Ed Brown has received multiple felony convictions for income tax evasion. After trying to take up his case in court, he and his wife believe that federal agents will storm their 110 acre home, which is like a fortress complete with watch towers and its own supply of electricity should the government try to cut off the Browns’ power.
According to Lauren Canario,
“In speech Ed Brown takes his ideals seriously. He explains his concepts of good and evil in a confident and patient tone, as if teaching an apprentice. He showed me the realistic paintings decorating his spacious home: a shining medieval knight bowing to be dubbed by a princess; a 19th century man and woman walking together; a mother and child that seemed illuminated by emotion rather than light. He seems to have lived his life believing chivalry, love and honor were possible, but now events have convinced him that he may have to die to uphold his ideals, and he accepts his possible violent fate with composure.”
Others are coming to support Brown. Some with guns, others with cameras or signs in the event of another Waco massacre. Still others are sending letters of support, flags, and are writing the sheriff’s office to ask the local police not to harm him.
It could be months before government agents try to enter his compound, since Brown is determined not to be taken to jail alive.
Here’s a link to the story, which also has information on how to support Brown.
Here’s a link to other developments as they occur.
Let’s hope this all ends non-violently, and that the criminal invaders come to their senses before attacking an old man and his wife who question the legality of the income tax.
{ 90 comments }
← Previous Comments
Bah humbug. To quote Eric Cartman: ‘screw you guys I’m going home –>’.
What is Libertarianism than propertarianism resurrected? Throw in full sovereign rights to property owner and you have lords and monarchs all over again. No wonder Libertarians have been extolling the virtues of Monarchs! The thought of profitable propertied people ruling the unpropertied masses must be misty-eyed end game to Libertarians.
Screw it. I’ve got nothing more to say. I’m blogging off. Toodles!
Sam – the dumb-lucky Liberal spineless twerp.
To Sam:
“Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”
–Samuel Johnson
I regret not being here earlier to answer Sam‘s question, but here goes a stab at all of the objections that Sam left:
It is possible that, under an anarchist society, any property owner can call him- or herself Soveriegn over the land he or she owns. But what good would it do? The only right that could be called a ‘sovereign right’ in this context, would be the “Right of No Trespass.” That’s all. Going beyond that, with respect to anyone who is not on his or her property, involves such a person going down the royal road to facing retaliation if he or she be the aggressor.
As far as Sam‘s note that such property owners could wind up “lording it over” anyone else living or working on their property, that too would be restrained by the doctrine of non-aggression. People have to work somewhere and live somewhere, ’tis true. People do not, though, have to live and work somewhere specific. The “right to exit” is absolute, provided that the exiter takes nothing with him or her that he or she doesn’t own. So, if such a pattern develops, competition will ensue. Housing isn’t always a seller’s market, and labor services aren’t always buyer’s markets – not by a long shot.
In addition, even if a polity of millions of monarchs springs up, the people who are not ‘sovereigns’ will find out what the intellectuals of monarchical Europe found out – the more sovereigns there are, the more ways exist to play them off against each other.
I just want to show my support for mr. Browns noble protest. There is nothing more important then protecting our freedom and liberties and I thank him for what he is doing. He is a true American.
Your signature on tax documents such as the 1040 tax return is not something you should take lightly. The treasury department knows this so they placed a “legal notice” at the bottom left corner of the 1040 tax return. Have you ever noticed it? It says “For Disclosure, Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 80 or whatever page of the instruction book that the actual “NOTICE” appears for that year . You are being put on “NOTICE” that you should understand that you are signing a document wherein you have placed information about your personal finances that you believe to be true and correct to the best of your “KNOWLEDGE” and “BELIEF” and signed under the penalty of perjury. Not something that should be done without a complete understanding of why this “NOTICE” exist in the first place.
Next we go to the actual Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act “NOTICE” in the 1040 instruction book. Here we see that the IRS says that their legal right to ask for information is found in three section of the Code. Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations.
The IRS is bound to comply with the requirements of Sec. 1320.7(f), 1320.12, 1320.13, and 1320.14 of 5 CFR part 1320 and title 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the “Paperwork Reduction Act” (PRA). as can be seen in the regulations at 26 CFR 602.101.
Found on the inside pages of the last part of the Internal Revenue Code Regulations part 600 to end is an explanation of the purpose of assigning OMB control numbers to forms such as the 1040 tax return.
OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires
Federal agencies to display an OMB control number with their information
collection request. Many agencies have begun publishing numerous OMB control numbers as
amendments to existing regulations in the CFR. These OMB numbers are
placed as close as possible to the applicable recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
These OMB control numbers are published at 26 CFR part 602.101, along the right side of colums which list the regulations requiring record keeping or reporting. In 1994 the list included sec. 1.1-1 on the list. The very regulation where the income tax is imposed.
The number assigned to sec.1.1-1 is 1545-0067 that number is found only on the form 2555 Foreign Earned Income.
Remember the explanation says that theses control placed as close as possible to the applicable record keeping or reporting requirements!!
After 1994 section 1.1-1 was omitted from the list to hide the truth
26 CFR (4-1-94 Edition)
CFR part OMB Control No
1.1-1 …….. 1545-0067
1.23-5…….. 1545-0074
1.6012-0…… 1545-0067 The IRS states in the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice that their authority to ask the public for information is 26 USC 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. While 6001 and 6011 relate to any tax imposed by the Code, Section 6012 is exclusive to Subtitle A Income Taxes.
Notice 1.6012-0 above has the same OMB control number as section 1.1-1 Current listing as of March 8 2007 1.6012-1……….. 1545-0067.
There is only one other place in the listed regulations that has the assigned OMB control number 1545-0067 and that place list section `1.911-1 through 1.911-7 United States citizens living abroad
1.911-1……… 1545-0067
1.911-2………..1545-0067
1.911-3………..1545-0067
1.911-4………..1545-0067
1.911-5………..1545-0067
1.911-6………..1545-0067
1.911-7………..1545-0067
The OMB control mumber on the form 1040 is 1545-0074 not 1545-0067 and the from requried to be filed by regulations in title 26 is form 2555 Foreign Earned income with OMB control number 1545-0067.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=edd62c24114ce71ae5b7b574e32fbeb7&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:20.0.1.1.3.0.3.1&idno=26
Here is the link to the governments web page showing that the regulation 1.6012-1 (this is the reg reqiring tax returns for Sub title A income tax) assinged OMB control number 1545-0067 form 2555 foreign earned income! Also see section 1.911-1 through 1.911-7 the regulation about United Satates citizens living abraod. Here too the reg 1.911-1 has the same OMB as section 1.6012-1
Here’s what I really don’t understand about Libertarians and they’re hostility toward taxes, and I hope someone can help me with this.
Lets say the IRS is a scam, and we all come to that realization and we get rid of it. Fine.
But what you guys really believe is that nobody can forcibly tax you on anything, ever. Right? Your problem isn’t really with the IRS, it’s with the fundamental nature of taxation.
But to live in a modern society, society can force you to pay tax, or it can expel you from society, right? If you don’t contribute, you shouldn’t get to benefit from the services tax money provides. The Brown’s have benefitted from the rest of our tax dollars, but they feel they were obligated to contribute. That’s not philosophy, it’s arrogence.
If you don’t want to pay taxes, don’t. Just don’t use my roads. Get your kids out of my schools. Don’t ever call the cops, and if your house burns down, don’t call the FD. Get off the city water grid, and the city power grid. I don’t see how you could ever buy anything, because the physical dollars you spend were printed using tax dollars. The credit cards you have were shipped to you using the United States Postal Service, subsidized by tax dollars. As I see it, you have only the one choice. You pretty much have to leave. But, again, don’t drive on our roads on the way out, and you really can’t use the airport either. You can probably use a boat, but if you have a problem, don’t call my Coast Guard.
Standing up to the government, like Mr. Brown is doing, is not just. The Constitution says all men are created equal. The laws apply equally to all. You can make all the arguments you want about the IRS, but if we all decide that we want the things that taxes provide, and you want the benefits too, you need to chip in.
Cougian: So the tax dollars keep the air clean, so we shouldn’t breathe either.
Cougian:
Well, lets turn your argument around. Since the welfare kings and queens DON’T pay any taxes, then maybe they should stop drawing their welfare checks. Maybe they should keep their worthless asses off the streets and parks.
MY money is appropriated from me by force and given to human refuse and p*ssed down the gutter by worthless beauracrats. So pardon me if I don’t happily and joyfully dance as I hand over my money to government.
But I will tell you what. If government limits its actions to protecting liberties and enforcing contracts, I will at least be neutral at handing over my tax assessment.
“But what you guys really believe is that nobody can forcibly tax you on anything, ever. Right? Your problem isn’t really with the IRS, it’s with the fundamental nature of taxation.”
In a way, I think your statement accurately strikes at the heart of the matter. The fundamental nature of taxation (i.e. robbery) is immoral.
“But to live in a modern society, society can force you to pay tax, or it can expel you from society, right?”
If the protection money (i.e. “taxes”) is not turned over to these people, they will eventually send hit men who will murder you if you try to defend yourself. Alternatively, there will be a home invasion, you will be kidnapped, and you will be thrown in a rape room for several years. If you truly wish to understand libertarianism, it may be useful to think about your use of the word “society”. An entity called “society” committed none of the acts outlined in the scenario which I described above. As a theoretical example, Person A would unjustly kick down the door of Person B. Nowhere is this “society” evident in the example provided.
“If you don’t contribute, you shouldn’t get to benefit from the services tax money provides. The Brown’s have benefitted from the rest of our tax dollars, but they feel they were obligated to contribute. That’s not philosophy, it’s arrogence.”
‘Contribution’ implies choice. However, taxation is robbery; there is no choice involved. If you feel that freedom is better than violence, you may wish to learn more about the effectiveness and morality of economic solutions which are based on choice. I am sure there are others on this board who can recommend some literature. A good place to start would be Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”.
It’s also worth noting that the “services” provided to the Browns in the forms of roads, police, etc. are usually inefficient monopolies, entirely misdirected, and riddled with corruption, although that’s hardly the point. The real point is that the service doesn’t justify the crime. A rapist cannot throw a wilted bouquet of roses at his victim and consider himself virtuous.
“If you don’t want to pay taxes, don’t. Just don’t use my roads. Get your kids out of my schools. Don’t ever call the cops, and if your house burns down, don’t call the FD. Get off the city water grid, and the city power grid.”
Cougin, if this is truly your position… you are a libertarian! Congratulations! This is exactly what we want – freedom from violence. Let each of us choose who we do business with whether it’s a fire department, a restaurant, or a road owner. Welcome aboard!
Cougian: yes, libertarians consider involuntary taxation to be theft, but it really goes deeper than that. The government “provides” all these services, but usually they also prevent people from seeking or providing viable alternatives. That’s why it’s not so easy to just say “no” to government services. Go ahead, try to build your own private roads, electrical systems, etc. and see how far the government lets you go.
Even in areas where they don’t literally restrict competition, as in the case of schools, you aren’t allowed to opt out of paying for it, as you suggest. You pay taxes that go to public schools, and then if you want your children to go to a private school, you have to pay extra.
So the taxation issue is more than just being forced to pay for unwanted services, it’s also about what services government should provide in the first place, and why people think that private industry and organizations cannot provide these services.
Well quite frankly, thanks to modern technology and globalisation, you might see something surprising: government are soon going to have to compete against other governments to stop their most productive citizens from going to the ones with the best deals. It’s usually called the ‘brain drain’. Similarly in truly repressive powers there are likewise other people who choose to leave at all costs seeking a better life, usually they’re called ‘refugees’.
If the U.S.A is seriously going down the crapper and turning into fascist dictatorship, then why not get out while the going’s good?
The website here -
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm
– shows that Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia are economic freer than the U.S.A. Hence you DO have a choice!
But of course you don’t want government per se means you have to find an untouched piece of land, go back to first principles and have another go at rebuilding society. I think the African continent is probably the most likely place to find plots of land without any governance or sovereignty . . .
Only the most inhospitable and remote lands in the world haven’t yet been appropriated under the flag of one government or another. “Leave or die” strikes me as a rather cold way to respond to someone who is being victimized by thugs.
No, moving to a government-free land is not a viable alternative nor does it lessen the depravity of the crime of taxation. If the local mafia threatens the small business owner to pay protection money, to comment that the business owner may move to another mafia controlled territory or to die on a desert island is bullying at best. We each have a moral right to be free from the aggressions of others. The moral premise implicit in the positions of those who disagree is almost too horrible to consider: that each of us has a right to aggress against our fellow man because our victims can always move elsewhere.
There is no moral justification for a gang to have a territorial monopoly of violence. A property owner who chooses to stay and peacefully affect change rather than starve on a desert island is not only virtuous but soundly sane.
Oh bullcrap, Jon. That’s sounds awfully like some right-wing Marxist rubbish. If I were to complain about bad service and unfair prices from a apartment owner you’d tell me to that there’s no problem as long I can go to another apartment complex. The loss of renters would cause the rude guy to change his behaviour before even more leave and he’d go broke. Competition good? Right? You wouldn’t listen to me saying the apartment owner should sell off his apartment to individuals so they can live they way they want to.
In the old days moving between nations was extremely difficult and expensive, if not illegal. Nowadays the barriers are falling apart, hence government are going to become increasing pressured to compete and make sure that the world’s most productive citizens will want to stay with them. And it’s most likely that the most productive citizens are going to want the least amount of taxation and regulation.
Well, let’s explore your theory. When you say that person A (apartment owner) “should” sell his property so that person B can live in the manner of his choosing, are you stating this as a fact (morality) or as an opinion? If it’s a casual opinion like “red is better than blue”, who cares? If you are stating this as a matter of fact, it doesn’t hold up to even a cursory analysis.
Until you act on your own principles, I find it difficult to take your position seriously. If you’re trying to communicate that sound doesn’t exist, it’s usually best not to shout it.
People have a right to each other’s property until they are living the way they want to, eh?:
a. The words “the way they want to” injects a subjective factor into the moral premise which invalidates it entirely. Since “living they way the want” is an arbitrary distinction it is not universal, and therefore falls outside of the bounds of morality.
b. The assertion creates a paradox and thus fails the crucial moral test of non-contradiction. If Person A (the person who “wants”)steals everything from Person B (say, Bill Gates) in order to satisfy his wants, Person B now has the immediate moral right to steal everything back from person A. Thus, the act of the fulfillment of one’s moral right violates the moral right of the other person.
c. The assertion also causes quite a bit of moral hypocrisy for it’s proponents. This doesn’t invalidate your assertion, but it certainly undermines your argument. Somewhere out there, someone wants your computer in order to “live the way they want to”. According to your own moral creed, you should immediately sell your belongings to that others may live in the manner of their choosing. In fact, strangers have the “right” to break down your door and take it if they wish. Of course, being a highly principled and caring person, you wouldn’t resist because it would be wrong
Ed Brown is fighting for everyone by fighting for himself. Therefore he will not win in court. The US govornment would fold the day he won. I hope that their is no violence and I hop that this does not pass from the public’s intrest for it would take a great pressure off the govornment.
Oh no, Jon, I SAID that free-marketeers would support the proverbial apartment owner’s right to a small monopoly to make his own rules, punish rule-breakers with force or ejection, and most of all, expect residents to pay a fee for occupying his complex. Yet this private power would be supported because when lefties complain, the righties say it’s ok because if you don’t like the rules or the fee seems too high, there are other apartment complexes to go to as well. And ultimately if you don’t like paying any fees you try to set up your shack on unused land or sleep out in the open. But you can’t go seizing the owner’s property just because it all seems a little unfair. Or the migration of rentees to nicer apartments with nicer owners would send a proverbial kick in the backside to change his ways too.
However I said elsewhere: why are you presuming that migrating equals exile? Go ye from the Light of Civilisation and go into the Badlands and never return? Many people, rich, middle and even desperately poor, change nations looking for the one with the best opportunities. Many government and business folk worry about ‘brain drain’ where the ones with highly desirable skills disappear to other nations for better pay and conditions. In ye olde times government DID have a territorial monopoly. But, thanks to globalisation, not anymore. Now government officials have to start biting the bullet and begin to start competing with the other nations for the best and brightest. If governments now have to start competing to get the best to stay with them and the best companies and workers aren’t going to be fond of nation with hefty taxes and regulations, then any Socialist-inclined government is going to become poor quickly. And if the best governments that are the smallest and cheapest get the best and become the more prosperous nations then all governments now too have short-term signals as to what type of governments are going to survive into the future. After all, I keep hearing stories of corporations too shutting their operations in Western nations and reopening them in other places where they don’t have worry about labour laws, business regulations, enviromental laws, this and that taxes, etc.
If you, Jon and others, take a look at whats been going on in the world for the last 30 or so years, you’d see Western nations having a flight of capital into Asia and India. Hence to say government have a magical monopoly to force wealth production to stay within their borders is rubbish. And any government, as the U.S. seems to be, that tries to pretend otherwise will suffer the inevitable consequences. So where is this mystical monopoly that government have that they makes them eternal? I find extremely hard to believe that in the year 2100 A.D. we’ll see any well-to-do Socialist or Welfare-State Governments. More likely they’ll all be lean, mean, very very low tax states that have to ruthless compete with one another because the capitalists of the future (and thanks to technology too) will move their capital and investment at the press of the button and ruin any would be Socialist reform. Indeed Robert Kiyosaki warned in ‘Rich Dad’s Guide to Investing’ that the ‘trillion-dollar meltdown’ in Asia is a preview of the end of large governments to rein in global capital.
I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments on property rights.
Am I also misinterpreting your comments on territorial monopolies? If governments do not have a territorial monopoly of force, there is an easy way to validate this claim. Simply form your own government in your particular city. Notify the the local police and politicians that you will be collecting taxes from them.
Yes, people are usually free to leave, but they cannot be free as long as they remain within the bounds a particular geographic area patrolled by the local government. Again, freedom to choose from various slave masters is hardly freedom.
Yes, there is capital and intellectual flight toward freedom… absolutely. People will tend to flee from the rule of more oppressive thugs to less oppressive thugs. I also hope you are correct in regards to the disappearance of socialist states. Hopefully, this freedom will also extend to eliminate all forms of oppression, including “democracy”.
it is not too difficult. that suggests many people do not do their own research but depend on the ramblings of a agitated few.
TAXES ARE MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION
ART I, SEC I: judicial power is vested in the congress. that means they MAKE ALL THE LAWS.
ART I, SEC VIII: congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. HOW CAN THAT BE MISCONSTRUED???
The counter argument will be based on an alternative “interpretation” of the US Constitution. Who interprets the Constitution? The US Supreme Ct. That is their only job, and that completes the triumvarate of power forseen by the Founding Fathers, all you tax cheats like to quote so often. They foresaw the need for taxes and wrote it into the document itself.
I have had the privilege to live all over the world. I am always happiest to return to the US as we enjoy more freedom here than anywhere else I have ever been. I pay my taxes with joy to live here. If you think this guy is a hero, you are just wrong and ignorant. He is a loser who never made any real money of his own, convinced his wife to break the law with her money on their joint property and now does not want to shoulder his burden under the relatively (in the gllbal comparison; in the world, we get the biggest return on our tax dollar)fair tax policy. What you idiots should be protesting is the tax break for the US richest 2%. That is the true outrage, but you think Moron A holding up in his 100 acre compound makes him a hero. Deluded and ignorant.
Patrick Henry:
Let me post a quote from the REAL Patrick Henry.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
I don’t know Jon. Comments like ‘choose betweens different masters doesn’t make you less a slave’ seems to mean that ‘slavery’ has no real meaning. Like the word ‘racism’ it gets thrown around so much that it’s not obviously what it’s actually supposed to mean. I’d have guessed ‘slavery’ meant you didn’t have the option to leave. But then again, since we all live on reasonably fertile land, it’s was going to be a matter of time before enough people get to lay of claim on each plot there is. Hence the landless are either going to pay rent or taxes.
Sam –
By slavery, I mean lacking the freedom to make fundamental choices in your own life without fear of aggression from those who arbitrarily claim to have authority over you. Government citizens are all slaves to varying degrees, depending on the government.
Those who own land will sell their land to the landless. Land obviously gets purchased all of the time. I was landless and purchased land myself. You pay taxes whether or not you own land.
Unfortunately I asked this question on two separate blogs . . . :S
But, heh heh, you used ‘citizen’ and ‘slave’ in the same sentence. And, of course, we could argue about the terms of ‘landowner’ versus ‘landholder’ too . . .
The terms slaves and citizens are interchangeable. There is no problem using them in the same sentence. I would agree that landholder and landowner could mean two different things; a landholder could have unjustly stolen land.
I have not filed an UNCONSTITUTIONAL IRS form 1040 since 1976 and I never will.
IRS has been now six (6) years trying to extort $200,000 from me and they cannot get a dime.
I do not have an attorney nor a CPA and have defied all these atheists and communists SUI JURIS with my computer and Holy Bible and U.S. Constitution.
Ed and Elaine Brown are wonderful Americans and should be loved and adored and applauded every Fourth of July.
The *IRS* is a mere Third Party collection agency for the BMITW……….biggest mob in the world………the 12-member International Banking Cartel………in London,England…..who owns the Federal Reserve as a “private closely held banking entity” as per listings in Dun and Bradstreet.
Corporate Income Tax is LEGAL as per legislation of the U.S. Congress………..personal income tax is neither legal nor passed by U.S. Congress legislation.
You fools that pay income taxes are traitors to your own country and deserve to be summarily deported for your nonchalance and stupidity and despicable gutless wonder.
The IRS can have my Lincolns and diesel 4x4s and home and businesses and money………..anytime they can pry it all out of my cold dead fingers.
I think there may be an implicit contract between the government and the people ie: we will pay our taxes and the government will protect us by fighting wars as needed, protecting our borders (HAH), building and maintaining roads and very little else. Clearly the government has abrogated their contract with us via their unwillingness for so many years to protect our borders. Maybe it is time for a BIG Tax Revolt by millions of Americans. Since they can’t find 12 million plus who have entered our country illegally, how will they find us when we all refuse to pay them any more money for them to steal and use to play their evil games with each other. I am livid with anger at today’s cloture vote.
Zee,
An “implicit contract”?
Contracts require agreement. I think you are mistaking compliance for agreement.
Send the Browns to jail, they are not heros but convicted felons. You all benefit from the tax system everyday, yet you try to convince each other that the system is fake.
What a joke.
“Send the Browns to jail, they are not heros but convicted felons. You all benefit from the tax system everyday, yet you try to convince each other that the system is fake.
What a joke.”
I see – now what relation does this bear with the fact that taxation is immoral and that we would prefer privately provided goods? None? Correct. None.
Even if we did benefit from taxes – dubious even in absolute terms, let alone relative to the alternatives that governments ban or crowd out – that wouldn’t amount to justification for taxes. The only sort of tax I can ever see justified in that sense is the one kind the Romans kept after they stopped taxing themselves once they got enough tribute from others. It was a temple support tax, kept as a sort of membership fee to maintain a nexus between Romans and their own identity. You could always stop being Roman, just as Benjamin Disraeli’s father gave up being a Jew when he didn’t like the charges levied on him.
Oh, and Steve can’t spell heroes, either.
Its about time a revolt came. The Feds better NOT attack that man. I will join him and fight back. (not legally) After murdering kids at Waco, and Ruby Ridge, I am sick of these bastard thugs thinking they can make us pay for wars and like. I do not.
Abolish the IRS
While reading these comments, it became clear to me that the majority of U.S. citizens are exactly as they have always been; cowards and on-lookers, totally afraid of their own government, and comfortable in standing back and simply muttering encouragment to others who will stand up for their God-given, inalienable rights. As Skakespeare said “Talkers are no good doers.” The government operates through FEAR, and most citizens are fearful (because they are cowards), and the government already knows that enough citizens will never gather together and revolt. The main reason (in my opinion) politicians and bureauRATS continue in their oppression is because, unlike citizens, they do not FEAR citizens. And they have no reason to FEAR citizens, because they know citizens are cowards and nothing more than “Talkers.” “So long as politicians and bureauRATS have no FEAR of the citizenry, they will continue in their oppression. Citizens must put FEAR in the minds of their oppressors—exaclty like their oppessors have put FEAR in the minds of the citizenry. But, don’t hold your breath wating for that to happen.
As a side note: The title of the article should be “American patriot will defend his property against anybody who tries to `take’ it.”
Carl F. Miller,
That’s why everybody loves a HERO…….
An excuse not to get involved, because someone else will step forward with personal sacrifice and take responsibility.
I am very interested in knowing the current status of Mr. Brown’s gallant American stance against his (and mine and yours) oppressors. If perhaps anyone can provide such a current status, please post it here. I live in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvana (Land of Thieves) Area and have been unable to find any aritcles about Mr. Brown.
Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, every State’s first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its interests are directed towards preserving its own life and increasing its power. In doing so, it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient. This is exactly what the State is doing, now.
Why be astonished when the State sends the police or National Guard against citizens (sometimes even murdering them) who stand and defend their Constitutional Rights? In fact, years ago, the American State did do that. It murdered a great many citizens for no other crime in the world but that they did not wish to live under its rule any longer; and if that is a crime, then the colonists led by George Washington were hardened criminals and the Fourth of July is nothing but a cutthroat’s holiday.
The State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wandered at. It began when the frist predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State , and it will continue as long as the State exists, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. If you do not want the State to continue acting like a criminal; you must keep it weak. It will always be a criminal in proportion to its strength. The stronger it is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to it’s opportunities and temptations. The weaker it is, the less power it will have to commit crime. Unfortunately, the people, in their shortsighted stupidity have been allowing the State to add to its power for too long, and at the same, have been blind to the systematic debauchery of whatever self-respect and self-reliance they may have had. Give the State the power, and it will unfailingly aggrandize itself; first at the exense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight or in its path. It has always done so, and always will.
Please remember to post any current information relative to Mr. Brown’s circumstanes.
Sorry for the misspelling of the word [aritcles] sic. It should be spelled articles.
The unfortunate plight of Mr. Brown, for me, is one that is very difficult to put out of my mind. It reminds of that Frederick the Great said of us “this damned human race” and that society never takes the right course until after it has painfully explored all the wrong ones. For me, I still think it a tradegy that Noah didn’t miss the Boat.
But thinkng of Mr. Brown and his oppression at the hands of the State that supposedly exists to protect him, I have always thought that social harmony and progress in civilization would be far better brought about by methods of voluntary association rather than by constraint, whether directly under force, or under the menace of force, which is always implicit in obedience to law.
For me, the whole institution of government, wherever found and in whatever form, has always appeared to me so vicious and depraving that I could not even regard as a necessary evil. As far back in history as I can trace, the State is nothing more than an instrument of economic exploitation, a mechanism, as Voltaire said, :”for taking money out of one set of pockets and putting it into another.” Its activities appear to me to be no less than those of a professional-criminal class. The State’s
character is so completely evil, its conduct so invariably and deliberately flagitious, that I cannot see how society could possibly be worse off without it. I have to agree with Emerson and Whitman who thought that human personality is the greatest and most respected object in the world; a complete end-in-itself; which disallows its subversion or submergence, whether by force of law or by any other coercive force. I regret to say that, I resent the dishonesty, the indifference and the incompetence of my State and Federal governments, because those of them that are not peculiarly and dangerous silly, are peculiarly and dangerously dishonest; and most of them are both. All of them, it seems to me, are professional criminals.
State practices, which confiscate a large portion of a citizen’s wealth, do not differ from Marxist State practices. For me, the rule of sound citizenship is always to remember that, “you get the same order of criminality from the State to the degree to which you give it power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you.” If you learn this one short lesson, you have but little left to learn. Stripping the State of the enormous power it has acquired is a full-time job for all of us, and if we attend to the task properly, we will have less desire, and even less interest in, concerning ourselves with the problems of foreign countries who do not share our God-given values, and who do nothing but continue to eat away at our hard-earned wealth.
Sadly though, I must say that the extent to which our people simply set back and accept the criminality of their so-called representatives, strikes me as a sad reflection on their intelligence. Hopefully, a new generation of Americans will come along and correct this abdication of American values. In the meantime, it’s time that all Americans take action to re-assert their human personalities, their individual dignities, and their God-given, inalienable rights. No State, and no government, can ever take from us what we will band together to protect!
God Bless America!
Fast Forward 2011…
That’s right debt slaves…only a fool does not pay his taxes..haha.
Never mind the fact that the taxes your overlords collect aren’t even enough to pay the interest payments on our National Debt. Want to know why your roads are tore up? Want to know why your cops are getting laid off? It’s because your local governments credit has been downgraded and they can’t get a loan to pay for all the things you sheep THINK your taxes pay for. Your taxes go to the benefit of some wealthy bankers in the City of London financial district who won the Revolutionary War in 1913. And you silly debt slaves thought you had won in 1783…ahhahahahah.
So pay your taxes debt slaves..pay them or the jack booted thugs will
come for you and murder your family.
Fast Forward 2011 addendum:
Hey Debt Slaves…I forgot to mention all of those
foreign banks that got bailed out with your
sweat and blood money. Keep working to feed the illegals
and the welfare slugs. Keep supporting the UnConstitutional
Drug War so our cops can break into the wrong house and kill your
family dog.
Always remember…it’s best to keep paying those taxes so our government can create new bureaucracies that kill your freedoms and sexually assault six year olds at the airport.
We also need your money……
so we can fight terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as arm them and
provide air cover for them in Libya… Oh My..the rest of 2011 and 2012
is going to be very interesting indeed.
Does anyone have updated information on Mr. Brown’s situation? If so, please post it.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.