincidence? I think not.

In 1996, Bin Laden declared war on America. Not Western Culture, not freedom, not liberty, just America. Five years later, we all know what happened on September 11th, and the attacks were rightfully blamed on al-Qaeda and the invasion of Afghanistan was rightfully chosen. An occupation is a different story, declaring a war on a idea..

Michael Scheuer, former Head of the Bin Laden division in the CIA, has exploited reasons to what Bin Laden wanted and what our government wants. Bin Laden focused his efforts on Russia and America, as the prime prevention from their desire to rid of Islam Oppressors. Russia fell in 1987, and since then, America has been their main focus, but not because they are the "most free country", but because they support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and Sudan. All of these, the Radical Muslims have hate for, as they are considered Resistant Fighters by the CIA, and not anarchist or religious terrorists.

It is also said that in the late 90s the same people who sent our troops to Iraq to invade it. George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has also claimed this. Why would America support the Saudis, Egptians and Sudanese? To promote Democracy as our government has said, right? They are all oppressive governments that hold one commodity that we need, oil. We have been promised independent energy since the 1970s, yet to this day, we are not any further towards an efficient self-reliant energy source.

Considering a dozen radical muslims enter the country every month, which would be approx. one-hundred a year.. can you really say the nation is more secure? More terrorists attacks on our military overseas, they claim things are getting better in Iraq, but that's not the real issue, they still have a safe haven in Iraq, they have them in Afghanistan and they have now been officially granted some in Pakistan, which they've had since the beginning.

This war is nothing more than a joke, and our government isn't looking out for us, they are looking at their pocketbooks, and the corruption is seeping destruction.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

$780B Stimulus: Is It What America Needs?

So.. the $200 Billion Stimulus last June, and the $700 Billion we just gave to the U.S. Treasury have not worked. That's nearly $1 Trillion, and somehow this $780 Billion is going to fix what neither of those could? I totally agree!

You add a little bit of gasoline, the fire gets bigger, you add more, and it gets bigger, so why not add even more! I am glad to see this progression of change flowing into Washington, you know the whole, same stuff still happening as is expected by our corrupt Washington representatives.

I know I'm just a radical nut for wanting the Federal Reserve to be abolished, or at the minimum have Congressional Oversight and to be audited, but come on, how can anyone agree with what is going on? This is just crazy, these bailouts haven't ever worked, we skipped on a huge recession in 2000, and we are paying for it now, but that is no reason to make it worse!

Speaking of the abolition of the Federal Reserve, please inform your Senators and your representative to support H.R. 833.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." -- James A. Garfield, President of the United States

Friday, January 23, 2009

Federal Reserve

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] "will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson


The Federal Reserve is a private corporation that loans Federal Reserve Notes for use as the United States currency at interest. Therefore, the Federal Reserve controls the government and our economy, therefore they control you and I.

Executive Order 11110, written by JFK, gave way to a way out of this slavery, United States Notes, backed by the Silver in the U.S. treasury, that would make the Federal Reserve go bankrupt.

Read the consitution, in it says that only the Congress can create and issue currency in the United States of America, however our Congress delegated that power, without proper amendment, to a private corporation.

Many of our founding fathers warned us of this type of deceit, and yet here we are less than 300 years later... being duped into ignorance and slavery.