LibertyChant at March For Life

Author- Maria Santana

The 45th annual March for Life was held on Friday, January the 19th in Washington, D.C. The date is significant since it marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade case.  The landmark Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in the United States 60 million pregnancies had been terminated.

For the LibertyChant website, I had written three articles covering the abortion topic. The first was exposing the Roe v. Wade case as a fabrication by the progressive left to legalize abortion. Another article was on the stance of President John F. Kennedy on abortion. Although Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, his influence was felt in the Roe v. Wade since Supreme Court Justice Roberts voted no on the abortion issue. Finally my most recent article I had written on abortion covered Iceland’s eugenecist medical system  that is persuading women to abort fetuses afflicted with Down Syndrome.

A few hours before the March for Life, I was checking out of the hotel in the lobby. As I was chatting with the employees from the hotel, I heard a lot of sirens and turned my head. To my surprise it was a huge motorcade like I had never seen before. The receptionist said that it was President Trump.

It comes as no surprise that Trump was in the nation’s capital that day because he was scheduled to speak at the March for Life. Not only is he the first American president to be pro-life but also to speak at the event.

I walked from my hotel to the National Mall. To my surprise it was a beautiful warm day for the month of December. While walking I encountered and spoke to many people on their way to the march. Many came from different groups, family, friends or members of many organizations to raise awareness of the abortion issue. I saw a lot of children. While standing near the National Monument, I met two young women. I asked one of the women why she was marching. Her response was because she was adopted and her biological mother considered aborting her.

We engaged in conversation about abortion while waiting for the march to start. The talk included mentioning of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that she was a eugenecist. The primary documents are in the National Archives in D.C. demonstrate this.

Then President Jeanne Mancini of the March of Life organization spoke and then President Trump. When he spoke I noticed the mixed reactions of the people in the crowd.

The crowd ranged from all ages and it was quite diverse. I saw a lot of Christian groups and organizations from the United States and around the world. I met a group of pro life women from Bolivia. Their presence was not solely to fight abortion but to raise awareness of the dangers of socialism. I saw representatives from Human Life International, a pro-life organization.

I saw all kinds of signs ranging from straightforward to graphic. There were signs ranging from stop abortion to the most based ones where legalization of abortion was a form of population control. Some of the posters showed that there were people who were conceived from rape and those who regretted their abortion. Some of the posters showed images of dismembered fetuses and one of a fetus holding the tool that was going to be used to take its life. There was a video and sound playing of a fetus about to be killed.

During the march, I saw arguments and debates between Christian groups. It was a hilarious sight. Once we marched from the National Mall to the steps of the Supreme Court, we marchers heard speakers.

Some of these speeches were heartbreaking to hear. A lot of people that are pro-life are more concerned with the fetus. That is understandable given that they are voiceless and defenseless. Yet focus on the mother is often shunned. Many women who undergo the abortion procedure experience a wide range of issues. The speakers demonstrated this through their stories of how abortion had damaged them as a person.

Another issue on pregnant women deciding to have an abortion is the role of the father. What if the father does want the child to exist? I saw a lot of pro life men in the march and wondered what was their story.

After the march, all I can do was sigh and think wow. I was speechless. I realized that I had changed as a person. The march, speeches, conversations, sights and smells will be unforgettable.

I had been to D.C. before but this time it was different. I was alone and enjoyed my freedom. It felt amazing to be amongst a group of people who felt the same way as me. I knew from the moment I departed to DC that my Christian faith was going to shine.


How Truman And Stalin Escaped International Legal Persecution

Author: Maria Santana

World War II was one of the largest and bloodiest conflicts in history. Significant battles, personalities, massacres and everything that fueled it changed the world forever. Many acts of violence took place that have not made a historical text or a memorial of some sort. These horrors inspired the formation of the United Nations. Specifically the task of determining what forms of crimes are to be considered those against human dignity.
The conflict saw the Holocaust, Rape of Nanking and others. These massacres demonstrate the intention of eliminating them. The Holocaust, under Nazi policy, did not only target Jews but also Slavs, Communists, Gypsy/Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. It was done so not to only eliminate those inferior to the Aryans but for Nazi expansion plans known as lebensraum. Racial superiority was not exclusive to the Nazis but also the Japanese empire had it. Especially when it was used to fuel its expansion during the early 1930s.
In the postwar period, Raphael Lemkin was given with the daunting task of defining genocide. Lemkin, of Polish Jewish heritage, fled to the United States in 1940 from Nazi persecution. The UN Convention on the Preventionand Punishment of Genocide was held in 1948. The Genocide Convention determined the legal definition of genocide as ‘…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious groups as such’. This legal definition of genocide, like Norman M. Naimark argues on his book Stalin’s Genocides, ommitted political and spcial groups. These individuals who were more difficult to classify as an intent of genocide.
The exclusion of political and social groups from the legal definition of genocide was deliberate. Both the American and Soviet government officials lobbied to ensure those groups were not included so they would not face charges of genocide.
Stalin governed the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953. He is to be held responsible for killing ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union such as Ukrainians, Poles, Slavs, Koreans, NKVD and others. The US government could be charged with the fire bombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and others.
Lemkin’s definition of genocide was influenced by his need of highlighting Nazi violence. He sought to change the definition after the Nuremberg trials but did not. Even if the crimes committed by the Truman and Stalin Administrations, would other crimes against humanity be tried? If so, will there be a specific type and would they have to have occured at a specific time? The legal definition of genocide according to the UN has and continuesto not bring justice to members of political and social groups.

A Stateless Currency

Author: AnarchyMoon

As Libertarians in our current political system, many of us dream and talk about one day having a stateless society. The idea of no government and letting the free market flourish is certainly tantalizing. There’s a huge problem with this unless we want to go back to a bartering system which isn’t very conducive for a modern society. We would have to go back in time quite a bit if we adopted that as our means of exchange, “How many chickens can I get for one car tire”? The impracticality is apparent but what other options are there? In order to have one currency there needs to be a set value and a way to enforce it. Without a state this seems rather difficult, near impossible. There was some hope recently around cryptocurrency being a new mode for trade however these currencies are dependent on the value of currencies managed by countries such as the U.S. dollar. If other currencies did not have value, neither would our cryptocurrencies the way they are currently designed. Perhaps this will change in the future, although having our society rely on internet connection and the upkeep of cryptocurrency as a system such as verifying transactions etc. may give those positions such importance that they resemble a state in function. So I propose an alternative solution, one which will allow us to retain our modern society while simultaneously being independent of a state.

Currently we have tokens which have value according to our government. We trade them between us for our goods and services. The state decides how many dollars should be in circulation and how much buying power they should have. It also protects transactions and eliminates counterfeits. That’s why we can use the dollar anywhere within the country or anyplace that relies on our country economically such as China or India. If we did not have a state, where would our currency come from and how would we determine its value? Well we know that the basis of money is the exchange of goods and services. So it would make sense that the money we use be defined by those providing the goods and services in place of a government. Imagine some of the most basic representations of goods and services traded within the market, IOU’s and borrowing. Which is essentially what the dollar is for the Federal Reserve, a green IOU from the Reserve to us, the citizens. So it would make sense that in a free market the companies provide their own forms of currency. They would produce the money for their consumers and determine what the value of the currency is based on how much of their goods it represents.

For instance, one company gives another company some furniture and that company trades with tokens worth a certain amount of their goods that can be exchanged at any time. You buy 5 tokens from a company or trade for them that represent 5 of their goods, perhaps you stock up for the following years such as when buying drapes. People can then trade these tokens between each other so anybody can bring it back to that company and get drapes in return. The supply and demand of the market would determine how much of one currency another one is worth. How many tokens of Burger King can I exchange for Walmart tokens? The market will answer that for itself. This ensures all currency is backed up by goods and services while the relative value is dependent on supply and demand. Think of the stock market but for currency in a way. There are already currency markets that serve as a good example how this would work. Now, as companies have high rates of exchange between their currencies they may decide to use the same tokens. The production of which would then be cheaper for both companies. In this way, these tokens would start out being relatively volatile and only when the business becomes stable and is verified by consumers would they be able to enter into the social contract of the more widely used currencies. These currencies would probably be tied to that area as that is where companies, people who live there, do the most trade. So you may end up with centralized currency per community.  At the same time, counterfeits would be regulated through inspection during exchange within the market as well as by the companies. This would scale into our modern day very nicely.

Looking at this application in modern times, those who run real life and online currency markets may set transaction fees or membership fees which would be set by the competition of others who also seek to manage exchange markets, the competition lowering the price as dictated by supply and demand. This way currencies from anywhere could be exchanged real time with more security. It would be very similar to the bank accounts and stocks we have now. Imagine setting some currency you own from your region to your default mode of payment and when you go to pay anywhere with your card, the cash register automatically uses the exchange rate of the market to deduct the appropriate amount of the currency you used from your account in terms of how much the goods you bought were worth in that region or companies tokens. The possibilities here are many and convenient. It is easy to imagine as this proposed system is very similar to the way our financial systems are run currently. Except every company is responsible for their own monetary responsibilities that would normally be delegated to the Federal Reserve. I cannot say for certain this is the exact form it would or should take if this system were to be adopted however it is along this vein that it would express itself or in an even more efficient manner. This would allow us to maintain our modern society while at the same time foregoing a centralized currency. Perhaps the social contracts between companies could grow large and stable enough to have a common currency for regions as large as the nations we see today. Alternatively, it’s possible cryptocurrencies could be reworked to include these fundamentals of the market making this unnecessary. It may be a more immediate transition to a possible culmination of this idea. It’s important to remember that it certainly isn’t a requirement to have a common currency and either way this would be a great start to giving power to the market while ensuring we do not devolve into hunter gatherer societies. I am hopeful this will incite an ongoing conversation between us Libertarians and all those who seek a stateless society so we can be one step closer to our favorite dream.

Naming A Nation

Author- AnarchyMoon

What does it mean to be a nation; is it culture, race, religion, region, or your place of birth which makes you belong to a nation? When we talk about nation’s we mean more than any one of these factors and indeed many nations have inhabitants which vary in all of these things. Just because you are visiting another country doesn’t make you a part of their nation. So the unifying factor must be something else. It’s tempting to say that a nation is the state and those who live under it. That’s certainly one way to define it, but historically this has caused many problems which typically result in violent conflicts known as civil war. People who identify as their own nation seem to need their own state, otherwise there is turmoil for everyone within that state. So a nation can be better defined as the system of rules, arguably the way of life, one wants to live under. When enough people come together under this desire, it is referred to as a nation.

While that’s all well and good, what is the significance of defining a nation this way? It is reasonable to think that those of a certain nation live under less stress when they have their own land under their own state or social system. When everyone within a country is of the same mentality, it is certainly evident in both levels of conflict and productivity. When people within a country are divided in how they want to live, such as in the United States right now, this is also evident in all facets of society. Under outside threats, the differences between people within a state are minimized such as during times of war there is typically great unity. When those outside threats are no longer focused on by people, the differences between them grows more apparent.

During this high level of peace for the United States, division is at a similar level. The United States has a system of democracy in place yet people are still dissatisfied. This is because the more a state leaves up to democracy, the more the majority can oppress the minority with their preferred way of life. What is up for government discretion is higher than it has ever been, so people are realizing they have less and less power to live under the way of life they desire. It’s unlikely that any one person agrees with everything the state has decided is the lay of the land, so as the state makes more decisions on things previously left up for personal discretion the less people that will be satisfied. Rather than restricting the ability of the state, people under threat prefer to use its power to ensure they can live how they want to. Which makes the people within your country greater enemies in the pursuit of your ideal state. In a very true sense, we have multiple nations competing right now in the United States for ultimate control. How do we escape this cycle before it culminates in the ultimate national resolve, civil war?

To solve this issue before the lid blows off the kettle so to speak, we can find the answer in the definition of a nation I provided. Our country is increasingly polarized about issues that are fundamentally divergent. They are not issues we can come to a logical agreement. It is not a matter of figuring out the best way to a common goal as these are goals which conflict being based on a difference in values. Logic is effective only under the same emotional premise. Which is why more people are coming to the conclusion that violence is the only way to solve this difference. If we continue down the current track, they are correct. People of different nations cannot live peacefully under the same state. Using my definition of a nation, we have at least two very big nations under the same state here in the U.S. What we need to do, before the death toll grows any larger, is have a division of state. Divide America. Conservatives should have their own government as should progressives. There’s no need to oppress each other through force and politics. Democracy fails when your rights directly contradict my own, when we want to live a different way of life. The reason this is the most peaceful and effective solution is easy to see when you accept the reality of our national segregation. Have you talked to someone of opposing political views? While there is always some agreement between any two people, it’s as if they are from another planet. Close, they just belong to a different nation and rightfully we feel threatened by this as they share the same state with us.

If we cease defining our country’s borders by geography or the other factors I listed, and let countries be defined by ideology including their immigration/emigration policies we would have a world of greater peace and contentment as the concentration of people who were content with their state would be at unprecedented levels. It would even diminish conflict between countries based on ideological threats. With the current idea of the state to nation relationship, those who are born in a country tend to live there no matter what they believe and if it’s different from what the state is then both them and those they live with are worse off. Because they can’t change that with our working systems, they see opposing ideology to their state a threat as it can influence the composition and thus the security of the state and the “nation” under it. Often these opposing ideologies are actualized in the form of a foreign state, occasionally resulting in wars or other disputes. For instance, there are currently those who believe in a free market and a small state in many countries around the world but there is arguably no country anymore which has a state that represents that ideology. While a minority in their respective countries and in conflict with the majority there, together they would form a population sizable enough to live under their own state. It is a win-win situation for everyone, and if you truly feel your way is the superior way to live under a specific criteria than this would lead to real world examples of pure ideologies being put into practice. The results would speak for themselves in naming a nation.

Fascism Is A Leftist Ideology

Author- Maria Santana

**Inspired by Dinesh D’Souza’s video for think tank PragerU. Here is the link provided below and the the title of the video is ‘Is fascism left or right’.**

When one mentions communism, the ideology is tied to Karl Marx. The same applies to capitalism and Adam Smith. But there is usually no clear name associated with the founding of fascism. Why is that so?

During and after the 2016 presidential election, people were misinformed with fascism. Find a millennial or someone from Generation Z and ask them what fascism. They will likely pull out their smartphone and the resulting Google search will provide a wrong definition. Why is that?

Every Republican president since the mid 1970s in the United States had been labeled a fascist. Even today President Trump is being labeled a fascist. I have never felt as if I were a character in an Orwellian novel. Clearly we are not currently living in a fascist state.

You may not know his name but you know his ideology. Giovanni Gentile, born in 1875, is the founder of fascism. It can be strongly contested that his name has been deliberately erased from history. Gentile was an admirer of Marx. He believed that a community is like a family. This represents the typical unity and togetherness always promoted by the political left.

Want evidence? At the 1984 Democratic National Convention former Governor of New York State Mario Cuomo said ‘America is like an extended family’. In 2012 at the DNC the slogan was ‘government is the only thing we ALL belong to.’

According to Gentile, there are two kinds of democracies – liberal and true. He thought that liberal democracy in the United States was individualistic. It was too centered on liberty and personal rights and therefore selfish. True democracy, as preferred by Gentile, must make a society as whole completely subordinate to the state.

Fascism was considered to be the best form of socialism by Gentile. The reason he thought this is he believed that fascism appeals to nationalism and class. Nazi Germany is an example of this where nazi means national socialists in German.

In fascism there is no difference between private and public interests. The administrative arm of the country would be the state. There has to be a societal submission to the state not just economically but in all aspects. How one should think or feel is included. Sound familiar?

In the United States, the state is involved in healthcare, banking education and energy. This is all thanks to the progressive left who support centralized government. The involvement of the state in those private matters show not only its robust growth of central government but also its power on limiting individual rights. This happened after the New Deal programs were passed during the global depression.

The reason Giovanni Gentile is not a widely known name in universities in the United States and the Western world is because he is purposefully excluded from political conversation. Many historians in the West that have liberal tendencies always associate fascism as right wing. For the political left to acknowledge the existence of Gentile would be for them to accept that they are the true themselves. So the next time you see Anti-fa with their holier than thou attitudes protesting fascism, remind them that they ought to protest against themselves.

Shots Fired On Gun Rights

Author- AnarchyMoon

Anytime there is a major shooting, the gun debate flares up like an old wound. It seems the arguing will never end, both sides with irreconcilable differences in belief. While we may disagree, that does not mean we cannot understand each other. For Libertarians, such as myself, our stance on gun control is as simple as being alive. You never know who, where, or when an attack on your life may happen and having a gun can make all the difference between survival or death. It serves as a major deterrent at times and a way to de escalate situations if handled properly.

There will always be people with guns, even if that is solely the police or armed forces. They are people too. If you take away the ability to have a gun, you give complete power to the government and take away a major asset in surviving. You’ve created a world of oppression which gives advantage to the aggressor. So what about the amount of deaths from guns? Aren’t you in MORE danger? While those statistics fail to account for lives saved with guns, clear comparisons with high gun ownership, and resultant decrease in other forms of murder, it can be argued you are statistically less safe.

To a Libertarian, where freedom means everything, statistics are as useful as piss in a can. Who cares if other people go crazy and shoot up movie theaters? I’m not insane and that’s why I need to have a gun on me. My ownership of a gun only makes me more safe, not others in danger. Why? Because as an individual I am not representative of a statistic. In a shooter situation, I’d want a gun to defend myself not regulation which tries to create situations without guns. You cannot account for every situation that may pose a threat, life is fragile and the tools we use to live can easily be turned into tools of violence. Instead of declawing the entire population (except for those who work for the government…) it’s more important to be able to handle and defend yourself no matter what situation you find yourself in.

It’s not about a safer world. It’s about a safer life knowing I have the tools and ability to defend myself to the fullest extent. To take away your guns is to tie your arms together and throw you to the lions. It is to suffer an abuse to your rights and your preservation. Even in Vegas you don’t want to take a gamble on safety. Of course no one is going to willingly embrace a death sentence like gun control.

Iceland Eliminates Its Down Syndrome Population

Author- Maria Santana

Iceland is known for its breathtaking scenery. But the dark side of Iceland has been covered somewhat by the Western mainstream media recently regarding their practice of eugenics. The Icelandic government is providing parents with the choice of terminating pregnancies of fetuses that have been afflicted with down syndrome.

Many Icelandic women opt to undergo prenatal testing for genetic diseases. If it is discovered that the fetus has the Down Syndrome trait, the pregnancy can be terminated off of that. Most of the babies that are discovered to have Down Syndrome have to be aborted since only one or two are documented as being born annually. A country with a population of approximately 330,000 as documented by the World Bank.

In Iceland 85% of women undergo prenatal genetic testing. According to the CBS special report on Icelandic eugenics, women also have ultrasounds, and blood drawn before considering aborting the fetus. Expecting mothers at the age of 35 or older are at a higher risk of having a fetus with Down Syndrome which is why it is encouraged to have children before that age.

It can be argued that these pregnant women, with or without consent of their partner, that a special needs life is not worthy. Perhaps it is the will of the parent to not want to raise a life afflicted with Down Syndrome. These fetal terminations in the eyes of pro choice advocates can be seen as sacrificial. The baby born with Down Syndrome will be spared of living a difficult life although sometimes there is evidence that suggests that some of those who have it can live a normal life.

Eugenics is nothing new and it is an old and continued practice across the globe. One of the first things that come to mind is eugenics as mentioned in Nazi Germany. Nazi scientists sterilized the handicapped and disabled Aryan people. People with undesirable genetic traits would even be aborted as well.

Today there is even such a thing as designer babies where parents can select the geno and phenotype of the fetus. Even fetuses today can have three parents.

This article is not to impose my moral views on abortion or eugenics but to raise questions. In the Western world people are terminating fetal lives because of convenience and/or other reasons. From the looks of it, Iceland is trying to have a perfect, designer population free of Down Syndrome and whatever else their government deems not aesthetic. But what happens when the birth rate in Iceland continues to plummet not just because of abortion? The country will have to continue its pro immigration policy to sustain its labor force.