I frequently get one sentence rather ambiguous emails. Last night after putting the latest newsletter to bed, I followed suit. Around midnight. The morning newsletter goes out at 1 AM, but it sits in a cue until then. Sometimes I have wrapped it up with five minutes to spare, other times, if I am tired, it is a wrap before 10 PM. Rarely there is a breaking story and I have waited until nearly 3 AM before manually sending out the newsletter to make sure it is the headline. I try to put five hours a day, six days a week into Freedom's Phoenix. Usually it is more. Our Reporters and Editors definitely help out -- and I just love those stories that make me go, 'Where did they find this?!'
So understand, I am not angry but delighted to answer the rather ambiguous question posed to me that I found in this morning's email when I got up.
Subject: Brown Story
What was the point of linking to that blog post wishing for murder?
Brother, I really hope you have a good answer.
XXXXX [name removed by Powell]
Followed up by,
Subject: Brown Story
I'm sending the same message from a second address, because xxxxx [sic; your webmaster] told me today that FP was on barracuda's black list. So, please, respond to this
I really want to hear the rationale behind linking to a blog post wishing for the murder of federal agents.
What did that blog post contain of interest beyond the murder advocation you quoted?
I really hope you have a good answer.
XXXXX [name removed by Powell]
One of the first things I do in the morning, after making sure there is no breaking news, it to make sure the newsletter went out, and that it went out intact (I review the newsletter from top to bottom). In today's newsletter I noted that an article I posted a link to about Ed and Elaine Brown -- a tax protesting couple imprisoned for amongst other things refusing to pay taxes -- was broken.
Upon investigation the story had been deleted. I checked my email to see if I had a message from the Publisher. I did not, but that is when I found these above messages. As to whom deleted the story, well only two other people could have done that, and that is their prerogative. I will hear about that later.
What was the point of linking to that blog post wishing for murder? I really want to hear the rationale behind linking to a blog post wishing for the murder of federal agents. What did that blog post contain of interest beyond the murder advocation
you quoted? I really hope you have a good answer.
I offer three honest reasons, and one consideration. You may not agree with them, and you will have your supporters amongst the readership which is fine and what Freedom's Phoenix is all about. But you will have my answer, but not necessarily the Publisher's answer. I don't speak for him, nor have I spoken to him yet about this.
I proudly look for the most entertaining, attractive, 'oh my god, I can't believe they said that' stories possible. Because I know of no other. If you are not tempted to open a story up, the rest does not matter. Occasionally I get called to task for going too far. I never consciously try to make the reader believe there is more to a story than there is, but I do frequently try to spin a story my way instead of the corporate media's way. In this case, the words above were lifted directly from the blog, and spin was unnecessary.
2. Advocate the killing ("murder") of agents of the government.
I never advocate murder. I always advocate self defense, but I respect those who are pacifists and turn the other cheek. I am a stickler for the non-aggression principle. But I have no problem with anyone responding to the initiation of force --- including the use of deadly force on punks and gangs who carry badges.
Waco. Ruby Ridge. To some these are places. To others these words mean something else. A place where lawmen got medals and promotions. A place where a 60 year old church stood. A place where a MYOB family went to live their lives and get away from government.
The Brown's in this case, certainly had force initiated upon them on numerous occasions including numerous threats to go along with the physical shows of force and aborted attacks. If it were not for the publicity, I am quite certain the Brown's would have been murdered by armed thugs of the United State's government and their supporting cast of federalized law enforcement goons. Live at five, forgotten by ten. I admit, until I came across Bill St. Clair's blog, I too had forgotten about them rotting in prison. It was a good reminder. So using Mr. St. Clair's blog link was a way of crediting him with the reminder by sending traffic his way. And I picked the most titillating quote.
3. Bill St. Clair has an opinion and it is perfectly valid. If someone is going to have the stones to overtly say what many may think I will be only happy to give it publication for consideration by our readers.
There are people who wish to be left alone. And there are people who won't leave them alone. These latter, are perfectly willing to murder, enslave, ripoff at gunpoint those who wish to be left alone. They are a gang with a flag. They are ruthless. Efficient. Have a well worn play book. And now have most of the chips on their side of the table, except that they are in the minority. The gang with a flag have done a good job of convincing the majority of those who want to be left alone that the government have legitimate reasons for interfering, observing and confiscating the labor of those who wish to be left alone for their own good and protection. It is a con that has been well played since before there was writing.
Well that time for America is at an end. Soon, there will literally be no wealth left to take. Gulfstreams will fire up and the elite shall depart for better pastures leaving the Roman Centurions that you so love to run the little people. When you have nothing left, perhaps then you will pick up a gun. I am guessing a one in three chance.
I think it is far more likely, you my dear readers, will obediently stand all day in those looooong government lard and bean lines just like your grandparent's and great grandparent's did and gratefully swallow whatever is served. I think the American spirit has been culled from a majority of the population. God knows, the populace has certainly demonstrated it this past decade more than others.
But I hope I am wrong. As it is for now I will just watch. But this country desperately needs a real violent civil war... this time one for the right reason: Genuine freedom from government. I fully realize a majority of you are not ready for this. I only think it is tragic that it will take your utter destitution before you MAY be ready to risk the only thing you have left.
I understand Bill St. Clair's anger. Where he is mistaken is the Brown's never had a chance to kill anyone. They were arrested by surprise rather cleverly by a couple a ballsy U.S. Marshals. I may not like them ending the standoff, but I admire gall. And these boys had it, and did their job well.
By St. Clair's calculus, I assume, he figures since the Brown's will likely spend the rest of their healthy lives in prison they may as well have taken as many lawmen with them as possible. Well that was a scenario. I do not know if the Brown's threatened such. If the mainstream media is to be believed -- and it isn't -- the Brown's had announced they would not be taken alive. Not a threat per say, but a suicide note. For all I know they never intended upon harming anyone but themselves. And if they did intend to harm agents of the government, good for them. Like I said, I enthusiastically support self defense.
So those were my reasons behind publishing the link to the blog I did. Do I think it satisfies your, "I really hope you have a good answer"? From your tone, I doubt it. Feel free to write your own rebuttal, or missive. As always I love to publish pretty much anything with controversy.
4. Diminishes and distracts from the Brown's own story.
A very good argument can be made and it is one I am sensitive to this morning that the story should have been about Ed and Elaine Brown rotting in prison, and that Bill St. Clair's added missive distracted from their plight, did them no particular good --- beyond calling attention to that plight, may not have been what they wished, and was rather unrelated to the story in general.
I could have linked directly to the linked MSNBC story on Mr. St. Clair's blog and hat-tipped Bill St. Clair. While Mr. St. Clair very properly and correctly spun the story as the government adding new charged onto the Brown's to further keep the Brown's in prison and under government control for obviously the rest of their lives. [And I note they didn't even appear before a judge, just some 'we can fire your ass any friggin' time we choose' rubber stamp magistrate.]
So were his comments about the government prosecuting the Brown's further to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives, not of interest or part of the Brown's story? I thought they were, and still do. I would still print that.
So did his comment about violently taking some of those federal government gunmen with them distract from the Brown's own story. Yes it did.
Was my use of his "I only wish they had managed to kill a bunch of federal agents" for titillating the reader to hit the link and read the Brown's story? Yes it was.
Do I regret that? In retrospect and after careful consideration, nope. It made you look. It would have made others had it remained up.