Still Another King George . . .

The photo should remind you about trusting government. The wound was inflicted by the Executive Branch of the federal government of the United States of America, without warrant, or even probably cause. It was inflicted because an individual or several individuals who were embarked on a holy crusade adjudged by them necessary to defend the nation acted entirely outside the law. I should think that would remind you of another federal official, this one President of the United States, who is doing the same thing. He pretends he is justified, asks us to "trust him." He's acting in the interests of our security. Sure. Hell, yes!

A guy named Glen in Missouri wants to know “what the hell you intend to do about it.” He means about The Bush league government’s assault on our Constitutional – that’s god-given and heretofore recognized by the law – rights.

And let me remind everyone here that e-mail eavesdropping isn’t the only example of what I’m talking about. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights have been under relentlessly continual assault by a government that has for decades tended more and more toward criminality. That, by the way, cannot be rationally or logically denied; the nation’s jurisprudential record makes that incontestable.

Neither can one be gainsaid when he says there is only one way for the individual to defend and protect his rights. Government in this state of its natural evolution – “Democracy never lasts long,” said John Adams - will not do that. That is a law of history, one akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that government always grows more repressive rather than more liberal. All governments become tyrannies sooner or later.

What do I intend to do, Glen? I’ll tell you, but had you read my books (especially “Jonatha’s Truth,” which is the story of what one man does), you’d know.

I will counterattack, which means I will seek out, engage, and incapacitate or
destroy whatever and whomever has become my enemy. Any one who knows me, anyone who knows the story of my war with the federal criminality that is IRS knows that. The U.S. government knows that. That you don’t is due the fact that they don’t want you to know. If you knew that, others would, too – and some or all of them might do something like I will do.

As Talleyrand once observed, government would rather fight an army of lions led by a sheep than an army of sheep led by a lion.

Counterattack? Yes, and I’ve started. The federal data miner is here on my computer, and it is already isolated. That they are back to listening with more conventional methods (those are useless, too – I’ve been at this more than twenty-three years, now) proves that. But I’ve only started. I’m learning computers, and anyone who knows me well knows what that means.

They will remember that I once learned to speak, read, and write seven languages, including Latin, Icelandic, and Japanese. As my friend Jim Frazier in Colorado once reported and wrote, I taught myself higher mathematics to the level of being able to do first order calculus in my head. I invented the Mongoose Tactic that is now famed as S.W.A.T.

I will learn computer science and technology. When I have done so sufficiently – and only time constraints and death can prevent that - I will destroy the computer and computer system attacking my privacy and right to it. It’s that simple.

Why do I feel so strongly about this? Well, to begin with, who – what – I am. “There are no contracts between lions and men, and wolves and sheep have no accord.” That’s from Homer, who was right; and I am not a fucking sheep. Then there is my consideration of the argument that something makes the federal enemy who attacks me better than the foreign enemy who attacks me. Somehow, to the sheep mentality, the fear of bombs, violence, and terrorism is worse than being caged, treated like a pet.

Let me put it a bit differently. I have never had any great difficulty with any kind of criminal, “terrorist” or otherwise. The nation’s criminal element has never caused me much trouble. Judo, my street “smarts,” and the ability to produce a 1911 .45 swiftly have always handled that. What I have lost to professional and amateur criminals has been peanuts.

Not until the criminal element became government did crime cost me anything significant. When the criminal element of society governs, it’s a whole ‘nother thing.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis expressed that idea way back in 1890. Later, 1928, he was a Supreme Court justice when he wrote in dissent of the case of Olmstead v. US 277 438. That ruling upheld the right of the FBI’s Elliot Ness and his “Untouchables” to wiretap the telephone lines of bootleggers as long as it was done at a point between the defendants’ homes and their offices, and not within their homes proper. Sound familiar?

Judge Brandeis’ reasoning in his famous dissent is mine today. We argue that the rights of Americans and all human beings are inalienable, and that not even being reasonably suspected of criminal activity changes that. Justice Brandeis said that the right to privacy was the right to be left alone. I agree. Listen (he wrote better than I do):


“The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality — the right to be left alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man’s home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man’s spiritual nature, his feelings and his intellect. Every violation of the right to privacy must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Now, as time works, subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy will become available to the government. The progress of science in furnishing the government with the means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping (emphasis is mine – Justice Brandeis was a far-sighted man).
“Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring beliefs, thoughts and emotions. It does not matter if the target of government intrusion is a confirmed criminal. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law (emphasis is mine again, because I couldn’t agree more).
“It is also immaterial where the physical connection of the wiretap takes place. No federal official is authorized to commit a crime on behalf of the government.”  Justices Holmes and Stone also dissented, agreeing with Justice Brandeis.

Every day, I hear some nitwit in his ignorance of history, saying as our president does that somehow danger from terrorists justifies destroying a part of the essence of what we are as a nation. Wait until they are the victim. Like me. I lived with George Orwell’s famous quote on my mind daily. It should be a warning, as should my story be, that once government turns criminal, it is like a dog that has tasted blood. “It was even conceivable,” Orwell wrote, “that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness every movement scrutinized.”

My case should warn that they don’t stop at listening and watching. The reason that Justice Brandeis argued “government may not itself break the law against suspected lawbreakers” is that once there is no respect for law, by either citizen or government, the result is a lawless society. Order obeys Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics to become chaos. An example of what I mean is the everywhere evident fact that no rational citizen of the United States can believe anything his government says. To hold of profess that a nation is a republic or democracy where the citizenry has no way to know what is going on is absurd. The lie by government is a cancer from which the national body cannot hope to recover, striking as it does at the very heart of our legal system and way of life. That means rule by dictatorship or chaos.

Lies. Yesterday, yet another repetition by a sycophant media shilling for the White House that the president and Attorney General hold that the Congress authorized King George to ignore the Bill of Rights when it supposedly granted him power to "use any force necessary to combat terror." First, to claim the power to violate the Constitution can be read into any such authorization is cynical nonsense. Who in their rational mind could claim such a thing? Even if the Congress had stated in plain English that that president was being given permission even enacted legislation - empowering him to violate the privacy of citizens without warrant, to claim such a thing legal is cynical falsehood. The Congress HAS no such power! What the Attorney General must know - where King George is concerned, who can tell; he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, you know - is that any such "authority" would require a Constitutional amendment. Even specious legislation like the War Powers Act (for instance, certainly not the only example), legislation seeking to amend the Constitution by mere enactment by the Congress is void and without legal force. Article Five of the US Constitution is written in very plain English:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."  

READ THE CONSTITUTION! This NOT subject matter requiring a lawyer - not even legal training. The only possible way for a rational and literate person to interpret Article Five of the Constitution is that negation of the Bill of Rights may not be done by mere legislation. Can there be any doubt whatever, in light of what we're talking about, why the Founding Fathers provided for that? At the risk of stating the obvious, amendment of the Constitution is done by proposal of the Congress to amend the Constitution and ratification of the proposed amendment by the states. Not by legislation; certainly, NOT BY PERMISSION OF CONGRESS, oral or otherwise.

This is ridiculous, people. Let's suppose the king decides tomorrow that he wants to quarter troops in your house - maybe have your daughters provide entertainment for the boys. You know - "support the troops?" What's to stop him from claiming that the War on Terror (in his judgment, mind you) warrants that. What's to stop a lame-literate like King George from claiming that "use any force necessary to combat terror" authorizes that?

Yeah, I know - trust him. He's dedicated to our security and well-being. No thanks. Has anybody checked New Orleans lately, the coasts of Alabama and Mississippi?

Anybody who doesn’t see what's happening today must be brain dead.