LLR Pages

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Ladies of Lying Intelligent Tyrants Alliance (LOLITA) Versus PuZzLeD's Brooke Kelley

The recent fallout over the excommunication of freedom activist, devout Ron Paul supporter, and YouTube's PuZzLeD reality TV show star Brooke Kelley from the Ladies of Liberty Alliance (LOLA), which is an alleged pro-Liberty organization that has billed and sold itself as an advocate for women (who are already) in the libertarian movement and bringing the said gender into both the movement and the group, has already generated a lot of controversy -- not to mention a paramount amount of noise -- on and out of Facebook and among many activists and members in their respective cliques -- and circles -- in an already-fractured political wing of the movement. The group, which was founded in 2009 by relative political newcomer Allison Gibbs (who is a 27-year-old former government scientist and AIDS researcher employed by the U.S. Department of Defense [which lasted for 8 years] and is the current Outreach Director for the Campaign for Liberty), has been a long-time talked-about staple in the Ron Paul wing of the political movement, garnering support from a number of pro-Liberty activists because of its goal to boost the female numbers of activists who, in the past, have been inadequate in the eyes of many of the movement's finest men and women longing for new blood. If anything, these individuals' desire to keep the grass-roots networking and projects on the Liberty train on the move by pushing for more inclusion of liberty-loving women in the ranks. What they didn't count on was that it was going to crumble before it could achieve anything to begin with, especially from a pro-freedom standpoint.

The ruckus erupted when Kelley, the darling of the Ron Paul movement (who recently spoke out in defense of Paul over his call to support Lamar Smith), went public with LOLA's decision to kick her out on Facebook because of the group's claim that she "frightened" Ron Paul with a question as to how important the "truth" regarding 9/11 was to the people (in reference to the 9/11 Truthers' desire to know why Paul hasn't been asking why the government has been withholding information about what transpired on that day). That angered the powers-that-be at C4L at the recent CPAC event over her questions, even though she even heckled Glenn Beck for "stealing the Tea Party movement" and John Ashcroft for pushing to make "raves illegal" and his casual contempt for the Constitution, and attempted to confront conservative hit woman Ann Coulter with a question as well (her security stopped Kelley before she could even ask such a question). Kelley (and many others on Facebook) points out in her latest PuZzLeD video that a C4L employee met with her and told her that there was a group planning to "heckle" Glenn Beck. The problem was that, just prior to Beck's speech, word was coming down the pike (from Ron Paul himself) that anyone who is discovered to have heckled him would be denounced by the group. That didn't stop Kelley from doing just that.

Just after she did it, she was subsequently kicked out of C4L. (The details as to how and what the procedures were for kicking her out are rather unclear at this point, but more information will be available.) LOLA Core, which consists of Allison Gibbs and only several members of the the entire LOLA Board (including long-time freedom activist and employee Angela Keaton), had a meeting and voted on whether to dismiss Kelley from the group. The vote was largely unanimous: Brooke was to be shown the door*.

Brooke came public with the following on Friday, 10:57 AM:

Brooke Kelley So let me get this straight. Im kicked out of Campaign for Liberty, for asking Glenn Beck a question, and kicked out of LOLA for asking Ron Paul a question. Reminds me of getting cuffed at the border for asking that cop a question. Hmmm. I still love you, but seriously--let's not just Talk about freedom--let's LIVE Fre...e!! Let's RISE ABOVE our enemies and UNIFY--not exclude truth-telling, liberty loving ACTIVISTs."

Immediately, pro-freedom activists across the aisle jumped on the bandwagon, trying to find out what happened. Here are some of the comments that were made:

Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
What the hell happened!!??
Fri at 10:59am

Brooke Kelley
I asked Glenn Beck a question, after Ron Paul explicitly said if anyone heckles Beck, they are no longer in the C4L community. So I asked Ron Paul a question too, and apparently that was offensive to LOLA, and they voted me off the island.

Don't Live free. Come pay for Liberty! ...B.
Fri at 11:02am

Lille Ørn
Stay strong freedomfighter! Listen to this program , lots of stuff going on
Fri at 11:03am

Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
Wow. This is why I stay away from any organization that supports politicians.
Fri at 11:04am

Debra Dedmon
they friggin kicked you out ?? r u effin kidding me / Um that just makes me justa little more suspicious of them all, and i was already suspicious of C4L, but why the hell shouldthey care u asked Neocon Beck a question , crazy!! but LOLA , that is surprising. doyou mean they kicked u out of an event or out f the group?? i distrust anyone who takes unkindly to the power of questions
Fri at 11:04am

Aj Arias
Fri at 11:05am

Lille Ørn
TRUTH will allways win. No matter what!
Fri at 11:06am

Jay Doobie
Wait, they kicked you out for asking questions? I think I'm no longer going to support LOLA or CfL.
Fri at 11:07am

Diana Isabel Miranda
What were the questions anyways?
Fri at 11:07am

Aaron Proctor
What did you ask? Sounds like it's weird you'd be randomly kicked out.
Fri at 11:09am

Jennapher Frankie Lawson
It's horrifyingly common to use "unify" and be ostracized. :-s
Fri at 11:11am

Joanna Reed
Brooke, I've known Ron Paul personally since college (over 12 yrs now) and he is a gentleman. There has to be more to this story than you're presenting. Ron Paul is, and always will be, someone I support. Do you think there's a common denominator here? You'll catch more flies with honey.
Fri at 11:13am

Greg Jent
I would really like to know the details and to see the Ron Paul comment on not being allowed to ask Beck questions. I'm so confused :)
Fri at 11:13am

Danzilla Green
Not to be a dick but it's with in an organization's right to boot you...

That being said, screw CFL, they're all minarchist knuckle heads anyways.
Fri at 11:14am

Alexander Benjamin Ramiresonty
*echoes request for details*
Fri at 11:17am

Matt D. Harris
Who kicked you out of LOLA? What questions did you ask Beck and Paul specifically? What were the answers?
Fri at 11:20am

Matt D. Harris
By the way, anyone with the balls to get kicked out of (so-called) liberty orgs is hot by my standards. ;)
Fri at 11:21am

Joe Ringling
Do you think your sudden exclusion stems from your past criticism of Debra Medina?
Fri at 11:23am

Michael Caulfield
again, what question did you ask that idiot Beck?
Fri at 11:23am

Carolyn Taratuta
What's that all about... Makes one wonder.
Fri at 11:27am

Chris Cooley
wow , totally disassociating myself with those two groups ..
Fri at 11:33am

Reagen Dandridge Desilets
the constitution allows for questions to be asked. any 'liberty' group that boots someone for that raises eyebrows. i'm glad i've backed off lola and c4l. i love my freedom but do not dedicate myself to any one group or politician. i've always said if ron paul is the man i hope he is, he would welcome our vigilance!!!
Fri at 11:33am

Bobbie Dee Anderson
<> Thanks Brooke.
Fri at 11:39am

Danielle Kays
I was thinking the same thing, Joe.
Fri at 11:44am

Reagen Dandridge Desilets
details would be nice for curiosity's sake alone. again, the constitution allows for us to talk, even when we disagree... anyone that claims to protect the constitution but also censors is breaking the thin ice they r walking on.
Fri at 11:45am

Amber Danelle, co-host of Truth A to Z on, responded to Brooke with the following:

Amber Danelle
You are totally misrepresenting what happened in the above statement. No one kicked you out of anything for ASKING QUESTIONS. Nothing is wrong with asking questions.

Brooke.... You are a serious trip, and I was totally thrown off last night after hearing from you what had happened.
Thought the drama was OVER.
... See More

And Joe: It is definitely NOT over anything having to do with Medina. And this isn't "sudden", either.

Brooke: You talk a lot about unifying and unity and rising above the enemy... but here you are talking SHITE about other freedom activists. Seriously... I hadn't seen you do this for a while (and, honestly, I hadn't been paying attention to your page) and I thought it was done with. If something bothers you you spread rumors and discontent about LOLA & C4L.... this is totally going against people working together. And nothing is wrong with whistle-blowing a group or person... but you are doing so without cause, woman. Nobody really know what happened this past weekend. And this whole silly situation could have been way more relaxed if you didn't like to blow things out of proportion.

I had hoped I could work with you in the future.
I had hoped to get to know a good side of you, as I think you are a beautiful person. ♥ Truly.
After meeting you last year I'd only really experienced drama and outbursts (and I'm not saying you were always loud or uber-obnoxious) from you... silly things that I had no idea about, you saying that LOLA is talking poo about you WHEN THAT ISN'T TRUE!!
We don't sit around talking about you, Brooke.
We don't care... we just want to get shit DONE.

And now, here you are again, telling people that LOLA is bad in some way... and people are FOLLOWING YOU and believing what you say!!
We work hard within our group to get stuff done and to enjoy each other as good freedom friends and confidantes! It is so WONDERFUL to be a part of LOLA... but you are sharing way-off information with people and telling people we are nutters. Wow. I have never MET anyone like you, girl. I believed that we could start to work together again. But, I guess that can't be.

Normally I would have sent this to you in a message. Unlike you, I tend to not want to air my grievances in public (unless it's some politician JACKING with my life, etc.) because sometimes one can be overly-passionate or mis-informed about a situation. And those who are listening to your aired grievances only know YOUR SIDE of the story and, therefore, cannot make a smart judgement of the situation.
But, today, I'm going to post this on your status because I want everyone to know that YOU are causing this disruption, this silly-ness.

I won't be surprised if you delete my comment. At least you, and the good people above, will have read something from the "other side".

Honestly, who cares about all this dang drama anyways!? I just wanna bring freedom back to the people of this country!! I thought I was out of high school.
Okay, I'm done on this subject.

Hope you have a great day... ♥
Love & Light & Liberty to you, Brooke.
Fri at 11:46am

Matt D. Harris, a Libertarian Party member, responded to Amber by saying:

Matt D. Harris
Amber, I didn't see Brooke claim that LOLA were nutters, just that she got kicked out of the group for asking Ron Paul a question. I'm reserving judgment until I hear what the question is. Obviously asking him something political but a bit pushy is one thing (and OK, imho) whereas something like "when did you stop beating your wife?" might be a little less appropriate. :P
Fri at 11:56am

Amber responded with this remark:

Amber Danelle
Hey Matt: Brooke didn't technically say that LOLA was a group of "nutters" (those are my own words)... but she says we kicked her out and alludes to the idea that it was because she asked questions of figureheads. Whatever she is saying: it's got some people thinking that they don't want to associate with us.

Again, nothing is wrong with asking questions. That is one of the most important things we can do as good citizens, obviously. And I never heard any of Brooke's questions this weekend. In fact, I had no idea about any of this until last night when some silly stuff went down (thanks for that, Brooke).

I only heard her say one thing @ CPAC, and it was a badass moment when she called out Ashcroft (he was all discombobulated after she barked out something at him - HILARIOUS!) ~ When I found out it was her I was excited and wanted to congratulate her on a job well done. But my tipsyness at after-parties prevented me from remembering it.... See More

As far as what she asked Glenn & Dr. Paul - I have no idea what she asked. Again, it wasn't about what she asked.

Glenn Beck for Vice Prez?? UGH. :-P
HAHHAAAAAAAA!!! (sorry, Todd)
Fri at 12:15pm

Matt Harris asks her:

Matt D. Harris
Amber, so how does someone get kicked out of LOLA? I know some people involved but I'm not familiar with the organization's inner workings. Was Brooke in a board or committee position or something?
Fri at 12:24pm

Amber Danelle responds with the following (yet nonsensical quip):

Amber Danelle
Matt: I had no idea about the kicking out and what was done to get kicked out. As far as the technical process, I'm not sure either. We LOLAs don't like to let drama cloud our projects or discussion... so we don't make it a priority to talk about this type of stuff when we're trying to do work (at least I never hear about it - until the end). It's super freakin' cool to work with women who aren't all about yakkin' about drama-crap all day. THANK GOD! Women can be weird, as we all know. :-)

It's also not kosher for me to talk about specifics, because I would prefer to squelch the drama. I barely know specifics anyway. But what I heard from Brooke last night is enough for me to form at least a minor opinion. And whatever I've typed here is from ME to HER .... and not from LOLA to HER. ... See More

LOLA is freakin' awesome, in fact!!! These chicas seriously inspire me to keep on with what I'm doing! It's like having a family. I love working with cool women in situations like this.
Some people work better on their own... and that is cool, too. Nothing is wrong with distrusting orgs or wanting to not work with them. But, for me, I love this group!! ♥
Fri at 12:39pm

Basically, the claim that LOLA has been positing is that Brooke Kelley "stole" freedom activist Tennyson McCalla's cell phone (committing theft), "trashed" his hotel room (hence, destroying praivate property), and trying to get into LOLA's suite at the hotel when they didn't want her in there (trespassing onto private property). Interestingly enough, Tennyson McCalla, who contacted Angela Keaton and told her that Brooke didn't steal his phone, did note that Brooke was "irresponsible" for leaving her "dogs in the hotel room." That is definitely a far cry from theft, not to mention destroying and trespassing onto private property in its entirety.

I did not know about this incident until Mariana Evica, with whom I am good friends, told me about it on the phone on Friday morning, which led me to contacting Angela Keaton and Brooke Kelley to gather more information on the incident (so I could blog about it).

McCalla told Amber Danelle and the others this:

Brooke and Chris *did not* steal my phone. As best as I can determine they were trying to return it to me after they thought that I had left it behind and went off to CPAC. But they did leave the dog in the hotel room that I had invited them to stay in.

The news now is that LOLA is going to shut down. That troubles me.
Fri at 2:33pm

Then Kelley's next status says the following:

Brooke Kelley dear LOLA: thanx for the good times. you'll always hava special place in my heart. i love you dearly, but i'm off like a prom dress.
Thu at 4:54pm · Comment · Like

Other comments on the thread appear as the following:

Steve Bell
damnit now i got that image in my head thanks lol
Thu at 5:01pm

Ian Freeman
What happened?
Thu at 5:12pm

Brooke Kelley
The top officials of Campaign for Liberty put out a message right before Glenn Beck's speech at CPAC (a neocon convention) saying that Ron Paul would denounce and disown any person affiliated with C4L, if they heckle or "harass" Beck at all.

Well, turns out I don't listen very well. There was gonna be a whole big group of us, but everyone backed out, last minute. I called him out at the end of his speech, and not only did C4L turn their backs on me, LOLA dropped me like yesterday's news. ...B.
Thu at 5:40pm

Ian Freeman
Welcome to politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps you should consider giving up on restoring the republic and join us up in NH as we get the hell out of the republic? ;)
Thu at 5:50pm

James Freelander
That's awful. For what it's worth, I'm proud of you and I'll back you up. LOLA, I'm disappointed =(
Thu at 5:53pm

Steve Bell
beck need to be heckled as much as possible he a shill and the perfect example of a Benedict arnold if anyone dosen't know who he is ill post link
Thu at 5:54pm

Ian Freeman
Did you ever post video of the heckling?
Thu at 5:57pm

Brooke Kelley
no shit, eh. there is no restoring the republic, and i've been workin on independent projects lately-like PuZzLeD (Reality Show about Liberty Kids Fighting for Freedom) and Operation Defuse. At what point is C4L gonna stop sittin around talkin about freedom, and actually start being free, and letting others around them BE Free!?
Thu at 5:58pm

Ian Freeman
When they stop believing in politics? Which as a political organization, isn't very likely. Especially since it pays their bills.
Thu at 6:00pm

Brooke Kelley
Come Pay for Liberty!!

But Ian, GET THIS-the LOLA girls were planning to get the whole group together, to heckle Beck too, and "bring down the neocons". But when C4L nationals said no, their plan shifted quite dramatically.
Thu at 6:03pm

Ian Freeman
Does LOLA get money from C4L?
Thu at 6:11pm

Brooke Kelley
no. C4L makes LOLA pay them (for booths and stuff) but allison and the board wants LOLA girls to PAY them to have chapters. report to the top and stuff. it's too bad too, cuz LOLA has the potential to be so much better than the average sorority. ...B.
Thu at 6:14pm

Catherine Cointelpro Bleish
Yeah girl. Let's go be activists and let the socialites be socialites ;) proud to still be an austin lola, disenfranchized as I may be from national lol ♥
Thu at 6:17pm

Ian Freeman
lol @ the sorority comment
Thu at 6:19pm

Dan Tucker
Hmmm, I was there and I remember being told to stop heckling everyone... but you must have got the word pretty late. It started with the panel of students and it seemed many of the YAF students were in training for Fox News comentators... with a Rhupert Murdock Mushroom Cloud Foreign Policy. I think they are all "Twelvers".
Thu at 6:37pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
FYI Liberty on the Rocks doesnt make people pay to set up chapters.

Ian, I do see a voluntaryist in the making in Brooke. I told her Keene's where she needs to go to find the serious activism.
Thu at 6:48pm

Ian Freeman
Brooke already made a splash here once:
Thu at 7:00pm

Ian Freeman
:30 and :60 versions:
Thu at 7:01pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Yeah, I have a habit of telling her things she already knows. Like the message I sent her about the left right paradigm, divide and conquer ideologue.

Oh and thanks for doing that show on it.
Thu at 7:19pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Oh I remember watching that. I didnt realize it was Brooke. That was awesome. She also did a video with Anarcho-Jesse about gardening.
Thu at 7:22pm

Mariana Evica
Ohhhh Brooke, you rock. I support you 100%.
Thu at 7:27pm

Tracy Ward Ⓥ
The more I hear, the less I agree. Sounds less like liberty and more like democracy. Not good.
Thu at 7:27pm

Angela Aronoff
LOLA has chapters all over the country that dont pay to LOLA National. They don't really have much to do with C4L other than being at the same conferences.

I think the way LOLA intended to call out neo cons was with the anti-war panel (great event btw).

Surely they wouldn't drop you just for calling out Glenbeck?
Thu at 7:29pm

Ryan Hopkins
We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors.
- Sun Tzu
Thu at 7:34pm

Brooke Kelley
Angela Keaton writes: "You scared the bejeebus out of an old guy (Ron Paul for frig's sake is someone's grampa-what the hell is wrong with you?)"
Thu at 7:39pm

Ryan Hopkins
Watch them label you as an extremist in the media now...such bullshit.
Thu at 7:50pm

Brooke Kelley
And no, Angela, there was talk in the Atlanta meeting, of LOLAs agreeing to group heckle Glenn Beck.

Me and Catherine Bleish were very vocal AGAINST paying "to use the name" (you know, the one we ALL helped to create) and then the subject of payment was dropped. I have a feeling it'll come back up again, but if enuf people become unhappy with it, they may drop it just in realization of how it makes them look bad. ...B.
Thu at 7:53pm

Brooke Kelley
I am an extremist, Ryan. I love Liberty, and I'll DO ANYTHING--shy of violence--I will Stop at NOTHING to accomplish that goal. That's pretty extreme in this society.

LIVE FREE or Get Kicked Outa Ron Paul Circle tryin!! ...B.
Thu at 7:57pm

Jim Davidson
Brooke, I was waiting to buy a case of LOLA calendars. So now I'll be buying from you an Catherine, looks like. I've been seeing a lot wrong from an activist standpoint with C4L - hierarchy, decisions made from on high, activists, including activist candidates being kicked in the teeth. Wrote a long note about it, which TLE published. I'm with you for freedom, Brooke. And to hell with the stupid old men.
Thu at 8:13pm

Jim Davidson
Thu at 8:14pm

Brooke Kelley
buy LOLA calendars from catherine bleish or tracy ward. i have a few that someone gave to me, but i don't sell them. ...B.
Thu at 8:21pm

Jim Davidson
Reminds me of that David Bowie song lyric, "These children that you spit on as they try to change their world, are immune to your consultations, they're well aware what they're goin' thru"
Thu at 8:28pm

Brooke Kelley
LOVE that song you posted regarding this, Jim! THANK YOU!! So sweet. ...B.
Thu at 8:40pm

Jim Davidson
Doin' my part. You are important. The hierarchy and the leaders from on high can be real jerks. Freedom isn't obtained by kicking our friends under the bus.
Thu at 8:44pm

Adam Tilsley
Sorry for what happened to you. Always remember..when one door closes, another one opens. Continue to fight the good fight! :)
Thu at 8:44pm

Brooke Kelley
no worries, adam. no worries. had they come to me before and said that not only will ron paul denounce me--but LOLA too--if i dare stand up and actually LIVE FREE--i still woulda done it.

i went there with a job to do, and i did it.

it's too bad a chunk of the movement turned their backs on me for holding the media accountable for their disgusting actions. i'm not sad tho. i'm motivated. now more than EVER. catherine has been going thru a very similar situation with them too. ... See More

just wait and see how we bounce back. Liberty Kids don't stop--and they are not stoppable. ....B.
Thu at 8:55pm

Buddy Guthrie
Yeah it really is a shame the game of politics gets played, the game of politics makes us all forget what we are all about, to an extent you have to do that to get to the winners circle, and I do get that, but if you sell your soul to win, even if you do win, do you ever win anything?
Thu at 9:03pm

Jim Davidson
The corruption and brutality which result from excessive politics are not going to be resolved by the application of more politics.
Thu at 9:05pm

Molli Skye
Brooke, you will definitely be missed.
But all the power to you, woman!

LOLA has not been turning out at all as I'd anticipated. The idea of a central organization trying to "control" everything goes against the very grain of most of us in this movement. If there's corruption in a small organization, then how can we expect people in much larger and higher institutions to not be corrupt? That makes us no better than those we are fighting.
... See More
Hopefully the chapters continue to work out.
Thu at 11:27pm

Jim Davidson
In my experience, women who want to make something of a modelling career are better off working with professionals. My friend Cyan Banister has started with excellent results.
Thu at 11:29pm

John Delano
We need more people to get out and get attention. Too many of us (like me) are too shy about starting things like this. Brooke seems to push things a bit, but those people tend to make things happen.

When you get PuZzLeD up and going with it's new site, you should get some ads for it on some of the podcasts where thre would be friendly listeners.
Fri at 1:36am

John Delano
Fri at 1:38am

Jim Davidson
That's hilarious, John. I was just having a conversation with Scott Horton on that very FB page about Brooke Kelley and Stephen Schoppe being thrown under the bus by C4L. Horton was vicious and hateful, so I removed him as a friend. He just lost a major contributor to Antiwar. I wrote him a message inquiring what he was doing with C4L as the "Featured Cause" on his FB page, and he called me a douche. Seriously angry guy that Scott Horton.
Fri at 1:45am

John Delano
can somebody follow as Many wars as closely as he does without becoming an angry person?

Listen to some of his first shows to see how angry he has become. Somebody needs to do what Scott does.
Fri at 3:22am

Jim Davidson
Now that Brooke has her prom dress off, maybe we can get her to do some of that stuff. -smile- I'd rather support Brooke's activism and enthusiasm, which has a sincerity in which I believe. Scott, in addition to acting like a dick toward me (and no condom on his head) seems hypocritical.
Fri at 3:30am

Brooke Kelley
Scott has every right to be mad. But name calling and slander? If he can't handle his job, he needs to maybe check into janitorial work or something. ...B.
Fri at 10:36am

Brooke Kelley
So okay. I talked to Angela Keaton last nite who further bitched me out, but informed me that the MAIN reason why I was kicked out of LOLA was not because of the Glenn Beck thing so much as me asking Ron Paul if he thinks it's important that people know the truth about 9-11. Apparently that's offensive to LOLA to poke around askin valid questions.

I know RP's stance on 9-11. He wants to pretend like it never happened. That's his deal. I'm not tryin to bust him out. I sincerely wanted to know if he was expecting his people to hush about it, because that's EXACTLY the kind of affect his silence is having on this movement!!

His answer--and Angela's exact words to me .. in a vid to follow .. PuZzLeD ep. 4 COMING SOON!!... See More

So I was confused. C4L kicked me out, because I asked Glenn Beck a question, and LOLA kicked me out, because I asked Ron Paul a question. Sorry for the confusion, y'all! Hope that clears it all up. ....B.
Fri at 10:44am

-Rita Quinn
Brooke, I know you're not too happy with me because I've defended LOLA in the past. I want you to know that I am done doing that... like Cat, I'm not happy with the way things are being run at the national level of LOLA and have tried to appeal to the "board" repeatedly to deaf ears. I feel that until Allison no longer has ties to C4L she can NOT ... See Morebe the ED LOLA needs because she is controlled by C4L since they, not LOLA, pay her salary. I've always been upset at their lack of transparency and strategic plans and have watched for months as most "official" LOLA activity has centered around how to make money, without any real plans or vision of what to do with it to forward the cause of liberty. As for this decision to "vote" you out, I can tell you that there was never a public vote among the LOLAs (I certainly wasn't asked to vote and I've talked to others who weren't either) so I can only assume that you were lied to if you were told you were "voted" out. It's more likely that it was actually just discussed among the 4 board members, who I personally feel sadly lean toward tyrannically tactics when faced with difficult situations and people they don't like (such as how this situation with you played out). Making this public statement will probably get me, now, kicked out of LOLA but I've been a thorn in their side the last few months too. I've just done it more privately and have tried to really give them time to change course. I don't know the specifics around your particular situation, but the bottom line for me is that you have the RIGHT to free speech and if the reason given for you being kicked out was for using it, then LOLA is a travesty to freedom and that makes me both angry and sad, because as you know, I've been one of it's biggest cheerleaders since day one. Even to the point of hurting you. I'm really sorry for everything and will continue to support you in your own activities. LOLA Austin will continue to do the work we're doing... and if you're ever in the 'hood' you're welcome to join us. :)
Fri at 11:30am

But the problem is far from over. Amber Danelle and I got into a tiff over the matter yesterday. Our responses to each other (including Jim Davidson's) pretty much say it all:

Amber Danelle
Wow. :-)
Todd & Brooke.... you two have a lot of angry people as friends/fans... they have no real idea what my real position on this is. Yet they are balls out angry about it.
Yesterday at 10:27am ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If they're angry about this entire incident involving Brooke, good. I hope they are angry about it. I am not a happy camper about it too.

If they're angry that I brought this matter to the public and talked about the lack of transparency that goes on in LOLA and the refusal of the organization to take responsibility for its own fuck-ups, then they... See More're barking up the wrong tree. They should be pissed at LOLA for how it handled this mess, not cast aspersions or attack people in the movement who refuse to bow down to and kowtow to their demands.

If they're angry that LOLA has been pulling this crap, good. I hope they are angry about it. And I hope they're angry enough to demand that LOLA wises up and change for the better.
Yesterday at 11:12am ·

Jim Davidson
If we have no idea what evil, vicious, tyrannical positions you are taking in "this" it is because you, Amber, are not open and transparent about your positions. It is all some game to you to get listeners to your stupid online "radio" show. Screw you and your "friend" request. You aren't my friend, and you know it. You aren't for transparency ... See Moreand openness in government, you are for secret trials and water boarding, as your own actions clearly illustrate. If you were dying in a fire, I wouldn't piss on you.
Yesterday at 7:19pm ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
Ouch! That hoits, Jim! Heh
Yesterday at 7:22pm ·

Amber Danelle
Jim: It's all good. If you want to listen to how Zaira & I feel about this incident tomorrow, then please tune in. Some other LOLAs may be calling in to let their position be known, as well. If you don't wanna hear it, I'm not too concerned. I just don't feel that it's necessary to disrupt people's lives with constant negative FB posts. Evil, vicious, tyrannical positions?

Were you loved as a child?

Todd: How is LOLA refusing to take responsibility for it's feck-ups? Are you saying that because the board may want to move past the drama by NOT AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY... because maybe they feel it is ineffective to speak ill of a former member of LOLA... YOU feel dissatisfied with that? Who runs this organization?? Not you. Not Jim.... See More

Again... if either of you, or any other person who has, like me, wasted time debating-reading-typing-THINKING about this boloney, wants to hear our "side" because you think that you are entitled to it... then tune in to the show tomorrow night. Zaira & I will discuss our side one time and one time only. After that, we move on.
LOLA is NOT a government. And you really have no right to demand transparency from us.
Soon the core group will be told what happened.
Transparency in our group of core ladies (which is NOT small) is important to us.
It's not important for us to share drama or unfavorable information about others.
Yesterday at 8:18pm ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If lack of communication, Allison unwilling to come forward and offer an explanation for the crap that's been transpiring in the group, making baseless accusations against a former member sans evidence and documentation, and resorting to high school drama tactics and antics to shut up many in the movement who have concerns about what's been going ... See Moreon in LOLA for months "taking responsibility for its fuck-ups," then it has an uncanny way of showing it.

Your response amounts to deliberate intellectual dishonesty. In other words, you're purposely full of shit.

I'll comment further shortly, but I am in the middle of a phone call.
Yesterday at 9:30pm ·

What's very disappointing about this is that Amber and her co-host Zaira of Truth A to Z kept posting the following notice under various threads (including mine):

Amber Danelle
Fellow humans,

We at “Truth A to Z” appreciate freedom of speech and are therefore exercising it to say we wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by Kim Johnson and Amber Danelle. We stand firmly behind the principles of liberty and demand that others stop to think about current events in light of truth. Our show format derives from our understanding that truth is in fact varied and that people hold different truths. However, we believe freedom is our one common bond. We all know that situations arise, precisely because people see the truth differently. In those cases, we should still judge people based on their actions.

Sunday, at 7 p.m. Pacific time on Channel 40, we will be discussing the said matter on our show as we engage in our liberty activism. We should always keep in mind the non-aggression principle (avoiding a needlessly confrontational approach) and that we stand behind the idea that activists should be professional and civilized, unless it becomes necessary to be aggressive towards an enemy, as in military or police. We feel strongly that there’s a nefarious desire out there, by those who keep us bound, to thrive on our infighting. We want to extend to all of you a warm invitation to hear our truths about the difference between what's effective and what's wasting our time.... See More

If you're interested, tune in this Sunday at 7 p.m. Pacific time at Channel 40.

Our success means freedom,

Amber D and Zaira D

FB invite:
Fri at 11:54pm

Incidentally, Kimberly Johnson, who is now the Interim Vice Chair (why Angela Keaton is no longer a Vice Chair is a mystery at this time), posted this letter as a Facebook note:

Dear Activists and Allies:

The Board of Directors of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance upheld the decision of the interim chairwoman to remove Brooke Kelley from the LOLA roster due to trespass, theft and physical destruction of private property at a political event. Such actions are in violation of the non aggression principle which binds all libertarians in a spirit of non-violence including aversion to force and fraud.

No further comment will be made.

In Liberty,

Kimberly Johnson
Interim Vice Chair
Ladies of Liberty Alliance

(The comments on this thread can be read at the link above, provided that one has a Facebook account.)

Interestingly enough, a Facebooker by the name of Corey Cizzle Moore wrote in defense of LOLA and blasted both Brooke and her defenders in a Facebook note that was tagged to a number of Facebookers (he claims to be a neutral, but that's bogus to begin with if one reads the comments in this note):

Upon following the outcome of the events of this past week, I have to say that this bickering between friends and allies is absolutely discouraging and wrong. Brooke, I understand that you are upset that the reasons you were asked to leave LOLA may have not been based on 100% truth, but going around and trying to drive division within this important liberty organization appears to be more of a personal vendetta rather than trying to hold them accountable for a mistake.

I have watched you trash the entire organization for the past few days, while LOLA has released one press release on the issue. If you could have resolved this issue in private rather than airing dirty laundry everywhere, we would all be better off. Sometimes we must stand up as men and women of liberty, admit that some of the blame falls upon oneself, and move on. Don't get me wrong Brooke; I think you do great work and I have been watching a lot of what you do. But the reaction you took regarding the incident seriously made me question whether or not you care more about liberty or your own ego.

To my fellow activists that have taken sides in this issue: I understand standing up for your friends when they are being attacked. However I have seen multiple people not only side with Brooke (which is not wrong), but trash LOLA without even considering that you were collectively trashing a lot of activists that have been in the struggle for a long time. If I were to make a mistake, or even been accused of making a mistake, I would hope that my friends would stick up for me. That does not give you carte blanche to attack and slander simply because you disagree with a decision that was collectively made within an organization! I commend anyone that reacted appropriately, asked questions, and came to a factual conclusion before jumping on a side; you are a true free thinking individual.

Brooke, please consider the words I have written above for the sake of peace, love and liberty.

Corey Moore
Host of "Voice of Radical Dissent"
Co-founder of Kent State Libertarians

Here's my take on this entire matter: it's nothing but pure high school drama that is highly unneeded and unnecessary in the libertarian movement. But, more importantly, what LOLA has done to Brooke was wrong. If she were guilty of anything, then where's the evidence and documentation that proves that she's guilty as sin for committing the charges as given?

She may not be a saint, and she may be a "radical," but we need radicals like her in the movement. I took issue with Brooke for her unwise defense of Ron Paul who called for his supporters to throw in their weight behind Neo-Con Republican congressional candidate Lamar Smith. However, I never had a problem with her in the movement.

I don't buy into the argument that Brooke has lied to the members of LOLA or has acted against the interests of the movement. If she did, where's the evidence? And why the need for the histrionics over this tawdry and absurd matter? More than that, what has LOLA done for liberty? How many women has the group brought into the movement? I have not seen such evidence of this kind.

Plus, it does not help that LOLA has been cozy with C4L, considering that Gibbs works for that organization and earns a sweet salary. Considering she is on their payroll, that brings up another point: isn't collecting a salary and being the ED of a pro-Liberty women's group a clear-cut conflict of interest? I would assume so, considering LOLA was organized to promote the interests of the libertarian -- and not the conservative -- movement, yet she is working for an organization that is promoting the interests of the conservative -- and not the libertarian -- movement at all. And while we're on that topic, how about the fact that Nena Bartlett, a former LOLA Core member**, has gone on from working as the Development Director at the CATO Institute to working for the Rand Paul for Senate campaign. Oh, and let's remember that Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul, and Paul accepted her endorsement.

Thus, it's funny that Angela Keaton, whose own employer has gotten financial support from C4L and is still getting it, accuses Kelley of violating the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) when her employer is doing it by siding with an organization that supports pro-war candidates. It's also funny that, in a screaming voice in my ear on my phone, she will "destroy" anyone who sides with Kelley and declare that they do not support the NAP simply by making deals with people like David Boaz and Tom Palmer of CATO, the Libertarian National Committee's Aaron Starr and Bill Redpath, yet she will not criticize LOLA for having a former board member Barlett for her Neo-Con connections to CATO. THAT is a direct violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. But, then again, try telling her that.

Another ridiculous aspect to LOLA is that its calendars, when they were first launched in the fall of 2009, were priced at $20. Since then, the calendars have been priced at $9.95, which is the price that should have been the entire time. But, according to several sources in the know, Gibbs wanted them at the price of $20, which has led to the calendars becoming a dismal failure sales-wise. Why would anyone honestly pay $20 for a calendar when someone can go to their local pharmacy or grocer and find calendars in stock that sell for under $10?

And, based on the claims posited by Keaton, Gibbs, Dynia, and Danelle, I find the allegations to be quite apocryphal.

Not only that, I believe that these recent tactics are designed to shut up dissenters and opponents of the decisions made by the organization itself. There are now plans for Austin LOLA to rename itself***, and, according to a couple of the group's activists, the organization is on the verge of shutting down.

As of this writing, Keaton has cut me out of the circle. This is her private message to me, Jim Davidson, and Tennyson McCalla on Facebook regarding this, along with her claim that Jim does not support the NAP:


You don't support the NAP. Sorry, babe, but I have to cut you all out of the loop. I made my statement clear. Have documented evidence.

Please refer all further correspondence to our attorney. Any further contact form any of you is unwelcome.


LOLA might want to change its name to Ladies of Lying Intelligent Tyrants Alliance (LOLITA). It fits the authoritarian mindset of the powers-that-be who run the operation, which appears to be a Mickey Mouse front for the GOP.

As Executive Director John Bush of Texans of Accountable Government pointed out last night on Brooke's Facebook account:

Be advised. There is a purge of radicals occuring right now in the tea party and freedom movement alike. Stay pure. Do not worry. Consistency is difficult at first, but pays off in the long run. Stay strong. Choose freedom

I don't think the radicals are being purged from the movement, but they are being silenced for speaking out against the Neo-Cons who have taken over C4L and, as it appears, LOLA, not to mention the entire movement.

Other than that, I agree with John. Pro-Liberty activists, as ideologically pure as they are, must remain vigilante and strong. Stand up to the statists. LOLA and C4L are all about statism and tyranny now and not about liberty.

That must count for something, no matter how insane it seems to the non-purists.

[H/T to Brooke Kelley for the great title she came up for this post last night.]

[Note: I want to point out that I have no qualms with the other good ladies of LOLA, including Rita Quinn, Catherine Bleish, and Molli Skye. These are fine ladies who are radicals (a.k.a. purists) in the movement, and we need more people like them.]

[*Correction: According to one source, there was no meeting by the LOLA Core to boot Kelley, what was widely believed notwithstanding. LOLA decided to boot her from the roster on the spot.]

[**Correction: Nena Bartlett is actually still on the LOLA Core board. I erroneously thought that she was no longer on the board because her picture was not on the group's website. Apologies are given to the readers because of the inaccuracy of this information.]

[***Correction: Austin LOLA is actually reviewing its relationship with LOLA and has yet to decide what it will do. It has not immediately decided to rename itself as a different group. Apologies are given to the readers because of the unverified and unconfirmed veracity of this information.]

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Diana Culda's "Anarfuckismo & Co." and Jim Davidson's "Critique of Anarkismo"

A seemingly intriguing note posted on self-described pro-freedom activist Diana Culda has been making the rounds in many pro-Liberty circles on the social networking site Facebook. The note, which copied an entire page of an "anarcho-communist" (quite an oxymoron if one thinks about it!) creed on a communistic website entitled Anarkismo that is clearly and diametrically opposed to the concept of a freed market and anti-capitalism as well. (HT: both Brad Spangler for pointing that link to Gary Chartier's piece at the Center for a Stateless Society on Sheldon Richman's blog recently and Gary for penning it.)

Here's the post in its entirety from Facebook for LLR readers and visitors to see:

Anarfuckismo & Co.

by Diana Culda

This is only one among the multitude of sites I found, who are having about the same agenda. I have no comments, that is no civil comments. So enjoy the reading.



Who we are and why we do it is the product of international co-operation between anarchist groups and individuals who agree with our editorial statement (see below). It is intended to further communciation, discussion and debate within the global anarchist movement. Our intention is to build this site into a resource that is truly global and multilingual. We intend to work closely with the anarchist movement that exist. All of the editors are either members of anarchist organisations or part of collectives that are seeking to form organisations.

Editoral statement

We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the "platformist", anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and not an end point.

The core ideas of this tradition that we identify with are the need for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:

  • Theoretical Unity

  • Tactical Unity

  • Collective Action and Discipline

  • Federalism

Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a "leadership of ideas".

A major focus of our activity is our work within the economic organizations of the working class (labour organizations, trade unions, syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass organizations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930's CNT. However, the unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist political organisation(s).

We also see it as vital to work in struggles that happen outside the unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and direct action.

We actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice within the workers' movement and society in general and we work alongside those struggling against racism, sexism, [religious] sectarianism and homophobia as a priority. We see the success of a revolution and the successful elimination of these oppressions after the revolution being determined by the building of such struggles in the pre-revolutionary period. The methods of struggle that we promote are a preparation for the running of society along anarchist and communist lines after the revolution.

We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.

We recognise a need for anarchist organisations who agree with these principles to federate on an international basis. However, we believe the degree of federation possible and the amount of effort put into it must be determined by success at building national or regional organisations capable of making such international work a reality, rather than a matter of slogans.'

This is pro-Liberty propertarian Jim Davidon's response to Culda's:

Critique of Anarkismo

by Jim Davidson

My friend Diana Culda has written this note:

She bases her text on this link: follow the 'about' link.

Here are my thoughts in response.

Diana, people who spend their time in the anarchist movement often ask me about my unwillingness to use terms like anarchist or even anarcho-capitalist to describe my political philosophy. Some of these people see the history of the term capitalism and its application widely in the culture to identify the marriage of big business with big government and say "well, that's why I don't call myself a capitalist." Now you see from this screed at anarkismo dot net that my use of anarchism to describe my propertarian and libertarian philosophy of individual self government without externally imposed coercion would certainly cause just as much confusion. If saying that I'm a sovereign individual, an agorist, a propertarian, and a self governor is more confusing, then I would invite further discussion.

Voluntary and self-responsible individual sovereignty seems to me to be essential. Free markets for finding market clearing prices without compulsion and intervention are necessarily based on private property. Agorism as a basically Taoist strategy of withdrawal and the appearance of poverty seems to be much more effective than many of the other strategies under consideration.

I am transnational, not international. Beyond borders, not about borders. The anarchist collective from which you quote seems to be focused on recognising and working within existing nation state and provincial boundaries. This seems odd at best, pathetic at least.

What anarkismo dot net is not, apparently, is any attempt to reach out to other forms and flavours of anarchism. On that basis, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. They are interested in an echo chamber where their premises may not be challenged. Okay by me.

Unfortunately, I anticipate the same difficulties faced by anarchists like George Orwell with outfits like POUM during the Spanish civil war against Soviet communist anti-anarchist pogroms. The long sad history of communism as a death machine has been chronicled by Bryan Caplan, among many others. Your graphic is on target.

With regard to unity, I don't see any reason to stand with people who are getting shot at. My preference is to shoot from the prone position. Even laying down next to some idiot who is standing up drawing fire seems absurd. Unity and collective action seem unwise and there is no way that discipline could possibly enter into a relationship based on distrust and lack of consent. As for federalism, I've no idea what that means in this context, but it makes me extremely suspicious.

'Haven't we just gotten out of a fucked up relationship with a president?" asks Katt Williams, "Couldn't we just be single for a while?'

That is how I feel about anarkismo. Nor do I agree with their class theory. If they want, as they say, theoretical unity, I should like them to review Konkin's agorist class theory, or L. Neil Smith's libertarian class theory. I have more in common with the entrepreneur who is creating value than I do with the government worker. Yet the entrepreneur is supposedly in the "ruling" class while the government employee is supposedly in the "working" class. I believe the government is parasitical and the workers and entrepreneurs and owners of capital who are outside the government are the productive class. But there is apparently no room for this class theory in the theoretical unity of anarkismo.

Nor is it clear to me that there is any point in requiring ideas. I do not "require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas." Indeed, I look around me and I see 57% of the population didn't vote in the November 2008 election, and roughly that same percentage (a bit more) did not file any sort of personal income tax form in April 2009. Do I really give a flying flip what their ideas are? I'm interested in results. If the ascension of anarchist ideas makes more results available, great. If not, who cares?

However, it is clear that the spontaneous order of the free market, especially the market for ideas, is not acceptable to these goons. They require their ideas to be the leading ones, and they assert it won't happen spontaneously. We must therefore suppose that they mean to impose their ideas.

Given the hostility toward productive persons, the extensive history of racism, sexism, age discrimination, and use of violence by labour organisations and trade unions, I am extremely skeptical of their plans. It seems very likely, to me, that what we may anticipate from anarkismo is violence, purges, and more violence. It seems to me that by saying "we fight for ...democratic structures" that what anarkismo is really saying is that (a) they are primarily violent and (b) their goal is a form of direct democracy, rather than anarchy. What have 309 million rulers to offer me that I'm not already getting from 535 or so?

Were big labour not already married to big government in ways far more corrupt, insidious, and riddled with organised crime than the extensive marriage of big business with big government, I might be of a different view. If there were labour organisations suited to the negligible government world, such as private mutual aid groups, purchasing cooperatives, and the like, I would be happy to work with them. However, compulsory trade unions are just another form of coercion.

I am admittedly skeptical of their call for anarchist political organisations. What is it about the excesses and corruption brought on by excessive political activity that are to be ameliorated by the addition of more politics?

The evidence for the effectiveness of struggles, as opposed to entrepreneurship in particular, for building decent places to live seems minimal. Where people go and take over abandoned property, improve it, and make use of it, they are doing far more good than those who merely struggle and demand the government act, or intercede. Where rent control has been imposed and enforced, the availability of low cost housing has been obliterated.

Nor is there any evidence that I find credible that the highly political scientific establishment's claims about global warming and environmental degradation are based on truth. The environment is much cleaner than ever. Inventions and innovations are making it possible for far more people to live far more cleanly. I am hostile toward what I suspect is an implicit desire by anarkismo to attack individuals, oppress those who seek to reproduce, and steal from those they think are "polluting" by, e.g., exhaling carbon dioxide.

On the plus side, I actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice in society in general. I think racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, homophobia, xenophobia, and war are specifically conservative ideologies, based on bigotry and authoritarianism. I reject them all.

Anarkismo, however, sees no reason to eliminate them until after the revolution. This suggests to me a willingness to compromise on principle. Nor am I confident that their revolution would be anything but a bloody mess - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The men who spurred us on, sit in judgement of our wrongs, they decide and the shotgun sings the song.

By recognising a purported need for federation on an international basis, the anarkismo people seem to be conceding the existence of imaginary boundaries and imaginary nation states. This seems bizarre and contrary to anarchist philosophy. Building national or regional organisations seems contrary to the whole point of anarchism. It also seems to be characteristic of the 1930s style of employment model, union organising, and political philosophy with which they appear to be most comfortable. I think there is an obvious 21st Century alternative, which is to organise across borders and beyond the reach of any single jurisdiction. In my past writings I have proposed "jurisdictional arbitrage" as a way of maximising resources by taking advantage of the differing rules that apply in many different jurisdictions.

So, that's all I have to say on this subject. I think my responses merit a note on my FB page, and shall tip my hat your way when I write. Thanks, Diana.

This is quite an engaging, not to mention interesting, subject for debate and discussion. I will, however, respond to it later tonight or so.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Late Joseph Stack's Ex-Wife Offers "Sincerest Sympathy" to Families of IRS Victims

Last week, Sheryl Stack, former wife of the late Joseph Stack (the anti-government pilot who drove his plane into the IRS office building Echelon I in Austin, Texas a day before then) offered her "sincerest sympathy" to the families of the IRS victims who were killed in the attack.

According to, Stack said:

The wife of a software engineer who crashed his plane into an office building that held more than 200 federal tax agency employees said she is sorry for everyone affected by the tragedy, The Associated Press quoted a family spokesperson.

Rayford Walker said he's a spokesman for Joseph Stack's family. He read a statement from Stack's wife, Sheryl Stack, while standing in front of a house across the street from the Stack home. The Stack home was set on fire Thursday before Joseph Stack crashed his plane into the building.

In the statement, Sheryl Stack thanks her friends and family and offers her "sincerest sympathy" for the victims and their families. She also says she won't comment further. [Emphasis added.]

It's interesting that she refused to "comment further" on the attacks. She could have provided more insight into Stack's state of mind, let alone her view of his suicide note that he published on his website.

More thoughts on this incident either tomorrow or Friday.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Small Single-Engine Plane Crashes Into Austin IRS Office

The state is now scrambling to "investigate" the crashing of a small plane into an IRS office building in Austin, Texas, an incident which has resulted in the deaths of 190 federal agents. According to, the pilot of the craft, who's already been outed by the mainstream media as 53-year-old Joseph Andrew Stack, flew his fixed wing single-engine Piper Cherokee PA-28 plane (registration N2889D) into the seven-story 65,000 square feet Echelon I building at 10:00 AM Central Standard Time (CST) this morning.

Reuters reports that the pilot may have deliberately flown the plane into the structure -- that is, according to federal aviation and Department of Homeland Security officials. Interestingly enough, this incident has promulgated fears of "domestic terrorism" and has led to criticisms of "gaps in security for private aircraft, although Obama administration officials said they had no reason to believe terrorism was involved."

How nice of Obama and his stooges in the White House!

Stack, who had a very solid beef with the tax agency, wrote on his disabled website the following missive:

Federal authorities are investigating the following Web posting linked to Joseph Stack, the pilot of the single-engine plane that crashed into an Austin, Texas, office building that housed IRS offices.

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report ( regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (


(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.


  • "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
  • "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
  • "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)


Because of this latest episode, I feel the state will backlash against the non-violent pro-Liberty movement, conflating us with the vile and disgusting actions of this deeply demented man.

I will have more to say in a day or two regarding this mess. I fear the worst is not over and has yet to come.