“There exist a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not by theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law  which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero
 

It’s not funny guys. The man threatens those who tarnished JV’s reputation with a lawsuit.

Ha ha! he he! ho ho! You are really funny, Ufactdirt! You again f … another dirt! The website also f … up your posting. That makes it even funnier! I think you are in a wrong profession. You should be in the last comic standing!

Mine: When you live in a house of glass, don’t throw the first stone and suffer the first crush you don’t like.

Bonnie was my two-year old Dalmatian whom I treat like my own son. He creates a ruckus at night when my singing Frank Sinatra neighbor comes home drunk.

May be you can threatened a lawyer who loves his dog very much, but you cannot threatened a dog with a lawsuit that you can’t win!

Mine: When you live in a house of glass, don’t throw the first stone and suffer the first crush you don’t like.

Bonnie was my two-year old Dalmatian whom I treat like my own son. He creates a ruckus at night when my singing Frank Sinatra neighbor comes home drunk.

May be you can threatened a lawyer who loves his dog very much, but you cannot threatened a dog with a lawsuit that you can’t win!

Anybody who wants to shoot anybody dead, without a valid reason or cause, is right on the edge of being a murderer, even though he hasn't murdered anyone, as yet. That isn't Larken Rose. In fact, Mr. Rose protects cops with his statement, "In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified."

It doesn't really bother anybody that there are folks who are speaking against Mr. Rose. There are people who speak against other people all over the place. Husbands and wives speak against each other all the time.

As a friend, and fellow commenter on Freedom's Phoenix, I would suggest that you people who are speaking against Mr. Rose should really be careful about what you say. Why? Freedom's Phoenix is public. You have gone down on record with public statements about Mr. Rose.

Now, if you had simply been talking in private among yourselves, nobody would know what you had said except you. It wouldn't matter, as long as it remained private, because you wouldn't have tarnished the character of Mr. Rose.

But when you make public statements that potentially tarnish the character of anyone, you had best be prepared to back those statements up, with detailed facts, the same way an attorney would, in a court of law. If you are not ready to do so, you just might find yourselves in a lawsuit that you can't win.

Well, to be honest with you, those who are defending this guy whom JV describes as a "psychopath" for wanting to shoot all cops dead are just as mentally cross-eyed as this Larken Rose himself – like the picture in the above article, the picture of a cross-eyed cop killer the author JV had attached. If you look at this picture carefully – after reading those comments and viewing the Video on "When Should You Shoot A Cop" -- something tickles in the pit of your stomach.

Ufactdirt … he! he! he!. You really f… dirt! Ha … ha … he! he!. Pardon me, but you are hilarious and I can’t stop laughing…

I also read "When Should You Shoot A Cop?" for the sake of this argument on killing a cop. I found out that the accompanying scripted video is about how to become a "criminal", a "law-breaker" or a "cop-killer".

But first, you have to imagine that everything is "evil"; that the law is actually "oppression", that all policemen are "violent trouble-makers" causing all the sufferings in your life. Then your right to shoot them dead becomes an "inalienable" right.

Of course what you are imagining is not real. It does not apply or need not be relevant to what cops are doing to maintain peace and order, to arrest criminals, to break up a violent demonstration or protest, or with a SWAT Team that with warrants enter a home legally and shoot dead a suspect-drug-trafficker who is a member of a notorious gang engaged in criminal activities. It has nothing to do with this ex-Marine with a rifle in his hands who confronted the police when they entered his house and ended up dead.

Like Larken Rose, all you have to do is really believe that those cops came to your house to rape your wife or kidnap your kid, rob you or steal your car at gunpoint! Then it becomes your inalienable right to shoot and kill cops!

Does JV deserve these dirty name-calling for exposing Larken Rose as a violent anarchist that he is?

JV was writing about Larken Rose to warn the public that like what Al Qaeda did in 911 this guy who hated cops and the Government like Al Qaeda terrorist do, could strike anytime anywhere in the United States. This makes me feel insecure for myself and my family.

I was wondering why this man is so consumed with his hatred of IRS, and this dangerous obsession to shoot cops dead. In his When Should You Shoot A Cop? http://www.abetterframingham.org/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop.html

I found another warning by Andrew Cook: http://www.copblock.org/8870/federal-agents-visit-larken-rose-mention-copblock-org-blog-post/

Follow this nutjob at your own peril". -- Cook.

Are those Ad Hominem specialists who are calling JV "dirty names" for writing about Larken Rose, profit-sharing accomplices in a scam that promotes the sale of his books that attack the State and the Government, and the marketing of his videos that advertise his doctrinal "crap" on why and when to shoot a cop?

In those books/videos that Rose is selling to the public, he never mentions that he has been convicted and had spent 13 months out of his 15-month sentence in jail for violating the Tax Code.

My point is, who would buy a book on how bad is the IRS written by an author who did not disclose this vital information that he in fact has been imprisoned for tax evasion? This business of fooling the public out of which he receives fraudulent profits is a criminal offense, a vicious SCAM that digs a hole in the gullible’s pocket through dishonest machination or deception.

Okay, psychicman … keep digging … you will find it. As to you Powell Gammill, here’s Confucious for you: "A fool despises good counsel, but a wise man takes it to heart. -- Confucius." Here I am the guy who gives good counsel to a fool who despises it.

Still a make-over of Confucious: You cannot pretend as a teacher to others when you have no knowledge of your own to teach or have not acquired new knowledge whilst thinking over the old like your job you haven’t learned anything from that it just remains old, stagnant and dull over time. Like learning not to be rabidly bias -- and not so discriminating of opinion writers who disagree with your opinion -- should be something new and exciting for contributing writers to look up to. But this is not happening, and I doubt if it would ever happen.

Back to you, Psychicman. You should be honest to yourself. You know that a psychopath has this orgasm to shoot cops dead. You should never doubt even for a moment that based on his neurotic writings and commentaries, Larken Rose your idol in this drugged-like trip to violence, derives great psychotic pleasure to shoot and kill cops. You should read this: "What You Do Not Read About The Guerena Killing" and discover for yourself how your model of violence badly needed to kill cops to cure his neurosis. Try to pause and digest his arguments slowly … you will see that a psychotic mind is burning mad!

For instance, he was talking of something else that did not happen in the SWAT raid of the Guerena’s home. With his delusional brain burning to fever pitch, he was saying something else like if the cops barged in to rape his wife or something like to steal his car, etc. … as if he was in a state of delirium.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Discussion-Page.htm?EdNo=001&Info=090682&View=Hide

I will give you the excerpt of his psychotic need to kill cops. This is what he exactly said: Jose Guerena was trafficking in marijuana as the feds allege [not just alleged but proven by hard evidence], and the feds invaded his home as a result … he [Guerena] had the absolute right to gun down every one of those Nazi bastards, to stop that invasion." Here his hatred of cops is deeper than the Mindanao Deep. In his crazy mind, cops are "Nazi bastards" he would shoot and kill anytime to stop that "invasion". He imagined it was an ILLEGAL invasion. Well, that was only in his mind far detached from the real world. Reality: cops with warrants, LEGALLY invaded [entered] the home of a suspect drug-dealer Guerena who was affiliated to a drug-trafficking gang that has a police record of criminal activities. After these are revealed to the public, do you still deny or even doubt Rose’s psychotic mind to kill cops?

In this writing expose, Rose was advised to break the law himself, and when the cops come to arrest him, he should shoot it out with them – exactly the advice he gives to others! But he is a COWARD. He won’t do it himself – too ball-less to do what he preaches!

With his advice from hell to shoot and kill cops, he just wants others to act insane like he does, and he would just sit down on his couch watching TV, enjoying those hate-cop donkeys who follow him getting killed! There is no doubt that he is not only a sociopath but he is also no doubt a pathetic COWARD.

No 'argument' here, Powell.

"Just the facts, Ma'am, nothing but the facts."  

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." ~Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain

(ugh - I don't have time for this nonsense)

OKAY - I'm tired of reading what you THINK you read, and contorting it into fitting with your personal Worldview, and stuffing your convoluted scenarios into the mouths of others.

I have taken the time to go back through Mr. Roses original article, and selected every reference to 'kill', 'killing', and 'cop'.   NOWHERE has he alluded to what you purport.  NOWHERE.

I can do this where you can't because the words are concise in their meaning, and YOU CAN'T USE THEM because they don't say what you want them to say, no matter how you twist them.

I reproduce them for you here:

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified.

Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?”

And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them.

Then there is this paragraph.  To break it up by line would be to take each out of context:

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

And finally:

Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

Umm … this is quite interesting. Right below, it seems JV was right on what Larken Rose had said about shooting and killing cops. Rose has an admission, to wit [his exact words]: "If somehow you got the message, "Let's go kill all cops," from my writings and videos, it's because you WANTED me to have said that; not because I actually did."

He admitted that he said it in his "writings" and "videos"; read this first part of his admission carefully.

The second part of his admission is in fact a denial, which the dictionary defines as an oxymoron. He stated that indeed, if he had said it, it is because JV WANTED him to have said that, not because he actually did say it.

I see it as some kind of a convoluted mind trapped and attempting to escape.

PureTrust, here's your written bubble: Larken Rose has only used his free speech right. He has not dictated, announced, authorized, or in any way indicated that someone should go out and actively kill some specific or particular cops. He has not advocated that someone should kill all cops. If he has, please quote the exact words.

I have quoted him a million times already. Go backtrack and find them yourself. It is you

who missed it. Your omission, obviously your denial, of what this psychopath had written and proclaimed that arrest should be resisted with violence and to shoot cops dead is an expression of individual liberty and freedom because in his angry freaking mind only a dead cop is a good cop, shouldn’t be the responsibility of anyone to find it and hand it to you. He said it in his many writings and videos as his "right to free speech". And what you are doing is just repeating it here, over and over again.

The psychopath you are defending couldn’t get out from a hangman’s noose that he himself put around his neck [hanged himself by his own badmouth]. Now he is trying to catch what he had previously spat out up high in the air – catching it with his mouth as it drops, and eating it. He is hooked by what he said, and couldn’t get out even though he will now deny it a millions times!

In short, if you can’t find it yourself or couldn’t find what he said or written, then back off! We are already on that stage of the discussion where what Larken Rose said and wrote were psychotic which we are trying to probe and prove that like Jared Loughner he is a psychopath! You are dragging us back like a puppy running round and round to catch the red ribbon on his tail!

I got yer psychopath RIGHT HERE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mG66QFnufIQ

Choke on it. 

What PureTrust is talking about is everyone's right to free speech.

Police have the right to free speech. Non-police have the right to free speech.

Everyone trying to reduce or remove the rights of some else without cause is acting criminally... be it police or non-police.

Larken Rose has only used his free speech right. He has not dictated, announced, authorized, or in any way indicated that someone should go out and actively kill some specific or particular cops. He has not advocated that someone should kill all cops. If he has, please quote the exact words.

But JVdville has openly twisted Larken Rose's words - even suggested that Larken Rose has said things that he did not - to attempt to make it look like Larken Rose has used criminal intent... to make it look like Larken Rose is advocating the killing of cops - a thing that he is not doing in any of his free speech. If he is doing this, please quote the exact words and include the names of the cops that he is advocating the killing of.

So, now tell us all, who is acting criminally here? The one who simply uses his right to free speech? Or the one who is attempting to turn free speech usage into criminal activity so that the right of free speech is denied to someone... and maybe to us all?

Get out into the public, sometime, and listen to what people talk about. Get into places where people think that they are speaking privately, and listen to some of the things that people are using their free speech right to say about cops. Or go to the thousands of "police brutality" Internet pages and see what kinds of free speech statements are being made about cops. Larken Rose is "nice" in the way he talks about cops when compared with some of the other things you will see and hear.

PureTrust, what right in hell are you talking about??? Try to be “pure”, not artificial or plastic. Are you talking of Larken Rose’s liberty and freedom to resist arrest with violence [in his loony mind], and his right to shoot all cops dead because in his loopy mind only dead cops are good cops? Jared Loughner believed that in his insanity it is rightful and necessary to kill politicians and he heard voices in his mind that he should step out of his darkly-lit apartment and kill.

That’s exactly what’s in the mind of your loony hero Larken Rose when he urged people to use their guns or use any form of violence in resisting arrest, and to shoot all cops dead because in his freaking mind only dead cops are good cops.

When psychopaths like your hero flip over, they kill – like this batty loner Jared Loughner who with an assault weapon stepped out of his hide-away apartment, went to the mall and just sprayed the crowd with bullets.

Do you really want more evidence? From what I wrote below concerning a psychopath’s mind that’s no different from the religiously screwed up mind of Osama bin Laden’s Islamic assassins, you seem to have a very bad disconnected intervention. In his writings, Rose, your model of violence hated the Government and the people who run it like bin Laden and his terrorists do. In his crazy mind, to murder, especially to kill cops is a constitutional right [ay, ay … Mama mia!]

By the way, for readers to understand what you are talking about, make yourself clear rather than repetitively rambling, long-winded and incoherent -- are you talking of the “right” of a psychopath to take away the right of his victims to live?

Are you saying that a psychopath has his right to kill cops when in his mind he hears voices urging him to kill because only dead cops are good cops?

Is your psychotic idol not exercising his right to take away the right of the innocent to live?

You must understand – if you can’t at least try to use your mind not your one-way anti-Government bias to figure it out -- that Larken Rose’s exact copy Jared Loughner exercised his right to take away the right of a mother and a father he killed to be around with their kids who need them while they are still young, their right to raise and care for them, and most of all, their right to live … kapis?

So here is the bottom line.

We have freedom of speech. It is a right.

Since it is a right, anybody can use it, right?

If a cop uses freedom of speech, it is his right, right?

If a Non-cop uses freedom of speech, it is his right, right?

Now if you have a right, and someone prohibits you from using that right, then the one prohibits you from using your right is a lawbreaker, right. The only time he is not a lawbreaker for prohibit your use of your own rights is when you did not have the right in the first place, and also when he is the one authorized to keep you from using your non-right.

Now, the only thing that can turn your right to do anything that is your right to do, into a non-right for you, is when you use that right to diminish the rights of others.

Does Larken Rose ever go around taking other peoples' rights away by using his rights in a non-right way? Show us the evidence that Larken Rose is ever using his rights to diminish the rights of others. All he is doing is using his right to speak without diminishing the rights of others.

What about the Occupy people? In their exercise of their rights, are they ever diminishing the rights of others? Perhaps, a little, mostly by accident. But the only thing that they really are doing is using their rights in a right way. The fact that they never used their rights in this way before does not mean that they suddenly don't have the rights. It simply means that they never used them before.

Now, cops don't have the right to take away anyone's rights, do they? At best they have a duty and a privilege to take away the rights of people who are using their rights to diminish the rights of others. If the police use their privilege and their duty, to take away the rights of people who have NOT diminished the rights of others through the use of their rights, then the cops are acting criminally. That is not what they have a privilege and duty to do, take away the rights of people who have not diminished the rights of others.

It seems to me that Larken Rose is simply expressing, through his right of speach, many of the things that the founding fathers of the U.S. of A. used their rights to say, and that many others have used their rights to say throughout all history. Larken Rose is not taking away anyone's rights by the use of his freedom of speech right. If he is, show us the evidence.

Yet, it seems that JVdville is attempting to use his freedom of speech right to diminish the freedom of speech right of Larken Rose. When JVdville starts to use his rights to diminish the rights of others, shouldn't he (she/it) be stopped from doing so by the cops? Isn't it the privilege and the duty of cops to stop JVdville from taking away the rights of Larken Rose when Larken Rose has not taken away the rights of anyone else through the exercise of his rights? And, especially, since it is not the privilege and/or duty of JVdville to take away the rights of Larken Rose at all, and especially without cause?
 

Gee …wizzzz, Good Lord! I am now scared when and where terrorists may do their next 911 carnage or carry out their plan to mass- murder cops nationwide! We should double the pay of our Homeland Security operatives to see to it that threats of this kind to our national security do not materialize. As you share this concern, I hope you are with me.

A psychopath bares his excuse to kill.

Notice this evidence how a psychopath excuses his urge to kill, and how he covers his twisted mental track when he kills like psychopath Jared Loughner did. After he fatally shot Congressperson Gabrielle Giffords, killed and wounded scores of people in a mall shooting spree, Loughner excused himself by saying that he really did not intend to kill except that in his loony mind he heard voices of some people who wanted him to get out of his apartment and kill.

I present to you similar evidence, specifically as to what Larken Rose just said [see below] to make you understand how a psychopath’s mind works. This violent psychopath could not deny what he previously proclaimed in writing that people should use force to resist arrest and shoot all cops dead because the only good cop is a dead cop.

And now he is saying that "If somehow you got the message, "Let's go kill all cops," from my writings and videos, it's because you WANTED me to have said that; not because I actually did."

Now it is you and I who wanted him to say that people should shoot cops dead. What an acrobatic contortion of words in the case of this psychopath who wants to worm his way out by blaming something or someone else.

Dangerously deranged mind has always someone or something to blame. Psychiatrists are familiar with this psychotic pattern of behavior.

Notice the similarity of Loughner’s and Rose’s excuses to kill – Loughner to kill politicians he hates, and Larken Rose to kill cops he mortally dispised to death.

In Larken Rose’s case, his urge to kill cops stated in his writings and videos as "Let’s go kill all cops" is a statement that according to him YOU and I "wanted" him to say, not because he actually did say it. He heard this voice in his mind.

See how irreversible is the depth of a psychopath’s hatred of Government could get, and how chronically advance a cop-killer’s insanity can reach the point of no return.

If you identify a psychopath by rank, Loughner is an amateur, Rose is a pro, and therefore more dangerous than Loughner. Like a hurricane warning, public security warning No. 1 on where and when terrorists may strike next is up.

In a free country, you can have as many aka names as you want. You are who you say you are. But, most people who use a pseudonym do so because they are trying to make a point with the pseudonym that they use. Others, those who use many pseudonyms, are usually hiding.

Holy smokes. I thought I'd check in here again, and man, JV is hardly the one to be accusing people of being mentally unstable. My diagnosis would be narcissistic, delusional, paranoid schizophrenic (with multiple personality disorder) and pathological liar, probably with manic depression thrown in for good measure. Pretending to be someone else, and saying how great you are? Hey JV, repeat after me: "It takes the lotion from the basket..." (That gets the award for the all time creepiest line in a movie ever.)

(P.S. If somehow you got the message, "Let's go kill all cops," from my writings and videos, it's because you WANTED me to have said that; not because I actually did. It seems that most of the time, you're not real, and you're arguing against other people who aren't real.)

(cranks up the Wayback Machine)

And now... a word from 'award winning' Journalist Edwin Sumcad!

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/052337-2009-06-24-i-who-said-federal-reserve-is-a-private-banking-institution.htm

Enjoy the comments. 

H-i-r-e

a

p-r-o-o-f-r-e-a-d-e-r... 

 Is Gammill confused?

This is apropos to Powell Gammill’s "identity crisis" that JV has raised for using a.k.a.doubles and pseudonyms. Anyone can track down the name "Edwin Sumcad" in cyberspace, a multi-award journalist that Powell Gammill was so madly in love to criticize and discredit. I found one of his many excellence awards in Journalism inYahoo and Google.

I also read his several writings that have "high" hits in the Internet, which many websites had reprinted

In disparaging the awards and writing achievements of this great writer, Gammill was glutting to show that he is better and had achieved better.

But he failed miserably when he attempted to compare himself because what he thought he was proud of having was nothing but a bloated ego; he has nothing what at least approximates Sumcad’s collections of trophies in writing … In short, Gammill could not present an excellence award in Journalism at least similar to what this famous writer have. It’s all false bravado and a lot of hot air!

Gammill’s other problem when he disparaged the above-mentioned award-winning journalist by supposedly exposing him that Edwin Sumcad is JV, or VT …and yet what if the name Edwin Sumcad is not really Edwin Sumcad but just a nom de plume or just a pseudonym of a writer that Gammill has no idea who he really is?

Remember nobody knew that like the name Edwin Sumcad, Mark Twain was just a nom de plume of an unknown person named Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Gammill meses up terribly when supposing it turns out that in real life Edwin Sumcad is just a nom de plume of an unknown person..

In the argumentations I read below as responses are recorded back and forth in sequence, it is clear to me that JV made a minced meat out of Powell Gammill. JV lured Gammill into identifying himself in public, and trapped him there saying that his Arabic-sounding name "Gammill" and aliases, like "Fascist Nation", etc., coincide with his severe anti-State-Government staunch, which clearly poses a threat to national security.

Since Gammill failed to make a fool out of smart JV, I expect a savage move from him against JV, perhaps more vile than what his pressured gallbladder excretes. Funny … but I’m not laughing.

Powell Gammill’s identity crisis in using pseudonyms or aliases ..

Take note of this identity crisis folks: The name is "Powell Gammill". He may not be necessarily Powell Gammill – this name could only be a pseudonym or alias. For national security reason, note that "Gammill" sounds Arabic!

Here’s why I have no alternative but to recommend that the general public must observe extreme caution at all times as anti-Government outburst and terrorist activities proliferate. This is just my opinion … my concern if you will. I could be wrong. But this concern on any threat to national security is based on the following:

On record, "Powell Gammill" is anti-Government-State ax-wielder or hacker. Reminds you of how Osama bin Laden and his hirelings fiercely attack both State and Government, in the Media.

It is of record that this guy "Gammill" not just supports but also promotes a violent anarchist in the Media that attacks the Government and the State without let up … a "psychopath" who incites the public to shoot all cops dead in the name of liberty and freedom because in his dangerous mind only dead cops are good cops! This "psychopath" can be read in this website.

Here’s Powell Gammill’s identity clue:

Powell Gammill = a.k.a."Fascist Nation"

Powell Gammill = a.k.a. "Uncle Pervy"

Powell Gammill = a.k.a."Publius"

Thanks for finally revealing who you are after all those years! You are the editor of FP.com supposed to protect the writers’ identities, but you violated this website’s rule on Anonymity, especially in the use of pseudonyms that the Publisher requires.

Your problem in dealing with writers is simply this: When writers do not agree with your views, you make a move to expose their use of pseudonyms and in anger humiliate them, attacking them as your tormentors with "split personalities".

I have some unwanted brushes with scambags, but I ran out of words to describe what kind of a troublemaker are you. It is very tempting to call you a pen-pushing scalawag on the loose, but I am not from the gutter …too educated to call you that.

Now that in your case the cat is out of the bag, I wonder how do you feel now, that I exposed your "split personalities" exactly like what you are doing to writers who disagree with your crap.

When you let your anger takes over your whole body, including your head – and I am not assuming that there isn’t any above your shoulder as Bakadude once presupposed -- you cannot think properly … and when you cannot think properly you make a foolish move, like creating this trouble which you brought to bear upon yourself.

I use "Fascist Nation" ... Google it... I bet the FBI does.  Don't have any others.  I wouldn't exactly call it a secret.  Just a pen name to say what I think and to irritate all the right folk.  I even own fascistnation.com though I don't use it...yet.

I did go by "Uncle Pervy" in my high school days.  I grew out of it after I got laid.  Might have used "Publius" a time or two.  Nice to see Neocons are so sensitive, Edwin.  I would have thought a distinguished UN diplomat would be impervious.  :-D

As a distinguished journalist with over 45 years experience perhaps you are unfamiliar with a convenient journalism tool:

+Gammill

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="Fascist Nation"

Editor, aka Gammill Powell, if you are true to your imagined “expose” of Mr. Edwin Sumcad’s several pseudonyms, why don’t you reveal yourself and expose your identity so that we will know how many pseudonyms, pen names and aliases you are using?  You have to prove yourself right by revealing your own pseudonyms, nom de plumes and aliases.  You must probably know – I really hope you do – Mark Twain is not really Mark Twain. It is just his pen name; his real name was Samuel Langhorne Clemens; George Eliot is Mary Ann Evans, Voltaire was not Voltaire … he was Francois-Marie Arouet; Washington Irving uses a cover name Diedrich Knickerbocker, and even Prime Minister Nehru of India used so many aliases one of them was Chanakya. To understand why this is so, you must study Literature or Journalism otherwise you trap yourself with ignorant questions.

It looks like this award-winning author “Sumcad” you imagined you knew by searching the Internet is similar to the famous writers I cited who used several pseudonyms like you claim he does in this website that you are supposed to protect and safeguard, but nevertheless your rising temperature forced you to expose.

Compare yourself to this guy – how many pseudonyms do you have? By exposing yourself, you can prove that what you are harping about is possible.

Psychictaxi, if you just use your brain, there is no need for you to reprint those irrelevant, elongated and useless information. Why do you think this website required you to use pseudonyms if not to protect your Anonymity from discussing not only important but also sensitive issues? No offense intended – and I do respect you – but why would someone always end up educating you?

Edwin Sumcad:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01714564116783094440

Edwin Sumcad = JVdville

Edwin Sumcad = Venancio Tan

Edwin Sumcad = Kalantiaw (probably) "I have been in the practice of Journalism for years."   [latest personality]

Edwin Sumcad = At least three other nom de plums Edwin's identified himself by over the years.  And has replied immediately to his own pseudonym at great length by using another pseudonym.  Sometimes more than one identity in a long meandering stream of back and forth input from the same man!  Wild! 

How has he identified himself?  It wasn't through any IP searching of submitter's by FP.  It was his own ego.  A Google search of Mr. Sumcad reveals that in his 'over45 years as a journalist' there are few Google entries for his articles (OpEd News) and none for any of his numerous awards. Yet these pen names sooner or later have to refer to the brilliant work of Edwin Sumcad...nuf said.  Sad really.

Did you read the top of the website page?　 It says:

Are you referring to yourself? Using a pseudonym that this website requires, is a lie?

C’mon, you even have a very poor understanding of what you are saying.

In this discussion, who was taking another’s property by force? I have never brought it up. Are you referring to the Government’s right to Eminent Domain? It is the power of Government "to appropriate private property for public use … with compensation paid to the owner." That’s how you drive on paved roads that were once private properties. It’s for the good of the commonweal [I don’t think you understand this].

It is of no use for me to discuss this subject with you and get you educated a little bit of what you are saying that you yourself do not understand. You should have gone to law school like I did, to become a lawyer. Such exposure of ignorance could have been avoided.

Name-calling which you little people are good at, will do you no good. It only shows that you have but a Lilliputian brain to tackle these issues. It is so foolish to assume that using your big mouth in name-calling will make you ten feet taller!

At 1:29:48 a 'JVdville' asks "Who is "Edwin"".

Edwin is the person he himself referred to when he said "The author who wrote this article is undeniably “brilliant”.  He dissected those “theories” and presented his findings where impassioned theorists lost their logic."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/097452-2011-10-06-what-the-truth-of-911-really-is.htm

And - fancy that - he posted the article under his own name!

I wondered what all this bsspeak about 'anonymity' was about (maybe there were some kind of 'rules' I am supposed to be playing under that I didn't know about) so I went to the 'Freedom Forum' to see what is said.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Forum-List.htm?EdNo=001

It states:
Welcome to the Freedom Forum of Freedom's Phoenix!

Freedom reigns here like the days of the old Wild West!  We have no corporate or government censors to tell you what you can and cannot say in our public forums. We encourage everyone to keep a civil tongue, but you are free to express your opinions no matter what your perspective is on any subject -- just be prepared for someone else to have an entirely opposite view and tell the world you don't know what you are talking about!

Some entries, which our regular editors consider too vulgar -- according to their standards, may be tagged "Crude or Lewd" so the faint-of-mind folks don't have to view them, but everyone can use the link on the right-hand column to decide for themselves whether to show those entries or not.

Anyone may read the discussions shown in our forum.  You will need to sign-up as a member and provide your name and valid email address to be able to add comments and participate in the discussions. There is no cost to join.

Now, join the party and have some real fun!
 
 
LIST OF DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS
 
Click on the Headline or Topic link to read the discussion on that item. Entries are listed by date of Comment. Anyone may read the discussions shown on this forum. To add comments and participate in the discussion, you will need to sign-up for the forums and provide your name and a valid email address. There is no cost to join, discussions are not censored, and you may feel free to express your opinions openly. Some comments which are considered vulgar by our editors may be tagged "Crude or Lewd" and are visible only to those who wish to see them.

Click on the Headline link to read the complete Discussion and all Comments.
 
_________________________________________

I don't see any of what is ranted about listed there.  Is there something else I'm not seeing?  If so, please enlighten me.

I'M STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO MY LAST POST BY THE WAY...

Ed Vallejo
aka psychictaxi
"There's no need to call - I KNOW when you need a ride!" 

It is my view or look at it as my considered opinion, that a person who wants to shoot all cops dead as an expression of liberty and freedom because he really believes like you do that only a dead cop is a good cop … is not only a Schizo but also a dangerous Psychopath. I have proven it by citing the case of Jared Loughner who thinks like you do, that this murderer was a psychopath. You have not proven that you are not like Jared Loughner who thinks exactly like you do – wanting to shoot cops and politicians -- and therefore like this loony you are considered a threat to society. It is the duty of every citizen to warn the public as to where and when you might strike or kill anytime from now.

Did you read the top of the website page?  It says:

"Uncovering the Secrets and Exposing the Lies" 

You three are the second part.

Mr Rose nicely stated the fact "assuming he is intentionally misrepresenting things" - and underestimated it a tad.

Lets drag the gorilla into the light.

Mr Rose and Mr Gamill (that's his last name) both believe (as I do) that when anyone takes property of another by force without permission it is called 'theft'.

We believe this is wrong.

In your defense of THE OPPOSITE OPINION you clearly advocate the forceful taking of other's property whether they like it or not, killing them in the process if need be.

Before any other issue can be discussed, the definition of terms as a basis of understanding must be acheived for civil discourse to fluorish.

We can go on from there, but lets get the focus of all the words written so far down first.

This is a very disturbing development.

JV’s concerns when editor Gammill Powell violated this website’s rule in the use of pseudonym with impunity anytime he wants, are very alarming to all writers in this website. He put their supposedly guarded identity in jeopardy.

Every single writer in Freedom Forum is participating in the discussions or debates over issues critically important to the nation under the publisher’s required use of individual pseudonyms. As editor, Gammill Powell cannot and should not expose them.

Gammill Powell revealed a writer’s name "Edwin" who according to him has "many pseudonyms" and attacked him as having "split personalities".

All writers’ pseudonyms are protected except those who take a different view from that of editor Gammill Powell. Writers have several pseudonyms – let’s not kid about it. As far as writers in Freedom Forum are concerned, to them even the name "Gammill Powell" is not a real name.

As far as Gammill Powell’s editorial power is concerned, opinion writers cannot have a view different from or contrary to his views, otherwise their Anonymity is exposed. He wants writers with varying opinions herded like cattle to conform only to his views.

I don’t think this is the governing policy of a FREE PRESS like FreedomsPhoenix.com … neither do I think that publisher Ernest Hancock condones the violation – violation of his own editorial rule on Anonymity and the use of protected pseudonyms -- no less by his own editor!

Wow, this schizo state apologist has some serious wires loose. What "courage" does it take to parrot what most of the human livestock believe?

And I hate to spoil your delusions, Mr. Schizo, but a private publisher has the absolute right to publish or "censor" whatever he wants in his own publication. There is no Constitutional right to make someone else publish what you think. Duh. Otherwise, every intellectual lazy tyrant apologist in the mainstream media who doesn't also include the voluntaryist view would be a criminal. What's really weird is that you're trying to paint yourself as some poor, victimized underdog, daring to speak your mind in the face of danger. Give me a break.

By the way Gammill, as editor, are you not in breach of this website’s declaration of Anonymity when you exposed this "Edwin" having "many pseudonyms"? You violated FP.com’s requirement to use pseudonyms when a writer contributes his work to this website.

As editor, you are supposed to safeguard this Anonymity, not breach it yourself to give way to your anger, using it as an excuse to attack a writer who exposed your crap that he has "split personalities". You are not only vicious – you are a violator of the publisher’s covenant with contributing writers to keep their identity secret by using pseudonyms.

By accepting their contributions, writers are assured the use of their pseudonyms – and now what are you doing? Do you have an ax to grind against this publication by giving it a bad name, or did you lose your mind?

You cannot hold yourself from launching the first personal attack because of your anti-Government and anti-Statist bias. You are just a biased editor, not an opinion writer who has written another opinion opposed to mine. And now that I exposed your crap, you cracked.

You attacked first, and that personal attack was unnecessary because I thought you can discuss issues without going down the gutter by humiliating me. Humiliating me in public like what you did was uncalled for. 

Now that you are at the receiving end of a counter-attack that exposes your crap, you are complaining mad, baring your real ugly self nakedly… and your viciousness now betrays your plastic civility… I could never lose my mind like immature do – and attack you personally because I have a better sense of decorum than you have. But in self-defense, you have more weaknesses to expose than I have that our readers should know.

You don’t like to be attacked, don’t attack first!  You forgot whom are you humiliating in public. You are no different than just the rest of them.

By the way, our readers might ask: Who is “Edwin”? They couldn’t find him in the archive. I'm sure they will think that he is the product of your imagination.

And now let’s go back to the issue. You stepped down from your status as editor and turned yourself into an ordinary opinion writer in this discussion. Let's see how good you are with your personal opinion against mine. Prove to me that this person you are defending who wants to shoot all cops dead because in his freaking mind only dead cops are good cops is NOT a psychopath. That’s what I wrote and had proven that he was a psychopath at the beginning of this story. You have not made any move to disprove that. Maybe you couldn't, or maybe you are simply not up to it.

Jesus, Edwin how many pseudonyms do you use? When one of your split personalities answers one of your other personality's own crap I really worry for the remaining sanity of that 'distinguished award winning journalist of more than 45 years.'

I have been in the practice of Journalism for years. It does not only require a lot of courage but also an unconditional belief in our constitutional freedom of expression to write and submit an editorialized opinion opposite to the idea that the editor holds, personally espouses and privately promotes.

But know this well: The right of any member of the Fourth Estate to publish what in his judgment the people has the right know, is more constitutional than the right of the editor to censor because it is opposite to what the editor believes in.

The right of a writer or reporter to report what the public is entitled to know adheres more to the freedom of the press than to the freedom of the publisher to publish [limited by the declaration of principles to promote public interest] or to the editor’s right to censor or suppress the freedom of speech.

Gamill Powell is blind-siding the public of his discriminatory editorial attitude in favor of "psychopaths" attacking the Government when he accused JV of "initiating … force on people" which he described as "appalling, nauseating and contemptible".

I looked thoroughly where did he find this "initiating … force on people" in JV’s write-up [letter to the editor], and I found nothing.

What I found was the "force" "psychopaths" initiate on people which Gammill Powell supports as editor of FP.com … like this "psychopath" who initiates force on people by telling them to shoot cops dead for liberty and freedom!

If there was anything "appalling, nauseating and contemptible" it was Powell blind-siding the public into believing that he was against "initiating … force on people" when in fact it was his raison d’etre in supporting psychotic violence perpetrated by "psychopaths".

In publishing opposing opinions, the editor is supposed to show his sense of fair play. But a terribly bias editor is incapable of discharging this responsibility with honesty and honor. In fact if I may say so, Powell hid his bad faith in disparaging JV without any intellectual finesse expected of him as a fair-minded editor. It is not fair to anyone who holds opinion opposite to his, like JV have. I find it deplorable, to say the least.

He is in the side of psychopaths.

To Mr. Powell Gammill: Thank you for your Ad Hominem comment [personal attack] which by nature you couldn’t get away from due to your uncontrollable editorial bias in favor of those who speak ill of the Government and the State.

First of all, I am surprise you are "happy" in posting my "defense of the state" which I know is in fact your ultimate displeasure. However, I want you to know that you got it all wrong as usual.

The letter I sent to you for millions to read has nothing to do with the "defense of the state" as you erroneously second-guessed and as usual missed by a mile.

There is no use pretending on your part that it is not your pleasure but displeasure to publish the letter-to-the-editor that I sent because it makes Government-State haters like you look ridiculous.

As against the psychopath’s distortion of what freedom means, I wrote an eye-opener for the public to know that the meaning of freedom and liberty to the mentally disturbed like Jared Loughner is not only different but also dangerous. You knew the consequence – the tragic death of the innocent bystanders -- even though your slant is in defending this lunatic for what he did to a politician like Gabrielle Giffords. Your hatred against the people in the Government like those elected politicians is more crushing than your disapproval of murders that lunatics commit in the name of liberty and freedom.

Anyway, you have to publish this analytical expose’ even if by doing so it gives you great discomfort because you know that what you preferred to print – those psychotic views, i.e., that to kill a cop is an expression of liberty and freedom – does not connect well with the normal thinking of the reading public.

In short, the foul odor of those State and Government bashing that borders on insanity which you revel in printing on the front page, needs an editorial deodorant. And what I have written and sent to you was a timely air freshener, even though you cannot escape the temptation of denigrating it, and in demeaning the writer as well.

By the way, the accompanying picture that you wanted to humiliate me with was that of a cross-eyed cop-killer. I chose that picture from the files because it portrays more of your cross-eyed vision when you look at what useful views to publish, like that of a psychopath who believed that millions of Americans that went to school to get a formal education – and perhaps that includes you – are ALL SLAVES of the State and the Government. You missed by a mile by insinuating that that picture looks like me when it was intended to look squarely like you.

In conclusion, you cannot deny that anyone who thinks that to shoot cops dead, which in the mind of the mentally disturbed is supposed to be an expression of liberty and freedom, is a very sick psychopath. So are those who hate the Government like Jared Loughner does … they are mentally-damaged psychopaths whose anti-social ailment is irreversible! And thanks to you – you are on their side.

In fact you defended Jared’s action – a psychopath’s justification [?] – for shooting a politician because he so believed as you do, that it was the right thing to do. It is now hard to differentiate you from Jared Loughner or from Larken Rose whose impaired logic, cross-eyed vision or visual distortions and mental violence are the same as yours, with the only visible difference that everyday you sit on your task as editor free to do any kind of mayhem or distortion you like, while the likes of Loughner has to pull the trigger to kill people, taking the risk of being killed themselves. But your rationalization of these kind of lunacy and murder is the same – i.e., to kill cops or to shoot a politician in the Government is an expression of liberty and freedom. If this is not a crooked thinking uglier than the Hunchback of Notre Dame, how do you think does an ugly twisted mind look like?

By taking the side of psychopaths, may I ask then: Where lies the difference between you and them?

I'd like to give the statist apologist the benefit of the doubt, but which is nicer: assuming he is intentionally misrepresenting things, or assuming he lacks fourth grade reading comprehension skills?

The video was addressing potential voters, not the goons in "government." And I wasn't threatening to rob anyone. (Duh.) But his echoing of the looney statist doctrine was beautiful. For example, he considers it a sign of a psychopathic mental disorder that someone views the forced confiscation of wealth as ... um ... the forced confiscation of wealth (robbery). He would much rather we pretend it's something else, by calling it something else. Better yet, he characterizes it as dangerous threats of violence when I ask people to please not advocate that I be robbed to fund immoral things. Wow.

Let's apply Mr. State Apologist's view of reality to a hypothetical scenario:

On an island that has six scumbag men and five women on it, the men "vote" to "legalize" rape. One of the women, not approving of this, makes a video offering a deal: she won't attack the men if they don't attack her. She makes a plea to their morality, and explains that something isn't good just because a majority wants it.

Then Mr. State Apologist comes riding to the rescue of those poor, threatened men, pointing out that the anti-democratic woman is a dangerous psychopath, threatening to harm them, thinking that HER view of "freedom" makes violence okay! Her mind is so twisted that she views the democratically chosen, formally legislated "Male Satisfaction Act of 2011," to somehow constitute a threat to her freedom! How insane! And when her violent psychosis will cause her to strike, nobody knows! But obviously she is mentally unstable, and needs to be dealt with, if not killed outright, since she's such a despicable danger to civilized society! 

Yeah. And I'm the psychopath. Gack, gack.

Powell and I get a lot of criticism for not 'censoring' more. We do a tiny bit, but only after someone has fully demonstrated the reasons :)