With the President of the United States in near total contempt of the U.S. Constitution, violating as many as 750 separate statutes on the nefarious premise that a President can do as he pleases - as Richard Nixon once averred, "When the President does it, that means it's legal" - and a congress obviously intent on With the President of the United States in near total contempt of the U.S. Constitution, violating as many as 750 separate statutes on the nefarious premise that a President can do as he pleases - as Richard Nixon once averred, "When the President does it, that means it's legal" - and a congress obviously intent only upon filling the pockets of its individual members, with millions of aliens nationals marching in our streets waving their foreign flag, depriving our own of employment and business opportunity, and bankrupting our welfare and social institutions by obtaining benefits while paying no taxes, we resemble Ancient Rome in her final days more and more. History repeats itself.

More, "Americans" - there are thirty-four other nations in the hemisphere, you know - have become to decadent, surfeited, and effete to care. Shades, again, of Ancient Rome.

It's been several days since I posted that last. More a group named Impeach for Peace has begun a movement to impeach George W. Bush, our President and dictator wannabee. Their URL is http://impeachforpeace.org/ The group also posted an essay on Truthout.com website. http://www.truthout.org/ These people are serious, and they answer an increasingly pitiable outcry from those being oppressed by the apparently mindless and bewildering policies of the administration I have long since referred to as the Bush League. The death toll for U.S. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is already fourteen for this month, and it is of course, not the sons and daughters of the rich who are dying. Still, the Impeach for Peace article on Truthout has garnered TWO comments. A total of six hundred and twelve hits above that which is normal for this site have been registered here. While my friends think that remarkable, I don't. Life and death is more important than that when its your country, even when its somebody else's kid who's being killed.
I posted the following quote from one of my life's heroes, Sir Winston Churchill, of great Britain. He was speaking of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, of course, but his words have never been more meaningful. Consider:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

My friends and those who read my books and writings know already my opinion where the courage of the current edition of the public in the Home of the Brave is concerned. It is not high. I believe you will do just what Churchill warned against, and what I am willing to bet on. You will wait in your slovenly cowardice until the military industrial complex coup that seized control of you government by coup d'etat in 1963 brings your country to ruin. The pace with which the corporate cabal loots both the nation's economy and the rights of its citizens accelerates every day, and palpably. Had you not been turned into the collective version of the Manchurian Candidate by massive MKULTRA-funded mind-control science, you'd notice. Feeding yourselves toward three hundred pounds each, surfeited on every conceivable drug and vice, consuming at a rate six times the citizenry of any other nation, you don't. Even the deaths of more than twenty-four hundred of you sons and daughter in a war presaged by months of relentless lying, a war during which borders are unguarded and security agencies permitted to dither endlessly; with a major city left still in ruins after a hurricane, the public's tax monies being squandered in a fashion which beggars description by a congress that is not one whit better than a criminal conspiracy, you do nothing. Home of the Brave, indeed!
Do you ever feel as though the United States were little more than a great super-market, a mall where other nations come shopping? With citizens of foreign nations, Mexicans especially, marching in the streets waving their flag, and Mexicans among them celebrating the national holidays of Mexico, and all utterly ignoring our laws; when every second phone call these days is answered - even when the call is received somewhere in the U.S. - by a person who barely speaks English, or none at all (twice in the last year, it has been necessary to speak Japanese, once Spanish, to conduct business - and nothing a U.S. citizen buys in his own country is made here, how does one identify the nation where we live as being that of the United States of America? On what basis? It doesn't occur to you that in your own country, you should be given preference over illegal aliens to receive services you paid for with your taxes? No, I don't suppose - whatever Oprah says is right.
Jesus!
A while back, I suggested that perhaps the way to learn the loyalty of all those people speaking a Spanish and fifty other languages in our streets, in our stores and businesses, and in our seats of government was to declare war on Mexico. Let's reconsider:
The reason, we are told, that we declared war on Iraq was that it's government was fearfully corrupt, and a threat to our national security . . . That doesn't remind you of anyone just a little south of us? Who's government is more corrupt than that of Mexico? How long has it been that way? That's not a threat to our national security?
We were told that Iraq was capable of terrorism and of supporting it. What do you call a multi-billion dollar drug traffic over the border from Mexico? Millions of men who are already convicted criminals there? If the Mariel Boatlift was an invasion and crisis, what's going on across the border with Mexico isn't? Millions of criminal aliens pouring into the country in time of war isn't a threat to our security?
The Mariel affair, may I remind you, was about a hundred, twenty-five thousand people, compared to as many as twenty million from Mexico.
Before we invaded Iraq, we were told the government there was brutal to its citizens, hundreds, even thousands of people being killed. How we can say what's going on now that we've deposed the "brutal dictator" is an improvement on that score escapes me somehow, but have you been watching the news of Mexico over the past several years? What's the tally of dead women in the Nuevo Laredo, Cuidad Juarez, and the Paso del Norte region of the border. How many of its citizens has the government itself killed in the last twenty-five years? And a nation who has as many as three thousand kidnappings for ransom a year, where people buy insurance against having a family member kidnapped, isn't a threat to our security during time of war?
Mexico doesn't have "weapons of mass destruction?" They don't have Armed Forces?
Our solution was to invade Iraq, and to install a government of our liking (even construction and make-up) there. Wouldn't that solve all our problems with Mexico, too. And don't they have a lot of oil, besides. Obviously, if everything we were told about Iraq was justification for our being there, we should also invade Mexico. We'd only have to cross a river, rather than an ocean and seas, besides.
I'll tell you what I think, I think we're being sold out - and that's lock, stock, and barrel. I've already mentioned here how impossible I found it to start a business against outrageously prohibitive taxes, license requirements, permits, minimum wage laws, mandatory employee insurance, and social security withholding, and the rest where illegal alien Mexicans had to have nothing of the kind, and could easily underbid me on every job. How long do you think it will be before an citizen of the U.S. will be unable to get a job or own a business in his own country? How long, with the invasion from Mexico at the pace it is, before culture, business, commerce, law enforcement, and government are all controlled by Mexicans? How many will that take? With fewer than thirty-five percent of U.S. citizens voting in elections, it shouldn't be that long, should it?
And how long before a congress already so corrupt as to beggar imagination becomes one made up entirely of foreigners? Which would be worse, and why are we in such a pickle that we have no choice by to choose between the two? Doesn't it sound like our own President has gone over to the side of the illegal aliens and Mexico? Amnesty for twenty million criminals? When has that ever happened before?
Oh, yeah. I can hear all the apologists for each and every one of our enemies. It's another sign of our national decline. The Dodo mentality. "Let's wait and see what happens" as the danger any other sane nation would recognize as a lethal threat approaches. From massive pollution of our environment, global warming, and the like, to an educational system that won't discipline and can't teach a kid to read and write in twelve years, it's all that way because the nation's people have found better - less demanding, more fun, sexier and self-gratifying, usually - to do.
Remember the fat, old broad I told you about the other day - the one who drove around and around the parking lot in her SUV, burning three dollar and twenty cents a gallon gasoline while waiting for a parking place nearest the super-market door? That's you, my country. How do you think that fat, slovenly, old whale will do when the U.S. has come to resemble Mexico exactly, made that way by a populace comprised in the majority by Mexicans - illegal ones, at that?
Like I said, you'll fight someday - when you have no choice and it's far too late. And you'll get what you deserve!
ly upon filling the pockets of its individual members, with millions of aliens nationals marching in our streets waving their foreign flag, depriving our own of employment and business opportunity, and bankrupting our welfare and social institutions by obtaining benefits while paying no taxes, we resemble Ancient Rome in her final days more and more. History repeats itself.

More, "Americans" - there are thirty-four other nations in the hemisphere, you know - have become to decadent, surfeited, and effete to care. Shades, again, of Ancient Rome.

It's been several days since I posted that last. More a group named Impeach for Peace has begun a movement to impeach George W. Bush, our President and dictator wannabee. Their URL is http://impeachforpeace.org/ The group also posted an essay on Truthout.com website. http://www.truthout.org/ These people are serious, and they answer an increasingly pitiable outcry from those being oppressed by the apparently mindless and bewildering policies of the administration I have long since referred to as the Bush League. The death toll for U.S. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is already fourteen for this month, and it is of course, not the sons and daughters of the rich who are dying. Still, the Impeach for Peace article on Truthout has garnered TWO comments. A total of six hundred and twelve hits above that which is normal for this site have been registered here. While my friends think that remarkable, I don't. Life and death is more important than that when its your country, even when its somebody else's kid who's being killed.
I posted the following quote from one of my life's heroes, Sir Winston Churchill, of great Britain. He was speaking of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, of course, but his words have never been more meaningful. Consider:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

My friends and those who read my books and writings know already my opinion where the courage of the current edition of the public in the Home of the Brave is concerned. It is not high. I believe you will do just what Churchill warned against, and what I am willing to bet on. You will wait in your slovenly cowardice until the military industrial complex coup that seized control of you government by coup d'etat in 1963 brings your country to ruin. The pace with which the corporate cabal loots both the nation's economy and the rights of its citizens accelerates every day, and palpably. Had you not been turned into the collective version of the Manchurian Candidate by massive MKULTRA-funded mind-control science, you'd notice. Feeding yourselves toward three hundred pounds each, surfeited on every conceivable drug and vice, consuming at a rate six times the citizenry of any other nation, you don't. Even the deaths of more than twenty-four hundred of you sons and daughter in a war presaged by months of relentless lying, a war during which borders are unguarded and security agencies permitted to dither endlessly; with a major city left still in ruins after a hurricane, the public's tax monies being squandered in a fashion which beggars description by a congress that is not one whit better than a criminal conspiracy, you do nothing. Home of the Brave, indeed!
Do you ever feel as though the United States were little more than a great super-market, a mall where other nations come shopping? With citizens of foreign nations, Mexicans especially, marching in the streets waving their flag, and Mexicans among them celebrating the national holidays of Mexico, and all utterly ignoring our laws; when every second phone call these days is answered - even when the call is received somewhere in the U.S. - by a person who barely speaks English, or none at all (twice in the last year, it has been necessary to speak Japanese, once Spanish, to conduct business - and nothing a U.S. citizen buys in his own country is made here, how does one identify the nation where we live as being that of the United States of America? On what basis? It doesn't occur to you that in your own country, you should be given preference over illegal aliens to receive services you paid for with your taxes? No, I don't suppose - whatever Oprah says is right.
Jesus!
A while back, I suggested that perhaps the way to learn the loyalty of all those people speaking a Spanish and fifty other languages in our streets, in our stores and businesses, and in our seats of government was to declare war on Mexico. Let's reconsider:
The reason, we are told, that we declared war on Iraq was that it's government was fearfully corrupt, and a threat to our national security . . . That doesn't remind you of anyone just a little south of us? Who's government is more corrupt than that of Mexico? How long has it been that way? That's not a threat to our national security?
We were told that Iraq was capable of terrorism and of supporting it. What do you call a multi-billion dollar drug traffic over the border from Mexico? Millions of men who are already convicted criminals there? If the Mariel Boatlift was an invasion and crisis, what's going on across the border with Mexico isn't? Millions of criminal aliens pouring into the country in time of war isn't a threat to our security?
The Mariel affair, may I remind you, was about a hundred, twenty-five thousand people, compared to as many as twenty million from Mexico.
Before we invaded Iraq, we were told the government there was brutal to its citizens, hundreds, even thousands of people being killed. How we can say what's going on now that we've deposed the "brutal dictator" is an improvement on that score escapes me somehow, but have you been watching the news of Mexico over the past several years? What's the tally of dead women in the Nuevo Laredo, Cuidad Juarez, and the Paso del Norte region of the border. How many of its citizens has the government itself killed in the last twenty-five years? And a nation who has as many as three thousand kidnappings for ransom a year, where people buy insurance against having a family member kidnapped, isn't a threat to our security during time of war?
Mexico doesn't have "weapons of mass destruction?" They don't have Armed Forces?
Our solution was to invade Iraq, and to install a government of our liking (even construction and make-up) there. Wouldn't that solve all our problems with Mexico, too. And don't they have a lot of oil, besides. Obviously, if everything we were told about Iraq was justification for our being there, we should also invade Mexico. We'd only have to cross a river, rather than an ocean and seas, besides.
I'll tell you what I think, I think we're being sold out - and that's lock, stock, and barrel. I've already mentioned here how impossible I found it to start a business against outrageously prohibitive taxes, license requirements, permits, minimum wage laws, mandatory employee insurance, and social security withholding, and the rest where illegal alien Mexicans had to have nothing of the kind, and could easily underbid me on every job. How long do you think it will be before an citizen of the U.S. will be unable to get a job or own a business in his own country? How long, with the invasion from Mexico at the pace it is, before culture, business, commerce, law enforcement, and government are all controlled by Mexicans? How many will that take? With fewer than thirty-five percent of U.S. citizens voting in elections, it shouldn't be that long, should it?
And how long before a congress already so corrupt as to beggar imagination becomes one made up entirely of foreigners? Which would be worse, and why are we in such a pickle that we have no choice by to choose between the two? Doesn't it sound like our own President has gone over to the side of the illegal aliens and Mexico? Amnesty for twenty million criminals? When has that ever happened before?
Oh, yeah. I can hear all the apologists for each and every one of our enemies. It's another sign of our national decline. The Dodo mentality. "Let's wait and see what happens" as the danger any other sane nation would recognize as a lethal threat approaches. From massive pollution of our environment, global warming, and the like, to an educational system that won't discipline and can't teach a kid to read and write in twelve years, it's all that way because the nation's people have found better - less demanding, more fun, sexier and self-gratifying, usually - to do.
Remember the fat, old broad I told you about the other day - the one who drove around and around the parking lot in her SUV, burning three dollar and twenty cents a gallon gasoline while waiting for a parking place nearest the super-market door? That's you, my country. How do you think that fat, slovenly, old whale will do when the U.S. has come to resemble Mexico exactly, made that way by a populace comprised in the majority by Mexicans - illegal ones, at that?
Like I said, you'll fight someday - when you have no choice and it's far too late. And you'll get what you deserve!

A first principle of the Mongoose Tactic is a judo concept, “suki o mitsukeru” – find the opening. The opening was bequeathed to us by the men and women who founded the U.S., in the form of access to the courts. Now, we all know – taught so thunderously and clear as President George W. Bush can make it – that the U.S. Government no longer pays any attention to the law. More, the judges who supposedly interpret the law work for the government you need to sue. They’ll interpret it to suit the guy who writes their checks (what’s hard to understand about that?)
It’s also a fact undeniable by anyone but the indoctrinated that the U.S. Congress has sold out long ago to the corporations and the very rich, such that the laws they pass are structured in a manner intended to assist only the people who pay them. What’s hard to understand about THAT?!
But the “guerrilla lawyer” looks for the opening, and I found one years ago. First off, any citizen, lawyer or no, can bring a lawsuit. That’s constitutional, settled law. The suit has to be answered by the person or persons being sued, or he is in default, meaning he loses and has to pay whatever damages were being sought.
Oh, there are all kinds of legal maneuvers by which to get around that, but none that are important here. They’re all intended to save the fat cat his money, or keep him in power. This is about judo; throwing him, then getting him in an armlock, strangle hold, or pin. Controlling him, in other words.
What usually happens when a citizen files a lawsuit on his own behalf – and you can’t do it for anyone else, because that’s practicing law for payment and against the law (remember when I said it was designed to favor the rich?) – is that he runs afoul of the legal procedure the lawyers have put together to make sure that only they know what’s going on and that they are the only ones able to use the law. You step on a crack, you break your mother’s back – yours, too.
The actual procedures, once you get into the courtroom, are pretty simple and books by publishers like Nolo Press (www.Nolo.com ) will give you just about everything you might need, should you ever get that far.
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!
Generally, you can’t sue the government without the government’s permission. “Permission” means that the Congress has passed a law saying you can sue, what you can sue for, and in what court.
Yeah, I know – you can bet your sweet ass it’s convoluted in such a way as to keep John Q. from doing it. Keep in mind, again, that that’s not what we’re doing here. If you’re thinking of cutting a fat hog, and making some money, forget it. Government doesn’t have any money it didn’t take from people like you and me, anyway. You’re suing yourself.
But the law does not say that you can’t sue individuals who work for the government. More, it doesn’t say you can’t sue the company who hires an illegal alien instead of you because that illegal alien will work for peanuts. That’s that famous word “discrimination, and it is what lawyers call “actionable.” It also doesn’t say that you can’t sue because the cost of your medical care and insurance reflects the fact that millions of illegal aliens are paying nothing for services. Et cetera. And here’s where we co-operate.
What we’re now talking about it known as a “cause of action” – the legal reason for your lawsuit. I’ve only given a couple of examples. Being kept in fear by vagrants attracted by a known employer of illegal aliens is a cause of action. We can discuss this, listen to news media like Lou Dobbs, and we’ll have enough causes of action to sink the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (that’s our latest nuclear aircraft carrier).
Okay. I started to do a reprise of “Citizen Powers" chapbooks I wrote back in the eighties, but that shouldn’t be necessary nowadays. Everything I wrote there, almost verbatim is now on the Internet. You can read for yourself, and get a good idea of everything you’ll need for this on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort/)
Pay good attention to where the article tells you. “In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy.”
Note, too, that “damages” when a lawyer or court is speaking means loss of property and money or bodily injury. So the Tort is what they did, and the ad damnum is what it cost you.
Notice that tort law does not included anything subject to a contract. That’s an agreement made between or among people and parties. It is its own law. Civil law, often called the “common law.” has to do with one’s duty as a human being to the whole world. You might say it’s the law based upon how a reasonable person behaves, and is entiteled to expect of others like himself.
Both cause of action and damages must be stated in the complaint – that’s the paper you file with the court – and it is a fundamental concept of civil procedure (criminal and “due process” in general) that the defendant in an action must be given fair notice of what is being claimed and demanded of him. The complaint is sometimes called a “prayer” by old time lawyers. Courts think they are next to god. Some think they’re higher than that.
Law and lawyering is all about equivocating and torturing language, but don’t let it throw you. The court has the duty to assure that all parties know what’s going on, and the U.S. Constitution actually forbids special language and meaning.
I guess, by the way, we know from that something more of what lawyers have done to our system. If everybody could understand the law, we wouldn’t need many lawyers, would we?!
Now, what we want to do first is get as many people as we can to file a suit, either in small claims court or in district court – including U.S. district court. Which court we sue in depends on the court’s jurisdiction – that’s everywhere (both subject matter and territory) it has been given authority by the law – how much and what the suit is for, and who’s being sued. You can sue anybody who lives or does business in your area in small claims court, but the suit has to be less than an amount set by local law. You have to check that, and the easiest way is to go to the clerk of court at the courthouse and ask. In most places, they also have the form or forms you need to fill out. There’s a fee for the filing and for having the paper served – given to the person you’re suing. In many jurisdictions, you can serve the person my mail – certified letter, that is.
Again, Nolo Press publications and the like will have all that. This URL takes you to another Nolo page, one that will tell you just about everything about “civil process” http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/objectID/53E4D869-0A35-4D7D-BEE24CF4EC2E9C47/toc/1/104/308
You can sue either the corporation or individuals in small claims court. Think that’s peanuts? Let’s say you get a thousand people to sue XYZ Corporation for the usual Small Claims court limit of $10,000. A thousand times ten thousand is ten million dollars. That’s 1,000 times 10,000, and the product is 10,000,000. Dollars. Think that will get their attention? When they have to hire a lawyer at today’s prices, it will.
Now imagine that you sue the illegal alien. Think you’ll make a nuisance of yourself? What do you think José will do when he gets the paper in the mail, or a sheriff’s deputy shows up at his house? How do you think the sheriff, police, and courts will handle things once the alien – he probably won’t, of course – shows up in court? How about the lawyer he might go to, should he know enough about what’s going on to see one? And there’s more, but I don’t want to tip our hand entirely.
Suit in a state or federal district court isn’t much more difficult – just more expensive. In some jurisdictions, filing a suit may cost a couple of hundred dollars. In that event, assuming you can’t afford it, sue in what’s called “forma pauperis.” That’s just another form, saying you can’t afford the filing fees and such, and it petitions the court to let you proceed without paying. Generally, you can file the “Petition to Appear in Forma Pauperis” at the same time you file your summons and complaint. They have little choice there, but make sure your petition is justified. Once this starts, the government will get really nasty (they shot at me, don’t forget). They don’t like smart-ass common people who stand up for themselves in any way not approved of – by them.
Everything concerning suit paper and notice applies, as does service of summons and complaint (and, by the way, you usually can’t do your own “service” – unless it’s by mail). “Summons and complaint” is more legal jargon, and means the forms and papers you have delivered to the person or corporation you sue.
It’s never a good idea to sue for the moon. That, among several other things, gives the lawyers we want to draw into this – they cost the guys you sue big buck, don’t forget – justification to have the court throw out – “quash,” they like to say – your suit for being “frivolous.” Keep it very reasonable – try to actually compute how much you’ve lost or been damaged – and get ten thousand people to file the same suit. In the same court, it possible.
Good English in the summons and complaint are important for much the same reason as proper procedure. Muddy or confusing language will get your “quashed” faster than anything else. Language doesn’t have to be legal, just clear in stating your cause of action and damages.
Finally – we’ll talk more about it all – don’t be discouraged if you get something wrong. I got most – just about all – of my successes by letting the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. District Courts teach me the law. As long as your suit hasn’t bee dismissed “with prejudice,” you can correct your errors and file again. In forma pauperis. Don’t forget, what we’re doing here is “guerrilla law” – screwing up the works, blowing bridges in a legal way. We’re making a protest with some real muscle in it, one government can’t ignore and do as they damned please as they usually do. A lawsuit, as I may already have said, has to be answered under pain of being found in default and having to pay what you asked for.
As I said to someone the other day, Let’s Roll!

Rape is a vicious, unforgivable crime.

Worse is to send a man to jail for a rape he didn't commit. De rigueur in the discussion and deliberation over each instance of that particular crime is that concerning "mental trauma" - to the woman. We aren't talking much about what happens to the man who is wrongfully convicted. We don't talk much about the fact that women who wrongfully charge rape are seldom prosecuted, either, or that they have in a way done to their innocent victim what they alleged he did to them.

Even more seldom does anyone ask what happened to the woman who committed this most deadly of sins where a society and its system of justice are concerned.

Neither can society escape the onus of having convicted what may be as high as forty percent of men in prison erroneously. As a crime to be prosecuted, rape is in a class all by itself. It is the only crime requiring one witness and little corroboration for that witness' story. No prosecution for crime is so driven and controlled by politics and political considerations. If the woman who chooses to use her female prerogative to send the innocent to prison ought feel shame, and to demand true justice rather than support for her pet "ism," what should be said of her society and the nation that permits it?

And how much longer will it be before more of our vaunted system of justice and Bill of Rights are subjected to still another kind of ideology like feminism? Why bother with courts, with forensics, science and logic - why not just hold a Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren gossip trial on television, then have a write-in referendum?

We're shooting into the crowd again, carpet bombing. The guy we want is in there somewhere, and to get him we'll kill as many as is necessary. We want a sacrifice to the Political God called Feminism, and all that is necessary for "closure" is a victim.

In the U.S. today, any time you say anything publicly - maybe I should just stop there, but I won't - about women's "issues," you can expect to draw a blizzard of pseudo-historic rhetoric and psycho-babble, ranging from barely cogent or well-considered to outright diatribe and emotional nonsense. The other day, I wondered aloud and a length about such sacrosanct sacramentals as feminism's versions of the crime known most commonly as rape (the feminists, of course, who split every hair again and again when the hair is language - prefer "sexual assault"). Actually, referring to that interjection back there, they've damned near re-written the dictionary on that account. One of these days, I'll compile a list of the "feminism-isms" we now have courtesy of militant panty-hose.


Anyway, in my earlier writing, I considered and wondered about "vaginal bruising." HOLY CRAP! -what a brouhaha! Sorry girls - and the rest of you, too - I won't change a word. I think you're full of baloney, and the barrage of PMS-derived nonsense and language-generated virtual reality loosed upon me in the last few days is a microcosm of the same loosed on society at the outset of this "revolution" of yours. History will remember that the "American" female wasn't interested in what she could do for her country, but what it could - and must - do for her. Forty years later, we're seeing the unmistakable effects of that.

And speaking of "full of it," and my original topic here, there is no aspect of our public life where there is more pure, unadulterated bullshit than where the subject is the carnal knowledge of a female without her permission. And, gentlemen, to use that quote from Shakespeare and Hamlet again, "there's the rub." Permission. Read the feminist's definition of that word, where "carnal knowledge" is concerned. If your head isn't swimming when you're through, it's made of rock. That shouldn't come as any surprise, either. One woman who wrote to me said no one could agree on what FEMINISM was. Don't believe me? Have a look at one feminist website, picked at random: http://www.quotegarden.com You'll find the same kind of incisive objectivity everywhere during the feminist discussion of rape.

The crime of rape, of course, has been the single most frequently availed vehicle for promotion of the feminist "movement" and recitation of their strident dogma. I remember from personal experience, as a matter of fact, an example of the way the girls bring to a halt all deliberation on issues far more pressing and critical at the time, in order to cram their "women's issues" into the public consciousness. No matter what the threat against the nation or society - pestilence, war, famine, name it - the national news media bellows the story of a rape somewhere, spending hours of million dollar a second time on the travail of some obscure woman somewhere.

Some years ago, when I still had a business, I declined an offer from two women desirous of initiating an aerobics class in one of my health clubs. The negotiation happened to be in my office at one of the clubs, after closing time. When I went to the door and opened it to signal that our discussion was at an end, one of the "ladies" looked around meaningfully at the empty club and said, "How would you like to be charged with rape?!" Only when I had laughed and pulled from my pocket the tape recorder I had been recording everything on was I able to end the interview.

Neither was that the only time that sort of thing happened. Another involved a female claimant in a personal injury claim. Investigating the matter for a friend, Ralph Summa of Farm And City Insurance Company, I was confronted by a woman threatening to tear off her clothes and run from the house yelling "rape!" "You'll lose your wife, your children, your job, and your reputation," she said. "People always believe the woman - they HAVE to nowadays." Producing and playing back for her what she had just said drew a torrent of invective like none I had never heard before. It seems the "lady" had been demanding a $20,000 settlement and was sure I had the authority to write the check.

When my last marriage was being torn apart by the Internal Revenue Service, Karen, my wife, threatened me with rape in order to justify to her children her adultery with the trucker she later married. I can only wonder how many times the average male has been threatened with rape during his lifetime. It might be interesting to find out, wouldn't it?

Yeah. The reader will perhaps see why I haven't been surprised to learn of the hideous number of men convicted for a crime they didn't commit. The latest chapter in this hideous history is the absolutely outrageously celebrated Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case. I'm reminded of another such case of my acquaintance, one in the East some years ago. In that one, the young "lady" invited an ex-boy friend with whom she admitted - oops: SAID SHE HAD - sex before to her bedroom, "to watch TV." She also ad . . . SAID - she now had a new boyfriend. It is only incidental that the fact she had chosen for the occasion an ensemble featuring white short shorts - and that said shorts did not quite cover the cheeks of her ass - was ruled inadmissible by all female correspondents and pundits at the time; I don't know what the court said. Neither do I know how the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence that the "victim" wore at the time of her alleged rape a skimpy (oops, again) . . . -let's just say, since it is a mathematically provable fact, that it left one-third of the breasts uncovered - halter top. All that, feminists would argue, is irrelevant.

From there, testimony was all the "victim's." I hope you notice that's always the "state's witness" - the woman. Even the nearly more than one hundred men who have been proved incontrovertibly innocent of the crime they went to prison for are never referred to as "the victim." It's like being a mother: a man can't be one.

Now, I keep using quotes because this is the one crime that is all but always tried with language and verbiage alone. The woman's intellectual forte, language. Among the recitations classic where rape cases are concerned is the one that goes "rape is a very difficult charge to prosecute," or "the burden of proof is very high in rape cases." Yeah? Well, it certainly should be, inasmuch as one of the oldest and most venerated - in any other instance, anyway - rules of Roman-English-American jurisprudence is the one that holds and instructs that one witness is no witness, "Testis unis, testis nullas." There's also one that says, "Nemo judex in sua causa" - no one should be the judge at his own trial. Does that remind you of anything - like what we happen to be talking about nationally? And one more bears on the subject, too - the one that goes "Volenti non fit injuria." That means one to whom what he ought have expected happens can't claim anyone but himself to be at fault.

But all that changes when the matter involves rape. There is one witness. There is often no evidence to support what she says in testimony. The young woman in the case I've mentioned told the court that she COULDN'T have wanted to have sex with her old boy friend because she had a NEW boyfriend. That no one can ask without drawing the outrage of the nation's femi-nazis what the hell she invited another guy to her bedroom for, then, explains pretty completely and thoroughly how we've come to put as many as ten thousand - that's my statistical projection, based on current known data - innocent men in jail for rape. And if all that weren't enough, the judge in the case is often . . . a WOMAN! Try to imagine what would happen to a defense attorney who asked a judge to recuse herself in a rape case.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the fact that the new boyfriend in the case I'm speaking of had come by while the ex-boyfriend was still in the house, and that it was not included in the trial record? Irrelevant, I suppose. To a feminist lawyer, anyway.

Hoo, boy - I can hear it now! What an outrageous insinuation! Yeah, then how come this, something I came across during research recently (things I found on the way to finding something else) is a set of facts? You'll forgive me if I'm not definitely NOT surprised to learn:

"For centuries before women entered law, the US had murder and incarceration rates lower than Canada, Denmark, France, and Portugal, and equivalent to Australia and Germany. Since women entered law in the 1960s in the US, however:
Incarceration and illegitimacy rates have quintupled.
Murder, male suicide, and divorce rates have doubled.
20,000 unconstitutional gun control laws have been implemented.
Every fundamental principle of the US Constitution, except quartering troops in our houses, has been violated.
In the industrialized world, the US now has the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate, at the same time that it has one of the highest rates of violent crime, at the same time that it resolves a far fewer percent of crime.
For each 1% increase in the percent of female judges there are:
61,000 extra men in prison.
390 more murders each year.
270 fewer resolved murders each year.
100,000 more female criminals unpunished each year."


Interesting, huh? But just suggest once that a woman should not sit on a rape trial jury and see what happens. That's only an example of the never-never land that is jurisprudence and law where assault on women is concerned. After one case back in Iowa - 1983, as I recall - I had occasion to interview with a woman who had been on a jury that had convicted four young men of rape. To my question, she said, and I quote verbatim, "It had to be rape; no women would willingly have sex with four men at the same time." Well, not telling of it afterward, anyway. NOW do you wonder how we could convict so many innocent men?

In the earlier essay, I made reference - much to the fury of a number of women who wrote to vilify this "male-chauvinist pig" (me) - to my own sexual experiences. Well hell, girls, a good writer writes about what he knows for certain - and besides, as far as being a Don Juan is concerned, I'm a piker. On the other hand, I did find that simply asking at the right time and under the right circumstances found women receptive far, far more often than not; and DNA-supported statistics that reveal of late that women conceive as many as thirty percent of their children during a tryst with someone other than their husband bear me out. Boob jobs and all that stuff they put on their faces aren't the only thing cosmetic where the "American" female is concerned.

But that may be beside the point. That a number of the women I've been to bed with at one time or another threatened me with rape charges for one petty reason or another isn't. That, ultimately together with my experiences as a private investigator, were to result at length in my becoming celibate for nearly ten years - fearful during my war with the IRS of a federal rape "sting." In my book, "Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story," I relate two instances of what I was, and remain, certain was a "tender trap" set by the feds. All they needed was circumstances in which there could be no witness or evidence to contradict what their bait woman said. If she could testify that she was a police officer or official of government, that would have served their case all the more. It's a sick world, and woman's penchant to lie about being raped represents perhaps the most powerful of weapons used by the state to silence opposition. Still another time, one of the tape recorders I carry always saved my bacon in each instance.

Women don't lie? I like math, and statistics, the result being that I like to see what known data can tell us about things otherwise up for conjecture and "politically correct" interpretation. Consider this: There are about 92,500 rapes reported each year. If we use the percentage of cases where DNA was decisive, there are at least 23,000 women who have lied to put men in jail (FBI stats say that at least twenty-five percent - and as many as FORTY percent - of men convicted of rape aren't guilty). Lied? Lied - the question "are you certain" must always be answered at some point, and no one can be certain of what isn't so. Unless, of course, they have been behaviorally altered by an ideology or religion. Like feminism. Like I said, it's a sick society.

It's worse on the distaff side of the population. PMS, I suppose. Consider that if facts given on websites like www.RAINN.org are true, men in the U.S. commit rape roughly seventeen hundred times more often than men in countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Spain, India, Japan, Italian, or France. Do you REALLY think that's likely? The feminist does, and says so. In fact, the entirety of sites like that one represent a massive restatement of the typical cock (you should pardon the expression) and bull story told by the typical rape victim, a veritable script for her to follow. The frequency with which statements made by alleged rape victims in cases and trials far separated by distance and time parallel or even duplicate one another is both scientifically and logically significant and clear evidence of the sociologically hypnotic effect of relentless feminist dogma and preaching. Propagandized, proselyted, catechized, and behaviorally conditioned by their femi-nazi sisters, women claiming to have been rape victims recite on the witness stand like parrots. Seldom, almost never - he is jeopardizing both his career and any chance of further political success - does the defense attorney resort to the grilling a state's witness would get in any other prosecution. And did I speak of parrots? Consider the male attorneys who continually parrot to the media the "tough case to prosecute" mantra. What claptrap!

Tens of thousands of innocent men in jail, and at least a few who have been executed. You'd think that would give pause to the mobs of women like Nancy Grace, Greta Van Susteren, and their ilk, women howling presently for conviction of the Duke University lacrosse players.

It won't. In a recent segment on one or the other or our tabloid-aping TV media, a black feminist, an official of one black pressure group or the other, averred that the fact of whether rape had occurred was no concern of hers. Her duty, she said, was to support her sister, the black woman. If her sister, the black woman, wanted these guys in jail, that's what she wanted, too. Another black gentleman, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the Black Panther Party, said much the same thing, although in a decidedly less obvious, blunt, and blatant fashion. If you think there aren't a lot of women in the country who feel the same way, you're not paying attention to the statistics.

Then there's the modern feminist psycho-babble that is all but invariably de rigueur in a rape case and trial. The Internet abounds in it, and in the instance of the RAINN site, I simply picked at random - didn't even bother to read from it. If you thought me exaggerating when I spoke of parroted statements, I wasn't kidding. Have a look. The invariable repetition, again and again, and again, of the same verbiage, is neurotic at least, and psychotic at worst - reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

That rape has become a political crime in the United States is absolutely incontrovertible, a fact looming like the Rocky Mountains. No one observing the Duke Lacrosse Team prosecution can fail to see the ineluctable forces directing events. As I've noted already, the prosecutor simply has no choice, if he wants to be re-elected. He brings charges, or he loses his career or hope of higher office. The fact that such is the case just about everywhere in the land is as obvious as is the Duke instance, yet nothing will be done about it, BECAUSE it is a political matter, where right and wrong have little import, and where right or wrong, guilt or innocence is determined not by science and logic, but by political considerations.

(As I wrote this, the prosecutor won his party's nomination, and being unopposed in the coming election, has won his office again. It will be interesting to see what he does now. There's always the next election to think about, and this case still hangs like the Sword of Damocles for Mr. Nifong.)

You still doubt that feminism has turned rape into the one crime where guilt or innocence is a foregone conclusion determined by politics and partisan prejudice, and where - the entire society being held captive to those demanding conviction - not even change of venue is possible? Let's imagine for a minute that science were to discover a device by which, like DNA in rape cases, all of the evidence in any and every trial could be proved or disproved with absolutely certainty. And let us imaging further that the new method revealed that forty percent of those convicted under our system of justice were innocent - including those executed. What an uproar! You think there are a lot of senate and congressional hearings in Washington now? The nation would tear down and rebuild - that over the objections of the lawyers, of course - its system of justice from top to bottom. We'd have things like the new Homeland Security Gestapo overnight, and more.

But how much do you think the system would change where the crime in question was rape? I rest my case.

Things grow more surreal every day under the Bush League Administration. In a nation whose government proclaims that it is at war, illegal aliend parade in the streets waving the flag of a foreign nation. In this supposed fight, how do I know that I can trust a compatriot who waves a foreign flag? How do I trust enough to follow a commander who recruits soldiers from a foreign nation? Isn't this the reason historians say Rome fell?

One thing is sure: the wound here was inflicted by the United States of America. I am a citizen of the United States of America.

Today is the day of the great Mexican Protest. La Raza on the march. Today, as many illegal aliens as have the incredible chutzpah necessary – and, owing to circumstances, that will be the great majority – will do everything in their now apparently considerable power to humiliate the United States of America and the Anglos. There’s really no telling what all they will demand (man, when a criminal has the nerve to parade in front of a cop waving a sign saying he’s a criminal, anything is possible), but it’s likely, witness the less than indomitable courage of the U.S. Congress and Government, vis a vis the monumental greed of corporate “America,” that they’ll get it. Where government and its bureaucrats are concerned this is no longer the Home of the Brave, and where our Sammy Glick industrialists are concerned, no longer the Nation of Laws.

And in a nation where more than 150,000 new laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations are passed, and one in every 34 male citizens is in prison, jail, or free on probation or parole, any citizen who still thinks we are the Land of the Free is by definition insane. You can talk a coo-koo bird into anything – like going to war without any idea of how to end it.

I’d utter one of the old saws that goes “Maggie bar the door,” or “lock up the women and the kids,” but “Maggie” probably gave the key to an illegal “domestic worker” long ago, and the U.S. female, of course, would insist on the same kind of Dodo stupidity that gets her raped, killed, and discarded like a used wrapper so often, anyway.

So, all that remains is to be seen where “el dia sin Mejicanos” is concerned is how much we surrender, and how much we are humiliated.

It’s been inevitable, and deserved, for a long time, and I have mixed emotions. I started doing the work that “’Americans’ won’t do” at twelve, getting up at four A.M. to cleans stalls in a stockyards, going to school until four P.M. , then going to a local turkey farm to clean out brooder houses. I shoveled, and took, a lot of shit. In the summer, I worked in the fields with the “braceros” – migrant Mexican workers. They taught me to speak my fluent Spanish, prefer their food, music, and women. To say I’m “Hispanic” wouldn’t be far from factual.

More, I hate the government of the United States with flaming passion. Should I ever get a change to bring it down, I’d do it laughing, enjoying the proudest, greatest service I’ve ever done my country.

But there you have it. As much in sympathy as I am with people who work for a living, as much as I idolize Cesar Chavez, I hate criminals who insult and humiliate my country. That means the illegal aliens in the streets today have joined the U.S. Government on my shit list. First the sleaze of politicians on the Potomac, now the Mexicans. Wave a Mexican flag in my face today, in my country, I’ll feed it to you like I once threatened to feed the federal ID and badge a federal goon shoved in my face at the Mexican restaurant where I worked delivering food.

I digress here, to relate something that happened just an hour or so ago. I interrupted this writing in order to go to the local court house, in order to re-register my car, the annual shearing all we law-abiding people go through in order to drive a car without hassling by the cops. It isn’t, of course, lawful to force us to do that (Hackett vs. Tennessee), but the government will put you through hell before it concedes that laws requiring car registration are unconstitutional.

Anyway, I arrive at the proper court house office (second trip – it was packed last time and any attempt to use the mail-in method is pointless when you’re Hal von Luebbert) to find one guy at the counter, a guy speaking Spanish to the clerk (de rigueur, if you want a government job in Texas). When the guy leaves, I ask the clerk in my fluent Spanish if she was acquainted with the man. At her negative reply, I asked, “You don’t ask a stranger who speaks no English if he’s a citizen?”

Hoo, boy! –you should see the expressions around me. I’m pissed, and I make it apparent. “Then,” I ask – still in Spanish – “why the hell am I going through all this ‘obey the law by getting my car license’ crap? Why don’t I just say I’m an illegal alien, and forget obeying the law?”

I didn’t get anywhere, of course - behind the authority of the state, the smallest, puniest, stupidest, most poorly educated, and most afraid nothing of a human being becomes a god - but I had a little fun. At least the illegal alien who lied like a rug paid for a car license. You wonder why the hell he bothered with that. Stupid, I guess – like me. The malfeasant and imprisioning clerk knows that I knew she's a traitor to the legal system, too. By the way.

But the people who are marching in their neighbor’s streets today, or the people who refuse to do their duty and stop it don’t piss me off as much as I hold in contempt the “American” public who stands idly by permitting both to get away with this. We – you, actually; I can drop out of this menagerie and time I choose, just like I did before – are being raped and ridiculed by the Mexicans and Mexico, ripped off by corporate “America,” and made utter fools of by government because “we” – that’s you; I don’t play the federal rule by criminal conspiracy game any more – deserve it.

And the people marching in the streets today are telling you why – how I get away with it. I said it to a friend of mine one day ten years ago, a cop who’s also a friend. “I’m very dangerous, you know. What can you do to me? I don’t have a dime, and no property. There’s nothing you can take. You can’t even sue; a judgment and lien against nothing is nothing. Put me in jail, you have to feed me and give me medical care I couldn’t afford otherwise. I could drive without a license, drink all the booze in the place, kiss every girl, and knock every guy on his ass; and all you’d be able to do is give me a room, feed me, pay all my medical bills, and take care of all the medical problems I already have. You’d better stay on my friendly side tonight, buddy, ‘cause I feel like throwing somebody on his ass.”

There’s a song. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” If the Mexicans in the streets of the United States today manage to teach that to “Americans,” the government will fall in two weeks.

But it’s spooky. In a nation whose government keeps screaming that we are at war, we have aliens in our country waving foreign flags in our streets. Maybe we should declare war on Mexico. After all, not that many years ago, we put another entire ethnic group, the Nisei Japanese Americans, in prison on that very account. Can you imagine Japanese Americans – remember that they were born here – marching by the thousands in our streets, waving a rising sun flag? A declaration of war would tell us, probably, who’s loyal to the United States, and who isn’t. At least there might not be Mexican flags waving in our faces. I can't speak for the rest of you, but being in a war and part of an outfit where I don't know whose side my mates are on is too spooky for me. I want to know who can trusted.

There you have my solution to the “illegal immigrants problem.” Declare war on Mexico. Matter of fact, now that it no longer requires an act of Congress, and one of us is violating as many as seven hundred, fifty legal enactments by that same Congress (hint: and enactment by Congress is a law, and for everybody), I’ll do just that. We are now officially – de facto, too – at war with Mexico.

Oh, and by the way: How does the national anthem of Mexico go? I want to translate it into English, and have a little fun with the lyrics. Fair's fair.

Recently (the last day or so), I wrote a comment on the "Truthout" website, that concerning what a lady named Greta had written concerning Israeli brutality toward Palestinian women and children. I said I didn't have a horse (maybe I said dog) in that race, but to complain about and compare being hit with Israeli bricks and stones, as Greta said the Palestinian women and children were, with being blown to bits by Palestinian suicide bombers wouldn't win a lot of support from the candid world. Or words to that effect.
I drew a few verbal brickbats for that, from just whom you would expect, were you me. No one in sympathy with the Israeli point of view commented (as far as I know). To another comment by Greta, I responded at follows:


"'Enemies.'
"In 1978, the United States destroyed my business, broke up and scattered my family, and took steps to assure I would never again be gainfully employed. In 1985, when I had recovered and remarried (wife #one made a deal whereby she could keep all our property), they did it all again. This time they drove my teenage son to three attempts at suicide. Fearful that I would testify at hearings against them, the government's thugs undertook to murder me. Hit three times by a federal sniper, I knew I had to fight or die.
"Unable to determine the identities of the individuals trying to kill me, I was obliged to direct my counter-attack(s) against the government and nation generally. I don't like to shoot into a crowd, but when I'm being shot at from there, I reason that the crowd ought to be doing something to stop the people shooting at me.
"Note that I didn't hate anybody here - not even the guys shooting. I knew they were sent to do that. Besides, hating wouldn't accomplish a single thing (except, perhaps, justify my actions and sooth my ego). I just wanted to stay alive.
"I found out how to defeat a nation. You defeat its government. I could show you how to do that with Israel, or any country you choose (don't forget, it worked for me - and that I'm alive is living proof). But you wouldn't do what I tell you. You and I and everyone who might read this know the reason - that's if they think deeply and well enough. I've written about my method, and my novel provides a disguised plan of action.
"For now, try something I learned to do during my own war with a nation: turn off your emotions for a day at a time, so that all you do is think and reason without them. It's like counting down in your mind thinking of absolutely nothing but the numbers. No other thoughts. Very difficult, because very few people ever do that. They are never taught. It will take you a considerable length of time to do that, but when you do, you will have cleared the way to being a really productive thinker.
"You may even discover what I did.
"All the best, Hal von Luebbert"

Greta wrote back (I'd like to meet this lady: I know tough courage and determination when I hear it):

I'm sorry about that Hal, I really am, but you're certainly not the only one that these things have happened to. The fact that you 'got even' is great, and I wish you all the best. As you said, hating people isn't worth it...getting even is.
"I'm sure that many of us, myself included, have horror stories about what has happened to us when they take up an unpopular cause. The US government, hell, any government, will do its best to destroy people that don't fall into line.
"However, with all that said, we all have different methods of standing up to the bullies and bastards who murder and maim. My choice, and it has always been my choice, is to go to the occupied territories, bear witness to the daily atrocities that Israel foists onto Palestinian civilians, then come back and write about it and speak out.
"Going there and facing the idiots in uniform, I have been shot with a rubber bullet, tear gassed more times than I care to count, threatened, and threatened once I return. It's worth it. Every single thug who comes out of the woodwork is testiment (sic) that I'm telling the truth and makes sure I will continue what I do... nonviolently protesting the most continuous, violent occupation in modern history.
"Greta"

In the thread of comments to the original essay entitled "Unbalanced Views on Israel," was a comment by "lwelsch":

"I agree with all that you said. Now pretend that you are almost God and tell me short of blowing everyone to hell how to bring about a resolution to the problem. Its the dam engineer in me. Practice tolerance, kindness and charity."


With that, I think we're back to the present, and I'll write a note on the "Unbalanced Views" page to advise "lwelsch" that in view of space constraints over there, I will reply here, attempting to "kill two birds with one stone" - you should pardon the expression. I started to refer to "lwelsch" as the damn engineer, incidentally; damn! -I'm glad I noticed that "n" in time. I have two partially paralyzed fingers on my left hand - that due bullet wounds inflicted by a federal sniper one night in October, 1986. Anyway, it was dam engineer.
Firstly, Greta, you NEVER "get even." The price of freedom and justice is always more than anyone will - I didn't say "can" - pay. No one cares that much, the reason no one ever stays free for very long. "People," essayist Michel de Montaigne said, "always have the government they deserve." If the unjust injury or death of any one of us brought irresistible and relentless retribution from all the rest of us, history wouldn't be what it is. Neither would government.
Swell. And that will do where truth become platitude is concerned, because human beings seldom care enough to make it anything but that. Point? The point is that where such things are concerned, you have to DO something, and something effective.
"Effective," for instance, is not to tell a candid world how your enemy throws bricks while you throw bombs. That subjects, and makes you vulnerable to one of governments' most powerful tactics with those only casually interested - most of the public, in other words. The tactic is one I've come to call "the credibility game," and it was pioneered by men like Vladimir Lenin and, most notably and effectively, Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Josef Goebbels. The version of the tactic you are up against now is state of the art, and the most powerful opinion-shaping and mind-control technique and instrumentation ever conceived. The United States - and Israel, the U.S. and Europe's bastard step child - have mastered it. With it, they have hypnotized, subdued and made docile what was once the toughest, most rebellious, rambunctious, and stubbornly independent and self-determining society in history, the people of the United States.
To be effective in the Middle East, one must know history. That means the truth about the history of the region, and he will succeed in his purpose just about to the degree that he has learned the truth. "There," said Hamlet, "is the rub." Neither of the principals here will do that. Why? Damned if I know for sure, but as a completely disinterested observer, I can tell you that the amount of truth told by either side in that respect wouldn't make you blink if you got it in your eye (that, by the way, was the reason for my remark about records written by German General Limon von Sanders and his World War One opponent, General, later Field Marshall, Edmund Allenby).
History suggests that the principle reason for that is religion. The Judeo and Judeo-Christian religions tell of an Armageddon, and the followers of those religions are trying to make it happen the way their scriptures say it will. It's a psychological and sociological thing I haven't time or space to elucidate here, but if you read history carefully and in depth, I think you'll agree. Most prophesy is fulfilled because somebody WANTS it that way.
That brings up another point, one requiring that I use the expression that goes, "with all due respect." The trouble nowadays with "Americans" - there are thirty-four other nations in the Western Hemisphere - is that they talk and deliberate on matters they know really very little about. I know that, and have the temerity to say that, because I've done extensive and assiduous research concerning it. As entitled to their opinion as everyone here is, each betrays critical and crippling lack of sufficient information on the subject and things related to it to be valuable for anything but "getting it off your chest." Or venting the spleen (ugly damned expression, what?). Maybe, on the other, hand, that's all everyone is trying to do, but as Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." That may be what Montaigne was referring to in the quote I cited earlier, huh?
There's only one conclusion possible from that, and it's that the people of the U.S. are simply too stupid, and unwilling to learn, to remain free much longer. But, even though I do so for effect, I digress.
To defeat a nation, Greta, you must above all be effective. You believe, as do so very, very many, that the truth is a weapon, and an irresistible one. That is perhaps the most pernicious myth ever birthed and nurtured. People who believe that truth has some kind of magic in it, and that it always succeeds, are simply wrong, and the roar of history drowns out anyone who says differently. When I was a kid still in high school, a teacher - and a Catholic nun, at that - upbraided me one day. "Harland (my given name), you have the most terrible lust for the truth." She held up the crucifix hanging around her neck. "Do you know why he's there? He's there because he dared speak the truth. Harland, they'll hang you some day!" Telling the story in my book, I remarked by speaking to her as though she were still alive that she had been right and that "they" had certainly tried.
Yet we believe in the Myth of Truth's Power. Religion is a mind-paralyzing thing, as I said a minute ago. To make truth effective you must use it as a basis for actions, not speech. There is nothing more easily defeated by a government, any government, than spoken truth. But there's another use for the truth, the one I used. Governments, especially democratic ones, are always infested with the most vicious, corrupt people the society can find. When the society is capitalistic, it's even worse. Anyone living in the real world (knowing history, again) should know that. I defeated the government (I haven't paid taxes since 1977, and they don't dare do anything about it) because I infiltrated it, to find its nerve centers - all the things that would dissolve their political power almost overnight. I found everything I needed - rape, extortion to commit rape, murder, embezzlement; you name it - fifteen hundred instances in a single year (and a senator's office admitted that publicly; do you wonder why you didn't hear?).
That's the Achilles Heel of any government, simple, but not easy to exploit. I had to travel the country for almost two decades, organizing people to do what I needed for them to do, but in the end, we dealt the IRS some fearsome blows - blows in the form of three pieces of legislation. All, off course, were and are being ignored - governments do not obey the law, whenever it suits them not to (and I won't bore you by mentioning what's going on daily these days with our President). But the legislation is law, for the federal government thorns in the side swiftly becoming cancerous. Why? How?
Well, the fact is - and I'm talking about the U.S. only, and for the dam engineer, now - that any citizen with the courage to organize a number of citizens sufficient to back up - that's enforce - his citizen's arrest (you need to look up the law of citizen's arrest and arrest generally) could wreak havoc in Washington. In 1978 - long before the dawn of all the tattling video cameras catching corrupt cops in their nefarious actions - things like beating hell out of unresisting old men like the one in New Orleans recently - I outfitted any willing person with a Super-8mm movie camera and instructions to begin filming government with its pompous purity down. The idea grew like wildfire, and the fire was the weapon that drove government away the first time it attacked me. In 1986, when the federals attacked again, I held a press conference on the capitol steps in Denver, to make very clear to federal (FBI and IRS) agents in attendance that I intended to repeat my tactic, and having evidence to warrant citizen's arrest, I would enlist the aid of as many citizens as necessary to enforce my arrest.
Inasmuch as I was at that time also engaged in helping form what was to become the Colorado Militia, the threat I posed was not lost on the government. As I've related here several times, the U.S. District Court for Colorado quashed a suit I filed that year under the Freedom of Information Act, ruling that "to do otherwise would irreparably damage the tax collection of the United States." The courts ruling was in response to a Department of Justice argument that my records were exempt under the National Security Exclusion of the law. It was the first, and only, time that income tax was raised jurisprudentially to the level of a matter of national security. The government was scared, all right. In the aftermath of the press conference and ruling, I was run down by motor vehicles six times, had my car rammed by another twice, subjected to several attempts at mugging, and poisoned twice. During a chase near Fort Collins, Colorado, I survived a gunfight by killing at least two of six or more men in two vehicles. There's more, it's in my book, and too voluminous for this venue.
Why didn't I bring down the U.S. Government? I could have. On a radio talk show from Denver, Colorado, several attorneys who called admitted that. There are two reasons I didn't. First, I got eventually what I wanted - to be left alone. Secondly, and most effective, was the fact that no one of the public my fight benefited had the intelligence, courage, or honor to back me when I proposed to make the arrests that would all but certainly have ended IRS, the FBI, and the ATF. The IRS is the beating heart of federal government. Without is ruthless chicanery, the purpose of which is too keep wealth - especially the nation's fiat money - where government wants it - the government would fall. We have the word of the Department of Justice and the ruling of a U.S. District Court on that. The public didn't care enough to do what must one day be done. They didn't even care enough to learn about it.
In a video tape made for the American Lyceum in 1986, I observed to my cowardly "American" fellows that they would have to fight one day because it's never been any way else. Greed and the lust for power that inevitably infects every individual desirous of a government job only grows greater and greater. "You'll fight, all right," I said. "You'll fight because you won't be given any choice. "But because you are cowards, you will fight only when you have little chance of success or survival."
The nation that is the United States today wasn't worth any more effort on my part. I'm seventy, and having been deserted by my family (they're "Americans," too, you know), why should I care? Remove this government, another will take its place - one just as self-serving and rotten. "People have the government they deserve." They get the justice they deserve, too.
But tactics like mine - not exactly, but similar - would work in Israel, too. Or Palestine. These are hyper-religious people, whose religions make impossible demands. Catch an official incontrovertibly - on video, for instance - doing any number of dozens of certain things human being have been doing since the beginning of the race, he will fall from power almost overnight. In an Islamic society, he might be executed, besides. That's how to create chaos sufficient to bring down a government. And there's more, much more. "Guerrilla Law," it's called, and a reporter in Colorado once referred to me as "the Guerrilla Lawyer."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - "impractical." That's utter nonsense. It's also an excuse. What the Palestinian people want, as I suspect does Greta, is to merely emote, to find catharsis. That means to hate. If, for instance, I were to go to Israel and succeed in tearing government to pieces by black-mail and other behavioral means, and to obtain for her everything she wants, my most prominent and biggest enemy would be Greta and her Palestinian friends. They would supplant their enemy, Israel, with me. If I did the same with the government of Palestine, the Jews would likewise fear and hate me - forever.
This isn't after all, about right and wrong, heroism and atrocity, human rights and slavery - none of that. It's about hatred, hatred written into and demanded by "holy" scriptures, practiced and preserved for centuries. Don't forget, Islam teaches (never mind, I've read the Koran and many more of the sufi writings) that to bring peace - to even speak of it - between believer and "infidel" will cost a Moslem heaven. And his life. If I were god, as the dam engineer averred, and I wanted peace between Arab and Jew, I would simply eradicate and end religion, and blot all memory of it from the mind of man.
So, Greta, you're sorry for me. Just out of curiosity (I've been a student of human nature since boyhood, and it utterly fascinates me, tell me, why are you more sorry for the Palestinians than you are for me? Few of the people you write about are being hunted personally by a government intent upon their murder. I lost my family. I also lost all my possessions. I have less of material possessions than most of the people you so empathize with - you can't have less than nothing. Until recently, I lived off the fields and streams of the country - and for more than ten years. Isn't injustice anywhere injustice everywhere? Or were Gandhi, Nehru, and Dr. Martin Luther King wrong?
Why travel all the way to Palestine to face the tear gas and rubber bullets? If I understand your opinion and that of so many who have written on the Truthout site, if you bring down the U.S. Government, you will have brought down the Israeli government, too. Had we done that in 1978 or 1986, think what might have happened.
WHY are you "telling the truth?" What, specifically, do you think that does? If you really think that reciting a list of atrocities that becomes a litany accomplishes anything, you haven't read much history. The Jews, you know, do the same thing. The world isn't fair - mostly because we can't even agree on what "fair" is. I have told my own story across the nation, to thousands - ten thousands - of people. Do you know what effect it had, has? Lenin is famous, among other things, for having said that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. He also said, "So what?" Truth means nothing where people love a lie well enough to tell it until it "becomes the truth," and when you tell your truth often enough most liars - just about every human being - begin to wonder which is which.
Anyone who says "we all have different methods of standing up to the bullies and bastards who murder and maim" will have a hard time convincing me. I've been there, and I know you're kidding yourself. That's the classic cop-out, as a matter of fact. In the first place, there is all but always just one thing in any instance that is an effective solution or answer. People trying to win don't keep doing what doesn't work again and again. You're kidding yourself either because, otherwise, you'd have to actually DO what it takes to be effective and you don't really want to; or, it makes you feel good to think that everyone BELIEVES you're doing something. Doing something ineffective, of course, insures you'll be able to go on doing it indefinitely. But if you REALLY care, think about what you're doing.
Do you really think that "standing up to" accomplishes anything? It does - it justifies everything your enemy is doing, and gives him an excuse the world will accept for more of the same. You're providing him the bugaboo he needs to satisfy opinion everywhere that he's justified in his actions. Rubber bullets against stones and bricks, remember? You slap his face, he blasts you aside the head with a club. But you've "stood up to him. Sheesh - good for you! The Israeli government - just like all governments - LOVES it that way! It's the same here in the Land of the Free. The mafia used to call it a "protection racket." Every time a group of people gets out in the streets to raise hell, the government appropriates another ten billion dollars worth of riot control equipment and hires more cops or soldiers. "The people" need protection, and the government is glad to provide it. Does anybody remember what the protestors were "protesting" a month later? Sure, SAME, OLD, THING with "those people."
You know, Greta, I wish I were thirty, even twenty, years younger. I hate bullies, a pathological thing that came from the time when I was recovering from childhood poliomyelitis and took a beating from somebody every time I left the shelter of home. Had you read my book, you'd know the truth - and the sincerity - of what I say when I say I'd go to Israel and do what I did here in the U.S. After my war with the government had begun to go well, I traveled, calling myself "Knight Errant," and helping drive the U.S. government bully away from its victims here in the U.S.. There are many, you know - women being raped by officials who have something to use for extortion (illegal alien, for instance - or dependent kids), people losing everything to IRS malfeasance and wrongful conversion; the works. For almost ten years, I beat up on the bullies (nothing they could do: take me to court, I have subpoena power and the "jig is up"). I'd help.
I'd help, but I can't help wondering why, with all those kind of people needing help here - same question - why do you go to Israel? Why is injustice there more deserving of annihilation here? What's special there, and why do your most passionate loyalties reside in Palestine?
I'd help but for the same reason I didn't take down this government. That's because I don't think this is about what you're telling me it's about. I think it's about hate and hating. The last thing Jew and Palestinian want is peace with one another. War, all of it, of any kind, is a racket. It's done because it's profitable, and profitable in some way for the majority of people involved.
Peace, like freedom, is a lot scarier than war. THEN the only enemy left to fight is oneself. REALLY, really scary. I've been there, too.