Confederate Society
By Graham Summers

Many commentators consider what the Fed has done to be akin to providing stimulus, morphine, juice to an ailing economy.

We believe Fed’s actions would be more appropriately described aspermitted cancerous beliefs to spread throughout the financial system, thereby killing Democratic Capitalism which is the basis of the capital markets.

Today we’re going to explain what the “final outcome” for this process will be. The short version is what happens to a cancer patient who allows the disease to spread unchecked (death).

In the case of the Fed’s actions we will see a similar “death” of Democratic Capitalism and the subsequent death of the capital markets.

We are, of course, talking in metaphors here: the world will not end, and commerce and business will continue, but the form of capital markets and Capitalism we are experiencing today will cease to exist as the Fed’s policies result in the market and economy eventually collapsing in such a fashion that what follows will bear little resemblance to that which we are experiencing now.

The focus of this “death” will not be stocks, but bonds, particularly sovereign bonds: the asset class against which all monetary policy and investment theory has been based for the last 80+ years.

Indeed, basic financial theory has proposed that sovereign bonds are essentially the only true “risk-free” investment in the world. While history shows this theory to be false (sovereign defaults have occurred throughout the 20th century) this has been the basic tenant for all investment models and indeed the financial system at large going back for 80 some odd years.

The reason for this is that the Treasury (US sovereign bond) market is the basis of the entire monetary system in the US and the Global financial system in general. Indeed, US Treasuries are the senior most assets on the Primary Dealers’ (world’s largest banks) balance sheets. To understand why this is as well as why the Fed’s policies will ultimately destroy this system, you first need to understand the Primary Dealer system that is the basis for the US banking system at large.

If you’re unfamiliar with the Primary Dealers, these are the 18 banks at the top of the US private banking system. They’re in charge of handling US Treasury Debt auctions and as such they have unprecedented access to US debt both in terms of pricing and monetary control.

The Primary Dealers are:

  1. Bank of America
  2. Barclays Capital Inc.
  3. BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
  4. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
  5. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
  6. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
  7. Daiwa Securities America Inc.
  8. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
  9. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
  10. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
  11. J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
  12. Jefferies & Company Inc.
  13. Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
  14. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
  15. Nomura Securities International Inc.
  16. RBC Capital Markets
  17. RBS Securities Inc.
  18. UBS Securities LLC.

You’re bound to recognize these names by the mere fact that they are the exact banks that the Fed focused on “saving” thereby removing their “risk of failure” during the Financial Crisis.

These banks are also the largest beneficiaries of the Fed’s largest monetary policies: QE 1, QE lite, QE 2, QE 3, QE 4, etc. Indeed, we now know that QE 2 was in fact was meant to benefit those Primary Dealers in Europe, not the US housing market. The same goes for QE 3 and QE 4.

The Primary Dealers are the firms that buy US Treasuries during debt auctions. Once the Treasury debt is acquired by the Primary Dealer, it’s parked on their balance sheet as an asset. The Primary Dealer can then leverage up that asset and also fractionally lend on it, i.e. create more debt and issue more loans, mortgages, corporate bonds, or what have you.


Put another way, Treasuries are not only the primary asset on the large banks’ balance sheets, they are in fact the asset against which these banks lend/ extend additional debt into the monetary system, thereby controlling the amount of money in circulation in the economy.

When the Financial Crisis hit in 2007-2008, the Fed responded in several ways, but the most important for the point of today’s discussion is the Fed removing the “risk of failure” for the Primary Dealers by spreading these firms’ toxic debts onto the public’s balance sheet and funneling trillions of dollars into them via various lending windows.

In simple terms, the Fed took what was killing the Primary Dealers (toxic debts) and then spread it onto the US’s balance sheet (which was already sickly due to our excessive debt levels). This again ties in with my “cancer” metaphor, much as cancer spreads by infecting healthy cells.

When the Fed did this it did not save capitalism or the Capital Markets. What it did was allow the “cancer” of excessive leverage, toxic debts, and moral hazard to spread to the very basis of the US, indeed the entire world’s, financial system: the US balance sheet/ Sovereign Bond market.

These actions have already resulted in the US losing its AAA credit rating. But that is just the beginning. Indeed, few if any understand the real risk of what the Fed has done.

The reality is that the Fed has done the following:

1)    Set itself up for a collapse: at $4+ trillion, the Fed’s balance sheet is now larger that the economies of Brazil, the UK, or France. And with capital of only $54 billion, the Fed is leveraged at over 50 to 1 (Lehman was at 30 to 1 when it failed).

2)    Called the risk profile of US sovereign debt into question: foreign investors, now fully aware that the US’s balance sheet is suspect (the US has lost its AAA credit rating), are dumping Treasuries (see China and Russia). This has resulted in the Fed now being responsible for the purchase of up to 91% of all new long-term (20+ years) US debt issuance.

3)    Put the entire Financial System (not just the private banks) at risk.

The Financial System requires trust to operate. Having changed the risk profile of US sovereign debt, the Fed has undermined the very basis of the US banking system (remember Treasuries are the senior most asset against which all banks lend).

Moreover, the Fed has undermined investor confidence in the capital markets as most now perceive the markets to be a “rigged game” in which certain participants, namely the large banks, are favored, while the rest of us (including even smaller banks) are still subject to the basic tenants of Democratic Capitalism: risk of failure.

This has resulted in retail investors fleeing the markets while institutional investors and those forced to participate in the markets for professional reasons now invest based on either the hope of more intervention from the Fed or simply front-running those Fed policies that have already been announced.

Put another way, the financial system and capital markets are no longer a healthy, thriving system of Democratic Capitalism in which a multitude of participants pursue different strategies. Instead they are an environment fraught with risk in which there is essentially “one trade,” and that trade is based on cancerous policies and beliefs that undermine the very basis of Democratic Capitalism, which in the end, is the foundation of the capital markets.

In simple terms, by damaging trust and permitting Wall Street to dump its toxic debts on the public’s balance sheet, the Fed has taken the Financial System from a status of extremely unhealthy to terminal.


The end result will be a Crisis that makes 2008 look like a joke. It will be a Crisis in which the US Treasury market and sovereign bonds in general implode, taking down much of the US banking system with it (remember, Treasuries are the senior most assets on US bank balance sheets).

We cannot say when this will happen. But it will happen. It might be next week, next month, or several years from now. But we’ve crossed the point of no return. The Treasury market is almost entirely dependent on the Fed to continue to function. That alone should make it clear that we are heading for a period of systemic risk that is far greater than anything we’ve seen in 80+ years (including 2008).

The Fed is not a “dealer” giving “hits” of monetary morphine to an “addict”… the Fed has permitted cancerous beliefs to spread throughout the financial system. And the end result is going to be the same as that of a patient who ignores cancer and simply acts as though everything is fine.

That patient is now past the point of no return. There can be no return to health. Instead the system will eventually collapse and then be replaced by a new one.

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a friend of the Society and reprinted from Lew

In his book, Making PatriotsWalter Berns of the American Enterprise Institute argues that traditional American individualism, with its emphasis on natural rights to life, liberty, and property, creates a serious dilemma for the state (and hence for neocons): Not enough young people will be willing to sacrifice their lives in the state's wars. Too concerned with leading independent lives within their own families and communities, America's youth are not sufficiently keen on dying for "abstract ideas" that are fed to them by propagandists for the state (i.e., Straussians like Berns and his AEI colleagues).

For example, Berns says "we cannot be indifferent to the welfare of others," no matter where these others may reside in the world. America's youth must be prepared to sacrifice their lives for these anonymous "others," all over the globe if necessary. This of course is a complete repudiation of the foreign policy ideas of the American founding fathers, which was commercial relations with all nations but entangling alliances with none. The founders would think the neocon agenda of America as the world's policeman is insane.

The "dilemma" that is addressed in Making Patriots is how to go about motivating America's youth to make such sacrifices and become cannon fodder in the neocons' perpetual wars for perpetual peace. The answer to this dilemma, says Berns, is to devise a new "civil religion" so that young people will think of themselves as more or less "religious" crusaders as they march off to slaughter or to be slaughtered. This "civil religion" is patriotism — at least as it is defined by Berns. In other words, America's youth must be indoctrinated into thinking of themselves as the Western equivalents of mad Muslim fanatics on a mission to compel the rest of the world to adopt their "civil religion" — or else.

Ominous Parallels

Berns incredibly insists that this brand of patriotism — sacrificing one's life for the state — is quintessentially American, based on the beliefs of the founding fathers. But in reality its roots lie more in European fascism. As Mussolini wrote in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (1935), fascism "stresses the importance and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the state." And, "[C]lassical liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism regards the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

In his "noblest form" the Aryan "willingly submits his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it," wrote Hitler in Mein Kampf. "The child is the mother's contribution to the state" was the slogan of the Hitler Youth, the policy of which was to compel German youth to perform "service rendered to the nation to lift men out of economic interest, out of acquisitiveness, to free them from materialism, from egoism...." (Robert A. Brady, The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism, p. 180).

The Role of the Big Lincoln Lie

This of course is patently un-American. The American founders believed that the people should be the masters of their government, not servants to it. To the founders, the purpose of government was to protect man's natural rights to life, liberty, and property, not to conscript the nation's youth into an endless series of wars for...what?

Berns's solution to the dilemma of how to persuade American youth to become servants of the militarized state is that they must by mesmerized by some kind of "national poet" whose rhetoric can convince them to abandon their individualism and their selfish desires for peaceful and prosperous lives. Luckily, says Berns, a "national poet" is at hand and is personified by Abraham Lincoln, who Berns describes as "statesman, poet, and . . . the martyred Christ of democracy's passion play" (p. 100). If they are to be goaded into making the supreme sacrifice for the state, Americans must be brainwashed in "his greatness," which consists not in his actions but "in the power and beauty of his words" (p. 88).

Berns devotes a chapter of Making Patriots to a recitation of many of the myths and delusions about Lincoln that his fellow Straussian neocons are so well known for advancing. Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter, where no one was killed or injured, with a full-scale invasion of the Southern states because "his purpose was peace" (p. 87). Napoleon III offered to broker a peace before the war broke out but Lincoln refused to even talk with him because "his purpose was peace." After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval officer Gustavus Fox for his assistance in manipulating the Confederates into firing the first shot because — you guessed it — "his purpose was peace."

Lincoln illegally suspended habeas corpus and had his army arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents; he censored telegraph communication, shut down opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors, jailed some two dozen duly elected officials of the state of Maryland, rigged elections, waged war without the consent of Congress, orchestrated the illegal creation of a new state, West Virginia, and deported an outspoken member of the Democratic Party, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio. All of this rampant illegality took place, says Berns, because of Lincoln's supposedly deep concern that "the laws be faithfully executed"!

Lincoln wrote a book as a young man that challenged the veracity of the Bible but it was destroyed by friends so that it wouldn't damage his political career. He was never known to have become a believer and never joined a church. He was famous for his dirty jokes, and nearly every minister in Springfield, Illinois, opposed his nomination in 1860. Yet to Berns, Lincoln "of course . . . read the Bible" and used Biblical language to "save the American Republic . . . with his words" (p. 89).

In keeping with the standard Jaffa/Claremont/Straussian lies about Lincoln, he supposedly had nothing at all to do with the war, but became a "great statesmen" once he realized that the war "was coming" (p. 94). It just came, out of nowhere, unannounced and unanticipated. What bad luck for the Illinois "railsplitter."

Lincoln famously micromanaged the waging of war on civilians as well as combatants for four years, including the bombing of cities, the killing of civilians, the pillaging and plundering of farms, homes, and businesses, and the burning out of entire regions such as the Shenandoah Valley. He also compulsively experimented with the development of more and more devastating weapons of mass destruction to be turned loose on the Southern population. But to Berns, Lincoln "never looked upon the Confederates as enemies" (p. 96). His armies killed Southerners by the hundreds of thousands because he loved them, and he "purged his heart and mind from hatred or even anger towards his fellow-countrymen of the South" (p. 96).

This is a prerequisite for being a card-carrying member of the Lincoln-worshipping Straussian neocon cabal: One must put on the pretense of being able to read the mind of a man who died almost 140 years ago and to also supposedly know what was "in his heart." Why bother with historical facts when one can read minds (and hearts)?

Lincoln's war, which resulted in the death of 620,000 Americans — roughly the equivalent of more than 5 million Americans standardizing for today's population — was all worth it, says Berns, because Lincoln's political rhetoric taught Americans "to love the Union" and "helped make us patriots" (p. 98). To Berns, "us" obviously does not include the citizens of the conquered Southern provinces.

The "greatest importance" of the Lincoln myth, says Berns, is that it was used for generations "in the public schools" where "we" were supposedly taught to "love our country." Berns seems to conflate "country" with "government," as in "love and obey our government."

It appears that Berns exaggerates the power of Lincoln's words just a tiny bit. In his own time, Lincoln was despised by millions of Northerners despite — or perhaps because of — his political rhetoric. He only won 39 percent of the popular vote in 1860, and in 1864 he won a mere 55 percent despite the fact that the Southern states were out of the union and the military had rigged the election by intimidating Democratic voters. Tens of thousands of Northern men deserted the army or evaded conscription in Canada and elsewhere.

In addition to introducing the slavery of conscription, Lincoln recruited tens of thousands of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, and elsewhere to fight in his war by offering them free land under the Homestead Act. Entire regiments of non-English speaking immigrants were sent South to teach — at gunpoint — the grandsons of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry what it really meant to be an American. Many of these men soon perished in Ulysses S. Grant's suicidal assaults on well-entrenched Confederate army positions in the Virginia countryside.

At least it is refreshing for a Straussian neocon to come clean and admit the real reason for the neocon infatuation with the Lincoln myth: making cannon fodder out of America's youth.

by: Joan Hough

The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert its self, though it may be at another time and in another form.” (President Jefferson Davis) 

We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers in defense of our homes.”  (Colonel Richard Henry Lee)

     Southerners should know that knowledge of our past (its true history) is a prerequisite for the continuation of all we love in our civilization.  In order to understand why our ancestors seceded from the United States, some knowledge of the way our nation’s government was designed and why it was so designed is an absolute necessity.

     Most of us are well aware that the teaching and learning of true American history in our schools has become a “no no,” while the teaching of Southern history is now a most adamant ”no!”

     It is obvious that ignorance of Southern and national historical truth has become the rule rather than the exception. How can this be?

     The answer is: somebody has long insisted that we give up our love for our South and accept the lies taught by the War’s victors and become generic Americans –ordinary, basic “Yankee” Americans of the type the New England Yankees tried to make us into during Reconstruction. Actually a “new world order dream” was energized into a concentrated effort to generate such “creatures” as Southerners transformed into generic Americans.

 Now the dream has grown from the “convert them all into generic Americans” to “convert them all –those in the South and those in north—into generic global citizens.”

When thinking about this converting business—remember that for a long time our enemies have worked to make us forget we are Southerners—to make us forget that Texans are Texans and Louisianans, Louisianans, Georgians, Georgians—etc.  but most important of all—forget that we are all Southerners—the only people who get a thrill when they hear Dixie played and shed a tear when Saint Andrew’s cross appears with bright stars on a piece of silk—and especially, when it is waved in the hands of an American soldier or Marine at war in a far away land.

Our enemies want to erase everything that makes us special—they would make us into a bunch of very ordinary, standard Americans- colorless, expressionless, obedient to government and boring.

 The “global” dream was first formally expressed in writing in 1848 and brought to America in 1849 by thousands of men escaping punishment in Europe for their participation in a failed Socialist Revolution. (Al Benson. Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy,Lincoln’s Marxists, and John Avery Emison, Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America.)

    That European Revolution is rightly titled a “Socialist” rebellion.  After their defeat in Europe, the participants  restarted their rebellion on American soil in the form of “The Civil War,” brazenly calling it a continuation of the European Socialist Revolution.”

      But there is not sufficient space to elucidate their tale here and now.  Suffice it to say that the north’s leaders involved in the “GLOBAL MOVEMENT” knew their desire for world control could never be fulfilled unless the United States government was changed from a REPUBLIC into a Democracy.  The 1848ers were well aware that in order for this to happen it was an absolute necessity to eliminate the national influence of the South’s men of intellect.  This had to happen because the Southerners viewed Democracy precisely as did the nation’s founding fathers--as an anathema.

    To understand why Democracy as a type of government was viewed by the founders as horrifically objectionable, read The Law, a skinny little book authored in 1850 by one of the world’s renowned thinkers, Frederic Bastiat.

     Because of our indoctrination, most of us now believe the United States was designed to be a Democracy. WRONG!  The word “Democracy does not appear in a single one of the nation’s founding documents. It does not appear in The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation preceding the Constitution, or in The United States Constitution—nor does it appear in a single, original state constitution for each state went into the Union as an individual, sovereign nation giving only limited rights to that Union., maintaining the vast majority of the rights as their own—and each acknowledging God’s existence and influence.  There is an important reason for the deliberate avoidance of the word “Democracy.”

     The founding fathers had studied all the governments of the world; they understood and loathed Democracy. They knew that as a form of government Democracy inevitably becomes Mobocracy and inevitably leads to a form of horrendous control of once free people by an oligarchy or dictatorship.  The level of control rivals that of any King’s. The rulers in a Democracy, once it reaches it energized form, have the same Kingly degree of power and are able to say “Off with his head” and off falls a head, courtesy of some underling with a cleaver or a drone.

               Communists however believe that Democracy IS Communism—or at least is its beginning.

     In a Democracy habeas corpus, the mainspring in a Republic form of government, soon fails to exist.  Abe Lincoln, in Kingly fashion, eliminated Habeas corpus in the United States during his term of office when he arrested thousands upon thousands of northern Democrats (the Copperheads) and imprisoned them without trial.

Habeas Corpus: Latin, You have the body--a writ (court order) commanding an individual or a government official who has restrained another to produce that prisoner at a certain time and place so that the court can determine the legality of custody and decide whether to order the prisoner's release. It may be issued for other reasons, but usually it is a response to imprisonment without a trial by jury.    Following the execution of Lincoln (John Chandler Griffin, Abraham Lincoln’s Execution) his policies were continued by his Republican government’s imprisonment of Jefferson Davis for two years without trial.  

The ignoring of this Constitutional right became widespread in the north when “Copperheads” (Northern Democrats supporting the Constitutional right of American states to secede) were arrested in the many thousands and imprisoned without trials. Often, the U.S. government took them away in the still of the night, leaving their families without the knowledge of why –and without even the location where the head of the family would be imprisoned. (Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System)

     The Republicans  in the 1800s whose members contained some quite brilliant, highly educated, affluent Europeans, decided that:

1.     Southerners could not be allowed to influence northerners.

2.     Southerners could not be allowed to use their intellect and keep their property and possess wealth because influence accompanied these three things.

3.     Southerners had to be killed, shut up, or somehow caused to lose all their credibility.

4.      Any action was justified in order to prevent Southerners from continuing to advocate the tenets of the Republic set forth by Washington and Jefferson. 

"It ought to be the very first object of our pursuits to have nothing to do with the European interests and politics. Let them be free or slaves at will, navigators or agriculturists, swallowed into one government or divided into a thousand . . . “ Thomas Jefferson

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop…George Washington

 The Republicans were determined that the Constitution had to be either eliminated or reinterpreted—with the latter more desirable because it would be less troublesome to mislead the citizens of the north concerning the interpretation,.  Many of the northerners were illiterate, many of them could not read English, and all of them were naïve about the original form of the U.S. government—both its history and its form.

  Republicans, however, recognized that Southerners were the flies in the ointment that was to be used as their means of “take over control” of the United States—that Southerners were men who would never sit quietly by and allow anything bad done to “their” Constitution.

       The Republican leaders judged the South correctly. Because Southerners had not been merely lackadaisical participants in the American Revolution, because their states had sent representatives to the Constitutional Convention and then their State Legislatures, in the name of the people in the state, had ratified the Constitution, Southerners felt the U.S. Constitution was their creation and a precious testament of American freedom.  This, the Southern attitude, Republicans saw as prohibiting any future hope for the surrendering of national sovereignty and the acceptance by Americans of a future NEW WORLD ORDER in which all nations surrendered their sovereignty.

      Southerners’ influence had to be neutralized; an all-powerful central government managed entirely by Republicans, must control the United States.  The new party of Republicans was dedicated to that cause—even if it took numerous generations for it to be attained.

      And that was precisely what the War of 1861-1865 was all about.

      Lincoln, as a U.S. Representative and then as a U.S. President (see his inaugural speech) was behind the first 13th Amendment— a Constitutional Amendment (passed by Congress) which offered to the South the legal right to forever slave holding if the South would pay the tariffs and shut the mouths of its leaders. The slave-holding right was already in the U.S. Constitution and had been from the beginning. The first 13th Amendment only sought to confirm that right forever, despite the fact that  “in perpetuity” is impossible for anyone to guarantee.

Today’s historians conveniently forget that New Englanders not only were the ones who brought the slaves to American, but for two hundred years northerners had slaves laboring in private homes and mistreated them in a manner never tolerated in the South,.Thousands of enslaved people who lived  in the north remain in the shadows “ (Farrow, Lang and Frank,  Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery, pp. 61-62).)

     Lincoln reiterated the forever slavery deal again in his FIRST Inaugural speech.  All the South had to do to stop the war was to pay the tariff and it could have held slaves till Hell froze over— or at least so said LINCOLN AND HIS CONGRESS.  Had the war been about slavery, there would have been no “War Between the States,” War simply would not have occurred if slavery was the real cause of the war—the cause was much, much more broader than slavery.  Slavery, viewed, as the cause is the much later results of Yankee propaganda designed to white wash the sins of the Republican -invaders.

     The U.S. Congress passed the forever slave holding Law, The Corwin Amendment, and sent it to the states for ratification.  It was signed by several northern states including Lincoln’s Illinois.  Virginia may have signed it, also, but the other Southern states refused to sign the Slavery Amendment because slavery was NOT the reason for their secession—and not the reason they defended themselves when invaded by the north.  That amendment is still on the books and, one would assume, open for ratification.  

 It has been laughingly remarked that maybe we should sign it now and be amused by the frenetic reactions.

by Al Benson Jr.

Some who read this will, no doubt, have heard of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who were, at least at one point, married to each other.  They are a couple of radical sociologists who were once both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. Now there’s a dandy title for an “institution of learning” if ever I heard one, and it will, no doubt, cover a multitude of sociological sins the professorial elite would rather we ordinary folks remain unaware of.

At any rate, Cloward and Piven came up with a political strategy that, according to “…called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to the replacement of the welfare system with a national system of ‘a guaranteed annual income and thus and end to poverty’.” In other words, redistribution of the wealth–socialism. No wonder the current administration loves it!

An article on observed: “In a 1966 article in Nation, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, sociology professors at Columbia University,  wrote that  capitalism should be collapsed by overloading the government with financial demands that could not be met.  The strategy is to collapse the financial system. The tactic is chaos. If a crisis does not exist, create one. The more chaos the better…In 1967 Cloward and Piven founded the National Welfare Rights Organization to increase the numbers of people on the welfare rolls. Through a series of sit-ins, demonstrations, picket lines and occasional rock-throwing, smashed glass and broken furniture they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.” They were so successful in New York City that the city declared bankruptcy in 1975.

Cloward and Piven’s strategy was taken to the streets by a black radical named George Alvin Wiley. According to “Wiley was just getting PRAC (Poverty Rights Action Center) up and running when Cloward and Piven began promoting their ‘flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities plan in the activist community,Cloward and Piven believed that their plan could spark a nationwide movement. To lead the movement, they sought an experienced organizer with vision, charisma and–most important of all–street credibility with inner-city blacks.  That organizer turned out to be George Alvin Wiley.”

With this bit of background, what it is important to note here is that, right now, the Obama Regime is using the tactics of Cloward and Piven to work this carefully-constructed border crisis with the illegals around to where they want it. In an article on for July 8th, by Melissa Melton the headline reads: “Congressmen: Yes, Obama is using Cloward Piven strategy to Collapse the System.” The article continues: “In regard to the sudden illegal immigrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, two Congressmen have gone on record to confirm that President Obama is indeed using a Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm America, WND (World Net Daily) is reporting…But there are just three very basic examples floating around the news lately that get the idea across easily enough.  Not only did DHS put out a purchase order for escort services for 65,000 unaccompanied alien children all the way back in January…And not only does the 2015 Department of Justice appropriations report, also released earlier this year, ask for funding for ‘a pilot unaccompanied alien children program…But now, in direct contradiction of what the administration is telling the American public, a recently leaked Homeland Security memo admits the fact that only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013, down from two percent prior’ and this plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring. So, in essence, our government officials knew this wave of illegal immigrants were coming to our borders, and they planned for it well before it hit, because they’ve known for quite some time the Obama Administration’s policies arecausing it to happen.”

So, folks, they knew all this was coming because it was all planned ahead of time.  This is not accidental, folks, this is all on purpose. It has created chaos on the border and that’s what Obama and his handlers are looking for–chaos.

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has noted that Obama studied the chaos strategy at Columbia and is “trying to do a Cloward-Piven thing with the border.” The alternative media has reported Rep. Stockman’s comments. I doubt that the regular “news” media will even touch them.

Also, some are labeling this situation as a potential pandemic,  because many of these illegals coming across the border have all manner of diseases and they are not being properly quarantined away from healthy people. But that will contribute to the chaos, so look for that to continue. Even some Border Patrol whistle blowers are speaking up, despite threats from the Obama Regime that they will lose their jobs if they say anything to anyone. Makes you wonder where all that “transparency” Obama bragged about before he got elected has gone.

And they’re not only doing this on our Southern border.  It’s even going on in some rural areas in Michigan, of all places. An article on said: “The current crisis on the Southern border,  involving tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala has now become a concern for Michiganders who live in a rural community with less than 3,000 people. Wolverine Human Services, a social services agency which typically helps needy Michigan children, is in the process of securing a contract and negotiating with the Office of Refugee Resettlement to bring between 60-120 male illegal immigrants between the ages of 12-17 to the small city of Vassar without any input from residents of the community.  About 100 concerned citizens, some bearing signs, gathered outside the Vassar City Hall last night to let public officials know what they think.”

U.S. Rep. Candice Miller issued a statement which said, in part: “This crisis began when President Obama acted outside the law offering legal status to children who entered America illegally along with their parents. This caused many throughout Central America and Mexico to believe that all children needed to do was to reach our border and they could stay,  and so countless thousands began to send their children on the harrowing journey north.”

So Obama broke the law doing this. So what? Anyone think that will make any difference? Whose going to prosecute him? The “justice” (just us) Department? They’re part and parcel of the whole deal.  Anyone still remember “Fast and Furious?”

The thing we have to keep in mind is that this is being done on purpose.This will help to reduce this country to a dithering, incompetent, impotent giant–and that’s what it’s really all about.

The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is just around the corner, folks, I hope all of you who did nothing to prevent it will enjoy what you end up with.  Prayer to the Lord, and repentance for our laziness, is the only thing that might save this country–and that’s something that should have been done at the beginning.

By Thomas DiLorenzo
Copyright © 2014 by

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.”

–Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Nov 13, 1787

Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession.  “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”

In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote:  “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part.  Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .”  Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase.  If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests.  So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation.  That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338).  The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead.  (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day).

John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation . . .” (John Quincy Adams,The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).

There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition.  The following are just a few examples.

The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each.  When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.”  Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editorialists wrote.

“A war . . . is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” theIndianapolis Daily Journal once wrote.  “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat.  “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates . . . .  The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”

Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.”  The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”

“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”

A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American.  Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckenridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.

All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor,Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964).  They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association – were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

Happy Fourth of July!