Chapter VI
Slavery's Effect on Marriage, Family, and Divorce

Well I want you to notice
To notice when I'm not around
And I know that your eyes see straight through me
And speak to me without a sound
I want to hold you
Protect you from all of the things I've already endured
I want to show you
Show you all the things that this life has in store for you
I'll always love you
The way that a father should love his daughter
When I walked out this morning
I cried as I walked to the door
I cried about how long I'd be away for
I cried about leaving you all alone
Sweet Zoe Jane
So I wanted to say this
Cuz I wouldn't know where to begin
To explain to you what I have been through
To explain where your daddy has been
(Lyrics from the song "Zoe Jane," by the group Staind)

What does the status of slavery do to marriage? How does it affect families? Are there similarities in what slavery did to marriages and families in the old days of slavery when we compare what has happened to us in today's institution of cannibalistic slavery? What kind of rhymes will we find when we compare the two? Let's examine this, if you can stomach it. Most people don't have a problem with the truth; that is, as long as the truth is pleasant and not bitter.

So what happens to a marriage when the status of slavery applies to mommy and daddy? Does anyone remember the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe? It was first published in 1851-52 and is banned in a lot of secondary schools today. It's a fictional account of life in the Slave States based upon how slaves were treated back then. In other words, the names have been changed to protect the innocent. By the way, the book was banned by the slaveholders in pre civil war times too.

In the Uncle Tom's Cabin story Eliza was a slave whose labor was owned by Master Shelby. He was kind master and his slaves lived comfortably. George was a slave whose labor belonged to Master Harris, who wasn't a kind master. Master Harris' estate was near to the Shelby's. As I said before, how comfortable a slave lives has always depended on the benevolence of the master. George and Eliza had fell in love and were married.

"Eliza had reached maturity without those temptations which make beauty so fatal an inheritance to a slave. She had been married to a bright and young mulatto man, who was a slave on a neighboring estate, and bore the name of George Harris.... This young man had been hired out by his master to work in a bagging factory, where his adroitness and ingenuity caused him to be considered the first hand in the place. He had invented a machine for the cleaning of the hemp, which, considering the education and circumstances of the inventor, displayed quite as much mechanical genius as Whitney's cotton-gin..... He was possessed of a handsome person and pleasing manners, and was a general favorite in the factory. Nevertheless as this young man was in the eye of the law not a man, but a thing, all those superior qualifications were subject to the control of a vulgar, narrow-minded, tyrannical master. This same gentleman, having heard of the fame of George's invention, took a ride over to the factory, to see what this intelligent chattel had been about. He was received with great enthusiasm by the employer, who congratulated him on possessing so valuable a slave..... He was waited upon over the factory, shown the machinery by George, who, in high spirits, talked so fluently, held himself so erect, looked so handsome and manly, that his master began to feel an uneasy consciousness of inferiority. What business had his slave to be marching round the country, inventing machines, and holding up his head among gentlemen? He'd soon put a stop to it. He'd take him back, and put him to hoeing and digging, and ‘see if he'd step about so smart.' Accordingly, the manufacturer and all hands concerned were astounded when he suddenly demanded George's wages, and announced his intention of taking him home."1

Note that George's wages were the property of his master. Do not federal and state agencies place demands on people's labor today? So, do your wages belong to you or to a master? It's also interesting to note that a slave really did invent the machine that's described here. Let's continue with the story.

"It was during the happy period of his employment in the factory that George had seen and married his wife. During that period, - being much trusted and favored by his employer, - he had free liberty to come and go at discretion. The marriage was highly approved by Mrs. Shelby who, with a little womanly complacency in match-making, felt pleased to unite her handsome favorite with one of her own class who seemed in every way suited to her; and so they were married in her mistress' great parlor, and her mistress herself adorned the bride's beautiful hair with orange-blossoms, and threw over it the bridal-veil, which certainly could scarce have rested on a fairer head; and there was no lack of white gloves, and cake and wine, - of admiring guests to praise the bride's beauty, and her mistress' indulgence and liberality. For a year or two Eliza saw her husband frequently, and there was nothing to interrupt their happiness, except the loss of two infant children, to whom she was passionately attached, and whom she mourned with a grief so intense as to call for gentle remonstrance from her mistress, who sought, with maternal anxiety, to direct her naturally passionate feelings within the bounds of reason and religion..... After the birth of little Harry, however, she had gradually become tranquillized and settled; and every bleeding tie and throbbing nerve, once more entwined with that little life, seemed to become sound and healthful, and Eliza was a happy woman up to the time that her husband was rudely torn from his kind employer, and brought under the iron sway of his legal owner."2

So here we see a marriage complete with all the trimmings and a son born named Harry. But George's life had become a misery, and he hated it. Not long after George was removed from working at the bagging factory, he visited his wife, Eliza, at the Shelby's estate. George told Eliza:

"‘Well, lately Mas'r has been saying that he was a fool to let me marry off the place; that he hates Mr. Shelby and all his tribe, because they are proud, and hold their heads up above him, and that I've got proud notions from you; and he says he won't let me come here any more, and that I shall take a wife and settle down on his place. At first he only scolded and grumbled these things; but yesterday he told me that I should take Mina for a wife, and settle down in a cabin with her, or he would sell me down river.'..... ‘Why - but you were married to me, by the minister, as much as if you'd been a white man!' said Eliza, simply...... ‘Don't you know a slave can't be married? There is no law in this country for that; I can't hold you for my wife, if he chooses to part us. That's why I wish I'd never seen you, - why I wish I'd never been born; it would have been better for us both, - it would have been better for this poor child if he had never been born. All this may happen to him yet!'"3

George had decided to run away to Canada, and promised Eliza that, if he made it, he'd do his best to get up the money to buy Eliza and their son Harry. "‘Well, now, good-bye,' said George, holding Eliza's hands, and gazing into her eyes, without moving. They stood silent; then there were last words, and sobs, and bitter weeping, - such parting as those may make whose hope to meet again is as the spider's web, - and the husband and wife parted."4

George was self-educated, and he had enough knowledge of the law to know that a marriage between slaves was only a fiction. The justices who wrote the opinions in the Dred Scott case knew this too. Justice Curtis pointed out what power over labor does to a marriage. In the case of Dred Scott's marriage, he said that power over labor would "thus destroy the obligation of the contract of marriage, and bastardize their issue, and reduce them to slavery."5 What does it mean to bastardize the issue of marriage? Let's look up the word "bastard" in a law dictionary and see what it means as applied to slavery. In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1940 edition, we read: "The term is said to include those born of parties under disability to contract marriage, as slaves." If the status of slavery applies to mommy and daddy, then a son born of the illegitimate marriage would be bastard, and any daughter would be a bastarda. The fact that the labor cannibals lay claim to the labor of children at birth makes all the boys that are born bastards and all the girls that are born bastardas. The master who lays claim upon the labor of a child at birth, in effect, adopts that child and is responsible for its support until it comes of age. Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it? So, how should the wedding vows of slaves read? Let's try this: "Do you bastard so-and-so take this bastarda so-and-so to be your unlawfully wedded bastarda wife....until divorce or death do us part?.......You may now kiss the bastarda." Today's no-fault divorce courts destroy families by the thousands just as efficiently an any slave auction did. Perhaps now you can understand why Pope John Paul II, not long before his death, asked the lawyers to stop divorces rather than promote them. After all, according to the Harrington Report, which was submitted to congress in 1996: "American lawyers are collecting over $100,000,000,000 ($100 BILLION) per year for fees from custody cases." Thus, in one year lawyers earn enough in fees from custody cases to pay off all alleged child support arrearages since 1975. Think about it. This reminds me of a story Lincoln told about the Reverend Dr. Ross.

"The sum of pro-slavery theology seems to be this: ‘Slavery is not universally right, nor yet universally wrong; it is better for some people to be slaves; and, in such cases, it is the will of God that they be such.' Certainly there is no contending against the will of God; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining and applying it to different cases. For instance, we will suppose the Rev. Dr. Ross has a slave named Sambo, and the question is, ‘Is it the will of God that Sambo shall remain a slave, or be set free?' The Almighty gives no audible answer to the question, and his revelation, the Bible, gives none -n or at most none but such as admits of a squabble as to its meaning; no one thinks of asking Sambo's opinion on it. So at last it comes to this, that Dr. Ross is to decide the question; and while he considers it, he sits in the shade, with gloves on his hands, and subsists on the bread that Sambo is earning in the burning sun. If he decides that God wills Sambo to continue a slave, he thereby retains his own comfortable position; but if he decides that God wills Sambo to be free, he thereby has to walk out of the shade, throw off his gloves, and delve for his own bread. Will Dr. Ross be actuated by the perfect impartiality which as ever been considered most favorable to correct decisions?"6

Do you not realize that when you allow the state to exercise an unlimited and unrestrained power over your labor that you have given to the state the ability to either allow you to support a family or not to be able to support it? Take the young man's example I've already used, where he was left $83.54 out of a $237.80 paycheck. Does he have the ability to support a family? Of course not. He's not even left enough of an allowance from his labor to support himself. Poor bastard! Let's look at the deductions from his week ending 9-15-2000 paycheck.

Regular Pay $237.80

FICA - OASDI $12.67
Federal - $14.93
FICA - HI - $2.96
State Income Tax - $5.00
Child Support - $82.25
SUPTI - Proc. Fee - $3.00
Med. Plan - $27.50
Dental Plan - $5.95

Net Pay - $83.54

If the labor cannibals think that a person can live on $80 per week, one of them needs to show us the way by having this yoke placed around their own necks. But we know that this will never happen. The lords will sit in their castles while the serfs labor in the fields, just like they always have. An if this young man dares to cast off this yoke and work for money "under the table" somewhere, he will be branded as a "deadbeat parent" and be subject to being thrown in jail with no right to counsel or a jury trial; and there are thousands in jail today because they can't afford the ransom that will free them from their cages. In many cases, this also destroys the relationships many non-custodial slaves have with their children.

Let's come up with a hypothetical child support scenario that would have applied back in pre civil war days that would have taken 65% of a slaves wages from him and then left him to live on his own or, in the event of disobedience to the masters' authority, be thrown in jail. Remember Master Hugh and Frederick Douglass' agreement about Douglass living on his own? Douglass said he made $1.50 per day and Master Hugh got $3 per week from Douglass for the privilege. So let's say that Douglass was able to get in 5 days a week. That's $7.50 per week. Deducting the $3 per week tax Master Hugh imposed on Douglass' labor, that left Douglass $4.50 per week to live on. Douglass had indicated that he needed $3 per week to make ends meet. So this meant that he'd have $1.50 per week above and beyond what he needed to survive on his own. Let's suppose that all went well for a time, and that Douglass and all other slaves like him were doing fine on their own and their masters were paid their weekly taxes. But then one day when Douglass showed up to pay Master Hugh his weekly taxes, Master Hugh said: "This week all the slaveholders met in convention to discuss the new arrangements that have been made concerning slaves like you that are being allowed to work on their own and pay their masters a reasonable tax for the privilege. You, and many others like you, have produced children. We concluded that, since you are now on your own and working for a living, it should now be your responsibility to support the children that you have bred. We unanimously decided that this is a sacred duty incumbent upon all fathers like you, even though your children live apart from you. Therefore, starting this week, an additional $2 per week will be required of you for child support. If you refuse to abide by this, you shall be thrown in jail and the child support will still be charged against you. This is your sacred duty Douglass, and all other slaves like you. You are healthy. You have a good job and therefore have the ability to pay. We will tolerate no excuse. Either you will except your obligation to support your children or you will face the penalties and be branded as a deadbeat father! Do you understand me Douglass?!" How many deadbeat fathers do you think would have been created by the operation of these new laws that were adopted by the slaveholders? No doubt a lot of masters would have lost their taxes as well as their child support. Many "deadbeat fathers" and "tax protestors" would be created. Thousands and thousands of fugitives from labor would be scattered all over the place trying to hide from the wrath of the law. Think about it.

We have already seen the present day application of the old slave maxim partus sequitur ventrem and that assigning social security numbers to children at birth is a claim upon the labor of the child at birth. However, there's a problem here. The labor is of no use until it matures, and therefore is a liability to the master until it matures. The masters of old knew this. That's why E.N. Elliott, in Cotton is King, said that the one of the purposes of exercising power over the labor of a slave was "to pay for the advances made for his support in childhood." Here we can see that the support of the offspring of slaves back then came out of the wealth of the masters and was repaid by the slaves when they got old enough to start working. However, slavery in the form of cannibalism imposes this burden on the slaves themselves. In addition to all the other taxes and fees imposed upon their labor, the additional expense of supporting their children is added to their existing servitude. If a slave family stays together today, this usually isn't a problem, but when the family is destroyed by the no-fault divorce growth industry, this servitude becomes oppressive to the point to where many non-custodial parents, mostly fathers, aren't left with enough to live on after taxes, fees and child support take their toll on their labor.

The labor cannibals, in order to maintain a righteous appearance before the people, have left themselves no choice but to be oppressive and tyrannical to the non-custodial slave class of people. They will never admit that they're enslaving anyone, and will claim that they're acting on behalf of the welfare of children by forcing the non-custodial parents to support their children and punishing them for not doing so. The labor cannibals retain all of their wealth by absolving themselves of the responsibilities of masters by passing off their obligations as masters onto the people they have already enslaved with their labor taxes and fees. They heap servitude on top of servitude and call it freedom. They are the real "deadbeats" - the "deadbeat masters." This reminds me of Jesus' condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees, who "fix up heavy loads and tie them on men's backs, yet they aren't willing even to lift a finger to help them carry those loads."7 And, like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, the labor cannibals appear righteous, but their graves are just as whitewashed and full of dead men's bones. Remember, what people say is not near as important as what they are doing. By their fruits you will recognize them. So, what has been the effect of these laws which cannibalize labor to such a high degree so as not to leave the slaves enough money left to live on? What are the fruits? Let's look at an example from Canada - a man by the name of A. T. Renouf, from back in 1995.


The Last Will and Testament of A. T. Renouf Markham, Ontario Oct. 16, 1995


Last friday (13-October) my bank account was garnished. I was left with a total of $00.43 in the bank.

At this time I have rent and bills to pay which would come to somewhere approaching $1500 to $1800.

Since my last pay was direct deposited on friday I now have no way of supporting myself. I have no money for food or for gas for my car to enable me to work. My employer also tells me that they will only pay me by direct deposit. I therefore no longer have a job, since the money would not reach me.

I have tried talking to the Family Support people at 1916 Dundas St. E. their answer was: - "we have a court order," repeated several times.

I have tried talking to the welfare people in Markham, since I earned over $520.00 in the last month I am not eligible for assistance. [my note: how could they say he earned $520 when it was all taken away by garnishment?]

I have had no contact with my daughter in approx. 4 years. I do not even know if she is alive and well. I have tried to keep her informed of my current telephone number but she has never bothered to call.

I have no family and no friends, very little food, no viable job and very poor future prospects. I have therefore decided that there is no further point in continuing my life. It is my intention to drive to a secluded area, near my home, feed the car exhaust into the car, take some sleeping pills and use the remaining gas in the car to end my life.

I would have preferred to die with more dignity.

It is my last will and testament that this letter be published for all to see and read.

Signed, A.T. Renouf


Renouf committed suicide the next day. I have included in the appendix a sermon entitled "A Suicide Remembered," by Rev. Alan Stewart, if you care to read it. I wonder how Renouf felt when he carried out his suicide. Did he weep bitterly? Or was he so numb that he couldn't weep at all? But the most important thing is: Do you really care?

Let's look at what the operation of law did to Renouf's property rights. This was his last will and testament. Did he leave any property to anyone? Worst of all, he was denied the property in his own labor and left with next to nothing (43 cents). The operation of cannibalistic slave codes utterly destroyed Renouf's property rights. There is nothing new about slaves committing suicide. It's been going on for thousands of years. For example, there were some slaves in pre civil war times who committed suicide by drowning themselves at Ebo landing, Jekyll Island, Georgia. However, these slaves at least were guaranteed the basic necessities of life. Renouf's slavery denied him even the basic necessities of life, thus making it more oppressive than pre civil war slavery. In this sense, I have far greater respect for the old masters. At least they weren't hypocrites about what they were doing and afforded their slaves the basic necessities of life. Power over labor strikes at the very core of all other property rights. Consider what Justice Field said in a Supreme Court case decided in 1884.

"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident' - that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement - ‘that all men are endowed' - not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,' that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime - ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these' - not grant them, but secure them - ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing his strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty of both the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.'"8

H. W. Koch disagreed with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. He was a former member of the Hitler Youth and did extensive research to write a book called The Hitler Youth, Origins and Development 1922-1945. The book was first published in 1975. The final paragraph of the book starts by saying: "But then bondage is an unalterable condition, a fact of life, compared with which the claim of the right of the pursuit of happiness as a self-evident truth is no more than a piece of high-minded eighteenth century nonsense."9

There are thousands of suicides every year because of the divorce and child support systems, and Renouf's example shows why. Crush the man's spirit and leave him no hope for the future, and you've created an excellent candidate for suicide. Of course, we must remember that the evil people are the ones who emancipate themselves by suicide, and the ones who enslave people beyond their means and crush their spirit are righteous. By this logic the Nazis were very righteous people, because Jews committed suicide by the thousands when the Nazis were in power. Victor Klemperer, in his April 28, 1942 diary entry said: "On the day after a house search there are suicides. We heard of the new case at the same time as the Hitler speech. A couple called Feuerstein, living in Altenzeller Strasse, had been pillaged, then summoned to the Gestapo and beaten and kicked there; during the night the people were found dead in their gas-filled kitchen."10 In his May 18, 1942 diary entry, we read: "The Neumanns were here on Saturday; on Sunday we were at the Seliksohns'; while we were there Katz, the Jewish medical assessor, came on a professional call: We heard bad news from all three; the intention is evidently to wear us down, as many individuals as possible are to be driven to suicide."11 In his May 22, 1942 diary entry, he said that "Marckwald told me that there had been two thousand Jewish suicides in Berlin since the beginning of the evacuations last autumn."12 Now let's read one more of Klemperer's diary entries from June 24, 1942: "We talked about our worsening situation. How inconsequential the house searches were in Dölzschen. And now... Eva said: ‘These are no longer house searches. They're pogroms.' She's completely right in that."13 Eva, Victor's wife, could see that the thousands of Jewish suicides were a direct result of Nazi oppression, and therefore concluded that it was a mass killing, a pogrom, by crushing the spirit of people and driving them to suicide by the thousands.

So, how many suicides have there been as a result of the labor cannibals' activities in the divorce and child support systems? Glen Sacks, in a column entitled "Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic" that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on 1/11/02, said: "A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said ‘You did this to me,' and shot himself in the head.... Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade - as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II." Sacks went on to point out that "a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother." This makes perfect sense. Rarely do fathers get custody of children and the mother ordered to pay child support. If the situation were reversed, and fathers were given the advantage that mothers have today, would you doubt that ten times as many mothers would be committing suicide as fathers? The Nazis didn't discriminate between male and females. They wanted to crush the spirit of all Jews, and this resulted in mass suicides of both men and women. Sacks went on to describe more suicide examples. "There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years. For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous. Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations, committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week. Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself. His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, ‘this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father.'" I hate to tell you Ashlee, but to blunt about it, the labor cannibals don't give a damn about your father or any of the other multitudes of fathers that commit suicide. This reminds me of the letters sent to the Russian Dictator Josef Stalin from the slave labor camps called the gulag in which around 8-10 million slaves perished. Some of the slaves in the gulag were gullible enough to think that if Stalin only knew the horrid conditions in the camps, he would do something about it; but the fact was he knew that what he was doing was causing millions to suffer and die - and yes, I'm sure there were a lot of suicides too. To learn more about the gulag I recommend reading The Black Book of Communism and Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. Stephen Baskerville, Political Science Professor at Howard University, also commented on Darrin White's suicide in an article entitled "The Federal Marriage Bureau" that appeared in the July, 2003 edition of Libertymagazine. "There is nothing unusual about this judgment, says former British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Lloyd McKenzie, who pointed out that the judge applied standard guidelines." In an article in Insight article from May 2, 2000, Professor Baskerville describes the death of another father; but this one wasn't suicide.

"A 41-year-old welder from Milford, N.H., recently received what some are calling a death sentence for losing his job. That is not how the charges against him read of course, nor could they, because he was never charged with or tried for any crime......Brian Armstrong was a father who lost his job and allegedly fell behind on child support. Though actively looking for work, he was jailed Jan. 11. One week later he was dead, apparently the victim of a beating by correctional officers. No one alleges Armstrong did anything to provoke the beating. Another inmate saw him taken to a room with a restraining chair and then heard screaming for 15 minutes before seeing Armstrong dragged away. Medical workers told his mother that his body was covered with bruises and that he died of a massive head injury, though more than two months later she is unable to get a death certificate with an official cause of death. ‘I feel there is something very remiss,' Armstrong's mother told me."

Baskerville also pointed out that: "In Britain a group called the National Association for Child Support Action has published a ‘Book of the Dead' chronicling 55 cases where the official court coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because of judgments from divorce courts and hounding by child-support agencies. According to Health Canada statistics, suicide among younger men has risen dramatically along with the divorce rate and about 80 percent of suicides in Canada are male."

There is also a strong likelihood that there are far more father suicides than are reported. Not long ago, a man named Bill Johnson died at the age of 44. His obituary appeared in the paper and caught my wife's eye. She had known both Bill and his mother from working at a bank that had a branch in a supermarket. She couldn't go to the viewing at the funeral home because of her work schedule, so I volunteered to go in her place, even though I didn't know the people. When entering the viewing room, Bill's mother asked me who I was, and after telling her that I was there on my wife's behalf she thanked me for coming. But I noticed something about Mr. Johnson lying in his coffin that his mother had done. She had put in between the fingers of each of Bill's hands a recent photograph of each of his two daughters. They were teenagers in cheerleading uniforms. It turns out that Bill had not seen his daughters for something like ten years or more. But now they were on their way to pay their respects to their dead father whom they hadn't seen since they were toddlers. I told Mrs. Johnson that I understood what the system puts fathers through and asked her what happened because Bill was only 44 when he died. I think she sensed she could trust me and told me that she believed that Bill took an overdose of some kind of pills. The court system had heavily garnished his disability check, and that if it wasn't for Bill being able to live with her, he could not have afforded to live on his own. She said he missed his daughters and talked of them often. I listened to her tell me the story, and then when I was ready to leave I gave her an embrace and said that I was very sorry about her loss. She began weeping and said: "The courts killed my son!" The father suicide pogrom is far greater than is being reported, because, like Bill Johnson, many father deaths are merely reported in the obituaries, and the fact that they are suicides are hidden. I took a picture of a bronze cube his mother made as a memorial that had a imprint on it of a picture of Bill and his daughters in his lap when they were toddlers.

A woman named Judy Parejko recently wrote a book called Stolen Vows that was published in 2002. It is available at People elect state legislators as well as members of congress. They're the people that are supposed to have the responsibility of writing laws. Are they? Ms. Parejko says: "The National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) - also known as the Uniform Law Commission, with its headquarters in Chicago - serves as a clearinghouse for new laws which are offered to the states to adopt..... Most people believe that state legislatures write their laws. But, most laws are designed at a higher level - by a national group made up solely of lawyers."14 Gosh, since these types of lawyers write the divorce laws, I wonder if the child support laws come from lawyers who aren't elected too? It would seem that the state legislatures have followed the lead of Congress and don't write laws any more either, except maybe a word or two from time to time. You can get elected to office and then enjoy the social status of being a legislator with none of the responsibilities of writing any law. Just sponsor it and vote on it and look good. Who wants to be a millionaire? Let's play.

Ms. Parejko worked in the family court system for awhile in the state of Wisconsin. She had a unique idea and used her state funding to try and hold marriages together, thus preserving families and avoiding divorce. Guess what? Her state funding was taken away and her office was closed. She got locked out for a awhile but was later able to get her personal stuff out. Mighty nice of ‘em. Another interesting thing she said was that "During the training required to be eligible for doing court work, nothing was mentioned about reconciliation - or how to maximize the chances of it happening. In fact, what I remember most about the Wisconsin training was the instructor's subtle contempt for couples going through divorce. They were even made the brunt of jokes in a demeaning kind of way..... Compassion seemed to be lacking in the whole approach."15 In a phone interview Ms. Parejko had in September 2001 with a recently divorced Louisiana woman, the woman related to her the following:

"The next day I had gone to see a lawyer myself. I knew I had to get some protection for myself and up to this point, I never knew what no-fault divorce really meant. I always felt it meant ‘with mutual consent.' Never, in my wildest dreams did I imagine that one person could force another person into a divorce. So, when I went to see this lawyer the next day, I said, ‘Please do whatever you can to stop this.'

"He kind of snickered, ‘You can't stop this.' He said, ‘There's no stopping a divorce.'

"I don't think I comprehended all this at the time. It took awhile for that to sink in. He flat-out said, ‘There's too many people making too much money in the divorce business.'

"I remember those words, thinking, ‘Wait a minute. How can people make money on this and live with themselves?' It didn't quite click at that point. I was in total shock. It didn't make any sense. It probably took months for all of that to sink in. It still doesn't make any sense."16

Poor bastarda! She didn't understand that her marriage was bastardized from the beginning! How long do you think it would take for that to sink in? Or maybe a truth such as this would be so bitter that she can't accept it? Or will her slavery have to approach that of Renouf before she'll see the truth that she is a slave? Well, if that happens, it will be too late for poor bastarda and all others like her. This same principle applies to all you bastards too.

Now let's look at how the Supreme Court has ruled on divorce and child support cases. It's interesting to note that the term"child support" didn't start appearing in Supreme Court cases until the 1970's. Hence, the child support system we have today is a development of recent times - another by-product of labor cannibalism. Before the child support system we have today, support for minor children was included in alimony. In the case of Rose v. Rose, decided in 1987, Justice O'Connor said:

"Our Anglo-American tradition accords a special sanctity to the support obligation. Unlike other debts, for example, the obligation to support spouse and child is enforced on threat of contempt. These obligations, moreover, may not be discharged in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5). Indeed, even before the bankruptcy laws specifically excepted the support obligation from the discharge, this Court inferred such an exception, explaining the difference between a support obligation and other debts:

We think the reasoning of [Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575 (1901),] recognizes the doctrine that a decree awarding alimony to the wife or children, or both, is not a debt which has been put in the form of a judgment, but is rather a legal means for enforcing the obligation of the husband and father to support and maintain his wife and children. He owes this duty not because of any contractual obligation or as a debt due from him to the wife, but because of the policy of the law which imposes the obligation upon the husband. The law interferes when the husband neglects or refuses to discharge this duty and enforces it against him by means of legal proceedings.

The obligation continues after the discharge in bankruptcy as well as before, and is no more than the duty devolved by the law upon the husband to support his children and is not a debt in any just sense.' Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 74 -76 (1904)."17

Let's examine the old cases of Audubon v. Shufeldt (1901) and Wetmore v. Markoe(1904) and see what we can learn from these old cases. First, let's get an idea of what the average worker made back then. In a 1913 Saturday Evening Post editorial, George Lorimer said: "Over thirty million persons above sixteen years of age are gainfully employed. Six and a half million of them are wage earners in manufactories, whose average pay is five hundred and eighteen dollars a year. Four and a half millions are agricultural laborers, with an average income, no doubt, below that sum. Five and a half millions are engaged in domestic and personal service - cooks, hired girls, waiters, laundresses, barbers, and so on - among whom thousand dollar incomes are the exception. Bookkeepers, clerks and salesmen number more than a million and a half and are generally far removed from any fear of the income-tax collector. Steam and electric railroad employees, draymen and hackmen, stenographers, telegraph and telephone operators make up another million and a half. It is easy to count up twenty million breadwinners whose share in the national prosperity consists mostly of a meal ticket."18 The exemption rate for the first income tax law was $4000. This was roughly eight times what the average worker made back then, which was $500 per year. Now let's examine these old alimony cases that are supposed to prove the "special sanctity to the support obligation" that Justice O'Conner asserts.

In the Audubon v. Shufeldt case, Shufeldt was a retired army surgeon who made $175 per month or $2100 per year at this point in history. This is over four times what the average worker made. He was ordered to pay $50 per month to his ex-wife in alimony in a divorce and he was trying to discharge the alimony debt in his bankruptcy. $50 per month would have been an above average wage for a worker back then. A ordinary worker would have been left with nothing back then if ordered to pay $50 per month. Let's do some more math to see what this would be in today's inflated dollars. Recall that $37,000 per year is what the average wage earner makes today. So if the average worker 100 years ago earned $500, that means it would take $74 of today's inflated dollars to equal $1 back then. That would mean that, in today's dollars, Shufeldt would have earned $155,400 per year and he would have been ordered to pay $3700 per month. In the Wetmore v. Markoe case, Wetmore was obviously a wealthy man. In his divorce, he was ordered to pay $3000 per year in four quarterly installments of $750 for the support of his ex-wife and 3 minor children. $3000 was around six times what the average worker made back then. It was upheld that alimony cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. In today's dollars, a $3000 per year order for alimony and child support would be $222,000 per year! The Rose case involved a permanently disabled Vietnam veteran whose sole income was his disability income, which totaled $3388 per month, out of which he was ordered to pay $800 per month in child support. He was held in contempt and jailed until he paid, and the Supreme Court upheld this. But once again we see another legal fiction created using old cases that applied to rich people 100 years ago, and using these cases to justify state child support actions against working people today. In other words, let's take legal precedents that applied to rich people 100 years ago and apply those legal precedents to all of today's working people - from the top of the wage earning scale all the way down to the laboring poor. The Supreme Court of Labor Cannibalism strikes again! In a case from 1997, the Supreme Court pointed out that: "The Federal Government underwrites roughly two thirds of the cost of the State's child support efforts."19 It's important to note that this money is spent to pay enforcement people. None of it goes to the support of children. If one dollar or more is spent to collect one dollar, what's the point? Think about that. I wonder how much is spent per dollar collected? Is the objective the support of children? Or is it the enslavement and persecution of non-custodial parents, who are mostly fathers? Stephen Baskerville says that: "Most fathers are absent because the government makes sure they stay absent." Do you want to drive a father out of the lives his children and make him an excellent candidate for suicide? Place a yoke around his neck. The heavier the yoke, the more likely you'll be to succeed.

So, where is an old case that dealt with a common working person that neglected the support of his children? Does it exist? You bet, but the Supreme Court of Labor Cannibalism, while digging through the charred rubble of the old free labor system, choose not to cite that one and left it buried. It is U.S. v. Moreland, and was decided in the 1922 term. In this case Moreland was sentenced after a jury conviction to six months hard labor at a workhouse for not supporting his minor children. The crime was deemed to be infamous and conviction was reversed because he was not first indicted by a grand jury in accordance with the 5th amendment. Note that Moreland didn't argue that his 13th amendment rights were violated, because that due process was satisfied. The Court said: "We have dwelt on this matter at length because we think more is involved than the power to deport aliens, or to punish them for illegal entry into the country - more than to deliver one from punishment who has defied the orders of a court, that enjoined upon him the manifest duty of supporting his minor children. It concerns the recognition and enforcement of a provision of the Constitution of the United States expressing and securing an important right. And the right, at times, must be accorded one whose conduct tempts to a straining of the law against him."20 Another thing I noticed about this case was the man who represented Moreland before the Court. He was Mr. Foster Wood (pro hac vice). You see, rarely do you see someone "pro hac vice" arguing before the Supreme Court because that means that the person is not licensed to argue before the Court. "Pro hac vice" is latin, and it means "for this one particular occasion." The rich folks in the old alimony cases had attorneys. Moreland was lucky enough to have someone who cared enough about the violation of his constitutional rights to help him. After all, having been sentenced to a workhouse at hard labor, I doubt he had any money to pay a lawyer.

The Moreland case is important, for it shows what the labor cannibals are not doing that is in violation the Constitution. In 1922 there was a free labor market and there was no income tax that was imposed directly upon labor. The lawmakers respected the right to free labor back then. Before they could legally impose involuntary servitude upon men like Moreland, he first had to be convicted in a criminal trial by a jury, and he was. Now he could be lawfully despoiled of the fruits of his labor so as to force him to support his children. Does this make sense to anyone? It obviously doesn't make any sense to the labor cannibals. But to admit this truth would be devastating not only to the child support system, but to the taxing powers that operate directly upon labor. It would render all child support orders unenforceable unless the due process of the 13th amendment was respected. It would mean that all federal and state wage garnishments have been done in violation of the Constitution. It would void the more than $90 billion that is alleged to be owed nationwide in back child support since 1975. It would void all the billions of dollars the IRS and state governments allege working people owe in back taxes. It would mean that all the money that's been taxed from working people all their lives has been done without constitutional authority. It would mean that there are thousands in jail in violation of the Constitution. It would expose the no-fault divorce growth industry as a massive fraud. It could mean political suicide for the parties in power. There is more that could be added, but I think you get the picture. Do you think that there is one elected representative or judge at the federal or state level that will admit the truth in this? It reminds me of a Party conference in the former USSR that Alexander Solzenitsyn described back in the days of the Russian dictator Josef Stalin. At the end of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. The applause went on for eleven minutes! It was an absurd spectacle. Solzenitsyn said that "the NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on - six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn't stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks!"21 No one dared to be the one to stop applauding first, but finally the director of a paper factory took the lead and assumed a businesslike expression and sat down. He was arrested that night and ended up getting sentenced to 10 years. As Solzenitsyn pointed out : "Don't ever be the first to stop applauding!"22 So, when it comes to an elected representative, judge, media personality, newspaper editor, or anyone else with popularity and credibility admitting to the fact that we're in a condition of servitude, who do you think wants to be the first to stop applauding?

You read the old case of a family being torn apart at the beginning of this chapter. Now consider one from our present day taken from the case of U.S. v Mussari, decided in 1998 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No doubt countless volumes could be written about how slavery has destroyed families throughout history, and today is no different. The Mussari case was one of two cases I found where a father's conviction for violating the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 was reversed on appeal. Cases like this can be multiplied thousands and thousands of times in some form in many countries today.

"Mussari was married in 1983 to his high school sweetheart, Susan Riley, when he was 20 and she was 17. Their first child was born the same year; a second was born in 1985. Mussari had substance abuse problems, and the couple was divorced in Arizona on October 7, 1988, in a proceeding in which Mussari did not participate. Susan was awarded custody of the children; their father was ordered to pay $752 a month for their support. In October 1988 Mussari was working for his parents' trucking company; his job was on the loading dock. He occasionally drove the trucks until he had an accident with one of them. The next year his parents closed this business and moved to Pontiac, Illinois, where they eventually opened Allan's Pub and Grub, a restaurant. Mussari, lacking a job, followed them. When the restaurant opened in May 1990 he worked there as a bartender at $5 per hour plus tips while living in a studio apartment across from the restaurant. He continued to work for the restaurant for the next five years, off and on, finding it not easy to work for his parents. In the spring of 1994 he went to work for Davis Wolf as a painter at a salary of $7 an hour; his wages from Wolf in 1994 came to $6,677. He also continued working one day a month as a bartender for Allan's Pub and Grub. Mussari also worked for Wolf from March 3, 1995 to September 8, 1995, earning $7,798.12. He fell off a ladder in September breaking his left shoulder and was fired for drinking on the job; his accident was not covered by insurance, but Wolf paid his hospital bill. Mussari could not work for the next eight months. Prior to the accident, Mussari had married Cindy, a waitress at Allan's Pub and Grub, with children of her own. She supported him during his eight months of unemployment. Mussari then tried again to be a truck driver. It didn't work, so he went back to his parents, getting a job as a cook. Just before trial he had begun to cook for CJ's Catering..... In 1992 Susan remarried and Mussari moved to have the child support obligation reduced, alleging his income would be $975 per month. The Maricopa County court reduced the obligation to a monthly $256. His estimate proved to be optimistic, however, and he failed to achieve the earning level he had predicted. In 1993 he was served with notice of an enforcement hearing on the support order in Maricopa County but did not attend. On December 9, 1994 he was arrested by the FBI for violation of the Child Support Recovery Act (the ‘CSRA'). Mussari was Mirandized, handcuffed, and transported from Pontiac to Peoria, where he was arraigned before a magistrate. In late December 1994 Mussari drove to Phoenix to make an initial appearance in this case. He was arrested by state authorities and placed in Maricopa County Jail on a charge of being in contempt of the state child support order. He was sentenced to 90 days. While he was incarcerated his parental rights to his two children by Susan were terminated. In the same period his wife Cindy was evicted from their apartment in Pontiac for failure to pay the rent. On January 11, 1995 Mussari was indicted on a single count charging, ‘From on or about November 1, 1988, and continuing to the present, defendant Allan A. Mussari, while residing in a different state, with respect to his two children who reside in the State and District of Arizona, willfully and unlawfully failed to pay a past due support obligation as ordered by the Maricopa County Superior Court, State of Arizona, which obligation is greater than $5,000.00 and has remained unpaid for more than one year.' Represented by the federal public defender, Mussari moved to dismiss the indictment. On July 27, 1995, the district court held the CSRA to be unconstitutional and granted the motion to dismiss. The United States appealed. On September 5, 1996 we sustained the CSRA's constitutionality, reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded for trial. United States v. Mussari, 95 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1996). A one day bench trial was held on June 17, 1997. The district court found that Mussari had a support obligation of $41,708, which had remained unpaid for over a year. The court focused on whether his failure to pay had been willful and stated, ‘[t]he evidence that would support willful failure to pay is that the defendant was almost continuously employed from the November 1, 1988 date until the present time . . . . [He was also] given an opportunity to purge himself by going on work furlough wherein he could have obtained employment. And those proceeds, while he was receiving free room and board, could have gone to pay child support. . . .Taking all of the evidence and the testimony into consideration . . ., there is no doubt in the court's mind that the government has proven his ability to pay at some time during the portion of his employment on some dates that the obligations were due . . . So any time during the course of his arrearages that he had funds to pay, the court finds that he did have those funds to pay and did not pay them.' Finding Mussari guilty, the court sentenced him to six months imprisonment, the maximum for a first time offense under the statute, and to pay restitution of $41,708 plus $28,154.07 in accrued interest."

The court didn't mention that, because of the Bradley Amendment of 1986, while in prison, the child support continued to be charged against Mussari. But anyone with common sense can see that this man could never have paid this debt off unless he resorted to crime or won the lottery. Whether or not Mussari's second marriage survived, the court didn't say, but there's little doubt in my mind that many marriages are destroyed by this type of activity, thus creating more divorce and child support orders. The Circuit Court reversed Mussari's conviction because the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. That means you can't pass a law that creates a crime and make it apply backwards in time. The criminal act exists from the time the law is enacted, and can't reach back in time. This is how Mussari got let off the hook. Interestingly, neither party brought up the ex post facto law issue. The court did, and the courts usually don't do that anymore. You'd think that the public defender would have read the Constitution when studying the law and brought up the argument. So the courts asked for briefs on this issue. For example, in the Cheek case, the Supreme Court could have asked for briefs on the issue of the constitutionality of taxing Cheek's labor, even though the issue wasn't brought up by Cheek. Think about that. At any rate, Mussari was given a break, even though he served 6 months in federal prison. The court concluded its decision by saying that "in choosing among the thousands of persons delinquent in honoring their child support obligations, the government need not show itself an unfeeling monster, or make the law hideous, by selecting as its target an ineffectual worker, plagued by accidents and bad luck, without assets to make any restitution, without children to whom he has any legal connection, and with a present wife and family to whom he has important ties..... REVERSED."

According to the Harrington Report of 1996, there was around 23 million fatherless children at that time. Here we are ten years later. How many are there now? I doubt that the number has decreased, but let's use the 23 million figure and charge $400 per month per child in child support, not against the fathers of those children, but against the masters who rule over us. That's $92 million per month. Do you think they'd pay? Or would they become "deadbeat masters"?

Another case I found interesting was U.S. v Hill, decided in 2002 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's a case where the father who was ordered to pay child support from his first marriage had remarried a rich lady. They lived on a ranch in Oregon. The feds came after Charlie and, with the help of his wife, Charlie fled to Mexico where he would be safe from the labor cannibals. So, since Charlie was not available to criminally prosecute, they prosecuted Patricia, his wife; and the Circuit Court upheld her conviction. She was harboring a fugitive from labor, and was criminally prosecuted for doing so. This is nothing new. The old Fugitive Slave Law did the same thing. If you were a slave you broke the law by running away, and if you helped the slave run away you broke the law too. Frederick Douglass knew this, and for many years would not publish any material that revealed how he escaped from slavery.

"In the first narrative of my experience in slavery, written nearly forty years ago, and in various writings since, I have given the public what I considered very good reasons for withholding the manner of my escape. In substance these reasons were, first, that such a publication at any time during the existence of slavery might be used by the master against the slave, and prevent the future escape of any who might adopt the same means that I did. The second reason was, if possible, still more binding to silence - for publication of details would certainly have put in peril the persons and property of those who assisted. Murder itself was not more sternly and certainly punished in the State of Maryland, than that of aiding and abetting the escape of a slave. Many colored men, for no other crime than that of giving aid to a fugitive slave, like Charles T. Torrey, perished in prison."23

In the former USSR, one of the classes of people that were set up for mass arrests and persecution were the kulaks. Alexander Solzhenitsyn described this in Chapter 2 of his book entitled "The History of Our Sewage Disposal System."

"And so the waves foamed and rolled. But over them all, in 1929 - 1930, billowed and gushed the multimillion wave of dispossessed kulaks. It was immeasurably large and it could certainly not have been housed in even the highly developed network of Soviet interrogation prisons. Instead, it bypassed the prisons, going directly to the transient prisons and camps, onto prisoner transports, into the Gulag country..... This wave included only pathetically few of those kulaks for whom it was named, in order to draw the wool over people's eyes. In Russian a kulakis a miserly, dishonest rural trader who grows rich not by his own labor but through someone else's, through usury and operating as a middleman. In every locality even before the Revolution such kulaks could be numbered on one's fingers. And the Revolution totally destroyed their basis of activity. Subsequently, after 1917, by transfer of meaning, the name kulak began to be applied (in official and propaganda literature, whence it moved into general usage) to all those who in any way hired workers, even when they were temporarily short of working hands in their own families."24

This only stood to reason. If the state was to become the sole employer of all people, then the employers of old had to be gotten rid of. So this class of people was branded with the label kulak, which would be synonymous with shyster. You know, people who concoct schemes that prey upon the common working folks to rip them off. There turned out to be some opposition to this and there were a lot of people that were trying to help the newly created kulaks from being arrested and sent of to the slave labor camps. So the Soviets came up with a new name for them - podkulaknik - "a person aiding the kulaks." So, in the U.S. v Hill case, since Patricia aided Charlie in fleeing to Mexico to escape federal criminal prosecution, let's come up with a name for people like Patricia who aid deadbeats parents in escaping the wrath of the labor cannibals. Let's call them poddeadbeatniks.

Child support creates the most oppressive servitudes that exist in America and other countries. The constitutional way to enforce child support would be to conform to the due process of the 13th amendment. But the U.S. v. Moreland case was decided in 1922 when the people enjoyed a free labor market. Less than 3% of the people paid income tax in 1922 and people received their wages in full. Today, tax withholding from a worker's wages can range from 20-30% of his/her labor. This means that the people who rule over us cannot respect the due process of the 13th amendment when it comes to child support, even if the support order combined with wage withholding takes away 65% or more of the worker's labor. To enforce child support in accordance with the due process of the 13th amendment would alert people that taxing their labor is servitude too, and the politicians can't do that, or they would risk committing political suicide. So, today's political forces that are in power, in order try and maintain their righteous appearance before the people, must sacrifice the minority class known as the "noncustodial parents," who are over 90% of the time fathers, even if it means enslaving them beyond their means and driving thousands to suicide every year. Is this child support? or is it genocide against an oppressed minority who are ruled over with absolute and despotic power so that those in power can save face? On pages 7-8 of "The Black Book of Communism," we read:

"Following the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis, in order to clarify Article 6c of the Nuremberg Tribunal, crimes against humanity were defined by the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide of 9 December 1948 in the following way: ‘Genocide means any of the following acts committed with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ..... (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..."

The labor cannibals have adopted the parts of socialism that have enhanced their popularity, but they dare not adopt the unpopular aspects of it for fear of losing votes. Old age pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability Compensation, and stuff like that make politicians popular in the eyes of many; and, according to the labor cannibals, we have a sacred duty to allow government to tax our labor to provide these benefits. But when it comes to supporting the children of single parent homes we change our outlook on things. Now we divide the breeders of children into two classes, and enact special legislation that deals with them. This is also popular with most people. And since the ones further enslaved with the child support orders are a small minority, - I'd guess around 3-4% of the population - their voting power is insignificant, especially when thousands are in jail and trying to hide from their masters. But now let's look at the unpopular side of the coin. For example, we could greatly reduce population and child support problems by limiting the number of children people can breed, like they do in China; and enforce this by state ordered abortions and sterilizations. How many votes do you think someone would get who ran on that platform? But in China the rulers don't have to worry about elections because it's dictatorship by one party. In other words, only communists get elected and you must be a communist party member to be eligible to vote. They can be 100% socialist. A politician in democratic countries can't be 100% socialist because they'd loose their popularity and thus loose their office. Therefore, the unpopular aspects of socialism will never be implemented as long as the country in question remains a democracy. If we look at it in this light, it makes perfect sense why the rulers of this country have created the divorce and child support systems we see in operation today. It helps to maintain the illusion of freedom. In a purely socialist state, all who labor would be taxed equitably and contribute to the communal pool of labor. All members of society that are not able to work, all people that are retired because of old age, and all children from the time they're born until they come of age to start working - would be cared for from the communal pool of labor. All the workers would be burdened equally for the support of all. That's 100% Socialism, or what is also called Communism. Maintaining a righteous appearance in a semi-socialist nation requires a lot of clever thought and mass deceit. When I look down the tunnel, I see no light - only the darkness of an abyss if we don't change course soon.

"If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse


1. Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, Bantam Books, N.Y., 1981, pg. 11 (Originally published in 1851-52)

2. Ibid., pp. 12-13

3. Ibid., pg. 17

4. Ibid., pg. 18

5. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, 601

6. The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. IV, pp. 201-2

7. Matthew, 23: 4

8. Butchers' Union Slaughterhouse & Livestock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Livestock Landing & Slaughterhouse Co., 111 US 746, S. Ct. Rptr., pp. 660-61

9. The Hitler Youth, by H. W. Koch, Cooper Square Press, N.Y., 2000, pg. 266

10. I Will Bear Witness, by Victor Klemperer, Random House, N.Y., 1999, pg. 45

11. Ibid., pg. 53

12. Ibid., pg. 56

13. Ibid., pg. 85

14. Stolen Vows, by Judy Parejko, InstantPublisher, Collierville, Tenn., 2002, pg. 47

15. Ibid., pg. 92

16. Ibid., pg. 98

17. Rose v. Rose, 481 US 619, 637-38

18. The Saturday Evening Post, June 21, 1913, pg. 22

19. Syllabus, U.S. Supreme Court, Blessing v. Freestone, 1997

20. U.S. v. Moreland 258 U.S. 433, 441-42

21. The Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Harper & Row, N.Y., 1973, pg. 69

22. Ibid., pg. 70

23. The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, pg. 220

24. The Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, pp. 54-55

Go to Chapter VII