Main menu

Police Abuse / New Link

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/03/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

The link I sent before, of the video of horrendous police brutality
and misconduct, stopped working. Well, here is a new one, with the
story and the video:

(Be sure to copy the ENTIRE link into your web browser.)

Of note, this happened over a year ago, and you're only hearing
about it NOW. How often does it happen and you don't hear about it
at all? The story mentions NO investigation, and no disciplinary
actions against the Nazis involved. If not for PUBLIC pressure, you
can bet that NOTHING will be done to those evil thugs. Even if the
lawsuit is successful, so what? It means that the thugs will give
money STOLEN FROM YOU (via "taxes") to the victims of THEIR fascist
thuggery. While I wouldn't mind the victim getting a heap of money
(consider my share a voluntary donation), how does that constitute
punishment of the actual CRIMINALS? It doesn't. As far as I'm
concerned, all the "officers" involved should at LEAST be fired,
rendered completely destitute (with all of their property going to
the victim), thrown in prison for a couple years, and then subject
to the public scorn and condemnation they deserve. (And I know from
your comments that some of you wouldn't nearly be so "lenient" with


Larken Rose

Words Don't Suffice

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/02/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

I spent fifteen minutes trying to come up with comments about the
story shown at the link below, without sounding like I was
condoning violence against so-called "law enforcement." I couldn't
do it. I warn you, if injustice bothers you like it does me,
watching this video will be very unpleasant. If they did this to MY
wife... well, like I said, I'd better not comment further.

Incidentally, if you can think of any comments that won't get you
arrested, that page also has the contact info for the local fascist
squad. Speak your mind, while you still can.


Larken Rose

An Appeal to Republicans

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/31/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

The Republican party says it's for lower taxes. It isn't. It passed
the largest federal budget in history, and even after it controlled
the White House and both houses of Congress, it failed to make a
dent in the federal tax burden.

The Republican party says it's for limited government. It isn't.
Not only has it failed to reduce the already ridiculous size and
power of government, it has drastically increased it.

The Republic party says it's for individual liberties. It isn't. It
created the biggest federal bureaucracy in history, and gave it all
sorts of new powers to spy on, detain, silence, and otherwise
harass Americans.

The Republican party says it believes in the Constitution. It
doesn't. It has done absolutely nothing to try to correct the
mangling of the "commerce clause" to allow the federal government
to stick its nose in everyone's business.

And when someone came along who really IS for lower taxes, limited
government, individual liberty, and a return to the Constitution,
how did the Republican establishment respond? By smearing,
demonizing, demeaning, marginalizing, and insulting him, and trying
to silence him. Even though that man is a Republican.

My question is, just how stupid are Republican voters? Just how
badly and how often do you need to be betrayed by the totalitarians
in the GOP (masquerading as "limited government" advocates) before
you stop SUPPORTING their collectivist crap?

"But the Democrats are even worse!"

No, they aren't. They are IDENTICAL. The only difference is in
their rhetoric: the Republicans pander to those who want limited
government, and the Democrats pander to those who want the nanny
state to control and take care of everything. But in action, the
two are THE SAME. They are two faces of ONE group of power-happy,
war-mongering, fear-mongering, liberty-destroying
nationalist/socialists. The suggestion that THOSE are your only
choices is a classic tyrant trick. Unfortunately, almost all
Americans still fall for it.

Personally, I don't believe in "limited government" any more than I
believe in "limited murder," "limited rape," or "limited armed
robbery." But for those "limited statists" out there who still
believe in the Constitution, stop supporting its demise! If you
must vote, and Ron Paul loses the Republican primary--which the
Republican establishment is going to great lengths to ensure--vote
for him anyway. I don't care whether he runs or not. Write in his
name. If instead you hold your nose and vote for the establishment-
appointed collectivist, YOU are the problem.

Yes, I am telling you to intentionally destroy the Republican
party, because it is an absolute fraud. Of course, the Democratic
power machine is equally fraudulent and evil, but by supporting
either of them--instead of telling them BOTH to go to hell--you are
ENABLING your own enslavement. Quit bickering over which crook is
worse, and just STOP SUPPORTING CROOKS. "But then the OTHER guy
will win!" So what? I would wager that NO ONE could tell, based
only on the legislation passed during the Clinton administration as
compared to that passed during the Bush administration, who was on
the "left" and who was on the "right." The result is always the
same: more power for them, less freedom for you. By supporting
EITHER party, you prolong the lie, and assist in your own

There is only one person running for President who actually
believes in the Constitution, and look how hard his "own" party is
trying to silence him. And look who they have running AGAINST him:
several left-leaning, tax-and-spend socialists (Huckabee, Romney,
McCain and Giuliani). Every one of them is far left of JFK! Is that
really what "conseravtives" want? Who exactly is the Republican
party "representing"?

Anyone with their eyes open can see that the Republican
establishment doesn't CARE what Republican VOTERS want. They are
still trying to milk the reputation of Ronald Reagan, while
viciously slandering anyone who sounds anything like him. They are
just as elitist as the Democrats, having nothing but contempt for
your freedom and what YOU want. When thousands of you said "We want
Ron Paul!" what did the Republican establishment say? "To hell with
you!" Well, it's high time to return the compliment. Maybe the best
thing to come out of a Ron Paul presidential run will be a long
overdue unmasking and discrediting of the totalitarian elitists
club calling itself the Republican party.


Larken Rose

Kayla Irwin Update

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/18/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

I wanted to quick let you all know that, as a result of your
donations, a SECOND check for $2,000 is about to be sent off to
Kayla Irwin, victim of the SWAT team invasion (of the wrong house)
in Indiana back in late November. We'll soon post the grand total,
which will be about $4,500, and post a list of all the donations
received, and then we'll send the final check.

(Sending me donations now would only complicate matters. If you
insist on donating, send me an e-mail, and I'll tell you where you
can send the donation to Ms. Irwin directly.)

There are a LOT of victims of "government" wrongdoing, and I wish
it was possible to help them all, but it's not. In this case,
however, I'm quite pleased with the results, and glad that at least
one time, we were able to really help someone who needed and
deserved it. Thanks to all of you who contributed.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Someone suggested that the effort to help Ms. Irwin might
tarnish my reputation as a selfish, greedy tax cheater and tax
fraud scheme promoter. But don't worry; no matter what I say or do,
the feds will always be there to make sure I'm adequately slandered
and demonized, as long as I dare to say "861" in public.)

Saying What You Mean

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/08/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

People are so accustomed to viewing politics as a choice between
two slightly different flavors of collectivism (Democrat and
Republican), that when I bash one side, some people automatically
accuse me of being for the other side. For example, recently I've
been continually bashing the Republican establishment. So, in case
anyone thinks that means I like the Democrat tyrants, here's a
little "equal time" for leftist bashing.

When I stated that Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually
wants significant "change" in our system, even though ALL
politicians say they do, someone opined that Dennis Kucinich also
wants significant change. Well, that just may be, but what kind of
change? I went to Mr. Kucinich's web site to find out.

Mr. Kucinich is against the war in Iraq. Good. But WHY is he
against it? Because it is unconstitutional? No. Because it is
immoral? Nope. He is against it because he thinks being against it
will get him votes. How do I know this? Because he openly advocates
all manner of OTHER unconstitutional, immoral violence against
everyone in this country. So it obviously isn't actual principles
determining his positions.

Like all tyrants, he buries what he really wants under so many
layers of euphemism that there's almost nothing left of the truth
in his words. As you may have noticed, I am very literal and blunt
about what I believe. I'll give you an example. The following story
tells how, in this "land of the free," a gang of Nazi thugs did an
armed invasion and forcible kidnapping of an American child,
because some moronic bureaucrat (aided by an evil fascist
pretending to be a "judge") decided that the parents weren't quite
making the right decisions.

So here is an example of my literal, spin-free opinion: Though it
would have been dangerous to do so, so I wouldn't recommend it for
practical reasons, I believe the family had every right to blow
every SWAT team thug's head off, if that's what it took to stop
them from kidnapping their family member. Notice I don't bother
with saying they had the right to "take action," or "demand
justice," or any other vague niceties. I mean, quite literally,
that it would have been justified for the father to point a gun at
the head of the first fascist into the house, pull the trigger, and
kill the guy dead, and to keep doing that until they stopped the
invasion--either by choice or because they were all dead. Is that
blunt enough?

Whether you agree or not, I think you'd agree that I say what I
mean. I don't bury my opinions in decorations and icing to disguise
the meaning, or to make it more appealing to more people. You don't
have to guess about when I believe violence is justified (only in
defense), because I'm as blunt as possible about it.

Now let's see an example of how Dennis Kucinich advocates massive,
unjustified violence, without the spine to be honest about it. Here
are just a few examples:

1) His web site says he wants a "Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for-
Profit health care system." Any mention of violence in there? Nope.
It sounds nice and benevolent. But what does it actually mean? It
means you would be FORCED, under threat of VIOLENCE, to fund the
government-controlled system of "health care" that HE wants you to
use. If you resist, you will be put in a cage. If you forcibly
resist being put in a cage, you will be killed. I hate to have to
repeat the obvious so often, but ALL "law" is backed by the ability
and willingness to use deadly force. Otherwise, it's only a

2) Mr. Kucinich also says he would "make it a national priority
to fight poverty worldwide." Well, that sounds good and charitable,
doesn't it? But what does it literally mean? It means that he would
use the FORCE of law to take your money from you (and put you in a
cage or kill you if you resist), in order to do "charity" HIS way.
(Of course, it's not charitable to be robbed, nor is it charitable
to give away someone else's money, which is why I put the term in
quotes there.) Like all tyrants, his propaganda emphasizes the
giving, and omits any mention of the VIOLENCE that must come first.

3) He wants to "renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons
ban." Again, what does that mean? It mean he wants to put people in
CAGES if they own a weapon he doesn't approve of. Of course, that
won't apply to thugs who would be ENFORCING his every whim upon
you. They get machine guns, tanks, bombs--whatever they want. Oh,
and you get forced to pay for them, too.

4) His web site says that, "[w]here the private sector fails to
provide jobs, the public sector has a moral responsibility to do
so." Wow, that sounds swell, too. What does it mean? It means that,
for those who "can't" get a job working for someone who WANTS to
hire them, he will use the VIOLENCE of "government" to steal money
from everyone, and use it to hire the unemployed.

5) He wants to "restore the value of the federal minimum wage."
That sounds nice. What does it mean? It means using VIOLENCE to
prevent mutually voluntary trade that he doesn't approve of. Yes,
even if the employer AND the employee agree to the deal, Mr.
Kucinich wants MEN WITH GUNS to make sure the deal is forcibly

The list of euphemisms used by Mr. Kucinich goes on and on, as is
the case with ALL leftists. (Ever heard a Democrat tell the literal
truth, and say, "I want to use force to take your money and spend
it how I think it should be spent, instead of how you think it
should be spent"? I doubt it. Yet that is the truth for EVERY
"program" they advocate.)

Here's an appropriate example: Who could possibly be against
"ensuring that all American children have access to and receive
proper medical attention"? Doesn't that sound swell? Well, that
would be the tyrant-speak description of the story at the link
above, where overt VIOLENCE is used by the thugs of "government" to
forcibly impose THEIR choices upon us. It doesn't matter how you
describe it, it's still FASCISM.

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on Mr. Kucinich in
particular. I could point out exactly the same things about EVERY
Democrat candidate, because they ALL advocate the extensive,
widespread initiation of state-sponsored violence to control and
rob several hundred million Americans. And NONE of them have the
honesty to admit it.

There. Does anyone still think I like the Democratic party?


Larken Rose

Choosing the Choices

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/07/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

What is your favorite color: mauve, chartreuse, or beige?

After all, those are the only possible "legitimate" answers to the
question. Because I said so.

If, two years ago, you asked everyone in the country who they
wished would be President, if it could be anyone they wanted, how
many people do you think would say Mike Huckabee? Approximately
none. Mitt Romney? About zero. Fred Thompson? Pretty much no one.
Ron Paul? A puny percentage, but probably several thousand at least
(which wouldn't include me--my choice would be "no one").

So where did those supposed "choices" come from, because--with the
exception of Ron Paul--it sure as heck wasn't from any sort of
popular demand. How did those options just magically appear out of
nowhere? It was, of course, the two factions of the collectivist
ruling class that told the people who the "choices" would be.
Basically, the royal family trotted out a few of their power-happy
offspring, and said we could choose which one would be oppressing
us for the next few years.

(The fact that the ruling "family" in our country is linked by an
insider's political club, instead of by blood, only makes it worse.
After all, it's possible for a king to accidentally have a kid who
isn't evil, but you won't ever catch a political establishment
accidentally appointing anyone to a position of power who actually
likes freedom.)

So a club of collectivist control freaks will let you "choose"
which one of THEIR approved collectivist control freaks will have
his jackboot on your neck for the next four years. And we're
supposed to feel empowered because of that? At this point, the
Tyrants R Us brigade in DC, and their propagandists in the
mainstream media, aren't even trying very hard to hide the truth of
just how "democratic" our insane system has become. (Incidentally,
democracy itself is a really bad idea, but what we have now is even

Take, for example, the decision by Fox "News" to exclude Ron Paul
from today's Republican primary presidential debate in New
Hampshire. The all-knowing Fox "News," in its wisdom, declared Rudy
Giuliani the leader in the race. In Iowa, Giuliani came in SIXTH,
at about 3%, while Ron Paul more than TRIPLED that, with just over
10%. Nonetheless, the Fox News bigwigs, having just demonstrated
their less-than-stellar powers of prediction, decided that Ron Paul
is not a "legitimate" candidate, and so he wouldn't be included in
the debate in New Hampshire.

There are two options here: 1) Fox "News" is unbelievably bad at
predicting elections, or 2) Fox "News" is not discovering and
reporting what the people want, but is reporting what Fox "News"
WANTS the people to want. Either way, letting those morons and/or
liars decide who should be in the debates is ridiculous. In fact,
it's so ridiculous that even the New Hampshire Republican party
removed its sponsorship of today's debate because of the exclusion
of Ron Paul. (Being the cynic I am, I think the party mainly did
that, not because of any actual principle, but because it wanted to
stop the avalanche of angry letters it was getting for being part
of the political censorship agenda.)

Even on the comments on Fox's web site, most of the anti-Paul
comments were based entirely on the argument, "He can't possibly
win." How do people think they can possibly know such a thing?
Because the wildly inaccurate "polls" tell them so? You mean the
same polls that said that Giuliani was the frontrunner? And the
same ones the put Hillary way ahead of the pack in the Democratic
race? After Ron Paul got THREE TIMES the votes in Iowa that the
supposed "frontrunner" got, and Hillary came in THIRD, why would
anyone ever base anything upon the polls ever again?

But what makes Fox "News" win the Orwellian award of the week hands
down is the fact that it's tightly controlled, substance-avoiding,
all-collectivist propaganda agenda is presented under the
ridiculous banner of "You Decide 2008!" Amazing.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Ron Paul did far better in Iowa than polls predicted.
Tancredo is now dropping out of the race, and endorsing Mitt
Romney. Please remember my prediction, because this is only the