10 votes

The Fourth of July: celebrating traitors, tax evaders and cop-killers

The best Fourth of July speech EVER. I've posted it before, but it's only getting better with age. If you find it inspiring, e-mail it to everyone in your address book for July 4th.


[The following is a written adaption of a talk given by Larken Rose in Philadelphia, in front of Independence Hall, on July 4th, 2009.]

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, in Philadelphia, a bunch of guys got together and wrote a letter to their king. The letter was very eloquent, and well thought out, but it basically boiled down to this:

"Dear King George,
You're not the boss of us!
A Bunch of Troublemakers"

That's essentially what the Declaration of Independence was: a bunch of radicals declaring that they would no longer recognize the right of their king to rule them, at all, ever again. They went on to create a new boss, which turned into a new oppressor, but we'll get to that in a moment. First, let's consider the essence of that attitude: "You're not the boss of me!"

This July 4th, like every year, millions of Americans are celebrating Independence Day with various parades, picnics, fireworks, and so on. But how many of those people celebrating have ever actually considered what the Declaration was actually about, and what the colonists actually did? The colonists did not merely beg the king to change his ways. In fact, the Declaration explains how they had tried that, to no avail. Instead, the colonists were doing something far more drastic.

In short, they committed treason. They broke the law. They disobeyed their government. They were traitors, criminals and tax cheats. The Boston Tea Party was not merely a tax protest, but open lawlessness. Furthermore, truth be told, some of the colonists were even cop-killers. At Lexington, when King George's "law enforcers" told the colonists to lay down their guns, the colonists responded with, "No, you're not the boss of us!" (Well, that was the meaning, if not the exact verbiage.) And so we had "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," widely regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution.

Looking back now, we know the outcome. We know who eventually won, and we don't mind cheering for the rebels. But make no mistake: when you cheer for the founders of this country, you are cheering for law-breakers and traitors. As well you should. But, for all the flag-waving and celebrating that goes on every July 4th, do Americans actually believe in what the colonists did? Do they really believe in the attitude expressed in the Declaration of Independence? Are they really still capable of supporting a mantra of "You're not the boss of me!"?

In, short, no. Imagine the equivalent of what the colonists did so many years ago, being done today. Imagine a group of people writing a letter to the United States government, sending a letter to Congress and to the President, saying that they would no longer pay federal taxes, they would no longer obey federal laws, and that they would resist--by force, if necessary--any attempt by federal agents to enforce those laws. How would a group which did such things be viewed today, by most Americans?

They would be viewed as nut-cases, scofflaws and terrorists, despicable criminals and malcontents. They would be scorned as the scum of the earth, despised by just about everyone who today celebrates Independence Day.

How ironic.

So why the double standard? Why would the American public today condemn the exact same attitudes and behaviors which they glorify and praise in the context of the American Revolution? Quite simply, it's because, for all the proud talk of "land of the free and home of the brave," the spirit of resistance--the courage to say "You're not the boss of us!"--has been trained out of the American people.

We have become a nation of wimps.

For years and years, in the churches and schools, on the news, in the media, and from everywhere around us, we have been taught one thing above all else: that obedience to authority is the highest virtue, and that disobedience is the worst sin. As a result, even most of those who now claim to be zealous advocates for individual rights and personal liberty will almost always couch their "demands" with disclaimers that, of course, their efforts for justice will be done "within the system," and that they would never advocate anything "illegal." They claim to be devout proponents of freedom, and yet all they ever do is seek a political solution, whether through lobbying of politicians, elections, or other government-approved means.

Of course, government never approves of anything which might actually endanger government power. As the bumper-sticker says, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." And why should civilized people assume that change must be done "legally" and "within the system"? That is obviously NOT what the Declaration of Independence was about. In fact, the Declaration states quite plainly that when a government ceases to be a protector of individual liberty, it is not only the right, but the DUTY of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH that form of government. In other words, when the government becomes an oppressor, instead of a protector--
as is obviously the case today--the people are morally obligated to adopt an attitude of, "You're not the boss of us!"

So how many Americans are doing that? Almost none. Instead, even the most vocal critics of corruption and injustice usually do little more than banging their heads against a brick wall, begging, in half a dozen different ways, for the tyrants to please be nicer to us. (Meanwhile, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from people like me, for fear of what the general public might think of them. As a result, I believe the general public, and those in government, view them pretty much as I view them: as harmless and irrelevant conformists, destined to forever beg for freedom, and never achieve it.)

Make no mistake, begging and whining is not what the Declaration of Independence was about. It was about breaking the law, when the law is unjust. It was about committing treason, when the rulers became oppressive. It was about disobedience--civil disobedience, when effective, and not-so-civil disobedience when necessary. It was about open resistance, including violent resistance when called for.

So where is that attitude today? Where is the candidate advocating such a thing? Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams--where are the modern equivalents? For all the whining about extremists, where are those willing to openly resist injustice? Not only don't most Americans believe in resisting tyranny, they feel extremely uncomfortable just hearing others talk about it, even in abstract terms (like this).

Maybe it's just that we're not quite at the level of oppression to justify resistance. Is that it? Hardly. If two or three percent taxation justified rebellion in 1776, why doesn't fifty percent taxation justify it now? If a few puny excise taxes on tea and pieces of paper justified it then, why don't the myriad of unavoidable, crushing taxes at all levels, and the hordes of callous, vindictive tax collectors justify it now? If the relatively unusual cases of Redcoats abusing colonists justified it then, why doesn't it justify it when American police see no problem with randomly stopping, detaining, interrogating and searching anyone they want, whenever they want, for any reason or no reason at all?

Does anyone think Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would quietly allow himself to be strip-searched, and allow his belongings to be rummaged through, by some brain-dead TSA thug? Read the Fourth Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Does anyone think that Patrick Henry would take kindly to being robbed blind to pay for whatever war-mongering the politicians wanted to engage in this week? Read what the Founders said about standing armies. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think James Madison would go along with being disarmed, by the various state and federal control freaks? Read the Second Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think George Washington would be happy to have both his earnings and savings constantly looted by a parasite class, to pay for all manner of wealth redistribution, political handouts and other socialist garbage? Think Thomas Paine would gladly be extorted to give all his money to some giant, failed corporation or some huge international bank? Think the founders would have quietly gone along with what this country has become today? Think they would have done nothing more than vote, or whine?

Well, the founders are dead. And, unfortunately, so is their spirit of resistance. In short, just about all of the flag-waving and celebrating that happens every July 4th is nothing but empty hypocrisy. How many Americans today can say, loudly and proudly, like they mean it, "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Or, at least, in the modern vernacular, "You're not the boss of me!"? Anyone? In this nation that imagines itself to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, where are those who dare to resist, or even dare to talk about it? And I don't mean voting, or whining to your congressman, or begging your masters to not whip you so hard. I'm talking about resisting, refusing to obey.

America, where is your Independence Day pride now? Exactly what are you proud of? I have a message for you, from a guy named Sam. Samuel Adams, that is. Yeah, the beer guy. But he did a little more for this country than make beer. Here is his message:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or 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."

When's the last time you heard a modern so-called "statesman" say something like that?

So what happened? When did Americans lose their ability to say, "You're not the boss of me," and why? Yes, most people are scared, and for good reason. With the capacity for violence of the current police state, and the willingness of the politicians and their thugs to crush anyone who threatens their power, everyone has to choose his battles carefully, and decide for himself what he's willing to risk, what is worth fighting for and what isn't.

That makes sense, but there is more to it than just fear. Because not only won't most Americans resist, but they will condemn anyone who does. If you do what the founders did, most people in this country would call you a tax cheat, a malcontent, a criminal, a traitor, even a terrorist. Why? Why do Americans now vehemently condemn those who say and do exactly what the Founders did a couple hundred years ago? When did our priorities and view of the world change so drastically, and why?

I'll tell you why. Gradually, and very systematically, we have been trained to measure our own worth, not by what we produce, not by how we treat other people, but by how well we obey authority. Consider the term, "law abiding taxpayer." How many people wear that label as a badge of honor? "I am a law-abiding taxpayer!" When they say that, they mean, "I'm a good person." But is that what it really means?

Well, "law-abiding" just means that you do whatever the politicians tell you to do. We speak with great reverence of this thing called "the law," as if it is the decree of the gods, which no decent human being would dare to disobey. But what is it really? It's whatever the politicians decide to command you to do. Why on earth would anyone think that obedience to a bunch of liars and crooks is some profound moral obligation? Is there any reason for us to treat with reverence such commands and demands? No rational reason, no. The only reason we do it is because we have been trained to do it.

Some might point out that obeying the laws against theft and murder is a good thing to do. Well, yes and no. It is good to refrain from committing theft and murder, but it is NOT because "the law" says so. It is because theft and murder are inherently wrong, as they infringe upon the rights of others. And that was true before any politician passed a "law" about it, and will be true even if they "legalize" theft and murder (as every government has done, in the name of "taxation" and "war"). What is right and wrong does not at all depend upon what is "legal" or "illegal." And if you need POLITICIANS to tell you what is right and what is wrong, you need your head examined. Instead, you should judge the validity of so-called "laws" by whether they match what is inherently right and wrong. Thomas Jefferson put it this way:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

So why should anyone be proud of being "law-abiding," when all it means is blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the parasite class spews out this week? And pride in being a "taxpayer" is no better, since all that phrase means is that you give the politicians lots of money. When, exactly, did obeying politicians and giving them money become the measure of whether you're a good person?

Consider Nazi Germany. Were the law-abiding taxpayers in Nazi Germany the good guys? No. By obeying the so-called "laws" of that time, the majority allowed, or even assisted in, a nearly incomprehensible level of evil. And by being "taxpayers," they provided the funding for it. No, the good people in Germany were the criminals and tax cheats, who refused to assist, even passively, in the oppressions done in the name of "government."

The same is true under the regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro--you can go right down the list (and it's a very long list). Under every nasty regime in history, the obedient subjects, who quietly did as they were told, the law-abiding taxpayers, were not the good guys. The law-breakers and rebels, the so-called traitors and terrorists, those were the good guys. How about in this country, when slavery was legal? The cowards were the ones obeying the law, while the good guys broke it.

How about here, today? Is it good to fund what the government is doing? Do you have some moral obligation to give your "fair share" of however many thousands of dollars, so Obama can give it to his banker buddies? Is it noble to fund whatever war the politicians decide to engage in this week? Do you like paying for the detention and torture of people who haven't been convicted, or even charged with any crime? (By the way, instead of doing away with that, Obama just gave it a new name: preventative detention.) Is it some great virtue to have helped to finance the police state growing up all around you, on both the federal and state levels? In short, is being a "law-abiding taxpayer" really something you should be proud of, or is it something you should be ashamed of?

Over time we have forgotten a very important secret--a secret the control freaks don't want you to know; a secret some of the Founders hinted at, though even most of them didn't seem to fully grasp it. Ready for it?

You own yourself.

You are not the property of the politicians, or anyone else. I own me, and you own you. Each of you owns himself. Sounds simple enough, right? And most people respond with, "Well duh, of course. That's no secret. We knew that." But in reality most people don't know that.

If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to take, without your consent, the fruits of your labor? What you earn, with your time and effort, does anyone have the right to take that from you by force? Of course not, most will answer. Really? And what if they call it "taxation"? "Oh, well, that's different." No, it isn't.

If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to force you to pay rent for a house you already paid for, under threat of taking your house away? Of course not. What if they call it "property taxes"? Oh, that's different. No, it isn't. And you can go right down the list: if you truly own yourself, the vast majority of so-called "laws," at all levels, are absolutely illegitimate. As Jefferson put it, ANY so-called "law" that infringes upon individual liberty--which is dang near all of them--is inherently bogus.

But let's take it one step further. If you own yourself--your life, liberty and property--doesn't that imply that you have the right to defend those things from any and all aggressors? Yes. What if the aggressors call themselves "government" and call their attacks and robberies "law" and "taxes"? You still have the right. Changing the name of an act cannot make something bad into something good. And if you have the right to defend your life, liberty and property from all aggressors, it stands to reason that you have the right to equip yourself to do so. In other words, you have the right to be armed--the right to possess the equipment to exert whatever force is necessary to repel any attempts to infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and property.

I know it makes people uncomfortable (especially people who work for the government) when I say the following: I want every sane, adult American to have the ability to use force, including deadly force, against government agents. I don't want people randomly gunning down cops, but I do want the people to retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government. The very concept bothers a lot of people, but what is the alternative? The alternative is something a lot scarier: that the people should NOT have the means to resist their own government.

But, once again, even most people who claim to be vehemently pro-freedom, don't like to talk about what that really means. Many "gun rights" organizations, for example, go to great lengths to beg the politicians to LET them remain armed. Why? At Lexington, when the British troops told the colonists to lay down their weapons, what was the response? Did the colonists say, "Aw, can't we keep them, pretty please?"? No, they had a very different attitude, something alone the lines of, "You're not the boss of us!"

If you own yourself--and this is a big one--it is not only your right, but your most profound obligation as a human being, to judge for yourself what is right and wrong, and to act accordingly. But what if people claiming to be "authority" want to force you to do something contrary to what you deem to be right? Do you have an obligation to obey them, and ignore your own conscience? No. What if their threats are called legislation"? It makes no difference.

You are always, at all times, in every situation, obligated to do what you deem right, no matter what so-called "government" and "authority" and "law" have to say about it. And when the tyrants and control freaks, authoritarian thugs and megalomaniacs, try to tell you that are an evil, nasty, despicable criminal and traitor for daring to think for yourself, you have a right and duty to stand firm, and say, with confidence, "You are not the boss of me!"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I smell Liberty !!!

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

ChristianAnarchist's picture

"You're not the boss of

"You're not the boss of me"... I love it. This was something that was said by schoolchildren when I was young. Even the children used to get it. When someone started to tell us what to do (usually another child) we would respond with that. As we grew up, we started to apply that same mindset towards all authority and so was born the "anti-war movement" of the 1960's. This "pollution" in my mind is what has kept me questioning authority my entire life. At 62 I'm still asking who made these goons the boss of me but I've never had any give me a reasonable answer...

Beware the cult of "government"...

A bump for my favorite Independence Day speech.

I keep copies of this speech in the waiting room of my shop all year round, for my customers. I've given away hundreds of copies, over the last couple years.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

larken is so awesome!

larken is so awesome!

Dear Larkin Rose, here is your answer:

When you said this:

"If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to take, without your consent, the fruits of your labor? What you earn, with your time and effort, does anyone have the right to take that from you by force? Of course not, most will answer. Really? And what if they call it "taxation"? "Oh, well, that's different." No, it isn't."

You were correct, but what the people are failing to see, is that thieving corporation in the shadows of darkness, created what's known as the "Certificate of Live Birth". That certificate is an "Office" of an dead (E)State, that "THEY" created in order to tax, steal, imprison, and impose their own "internal" statutory codes, rules, and regulations on everyone within the borders, not only their own "internal employees".

Here you go America, here's the BIG secret:


Perhaps someone should get the above link to Mr. Rose, so he can finally understand why the STATE feels they have the right to oppress you; tax you; steal from you, and imprison you.

Yep, they are using that "Office" in an attempt to 'coerce' you into performing a function within that office, but they are forgetting one very important part of the employment process:

Where is our pay for the "presumed" authority over us, if we are not actually "employees" of your foreign corporation?

No Contract (employment contract) = No Jurisdiction (BINGO!)

Cabalistic incantations fail to stop IRS predation

Larken has been through his own version of your uber-legalistic approach. He got 15 months in prison for his effort. I believe he's learned better. If you're curious about the story, he wrote a book about his experience, called Kicking the Dragon.

I am deeply suspicious of any purported legal argument that seems to show us a magical way to be free of tyrannical government, if only we discover the true Cabala, and follow its arcane rituals with precision. You think you've found a way to escape government jurisdiction over your life? Fine. Just try it out yourself -- in court -- before you recommend it to anyone else. As happened with Larken's Section 861 argument, the courts are perfectly happy to disregard, overrule or ignore any inconvenient legalistic glitch. Hell, they'll even claim that the Constitution is irrelevant, when it suits them.

A more profitable way to spend your time, in my opinion, would be to read Larken's more recent book, which does a much better job of exposing the REAL reasons why government gets away with perpetrating tyranny.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Nah, neither you or Larkin understand the entire system is

setup and running on Trust/Estate/Probate Law. I didn't just make that up, do some research and you will see.

The Patriot arguments have not succeeded because they are trying to use the governments own paperwork to acquire freedom from the very government that's providing them the paperwork. How much 'freedom' do you suppose their own paperwork and UCC filings are actually going to provide?

This Trust/Estate/Probate Law is not some "Version of you uber-legalistic approach", it's simply the way the system is setup, and it's not some super-uber tricky paperwork with a magic "word" or "phrase" that's going to get anyone any remedy.

The "remedy" is in understanding the (E)State and the laws that govern it/them. Estate Law and Trust Law are the oldest law forms; Biblical Law. The Holy Bible is a Testament (Testator look it up); it's Trust Law.

The Holy Trinity

God - We The People - Government = Executor - Beneficiary - Trustee

We are the beneficiaries of the Last Living Will and Testament of God; the Holy Bible.

Dealing with the (E)State has a lot of liabilities; trying to Administrate the Estate of an Executor of that Estate, is a serious violation of Trust/Estate Law.

The Judges and all public servants that take an Oath of Office, are called public trustees, they are a step down the ladder after taking that Oath.

All they have done is turn it upside down us in the courtroom, and if we don't catch it, they run with the presumption. The judge will quickly assume the Administrative role of the Estate and kick you down into the Trustee Role, and the STATE then becomes the Beneficiary.

Unless, you set the proper jurisdiction of the court and appoint the judge as the trustee he/she actually is.

This is not some new "magic patriot pill", it's as old as the first Estate (earth) and the first Executor (God). The courts have run off of Trust and Estate Law for ever.

If they violate or meddle in the Estate of the Executor, there is serious financial liability, and they are very aware of this, and can easily lose their bonding.

Attempting to Administrate an Estate that does not belong to you or pretending to be an Executor of that Estate, is called an "Executor de son tort" .... Just take a moment and look that up.

This is not a game of legal mumbo-jumbo and patriot paperwork my friend, this is THE Law, in every court in this country and every court in every British Colony/Commonwealth.

Nothing New; been in operation for ever. Take some time to do some research before jumping to conclusions, please.

Larkin is a good guy; he's a Patriot fighting the good fight and I'm not taking anything away from his efforts.

But ..... There is a right way to play in the legal system, and there is THEIR way. Larkin chose poorly because he did not know about the Estate. Perhaps his next battle with the (E)STATE will be more successful.

Meddling in the (E)States of others has dire consequences, and if you aren't aware of the (E)State that judge is attempting to Administrate, it will cost you dearly. These people are not stupid; they are very crafty, but they aren't Daredevil's either when it comes to them being brought up on felonies of meddling in the estates of others, and they aren't real privy to having their bonds ceased either. A job is a job my friend, and trust me: they also pick their battles wisely.

And just in case you don't believe in the (E)State, here it is; still law today on the British Governments very own website, and it's called the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, and this is where it begins and ends:



You have a moral right to defend your life, liberty and justly a

I like that.

Forwarded to friends -- and enemies.

In particular, I sent it to the one Romney delegate whose email address I have. I'll mail copies to a bunch more.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Two kinds of law.

As Ron Paul put it, "Government should NEVER have a right to do anything that YOU can't do."

You have a moral right to defend your life, liberty and justly acquired property. So does everyone else. That is the sum total of rightful (some would say "natural") law. That also is the total extent of what the men who name themselves "government" may rightfully do.

All the other laws, regulations, taxes and other "government" bullcrap are, each and every one, VIOLATIONS of individual life, liberty and property.

Violent revolution never works out very well. What we truly need is a moral revolution, honoring men who deal with one another in peaceful and voluntary fashion, and scorning and shunning those who use force, threats and fraud, including most particularly those who claim to be "lawful authorities."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...