A Much Needed Amendment to the Constitution

The following is a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. It's an amplification of an idea proposed in an essay in The Libertarian Enterprise, penned by L Neil Smith.

Proposed: Amendment XXVIII

Whereas: Legislators and other elected and appointed officials, and law enforcement personnel no longer see a need to pay any heed to the limits placed 'pon them by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Whereas: Legislators and other elected and appointed officials, and law enforcement personnel no longer see any need be truthful in the performance of their jobs.

Be it resolved that, to remind these hired hands of their proper place in society, it becomes necessary for Americans to take control of their local, state and federal civil servants and require that dereliction in their jobs will no longer be tolerated.

Toward this end, we propose the following Amendment to the US Constitution.

Section 1. Any legislative action that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the United States shall be considered null and void.

Section 2. Any legislative action that violates any article of the Bill of Rights shall be considered null and void.

Section 3. Any elected official who submits, sponsors, votes for or signs any Bill that violates either Section 1 or Section 2 shall be guilty of committing a felony.

Section 4. Any elected official who communicates a falsehood while acting within his Office, or who violates his Oath of Office shall be guilty of committing a felony.

Section 5. The punishment to be imposed upon those convicted of any of the felonies enumerated above shall be death by public hanging.

Section 6. Congress shall screed all current laws against the wording of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, and repeal all laws, directives and regulations found to be out of concert with these documents.

Section 6. Only the wording of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves shall determine the legality of any proposed legislation.

Section 7. Amendments shall be adopted by means specified in the Constitution of the United States.

I don't think very many actual hangings will result from the enactment of this Amendment; government officials and employees want nothing more than to reach retirement and true stagnation. I suspect that the Amendment means Congress will react to it by doing nothing. This, of course, is the best of all possible worlds.

People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of the people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

It Was A Freer Country In 1969

For weeks I looked at these murals and wondered who did them, why, and what they mean. They're popping up on large buildings all over El Pueblo de Los Angeles. You see them on the sides of buildings on Highland Blvd, on Hollywood, on Vine, on Sunset, on La Brea--many other places. They must've cost a fortune to put in place, and there are many of them.

The leftist junta that runs El Pueblo is united in their hatred of these murals.

Now, you have to understand--if any naked savage, ethnic minority or member of any so-called minority group paints any ugly, primitive, spray-can mural on any wall in any ethnic neighborhood, it's applauded as "the expression of the people." It doesn't matter how hideous it might look, as long as it's painted with more than one color (single color murals are, obviously, graffiti, and subject to obliteration as soon as the property owner gets around to it).

Moreover, if an approved "expression of the people" starts looking a bit weather-worn, el alcalde is likely to assign funds to have it restored.

Have you ever seen the Watts Towers? Oh my!

Meanwhile, Los Angeles' ruling leftist junta is apoplectic about these Statue of Liberty murals. The only reason I can think of is that they were done by a rich white guy.

City Councilman Jack Weiss, a white guy shot through with guilt over both his race and his wealth, who stands so far to the left of center that he has to talk long distance to LA's news media, is at the forefront of the fight against the First Amendment on this issue.

Weiss is the leader of a gang of thugs who not only want--and think they have--final right of approval of not only every commercial billboard within the city limits, but every public art display as well. O! How a certain type of neurotic lusts for total unjustified power over the largest and smallest acts of others!

According to a Reuters story,

Councilman Jack Weiss, who represents West Los Angeles and Hollywood, stated the city should file charges against McNeilly. "People shouldn't be doing
this. And the city attorney should go after them aggressively and throw the
book at them," he said, according to David Zahniser in the Los Angeles Times,
Jan. 1, 2009.

Leave it to a guilt-riddled socialist to focus 'pon a patriotic theme, and then to set the war dogs of the state on that, rather than on the many ills that plague El Pueblo, the vast majority of which are caused by these selfsame leftists.

Unwarranted arrogance, thy name is Jack Weiss!

Meanwhile, Mike McNeilly, the artist who created the murals, replies thusly,

"The City's action is creating a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Threats of fines and jail for creating a mural of the Statue of Liberty in
America or Los Angeles is just not right. Using the power of government to
censor artistic and political speech is un American," responds artist Mike
McNeilly.

"The murals of the Statue of Liberty are an artistic and political expression
protected by the First Amendment. The series of murals depict the iconic
symbol of freedom and liberty and the year 1969, a year of great
accomplishments and change in America. The seeds of the Internet sown,
Woodstock, Vietnam war divides America and Apollo 11, man's first steps on the
moon. The three colors of the sky behind 'Liberty' represent ... red for the
crisis and challenges America faces now, white for clarity in seeing truth and
justice and blue for hope and change. The tear in the eye of Liberty is for
the sacrifices made by our soldiers, first responders and veterans protecting
our security, rights and freedom," he further states.

Now, I don't think I'd pick the year 1969 as my benchmark year, but it's Mr McNeilly's choice and he's paying the tab.

The 900-lb gorilla in the room, that everyone wants to ignore is the principle of property rights. The owner of every one of those buildings let, for whatever remuneration (that's none of my business, nor that of Jack Weiss), gave his permission for Mr McNeilly to place the mural on the side of his building. That, really, is the extent of the approvals necessary for the transaction to occur.

Petty little would-be dictators like Weiss and, for sure, other members of the ruling leftist junta, have no business involved in an area in which they have no expertise, nor any share in the ownership of these properties. They are equally restrained by the tenets of the Founding Documents as are any of us, and ought to stick to (and learn to be limited by) the boundaries of their job descriptions.

Those job descriptions do not include harassment of works of art they don't have the good taste to find aesthetically pleasing.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Creeping Fascism Is Learning to Walk--Faster

Readers who've been with me for a while know that I've long been warning of the coming of the equivalent of a Fourth Reich--right here in the United States. I've seen no reason to back off from this stance. My awareness of this threat was begun by my having read The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Piekoff. I highly recommend this book.

The War on Drugs increased government's intrusions into the affairs of Americans, and the piggy-backed War on Terrorism has pretty much eliminated the Bill of Rights as a guarantee of Americans' rights.

These days, only large and loud protests can offer any brakes on government excesses. These protests, the ones large enough to reach the ears of power-mad politicians and bureaucrats, have mostly only happened because of the focusing power of conservative talk radio.

Leftist politicians now speak of using a "Fairness Doctrine" to diffuse talk radio, thus taking yet another big chunk out of the already decimated First Amendment.

My interest today centers 'pon yet another, perhaps more physical threat to the liberty we all see slipping away. According to a Washingtonpost.com story found here, the Pentagon has plans and is beginning to implement a program that will include stationing 20,000 Army Regular troops among us "to bolster domestic security."

Several years ago, I was walking along a downtown Tijuana street looking for a restaurant. I don't know what was going on, and nobody was talking, but there were dozens of Mexican federales (army soldiers) carrying automatic rifles on the street corners. Creeped me out. I grabbed my lady, flagged down a cab and we dined in safe and sane San Diego instead. I've never crossed that border again, and doubt if I ever will.

While the plan is allegedly to have troops available to assist state National Guard units and local police in the event of a "domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it," it promises to have many other, more insidious uses.

We've all seen how mission creep works as it applies to government programs, and this plan is a clear small step in a directed creeping mission that will tighten control of the populace with respect to freedom of movement. It is specifically targeted toward keeping people in line as disgust with the excesses of government increases.

Can strategically located checkpoints, manned by heavily armed jack-booted thugs really be very far behind? A program of house-to-house searches for who knows what--but we'll just take these dangerous firearms off your hands before you're harmed by them, would seem a logical subprogram.

One could (I don't) assume that the current crop of power-mad politicos are sincerely concerned for our security and safety, but what about the next administration?

In my opinion, this is serious stuff. Voting with your feet kind of stuff.

Before they cut off the routes of escape.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Guy Fawkes, Where Are You When We Need You?

"Remember, remember the fifth of November, Gunpowder treason and plot. We see no reason Why gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot!"

Today is the fifth of November, and today we have a new king. For decades now, our four year- and eight year kings have been progressively leading us in the direction of less and less liberty, and King Barry will be no exception.

Many's the time I've awakened after the election thinking that the only cure might be thirty-six well-placed barrels of a certain charcoal/sulfur/saltpeter blend under a building at a moment in which the king, his court and the whole of Parliament are all under one roof.

Then I think, as I sip my self-levitation potion, that even this probably impossible task were accomplished, there would emerge hundreds more parasites to take their places.

I think I'll just sit back and wait for my middle-class tax cut to kick in while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are declared over and all the troops are returned home, and the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act are repealed so that our horribly violated rights are once again restored. And so that we can fly on the airlines again without having our persons accosted by subhuman thugs at the airports.

Sigh.

People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan

Stalag California

First, Kill All the Dogs

Looking through my handy dandy copy of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the accompanying Bill of Rights, I'm unable to find the clause that states that government has the mandate to regulate what one ingests. I've looked several times. Yet, the illegal War on Drugs, more properly called the War on Americans' Rights, continues unabated.

It's an oft-asserted fact that 'pears to even the casual observer, that this government's ongoing assault on individual rights costs far more, in any manner of measure, than does the kind of rampant drug use imagined by the evil federal government, even in its most loony fascist's worst imaginings.

The tales of police brutality against the guilty are only exceeded by their atrocities against the innocent. A casual search will turn up hundreds of instances in which due process is ignored, not only by police, but by elected officials, the news media and the courts--especially the bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court, every member of which should (and no doubt does) know better.

The most recent case of crime-by-police took place in Berwyn Heights, near College Park--itself just a few miles east of Mordor. The victims of this outrage were the Mayor of this little slice of suburbia, one Cheye Calvo, his wife and her mother. And, of course, the real victims were the family's two black labs, Payton and Chase, who were given an on-the-spot execution under the guns of this gang of thugs, merely for being dogs.

The sordid tale, starting in Phoenix as a convoluted cross-country movement of a quantity of marijuana to the area. Rumors that the mules were two scruffy guys riding Harleys proved to be untrue.

Arizona police learned of the drug movement and alerted the police agencies in Maryland that the pot was to be delivered in several packages, to various addresses in the area, including Calvo's. Before the packages were delivered, they were to be picked up by the local sellers with the addressees none the wiser.

The plot thickens. Prince George County cops caught the delivery boys and confiscated the drugs. Undercover cops delivered the packages to the addressees, not knowing that they were merely names picked out of a phone book (or the like).

Prince George County's finest then staged the raid 'pon the Mayor's home, killing the dogs, then tying up the Mayor and his mom-in-law on the floor beside one of the bleeding dogs. All the facts got sorted out, as the Mayor's wife came home to find the house covered in blood (the cops tracked all over the place) and torn apart.

Maryland has no law allowing no-knock search warrants by the cops, except they can if they feel like it.

Read the entire sordid story here. Also, see Balko's fine commentary here.

Oh, the County Mounties have not, and apparently will not apologize.

The FBI has been called in to investigate the matter which, if the Ruby Ridge murders are any guide, means the thugs involved in this atrocity will be given promotions, awards for valor and new squad cars.

And, for the capper, guess who has to clean up the Mayor's house (Hint: it won't be anyone with a badge).

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Smith-Suprynowicz Freedom Test

I found this in the current issue of the online magazine, The Libertarian Enterprise.

* Would [you] support the right of a nine-year-old girl to walk into a hardware store and, without signing anything or producing identification of any kind, pay cash for a submachinegun, several hundred rounds of ammunition, and a supply of morphine? If [you] wouldn't, then whatever [you're] in favor of, it isn't freedom.

When I first read this, I muttered, "Huh? What would a nine-year-old girl want with a submachine gun?"

Then, recovering, I reasoned that as long as she doesn't use it to initiate force against me or someone else, it really isn't any of my business. Or anyone else's.

Same reasoning goes for the morphine.

One of the biggest things we can do to enhance the police state that now governs us, is to believe that what other folks do that we may not like or understand (in the absence of initiation of force) is something that needs to be controlled.

I justify this by means of the requirements of man's life qua man, but if you want to justify it by means of the Second Amendment, all you have to do is read it. The right isn't limited by age, race or gender. Arms can mean guns, knives, swords, truncheons, brass knuckles, nunchuks or anything else. As long as they're not used to initiate force.

There is no limitations mentioned as to where one might bear arms. If one has the right to be in a place, one has the right to defend oneself there.

As for morphine, there is no mention in the Constitution anywhere that allows government to tell one what he may or may not ingest.

Remember: VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Is The Constitution Worth the Paper 'Pon Which It's Printed?

Any observer, even the most casual, must come to the conclusion that Congress, the President the courts are playing fast and loose with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, it can be easily concluded that, in the past twenty-five years or so (longer, depending how one studies it), the federal government has explicitly worked at purposefully demolishing the Bill of Rights.

Whether this deliberate destruction of the Great Experiment can be reversed is open to question, since the vast majority of Americans seem more interested in how much money they can wrest, through government force, from their neighbors than in preserving the freedom that allowed the productive to create such wealth. Being honestly productive seems important to fewer and fewer Americans than does ripping off those who are. One can easily project, either by means of reason of by one's powers of observation, where the continuation of that trend will lead us.

I'd like to recommend that any and all of you who prefer that government observe the letter and spirit of America's Founding Documents read the petition at this link. If you agree with it, and are so inclined, sign.

Thanks and a tip of the old gray fedora to Cindy Mulvey and The Libertarian Enterprise.

Somehow, the Washington parasites have to realize that their job's not being properly done and they're now on notice. It'd be nice if a bunch of them were rejected at the polls this fall, as well. In that spirit.....

REMEMBER! VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm Regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

...But What Will He Do For Me....?

It's very much a shame to see great nations of people fall prey to a demonstrably failed philosophy,
but it's happening in most, maybe all of the industrialized nations of the earth. Of course, the non-industrial nations are already there. I'm guessing that it'll take longer than my lifetime before the world returns to a new black plague-and-famine Dark Age, but we appear to be headed that way. With the blessing and abetting of not only the world's leaders, but the herds of the great unwashed, as well.

The other day, I raged about the Democrat candidates' promising undefined change. The professed Democrat voters seem to be largely satisfied with that. Keep in mind that, to a convicted witch, tied to the stake and standing 'pon kindling, the lighting of the fire represents change.

I've also noticed another disturbing trend. I don't think it's new; I suspect it originates with the FD Roosevelt Presidency, but now it exists without shame and is explicitly declared by mostly Democrat voters as if it's normal and proper.

"What will (s)he do for me?"

I've been hearing that from the quivering mouths of Democrat voters at just about every man-on-the-street interview and post-debate program during this ever-so-interminable Presidential campaign season. I won't say it doesn't happen at Republican gatherings, but I haven't heard it said....yet.

"What will (s)he do for me?"

It's worse than shameful that this sentiment should erupt from the lips of an American! I've never been more ashamed. Well, truthfully, I'll assume no guilt for this degradation of the vision of the rugged individualist American, because I don't, even slightly, share the sentiment.

Presidents don't do things for people. Let's first get that straight. Presidents enrich their cronies at taxpayer expense. Presidents build monuments to themselves at taxpayer expense. Presidents travel the world at taxpayer expense. Presidents live like wealthy industrialists, without actually ever having to produce anything, at taxpayer expense. Presidents increase the breadth and depth of their power, at taxpayer expense. Presidents cause innocent people to die at taxpayer expense.

In order to understand what a President is supposed to do, if indeed any such thing as a President is actually needed (not by me!), one should first look at Article II, Sections 2 & 3 of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Bill of Rights. One could also read the letters and papers of the Founders to gain the flavor of what they meant when they built these documents.

Nowhere in any of these documents is it suggested that any part of the President's job is to "do things for me." The President is not a god. The President is not a king. The President is not your daddy.

The President's only job is to play a large part in the role of government: he's an administrator whose job it is to direct the forces and agencies whose only job is to protect the rights of Americans. If he can't do that job, then what the hell good is he?

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Constitution of the United States of America

I might occasionally mention disagreement with certain segments and clauses in the Constitution but, though flawed, it's by far the best government charter in existence and in history. The main difficulties with the document are those that, in a civil contract, would be nullified by just about any court: a) it applies, by force of government arms, to everyone by virtue of happening to live in a certain geographical area--even to those who haven't signed it and b) one--either an individual or a group--can't opt out except by leaving the described geographical area. Moreover, restrictions against traveling beyond the limits of the borders become more rigorous every year.

Yet those in whom we're forced to place our trust with carrying out the mandates of this document are more and more wont to ignore its restrictions. In spite of the fact that each and every one of them is sworn to an Oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, they wantonly and constantly try to create programs that deeply harm their constituents, making convoluted and rationally indefensible justifications for their violations of their Oaths of Office. The founders, one and all, federalist and anti-federalist, would be up in arms waging a new Revolution, were they alive to see this nullification of all that for which they gave their lives, fortunes, their sacred honor.

A very few in Congress, according to a column by Chuck Muth, are swimming against this tide, showing that they 're actually familiar with the document, but respect it and their Oath. Congressman John Shadegg (R-Ariz) has written a proposal to this end. His “Enumerated Powers Act” stipulates that “Each act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the Constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act.”

He has only thirty cosponsors so far, including Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas). In light of the spinelessness and the contempt most Republicans (trumped only by that of the Democrats) feel towards American independence and liberty, one has to wonder what's happened to this Great Experiment.

A more radical proposal, more palatable to the free-minds-and-markets advocate that is my very own self, is that suggested by L Neil Smith, in The Libertarian Enterprise. The Zeroth Amendment, to be placed in front of the other ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights, reads as follows:

ARTICLE ZERO

I. Any public official or employee who, knowingly or unknowingly, violates—or participates in the violation of—any provision of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution shall, in full public view and over such media as exist at the time, be hanged by the neck until he is dead.

II. The word "he" is not to be construed so as to exclude female public officials or employees.

III. This amendment, upon ratification, shall be inserted in the Constitution just before the First Amendment.

The "Zeroth Amendment" might seem a bit extreme to some, unless you consider the amount of your productivity they've been stealing from us throughout the length of our lives, and further consider that there's never been any leniency shown by the jack-booted thugs of the IRS, DEA, BATFE and a host of other terrorist squads created unConstitutionally by these selfsame Oath violators.

Read the Constitution. Do what it says.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Warrant? Warrant!? We Don't Need No Steenking Warrant!!

In the wake of all the federal search and seizure violations, caused by the President's blatant disregard of his Oath of Office, a news story in the Boston Globe informs us that Boston's finest, no strangers to violations of the Bill of Rights themselves, want to have permission to enter and search local residences for guns without a warrant!

The fascist-inspired Homeland Security Act has set up an alphabet soup of Gestapo-styled agencies, unConstitutional every one, designed to examine every bit of information transferred by any medium, and to regulate any travel and most trade transactions, on the pretext of protecting us from a gaggle of primitive savages who live ten thousand miles away and would have no means of travel faster than camelback, but for the federal government's own meddling.

So now, the Boston police are taking another step on the way to totalitarianism.

They aren't supposed to be looking for guns. They're supposed to be looking for criminals!

The reason for a search warrant is contained in the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th Amendment is very explicit, and allows for no exceptions, other than the unfortunate use of the word unreasonable, which would've been better left out. It's up to the judge to decide whether the search is reasonable.

As if to belie any reasonable rationale for the searches, Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis says that the police won't be targeting the homes of known or suspected criminals, but will "focus on juveniles 17 and younger...." Juveniles who are not suspected of any crime?

Now, there likely won't be very much misuse of this program at first, but the fact of being able to search homes without a warrant is a small step leading very quickly to the proverbial slippery slope. And, that first step is unConstitutional.

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, do I have to remind everyone that America's socialists have been trying, in every way possible and some not possible, to put an end to every American's ability to defend himself for over a century? I shouldn't.

This program isn't aimed at a gaggle of Boston juvenile delinquents. It's aimed at us all.

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Remember, Remember the 19th of November

I shoot guns, and I do it every chance I get (though life in El Pueblo de Los Angeles offers precious little opportunity to shoot legally). I like handguns, since they present more of a challenge than do rifles. Most places where one can shoot in the urban area are indoor ranges that allow only handguns, and a few light rifles, such as .22's, which fits into my preferences quite well.

Monday, the 19th of November is National Ammo Day, as proclaimed and promoted by Nation of Volunteers, Inc, which is, as I understand it, a pro-2nd Amendment special interest group promoting traditional American values--particularly as regards to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

National Ammos Day is a day to empty the ammunition from the shelves of your local gun store, sporting goods, or hardware store and put that ammunition in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Make your support of the Second Amendment known--by voting with your dollars!

Seems like a worthwhile idea, and it happens that I need to fill my inventory of ammo for my next trip to the range.

Fits together kind of nicely.

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

When "No Law" Means Some Laws

I was listening to Michael Medved this afternoon, intermittently, whenever I was in my car. At one point, I turned the radio on and heard him talking about islamic fascists. I think he was talking about some islamist recommending martyrdom, or something like that. Not terribly important to my point.

What was important was what he said immediately afterward. "There can be no debate over the fact that free speech is not absolute." Or something very like this.

Let's parse this just a little. "There can be no debate...." is a very interesting phrase. It's designed to cut off argument before it can be born. It's the very same phrase the algorians use to cut off discussions about "global warming" and discredit the "deniers." It's very insidious, the way this works. I don't buy it for an instant.

"....Over the fact that free speech is not absolute." I've heard variations of this phrase dozens of times in the past five years or so. It's usually conservatives that say it. Leftists, on the other hand, say they're for free speech, to counter the position of the conservatives, but they're lying.

So, let's see what the Bill of Rights says: Amendment the First: "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."

The Founders wrote that Amendment to counter the British tradition of prosecuting political dissent.The First Amendment serves to protect the purveyor of controversial expression; to protect the holder of unpopular opinion.

And Michael Medved, a radio talk show host, one of a very few conservative movie reviewers, and a writer, fully ignoring the letter of the Bill of Rights, has the freedom to say that the First Amendment doesn't mean what it says. I've also heard Sean Hannity express the same sentiment. He ought to be ashamed. If he and others continue to ignore the meaning of the Constitution, he may find himself limited as to what he can say, as might we all.

They do this while, out the other side of their mouths they disparage the leftists for suggesting that they ought to provide balance on their shows.

I'd suggest that we ought to hold to the letter and meaning of the Amendment absolutely, lest we let this precious freedom be gradually nibbled away.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

If the Cops Watch the CCTV Screens, Who Watches the Streets?

It wouldn't be so bad, if it were only Britain; theirs is a socialist country already. Big Brother is installing cameras nearly everywhere, the better to see you with, my dear.

The Brit government claims it's to help solve crime. Yet, according to this story in the London Evening Standard, clear-up rates of criminal acts has not improved at all in areas with large numbers of CCTV surveillance cameras. Additionally, areas with very few cameras seem to have slightly higher clear-up rates.

The rational theory is that the cameras aren't there to enhance law enforcement at all. They're there to keep track of us. Now, as I'm reminded by Aurora at The Midnight Sun, new cars in the US all have GPS , which can (and will) be used to track our movements.

This, coupled with police caging themselves up in patrol cars (instead of walking the beat and actually getting to know their neighborhoods) and garbing themselves up in military-style armor (adding to their separation and alienation from their employers), just about guarantees a separation between the resident/working stiff from the main interface between most of us and government--the police. From that separation arises suspicion and distrust.

To add the worst kind of insult to injury, government is continually pressing toward disarming American society, rendering us more and more dependent 'pon people we trust less and less. According to natural rights all men must have to survive, we must be able to defend ourselves from not only a perilous nature, but from individuals who wish to plunder rather than be productive. For the first time in history, the right to self defense is encoded into law in the form of US Constitution and The Bill of Rights--the Second Amendment, to be exact.

Government places itself in the plunderer class when it attempts to deny man is natural rights. As this trend progresses, there's a gradual but constant decline in the quality of life of all. To return to my original example, Britain, this nation has been in general decline for generations as its government moves away from the degree of capitalism that peaked during the Industrial Revolution.

As the government noose tightens around the necks of Americans, the same decline can be seen here in the increasing numbers of the poor, the increasing numbers of inmates in the nation's prisons and the increasing degree of ambient anger in those of us who remain productive in spite of the current state of the nation.

We have to force government to live within the limits imposed by the Constitution (which every elected and appointed official has sworn to uphold--with fingers crossed, in most cases), and give those who resist a hearty "You're fired!"

And let's destroy those big brother-inspired cameras.

Remember, Vote For No Incumbents!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Your Worst Enemy Is Your Own Government

We American have grown up under the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, in which our form of government is spelled out for all to see and understand, and our rights are guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights.

Right?

Isn't that what we were taught in our history, government and civics classes in the government's children's prisons? If you were a crime suspect, and the police wanted to tap your phone, they had to go to a judge. They had to tell the judge what the crime was of which you were a suspect. They had to show the evidence they had that caused them to suspect you. They had to ask for a warrant to tap your phone to attempt to gather more evidence. They had to tell the judge what they expected to learn. If it all looked reasonable, the judge would sign the warrant.

Now, I know that certain police and certain judges failed to follow the letter of the law, but that failure was roundly known as a breach of the law and it was of such stuff that technical acquittals were made.

Well, not any more.

Since the beginning of the disingenuously named "War on Drugs," and accelerated under the auspices of the even more carelessly named "War on Terror," more and more of the legal protections we've been taught to expect are going away.

A New York Times story, written by Eric Lichtblau, and picked up by the Orange County Register today, exposes the fact that the FBI, an agency nowhere authorized in the US Constitution, is conducting wiretaps without a true warrant, and without a crime even having been alleged to have been committed. They routinely set up wiretaps if they think a crime might just possibly be in the planning stage.

The new revelations in the NYT story show that it's now gone even farther. The FBI is wiretapping various individuals who happen to know and communicate with the individuals who might just possibly be planning a crime. And even to their acquaintances. And their acquaintances. Some of whom might be your acquaintances. Or mine.

Now, I see the value of police agencies sharing data in the case of a crime suspect fleeing the jurisdiction of his accusers. This is what the Amendment process is for. The Founders didn't foresee the size and complexity the US has become. But, there has been no Constitutional Amendment allowing for the establishment of any sort of national police agency.

FBI is notorious, even among local police agencies, for its arrogance, pushiness and its habit of taking over and shoving local police aside. It's also notorious for its utter disdain for the Constitutional protections guaranteed to Americans. Further, it's becoming famous for its major errors and blunders in its investigations.

The FBI, and the alphabet soup of federal police agencies (DEA, BATFE, NSA and others, known and unknown) are in existence in opposition to the US Constitution. Not in the least did the Founders ever intend the United States to have a national police force. Enforcement of the law was always intended to fall 'pon the shoulders of local police, and better yet, in the hands of the individual, in defense of his life, family and property.

People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Making Female Dogs Illegal

I used to think the local officeholders in El Pueblo de Los Angeles were world-class idiots; the worst on Earth. This story from the New York Times, via Drudge, makes me realize LA isn't unique in its dysfunctional local government.

The New York City Council is contemplating making the word "bitch" illegal. City Councilmoron Darlene Mealy introduced the measure, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women. The dumb bitch didn't even print the word out in the language of the measure, referring to it as "the b-word." We'll just have to take the Times' word that "bitch" is actually the word that's being banned. Meanwhile, "bastard" remains a legal slur.

As one might expect, New Yorkers are roundly laughing the legislation off as funny, not to mention stupid and unenforceable (actually, sometimes they do mention it, in even more colorful terms).

Also included in the measure, is a ban on the word "ho." New York's children are going to bed in tears, realizing that Santa Claus will no longer be able to visit the city each Christmas. Perhaps Ms Mealy will have to ban the word "Grinch," as well.

Meanwhile, one must observe that, nowhere in the Times article, is Amendment the First, to the US Constitution mentioned. This measure is so clearly a violation of said Amendment, that both the Councilmoron and the Times writer, Michael M Grynbaum, must find their iq's in the lower double digits. Mr Grynbaum apparently hasn't yet had time to hobnob with the attorneys of ACLU, to whose members the First Amendment is the only Amendment.

I fear for the health of the Republic.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

That's Not A Knife. This Here's A Knife!

Seems there's a little confusion in paradise. That is, the small part of paradise we call Stalag California. The confusion is about state law. The confusion is so all-encompassing that it even includes California's Finest, those we select to enforce the law.

According to a story in Orange County's Register, Miguel Ramos bought a knife in The Block shopping center in Orange, thinking it was a legal item. Police found the knife during a routine traffic stop, probably during an unConstitutional search, and arrested Ramos.

Prosecutors observe that it's the duty of each individual to know the law. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is the bromide to which we were all introduced in children's prison. I wrote an entry on that topic here.

The problem in this case, and many others like it is this: The law in question, 653k of the Penal Code, has been revised several times in recent years. Most police officers aren't up to date. If the police can't figure it out, along with the hundreds of thousands of other laws on the books in our once-free collection of states, how are we to expect, let alone require, the average young man, just out of high school, to know them all?

More important by far, is the fact that 653k stands in violation of Amendment the Second to the US Constitution. "....The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed." is a pretty absolute phrase. Nowhere within is it specified what kind, caliber, range, length, weight, composition nor configuration the arms must be.

My recommendation is that 653k, and all the other tens of thousands of laws designed to make self defense all but impossible, be scrapped and forgotten, but not before their proponents are removed from positions of civil responsibility and publicly labelled Criminal Enablers.

"Every human being, by his nature, is free." --Rose Wilder Lane

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

It's Easy to Be Stupid

When the Nanny State proclaims that its job is to protect everyone safe from everything; to make the country child-safe; to create a nerf-nation, it's very easy to be stupid. And many brain-challenged Americans becoming just that.

According to a story in the Costa Mesa, California Daily Pilot, a 19-year-old child (you can't call a fool who does something like this a man) shot himself through the thigh and foot while examining a pistol he was considering buying.

Now, there are a host of problems with this story, indicating stupidity, or perhaps dishonesty on the part of many individuals.

First, police said that "Sanchez was looking at the pistol when it discharged...." Well, folks, pistols never just "discharge" when someone just looks at one. Never. Everyone with a brain knows that the first thing you do when you pick up a gun is: keeping it pointed in a safe direction, open it up and check to see if there are any cartridges inside. If so, unload the weapon immediately before doing any further examination. And never, ever point it at anyone or anything you don't plan to shoot.

Second, according to California law, handguns cannot legally be sold from person to person. I, of course, strongly disagree with this law as both an infringement 'pon individual rights and as a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.....but, it is the law. Handguns must be sold through a licensed gun dealer, who must verify that the buyer is a legal buyer, and who must do the song and dance of pretending to do a background check, making certain of the identity of both the buyer and the seller and doing a safety examination of the buyer (to make sure he knows how to use the weapon).

Third, the story states that the owner of the pistol is unknown. If the above hazing had been accomplished on the owner of the weapon, any police officer should be able to determine the owner of the weapon after about thirty seconds of tapping on his car's computer.

And finally, there's the fact that no charges were filed by the police. Well, no charges should've been filed. California laws that seem to apply on this matter are clearly unConstitutional, as are the federal laws. Sanchez ought to have to pay for his medical costs and the costs of the police response in full, as well as for any damage he caused to the home in which he committed his careless acts.

I haven't yet mentioned that, according to the news story, all this occurred at a party. Most adult parties include the drinking of adult beverages, and there's no mention of whether Sanchez had been partaking, or to what extent. That likelihood would add a whole new level to the foolishness that occurred.

Children should be taught firearm handling and safety by their parents and in their schools from the time they begin to be capable of taking serious instruction. Had this Sanchez fellow been given such instruction, this event would never have happened.

State and federal law seems to be designed not to preserve and protect individual rights, but rather to protect idiots like this Sanchez kid from his own stupidity--to protect us all from ourselves.

It will not work. But it will destroy our liberty.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

FCC: Protecting Our Ears From Evil Words

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, in a divided decision, said that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was "arbitrary and capricious" in setting a new standard for defining indecency." Says a Reuters story, sending the recent "arbitrary and capricious" standards for defining decency back to the unConstitutional Federal Communications Commission for clarification.

Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'shit' and 'fuck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience."

"If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.

Oh, my!! Wouldn't that be awful. People could say anything they want! We certainly can't have that!

I think I'm gonna be sick!

Hollywood says a lot of obscene things already, many of which have nary an "obscene" word within. The obscenity of most of their theses and philosophical/political comments are only exceeded by their internal stupidity.

That's ok;. Each and every one of us has a brain containing the potential for rational thought and critical analysis. Every tv set has an off switch and a channel selector.

Where the evil lies, and where the FCC becomes an immorally coercive organization, is in the fact that the US Constitution makes no allowance for government regulation of speech and expression, and the First Amendment to the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, specifically forbids it.

The FCC is a rogue department of a vastly overinflated federal government. All government officials who advocate its continuance and/or don't act to eliminate this assault on free speech are in violation of their oaths of office and should be removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Colonel Hogan
Stalag California

The Dumb Blue Line

A little more about the May Day rally at MacArthur Park near downtown Los Angeles. Now that Chief Bratton has had a chance to put his foot in his mouth a number of times and events have begun to sort themselves out, we learn that things are even worse than we thought.

LAPD has a fifty-year (and more) reputation for wearing out nightsticks 'pon citizens' heads. Back in the early 1970's, I knew a CHP officer who transferred from LA to San Diego, because he didn't like having to work with LAPD. This all goes back a long time so, you'll pardon me if yet another pledge to put officers through further training leaves me unimpressed.

According to a story in today's LA Times, the police made just about every mistake in the MacArthur Park incident, that could be made.

• Instead of isolating the agitators and dealing with them away from the demonstrators, LAPD pushed them into the larger crowd, thus bringing innocents into the fray.
• LAPD failed to set up an area in which the media could operate. Instead, they herded the reporters and cameramen along with the protesters, injuring a few.
• There was an LAPD speaker truck nearby. It wasn't used. Instead, the orders to disburse were given from helicopters. The bad news: the helicopters were too far away and too high in elevation. Few people heard them.
• Metro Division reinforcements were untrained in crowd control.
• Commands to the public were given only in English, despite the predominately Hispanic crowd.
• Supervisors were too far away from the skirmish line, leaving untrained officers on their own.

Every time one of these things happen, the current Chief vows to set up a new training program or a touchy-feely campaign of some sort--and it works until some cop beats the crap out of a drunk or a car thief (who probably deserves it) with his two-foot-long cast-iron flashlight.

To truly solve this we, as individuals or voluntarily-formed neighborhood groups should hire our own patrol organizations, and be given relief from local taxes to pay for these patrols. Thus, entities can choose patrol organizations from among those available on the free market. The city should do away from all impediments to individuals right to self defense.

Meanwhile, it'd help if police can be weaned from their us-versus-them attitude and return to a form of community patrolling in which police actually know the neighborhoods they patrol and some of the people who live in them. It'd help (and it's the law) if police observed due process and the US Bill of Rights to the letter. It'd help if municipalities would ban lying and secret-keeping by their elected officials and civil servants on pain of firing-in-disgrace and complete loss of pay and benefits.

Turning the police into paramilitary organizations is not helpful.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Death Squads of Homeland Security

It was pretty well guaranteed that when the President decided that the way to fight the "War on Terror" was to destroy the Bill of Rights that the Fourth Reich had begun. The fact that relatively few Americans protested has pretty much sealed it.

There are protests all the time. There was one last weekend in several cities. Unfortunately, the protests aren't against the crimes committed right here in the United States by those who are sworn to protect our rights, but against the federal government's bungling attempt to turn Iraq into a democracy.

Meanwhile, as we're distracted by the needless spending of both money and lives over there, innocent Americans are being murdered by homegrown death squads, also known as SWAT squads, right here in the land of the once free.

I've written about SWAT atrocities here, here and here, and Radley Balko, The Agitator, writes about them all the time, Now I've just read about another. Not that there aren't many more: the msm seems to be a mite deficient in their reportage of these things. We hear about them locally, but not nationally. The sheer numbers would cause a riot of outrage.

This one happened almost five months ago. A Wilmington, Delaware death squad murdered a US Marine veteran recently retired after two distinguished tours in Iraq and a medical discharge after a combat-related injury. Sergeant Derek J Hale was in Wilmington to participate in a Toys for Tots event with members of his motorcycle club.

Hale was unaware he was under surveillance by the local police because members of his club were suspected of dealing in drugs (for shame!). There is no evidence that Hale participated in any drug dealing. After accosting Hale, who had been sitting in front of an apartment building talking to a friend and her two children, they almost immediately tasered him not once, but three times. Then, while he was trying to comply with police orders (unable to physically control himself after the taser) he was shot three times in the chest and killed by the evil Lt William Brown of the Wilmington police.

The Wilmington police immediately went into cover-up mode and made up the standard excuse used by police death squads after they commit murder.

There were several witnesses to the murder, and a wrongful death civil lawsuit has been filed against WPD on behalf of Sgt Hale's widow.

While we all still seem to be living relatively free and comfortable lives, and these insane incidents don't really touch many of us, it's easy to remain complacent. Such is the way many of us behave. Such is the way many German citizens behaved too, until it was too late and they were being loaded unto trains.

It's hard to know when the political situation becomes unbearable, and what to do about it. We should all sharpen our wits and pay attention. We should all have passports.

Tip of the battered grey fedora: Pro Libertate Blog via Philosophical Detective.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California