I’ve spoken a number of times on my website of what I call the law of the gunfighter, and it seems of late that the topic has piqued the interest of a number of folks. More, a number of friends who happen to be in the Fifth Profession have written to ask how I would deal with Hezbollah and their latest outrage, that of firing hundreds of missiles into civilian populaces in Northern Israel, missiles whose blast is exacerbated by the shrapnel they contain. The professional security people also wonder how an old gunfighter like me would handle the impending nuclear confrontation with Iran, the nation supplying the rockets being used for atrocity and murder by Hezbollah.

Then, too, I have a tertulia at the Café Calypso here in Corpus, and the conversation this weekend was all about the murderous events in Israel and Lebanon. Included in the group was a U.S. Navy fighter jockey, a veteran of the first war in Iraq. Another of the group is a friend who has little good to say about Israel; especially where U.S. support is concerned. Another is Jewish. An interesting mix, you could say.

Let’s start where I left off when I wrote concerning the law of the gunfighter on the 16th last. When you intend to fight with a gun, there are several things you need to be aware of and make up your mind about. They all relate to the veritable avalanche of bullshit being spewed by the media’s blabber of windbags, the nation’s media commentators and their co-conspirators in politically motivated propaganda, television’s military “experts.”

Parenthetically, an old soldier like me would be surprised to learn that any of these guy knows how to field-strip an M-16 or clean a 1911, let alone even squad-level military tactics. The fact that their audience is so benighted as to be unaware of that obvious fact makes things even more frustrating. A tactician by trade and avocation, I can’t help wondering if all of it isn’t simply a smoke screen intended to cover for what seems to be actually going on – an excuse for spending billions on killing and enriching the arms makers. Once more, I ask why it is that while the poor and the young are being asked to contribute their bodies and lives, the arms makers and military industrial corporations are not only required to contribute nothing, but encouraged to gouge the taxpayer for billions.

But enough of that. The factual truth will do nicely here, especially where smoking out most of the real war-mongers and causes for the conflict in question are concerned.

First, most or all of the polemic being held on television and concerning the history of Israel and Palestine is nonsense. Who did what in 1948 has absolutely nothing to do with shooting rockets indiscriminately into a city. I don’t care what anyone has done to me, I don’t care how just my cause is, there is nothing – absolutely nothing - that justifies or excuses the indiscriminate firing of shrapnel laden explosives into crowds of the innocent. When the innocent included children, it’s worse – if that’s possible.
More, an act like that has utterly no military, no tactical or strategic purpose whatever. There is only one reason for this kind of thing: cold blooded, maniacal, satanic murder. It has only one possible purpose, that of satisfying blood lust and hate.

The individual or group who does that is the human – I speak of species alone, certainly not character – equivalent of a rabid dog. Rabid dogs, especially in packs, must be eradicated. They cannot be permitted to live in our midst. It’s that simple.

There is a second evil here, however, one nearly as virulent. That evil is the people who call themselves pacifists, and on that ground clamor for “cease fire” once a pack of rabid dogs like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or their odious like has committed another of its atrocities and blasphemies and is under the guns of their righteously outraged victims. These phony peacemakers would buy the lives of a few now, to pay for them with the lives of hundreds or thousands later. Able to posture piously in the present, they expect to conveniently be forgotten later when the price of their duplicitous cowardice is paid. It’s always so, and the wonder is that society hasn’t the intellect or awareness of history to know it.

The public in the U.S. may have a short memory; history hasn’t.

I know history in that regard all too well. In 1958, when I wrote the paper calling for development of tactical anti-terrorist (actually, the paper was about hostage situations, but people who take hostages are terrorists to me) teams a Los Angeles Police Chief would a decade later dub “S.W.A.T.,” people including many authorities called my idea “lunacy.” “The Mongoose Tactic” – its original sobriquet – you see, was brutal. The first line of my paper was, “There is only one way to handle a hostage holder who has a gun, and that is with a man who is better with a gun, so much better that he can kill instantly.” No questions, no negotiations; and nothing that would risk in any way the life of the hostage.

It was, I said then – and I say now - a matter of ethics and morality. Capable of the Mongoose Trick, the rescuer had no right to make any effort to save the hostage holder, inasmuch as there was – is - no way to do that without risking the life or limb of the hostage. More, the rescuer and his employers must adopt the attitude that whatever happens to the hostage taker is self-inflicted. He did it when he took a hostage.

But for that people who masquerade under the title “humanist,” that was “brutal,” too brutal. Later, when the idea was in the process of being stolen, and I was being asked to develop tactics for, even become, the first of the “sky marshals” necessitated by the same breed of terrorists we are now discussing – it was 1967 or ‘68. When Highway Patrolman and expert pistolero Ron Hansen and I discussed with federal officials the tactics of defending an airliner against terrorists, we were asked by more of the humanist persuasion why my tactical doctrine didn’t include “shoot to wound or disarm.” They were serious. Their kind always is, however psychotic, wrong-headed, or unfamiliar with the subject of violence and dealing with it they may be. In a political world, nonetheless, they must be heard, and the result is always disastrous.

Asked in the years that followed questions similar to that “can’t you shoot the gun out of his hand” gem, I always had the same answer. It’s the answer I gave my friends the other day, and the jist of the letter I will send tomorrow to Kofi Anon, members of the U.S. Senate (that by request from certain of their members), and others.

The “The Mongoose Trick” was born of a discussion in 1958, one concerning the once obscure, then infamous, now again forgotten incident at No Gun Ri during the Korean War. While there are several, even many, versions of what occurred, what was supposed the day of our discussion was that enemy soldiers were infiltrating our lines among columns of refugees. Discovered, the North Korean soldiers opened fire, and U.S. soldiers fired back, killing refugees as well as soldiers. The question the day of our discussion was how to deal with an enemy firing from amidst noncombatants. Asked my opinion, I said pretty much what I said in the paper I would write later. The guy who uses the innocent for a shield bears responsibility for what results, not the one shooting to save himself. Otherwise, the rulemakers – or the hypocrite peacemakers - are demanding that someone sacrifice their lives.

I suppose someone willing to sacrifice his own life might have the right to make such a demand, certainly no one else.

The people who clamor for “negotiation” and “negotiated cease fire” in Israel and Lebanon, between the Israeli Defense Force and Hezbollah, are wrong-headed as only the uninitiated or the oblivious can be. The only excuse morally available them is abject stupidity. To suggest negotiation with a mad dog is fatuous nonsense, and Hezbollah has shown that it is the equivalent of a rabid monster, its members mad dogs. There is no rational question that the world’s nations have by their continually repeated attempts at negotiated peace with Islamic extremist terrorists perpetuated both them and their murderous attacks. This amounts to tolerance, and it provides for even more of the vile depredations a hypocrite U.S. and European media sanctimoniously laments.

Again and again and again, Islamic terrorists have vented their demonically insane rage by every despicable act their hate-crazed minds can devise. The list is far too long – literally hundreds of incidents - to include here, but it is not inaccurate to say that beginning almost immediately after the partitioning of Israel in 1948, Islamic extremists have resorted to what the world now calls terrorism. One list of Islamic extremist terrorist acts is at http://en.wikipedia.org

In short, the maudlin, lugubriously bizarre “reporting” by the media, together with the panty-waist pontifications of its pundits – especially military – concerning the latest Hezbollah murder-kidnapping followed by showers of rockets is infuriatingly disgusting. If the nations of the world do not demonstrate by their utter destruction of Hezbollah their determination to tolerate no longer Islamic extremist terrorism, Hezbollah terrorism will result eventually and inevitably in nuclear holocaust.

When it happens, bubbles-for-brains humanists and politically prostituted liberals will blithely blame it all on Israel or their political or ideological opposites and look for more mischief to foment with their self-aggrandizing posturing. Until the terrorists get to them, that is. That’ll silence the “peace-lovers” and the negotiators, of course, the way death silences everything; otherwise, it will still their enemy ideological enemy Israeli’s fault – oh yeah, and the conservative and neo conservative “right.” Insane stupid serves insane murderous.

Frankly, though, I’m most pissed off at the moment with Israel and their IDF. Israel should have unleashed a full frontal assault, followed by a “vertical envelopment” by airmobile and paratroop units. Once their airborne assault had landed behind the Hezbollah troops, an Inchon-style landing from the sea should have driven inland to link with the airborne troops, to cut off the Hezbollah retreat and seal the terrorist battalions in a cordon of steel. As I write this now, Israeli units should be proceeding to annihilate the miscreant enemy inside their circle. No escape. No unethical – and immoral - mercy.

If Israel is incapable of that, the nations of the world should be doing it. Just as the bodyguard has no right to endanger his charge or charges with any compunction about killing their assailant or captor, the nations of the world have no right to endanger all of us by suffering these despicable Hezbollah bastards to share the planet with us.

Immoral mercy? Absolutely. Upon his death, General Douglas MacArthur was eulogized by columnist Stewart Alsop as the last of the humane generals. No better reason might be found than in the general’s own words, spoken a short time before his demise. “I know war,” he said, “as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes ... But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.”

I know violence as few other men, too, and I know what is inevitable with the continued existence of Hezbollah and their terrorist kind. It is as obvious as is their character. It is as unmistakable as what they scream at the top of their raving lungs. How many more have to be tortured, maimed, and killed before the world has the balls to do what history and the ghosts of all the dead demand?

So let us have no more of this hypocritical and hateful nonsense, nonsense in the form of continued clamor for cease fire each time terrorists begin to work their vicious, blaspheming way. Ethics is a straightforward, mathematical science. Like the hostage taker, or the coward who shoots from behind or among women and children, the nations and world who negotiate with Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorists like them bear the moral responsibility for all the lives these terrorist lunatics exact.

It’s that simple, the law of the gunfighter.

Somebody may be pulling my leg here, but I don’t think so. I’ve just contracted with a subscriber to a site where writers and clients meet, to write a seventy-five page “chapbook” on the subject of “applied thinking.” That last was the client’s choice of terms, by the way. I liked it. The contact results, according further to the client, from my articles having to do with SWAT and bodyguard tactics, judo, shooting and the like. Rob says - agreeing with me, by the way – that anyone who expects to have to fight for his life “had damned well better” – his choice of terminology, again – be able to think clearly.

Six additional clients have signed on, and I’ve got a project. I think that’s a pretty good sign that I’m not being put on.

And it’s become colossally clear that many – most, I would contend – people can’t do that. Think productively, I mean. Were I asked, I’d say that the principle reason beyond the obvious, that of today’s poor education, is emotionally derived bias. How that happens is another matter, one for the sociologists.

A case in point where the emotional bias is concerned is the latest spate of reaction on website like Truthout.com to the continuing Hezbollah attack on Israel. The Israelis are killing innocent civilians. That’s it. Subject discussed entirely.

End of cogent thought, too. All further comment (and there’ll be a bunch of that), in other words, will be a repetition of what went before. The only thing of interest in any of it is the astonishing bias displayed by the writers. There is, to hear them tell it, no redeeming factor in anything the Israelis have done or are doing. None!

A while back, one writer – “Greta” – finally (I had to insist repeatedly) answered my question concerning what she thought would happen were the Israelis to disarm by saying there would be peace. Then, when Israel had returned the Gaza Strip to Palestine, only to have a raid from Gaza seize and hold hostage one of its soldiers and begin taking rocket fire from there, she somehow failed to mention it in her latest diatribe reporting Palestinian casualties.

One might ask people like this - assuming that two wrongs still don’t make a right, and that the desire for self-preservation is not only natural but a natural right – what any other group of persons – including the towering intellects of the far left – might do, were they fired on from the next house, block, town or country.
Let’s say, for instance, that you’re walking down the street one day, and somebody starts shooting at you from a crowd of people. You’re in the middle of the street or some open space, and you’ve got no place to hide. You’re armed. What do you do?

D-u-u-u-u-h!

But emotion does not check with reason before it energizes the mouth. And therein lies mankind’s biggest problem. Yesterday, at our customary week end get-together a friend – who is very anti-Israel – answered something I observed concerning the present situation in Lebanon with a comment concerning “Israeli violence.” ISRAEL shouldn’t be violent. More, and for that reason, the United States shouldn’t help them.

My friend and I often agree to disagree, and change the subject. But his view is both an interesting one, and parallels that of the folks on TO and elsewhere internet-wise. You should pardon the expression.

For many years, one ploy I would use in an argument like this one was the one I just used. Ask the arguer to put himself in the shoes of the opposing viewpoint. What would he do, were he an Israeli?

It tells anyone like me what he wants to know, which is whether the discussion is worth continuing. On my website, I pose it as a condition of debate: what does it take to prove you wrong? If you can’t be proven wrong, then there’s no point in my debating you, is there? If you what you believe can’t BE wrong, then it’s a religion, not a science (and, interestingly enough, atheism is a religion on those grounds). Science can prove things, and settle arguments; religion can’t

So, you ask, what are the rules? Well, they are simple – and the mankind has known and agreed upon them for centuries. There’s even a name for the science – forensics. Get a bit more precise – or general, for that matter – and you have epistemological forensics.

The science IS that, of course, so there isn’t room to discuss the whole of it here, but certain basic of the basic principles destroy everything being raved by the Palestine-Arab extremist apologists. First, like I said, two wrongs don’t make a right. You don’t prove yourself correct - or further your argument, even – by proving the other side wrong. And, a corollary, he’s not wrong because he’s a son of a bitch; or even because he’s been wrong before.

That, logically, is it for about eighty percent of the Palestine side of the latest argument. Even a son of a bitch has a right to shoot back at the guy who shot at him.

Next, we have the matter of restraint. The Israeli reaction was too severe. All the non-combatants very far from the action agree. Surprise. The question came up the other day, right here in Kingsville, Texas. A group of kids having decided to have some fun by tormenting and terrorizing other people got shot at by a guy they hit with a shower of eggs. Unfortunately, one of the kids got hit.

Ooooh, the outrage! Especially from the kid’s parents. Asked about the matter, I drew some of outrage’s fire, too. From my own wife. I said the person who incited the incident by throwing eggs was responsible for whatever – including the shot – happened. When I said, “There but for the grace of God go I,” it didn’t help.

Yeah, yeah, YEAH! Bullshit. There’s an old, old rule of civil law – “Volenti non fit injuria” - that says a person trespassing accepts whatever he finds there. You take all mankind that way, too. If you give the finger to everybody who displeases you, you’d better be able to accept whatever that finger triggers.



I was an orphan, and while recovery from polio kept my incredibly puny, the victim of every bully in the neighborhood. When I learned the judo where I now hold sixth degree black belt rank, the experience resulted in my perfecting and practicing one particular move until it was near perfection. Grab my shirt or start you hand toward me suddenly, you find yourself on your back and in a wristlock. It’s a conditioned reflex – no thought, no deciding, involved at all. None. YOU pulled the trigger.

Put you hand in a hole to see what’s in there . . . well, it’s up to you; but what you find in there is YOUR problem, too – not the fault of whatever it was.

Then, too, there’s the rule of the wild. If you don’t want to be taken for a wolf, don’t run with them. There’s a corollary there, too. If you don’t want me to treat you like I treat my enemies, don’t announce that you’re my enemy. You go around with wearing a tee-shirt that says, “Death to Hal,” I’m going to figure you’re my enemy. When I see your hand coming toward me suddenly, I may not offer much restraint. When you’re on your back on the ground in my wristlock, don’t expect me to let you up and dust you off. Expect to lose the arm.

And, finally, if you don’t want me to mistake you for my enemy, don’t run around with people who wear that “Death to Hal” tee-shirt. If your friend makes my gunfighters reflexes think he’s going for his gun, my bullet may hit you after it goes through him. Use your head.

That’s it, the logic of the fighter. I wouldn’t expect anyone of the wimp metrosexual male persuasion to understand that, of course. They reason with talk, illogical statements like – well, go have a look. You’ll see my point.

And who’s right? Well, that’s easy. Just put yourself in the position of first one side, then the other. What would you do?

That’s a complete experiment, and the result will be correct.

Unless you’re biased.

I've long since begun to wonder what it would take to impeach this President. I mean, he publicly repudiates his oath of office, says he won't obey the laws he signs into effect as he does so, and treats the Congress like they were dockworkers or farmers. The man has the chutzpah of - well, hell, he beats anything I've ever heard of.

How the hell he has gotten away, for instance, with the bald-faced lying necessary to get us into the Iraq morass is impossible to grasp. There is nobody, anywhere, in any forum, who could have gotten away with a "the dog ate my homework" story like that. Every other day, we're told how sixteen satellite passes a day over Iran are detecting what the Iranians have for breakfast, and how the Koreans are getting ready to fire a test missile, but the WMDs we were dead sure were in Iraq were a mistake. They must have been built in somebody's garage or bathtub. Out of old junk and household cleaners.

A better question, perhaps, is how stupid does the public have to have been to believe a story like the Bush Tale. And what does that kind of stupidity mean for the future?

The nation's sages, the media pundits write solecistic and illogical drivel. In our courts, argument and rulings are so clumsy, inarticulate, and devoid of the gravitas one once expected of lawyers as to become the butt of ribald humor. Public speeches and debate - "but," as Mark Twain once said in discussing idiots and congressmen, "I repeat myself;" we don't have debates anymore, just speeches - are vapidly sophomoric recitation of partisan litanies.

Maybe that's just my age. Once you've heard the same tired slogans and nostrums repeated by presidential campaign after campaign, it gets to be like having to endure yet another "Titanic" remake. Geez - enough, already!

But the scariest part of it all is the yahoo mentality and barbaric yawping of the public, especially in matters of religion, politics, and public affairs. All but totally devoid of logical basis or validity, absolutely characterized by relentlessly continual invective and insult, the public discourse amounts to little more than an infantile shouting match, no one listening to what the other side is saying. Every logical fallacy known to man is trotted out, by persons so abysmally only self-aware and ignorant as to be proud of their Malaprops, solecisms, and non-sequiturs. Like Ann Coulter recently, most of these would-be David Lettermans and Jay Lenos attempt to prove the fact of things by arguing there is no proof to the contrary. There must be WMDs in Iraq - Cuba, too - because no has proved they AREN'T there. These red-neck rhetoricians prove THEIR point by proving - in their scheme of forensics - that YOU are wrong in yours.

Recently, in one of the dozens of debates I engaged in concerning the several conspiracies having to do with the World Trade Center, a woman seemingly desperately desirous of proving the U.S. government - the reader will remember how sycophantly loyal I am to our wondrously honorable and efficient federal government - actively responsible (mind you, absence of evidence proves that) for the several plane crashes on 9-11 (she doesn't believe there WERE any), argued that "the cover-up" proved her point. When I pointed out that cover-up would require the complicity of literally hundred of people, including police officers and fireman, journalists, thousands of spectators, and even judges, to say nothing of accounting for the airplanes, their passengers and crew, she fired back to accuse me of being and "agent provocateur," and complicit in the cover-up. She borrowed, I suspect, use of the term agent provocateur from another essay of mine on the same forum.

Neither was the woman alone. More, when I pointed out to others on the same internet forum that the biggest building ever demolished by controlled demolition - as the lady and her supporters insist must have occurred - was at 439 feet just one-third the height of just one of the twin towers, and that a Controlled Demolition, Incorporated's 12 person explosives-loading crew working on the Hudson Building took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex, using more than 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements in the implosion initiation system - that to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation over-pressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition, the conspiracy theorists exploded with scatological fury. I was an idiot. An evil, murderous, "neo-con" idiot.

In an effort at moderation and conciliation, I asked someone to explain how a crew as big as that required for controlled demolition of the Trade Center, installing more than six times as much implosion initiation system, would accomplish such a colossal feat without a single notice and report by witnesses in the aftermath of what occurred, I was, to quote one, "stupid." I didn't "know shit."

"Everyone knows," said another, "that George W. Bush is a liar." Why would he tell the truth about this> Well, I said, maybe because it was the truth, and it was to his advantage to tell it that way. I added that, speaking logically, even the demonstrated fact that someone was a liar didn't prove that he was lying this time. That, my antagonist spat, was ridiculous. I was a traitor. More, since I was an "apologist for the Bush Administration, and therefore complicit in what happened, I was a murderer.

On another website forum, a gentleman who professed atheism contemptuous of any and all religion, asseverated that all mention of god was without exception religion. It could not be a matter for scientific consideration. Science that sought to know how the universe originated was not science. When I had - with certain obvious stipulations - offered a logically incontrovertible proof of god (all such proofs are a matter of semantics: if by "god" one means the origin of things, and there either was or was not a beginning, then god is either the initiator, or the thing that has always been), he made what has become the classic repair to insult. I was a stupid SOB - I must be, because nobody with any intelligence whatever believes in god - so it was impossible that I was right. Since I must be wrong, there is no god.

Another guy wrote to say MY argument was "circular." When I said, no, in fact, it wasn't, and invited him to prove his contention, guess what? Yeah. I was a "moronic deist," and incapable of getting anything through my "thick head."

And so on, ad dreary infinitum.

Funny? Hell, no! This is damned serious. This nation, any nation, is a system - more or less, a closed one. Everything in it bears upon, has an effect upon, everything else. More, it is in many ways a chaotic system - meaning that it is characterized by great result from relatively tiny cause. Even were that not so, and witness the no longer debatable fact that a majority of our electorate is too stupid to do basic mathematics or use simple logic, the determinism of cause and effect related systems means that we may be in trouble potentially fatal for our nation. We, the United States of American, may die of stupidity.

Let's use an analogy, that of global warming (yeah, I know a great number of us doesn't believe that - remember the tabloid magazines and how popular they are?). In a relatively short time - considering the age of the planet and that of civilization - a relatively small part of the earth's population has succeeded in raising the temperature of the atmosphere enough to produce incontrovertible and measurable evidence of world-wide warming. Scientists warn that this will soon become catastrophic. Profligate and over-indulgence in the planet's fullness and bounty, about ten percent of the world's population may well have succeeded in destroying much of the life here - including man.

The deterministic system I speak of, of course, is the ecosystem. But so is the society of the United States a system, and NOTHING IN A DETERMINISTIC SYSTEM CAN BE CHANGED ALL BY ITSELF. Nothing! Like the human body's system, anything that effects one part or component - an ingested drug, for instance - MUST have "Side effects." That means that any ideology, like that of militant feminism - no matter how beneficial to some - must have result otherwise. When a pharmaceutical company proposes to begin sale of a medication, it makes - it is required by law, that is - extensive tests, in order to identify all of the effects of the substance. Wherever harmful result occurs, the drug is not marketed, or is used stringently and in extreme instances.

But what of a swift change in the daily behavior of people - hours of immersion, for instance in televised violence? How about the effect of an ideology, that of social change demanded by a militant societal group? How, for instance, did society test the effects of radical feminism? The one-parent (meaning mother) family? What will the result of gay "marriage" be? How about "nation-building" - like Iraq?

What has been, and what will been fifty years from now, the effect of what has been the relentless lessening of discipline - and its inevitable secondary effect on education - in bringing up children? How will the stupidity resulted from until now de-emphasized education affect the society and nation's future?

Ben Franklin - being asked what kind of government Constitutional Convention was creating - said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Two hundred nineteen years later, about one in four Americans (28 percent) are able to name more than one of the five fundamental freedoms granted to them by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Almost twice as many Americans (52 percent) can name at least two members of “The Simpsons” cartoon family. More than four in 10 Americans (41 percent) could name two of the three “American Idol” judges and one in four could name all three. That while just 8 percent of Americans could name at least three of their First Amendment freedoms (just for the record, that's Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and the Freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances).

One in five Americans (21 percent) agreed that the First Amendment granted them the right to own and raise pets. Another one in five thought that the right to drive an automobile is guaranteed by the First Amendment (remind yourself that the car wasn't invented for another 100 years).

Nonsense like that would be appalling enough, were it not for the fact that it explains better than anything else our languishing under the elected officials we have. How dumb can we get without losing our freedom? How long can a society endure, in a state so stultified and gullible that it accepts as news the lurid and pandering pap being spewed out by the media? While tens of thousands of persons - look it up, dammit - are subjected yearly to what is literally atrocity by federal and state government, the media sells - that, after all, is what it's all about in corporate "American" - Natalee Holloway disappearances and the like in order to cover for an elitist, absolutely corrupted government and its crimes.

In the Land of the Free, the fourth estate is charged with keeping watch. It is absolutely essential in a republic that the electorate know the truth about government. "Know." To know requires two things, information and the intellect to interpret it. It may be, therefore, that the two most critical of the corporately owned federal governments usurpations has been that of education and the press. Both have kept us from stupidity. And, to quote Thomas Jefferson"

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Now you know why the internet forums and the nightly news have me so alarmed.

* http://www.geocities.com/prisonmurder/ken_trentadue.html

June 19, 2006:

The Mongoose-Cobra wars go on. Today, I will begin my latest action, with this letter. I will mail the letter to all members of the Congress, together with copies of my book. I will also mail as an enclosure the second writing here, that in a letter to television media, newspapers, and others to whom I once wrote in the same regard. I'll also send a couple of judges a copy of the book. The FBI, too. That should do it.


Dear Senator,

In 1985, I went to the New Hartford, Iowa home of Senator Charles Grassley, to inform him that I could prove felony crime by agents of the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1986, Senator Grassley authored legislation styled “Omnibus Taxpayers Bill of Rights.”

When the legislation became law, it was handed over to the IRS for enforcement.

During the years 1987-1995, I infiltrated federal government at all levels, to covertly obtain more evidence of federal criminality. Together with literally boxes full of tape recordings, I also obtained reams of documents, evidence which I mailed or delivered personally to members of the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, to several Major newspapers and broadcast media, and to several periodical magazines. The evidence was that of voluminously repeated felony crimes by members of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies of the federal government.

In 1988, moreover, I sued under the Freedom of Information Act for copies of records concerning me and held by the federal government. When the U.S. argued that such records were excepted by the national security exemption of FOI, the U.S. District Court for Colorado ruled to quash the suit, stating that “to do otherwise would irreparably damage the tax collection system of the United States.”

Nothing resulted.

My activities were not without event, however. During the years in question, I was relentlessly hunted and harassed. My offices and dwelling places were burglarized as many as sixty times. At the instigation of federal authorities, I was stopped by police, highway patrol, state troopers, sheriff’s deputies, and federal officers on the nation’s streets and highways in excess of one hundred, nine times, to be confronted by heavily armed and armored men and women, frisked roughly or beaten, threatened, insulted, and intimidated.

My property was stolen or confiscated repeatedly. I was attacked by means of motor vehicles seven times, four times while walking or bicycling on a sidewalk, and thrice while in a protected crosswalk by drivers who disregarded a stop light. Six bicycles were destroyed in the several attacks.

A recreational vehicle where I lived for several years was sabotaged repeatedly until it was finally inoperative and uninhabitable.

Sixteen times, I was attacked by persons who would otherwise – had they succeeded - be called muggers. I was twice attacked by persons wielding firearms, on two occasions wounded. My offices and dwelling places were continually “bugged,” and my telephones tapped. Recently, by the electronic process known as induction-looping, my electronic mail and computer facilities have been illegally surveilled, my website scrambled and removed from the Internet, and programs removed from my computer. These actions have been traced to agents of the federal government.

And more, concealment of which at this time is necessary to provide means to expose anticipated mendacity by the government.

This, therefore, is to inform you, and each of the members of the Congress, that I will soon bring suit in the appropriate court against the United States and several of its representatives and agents. This suit will be damaging in the extreme to the credibility of the U.S. and its federal government. Should there remain any doubt, witness events of the last several years, that we are governed by a conspiracy of criminals, none will remain afterward.

If I am successful in my efforts, several members of the Congress and federal bureaucracy will be arrested. The U.S. District Court for Colorado will have been proved correct - this will all but certainly “irreparably damage the tax collection system of the United States.” Good riddance.

It is, of course, a fact now demonstrated daily - a fact that might have been demonstrated much earlier, were it not for the court's protection in 1988 of the federal felons I sought to expose. The book “Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story” states my case in chief, and will become evidence in my suit. More, I will publish each filing, motion, and ruling on my website www.judoknighterrant.com Of course – being part of it – you know what government will do. That will also become part of my effort to expose U.S. government for what it has become.

Incidentally, and poverty imposed by the Congress’ Frankenstein Monster the IRS having shown me the power of poverty in a nation of thieves, I have no interest whatever in ad damnum money, my intent and purpose being only exposée.

Enjoy the book.

Sincerely,

Hal von Luebbert

To recipients other than the Congress and federal bureaucracy, this will accompany copies of the book:

To Whom It May Concern:

In 1988, 1989, or 1990, I wrote to you in an effort to publicize the destruction of my business, family, and means of future gainful employment by the U.S. Government. I also mailed to you a quantity of evidence demonstrating that the Internal Revenue Service and several member of the Congress and its bureaucracy were active felons. You did not respond. Of course, a number of the felons I referred to have since been caught; many remain.

In short, had you been more responsive, it is far less likely that we would have come to be in the critical straits we now find ourselves.

This is being mailed to all members of the United States Congress. I trust it is self-explanatory. If a copy of “Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story” is not included here, it may be obtained from XLibris, http://www.Xlibris.com/Bookstore or be accessing the Judo Knight-Errant website www.judoknighterrant.com

Hal von Luebbert’s e-mail address is judoknighterrant@yahoo.com, his phone number 1-361-592-8861.

I will, shortly, post here a copy of the suit paper ("Summons and Complaint") I am drawing up. I also intend several small claims court actions, in order to address certain inequities that need attention more immediate than what happens with suits elsewhere in our broken and FUBAR legal system and its courts. I hope you do likewise.

So, today it begins. Rita and I have taken her grandkids back to their folks in Lubbock, having enjoyed immensely their being here, taking them for a sail on the sloop "Monkey Business," visiting a 242' long "tall ship" - i.e., the sailing ship bark A.R.C. Gloria - giving grandson Aidan an airplane ride - and movies, swimming, judo practice (where "Grandpa Hal" showed off), and all the stuff grandkids like to do. Three kids can give you a workout tougher than any I ever got on a judo mat. Two weeks, and the kids' visit, of course, was preceded by the latest cyber-duel with the government. I'm calling it all a warm-up. For this.

Having discussed at great and detailed length with Son-in-Law Steve and Daughter-in-Law Kathleen the book Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story" and the case against the United States it represents, I begin reading the mountain of law necessary for a suit against the sovereign. That, in itself, is a somewhat whimsical thing. Not only is the idea of suing the judge in his own court a logically nonsensical thing, a suit based upon a legal fiction, it is at this particular time even more nonsensical. This, after all, and as we all know and see, is a time when the government of the United States, in all its Constitutional branches, holds the law constraining it in utter contempt. To sue the United States and argue on Constitutional grounds is to fight on an enemy on ground he controls, by rules he has made, using tactics and weapons he has supplied, and commanded by generals he has employed. Absurd.

But I'm reminded of that quote on my home page here. "There is no teacher but the enemy," Orson Scott Car wrote. "No one but the enemy will ever tell you what the enemy is going to do . . . . Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you." That's how I beat the government last time, and it's how I'll beat him this time.

I like quotes, as you know, and another explains that last. "Of old," Chinese General Sun Tsu said, "warriors first made themselves invulnerable, then waited for their enemy's moment of weakness." I've done that, and I think the time is now.

First, though, I have to read the law. Starting with Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), I will research until I have read every word that has been written the matter of suing the government. I will have to read all the case law resulting from all the suits brought under the several Federal Tort Claims Acts. Then I will file my suit. The government will answer with what is called "boiler plate," a canned, already-in-the-computers argument, and a motion to dismiss. I will have learned the very latest law. As the case progresses - assuming the court rules in my favor (not likely) - we'll learn more. I will publish it all here. The court will be furious at that, of course, and may even dismiss on that grounds. "Frivolous," they like to call such blatantly Constitutional use of Constitutional right.

Even if – when – my lawsuit is dismissed by the sycophant court, we will have learned a great deal, as I said; and it will be incontrovertible - straight from the horse's mouth. The government's Department of Justice, as I say here, has already answered thousands of suits brought by persons whose rights were utterly ignored by their government. They have, in fact, answered so many suits brought by persons abused and brutalized by their government, and the rights in question are so few in number, that government courts and attorneys have reduced their rulings and answers to a canned litany. The U.S. Constitution, in short, is far more honored in the breach than the observance. That each Bivens or Federal Tort Claims Act suit in the law library - literally hundred of volumes - represents a violation by government of the Constitution the government and its minions are sworn to uphold, and that no public rebellion results speaks also to the futility of both action against government based on law and the fecklessness of the U.S. public. The king does not restrain or punish himself, and you do not expect help from the public against their government.

A republic form of government, you see, requires one thing sine qua non - a citizenry with courage. Governments obey the people only when they are FORCED to obey.

That we are become what we are thunders so loudly that no statement seeking to excuse our cowardice will be audible historically. Neither will history fail to note that the United States’ decline paralleled growing female influence upon law and the national character - refusal, in short, to heed warnings like that of J.S. Mill (""A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.").

We are a nation of pussy-whipped cowards. So it is that I begin my lawsuit with only one purpose in mind, to show - one, last time; incontrovertibly and inexcusably - both what we are and what the government knows we are. That is what history will record, too – that male “Americans” were too yellow to keep what their fathers and grandfathers gave them.

"Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."