Thursday, February 25, 2010

Preventative Violence

Larken Rose is at his best here. Our world has changed. Wake up freedom lovers because you can't talk a fascist into freedom. You can only show him what the natural consequences will be unless he stops. You can only do that if you have the way (ability to hurt, distress, defend) and the will (reasoned rational moral philosophical belief) that the fascist believes that you are willing to use. Bluffing doesn't work long. The only moral issue question here is; What about the non-involved innocent bystanders? Rational reasoned retributive justice believers only judge those who have caused injury. Nemo me impune lacessitt!

Can Violence Solve Violence?

Rarely do I hear anything from Stefan Molyneux that I can substantively disagree with, so allow me to jump on this rare opportunity to take issue with something he said. (I'm hoping this rant finds its way to him, and I'm betting one of you forwarding it to him will work better and faster than me trying to find his e- mail address in my infinite, messy pile of stuff.) In a recent podcast, where he gave his thoughts on the Joe Stack incident, Stefan asserted that violence cannot be solved with violence. Partly true, partly false. Here is the link for that clip:

I think Stefan would agree that the initiation of violence is a symptom of something not being right in the head of the aggressor. And it is absolutely true that the root CAUSE of the aggression cannot be fixed via more violence. However, the EFFECT (or symptom) of that problem CAN be. As a very simple example, if someone breaks into my house at night, my 12-gauge is not going to repair whatever mental damage led the guy to want to do such a thing. However, it has a good chance of stopping the EFFECT of his psychosis. In such an instance, my goal w
ould not be to "fix" what is wrong with the invader, but to prevent the potential SYMPTOMS of his psychological problems.

Likewise, the irrational belief in the myth of "authority" is the direct cause of the vast majority of theft, assault and murder in the world. The people at the IRS, for example, routinely commit harassment, terrorism, extortion and robbery, because they t
ruly believe that when something evil is "legalized," it ceases to be evil. They (and their victims) have been indoctrinated to believe that theft is bad, UNLESS "authority" does it, in which case theft ("tax collection" / "law enforcement") is GOOD, and RESISTING it is bad.

So the root cause of the problem is their indoctrination into the cult of authoritarianism, and all the propaganda and rhetoric they were fed about "law," "taxation," "government," and all the other bunk which is designed to paint theft as a GOOD thing when the slave-masters do it, and only bad when us peasants do it. And the SOLUTION to that problem is, quite literally, "deprogramming" people out of the most dangerous superstition: the belief in "authority" (the notion that some people have the right to rule others). So no, cursing at, punching, shooting, or blowing up IRS employees cannot fix that underlying problem.

HOWEVER--and this is a big however--while delusions remain, violence can sometimes deter the EFFECTS of those delusions. No matter how much an IRS employee has bought into the state
propaganda, if he thinks he might die if he keeps on robbing people ("collecting taxes," as he would call it), he might choose a new career. The underlying problem would remain, but the symptom, in that case, would disappear, as would some of the potential resulting damage.

In general, it's a bad idea to focus on treating the SYMPTOMS of a problem, instead of treating the problem itself. This is true in medicine, economics, philosophy, and just about everything else. However, if the symptom of ONE person's problem is the SUFFERING of another, then treating the symptom is a worthwhile goal, for the sake of the innocent victim.

Suppose someone came up with a way to convince all 100,000 or so employees of the IRS that if they showed up for work the next day-- or ever again--they would all die horrible deaths. And supp
ose they could be made to believe that without any of them actually being harmed. Frankly, I would be thrilled. Though it would do nothing to address the underlying problem--that the state's hired thieves believe "legal theft" to be morally righteous--it would, on a practical level, deter them from victimizing others as a result of their delusions.

So the question is, when do we focus our efforts on trying to enlighten the deluded, and when do we do whatever it takes to stop the deluded from hurting people? My answer is, we should continually focus on both. Those of us who know that we own ourselves have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to stop others from initiating violence against us, whether they fully understand what they're doing or not. At the same time, it sure would be nice if we could make it so they didn't WANT to initiate violence against us. But if fear of harm is all that will keep thieves from stealing, it's better than letting them rob people.

This brings to mind a related topic--which I'll rant about more in some later message--having to do wit
h condemning the state's mercenaries ("police"), calling them names ("fascists"), insulting them ("Nazi swine"), etc. Believe it or not, I don't just do that to be nasty. I believe it serves a useful, worthwhile purpose to identify evil as evil, and I believe it can be very destructive NOT to do so. I know some people prefer to always be polite and civil, in an effort to "win over" the statists to the idea of self- ownership, but I think in a way that is often inappropriate. The thugs with badges get paid to harass, terrorize, assault, extort, control, and otherwise oppress people who haven't hurt anyone. I don't believe sane people should talk as if it's up for polite discussion whether that's okay or not.

In the ever-popular example of the Nazis, which of the following would have been more appropriate or more effective?: 1) lots of Germans politely trying to point out the philosophical inc
onsistencies in Hitler's agenda, or 2) lots of Germans constantly and viciously condemning the Nazis in the most hostile, insulting, caustic terms imaginable, as soon as that party came into being? If people can be shamed or brow-beaten into not acting like thugs, I'm all for it. Of course, it would be a lot better if they could instead be ENLIGHTENED into choosing the philosophy of self-ownership. And in the long run, that is absolutely what our goal should be. But history has shown all too well, all too often, that in the short term, it's a lot easier to shoot an aggressor than it is to reform him.

I spent years trying to make various IRS employees (and other state mercenaries) consider the possibility that maybe "doing their job" is immoral. Joe Stack spent a day showing them that "doing their job" might be hazardous to their health. Which of us did the IRS folk learn anything from? Sorry to say, I don't think it was me.

Larken Rose

P.S. I have to take this opportunity to throw in a disturbingly appropriate excerpt from my second book, "Kicking the Dragon: Confessions of a Tax Heretic," most of which was written in 2006, during my time as a political prisoner:

"Then along comes this '861' thing, and suddenly I saw, not just a really nasty fraud that needed exposing and resisting, but potentially a means of achieving real positive change (not the fictional kind that politicians endlessly yammer about), WITHOUT violence ... Imagine that: a nonviolent way to rein in some of the government's gargantuan power. Sounds good to me. To be blunt, I still see exposing the income tax deception as the only way to avoid an eventual (but not too distant) large-scale violent conflict between the U.S. government and the citizenry. ... To put it another way, I did what I did in part because I saw this endeavor as the best hope for avoiding large-scale violence AGAINST THOSE IN GOVERNMENT. No, that wasn't a t
ypo. I believe that ending this fraud is the best way for those in government (as well as others) to escape a very nasty end, by allowing for a 'revolution' that requires no bullets and no blood. ... I really wish I had some compelling argument left supporting some hope of success via nonviolence, but I don't. To be blunt, if you read in the news that some IRS paper-pusher or collection thug, or some pseudo-judge, got his or her 'determination' overruled with a baseball bat or a pipe bomb, I won't be very surprised. ... [JFK] said that when you make nonviolent change impossible, you make violent change inevitable. I really do hope, even as I sit here in prison for a crime that the prosecutors and the
judge know I didn't commit, that a bunch of IRS headstones don't start to appear as a confirmation of JFK's words."

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Supreme Court of the United States denied the Hirmers' Petition for writ of certiorari

If you at all wonder why I often say, "The Law Is a Fraud!" This is why! Law = Theology.
It is always open to interpretation by the ruling "revelators;" prophets, lawyers, judges of the day. There are NO absolutes, NO immutability, NO divine revelation! The only absolute in the law is the ruling revelator's willingness to use lethal coercion to enforce their interpretation of TheoLawlogy.
This is why Your belief in and reliance upon this shifting quicksand of "lawfulness" must come to an end. Embrace your inner outlaw! Attend to the only law that has ever naturally existed, Natural Law. Embrace what "Nature's God" has shown by example, the Talion Law. The right to retributive justice.
Quit going to the "matrix" for justice. The truism is oft repeated ad nauseum that, "No man is above the law." Humbuggery, Balderdash and Drool!! Man has ALWAYS placed himself above the law because it is up to man to interpret "the law." PoLice, prosecutors, lawyers and judges place themselves above the law everyday by their interpretations of what the "law" means and how to enforce it. Grammar, semantics, hermeneutics means nothing to those whose pattern and practice is deception and brigandism.
Below is evidence again of wherewith I speak!
Nemo me impune lacessit!

Please distribute to your mailing list: 

The Supreme Court of the United States denied the Hirmers' Petition for writ of

Despite having uncontroverted evidence that several states intentionally amended
the language of the 16th Amendment as proposed by Congress, conduct the
government admits violates Art. V of the Constitution, district court judges in
Pensacola, Florida and Chicago, Illinois, the entire panel of the 7th Circuit
court of appeals, three judges in the 11th Circuit court of appeals, and at
least five judges of the Supreme Court (I don't know if any of the judges voted
to grant cert) have each violated their oaths to support and defend the

The denial of the petition for writ of cert in the Benson case has ended that
case. The criminal trial of the Hirmers is scheduled to commence on March 1st. I
am currently preparing for trial. The trial is expected to last between three
and six months.

So what is next now that we know for a certainty that the federal courts are
closed to protecting the Constitution, and the people, from fraud of the
Executive branch of government in the collection of the federal income tax, and
are closed to protecting the First and Fifth amendment rights of those who would
expose that fraud?

I believe it is now incumbent upon the people to press Congress to remove the
culprit judges from office for bad behavior through the impeachment process. The
second is that the people need to press Congress to declare the 16th Amendment
not ratified. Third, is that the people need to take action to widely publicize
the conduct of the federal judiciary and the attorneys working for the goverment
in order to bring about the first and second actions.

Hopefully, there are those among you with the fortitude to assume positions of
leadership to bring about the above suggestions.


Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264

Saturday, January 16, 2010


by Tom DeWeese
January 13, 2010

In recent years Americans have become more and more alarmed at the lack of adherence to the U.S. Constitution exercised by Congress and other elected representatives. The list of violations has grown large indeed.

Some have tried to fight the violations through the election process, attempting to remove those representatives who have perpetrated them. Others have tried to fight infringing legislation as it is introduced. Still others have fought in the courts, attempting to defend liberties in front of judges who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

To date, little has worked as many elected representatives and court rooms openly defy the Constitution, calling it antiquated. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announce that they now look to international law for precedence and guidance, rather than the Constitution. Government at all levels is growing ever further from the reach of the people. In such a growing desperate situation is it possible to restore the Republic to the vision of the Founding Fathers?

Read more.


Friday, December 04, 2009

Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West

Congressional candidate Lieutenant Colonel West speaking at the American Freedom tour in Fort Lauderdale Florida at the Revolution Nightclub.
For more information about the West for Congress campaign or to become involved please follow this link


Saturday, October 31, 2009

Federal Reserve Policy Audit Legislation ‘Gutted,’ Paul Says

Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.

George Washington

By Bob Ivry | Bloomberg

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.

The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today. FULL STORY

This is the man, U. S. Representative Mel Watt, Representing the 12th District of North Carolina, the man who gutted HR 1207, Audit The Fed Bill.

Take a good look at Mel Watt and ask yourself why is this man so against AMERICA? Against YOU?

Who is Mel Watt's protecting?

2304 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC

(202) 225-1510
Fax (202) 225-1512

Special thanks to Rose Lear who posted this story at this link.


Thursday, October 22, 2009

Secret Obama/Democrat Plan Exposed!!!

YOU know what this really means! These are code words to unregulated, uncontrolled, unresponsible fruit salad making!!! We must protect "the children!!" Call your Republican legislators! There must be MORE LAW!!! Will the Continental Congress 2009 protect us from the "Saladorists?"

Friday, October 09, 2009

Larken Rose on the No State Project & Video

This Saturday, Oct. 10, 2009, from 3-5 pm cst 
Larken Rose
on the No State Project

he will be discussing solutions to "government", how to get
to a voluntary
society. Larken is an unapologetic anarchist
and the author of three books,
How to be a Successful Tyrant,
Kicking the Dragon
, and his latest, The Iron Web,

Larken's website is

The show is live from 3-5 pm cst at
and you can
join us by calling (512) 879 - 3805.
Larken Rose's New Video

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Thoughts on Glenn Beck's “Common Sense”

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine by Glenn Beck

A Review
By Tim Wingate

This is a well documented booklet. However, it is difficult to substantiate his seeming anecdotal claims with his sizable “Sources” list as he does not use any footnotes or chapter designations. To his credit his listings contain substantive references including an informal bibliography, web links and periodical sources.

His writing style is much like his spoken style. He incites and provokes, needles and cajoles the reader with emotionally laden terminology and appeals to an emotional response; while claiming it to be a reasoned rational reaction. It is actually a short “book” as the line leading (the vertical spacing between sentences) is for a larger font size than the one used, putting fewer words on each page and therefore using more pages. Also, one third of the book is a reprint of Thomas Paine's original pamphlet Common Sense. Thus giving it a deceptively larger appearance.

In its essence it is just another compendium of what is wrong with America from his newly nonpartisan position. Many other compendiums have been circulating from more astute authors for sometime now. (Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, Herbert Spencer, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Carl Watner, James Bovard, , Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr., Dr. Robert Altemeyer, Dr. Ron Paul, to just name a few from a much larger list spanning two hundred years.) However, due to Mr. Beck's public podium his message may reach and strike a responsive chord with more of America's dumbed down masses than a more erudite treatise.

The glaring problem with this “book” is on the first page. He writes, “In 1776, Thomas Paine's words sparked a revolution. Today, a new revolution of thought begins right now, with you.... You might find yourself wondering what can be done to change our nation's course. I lay out several options, but I want to be clear that none of them include violence. Thomas Paine and his fellow revolutionaries shed their blood so that future generations would have access to weapons immeasurably stronger than muskets or bayonets: the weapons of democracy...”

Through out his book he uses the language of revolution. However, he wants to pacify it and turn it into a fist-shaking, foot-stomping plebiscite tantrum. Herein is the fault. You cannot compare a potentially future American revolution to the former American War for Independence without the possible use of violence. Several thoughts on this follow.

First, to ascribe the appellation “revolution” to the American War for Independence is to take the “British” point of view of the legitimacy of British rule rather than the legitimacy of independence. Second, I am sure by their subsequent writings that "Thomas Paine and his fellow revolutionaries" did not consider their blood shedding to be some kind of secular propitiation or substitutionary atonement for any future use of physical force to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from an infringing government. Furthermore, there is always violence used by one or all factions in a regime change. Third, the use of “democracy” as a weapon implies the use of force, in reality or by threat, by the majority against the minority. The only difference is that the minority, by “democracy,” agreed to their suppression in perpetuity via an implied social contract thus legitimizing the use of force against them and renaming it “police action” or “anti-terrorism.”

On page 106 he states, “ the things you feel...”

Really Mr. Beck? Just demonstrate populist discord and the “rulers” will change their tune?

On page 107 he quotes Mr. Paine's conclusion, “...until an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows that it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.”

It seems to me that the founders heeded Mr. Paine's warning and made such a declaration resulting in the conflagration wherein most of the signers were held to their pledge of “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Furthermore, he goes on to claim that his words like Paine's “find their roots” in Common Sense.

Really Mr. Beck? If this is true and he wanted to follow and imitate the example of the founding fathers than why has he not joined the We the People Congress for the Continental Congress to be held in Illinois this year? They have done and are doing an almost exact 21st century imitation of the actual 18th century example laid out by the founding fathers.

If we take Mr. Beck at his word and accept his implications as literal then he is saying the American people should treat the Federal Government as old England was treated by the 18th century Continental Congresses. Mr. Paine's work sparked a Declaration of Independence which sparked a violent war for control over land, resources and people. You cannot mince, parse or mollify the words of revolution by comparing a philosophical, or as he wrote, “a new revolution of thought,” to a violent one.

Therefore, in conclusion let us address this “elephonkey” or “donkyphant” in the room. Is America ready for a “revolution"? Have the lines of philosophical differences been so well articulated that people can make an informed decision whether to chose between an uncertain future of an insurgent guerrilla war for independence against the FedGov or for the limitless limitation of freedom and “on-growing” burden of the Federal corporatist police-state leviathan?

Does his target audience (based upon his assertive description in the Introduction it appears to be middle class married men with children, struggling to make ends meet,) actually have the backbone and where-with-all to declare and defend an actual new declaration of independence? Does he? Or, as this writer suspects, is this just another opportunistic endeavor to stir up impotent resistance and controversy to sell books and garner viewers?

If you really want to know what is going on apart from the propagandist pablum spewed by the corporatist organs of the state then check out the sources below. Buckle up, bolt your socks to your shoes and get ready for Matrix like red pill revelations.

If you want the real philosophy of Liberty then look up the authors mentioned in paragraph three rather than his list on pages 110 and 111.

since he is wildly popular with the Repubicrats, copy this review and include it with copies of his book before you hand them out to friend and family, thereby giving them the means to a meal along with his appetizer.


Glen Beck started a “9.12 Project” referenced on page 109. He lists 9 Principles and 12 Values that one should share with others. See,

On his web site he also says what the purpose is; “This is a non-political movement. The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created.”

Why 9.12? Why recreate a the wheel or as in this case replace the existing wheel with a downsized spare? Why not emphasize and encourage what the founders already established? Or would that be too revolutionary?

In 1776, fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence declaring that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

What truths were “these truths”?

The whole of the Declaration of Independence and the instituted governments of the United States of America rest upon only 5 Truths. The signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that those who supported these 5 Truths were good people and supporters of freedom.

However, those who opposed the 5 Truths were against liberty as agents of dictators, tyrants and despots. Which one are you? Do you believe in the 5 Truths?


Truth 1. All people are created equal.

Truth 2. All people created equal are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. (No commentary was given about the nature of, or, who this “Creator” was believed to be. However, the previous paragraph declares that people have “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them.” Therefore, it can be inferred based on the common beliefs of the day that the implication was from a general “Christianized” worldview with an Enlightenment influence.)

Truth 3. Only by the consent of the created equal people with endowed certain unalienable rights, governments are formed to secure those endowed certain unalienable rights and derive their powers only from the consent of the equal people endowed with certain unalienable rights.

Truth 4. When any form of government becomes destructive of those endowed certain unalienable rights of the equal people, it is the “Right of the People” created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights to replace that government with one that will secure those, endowed certain unalienable rights of the equal people.

Truth 5. When it becomes evident that a form of government has a design to reduce the equal people with endowed certain unalienable rights under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government.

Make no mistake in thinking that this is a light matter. We as a nation are approaching a fork in the road together.

There are those among us who believe that “government” is the source of rights and liberty. They are the modern day Tories, the royalists, and believers in the divine rights of kings. Only today their “king” is the Government.

We have almost come full circle in our experiment in liberty from where we started.

an out of control constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government that reduced its loyal citizens to property of the State,

a constitutional representative government that distorts words and meanings in the Constitution thereby reducing the people to property of the State.

True American Patriots still believe in the 5Truths of Freedom

To embrace these truths by believing in them and living by them is to be an American patriot, honoring the men and women who fought and died for liberty.

To infringe or alienate these truths by action or accepting government’s actions is to dishonor the patriots who have lived and died for us.

On which side do you stand?

(a)The promise of tranquil security by intrusive government, mouthing words of liberty while taking away rights by regulation forcing you to give up your “fair share” of freedom for privileged benefits that rest upon you as chains of control?


(b)The 5Truths and the certain human rights endowed to an equal people that must not be infringed by your countrymen in your service in government leaving you to live the “animating contest of freedom” in liberty while pursuing the happiness of responsible self-ownership?

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What's Wrong with "Constitution" Day?


Two links to two great sources of education concerning the myth of "Constitutionality."

First Is Our Government Legitimate? by Laurence M. Vance. Here is a teaser and I dare you to follow the link and read the rest of it.

Buried in section 111 of Title I, "Miscellaneous Provisions and Offsets," of Division J, "Other Matters," in H.R. 4818, "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005," which became Public Law 108-447 on December 8, 2004, is the congressional decree that redesignates September 17th as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day instead of what was just Citizenship Day.

This law requires the head of each federal agency or department to provide:

  • each new employee of the agency or department with educational and training materials concerning the U.S. Constitution as part of the orientation materials provided the new employee; and
  • educational and training materials concerning the U.S. Constitution to each of its employees on September 17 of each year.

It also stipulates that "each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year to hold an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on September 17 of such year for its students."

September 17th was so designated because it is the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. In fact, this year is somewhat special because it is the 220th anniversary of that event. But what if, instead of being a cause for celebration, the adoption of the Constitution was "the most successful fraud in American history"?

The question, then, is a simple one: Is our government legitimate? I am not asking whether the U.S. government in its current state is legitimate based on its adherence to the Constitution. That it is not legitimate in that respect is obvious since the current government is about as far removed from the Constitution as it could ever be and still claim to be the government of a constitutional republic.

The Constitution was written by the delegates from twelve states to the Philadelphia Convention, which met from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was debated and refined by some of the greatest political minds of the day. Some of the delegates had been members of Congress, some had written state constitutions, some had been state governors, and a few had even signed the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation. Three members of Convention were current members of Congress, including James Madison.

Correct, but is our government legitimate?

The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification on September 28, 1787. On December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution. The ninth state needed for ratification was obtained on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified.

Yes, but is our government legitimate?

After Virginia (on June 25, 1788) and New York (on July 26, 1788) ratified the Constitution, the Confederation Congress passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into effect. The operation of the new government under the Constitution began on March 4, 1789.

All true, but is our government legitimate? MORE HERE

Second is a marvelous treatise that has yet to be disputed well. Lysander Spooner's NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE:

Another teaser and link. If you are addled brained and squishy between the ears this may cause your indoctrinated and propagandized brain to hurt a little. Muddle on through it because it is the cure for what ails USAll.


Section I.

The science of mine and thine --- the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.
The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing so another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, [*6] for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.
So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.
Through all time, so far as history informs us, wherever mankind have attempted to live in peace with each other, both the natural instincts, and the collective wisdom of the human race, have acknowledged and prescribed, as an indispensable condition, obedience to this one only universal obligation: viz., that each should live honestly towards every other.
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man's legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: "To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due."
This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due. MORE HERE

ARREST of JAN LINDSEY, former FBI agent

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Picture Worth a Thousand Words...

Monday, August 24, 2009

NH: Brown trial highlights Fed double standard

Friday, August 07, 2009

Oh NO! Not Fred Too!

Click on Image to Enlarge

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Monday, July 20, 2009

Concord Monitor - Filing: New evidence for Browns

Concord Monitor - Filing: New evidence for Browns: "July 20, 2009 - 8:06 am

Less than an hour after a federal jury found Ed and Elaine Brown guilty of conspiracy, weapons possession and obstruction of justice, a man claiming to be a security contractor involved in their case called Ed Brown's lawyer and said he had information that could help the defense, court documents say.

That man, who told Michael Iacapino that his name was David Quinn and that he worked for a company called the Forseti Group, said his company's employees had helped arrest the Browns – and that details about their capture offered at trial were not accurate.

Prosecutors in the case say investigators never hired Quinn or the Forseti Group, but the Browns' lawyers have relied on Quinn's phone call to ask the judge for an investigation of the potential new evidence and have called for a new trial if it is legitimate."

Monday, July 13, 2009

Tax Evaders Guilty of Plot to Kill Feds - CBS News

Tax Evaders Guilty of Plot to Kill Feds - CBS News: "(AP) A couple were convicted Thursday on all counts of plotting to kill federal agents during a nine-month standoff at their fort-like rural home, where they had holed up to avoid arrest on tax evasion."


In case some of you have not seen this report...
Tax Evaders Guilty of Plot to Kill Feds - CBS News

Oh for the love of Pete! Now, self defense on your own property... hell in your own home for that matter, is not allowed if the aggressors are from mother government. Didn't the British do the same thing to Americans a couple of hundred of years ago when America was a British colony? Is New Hampshire a United States colony or sovereign state?
It's neither one; it is a British Colony. Now you are getting the picture of what happens when one challenges the 'system' from the Pope's property in which the alleged 'homeowner' holds a mere equitable interest. There is no such thing as ownership of private property in America. So, we may just as well rent and let others remain under that disability. You see, protecting oneself, or what one thought was his property, does not fly in the courts as the Browns discovered. The 'system' will just auction off the property to pay the alleged back taxes and fines. That is the way the 'system' works. Forget rights, that only happens in movies and fairy tales. If anyone is going to mount such a challenge as the Browns did, they had better be judgment proof and prepared to spend a long time in federal custody. Sad to say, but that is the reality of the situation.

Bob J

Economist's View: Money Monopoly

Economist's View: Money Monopoly: "Marshall Auerback says California is challenging the federal monopoly on money creation:

Schwarznegger to Obama: Watch and Learn, by Marshall Auerback: According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Republicans and Democrats alike embraced legislation last Friday that would make California IOUs legal tender for all taxes, fees and other payments owed to the state.

Effectively, California is using its IOUs to create a currency. If this bill passes it would allow California to deficit spend just like the Federal Government and with the IOU's acceptable as payment of state taxes, it instantly imparts value to them. In effect, what you have is a state of the union creating a sovereign currency right under the noses of Treasury, Fed. They are stumbling their way into it... It will be viewed as a stop gap measure at first, and then could very well become entrenched as states realize they have a way to escape balanced budget requirements. ..."

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Camp FEMA - Giant Prison Grid

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Time For The Iron Web

Book review by Tim Wingate

Larken Rose has in just 363 pages written what is sure to become an instant classic in the pantheon of American dystopian alternative future fiction genre.

Larken echoes thematic paradigms and has blended some familiar plot characteristics of Jack London's The Iron Heel, arguably the first 20th century dystopian novel, Taylor Caldwell's classic The Devil's Advocate, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the recent Hope by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman.

Some of the familiar themes are the history of an America that has or will develop differently. A country where citizens gave up their rights and freedom slowly until an authoritarian/socialist/fascist/theocratic/state developed. Freedom of thought, religion, speech, personal defense and republicanism are replaced by militia, secret police, and a few men's reign of terror. Usually they are self-serving oligarchic tyrannies where induced State and “law” worship abound. Imagine a world in which the United States and or remaining parts thereof, have been reduced to a totalitarian state; a world in which your neighbors may be spies; a world in which what passes for modern political correctness has run amok.

Most of these books and short stories in this genre have abundant soliloquies of ideological import decrying the history and failures of the past and present generations to abate the tide of tyranny. This book is no exception to that.

However, Larken Rose in the dialogues he has written explores the root causes of the problems that exist and suggests a solution that could exist in the real world apart from the plot twists in the novel. This is why this book is important. This is why this book and the next one need to be read by as many as can be induced to read them.

Samuel Adams said, “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, who keep on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

This is what The Iron web does. Ideas power men. Men power cultures. Cultures power civilizations. Civilizations power history. Ideas are the fuel of man's mind. The Iron Web is an idea of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

Larken Rose questions the legitimacy of the god of law. He strikes right at the root of the problem of man's worship and servility to man's created idol of paper and ink. Why law? What is law? Whose law?

In The Iron Web on pages 151-154 (1st edition) one of the main characters presents a series of questions in the form of a brilliant Socratic syllogism. It is one that needs to be memorized and applied in today's world with family, friends and acquaintances. When one works through the reason and logic of this syllogism to the naturally sound and true conclusion, one will understand the nature of the mental, emotional and social “burqa” that has encumbered those “yearning to breathe free” for years.

The Iron Web is an idea whose time has come. Many of the novels and short stories in this genre have made similar ideas as parts of the story. Some people are preparing to or are already “gulching” as in Atlas Shrugged. Some are planning to be “urban survivalists.” Rather than a how-to book of future survivalism Larken Rose gives us an entertaining and engrossing story line that provides a nascent philosophy for the next step for freedom and liberty.

What the “freedom movement” needs today is a coagulating freedom philosophy rather than attempts to create hierarchal umbrella organizations to shadow government. We need a freedom meme, “brushfires of freedom,” or a liberty virus. We need an Iron Web to counter the creeping crud of authoritarian fascist socialist statism.

“It is not a question of whether man chooses to be guided by [philosophy]: he is not equipped to live without it.” - Ayn Rand.

America’s future requires a second revolution—but not before Americans are ready to do it right and do it completely.
Our forbearers told us the “what”: “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule”; and “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." - Samuel Adams.

Ayn Rand has given us the “why”: "Anyone who fights for the future lives in it today…man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

As for the “how”: The Iron Web provides the philosophical basis in an engaging, easily readable pleasure for the eyes, heart and mind.

Buy a box and give them away to all the graduates you know.
Available from

Monday, June 01, 2009

Letter of Marque explained

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Follow-up Warning: Obama has ramped up the registration to confiscation step..

Be warned - - Obama has started!!!!

Are we (Americans) ready for this?

The big hush hush is to not only take away our missile defenses but Obama is going to disarm the public as well. He is starting with the military and then the public. The country will then be totally defenseless. This really needs some deep thought and resolve on everyone's part if we are going to remain a Free People. It is going to take the collective effort of every American who has a desire for LIBERTY without reservation. Here is what has just been ordered...


Subject: Register Guns



I am an 11B currently assigned at Fort Campbell. I live off post, with my firearms(which I don't bring on post for any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday. I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of all firearms I currently posses. In addition, I was also required to list registration information, location of all weapons individually, and information regarding any CCW permits I posses. If you are like me, then the people you work with know you have firearms. So I had to list at least some. I tried to talk to my 1sg (who is normally aproachable through proper channels) to find out what this is for, and I was basically told, "I don't give a !&@%, just put your info on the form." I don't know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well. It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days: the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why. I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here. I have been in almost 8 years, and never have any of my units asked for this information. If any of you out there have any info as to what all this crap is about please chime in. Otherwise consider yourself warned. I have already posted this on every other firearm forum I am a member of to get the word out.

Here it is folks.

click image to enlarge


Monday, April 20, 2009

Oathkeepers to reaffirm their oath to the constitution.

Give me liberty or give me DEATH!

America in distress, a call to Arms

Friday, April 17, 2009

Asheville Tea Party - Bernard

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol - 11 stitches

I told them I was a US citizen.
I told them I was on a business trip.
I told them I had no drugs or humans in the car.

That wasn't enough. They wanted to search the car, and I invoked my 4th amendment rights.


I was IN the United States!!! I had crossed no international border!!!

This occured on the night of April 14/15, 2009

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Guide to Good Citizenship

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

A Declaration of Separation

Why re-create the wheel? This says everything that I and many others believe, are doing and will continue to do, NO MATTER WHAT!

What do YOU believe and practice?

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit!

Carpe Libertas!!!

Molon Labe!

From Free and Unashamed, copied in its entirety because it says it all.

A Declaration of Separation

==== To The Governments & People of Earth: ====

We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects.

Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life. For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems.

If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====

We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it. We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====

We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====

#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest.

We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====

We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.