Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Fresh Air for Justice

FIJA - the Fully Informed Jurors Association, which I have posted on before - has just produced a new brochure that ears inspection. You can see it at FIJA.org. Here is a part of it:

Bringing Justice Back to

the Courtroom

When you are called for jury duty, you will be one of

the few people in the courtroom who wants justice,

rather than to win or to score career points. For you

to defend against corrupt politicians and their corrupt

laws, you must get on the jury. During the jury

selection, prosecutors and judges often work together

to remove honest, thinking people from juries.

When you're questioned during jury selection, just

say you don't keep track of political issues. Show an

impartial attitude. Don't let the judge and prosecutor

stack the jury by removing all the thinking, honest


Instructions and oaths are designed to bully jurors

and protect political power. Although it all sounds

very official, instructions and oaths are not legally

binding, or there would be no need for independent,

thinking jurors like you.

Bringing Conscience Back

to the Courtroom

Judges will lie to you. Your conscience is your best guide

to justice—and to right or wrong. When you are a juror,

the judge will tell you to ignore your own conscience

and obey what the judge says. That is just plain silly—

nobody gives up their own sense of right and wrong just

because some stranger in a costume says so.

Although the judge may sit behind a big desk or

wear a black robe, nothing gives any stranger—

or anyone—the right to tell you to ignore your

conscience! A judge may try to get you to follow

some corrupt laws passed by corrupt politicians who

appointed that judge.

You need to be as skeptical about what you hear

from the judge and other lawyers as you are skeptical

about anyone trying to sell a used car. Use your

conscience. Think for yourself.

Are we blind?

A friend of mine asked the other day, "Why is it that nobody can see this danger?" He was referring to the fact that Islam - true Islam, as written in the Quran, Hadith, and Sura - is a cult of death. Specifically, he was talking about the threats made against Ann Barnhardt's life by muslims who feel it is appropriate to kill anyone who has "insulted" their religion. We have seen them actually do this to people in Europe, such as Theo Van Gogh after he produced a movie called Submission about women living under the dictates of Islam and Sharia.

Here in America, a large percentage of our populace has been infected by the "multiculturalism" bug. As in Europe, we have been led to accept that we in America are no different than any other culture, that all cultures are equally important and valuable. Hence, anyone speaking out against a culture is deemed to be bigoted, a racist.

The problem is that, due to "progressive" thinking, it is only Islam that is held up as valuable. Muslims can speak against Judaism and Jews, actually talk of wanting to kill all Jews and destroy Israel, and no one gets upset. The yuppies, the liberals of Palo Alto, the "intelligentsia" of Hollywood, the soccer moms, the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, the stockbrokers of New York City, the teachers in Wisconsin all turn a deaf ear to what the muslims have to say about other cultures and religions. Only speak out against Islam, burn pages of a Quran, and you will hear a spew of such vitriol that you would imagine the speaker, the burner, is the re-incarnation of Adolf Hitler. And that any violence that the muslims engage in is therefore the fault of the speaker or paper burner.

Christians can be portrayed as ignorant, Bible-thumping, gun-toting rednecks and no one blinks an eye. It is accepted as, well, gospel. The same sub-set of America that will beat you down for disrespecting Islam will often agree, not seeing the incredible hypocrisy they are displaying.

I am an atheist, so I don't have a dog in the fight as far as religion goes. I don't care if kids pray in school, as long as the teacher isn't leading the children in a prayer to exalt B. Hussein Obama. I don't care if there is a National Day of Prayer. As a matter of fact, I am for people being able to pray anywhere and any time the wish to, as long as it is done quietly and doesn't disrupt the lives or activities of others,especially those who do not want to join in, like myself. That includes trying to get educated in a classroom, of course, where prayer should probably be silent and unobtrusive.

I detest this notion that anything to do with prayer in a public setting is said to be a violation of the First Amendment. That was written to prevent the establishment of a state religion, as some people suffered under in Europe, before coming to the Colonies looking for religious freedom. And, could someone please explain to me how it is permissible for the Ten Commandments to be displayed on the Supreme Court building, but for the Supreme Court to say no one else can do that on a state or local government building?

If Islam were actually a religion, rather than the ravings of an ignorant Arab pedophile, created to legitimize his aberrant behavior and his wish to dominate and enslave others, I would be supportive of it. But how on earth can you support a "religion" that says women are merely vessels for the deposition of semen, or to produce babies? That demands the genital mutilation of female infants? That says it is acceptable for a muslim male to rub his genitals against a six-year old girl in order to ejaculate? And can penetrate her in full intercourse when she turns nine? That says beardless young boys are OK to use for sex, because they really aren't "male" at that age? Yet also demands that homosexual men be killed?

How do you support a "religion" that wants to force everyone in the world to either join Islam or die?

The fools in America who can't see that this death cult, this sexually aberrant doctrine, is evil are indeed blind. They cannot, in fact, see the danger. Their attempts to appease the followers of this death cult, to protect its "right" to try to force the world to accept a universal Caliphate, are worse than pitiful. They are self-destructive. Their inability to see that it must be stopped is suicidal. Their willingness to force the rest of us to go along with their acceptance of this death cult is both a deadly insult to us and an incredible danger to our way of life, to America herself.

Friday, April 29, 2011

King & Spaulding chooses . . . poorly.

King and Spaulding, the Georgia high-profile law firm which the House of Representatives hired to act in their behalf in dealing with the Department of Justice's decision to NOT enforce the law of the land, the Defense of Marriage Act - legally passed and signed into law - dropped the House as a client. This was due to the mere threat of protest by the gays and lesbians who wish to be able to call their unions marriage, instead of civil unions.

This post is not about why we should or should not be willing to change the definition of marriage to include what has always been determined to be aberrant behavior (next, pedophiles will want marriage to six year olds to be legal. Oh, the muslims already have that as part of Sharia?), but is about the lack of ethics involved by the offices of King and Spaulding.

Paul Clement, who had worked at King and Spaulding, resigned when this occurred. His letter rather eloquently, I think, explained why it was the honorable thing for him to do. Read that here.

Now, the Attorney General for the State of Virginia has dropped King and Spaulding as a client. Here is a post at legalinsurrection.blogspot.com that explains this:

Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia now has dumped King & Spalding as special counsel (it's not clear in what), as reported by The Washington Examiner (via Powerline). Here is the text of Cuccinelli's letter, which reads in pertinent part (emphasis mine):
We seek to do business exclusively with law firms that do more than merely aim to perform the bottom of the barrel ethical obligations and do just enough on behalf of their clients to avoid trouble for themselves. We seek law firms that will actively protect our interests, even when that may be uncomfortable for their firms.

Virginia does not shy away from hiring outside counsel because they may have ongoing professional relationships with people or entities, or on behalf of causes, that I, or my office, or
Virginia as a whole, may not support. But, it is crucial for us to be able to trust and rely on the fact that our outside counsel will not desert Virginia due to pressure by an outside group or groups.
Virginia seeks firms of commitment, courage, strength and toughness, and unfortunately, what the world has learned of King & Spalding, is that your firm utterly lacks those qualities. As the official in Virginia responsible for ensuring that the legal needs of Virginia's agencies are well met, I cannot leave UV AMC in the hands of a law firm of such weakness.

By way of example and explanation, King & Spalding's role in representing terrorists is not objectionable to Virginia, because we understand the value of legal counsel, even for persons who hate this country and desire to do America and Americans harm. However, King & Spalding's willingness to abandon a client, the United States House of Representatives, in connection with the lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), was such an obsequious act of weakness, that I feel compelled to end your legal association with Virginia so that there is no chance that one of my legal clients might be put in the embarrassing and difficult situation like the client you walked away from, the House of Representatives.

The failure of King & Spalding to maintain the kinds of minimum standards that Virginia would expect as a client of your firm is perhaps best demonstrated by the stunning dichotomy in the maintenance (or lack thereof) of its clients in my examples: it is acceptable to maintain client relationships with clients associated with terrorism, but not clients associated with marriage. And when it comes to dropping a client, it is a dichotomy that should not exist at any quality law firm.

Virginia simply cannot abide placing any reliance whatsoever on a law firm that makes decisions and acts in the manner of King & Spalding, and so we must terminate our relationship at this time. For future reference, your firm is not welcome to re-apply for special counsel status at any time as long as I am the Attorney General of Virginia.

Isn't it nice when lawyers and attorneys general display some ethical behavior? When they publicly denounce their own for behavior that is morally reprehensible? 'Tis a rare thing, much to be desired.
I came across this quote, but cannot attribute it properly, as I do not know its source. Nonetheless it rings true for me, and speaks to DOMA:

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Obama commits fraud

I just read on Ann Barnhardt's web site (http://barnhardt.biz/) that Obama has released what he claims to be his "real" birth certificate. It is so obviously computer-generated, that it amazes me he would do it, that his staff and handlers would agree to post this false document. Go to her site and watch the videos posted that prove, conclusively, that this document is a fake.


If that didn't come through as an accessible link, go here: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185094


A professional highend graphics designer weighs in here:

Click here for the objective, factual truth.

And a YouTube stepby-step here:


"If you or I did this in any context, we would spend MANY YEARS in prison. Obama should spend the rest of his life in prison.

I will not allow my country to be screwed with by a low-rent Communist agitator. If law enforcement will not act, then the people must. Obama is in NYC at a campaign fundraiser. He should be arrested and should not step foot in the White House again. Send the daughters to Chicago with their grandmother, because Barack and Michelle Obama are, at this moment, fugitives from justice and should be tried for treason." (Ann Barnhardt)

I can only think that Obama must feel he can laugh off every claim that the document has been faked. He must feel secure in his belief that no one can remove him from office, no matter what illegal and unConstitutional acts he performs. Considering that he knows he is ineligible to be the President of the United States, that he has gotten away with it for over two years now, he must feel safe in playing this game. We can only hope that some one in Congress has the balls to stand up and say, "You lie!"

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Capitalism beats socialism - especially on the Rez

Great article by John Stossel on how one small Indian tribe (screw political correctness) has prospered by not being recognized by the Federal government. A few of them - probably only the ones without the gumption to earn themselves a living, and/or envious of the tribes who have gotten rich off of casinos - want to go on the government dole, but the ones who are doing just fine thank you (eaten at a Cracker Barrel restaurant lately? Thank one of the Lumbee tribe, who started and owns the chain) don't want the government involved.

Jewish World Review April 27, 2011/ 23 Nissan, 5771

Government Creates Poverty

By John Stossel

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The U.S. government has "helped" no group more than it has "helped" the American Indians. It stuns me when President Obama appears before Indian groups and says things like, "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans."

Ignored? Are you kidding me? They should be so lucky. The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special "native American" programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.

Nevertheless, Indian activists want more government "help."

It is intuitive to assume that, when people struggle, government "help" is the answer. The opposite is true. American groups who are helped the most, do the worst.

Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C. — a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the "help" given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribes.

Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.

The Lumbees' wealth is not from casino money.

"We don't have any casinos. We have 12 banks," says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations.

"There's mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation."

Despite this success, professional "victims" activists want Congress to make the Lumbees dependent — like other tribes. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., has introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would give the Lumbees the same "help" other tribes get — about $80 million a year. Some members of the tribe support the bill.

Of course they do. People like to freeload.

Lawyer Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department's director of Indian land trusts, say the Lumbees ought to get federal recognition.

"The Lumbees have been neglected and left out of the system, and have been petitioning for 100 years. ... They're entitled, by the way."

People like Homer will never get it. Lumbees do well because they've divorced themselves from government handouts. Washington's neglect was a godsend.

Some Lumbees don't want the handout.

"We shouldn't take it!" Chavis said. He says if federal money comes, members of his tribe "are going to become welfare cases. It's going to stifle creativity. On the reservations, they haven't trained to be capitalists. They've been trained to be communists."

Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage most Indian land. Indians compete to serve on tribal councils because they can give out the government's money. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs, members of tribes aspire to become bureaucrats.

"You can help your girlfriend; you can help your girlfriend's mama. It's a great program!" Chavis said sarcastically.

Because a government trust controls most Indian property, individuals rarely build nice homes or businesses. "No individual on the reservation owns the land. So they can't develop it," Chavis added. "Look at my tribe. We have title and deeds to our land. That's the secret. I raise cattle. I can do what I want to because it's my private property."

I did a TV segment on the Lumbees that I included in a special called "Freeloaders." That won me the predictable vitriol. Apparently, I'm ignorant of history and a racist.

The criticism misses the point. Yes, many years ago white people stole the Indians' land and caused great misery. And yes, the government signed treaties with the tribes that make Indians "special." But that "specialness" has brought the Indians socialism. It's what keeps them dependent and poor.

On the other hand, because the U.S. government never signed a treaty with the Lumbees, they aren't so "special" in its eyes. That left them mostly free.

Freedom lets them prosper.

[And Dennis Prager continues the theme]

Jewish World Review April 27, 2011 / 23 Nissan, 5771

The Welfare State and the Selfish Society

By Dennis Prager

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In the contemporary world, where left-wing attitudes are regarded as normative, it is a given that capitalism, with its free market and profit motive, emanates from and creates selfishness, while socialism, the welfare state and the "social compact," as it is increasingly referred to, emanate from and produce selflessness.

The opposite is the truth.

Whatever its intentions, the entitlement state produces far more selfish people — and therefore, a far more selfish society — than a free-market economy. And once this widespread selfishness catches on, we have little evidence that it can be undone.

Here's an illustration: Last year, President Obama addressed a large audience of college students on the subject of health care. At one point in his speech, he announced that the students will now be able to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. I do not ever recall hearing a louder, more thunderous and sustained applause than I did then. I do not believe that if the president had announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered that the applause would have been louder or longer.

It is depressing to listen to that applause. To be told that one can be dependent on one's parents until age 26 should strike a young person who wants to grow up as demeaning, not as something to celebrate.

Throughout American history, the natural — or at least hoped for — inclination of a young person was to become a mature adult, independent of Mom and Dad, and to become a grown up. But in the welfare state, this is no longer the case.

In various European countries, it is increasingly common for young men to live with their parents into their 30s and even longer. Why not? In the welfare state, there is no shame in doing so.

The welfare state enables — and thereby produces — people whose preoccupations become more and more self-centered as time goes on:

How many benefits will I receive from the state?

How much will the state pay for my education?

How much will the state pay for my health care and when I retire?

What is the youngest age at which I can retire?

How much vacation time can I get each year?

How many days can I call in sick and get paid?

How many months can I claim paternity or maternity care money?

The list gets longer with each election of a left-wing party. And each entitlement becomes a "right" as the left transforms entitlements into the language of "rights" as quickly as possible.

What entitlements do, and what the transformation of entitlements into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait — gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say "thank you." But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of "thank you," the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, "What more can I get?"

Yet, while producing increasingly selfish people, the mantra of the left, and therefore of the universities and the media, has been for generations that capitalism and the free market, not the welfare state, produces selfish people.

They succeed in part because demonizing conservatives and their values is a left-wing art. But the truth is that capitalism and the free market produce less selfish people. Teaching people to work hard and take care of themselves (and others) produces a less, not a more, selfish citizen.

Capitalism teaches people to work harder; the welfare state teaches people to want harder. Which is better?

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Vatican Cowardice

This blogger has it right: the Vatican, especially in the person of his Holiness (the former Hitler Youth member), does nothing about the slaughter of thousands of Christians killed by muslims around the world. Mouthes a few pious platitudes, whimpers a few mewling cries over the slaughter, but doesn't speak of the vileness of Islam, that it would wantonly kill Christians and Jews, including their women and children. Doesn't demand that the imams tell their muslim followers to stop the killing. The photo at the right is in Nigeria, where muslims killed these Christians. Most had machete wounds, as well.

APRIL 24, 2011

Guerillas for Liberty

An article from Lew Rockwell.com that was presented at FIJA.org, the Fully Informed Jurors Association web site. It is a well-written piece, that explains the reasoning and some of the history behind the fact that juries were established as a last line of defense against governmental tyranny, against unjust laws.

Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking it to Leviathan

by Don Doig and Stewart Rhodes

Citizens in our (once) free republic founded under the English common law system, have both the power and the right to vote according to conscience when they sit on a jury and can vote not guilty even in the face of the law and in the face of the evidence. The defendant also has a right to expect that his jury will be fully informed of their rightful power to vote "not guilty" if they believe justice requires it, regardless of the evidence. Anything less is not a real jury trial.

The jury issues no opinion, gives no explanation of its decision. It simply renders its verdict, and if the verdict is "not guilty," that acquittal cannot be questioned or overturned by any court. It is telling that a conviction can be overturned, but an acquittal cannot – the deck is stacked on the side of the liberty of the individual on trial. While a judge can overturn a jury conviction that in his judgment is unsupported by the evidence, or where the jury harbors prejudicial animus toward the defendant, the judge cannot overturn an acquittal even if the evidence is overwhelming – even if the defendant admits on the stand that he did the actions of which he is accused.

A landmark case in jury history is that of William Penn, the Quaker preacher who would later found Pennsylvania. He was put on trial in England for the "crime" of preaching a non-government approved religion on a public street corner. He did not deny that he had preached as a Quaker. He proudly proclaimed it. There was no doubt that English law at the time considered his actions criminal. That too was plain. And yet, the jury acquitted him in spite of the obvious, undisputed facts, and in the face of the clear law. That jury was initially held in contempt and jailed by the trial judge, but on appeal, the English appellate courts ruled that the jury has an absolute power to acquit despite the facts and in the face of the law, and that it cannot be punished for exercising its power. That acquittal helped to establish the free practice of religion.

The same was true in the celebrated Zenger trial in the American colonies, where Zenger, a newspaper editor, did not deny he had published an editorial severely criticizing the royal governor. The facts were undisputed. Under English law at the time, mere criticism of government officials, even if true, was still considered libel, and could be punished. And yet, despite both the law and the facts being abundantly clear, the jury acquitted Zenger. That acquittal helped establish legal protection for freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, such that only knowingly false statements can be considered libel.

The Fugitive Slave laws criminalized the underground railroad. Abolitionists accused of helping runaway slaves were often set free by sympathetic jurors voting according to conscience, nullifying the law.

One way to think of the jury is that it is effectively a fourth branch of government, sovereign in its own realm. Separation of powers requires that its powers and immunities remain inviolate. In this sense, the jury has as much a power to set even a "guilty" man free as a governor using the power of clemency, or as a President using his "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. That power is also absolute, except in cases of impeachment.

It’s telling that modern power elites don’t scream and yell about governors and Presidents having such an absolute power to set even a clearly "guilty" man free. When fellow elites within government do it, it is accepted. But when the people, as a jury, do precisely the same thing, elites gnash their teeth and shrilly warn of impending chaos and anarchy (as if that were a bad thing!), crying crocodile tears about all the supposed injustice that will result if the jury does something similar to what governors and presidents do at will.

The plain fact is our entire legal system was originally designed to favor liberty, with discretion built in at every level, from the beat cop, to the prosecutor (who has a responsibility to see that justice is done, and that sometimes means not prosecuting even in a clear case), to the jury, to the judges who can overturn an unjust conviction (such as by ruling the law to be unconstitutional as applied), to the governor and/or President who can overturn even a "just" conviction and set a certifiably guilty man free. As Hamilton stated in Federalist 74, in reference to the power of Pardon:

"The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."

Just so. And as it is with the power of pardon, so it is with the power of the jury.

The scales of justice are meant to be tipped on the side of liberty, with "easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt" built in at each step.

Another way of looking at the jury is that it is much like the militia, since it too is a vital public institution where the people directly participate by being their own guardians. A people who are their own guardians in the militia cannot be tyrannized, however bloodthirsty a usurping tyrant may be. Likewise, a people who are their own judges of guilt, their own judges of the law as applied to that case, and their own guardians of the liberty of their fellows by serving on a jury, cannot be tyrannized, however bloodthirsty the minions of the usurping state may be. When a jury is aware of its power, they can stop the state cold, however much it lusts for convictions.

That absolute power to nullify has always been the jury’s power – it is, in fact, the very core of what a jury does. When I (Stewart) was a student at Yale Law School, my procedure professor, Owen Fiss, openly acknowledged that a jury is not merely a fact finder. He pointed out that if that were all a jury were for, we could have professional fact finding juries, made up of forensic experts, handwriting analysis experts, voice analysis experts, etc. who would be far more "efficient" fact finders, working together on one case after another.

Though Professor Fiss, being an elitist liberal, didn’t trust juries and instead considered judges "the "embodiment of public reason" (I know, I know, amazing that someone so brilliant can be so blind), he was at least honest enough to admit that the jury is there to serve as a populist, peoples’ check on government power. It didn’t make sense any other way. What Professor Fiss could not see is that the virtue of the jury is precisely the fact that it does not come from some elite segment of society out of touch with the "unwashed masses." It is made up of average people who will never sit together again on the same jury. They come together only once, to do justice and then to depart. The jury is not a repeat player in the system, like judges, lawyers, and hired-gun expert witnesses. It cannot be influenced by special interests, it has no institutional turf to defend, no reason to go along to get along with backroom deals, and no desire to rack up a conviction record to further political ambitions.

And the real purpose of that unique, independent assembly of average people is to stand in between an accused and the mighty state, as the last shield against tyranny short of recourse to arms. And like David standing in front of Goliath, it does not matter how powerful the state is, however air-tight its case, however artfully it has stacked the laws against the accused, however unconstitutional its manipulations, however blood-thirsty its prosecutors, or however complicit its judges. However much the state wants to strip the life, liberty, or property from the lone defendant, it can still be stopped by that one jury. Just a handful of citizens, if they know their true power, can grind the machine to a halt, and stop it cold, at least in that one case … if they but know of their own power.

And therein lies the problem. Though that absolute power to acquit is part and parcel of traditional trial by jury – is in fact inseparable from it – judges, prosecutors and the power elite have always resented this fact and have tried to suppress it. In effect, there has long been a power struggle between the people, seeking to preserve their rights and powers, and established state power seeking to usurp the power of the people and to enhance its own power. Despite the clear, well settled power of the jury to acquit, willful judges have cleverly argued that while the jury has the absolute power to acquit, they don’t have a right to (so say the crafty judges) and so judges are not required to tell the jury of the power it clearly has. But they don’t just omit that information, they actively mislead the jury by telling them the opposite – that they must convict if they find such and such facts to have been proven, that they must follow the law as the judge explains it, and that they may only consider the evidence presented to them. In other words, the judges, and the prosecutors, lie to the juries.

First, during jury selection (voir dire) the jurors are grilled by the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, and are often asked very intrusive personal questions. Seeking the lowest common denominator, prosecutors and judges eliminate intelligent, aware people, who are routinely eliminated via "pre-emptive strikes" which require no explanation, or "for cause."

And, an increasingly common question is something like: Do you believe that the jury can judge the law? Have you heard of jury nullification? Can you agree to set aside your own convictions and follow the law, and convict the defendant if the evidence proves guilt? If you wish to avoid jury duty, an answer to the effect that Yes, you do understand your right to vote your conscience, will get you sent home. But, if instead, you wish to be seated, what should you do? First, say as little as possible. Do not volunteer information.

So, if the judge asks you if you can apply the law as he explains it, say "Yes." You may believe the judge when he says "this is what the law is" (though judges will disagree on points of law) but no one can force you to convict against your conscience and better judgment. Certainly you can follow the judge’s instructions, so you are not lying by saying "yes" when asked that question, but you also know the well established truth that you can also acquit even in the face of the law as given by the judge, and in spite of the facts. You can just keep that knowledge to yourself without volunteering it.

Some may call this taking a "mental reservation" as in, Question: "Can you follow my instructions on the law?" Answer: "Yes" – but with a mental reservation (to yourself) of: I may believe your description of the statute law, but the higher law is the Constitution, if there is a conflict.

Others see it as simply retaining the knowledge of the fact that a jury can acquit even in the face of the judge’s instructions – which is well settled law. No acquittal can be overturned, even if the jury didn’t follow the law. The statute law may be as the judge describes it, but the judge has no power to dictate a verdict of "guilty" to the jury. If the judge requires an "oath" of the jurors which requires them to follow the law as given by the judge and to convict if the facts are proven, that oath is a false oath and is not enforceable.

As the Penn trial established hundreds of years ago, jurors may not be punished for their verdict. An attempt to punish a Colorado juror (Laura Kriho) with contempt of court for not being forthright during jury selection questioning (voir dire) ended when she was released by an appeals court ruling.

However, what has occasionally happened is that seated jurors have been dismissed for refusing to discuss a possibility of finding the defendant guilty, taking a clear jury nullification stance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in 1997, that if you insist that you will acquit regardless of the evidence, you can be removed for being "incapable" of being impartial. However, if you express "reasonable doubt" about the evidence, or the credibility of the witnesses and informants, or the credibility of the police, in addition to questioning whether the law itself is unjust, the judge cannot remove you from the jury, because they can't prove that you were determined to acquit regardless of the evidence. You might also suspect that evidence favorable to the defense has been withheld from the jury.

Jurors should be aware that if an acquittal is not possible, a hung jury is an acceptable outcome if a juror believes it necessary to prevent a conviction that would be unjust. A series of hung juries sends a signal to the legislature and to prosecutors that a significant portion of the population does not support that law. A mistake jurors sometimes make is to throw the prosecution a bone by convicting the defendant on a "lesser charge." (Prosecutors often multiply charges on the hope that something will stick, and to encourage a plea bargain.) That can cost the defendant years in prison if the judge so decides at sentencing. If justice requires it, nothing short of an acquittal or hung jury on all counts is appropriate. It can take intestinal fortitude to stand alone but a single juror can hang the jury.

The power of the jury to vote according to conscience and judge the merits, fairness, constitutionality and applicability of the law itself, is the only real, undiluted power the individual citizens have in our system of government. If we are engaged in a struggle for our fundamental rights against governments on all levels, and we are, then we must view our role as partisan guerrillas, and we have a powerful yet peaceful tool at our disposal. It has been hidden from us, and we are intimidated into thinking it is not our right, but if we will summon the courage to grasp it, we can use jury veto power, or jury nullification, as a weapon in defense of liberty.

Frankly, when awake and aware lovers of liberty choose not to serve on a jury, they are leaving the battlefield with Goliath still standing, jeering at them as they walk away. By not serving, they are denying to themselves one of the critical "boxes of freedom" and a chance to sling one right between Leviathan's eyes. If they don't take that shot, what is left? Not much. The ballot box is a joke, the soap box, while still there, is also under relentless attack, with mainstream media now nothing more than Mordor's mouthpiece. Why give up the jury box to the enemy? You know what comes next.

Serving on a jury should be viewed as a form of liberty guerrilla warfare in the current "soft" or cold war between the forces of liberty and the forces of tyranny. We'd better use it while we can before the war goes hot. Besides, It's good practice. We need to exercise our liberty muscles and our own cunning and resolve in the face of adversity. Step into the ring!

We must close with the enemy and battle him in every arena, including in the courtroom. Give Leviathan no safe place, no place to let down his guard, and instead take the fight straight to him in a place where he thought he was supreme and could not be defeated. One juror, just one, can shut down all the gears, all the levers, and all the apparatus of unjust power, and make it stop. One juror can throw a critical monkey-wrench into the works. And if enough jurors do that, the cursed machine will be prevented from working at all. Just you, a lone liberty guerrilla, in a peaceful, bloodless, mini-revolution of conscience, can drive a dagger into the soft underbelly of the beast and set someone free. Talk about focus of effort! There can be no better time spent in the struggle to directly stop oppression.

April 25, 2011

Don Doig [send him mail] is a co-founder and vice president of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Stewart Rhodes [send him mail] is an Army Airborne veteran, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, a 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, and is the founder and president of Oath Keepers.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

A Ray of Hope?

According to Double Tapper, an Israeli blogger I follow, one of Iran's nuclear facilities may actually be in worse condition than previously thought, due to the "STUXNET" virus. It also sounds as if their governmental systems have been attacked by another virus they've named "Stars". I'm so clueless when it comes to computer systems and how these viruses could shut down their nuclear power (is it actually a breeder reactor pfor roducing weapons-grade fuel?) capability, but I am overjoyed to hear that it is so. I wonder if their other facilities are still functional, insofar as producing weapons grade material?

And Double Tapper evidently read it at Pajamas Media:


Saturday, April 23, 2011

More on the Lincoln Myth

Great article on Lincoln and the War to Prevent Southern Secession, aka the War of Northern Aggression, aka the "Civil" War.

In the schools I attended in the Northeast, the "Civil War" was taught as having been waged to free the slaves. Lincoln was held up as one of our greatest presidents. The truth about the man and the war is quite different. Lincoln's own speeches and writings prove the man was a white supremacist, in favor of slavery, wanted the blacks to be shipped to the newly formed country of Liberia in Africa, and wanted to prevent the South from seceding over their unwillingness to pay the tariffs that were doubled when he came into office.

This author, Thomas J. Di Lorenzo, provides evidence for these assertions in his various articles. This current article, http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo206.html
speaks to the reasons Lincoln waged war upon the South. More on the Lincoln myth can be read at:
Di Lorenzo also has archives here: http://mises.org/daily/973

Friday, April 22, 2011

Jury Nullification works

A small case in New Hampshire, where a man was convicted of a misdemeanor that probably shouldn't even be a crime, but was saved - by a jury willing to nullify - from having his life ruined by several felony charges.


In my opinion, although I am not a marijuana supporter or user, he should have been allowed to slide on the misdemeanor as well (a $1000 fine for growing a plant? Unless he grew enough plants to sell or "distribute" marijuana, that seems excesive.) I'm surprised that he wasn't, given how liberal many of NH's residents seem to be.

Consider how powerful this process could be if it were applied to such things as forced payment of taxes (beyond what is truly necessary and Constitutional for the government to do, such as build and maintain roads, defend the country, etc.) Imagine a jury which refused to convict citizens harassed and penalized by the IRS. Or the EPA (large corporations already get a free pass on EPA violations, or pay a fine so small it is laughable.)

Just think: then we would have as much power as Attorney General Eric (The Red) Holder, who refuses to try, let alone convict, "his people", people of color, such as the New Black Panthers. If he can refuse to indict and try those he wants to support, so should we. Anyone who refused to buy a building permit, get an "environmental report" before digging a pond, or jump through the thousands and thousands of regulatory hoops required to start a business, large or small. (If a company pollutes, fine - try, convict, and punish them in addition to making them pay for the cleanup. But don't shut down a small business whose employee spilled a gallon of diesel fuel on the ground.)

Since it is obvious voting has not worked for us, that the courts will stop legislation we support and our state governors write and get approved in legal fashion, we should regain at least some control of those courts through nullification. That was the intent when this country was founded (Google "Peter Zenger" or read about him at FIJA.org), and we should reinstitute the widespread application of jury nullification.

Empowering the Caliphate

The muslims who wish to establish a Caliphate - world rule by Sharia, as was attempted once already but stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683 - are patient. They are more focused and motivated than the citizens of Europe and America, for they have not allowed themselves to deviate from their path of global conquest. Violent jihad is but one small part of the plan. The larger - and apparently more effective plan - being subversion of sovereign governments from within, along with "demographic jihad", jihad by birthrate. By pushing and getting the West to accept "multiculturalism" as a viable operating system, by installing those either controlled by them or sympathetic to their cause in important positions in various governments, they advance their plans in secret - yet in plain sight, if only the citizens of the West would pay attention.

They intend to take over the countries that host and support them with welfare and the "dole", being secretly polygamous even where it is not legal to do so, in the interest of increasing the population of muslims in those countries, displacing the original inhabitants numerically. As the birthrate of Europeans and Americans declines, the citizens who identify with, and support, their sovereign nationality will be displaced by an eventual muslim majority. Their intent is to use our democracy to kill democracy.

From a brief article on the involvement of George Soros - who continues to betray his Jewish heritage since he was a youth during WWII: [ "Nazi collaborator and Democratic financier George Soros regarding confiscating valuables from innocent Jews, and serving death camp warrants: 'If I didn't do it, someone else would.' " ]

"THIS IS THE PLAN: To Islamize everything from Morocco to Mongolia and China (included) using the code word "Democraticization" as a euphemism for Islamization. The modus operandi is public uprisings with young "freedom-seeking" activists appearing on the TV screens with Muslim Brotherhood (MB) behind the scene. The goal is to incite bloodshed which will sooner or later lead to Gaza-like popular elections won using Wahhabi money, the mobilization of mosque and tribal networks and the full support of the Obama administration. "

"I received the following remarks from a Turkish scholar:

'After Islamizing the secular/national Arab states, the "International Left-Islam Alliance" - together with Soros who is their chief global cooordinator and money transfer agent - intends to turn to the Turkic republics of Central Asia as their next target. These republics are considered ripe for "democratization" (read "Islamization") by this "International Alliance" and their pro-Muslim Brotherhood, Arabist segments that currently control not only US Near East policy but also the US Presidency. ' " [Emphasis mine.]


Please wake up, people. This is happening under your very noses, because you refuse to believe it could be happening. You have been misled by the media and our own governments - in the name of "multiculturalism" - to dismiss any notion that democracy could be used to destroy democracy. It is taking place right in front of you, while the "other hand" is distracting you with many other issues. Important issues to be sure, but not to the exclusion of understanding the threat posed by Islam.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

National Security Threat

This "Tax Day" cartoon isn't posted to remind us we have once more been forced to pay for things we don't want -including our own enslavement by our own government - but to inform us of another BOHICA moment where we are forced to grab our ankles once more.

This article from PJTV exposes the fact that our Department of Justice (sic), our Attorney General, Eric (The Red) Holder, and our own President, B. Hussein Obama, are refusing to prosecute not just Eric's "people" (those of African descent) as in the Black Panther slam-dunk case that was dropped upon his orders, but now it appears they may be refusing to prosecute terrorism supporting individuals and organizations, such as CAIR.

Read it and weep. Or read it and do something, if only to write/ to/email your representatives and ask WTF!!?


Friday, April 15, 2011

Obama: Hypocrite-in-Chief

Here is an article from Linda Chavez detailing Obama's hypocrisy in talking about removing itemized deductions by the "rich" - anyone making over $250,000 per his own definition - while taking massive deductions on his annual $5,000,000 income. He is slime, an example of the worst in behavior of a group (politicians) already known for morals that would make a child molester appear angelic. If this doesn't make your blood boil, you must be a self-deluded liberal. I can't imagine even a liberal with any claim to moral principles reading this and not understanding how ethically bankrupt is B. Hussein Obama.

"When the president voluntarily gives up his deductions and asks his wealthy donors to do the same, he'll have some moral authority to argue, as he tried to in his speech, that he wants a tax code that "is fair and simple -- so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford." Until then, spare us the hypocrisy, Mr. President."


Thursday, April 14, 2011

Atlas Shrugged, the movie

Cal Thomas writes of the newly released movie version of Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. He relates it to or current economic and political situation, and the mirroring of how our current administration treats individual initiative and individual rights.

"In an age when overspending, overreaching, higher-taxing and overregulating government increasingly strangles the private sector, robbing us of our liberties and transforming the country into the model of a socialist state, Rand's story reminds us how far ahead of her time she was and just how dangerous a time we live in now."


Trumping the rhetoric of "civility"

Along the lines of the Left's hijacking of the term "civility" is the fact that Republicans (with the exception of Joe Hill) have refused to call Barack Hussein Obama on his lies and slander. Arnold Ahlert, an excellent political commentator, writes about Donald Trump's debate with Mitt Romney, one of the leading RINO contenders for the 2012 Republican candidacy for President. Ahlert goes on to explain how speaking plainly about Obama puts Trump, who really isn't "Presidential" material, far ahead of the crowd of contenders for the Republican nomination for 2012. He then speaks of the need for any nominee to confront Obama on his policies, his lack of direction, his obvious hypocrisy on all of the stances he has taken about undeclared wars, debt ceilings, deficit spending, etc.

Mention of Donald Trump is merely the vehicle he uses to introduce the topic of how to run against B. Hussein Obama. Well worth the reading.

"President Obama, who has told his followers "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" on one occasion, and "we're going to punish our enemies" on another, is hardly deserving of such deferential treatment. This is what Mr. Trump intuitively understands. It is about time other Republicans learned that lesson as well. 2012 is one of the most critical elections in memory, and allowing Democrats and/or their media cheerleaders to frame the parameters of "acceptable" rhetoric is a fool's errand. The best defense is a good offense. Any Republican presidential candidate incapable of making the president defend his policies is no candidate at all."


The evolution of a viewpoint

A liberal in my youth (recall the quote attributed to Winston Churchill: " If you are twenty, and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are forty, and not a conservative, you have no brain"), I have become quite conservative in my later years. As a "recovering Catholic", I have resisted accepting the Catholic/Christian view of abortion as the taking of a human life. I lately find myself coming more and more to thinking it may indeed be so, although I must be honest and say I don't quite "feel" the truth of that yet.

What I do believe, however, is that those who perform abortions have indeed murdered many viable, living newborn babies - possibly millions, when you consider there have been over 50 million abortions performed in this country since 1973 (per the article I will soon post) . I'm not talking simply about "late term" abortions, but the many times an aborted infant is actually delivered alive and able to breathe on its own. Gosnell, the Butcher of Philadelphia, is believed to have killed a number of these infants with a pair of scissors. Some call him "doctor". I don't.

So, while I am still undecided about incomplete fetuses, those which don't yet have a developed brain or spinal cord, fetuses in the early stages of gestation or due to be born anencephalic (without a brain), I find that I am against late term abortions, especially where the fetus - child - might survive once removed from the womb.

Here is a good article about a doctor who was a staunch supporter of abortion rights, even working tirelessly for a political organization supporting abortion rights, but who had an epiphany which led him to believe he was wrong, that abortion was in fact wrong. Although it doesn't fully explain the actual knowledge that changed his mind and his heart on this subject, it does demonstrate his acceptance of error here: "I have such heavy moral baggage to drag into the next world." Read it, if you would.


Ann Coulter on Planned Parenthood

Ann talks about how Planned Parenthood is one of the country's largest single providers of abortions, and how the Democrats will roll over before allowing any "harm" to come to an agency they see as sacrosanct. They deny that providing abortions is its main business, claiming women go there for pre-natal checks, and adoption referrals, along with - get this - cholesterol checks.

"But according to Planned Parenthood itself, when it comes to services for pregnant women, abortion constituted 97.6 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provided in 2009. Only 2.4 percent of the organization's services for pregnant women involved prenatal care or adoption referrals.

Again, according to its own reports, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions in 2009 -- or more than a quarter of all abortions in the entire country. It receives about 37 percent of its total revenue from performing abortions. "

Read it all. It's brief, but telling: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter041411.php3