TYT: Discovery Channel Hostage Taker Manifesto

Discovery Channel Hostage Taker Manifesto

Demands of The Discovery Channel Hostage Taker

http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com/

The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:

1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!

9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.

10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!

11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.

These are the demands and sayings of Lee.

O’Bomba’s WAR Speech in Perspective

Jack Blood
www.deadlinelive.info
www.renseradio.com
September 1 2010

Phony Liberals blame Bush for all Obama’s troubles, Phony Conservatives credit Bush / Cheney on Victory in Iraq, and blame Obama for everything else.

In a sterile and subdued address to the nation (and the world) last night, cousin Barry, our messiah and Chief pattered though his prepared (by who) speech, clenching his teeth and his butt.

Maybe it’s true that Obama is against war (cough), and he is merely cleaning up the mess the Neo Cons made for us all. Of course this doesn’t explain his authorized, and relentless attacks on half the mid east, using drones that have about as much emotion as his speech, but kill with the same video game precision, as do a leader’s script.

Ok I get it. These are tough times. The world isn’t always a nice place. We get that. It just seems much more dangerous than it was before all the PREEMPTIVE killing, and Occupation. One thing the Obama speech writer got right, is that we can no longer afford to police Iraq. But that’s exactly what we will be doing for the foreseeable future. While some will “get used to it” I will never do so.

Whats interesting is (certainly not Barry’s speech) but how various factions responded to it.

Head Neo O CON, and seed of Trotskites, William Kristol couldn’t have been more complimentary. In his post, “A Note to My Fellow Hawks” the baby faced baby killer Kristol laps it up, with a gag or two:

“President Obama opposed the war in Iraq. He still thinks it was a mistake. It’s therefore unrealistic for supporters of the war to expect the president to give the speech John McCain would have given, or to expect President Obama to put the war in the context we would put it in. He simply doesn’t believe the war in Iraq was a necessary part of a broader effort to fight terror, to change the Middle East, etc. Given that (erroneous) view of his, I thought his speech was on the whole commendable, and even at times impressive.

In sum, the president seemed to me to go about as far as an anti-Iraq war president could go in praising the war effort: “We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people—a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility.”

As for the second topic—”the ongoing security challenges we face”—the president’s discussion of the fight against al Qaeda seemed to me adequate” Blah blah blah…

However, Congressman Ron Paul saw it differently. Seems Rep Paul is calling out the Alleged President, and his manipulation of the facts. For that he should be commended.

Ron Paul today released the following statement on President Obama’s speech from the Oval Office last night:

“The President’s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ declaration was in 2003.

“Once again, we are being told the mission has been accomplished and our brave men and women are coming back home. Though the people are hopeful they remain skeptical, and rightfully so.

“The biggest problem is that success in Iraq is undefinable since the mission was never defined. The reasons given for the invasion were based on misinformation. Now, the war has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and this has contributed significantly to our economic woes.

“Forty-four hundred Americans are dead, thirty thousand severely wounded, and more than a hundred thousand are suffering from serious health problems related to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. This alone should tell us that it was not worth the investment and the needless sacrifice of our young people and the taxpayers.

“It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:

* the 50,000 troops carrying weapons remain in Iraq
* the 100,000 contractors that remain with more expected to go to Iraq
* the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq
* a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain
* Dozens of military bases that will stay
* Al Qaeda organizations that did not exist before the war
* Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist who has gained much political power
* The fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr

“Osama bin Laden wins by ‘proving’ that America has an agenda of occupation in the Middle East. And, we continue to walk into his trap and hand him up his best recruitment tool in his efforts to incite hatred and terrorism against the United States.

“What’s worse, President Obama made it clear last night that the troops and resources leaving Iraq will not come home to defend our country or ease our economic woes. They will instead be diverted to Afghanistan, perhaps also Pakistan and, I fear, even Iran.

“From my viewpoint we are the losers in this fool’s errand of endless war. Tragically, this new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade that will severely undermine our national security and continue us down the path to bankruptcy—a threat that we best not long ignore.”

However you view the “WAR ON TERROR”, It is and will remain O’Bomba’s war until a new War Puppet is selected. The writing seems to be on the wall now. Perpetual war with an enemy that is US. If Barry doesn’t want to own the fact that the Orders to destroy innocents, the liberties lost at home, and the money we borrow to do it… is HIS mess now… Then he really is no different than his predecessors. Obama remains committed to war, to widening the war, and to sacrificing human existence to do so.
He just does so with a grimmer persona, and a morose demeanor.
(As opposed to George Jr who seems to relish the situation)

Puppet Barry…. Take my advice, tell the TRUTH because we can handle it, and take back your presidency while you still can. In other words… Do the opposite bro.

DIVIDE AND BE CONQUERED – This is exactly what is happening today in the United States of America!

People really need to see how they are being manipulated into hating their fellow men and women. In the little mass media I have watched in the last few years I have seen more anger, hate and fear spread by the mass media than ever before.

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

The Meatrix

The Meatrix (www.themeatrix.com) spoofs The Matrix films and highlights the problems with factory farming. Instead of Keanu Reeves, The Meatrix stars a young pig, Leo, who lives on a pleasant family farm… he thinks. Leo is approached by a trenchcoat-clad cow, Moopheus, and joins him on a journey to learn more about what goes on behind closed barn doors at factory farms. The Meatrix was created and produced by Sustainable Table (www.sustainabletable.org) and Free Range Studios

The Meatrix continues with The Meatrix II: Revolting! The second installment of the Meatrix (www.themeatrix.com) features three superhero farm animals including Leo, the young pig who wonders if he is “the one,” Chickity, the feathered family farm defender, and Moopheus, the trench-coat clad cow with a passion for green pastures. The sequel delivers even more action, adventure, and humor than the first as the three plunge into the revolting reality of industrial dairy farming. The Meatrix II: Revolting was created and produced by Sustainable Table (www.sustainabletable.org) and Free Range Studios (www.freerangestudios.com)

Taking the fast out of fast food! The action continues in the Meatrix 2.5 (www.moremeatrix.com) as our heroes Moopheus, Leo, and Chickity learn firsthand about the problems with meat processing. Picking up from their last adventure at a dairy farm, Leo and Chickity attempt to rescue Moopheus, who has been kidnapped and taken to a slaughterhouse. Produced by Sustainable Table (www.sustainabletable.org) and Free Range Studios (www.freerangestudios.com) for Participant Productions and their Fast Food Nation social action campaign (www.particpate.net/fastfoodnation).

Conspiracy Theories, the Lure of Collectivism and the Cycle of Abuse

I read an interesting piece the other day about mass delusion and the economy. It got me to thinking about, of all things, conspiracy theories. It suddenly occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, the reason the powerful can get away with conspiracy, the reason they can cause so much harm and consternation is because they know how to create and manipulate mass delusion. Maybe the main mass of the population disregards conspiracy theories so off handedly simply because they don’t want to believe they’re true, not because facts or evidence point to said theories being false. Read more

Glenn Beck Cult Holds Creepy Revival at Lincoln Memorial in DC

America 20xy
8/28/10
By Andrew Steele

People gathered Saturday in DC at the Lincoln Memorial as part of an event that Glenn Beck was hosting. The rally was a hybrid neocon pep rally/religious revival, consisting of pictures on a giant TV screen of famous moments from American history, along with inspirational music, waving flags, and talk of destiny and God from a loudmouth Fox News preacher who hides the insincerity in his eyes behind a thick layer of glasses while weeping in breathy sobs to mask his laughter.

A speaker at the event even said “Glenn Beck is one of America’s most trusted and honored citizens”.

With Beck being inserted into the mainstream consciousness as the “patriot” opposition to Barack Obama and his gang of globalist thugs, so many who now wave the Gadsden flag and give lip service to the Constitution watch Beck with fawning adoration, having forgotten or choosing to ignore the kind of person the man really is.

Just a few years ago Glenn Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters were dangerous potential terrorists, contributing to the mainstream media marginalization of Paul’s campaign in favor of neocon candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney who advocated more war and more loss of civil liberties. Beck also led the swarm on grassroots Constitutionalist candidate for TX Governor Debra Medina in a calculated attempt to knock the feet out from under her campaign before she could outshine the mainstream Republicans in the primary.

In 2009, without any basis whatsoever, Glenn Beck falsely stated that the Holocaust museum shooter, James W. von Brunn, was a “hero” to people who question the official story of 9/11– a transparently deliberate attempt to associate the Truth movement with violence.

Even in non-political settings and non-9/11 related issues Beck has shown contempt for average people he considers himself superior to. A good example of this is an old segment on his radio show called “Moron Trivia” in which he would call convenience stores and ask the beleaguered workers there trivial questions about current issues while secretly ridiculing them to his audience. Though Glenn Beck gleefully pretended he was doing the cruel segment against his own will, the fact is that if he truly didn’t want to do it, he wouldn’t have. It’s much like a sadistic husband beating his wife, all the while voicing his regret over what her actions are making him do.

Someone once said, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Though Beck talks of God and stopping injustice, he advocates the hazardous and bloody neocon foreign policies that have killed countless innocents, made America more hated around the world, and further weakened our national security. Indeed, Glenn Beck’s establishment backed rise as a “patriot leader” is simply plan B for shepherding the patriot movement back to the fake left/right machine, and channeling public outrage at Obama’s actions as President into a form that can be manipulated and controlled…the same way Obama did for liberals who opposed the actions of George W. Bush.

Manipulating the people of a country that have been the victims of psyops over and over again, and who are looking for leaders to believe in, is not only self-serving, but mean. Because Beck has the showmanship and organizational backing to pull off his deception he has decided to take his thirty pieces of silver and proudly display them as “Godly”.

Some are falling for it. Many others are not.

The only accidentally true statement Glenn Beck uttered during his speech at the rally is something he said when talking about World War 2 and the memorial in DC– “You cannot coexist with evil”.

Perhaps a few activists in 9/11 Truth shirts should have shown up at Beck’s rally. (If any did, I don’t know.) That way some real patriotism and justice could be injected into Beck’s adoring mob.

Obusha to announce “Mission Accomplished” on TV (minus triumphant banner)

America 20xy
8/25/10
By Andrew Steele

Hoping that average Americans overlook news sources like Raw Story, which reported this week that protestors tried to stop buses of soldiers who were being deployed to Iraq, the teleprompter-in-chief is planning to stare America straight in the eye and do what he does best– tell people what they want to hear and look good doing it.

Though showing restraint in not landing an airplane on an aircraft carrier or wearing a jumpsuit….preferring a simple Oval Office message instead…Obama is going to announce on TV the end of formal combat operations in Iraq. What shall continue apparently is the informal occupation that was hoped for by the Bush administration just after the initial blitz of Iraq commenced and before the Iraqi people really started fighting back. Since the White House and Pentagon have a different definition of “Mission Accomplished” than most Americans do, (most believing that the end of the war means the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq), the cable TV crowd has made a point of using selective language such as “just under 50,000″ and “non-combat operations” in talking about the fake withdrawal, hardly mentioning the surge of mercenaries coming into Iraq to fill the void.

Iraq of course is only one theater in America’s War of Terror. Earlier this week the World Socialist Website ran a story which pointed out that the U.S. is going to spend $1.3 billion on military bases in Afghanistan that won’t be completed until 2012…long after the July 2011 withdrawal start date that Obama cites when trying to reassure his increasingly hostile constituents that the wars are coming to an end

THE CIVIL WAR: WAS SLAVERY ITS PRIMARY CAUSE (OR EVEN TRULY A REASON FOR IT)?

The Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787 sought to delineate the functions and powers of the respective federal and state governments.

- While the convention delegates sought to enhance the power of the central government, they also wanted to prevent the new government from encroaching upon the states’ rights of self-government. In fact, an early draft of the Constitution opened with the words, “We the States”, as opposed to “We the People.”

- In ratifying the Constitution, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island all specifically stated that they did so while still reserving the right to secede from the union; in all cases the evidence from their ratifying conventions makes clear that their delegates believed they were entering into a voluntary compact among states rather than yielding their states’ sovereignty to an all-powerful national government.

- As Madison explained in Federalist #45, the powers delegated to the federal government were “few and defined”, while those remaining with the states were “numerous and indefinite”; federal activity was to be confined almost exclusively to foreign affairs, whereas the powers reserved to the states were to “extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

- The fears of the Antifederalists, such as Patrick Henry, including the concern that the “general welfare” clause would someday be interpreted to authorize practically any federal power that might be imagined, gave rise to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, most notable for its Ninth and Tenth Amendment protections of the states and the states’ citizens against federal government intrusiveness.

– For Jefferson, the right of the states to govern themselves was the cornerstone of the entire Constitution. If the states had not delegated a particular power to the federal government, and if the Constitution had not specifically forbidden that power to the states, then it remained reserved to the states or the people. The presence of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights serves to remind us of the importance of self-government among and within the states in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

– Many historians have portrayed the concept of “states’ rights” as merely code words for slavery. But as historian Eugene Genovese has pointed out, of the five Virginians who made the greatest intellectual contributions to the strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution – George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolph, St. George Tucker and John Taylor – only Taylor could be described as pro-slavery, and “even he regarded it as an inherited misfortune to be tolerated, rather than celebrated.”

– Even Alexander Hamilton, though himself an advocate of a strong central government, nevertheless argued in Federalist #28 that “the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

– To Jefferson, the only way a state could remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act by the federal government was for the state to declare that a federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the state. There is, obviously, no specific provision within the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification or secession. That was not Jefferson’s point, however. Jefferson, and later John C. Calhoun, suggested that no one side in a compact could have the exclusive right of interpreting its terms. This was especially true in the case of the federal compact, since it was Calhoun’s contention that the federal government was not really even a party to the compact, since it was itself established by the joint action of the states.

– In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, anonymously penned by Jefferson (who was vice president at the time) in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, it was resolved that:

“…the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well as of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress….if those who administer the General Government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained….That the several States who formed that instrument being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and that a Nullification by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy…” (Emphasis mine)

– Even though the Northern states sharply criticized South Carolina’s nullification of the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, they on the other hand used the unmistakable language of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 when nullifying the fugitive slave laws in 1859 and otherwise.

– The main point that nullification addresses is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long.

- As Jefferson had said to James Madison, “[We should be] determined….to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government….in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.”

- The real legacy of the Founding Fathers was not so much the Union as the principle of self-government.

The North-South division was over far more, and more relevant, issues than merely slavery.

- There is ample evidence in the events that took place during this period that the debate over slavery was at root a debate over geographical equality and superiority in the Union. Why, for example, were the two sides arguing over whether slavery should be allowed in the deserts of New Mexico, where no one in his right mind would want to bring slaves to start a plantation?

- A Southern district court freed Dred Scott in 1850; it was the U.S. Supreme Court that voted 7-2 in 1857 to return him and his family to servitude (they were, incidentally, then emancipated by their owner almost immediately after the SCOTUS decision).

“The bitter truth,” writes historian John Remington Graham, “is that [Chief Justice Roger] Taney and those concurring with him had managed in one destructive thrust to wreck a consistent body of jurisprudence going back at least three centuries…..Great was the injustice to Dred Scott and his family, yet they were at least liberated in the end, and their innocence was made known to the world. Even greater was the injustice done to the South, for the region had fostered a large body of jurisprudence under which Scott and his family were entitled to their freedom. And a Southern judge, acting upon this jurisprudence, did grant Scott and his family their freedom. But the South suffered the infamy for this heinous decision.”

- As of 1827, there were more than four times as many anti-slavery societies in the South as in the North.

- Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster, no friend of slavery, blamed the abolitionists of the North for having contributed in no small measure to Southern obstinacy.

- The Wilmot Proviso of 1846, introduced by Representative David Wilmott of Pennsylvania and attached to an appropriations bill authorizing funds for the Mexican War, outlined a point of view that came to be known as the “free-soil position”, providing that slavery would remain undisturbed in the states in which it already existed, but would be prohibited from expanding into any new territory, such as any that might be acquired from Mexico in the war.

– Although it never became law (it passed the House numerous times but failed in the Senate), it contributed greatly to the tensions between the North and the South.

– Wilmot introduced the proviso not out of humanitarian concern for the slaves, but rather to keep blacks out of the territories, in order to preserve those lands for free white labor.

– He disclaimed any “morbid sympathy for the slave,” insisting instead that he was acting on behalf of “the cause and the rights of white freemen.”

– He went on to explain: “I would preserve to free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.”

- Both North and South knew that unfavorable climate made the introduction of plantation agriculture unlikely in the new territories.

- According to Professor Michael Holt of the University of Virginia, “[The main concern of the North] was that slavery not expand and that the political power of the South not grow. Most Southerners, on the other hand, did not demand that slavery actually expand. Instead, they insisted that their equal rights be protected, that they not be forced to submit to Northern dictation and to the inferiority such dictation entailed. If the territorial issue could be shifted away from naked congressional prohibition, a complete and final rupture between the sections could be avoided.”

- The New York Times, in an 1854 editorial, described slavery thus: “[It was] merely an incident of the real controversy….[for] possession of the Federal Government is what both North and South are striving for.”

The rise of the Republicans

- The controversy of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 led to the self-destruction of the Whig Party. The Republican Party arose to fill the vacuum left by its departure.

- The Republicans attracted a variety of supporters with their free-soil position and their support for high protective tariffs.

- They opposed slavery in the territories, though the racialist motivation of such exclusion of slavery is clear from the party’s 1856 platform, which read, in part, that “all unoccupied territory of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race – a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery.”

- The Republicans’ economic program, of which the protective tariff formed an important plank, could not have been better devised to attract Southern antipathy. Abraham Lincoln, who would be elected in 1860 as the first Republican president, had been a supporter of the protective tariff for several decades by the time he reached the White House.

- Conservative Republicans, no friends of slavery either, recognized that what was going on between the sections was a struggle for power, plain and simple. According to historian Eric Foner, “The idea of combating Southern political power and its economic consequences was the key to conservative support for the Republican Party.”

The Protective Tariff

- This was the most controversial economic issue of the antebellum period.

- High tariffs, intended to protect Northern industry from foreign competition, were a terrible burden to the agricultural South, which had virtually no industry to protect.

- To Southerners, the tariffs meant higher prices for manufactured goods because they bought them abroad and paid the tariff or because they bought them from Northerners at inflated prices that the tariff protection made possible (tariff protection would have done virtually no good for Southern products, since the South sold most of its goods on a world market).

The War of Northern Aggression

- By the time Lincoln took office in 1861, seven Southern states (South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida) had already seceded. His move to reprovision Fort Sumter in April of that year, which obviously could not be permitted by South Carolina if its secession was to mean anything, led to the South firing the first shots of the war. Although there were no casualties, Lincoln viewed it as an act of rebellion and called on 75,000 militiamen to quash the “rebel states.”

- Lincoln’s decision to use military force provoked the secession of four more states (Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas), which saw Lincoln’s use of force against American states as a mad project utterly at variance with traditional American principles.

- The “Civil War” was no such thing; a civil war is a conflict in which two or more factions fight for control of a nation’s government. The seceding Southern states were not trying to take over the United States government; they wanted to declare themselves independent, in perfect harmony with the thinking of the Founders and Framers previously elucidated.

- The states had the right to secede.

– The Tenth Amendment made it clear that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states, and not prohibited to the states by the Constitution, remained a right of the states or the people, and the states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession.

– Secession therefore remained a right reserved by the states. This was partly why James Buchanan, Lincoln’s predecessor, had allowed the first seven Southern states to secede in peace.

– Virginia, New York and Rhode Island had all included specific clauses in their ratifications of the Constitution allowing them to withdraw from the Union if the federal government ever became oppressive. Since the Constitution is based on a principle of co-equality (all states are equal in dignity and rights, and no one state can have more rights than another), the right of secession cited by those three states must extend equally to all the other states as well.

– William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent abolitionist in America, actually passed a resolution through his American Anti-Slavery Society insisting that it was the duty of each member to work to dissolve the American Union.

– William Rawle, a Philadelphia lawyer of Federalist sympathy and no friend of slavery, concluded in A View of the Constitution (1825) that under certain conditions it would be perfectly legal for a state to withdraw from the Union; his text was subsequently used to teach Constitutional Law at West Point until 1840.

– The list of authorities who supported the principle of secession was impressive. They included Jefferson; John Adams; John Quincy Adams; William Lloyd Garrison; William Rawle; and Alexis de Tocqueville, among others.

– The New England states had threatened secession several times in the early 19th century, and there had never been any suggestion that they would not be permitted to do so.

– On the 50th anniversary of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams remarked, “The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better it will be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”

– Lincoln himself said, in 1848, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.” (Emphasis mine)

- Was it about slavery?

– No one who has studied the issue would dispute that for at least the first eighteen months of the war, the abolition of slavery was not the issue.

– The U.S. Senate declared from the beginning that the purpose of the war was to restore the Union and that there was no other objective, proclaiming on July 26, 1861: “…this war is not prosecuted upon our part….for any purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of [the] States, but….to preserve the Union….”

– In 1861, a proposed amendment to the Constitution would have explicitly stated that the federal government had no authority – ever – to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. Lincoln supported this amendment, saying: “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution….has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service….Holding such a provision to now be implied in Constitutional law, I have no objection to it being made express and irrevocable.” (Emphasis mine)

– Lincoln was a well known advocate of the supremacy of the white race. In his 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas, he declared: “I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races….I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

– While serving in the Illinois legislature, Lincoln never challenged the anti-black legislation in his state, voting against black suffrage and refusing to sign a petition to allow black testimony in court.

– Lincoln was drawn to the spirit of nationalism on display at the time in Italy, Germany and Japan, and, along with Daniel Webster, viewed the Union and Southern secession through this ideological lens. He told Horace Greely that if he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do so; if he could save the Union by freeing no slave, he would do that; and that if he could save the Union by freeing some slaves and leaving others in bondage, he would do that too.

– Indeed, there were five “Union states” in which slavery continued to exist throughout the war, and to which Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 did not apply (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia). If the war had truly been about freeing the slaves, why would Lincoln have countenanced the continued existence of slavery within states that were part of his very own Union?

– Numerous Northern newspapers admitted to motives by the North that had nothing to do with slavery, and that were in no way altruistic, pointing out that if the South were allowed to secede and establish free trade, foreign commerce would be massively diverted from Northern ports to Southern ones, as merchants sought out the South’s low-tariff or free-trade regime.

– Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham believed that the tariff played a crucial role in persuading important sectors of Northern society to support the war. As soon as the Confederate Congress adopted a low-tariff system, Vallandigham said, “The city of New York, the great commercial emporium of the Union, and the Northwest, the chief granary of the Union, began to clamor now, loudly, for a repeal of the pernicious and ruinous tariff. Threatened thus with the loss of both political power and wealth, or the repeal of the tariff, and, at last, of both, New England and Pennsylvania….demanded, now, coercion and civil war, with all its horrors, as the price of preserving either from destruction….The subjugation of the South, and the closing up of her ports – first, by force, in war, and afterward, by tariff laws, in peace, was deliberately resolved by the East.”

– Slavery was far from the only issue on Southerner’s minds either, particularly since the great majority of Southerners did not even own slaves. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson both described slavery as “a moral and political evil.” Lee had been an opponent of secession, but fought on the side of Virginia rather than stand by as the federal government engaged in the mad project of waging war against his state.

– Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas only seceded after Lincoln had called up the aforementioned 75,000 troops to invade the South and prevent its secession. These four states, therefore, certainly did not secede over slavery, but rather over Lincoln’s decision to use military force to suppress Southern independence.

– With the exception of the United States, every nation in the Western hemisphere where slavery existed in the 19th century abolished it peacefully.

– The London Quarterly Review in 1862 wrote: “The contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding states would re-enter the Union….Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!”

– Those who can see nothing more than slavery at stake in this contest miss the insight of men like British libertarian Lord Acton, who saw in this victory for centralization a terrible defeat for the values of Western civilization. In a November 1866 letter to Robert E. Lee, he wrote:

“I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy….Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of [the old world’s] liberty, our progress, and our civilization, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”

- H.L. Mencken, commenting on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, wrote: “The Gettysburg speech….[said] the Union soldiers who died [there] sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” (Emphasis mine)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheUnrepentantPatriots/

BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Bennett, James T. and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Official Lies: How Government Misleads Us. Alexandria, VA: Groom Books, 1992.

· Berger, Raoul. The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.

· Brownson, Orestes A. The American Republic, ed. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003 [1875].

· Channing, Stephen A. Crisis of Fear: Secession in South Carolina. New York: W.W. Norton, 1974.

· Craven, Avery O. The Coming of the Civil War, 2nd rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

· DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Real Lincoln. Roseville, CA: Prima, 2002.

· Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

· Graham, John Remington. A Constitutional History of Secession. Gretna, LA: Pelican, 2002.

· Gutzman, K.R. Constantine. “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: ‘An Appeal to the Real Laws of Our Country.’” Journal of Southern History 66 (August 2000): 473-96.

· Gutzman, Kevin R. “A Troublesome Legacy: James Madison and ‘the Principles of ’98.’” Journal of the Early Republic 15 (Winter 1995): 569-589.

· Holt, Michael. The Political Crisis of the 1850s. New York: Norton, 1983.

· Johnson, Ludwell H. North Against South: The American Iliad, 1848-1877. Columbia, SC: Foundation for American Education, 1995.

· Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York: Harper Collins, 1998.

· Kilpatrick, James J. The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1957.

· Livingston, Donald W. “A Moral Accounting of the Union and the Confederacy.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 16 (Spring 2002): 57-101.

· Livingston, Donald W. Secession and the Modern State. League of the South Papers Series, no. 1, 1997.

· McDonald, Forrest. A Constitutional History of the United States. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger, 1982.

· Morse, H. Newcomb. “The Foundations and Meaning of Secession.” Stetson Law Review 15 (1986): 419-36.

· Thornton, Mark and Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. Tariffs, Blockades and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2004.

· Woods, Thomas E. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004.

The Nazification of the United States death of the First Amendment

August 26, 2010
By Paul Craig Roberts

Chuck Norris is no pinko-liberal-commie, and Human Events is a very conservative publication. The two have come together to produce one of the most important articles of our time, “Obama’s US Assassination Program.”

It seems only yesterday that Americans, or those interested in their civil liberties, were shocked that the Bush regime so flagrantly violated the FlSA law against spying on American citizens without a warrant. A federal judge serving on the FISA court even resigned in protest to the illegality of the spying.

Nothing was done about it. “National security” placed the president and executive branch above the law of the land. Civil libertarians worried that the US government was freeing its power from the constraints of law, but no one else seemed to care.

Encouraged by its success in breaking the law, the executive branch early this year announced that the Obama regime has given itself the right to murder Americans abroad if such Americans are considered a “threat.” “Threat” was not defined and, thus, a death sentence would be issued by a subjective decision of an unaccountable official.

There was hardly a peep out of the public or the media. Americans and the media were content for the government to summarily execute traitors and turncoats, and who better to identify traitors and turncoats than the government with all its spy programs.

The problem with this sort of thing is that once it starts, it doesn’t stop. As Norris reports citing Obama regime security officials, the next stage is to criminalize dissent and criticism of the government. The May 2010 National Security Strategy states: “We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. . . . This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home.”[PDF]

Most Americans will respond that the “indispensable” US government would never confuse an American exercising First Amendment rights with a terrorist or an enemy of the state. But, in fact, governments always have. Even one of our Founding Fathers, John Adams and the Federalist Party, had their “Alien and Sedition Acts” which targeted the Republican press.

Few with power can brook opposition or criticism, especially when it is a simple matter for those with power to sweep away constraints upon their power in the name of “national security.” Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan recently explained that more steps are being taken, because of the growing number of Americans who have been “captivated by extremist ideology or causes.” Notice that this phrasing goes beyond concern with Muslim terrorists.

In pursuit of hegemony over both the world and its own subjects, the US government is shutting down the First Amendment and turning criticism of the government into an act of “domestic extremism,” a capital crime punishable by execution, just as it was in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

Initially German courts resisted Hitler’s illegal acts. Hitler got around the courts by creating a parallel court system, like the Bush regime did with its military tribunals. It won’t be long before a decision of the US Supreme Court will not mean anything. Any decision that goes against the regime will simply be ignored.

This is already happening in Canada, an American puppet state. Writing for the Future of Freedom Foundation, Andy Worthington documents the lawlessness of the US trial of Canadian Omar Khadr. In January of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the interrogation of Khadr constituted “state conduct that violates the principles of fundamental justice” and “offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” According to the Toronto Star, the Court instructed the government to “shape a response that reconciled its foreign policy imperatives with its constitutional obligations to Khadr,” but the puppet prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, ignored the Court and permitted the US government to proceed with its lawless abuse of a Canadian citizen.[Khadr ill-served without Supreme Court prescription, By Chantal Hébert, August 11, 2010]

September 11 destroyed more than lives, World Trade Center buildings, and Americans’ sense of invulnerability. The event destroyed American liberty, the rule of law and the US Constitution.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Next Page »