Republicans.....Our saviors?

A writer on facebook suggests that Republican pundits are assuming a grand salvation will happen as more Republicans are elected in this coming election. Of course, the lady is quite right. Gains will be modest at best. An end to the Democrats' super majority is about the best we can expect.

This though, is only part of the story. I hold my nose and vote for mostly Republicans at each election, knowing that there is no coherent philosophical base behind their alleged convictions and that they betray America with astonishing regularity. Democrats are only slightly worse.

No Republican candidate or officeholder I know has announced opposition to taxes in principle, as a gross violation of individuals' right to property, nor has any of them committed to the notion that the task America's military is limited to protecting America from foreign attack. Wars of adventure and attempted nation building (never successful) seem to be the order of the day in Republican circles.

In order to avoid actually doing the simple things the US Constitution and reason requires of it, power hungry (yet unbelievably incompetent) elected officials try and invariable fail to control every aspect of the lives of Americans, and by the inconsistent use of force and fear, cause chaos and destruction every step of the way.

Actually, I'm not at all looking for leadership from government. Many decades longer that my lifetime have shown that government's only leadership is leadership in the areas of theft and murder (aka taxation and war).

All I want from government is protection for my absolute right to my life, rights and property--and that only until I can find a private organization that will do it better and cheaper!

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

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The First Time I Ever Read Anything On the Daily Kos

Since leftists are many times proven to be utterly unable to deal with facts (A fact to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman -- Larry Elder), I've gotten used to the snide sniping and sneering, insulting insider humor they use to unfocusingly, not quite make what in the ever-fuzzy leftist world, be inaccurately called a point.

What follows is the reason-free blathering of an alleged writer who calls himself DarkSyde (presumably because he doesn't want his friends and family shamed by what he does in the bathroom with his laptop). Following each of his "Ten reasons why you might not be a libertarian," ripping off both David Letterman and Jeff Foxworthy, will be a short comment.

Notice a propensity of newly minted Libertarians showing up lately? Perhaps it's just coincidence their ranks swelled in inverse proportion to George Bush's approval rating, ditto that so many are mouthing traditional conservative talking points. But what about the everyday gun toting townhall screamers and taxcutters and deficit hawks we see on cable news: are they really libertarian as so many claim, or just conservatives in glibertarian (sic) clothes? Here's a few warning signs.

10. If you think Ron Paul isn't conservative enough and Fox News is fair and balanced, you might not be a Libertarian.

Actually, Ron Paul isn't libertarian enough, and Fox News is far more fair and balanced than, say NBC. Also, we need to exclude commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity from this judgement, because they're commentators--not news.

9. If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there's a chance you're dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you're a Libertarian.

If you replace "brandishing" with the more accurate "carrying," I do have that right--although I prefer a 1911-type handgun. While pink shirts aren't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, as is the bearing of arms, the fact was that the Code Pink ladies were noisy and disruptive, whereas the gun-toting attendee stayed well away from the melee.

8. If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you're really a Libertarian.

Medicare is a creature of government, and its existence impoverishes everyone. I remember when there was no medicare, and in that time, the United States was a far better place in which to live.

7. If you rank Anthonin Scalia and Roy Moore among the greatest Justices of all time, you may be bug fuck crazy, but you're probably not a Libertarian.

I've never heard of a Supreme Court Justice (federal or state) that looks straight to the US Constitution (or the state constitution) to render judgement. If they did, there could be no conscription, no anti-drug laws, and the vast majority of police and regulatory agencies could not exist.

6. You might not be a Libertarian if you think recreational drug use, prostitution, and gambling should be illegal because that's what Jesus wants.

There are religious libertarians--I have no idea how they make that leap, but they're entitled to their opinions, however wrong, as long as they don't try to force their will on others. There is no Constitutional justification for making drug use, prostitution or gambling illegal.

5. If you think the separation between church and state applies equally to all faiths except socially conservative Christian fundamentalism, you're probably not a Libertarian.

I agree with this. Government should not in any way recognize or facilitate any religious organization. Nor should it discourage or hamper the free exercise of any religious activity unless that activity violates the rights of others.

4. You're probably not a Libertarian if you believe the federal government should remove safety standards and clinical barriers for prescription and OTC medications while banning all embryonic stem cell research, somatic nuclear transfer, RU 486, HPV and cervical cancer vaccination, work on human/non human DNA combos, or Plan B emergency contraception.
   

Government and all medical professions should be separated by Constitutional Amendment. Safety standards can be set and enforced by private regulatory firms. Individuals must use or not use the advice offered by these firms as they see fit. One's own judgement is crucial for his own well being, and should be the final screed. Private research organizations should be free to seek knowledge, to the limit of their abilities, as long as they initiate no force and cause no harm.

3. If you think state execution of mentally retarded convicts is good policy but prosecuting Scott Roeder or disconnecting Terri Schiavo was an unforgivable sin, odds are you're not really a Libertarian.

Any executions should be held by the intended victim against his attacker. Government should not be allowed to conduct executions, because it its inherent incompetence. The unplugging of Ms Schiavo's life support was not, should not have been a government issue.

2. If you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you're not even consistent, much less a Libertarian, and you may be Michele Bachmann.

I don't see a relationship between the above issues, except that they are all government boondoggles. There is no Constitutional justification for the silly and destructive auto buyback program, nor for any kind of involvement with the medical industry. Nor is there any Constitutional justification for the existence of government education. I use the term "education" very loosely here. Lastly, I have no idea what the dropping of Ms Bachmann's name has to do with anything. Leftists, when they have no argument, will often attack individuals.

And the number one sign: if you think government should stay the hell out of people's private business -- except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman's uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.

I agree with this one, too. George W Bush took many strides toward establishing a new fascist state, here in America. B Hussein Obama, however, instead of dismantling Mr Bush's evil work, has acted to extend and intensify the fascist state. He has not varied from the path Mr Bush would've taken, had he remained President.

The above silliness doesn't address the problems of the totalitarian state, it merely suggests that the writer wants a totalitarian state headed by his guy. His lack of understanding of conservatism, libertarianism, and even socialism is appalling. But he does, like both the neocons and the socialists (but, I repeat myself) extoll the wonders of the totalitarian state even in his ignorance. Oh well. Such is the meandering mental journey of the victim of the government children's prison system.

As for me, if there be any state at all, it should follow the Constitution to the letter and make changes only by means of the prescribed Constitutional Amendment process.

Conservatives don't agree with me, or most libertarians on many things, and I happen to think that most elected conservatives are not really very different from most elected leftists. Two sides of a (base metal) coin.

I kind of don't think I'll be any more likely to become a regular reader of Daily Kos because of the dubious wit and utter lack of logic expressed by Mr Syde, but it is kind of exhilarating to once again learn the very limited mental acuity of the average leftist political writer. The only problem is, the government children's prison system is cranking out people whose abilities are similarly limited, by the millions. Imagine how angry they'll be when they find out!

A tip of the old battered fedora to Moxie Cathedra.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

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

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

Article I, Section 6. Paragraph 2. "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shell have been encreased during such time, and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

I don't know how many times this clause has been violated by Presidential appointments of Senators to Cabinet posts and other high-level positions in government, but I suspect it's many.

But, neither Sen Clinton (the smartest woman in the world) nor President-elect Obama (the one true leader) appear to have noticed this clause. Which means neither of them has read the US Constitution, or that neither of them take it seriously. Not that they're alone in this--according to the text of the majority of legislation that's passed in each legislative session, it's clear that nearly all Congressmen and Senators are largely ignorant of the actual text and historical meaning of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and in many cases, the law itself.

The thing that allows these failings to endure unpunished is that all elected officials are either guilty of gross violations of their Oaths of Office, or blindly going along to get along, and are afraid that if a spade is called a spade, any and all of them could be found guilty of these violations.

So, they all ignore the Constitution and pretend that they are acting lawfully, and that none of the unwashed masses are intelligent enough to point out the obvious.

Consider it pointed out.

Tip of the battered grey fedora to James Babb for his alertness.

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

.....And Now For Something Completely Different.....

After having placed B Hussein Obama in precise company with both Democrats and Republicans who long for a neo-feudal society of starving peasants, rendered immobile by government policies robbing them of the ability to own private vehicles, and even get approval to use public carriers, I now find myself in the very uncomfortable position of having to offer a limited kudos to the unsavory gentleman.

For months now--indeed years, neocon pundits have been talking about the need to treat captured al queda savages as we would enemy soldiers in a conventional war. Leaving aside, for the moment, the very flawed rationale for attacking Iraq in the first place, if we were going to do this, well, in both WW's I and II, combatants found out of uniform were considered spies and simply shot. POW camps were strictly for captured uniformed soldiers.

Instead, the Bush Administration, with the approval of the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the neocon media, has rounded up the usual suspects, seemingly irrespective of any proof of guilt, and stashed them in cages in America's little corner of the People's Paradise of Cuba. Forever.

No charges, no due process, no trials, no finite sentences. Forever.

Today, also on the afternoon tv talk shows, B Hussein Obama was quoted as saying, "Why can't we just follow the Constitution?" or words to that effect.

Hooray!

Well, why can't we just follow the Constitution? We'd have to observe due process. We'd have to find proof that each of these individuals actually committed a crime. We'd have to bring him to trial in which his guilt would have to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a jury.

If the Administration has no proof of individual wrongdoing, why are we holding these individuals? Where does it say in the US Constitution that its tenets apply only to Americans? Is our Republic on such shaky ground that we can't stand to apply these principles of Jurisprudence to all?

Or should we simply shoot them as spies?

Thanks, Senator, for a brief moment of lucidity with respect to the Principles under which we (ought to) live and which (ought to) constrain our sadly misguided federal government.

First you will be given a fair trial, then you will be shot.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Turning the US Over To the Control of the UN

It's long been the opinion of a large minority of Americans that the United Nations is an anti-American organization. Many actions of the UN in recent years proves this--they are very fond of disproportionately criticizing the US while simultaneously requiring the US to shoulder a huge degree of financial responsibility for its operation.

There's a deliberate effort to subjugate the US federal government to the UN, undoubtedly due to extreme envy of our wealth by governments of other nations. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that these governments wish to sap the economic strength of the US to place the US at (or below) a par with the socialist nations of Europe.

Toward this end, the traitorous B Hussein Obama has authored and submitted to the Senate a bill (SB 2433) which, besides committing a hefty chunk of our tax dollars to the world's most savage dictatorships, filtered though the thieving, grasping hands of the leaders of the UN, but it cancels debts of these so far unidentified dictatorships owed the World Bank--at US expense). Read the text of the bill here.

This, of course, means that it'll leave the dictators of these countries with money to purchase more arms and enlarge their armies to better repress their people and, perhaps, to help train and arm groups that would harm the US.

As noted by Alex Jones, of Infowars.com, the bill requires the President to sign on to the UN's Millennium Declaration, which, according to Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media:

.....[A]after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning ’small arms and light weapons’ and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

The bill invests the power for enactment of its provisions in the President, which could be B Hussein Obama by the time the bill becomes law. Now, in my own head, this commitment sounds like handing over the sovereignty of each and every one of the United States to an anti-American organization. I have no doubt that is what the multicultural Senator Obama intends.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

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

America's Hundred Years War

Days after islamic savages destroyed the World Trade Center, and damaged the Pentagon, President GW Bush announced his "War on Terror." The proclamation immediately set off warning bells in my mind. Who can point at someone or something and say "that's terror."? I said little.

Someone conducted the attack, and since the perpetrators were dead, who ordered it, planned it, supported it financially? It certainly wasn't "Terror." The answer to these question seems to have been a very radical islamic fundamentalist organization called al queda, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, a spoiled brat son of a very wealthy arab.

As an aside, there are a number of theories that place the blame for the incident squarely 'pon the shoulders of the Bush administration in various ways and for various reasons. I don't ascribe to any of them, not because I don't think the administration is morally incapable of such, but because I haven't the time, and don't plan to make the time to study them. Life's too short, and if the Executive Branch has sunk to these depths, we're already in a dictatorship. That would change the scenario severely.

Back to the spoiled arab brat. After three months of screwing around getting a force together to attack al queda, during which time bin Laden and his gang of thugs perfected hiding places, greased palms of some willing Afghan warlords and rearmed, the Commander-in-Chief was finally able to send the Marines over to Afghanistan. After these months of assembling a force and getting it into the area, and during which time the President actually did speak some sense (though he still hadn't come up with a better name for the enemy than "terrorists," a more nebulous term for an enemy has yet to be invented), and I expected an early roundup of the remaining islamic savages and an investigation that would reveal their financial backers, and suitable punishments to be handed out to all. Silly me!

Suddenly, for no apparent reason, our military muffed the capture of bin Laden and let him escape into Pakistan. Some evidence suggests that the loss of bin Laden was caused by orders from Washington that failed to supply reinforcements when needed.

Suddenly, for no apparent reason, bin Laden slipped off the edge of the radar and Saddam Hussein became the enemy. Keep in mind that, up to this moment, the administration has never actually named the enemy. No declaration of war has been made by Congress.

So Osama bin Laden has escaped into the mountains of Pakistan (or, perhaps newly shaved, is cavorting 'pon the beaches of Cannes and Monte Carlo) and our troops are relegated to chasing Afghan mullahs around the local badlands and the major strength of our troops are busy directing traffic in a lawless Iraq.

All this reminds me of GW Bush's early statement that we'll be involved in the "war on terror" for the long haul and John McCain's more recent statement that the war could last a hundred years.

I have to wonder if that wasn't the plan from the start.

As an ex-Navy sailor who has a nephew involved in this action, I have to protest the misuse of our fine military, and the apparent willful disregard for our Constitution and our laws. I'm calling 'pon Congress to put an end to this waste and destruction and return to government according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Meanwhile, the administration seems to be using every excuse to narrow down and eliminate every one of the rights affirmed by America's Founders and enumerated in the Bill of Rights, in the name of fighting this "war on terror" and the even more wrongly-inspired "war on drugs."

Ladies and gentlemen, the "terrorists" have won.

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

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

Let Them Snort Salt

In yet another step in the government's march to take over the rearing of children from their parents, the evil FDA is about to order toddler's cold medicines off the shelves, in the interest of protecting little children from the bungling stupidity of the adults who gave them life. According to a story in the Modesto (Stalag California) Bee, cowardly attorneys for drug makers are pulling the medicines off the shelves now, preempting FDA action.

Why, you might ask? Because an FDA report found 54 reports of child deaths linked to decongestants and 69 to antihistamines from 1969 to 2006, many of them younger than 2. That's a total of .... let's see....carry the one....123 dead babies in....um....37 years. While one must grieve the early death of even one youngster (unless it's a noisy one in a theater), where's the perspective? How many toddlers drowned in the bath in 37 years? A lot more than 123, I'll wager.

A more important thing to note is: how many toddlers have been helped by these medicines? A second thing about which to pay attention is: How many of the parents of the unfortunate babies were actually following the manufacturer's instructions? And a third: Just how much of the responsibility for bringing up our children are we willing to cede to a bungling, wasteful organization whose members' most urgent mission is to work as little as possible and retire with as large a pension as possible?

The solution offered? Stuff a rubber syringe full of salt water in the little tyke's nose to either drown him, collapse his lungs or rupture his bronchial tubes.

Fortunately, Modesto-area parents interviewed by the Bee's reporters seem to be more skeptical of this foolishness than, for example, people who live in El Pueblo de Los Angeles.

Granted, parents should carefully choose a pediatrician (I always get this mixed up: is a pediatrician a foot doctor?) and follow his advice. Some doctors believe these patent medicines are ineffective. Perhaps some of them are, but I'd rather the parents make the choices than Washington bureaucrats two intellectual steps away from the post office stamp window.

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

Invisible to Government--Dare to Aspire.....

Hillary Clinton, the leading Democrat candidate for her party's nomination for President, has declared her openness by securing all of her records from the time she was serving in the office of Co-President of the United States, has begun producing tv ads already, with Election Day over fourteen months away. Yet, she still has not, as a candidate for President, ever allowed herself to speak extemporaneously in any venue, in any situation. She managed to win her election to the Senate as a carpetbagger, in New York in a similar way.

I find her inability to just talk to interviewers and to unsorted groups of voters very troubling. I find that she and the other Democrat candidates are afraid to appear and debate on Fox News, the largest cable news station, very troubling. I further find that her inability to remember any of the details of her Whitewater investments, nor into what location the purloined FBI files were stashed, nor who hired the underqualified Security Chief, Craig Livingstone, seems to point out a degree of mental deficiency that ought to be called into question.

There are many problems with the Clinton Presidency and many of them are not with the President himself. Hillary has, even since her college days, been the more radical of the pair, the more socialist, and holds many explicitly Marxist views. Her having recently called for a confiscation of oil company profits ought to send up a warning flag to all productive individuals.

The tv ad I mentioned earlier, which has been airing in Iowa and on Fox news, laments the fact that many of America's impoverished are "invisible" to the federal government--particularly to the current administration. She says this as if it would be a bad thing (if true).

Mrs Clinton: there is a way you can get my vote. I'll want it on paper, signed by you, and witnessed by many. Promise me that I too, can be invisible to the federal government. For life. There are very few things that would please me more.

You see, Mrs Clinton, It's my opinion that the federal government has done nothing positive for me, nor any other American, almost since the signing of the US Constitution. Maybe if I think long enough and hard enough, I'll come up with something, but it won't be easy. What you'll never understand and you and others like you have been working hard to keep other Americans from knowing, is that government's only proper job is to protect the rights of its citizens.

You've sworn to uphold the letter and spirit of the US Constitution, and you and nearly all the other elected officials in the country have criminally ignored your sworn job description for generations.

According to the words and sentiments expressed by Thomas Jefferson and many of his contemporaries, the US federal government should've been dissolved many decades ago--prior to the unConstitutional War Between the States. The way I see it, an informal alliance between the fifty states, with trade and travel treaties (to be occasionally renewed) would serve far more equitably than this hodge-podge fascist mess under which we now are victimized.

Do me a favor. Quit. Clear out your desks, all of you. Get real jobs that actually turn you into productive individuals.

Try it. You'll like it.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan

Stalag California

Dr Ron Paul's Anti-Tax Amendment

Dr Ron Paul (R-Texas), a candidate for President of the United States, has written and submitted HJ Resolution 23, Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

I'm not optimistic enough to think this resolution will become an actual Amendment to the Constitution, but I applaud Dr Paul for introducing it and I'll watch to see who supports and opposes this Resolution. So far, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland) and Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Florida) are co-sponsoring the Resolution.

The Catholic church, with its opulent cathedrals around the world, its little churches in small towns, its monasteries and convents, its missionary programs and the extravagance that is the Vatican, are all maintained by the donations of its members. No one can convince me that a reasonable government can't be financed the same way.

Define a reasonable government: well, a reasonable government would contain a defensive military, defensive being the operative word. It would operate higher courts--lower courts should be private and financed by those who use them on a fee for service basis. Government would, in the US, do absolutely nothing that isn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. Nothing.

Taxation is theft. By definition. Since "government derives its power from the consent of the governed," how can the governed give government powers that it does not have--like the right to extort money/property from others, at the point of a gun?

I wasn't aware of Dr Paul's proposed Constitutional Amendment to abolish the income tax, the gift tax and to prohibit government from competing with the private sector. That's more than cool. I'm mulling the possibility of sending Dr Paul a campaign contribution--something I haven't done for any political candidate since the early years of the Libertarian party.

George Bush's greatest failure is that he declared war on terror, and didn't include IRS on the enemies' list.

Tip of the battered grey fedora to Aurora at The Midnight Sun .

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Declaration of Independence

Today is Independence Day. We celebrate Independence on July Fourth, as the day the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the thirteen American Colonies.

The fight for independence from the British Crown was initiated by a resolution presented by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. He presented a resolution proposing a Declaration of Independence on June 7th, 1776. The resolution follows:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

The Declaration of Independence was actually adopted by the Continental Congress on July 2nd, 1776. The final text of the Declaration, as written (primarily) by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted on July 4, and off we went.

The interesting thing about the full text of The Declaration is that it details a large number of grievances against atrocities committed by the British Crown against the Colonies. What makes it even more interesting is the fact that every one of these atrocities has been perpetrated against the people of the United States of America by the various layers of our own government.

It's a sort of backward tribute to America's children's prison system that the vast majority of the public has been dumbed down to the extent that they not only aren't aware of government's disregard for their rights, but are utterly apathetic about that disregard. In fact, a significant minority of Americans aren't even aware of their loss of freedom and the way their rights are being trampled by an out-of-control government.

I've though for many years that we're due for a second Declaration of Independence--a declaration that today's several layers of government have rendered Americans slaves to a system whose oppressiveness is only diminished by its ponderous incompetence. Unfortunately, a general apathy on the part of television-mesmerized America leaves me in the role of Lone Revolutionary.

All I'd really like to see is that those in government who fail to uphold their Oath of Office--you know, the one in which the appointee/electee promises to uphold the Constitution of the United States--are removed from office for failing to do so, and are replaced by individuals who will.

I'd also like to see any government employee, convicted of lying during the performance of his duties, face a mandatory public execution for his crime.

These are some of the things I think about while pondering the meaning of Independence Day each year. I'm at once thankful for the bravery and uncompromising desire for liberty of the individuals involved in attaining independence from the British Empire, and angry that we've let it largely slip away.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

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

Patriot Act Abuse

I'm not sure how many times we've all been assured that the evil Patriot Act won't be abused by using its provisions against Americans, but I know we've been thusly assured somewhere approaching the number of times the Act has been abused. We'll never, for obvious reasons, be told how many times, against whom and in what ways our sovereign individuality has been assaulted by government thugs by means of the provisions of this destructive and unneeded attack on the US Constitution and those who live under its withering protection, but the assaults are many, deliberate and designed to diminish our control of our individual lives.

I'm not sure how this cat escaped its bag, but according to this and other recent news stories, the unConstitutional FBI has been abusing its alleged power and collected a so-far unspecified amount of data on an unspecified number of Americans and foreigners.

Ironically, the congressfools that are taking the FBI to task for their illegal activities are the same ones that violated their oaths of office to vote to destroy our Constitutional rights. Where were they when the President decided that the way to fight the islamic savages was to attack the US Constitution?

Now, we have to examine the sincerity of these same congressfools: How many of the guilty FBI thugs have been indicted so far? How many fired? How many even suspended!?

One has to wonder at the way our perverted government works when two Border Patrol officers are quickly jailed for trying to do their job and many FBI thugs are merely scolded for betraying the Bill of Rights.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California