12 votes

Gotta Rant?

Perhaps as each steps to the platform we will find some pleasant surprises as we pool our power of thought...

bear’s Soapbox for All Who Would Like to Gather Around:

I think the non-participation, stay-out-of politics and make-it-go-away angle, is a bold faced lie, and I heard it just this week in a DP post and that is what has inspired my rant.

The name of the game is Taxes, and you will be sure there are only 2 things certain: Death & Taxes [Theft] unless we can change the 2nd by beating the thieves at their own game.

We are born into this game, and I do not see the ability to opt out of the game by non-participation. In 2012 it took the average American until July 15 to pay taxes. Taxes are the game. On just about everything you buy, you pay taxes. Every April some of us pay taxes. I do not see how not voting, not running for office, and not participating politically will end the tax game. So, the way I am seeing it, we have to beat them at their own game. How?

We have seen Ron Paul speak on these issues and Joe Kelley has written these 3 points for me. They exemplify how Liberty can be defended by:

1. Producing better money and that “Ends the FED.”
2. Keeping the fruits of our labor and that “Ends the IRS.”
3. Keeping our best and brightest from the Legal Criminals and that “Brings the Troops Home.”

The question is then: How can those goals be achieved?

1. By electing Ron Paul as the President of the United States of America! Go Ron Paul 2012!

2. By being aware of and using competitive sources of money. These options are being worked:
a. nationally by Ron Paul in auditing the Fed having hearings to discuss competing currencies;
b. by states such as Utah with Gold coinage;
c. in communities such as Ithaca with Labor Notes and bartering exchanges.

3. By overwhelming political party power and placing our good names and our good intentions in those places of power.

4. And, last but not least, by jumping on the “run-for-office band wagon” and overwhelm the general election processes with all our good names and our good intentions so that we can displace the criminals currently in those offices.

Please, please do not opt out of the political scene no matter how rough it gets. Those of you Friends of Liberty who are already there, I see you as the Marines who have cleared the way. Now we need to follow. Let’s not give up and opt out, but rather charge to the finish and plant that great flag of Liberty and Justice for All using the 30 year efforts of Ron Paul as well as our good names and our good intentions! After all, I heard someone somewhere say, “We are All Ron Paul!” Let us not lose ground but charge on for VICTORY!

Now, before you ask me if I have a mouse in my pocket, the answer is no. So you may voluntarily un-volunteer yourself from any “we” “us’ “our” personal pronouns if you so choose.

How about you, do you have a rant, or perhaps a rant against mine?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Thank you for reminding me that I needed to look at the Rothbard/Menger post to find writings about Spooner.

Is this a strawman?

If you might be so kind sir...

"or if not I can remind you, of the Hit Piece published by Murray Rothbard on Spooner, Tucker, with a side note (collateral damage) on W.B. Greene."

I have not yet added that link to my political economy doc as of yet and would appreciate your energy to provide it for me once again. I never realized I was going to need to keep a file of all your links, but better late than never.

Could the trojan have been a KING in the form of 3 checks & balanced powers stated as the executive/legislative/judicial branches? After all, thou shalt not question...

But Joe, I thought we were supposed to be a Republic.

I took the Amish to town today and stopped by the Library to see if they had any Ron Paul books...no of course not.

But I did look at the resale table, my weakness, and found books I would never had otherwise entertained:

2 were by Arnold J. Toynbee:
War and Civilization (1950)
Civilization on Trial (1948)

1 by John Carey:
Eyewitness to History (1987)

Do you think they are worth reading? Do I have to give chess answers?

1) Yes, they are great books
2) No, they are a waste of time
3) How should I know, why are you wasting my time with such trivia?

If you can keep it.

"But Joe, I thought we were supposed to be a Republic."

As with a whole lot of information there are counterfeit versions and true versions, and knowing the difference is something the liars have, as a power, over their victims, such is the nature of The Deceiver.

The Deceiver is not the one who believes the lies told.

Talk about weapons of mass delusion, leading to destruction, the person Benjamin Franklin was on in years at the time but he wasn't stupid so I can't imagine his word choices being flippant.


"A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

The fatal error is exposed in the introduction to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli.

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the on element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

And what if a man is one of God's Children, does that man have to have a dictator forming a republic to keep him in line too?

As Born again Christians, and other sensible people, look for authority where authority earns that power, they are accosted by robbers with badges claiming to be more Godlike than their flock of sheep?

Are you owned by the likes of Franklin, or Nicoli Machiavelli, or Hamilton or Bush or the new guy with an honest name and a false name to cover up the honest one?

Where is the demarcation line between something worth keeping, Madam, and something only worth lying, cheating, and stealing to keep?

What is meant by a Republic?

How about asking Daniel Shays?

How about asking Patrick Henry if Daniel Shays was too quick (or not quick enough) to jump to the gun for help?

What is meant by a Republic?

"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."

What is meant by a Republic?

If the promise of a Republic was goodness, if you could keep it, and Debt is good, then we not only kept it, the measure of just exactly how good it is could cause Franklin and Hamilton to rise from the dead, in spirit if not in actual fact.

Just how good can a Republic get fearless leader?

Confused about a Republic? I think that was the point, to cause confusion while National Debt (fraud and extortion made legal) was sold to the ignorant and the stupid, and don't blame me, I smelled the rat as well as Patrick Henry, as far back as high school, once I read that book about The Lusitania, which lead to that War Horse crime called World War I.


That is the book that has the hit piece in it, where Rothbard publishes libel against Spooner, Tucker, and others including W.B. Greene.

I've explained some of that story here:


"Could the trojan have been a KING in the form of 3 checks & balanced powers stated as the executive/legislative/judicial branches? After all, thou shalt not question..."

The key point has to do with POWER and in the case of a Consolidated Government which can be compared to a Confederation, to use Patrick Henry's terminology, it can be understood that the Power to Confederate is voluntary, or limited by choice, a confederation so confederated, by choice, is a limited government with an actual power to limit it, as in a Mutual Agreement to combine POWER for the LIMITED purpose of defending Liberty against a very POWERFUL invasion by Soldiers in Red Coats whereby those Solders are working to reclaim ownership of the Defenders of Liberty: as opposed to a Consolidated Government where the only limit is the pleasures of the single power, or King, or the King and all the minions.

How fast can the rats race to the bottom of despotism?

If there is no longer a reason to Consolidate, according to anyone, then that someone decides to opt out in a voluntary confederation.

Look at the words written by Thomas Paine concerning False Checks and False Balances, and then compare those false ones to actual voluntary limits:


"HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist."

Suffice to say that a good person may someday want to opt out, and if that is against the law then that is a false law, and how is that not as plain as the nose on your face?

Patrick Henry may have chosen the word Confederation so as to avoid the current confusion concerning the word Republic - who knows?

The fact is that in the time when The Articles of Confederation were working as The Law of the Land, it was a time when Daniel Shays could fight against slavery in his own State, and when that battle was lost he could run away like any other slave to another, less despotic, State, in that case the slave ran out of Massachusetts, Daniel Shays, and that slave ran to Vermont and found sanctuary in Vermont, and there was no National Government needing to be Checked, and there was no National enforcement of Slavery Nation WIDE, not under The Articles of Confederation, and not in that specific case.

Then, under The Constitution the newly crowned King George ordered conscripted soldiers, slaves, to assemble and conduct a War of Aggression into Pennsylvania, a National Army and why didn't they put on Red Coats? Red was out of fashion?


Not having those books at hand, to look and find information contained within, the actual authors words, is leaving me unable to offer an opinion. I have picked up many books and in a few pages I start writing all over the pages in the book, offering my opinion as to why I think the author is wrong, or contradictory, or deceptive, and soon I find in that book no reason to pick the book back up.

Other books I find are captivating and very instructive, such as this one:


There isn't anything on that web page where a shopper of good books can know how valuable the information in the book can be to someone looking for that type of information.

I can offer a quote from that book, and you can make a judgment based upon the actual content of the book:

Rebel's Fate

Page 137

"Whole books have been written to the effect that art, creativity, and talent are neurotic. It is widely bruited that only the neurotic can be an artist in any field, and that the products of all artists are the flowerings of sickness. I know of nothing more false; nor do I believe that evidence for this point of view meets any sensible criterion of science."

I found that book in my mother's thrift store.

I was wasting time, waiting for my mother to finish up some work, it seemed to call out to me, I picked it up, opened it, read a few sentences, and I had to read it.

I read it cover to cover. It is an old book, used, it has someone's scribbling in it, but I added no scribbling of my own to that book.

Some books I bend pages and fold them down to the text I want to return to, or I fill them up with post-it notes.

If you can't decide to buy or drop a book in the first few minutes of scanning the words written in the book, then my suggestion is to drop it.

1) Yes, they are great books
Did you read any text in those books?

2) No, they are a waste of time
Books can be worse than a waste of time if the intent in writing them was to spread falsehood and the reader is victimized in that way.

3) How should I know, why are you wasting my time with such trivia?
Gary North publishes a lot of information on how corrupt the publishing industry is here in America and I have to agree, there are a lot of books published where the intention is to render the targeted victims powerless, and those fruits of that labor can be measured in various direct and indirect ways.

How about voting records?

Who want's to be a victim of despotism?

Who want's the lesser of two evils?

Pull the lever, check the box, use a pen.


Samuel 17

I get this message out of Samuel 17:

Faced with a choice between two evils it is a good idea to invent other, non-evil, options, including the option of killing (smite) an evil person who will enslave you and your loved one's if you do nothing to stop them.

There is, easily, a modern day example or two, including that story about PayPal, and including someone who might invent a self defense weapon whereby the weapon immobilized the target for a reasonable amount of time, and the entire event is recorded digitally for later review.

Is it better to not kill those evil criminals, just give them a 1 hour time out each time they move toward an innocent victim?

Will false authorities cry foul when they are offered a deal to be honest about the things they do?

As to the sign of cowardice I have worn, wear, and will wear, it is accurate where it is accurate, and it is not earned where it is not earned, even as a boy, I was there, frozen with fear, and had there been a reset button, "play it again Sam", a do over, I'd do it over, until I get it right.

The theory is such that wrong can be understood as wrong, and then not repeated.

The false theory is such that wrong can be understood as wrong and then repeatedly done until wrong somehow become right if repeated enough times.


Send money to criminals with badges and those criminals with badges will stop being criminals, because they gave themselves badges, and licenses, and bonuses, and pay raises, and pardons, and anything that pleases them, including child sex slaves, and who knows what else in which secreted dungeons where "terrorists" are rendered extraordinarily, and they undergo enhanced interrogation - for confessions of course.

Same theory, same outcome, such is the nature of The Inquisition, by any name it still smells like a rat.

Just ask Patrick Henry, he had a nose for it.

God gave me a nose for it, thanks God, I appreciate all you can give, even if it may be taxing at times.

"I just ask him where I am supposed to be."

And if I were asked I'd say that you land in Jail, to see if you would fall for false authority.

"Oh, the Trojan Horse…was ours the Constitution? Or the debt on the Wars?"

I published the quote I found from Hamilton on that very subject, The Constitution was the Trojan Horse and the enemy was that DEBT in the belly of that beast. It was a confession, straight from the horses mouth.

(But perhaps there are messages on that page I gave you that have validity?)

It is likely that I will miss a lot of good information, but so much of the media these days is an argument, and to me discussion is so much more productive. Triage.

I have work that must be done, but I am putting that off for now because the IRON OF DISCUSSION IS HOT, and there is much more to this text, in my opinion, than entertainment. This is taxing, to be sure, but the fruits of or labor may plant seeds of Liberty in one direction if not two.

One can become two, then four, they eight, but not always, certainly not always, trial and error tends to involve a whole lot of error.

At least we are not accepting the authority that says pay me and I'll make sure your legs don't get broken as the final solution.

One reader other than us, here, may exist, someone wanting to ask the questions you and I ask, and one wanting competitive answers, and one other one in a million that may then work like that butterfly effecting one more, and then two, and who knows?

I don't.

"I think Jeff was saying be very cautious what you wish for or work towards, because it can become worse real fast. Like those hearing that distant song of hope, only to embrace a tyranny far worse than a monarchy. I think that is what Jeff was talking about. I would be very cautious in the sense that rebellion may be planned on and hoped for so as to instill something far worse by those sowing the seeds of rebellion."

This must be understood, and it is reassuring to hear someone else thinking along these lines, as there must be some effort to invent, and then produce, and then maintain options that avoid deception, threats, and violence upon the innocent and guilty alike, that is not a solution, that is the problem, but since it is the problem then all too often that problem does get away with murder.

The solution isn't doing nothing.

How about a few things that can be done?

No more Legal Fraud (End the FED, peacefully)

No more Legal Extortion (End the IRS, peacefully)

Bring the Troops Home (success with 1 and 2 above will make some people very angry and they are very deceptive and they are very threatening, and they are very violent, and they will use those powers, even as we invent ways to remain peaceful)

A reader reading this may say, well now, that sounds reasonable, but these are mere words.

I can answer that, again, look at your National Tax Form, payments you make to the IRS, look at that, and know that that is not fancy, that is not unreal, that is not theory, that is not conspiracy theory, that is you, and that is you sending power to them, and guess what is done with that power you send them, if you ever question that authority?

Know better is all I'm asking.

I'm powerless to do much else.

Elect Ron Paul, or someone else promising to End the IRS and guess what happens then?

Why guess?

Do you want to send more money to the IRS?

You who are reading this, assuming that such a thing is possible, one person, one in a few hundred million, or a few billion, look, and see, and question that power flowing from your account of earning to that POWER.

If you question it, and your answer is to stop that flow of power from you to them, then you may need some help.

Welcome aboard.

Anyone else?

No need to confess, no need to sign a paper, just welcome, welcome aboard, you are not alone.

Friends of Liberty exist, and among that number are pacifists, sure, and among that number are those who have guns, and among that number are those who will not tolerate much more of this, if we can reach a point of knowing, a point of obvious, measurable power, that we wake up tomorrow morning all done with it.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
- Henry Ford

After that there are problems, still, but that one is over with, so...next?

More criminals lurking in the dark?

Where are those criminals?

Now that the National Level Legal Criminals are avoided how about the one's at the State Level?

Have you heard about Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports?

" A key to tamchissick's rant is effective communication which IMHO vitally necessary to garner collected power."

I can offer a competitive viewpoint to that person who authored and published (for public consumption) that welcome rant. If it turns into conversation/discussion then my costs will have been equitably paid back, and then some.

Thanks, no time to edit, the work bell rang.