Originally posted from 10-26-03 to 11-02-03
Jury Nullification Before U.S. Supreme Court
by Rex Curry, Attorney at Law

Jury nullification is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument that jurors should be able to reject vice laws and acquit is in a new Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Petition also argues various reasons why vice laws are unconstitutional. The nullification arguments and the entire brief can be viewed at http://rexcurry.net.

As an attorney and a libertarian I am urging the nation's highest court to recognize jury nullification, also known as jury pardon and jury veto. During my legal career, I have often been asked if jurors can overturn bad laws. The askers fear compulsory jury duty to convict defendants accused of vices (gambling, prostitution, drugs) or other non-violent charges (tax non-payment, gun possession).

The fear has risen because many non-violent consensual acts now carry mandatory sentences of 10 years and even life in prison. Jurors are not told that their verdict will result in a non-violent defendant with no prior record going to prison for a decade or more. The jurors won't know what they have done and if they find out, then they might become ill.

Most courts hold that jurors do not have the right to acquit in defiance of the law, though courts recognize that jurors have the power to do so, and that nothing can be done about jury nullification when it happens. In history, jury veto has been used for acquittals against charges involving miscegenation, slavery, etc.

For more information on jury nullification, jury veto, and jury pardon see:

http://members.ij.net/rex/fija.html

for more ideas on liberty and libertarianism see

http://members.ij.net/rex
http://rexcurry.net

Originally posted from 10-21-03 to 10-26-03
In Defense of Rush
by Lewis J. Goldberg

I have editorialised against Rush in the past - for the gaping holes in his knowledge of American history, particularly as regards the late War of Northern Aggression. The only reason Rush can say that he's right ninety-whatever percent of the time is that he generally keeps his trap shut about St. Abe and his angels of death. However, with the recent exposure of his addiction to painkillers, I find it necessary to 'rush' to his defense.

About a year and a half ago, I had a minor surgery that laid me on my back for a week. For as small as the incision was, it hurt like I had my legs amputated - from the waist- down. Doctor prescribed the same Oxycotin that Rush was taking for his spinal troubles - pain the likes of which I cannot fathom.

Let me tell you - that Oxycotin, whatever it is, it's got it goin' on. It makes you feel real good. After the worst of my pain wore off, I could tell that it was addictive. Now, I realise that medicines affect people in different ways, and so one man may be able to take Oxycotin for a week and lay it down afterward like it was a jar of black licorice. If I had a more major surgery that required me to take Oxycotin longer than the week that I did, I think I might have been hooked, as well. As it was, I almost felt like I needed a rehab.

Rush has been labeled by his detractors as a hypocrite, in that over the years he has been critical of the plight of drug addicts. The big difference in Rush's case is that one's doctor does not prescribe heroin, LSD, or crack-cocaine - drugs which have an even stronger addictive quality to a wider variety of people. Rush went to a trusted physician - a member of the American Medical Establishment - and the man said, "Here, Mr. Limbaugh, I - a licensed physician of the State of Florida (or whatever) - give you Oxycotin, because I think you need it." Addicts of illegal drugs - at some point - make a decision to illegally aquire an illegal drug, which they know (unless they've had their head in a box all their life) is addictive, and that they will have to continue to engage in illegal activity to support their habit. Rush, like me, followed doctor's orders and took the drug.

Did Rush break the law in taking Oxycotin after his prescription ran out? Indeed - yet they are likely some of the same laws that prevent me trying my own daughter's allergy medication (which I may have done, but I'm not telling). And if I did, maybe I could occupy the cell next door to 'el Rushbo.' It would be great conversation, but I'd miss my family. Though drug addiction is a tragedy any way you look at it, common sense forces us to look at the fact that if everyone who ever got addicted to prescription drugs were imprisoned, we'd have to have a jail the size of Vermont to put them in.

Oxycotin works, and it works well. It does exactly what it was designed to do in the situations for which it's meant to be taken, and is worth the money one pays for it. Doctors, however, can take the Rush incident as a wakeup call to track their patients' use of Oxycotin more closely to help prevent such disasters from befalling others. My own doctor acted like he never heard of anyone becoming addicted to Oxycotin, though I was able to read about Oxycotin addiction freely on the Internet.

In the final analysis, Rush made a big mistake, and I am sure he realises that now. He has not squirmed and tried to lawyer his way out of all this - he's taking his treatment like a man. Let's back off and let him get his rehab done - there's plenty of time for attack dogs later.

Originally posted from 10-12-03 to 10-21-03
It's Your Choice
by N. Scott Mills

The freedom to choose is one of the only real freedoms you have, and the most important freedom you have. You should not let other people, or the government, or the collective choose for you. You should choose for yourself. You have the right of free will (self-determination). 

The government enforces - or forces - its choices upon you, by making you pay taxes. Whether it's property taxes, or income taxes, or a sales tax, or gas taxes, you have no choice. Then it chooses how to spend your money.  

It enforces - or forces - its compassion, or its laws, or its regulations, and morality upon you. You are not free to choose how you will spend your money for yourself, or what moral choices you should make for yourself.  The government enforces it upon you - or forces you - to choose what compassion and morality they decide is for your own good, or the good of the collective.

You should be free choose of your own free will to wear a seat belt, to choose to wear it for your own safety and good. But instead they force that choice upon you. They force you to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, instead of letting you choose it for yourself. They force you not to take illegal drugs, they force you not to involve yourself with prostitutionm and they force you into the so-called compassion of their social programs.  

You should be free to choose for yourself your own charity and compassion for others, and free to choose what you want to do for your own personal safety. It does your soul no good for the government to force or enforce its choices upon you.

You should choose for yourself, and take the responsibility unto yourself through your own personal choices, how you should live your life. All you have is your life and how you choose to live it, and the choices that you make is what makes you the individual that you are, not what the government chooses for you.  

When you can no longer choose for yourself, but the government chooses for you by enforcing its will upon you for your own good and the good of the collective, you are no longer free, but living under tyranny and slavery. The government should not enforce its morality and compassion upon you. It should protect your rights and freedoms, especially your right to live free from harm for yourself and your property.  

You have to respect other peoples' rights and freedoms to be individual and free, especially the right to live free from harm. You have to choose for yourself, to be true to yourself, to be individual and free. You need to be able to choose your own morality and compassion, and to choose that which you think is best for you and your body, not have it enforced or forced upon you by government. You should have the right of self-determination over your own body, mind, and soul, and to be a free, sovereign, autonomous individual.

We have to choose for ourselves, to be the best of ourselves we can be. That is the only way we can be individual and free.

Originally posted from 09-21-03 to 09-28-03
The Perfect Storm
by R.A. Hawkins
 
Several years ago my wife and I got to experience the plebian version of honesty first hand. We had a hurricane in our area, and to me it had the effect of a winnowing fan. It isn’t that I got any real surprises it was just that the suspicions I had about certain types of people were brought into the open by this storm. To me it was the perfect storm.
 
During that hurricane my oldest son and daughter went to stay at a friends house to ride the storm out. During the night somebody got into someone’s pocket and stole eighty or so dollars. We got a call a few days later by one of the kids and it turned out my son had a feeling he knew exactly who had committed this breach of friendship. He went and talked to the guy for a little bit and got him to fess up to it and return what was left of the money (about $30.00 or so). What followed after that was shocking to both of us. In a way I was grateful for the opportunity provided by the perfect storm given birth by the hurricane. There was an opportunity to teach my own kids in all of this. They learned the difference between two completely separate cultures in this world and I’m glad for it.
 
Now for the secondary storm which was the most powerful of all. The moment the money was returned with a promise of later repayment of the balance, it was over. I asked my kids what had been done after the money was returned. My son told me “Nothing” because it was now over because nobody cared about it anymore. Where did he get that? He got it from the adults who were the parents of both the thief and the victim. He also got it from the parents of the other kids who were present for the rather sordid ordeal. One of the parents called to thank us for letting our son work it all out and my wife asked this parent if they even cared who it was who had committed this breach of trust. The answer was appalling. “No, he got his money back so it is over.” My wife asked if it bothered them that one of their kids friends was a thief. None of the parents talked to afterwards cared who had done it. The money had been returned. It was over and the money was all that mattered. There were eight kids present for this event. Two of them understood what had happened and the rest of them to all accounts are lost to this society. The two that understood the reality of the incident are my kids. The others? They are to this day pursuing foolishness and guilt free dishonesty in its many liberal and diverse forms, both legal and illegal.
 
What, to the dull of wit, was a tempest in a teapot was to me the exposure of a rift between two completely different worlds. Shouting across the chasm which had opened for all to see brought not even an echo, just blank looks. Not one of those people could see what they allowed in their midst because of the discomfort they shunned by refusing to deal with an obvious fact. They will forever be surrounding themselves with those who, like themselves, don’t understand the difference between right and wrong. Because of that they will for their entire lives be facing the same problems over and over again. They say there are no such things as victims in the world, only volunteers. In this case that is quite true.
 
What does this have to do with politics? Mention Reagan around any one of these people and their little faces twist up with a hatred that is almost shocking. Say something about Clinton that isn’t positive and they will tell you what a great job he did. Ask them to name one thing he accomplished and they give you the same blank stares they gave across that chasm that opened up those days after the perfect storm. They have no answer for that question. You’re now asking them to be specific and that requires intelligent thinking and critical reasoning skills. Leftism requires a large amount of contemptible theft and thoughtless behavior. It requires one to willingly take from those that work and give to those that won’t. It also requires the politicians to keep the ignoble right where they are. The honest ignoble or socialist is as common as the unicorn these days. They also represent the exact opposite too. The socialist represents willful slavery, theft, the hill of skulls in Cambodia, the death camps (Laogis) in China, the gulags in Russia, willful ignorance and people of the Clintons ilk. The unicorn represents immortality of the human soul and all that is good.
 
How did it come to this? We quit teaching silly little things like morals. The ignoble now learn from the ignoble. Morals aren’t silly at all and are the very underpinnings of our society. Read a story in school that is about something of value these days and the teacher will be trashed for being backwards and biased by a group of people who are masters at creating a tempest in a teapot. Too many people take the low road because they feel it’s easier. They then wonder why things fall apart around them continuously. They fall prey to the tempest in the teapot and summon through inaction and thoughtlessness a most destructive storm.
 
(c) 2003 R.A. Hawkins
 
Comments are always welcome. Please send them to ironwyng@aol.com .
 
R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva", available through http://www.amazon.com/. Visit http://www.entropical-paradise.com/ --Entropical Paradise - The Home of R.A. Hawkins for more commentaries and editorials by R.A. Hawkins.

Originally posted from 08-03-03 to 08-10-03
What’s Next for IT?
by Bill Brennick
 
So far, the "Information Technology" sector has definitely thrown people like me, Network Engineers, a major monkey wrench in the engine. The US Department of Labor has reported that the unemployment level in the United States is reaching disturbing proportions.
 
Hundreds of thousands of computer/network people are still suffering from the job market "rug" being pulled out from under them. Back in the 90's (a.k.a. the "dot com era"), network engineers had to do everything in their power to be able to manage all the recruiter firm relationships, unsolicited employment marketing emails, interviews, résumés, and cover letters, and still retain the ability to stay on the "cutting edge of technology". Work was everywhere, and time-management was probably one of the hardest things to maintain in the process of trying to work in the Information Technology sector. I practically had to beat headhunters off my front doorstep and, at the same time, could "pick and choose" the best networking position available. Life was grand.
 
Now, in the "Post 9/11, Post Iraq-war" era, everything has changed. The unemployment rate has been increasing, there are fewer technology-related jobs, the pay scales have slipped a few slots down, and the employment recruiters have developed an Orwellian method of "a wolf in sheep clothing" tactic towards network engineers and developers. For example, 10 years ago, recruiting firms usually didn’t give a hoot about the status of your credit. Now, with most positions available in the IT industry these days, you will have your credit report considered before you get a hiring letter. I can hear it from here, ten years from now:“Oh, excuse me Mr. Brennick, it appears you have less than $1.4 million dollars in your bank account. I’m sorry, I’m afraid we can not consider you for this position.” What’s next for IT?
 
It’s interesting too, because I also remember what the medical-field was like ten years ago. There was nowhere near the number of medical jobs then compared to the way it is now. How did the medical field become so in demand, especially when insurance rates are flying off the charts, more medical law-suits are coming into question, and the in the overall failing economy?
 
In addition, with many of the corporations in major metropolitan cities, there has been a substantial increase in the hiring of "Fast Track Visa" people from abroad. This is yet another piece to the large Information Technology employment puzzle. How many more jobs are going to be taken away from the American people? Good ‘ol George W. Bush (a.k.a. Dubya) hasn’t really done a whole helluva lot for the IT industry.
 
I once got really frustrated when I kept hearing about all the overseas outsourcing the companies were doing, and I simply went to one of the "Big Five" employment websites to see what would happen if I duplicated my résumé with the exception of the name. I copied my résumé, word for word, and then changed the name on the account to something like "Ali Ah Zah". Before I go on to the effects of what happened in the experiment, let’s look at the track record of my regular/official résumé. How many phone calls have I gotten in the last six months from a recruiter or company? Not a one. Now, what happened when I changed my name? Within two business days, I received ten phone calls from ten different recruiter-firms asking me if I was a) on a work visa, and b) if I was interested in their positions - plus a signing bonus. I fell back in my computer chair, sighed, and said to myself, “You’ve got to be kidding me.” What’s next for IT?
 
It was right after that that I started researching into the employment trends around the country, and the patterns of people coming to the United States with work visas. I read this article (October 15, 2002) written by Margaret Quan from EE Times and had to stop and think when I read:

Bryant said she is not sure if the drop in unemployment rates is an aberration or a trend.

"Despite the hopeful talk about the recession being over, US engineers and computer scientists aren't out of the woods yet, not by a long shot," she said, noting that the fourth quarter is "always a prime time for job cuts."

It certainly didn’t make me feel any better. I just kept asking myself, "What’s next for IT?"

Well, it was the wrong thing to ask myself. Why? Because each time I’ve asked myself that question, two more "Bad IT Vibes" came barreling down on me. One was when I found out that the Microsoft certifications "expired" after a set amount of time (i.e. 6-months, a year). I wasn’t pleased. Thousands and thousands of dollars spent on classes and tests, only to find out that you are not a "good fit" for some half-ass Administration position, or to have some 21-year-old recruiter tell me that, because my certifications are over a year old that I am "outdated". Are they for real?
 
My father used to be an (old school) Industrial Engineer. During the 15+ years he was in that profession, he suggested to me from time to time that I get into Industrial Engineering. Why? Because he used to tell me, “Once you’re in, you’re in.”
I certainly know, in this day and age, that really doesn’t work unless you are talking about a union job. Which leads me to ask: Why is there no established "National Information Technologists" union. Why is there no established "National Routers & Switchers" union? I believe it should stop being talk and theory, and start getting some of the "Big Boys" together (i.e. Cisco, Sun Microsystems, Nortel, RedHat Linux, Lucent, and US Representative Ron Paul of Texas) and see if we can get them to throw the network engineers and software-developers a bone and help them form a union. The electricians, plumbers, and carpenters have been doing it for years. Why can’t we? Anyway, it's food for thought.
 
Now back to the impending doom of network engineers' careers...
 
Another issue the guys in Washington are trying to push through is the ongoing "Congressional Calls For More Background Checks" across the board. Now keep in mind, I am very supportive of the upped national security around the country. I just have a problem with the fact that if companies do get the power from the government, across the country, potential employers can search my credit reports and my purchasing trends legally. That is no one's business as far as I’m concerned, and what does that have to do with what I know about writing router-scripts? It doesn’t make a lick of difference to me or to many other Server-Administrators and LAN/WAN Engineers. We just want our jobs back. The country is not going to have a massive rebound in IT until the government can limit and restrict the out-of-country work visa people employed in the United States.
 
I could go on for hours, but there are times I just stand back and say, “Oh well, so much for that career. What’s next for IT?”
 
I’ve read a lot about the psychological effects of people whose careers - like mine - have virtually disappeared after 9/11, but I manage. From time to time, more so just to humor myself, I follow up with the recruiting firms I’ve been dealing with for years. They usually give me the same gloom and doom song. I don’t know. It doesn’t really bother me. I figure it this way. The one thing I’ve gotten out of all of this is the ability to become the freelance journalist I am with all my "free time". Now I just have to turn it into a career. :-)

Originally posted from 07-27-03 to 08-03-03
Who Let Loose the Clowns of Plunder?
by R.A. Hawkins
 
During the late sixties a debate began regarding the allowing of doctors and lawyers to advertise. I can’t really see where much harm has come from doctors being allowed to advertise, but the lawyers?! People keep complaining about rising prices and don’t seem to understand why they keep going up. A hidden cost has been added to all products under the sun in order to defray the cost of now necessary insurance to cover legal fees in case of a lawsuit. It seems these days that you can’t do anything without risking a lawsuit by someone you’ve never even met. Without going into specifics, let me give you a few examples you may not have heard of in the area of stupid lawsuits.
 
One prime Darwinian example was that of two neighbors who between the two of them neither had a hedge trimmer, nor apparently the time to buy one. These two icons of IQ decided to use a rotary mower, running that sucker down the hedge with one person on either side of the hedge holding their side up over the hedge to trim it level. Unfortunately one of them tripped and got eaten up by more than a serious case of The Stupids. They sued the lawnmower manufacturer for not putting a label on the mower stating clearly that it isn’t to be used as a hedge trimmer. Because this is clearly a no-brainer, except for some people, I didn’t bother to follow the rest of the proceedings to see how it eventually turned out, but I can all too well imagine.
 
There were a few particularly stupid cases involving people committing illegal acts who successfully sued their intended victims because of personal injury or trauma to themselves during the commission of the crime. One woman tripped over her own out of control child and successfully sued the owner of the store she was shopping in for her injuries. Then there was that delightful woman who slipped in a puddle of soft drink on the floor of a fast food restaurant and successfully sued the restaurant, even though the drink she slipped in was the one she had just thrown at her boyfriend during an argument.
 
As if the above situations aren’t bad enough, the Bar has managed to lower the bar even further over the years. These days you can find yourself the victim of a sexual harassment case for having done nothing, literally. I was at a seminar on this exact subject once and was quite amused to discover the predicament we all find ourselves in. It was explained that even ogling a member of the opposite sex could get you involved in a harassment suit. One of the poor attendees stood up to ask a question or two. His countenance was graced with that deer-in-the-headlights look after he received the answer to his questions. His first question was “How do we avoid getting caught up in one of these law suits. Does looking away from a certain person who might be likely to try this protect you?” The facilitator calmly explained that doing that could get him in more trouble because he is now giving that person discriminatory treatment. He then asked how best to handle people who are likely to pull this kind of a lawsuit. The answer was “Treat them like anyone else.” The poor guy just sat down shaking his head. Immediately prior to all of that the facilitator had explained that not everyone is the same and harassment means different things to different people. You can see the dilemma, I’m sure.
 
Of course not all harassment or discrimination cases are frivolous. However enough of them are that we need a clear definition of what each and everything means legally. Today simply telling someone you don’t want them around because they have sued other people for stupid things can get you sued for hurting their feelings, and making them feel diminished.
 
One can’t help but wonder how people can allow these ridiculous sums of money to be handed out to people who are clearly a few tacos short of a full combo plate, lazy, unwilling to work and blaming someone else for their errors. Personal responsibility, and the understanding thereof, is the root of all of this. It seems that we also have a lot of people on juries who haven’t a clue as to what that is.
 
The Founding Fathers of this country warned about the social levelers and the damage they can do to a society. The social levelers are very much at work in our society right now and we know who unleashed these clowns of plunder.
 
Ayn Rand referred to the Bolshevik Revolution as the ‘Idiot’s Revolution’, and this is no different in any way. Here we have a collection of suited and tied barbarians who have the power to strip the truly productive in our society of what they’ve earned, in favor of a collection of people who tend to pour coffee in their own laps and go nuts. Quite clearly we have a bunch of people getting ruined economically by the lowest common denominator in our society.
 
Bastiat’s essay ‘The Law’ has quite a bit to say about legalized plunder, although he was referring to taxes. Here we have something far more insidious than a simple tax. Here we have legalized plunder that has been taken to new extremes. One of the largest groups of donors to the liberal cause is trial lawyers. The trial lawyers are robbing Peter to pay Paul because they know they can continue to count on Paul’s support.
 
Oh, by the way, the debate regarding the allowing of lawyers to advertise was started by the Democrats. They were the ones who opened the flood gates for all of this legal plundering of your pocketbook. Remember that during the next election!
 
Comments are always welcome. Please send them to ironwyng@aol.com.
 
R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva", available through www.amazon.com. Visit http://www.entropical-paradise.com/ --Entropical Paradise - The Home of R.A. Hawkins for more commentaries and editorials by R.A. Hawkins.
 
(c) 2003 R.A. Hawkins 

Originally posted from 07-20-03 to 07-27-03
Note to Sen. Durbin: Stay Away From My Vitamins!
by Mike Ferguson

Is there no end to the details of our personal lives that Democrats wish to regulate? Apparently, as evidenced in a little-known bill pending in the United States Senate, the answer is no. There is no limit to the level of control the government wants over us.

Senate Bill 722, introduced by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D) and co-sponsored by Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York (D), Diane Feinstein of California (D) and Hillary Clinton of New York (D), is misleadingly named the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003". In reality, this bill has the potential to harm the lives and health of millions of Americans as it delivers a significant blow to our personal freedom.

SB 722 would essentially re-classify dietary and nutritional supplements into the same category the government puts prescription drugs in. Currently, nutritional supplements, like vitamins, weight loss pills and protein shakes, are treated the way most foods are treated for regulatory purposes. This bill would add all the same expenses of overcoming oppressive regulatory burdens that pharmaceutical companies face now. In all likelihood, it would drive several nutrition manufacturers (which are all far smaller than most drug companies) out of business, it would make nutritional supplements more expensive and put many products out of reach of lower-income Americans.

I could use this article to argue in favor of the many health benefits of nutritional supplements like creatine, vitamins and even Ephedra when used according to the directions. These benefits are documented many times over in scientific research.

I could use this article to point out the Senators' stunning hypocrisy in attempting to regulate and put out of reach the very products that provide millions with the ability to prevent health problems. Considering the government's own estimates that up to 15% of the United States Gross Domestic Product is now spent on health care, denying access to nutritional supplements that help prevent health problems and expenses is nothing short of financial oppression.

I could use this article to argue that the nutritional supplement industry is a prime example of the free market working the way libertarians claim it does. Supplement consumers have more access to scientific data on the largely unregulated products they buy than even prescritption drug consumers have because supplement manufacturers must provide that information up front and openly in order to succeed in a highly competitive market. Manufacturers are forced to prove both the safety and effectiveness to consumers, who have access to up to date research in publications like Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Muscle and Fitness and Muscle and Fitness for Her. Consumers of this industry are not reliant on trusting someone else to approve a product, they get to research and approve it for themselves with great success.

I could use this article to argue all those points, but I will not. This debate is about personal freedom and the role of the government when it comes to our health care decisions. Senators Durbin, Schumer, Feinstein and Clinton, along with anyone who decides to support SB 722, obviously feel that we need the government to protect us from ourselves. This debate is, or should be, about individual liberty: the ability for us to control our own decisions about our lives. I can say with all confidence that I am more capable of making competent decisions for my own heath than Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton. The frightening aspect of SB 722 is the fact that I may not have that right at some point.

Clearly, there is no Constitutional authority of the government to regulate our individual health decisions.  Despite the claims of those who support SB 722, this effort is not about making nutritional products safer, it is not about the supplement manufacturers, it is about limiting the choices and freedoms of Americans. It is about the government manipulating a legal and beneficial industry and forcing its products to be placed out of reach of many Americans.

There is also no moral authority for the government to tell me what I may or may not consume to benefit my own health. When they restrict and regulate products, especially those like health supplements, they are directly reducing my choices and denying me the right to assume responsibility for my life. I simply do not need the government to protect me from my own decisions. My health decisions are none of the government's business.

Ironically, Durbin himself acknowledges the benefits of nutritional supplements. In his press release that announced the introduction of SB 722, Durbin states "Millions of Americans take dietary supplements every day without any ill effects; in fact, some dietary supplements provide consumers with significant health benefits. However, ...(a) small number of products - primarily stimulants and steroids masquerading as herbal compounds - have proven lethal to consumers."

In other words, millions of people benefit from the products offered by the nutritional supplement marketplace but a "small number of products" are questioned, so all must now be regulated.  By the way, to claim that any nutritional supplement is "proven lethal to consumers" is an outright lie by the Senator. When used improperly, virtually any product can cause serious harm or death. No manufacturer can protect people from their own poor decisions. Why then do people like Durbin, Schumer, Feinstein and Clinton wish to deny the millions of Americans they readily admit use and benefit from supplements the right to choose their own nutrition?

In order to protect the few who may suffer adverse effects from the misuse of nutritional products, SB 722 would restrict access to these products for everyone. Pharmaceutical companies currently spend up to $500,000 and up to a decade just to get government permission to offer drugs that their scientific research has already shown effective to treat health problems. How many people die or suffer each year while those products are under the scrutiny of government bureaucrats and how much more expensive are those products due to the added cost of regulation? We may never know.

Nutritional supplements offer what the Food and Drug Administration claims to want for Americans: preventative health care.  Recently, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson publicly made the case for Americans to take better care of ourselves now in order to avoid health problems and costs in the future. Both our ability and our right to do just that will be severely compromised, if not outright eliminated, if SB 722 becomes law.

Here is what Republicans and Democrats seemingly fail to understand: controlling my own health care decisions is not a privilege to be granted and approved by government, it is my individual right in a free society. SB 722 is yet another attempt to take away more of our personal freedom. This impacts everyone, even those who choose not to consume nutritional supplements, because of the basic concept behind this effort. That concept is that government knows what is best for us, we are not capable of making our own personal decisions and that government has the right to take that freedom away at any time. What is next? Government control of our ability to eat foods that are deemed too unhealthy?

Supplements, food and safety are not the issues. Personal freedom is the issue. The main question in this debate should be who has control over your personal health, you or the government? If the government succeeds in taking away your freedom to choose what to eat and which vitamins and other nutritional products you can use, what part of your life won't the government control "for your own good"?

President Bush has shown time and again his undying faith in big, intrusive government and his hostility towards the Constitution and individual liberty. It is reasonable to think that he will sign SB 722 if it reaches his desk.

Help protect your personal freedom by contacting your Senators today and demand that they oppose SB 722. Your freedom depends on it.


Originally posted from 07-06-03 to 07-13-03
Uncivil War
by R A. Hawkins
 
I was born, and attempted to grow up, in Colorado. If the truth be told I’m still working on that process. To this day I’ll still pick up my electric guitar and much to my tolerant wife’s dismay, crank up a DVD and my amp to play along with some of the rock guitarist hall of famers. I have gone windsurfing in hurricanes and done many other totally insane things. I am a Southerner now, by the way, and so are all of my military children. Unlike my children who were fortunate enough to actually be born here I had to move to become a Southerner. They say home is where the heart is and my heart is in the South and has been for twenty-five years now.
 
When I moved down here my neighbors had a lot of fun with me. Shortly after our arrival, we were having one of those Norman Rockwell weekends where we made ice cream with the neighbors, sitting outside listening to June bugs and crickets, and all that goes with that. A discussion started regarding yours truly. After much deliberation it was determined that I might be ‘okay’ since I’m technically a Westerner and not a true Yank. I confessed that I had lived on both the East and West coast for a few years each and the discussion was renewed. I suspect there was some concern that I might have been tainted or something by my time in the East. That was quite some time ago however, and I’ve stayed here with no serious intention of leaving whatsoever.
 
Through the years we have endured quite a bit and at times considered leaving. The reasons we considered leaving weren’t Southern reasons however. What was going wrong here was happening everywhere. Our School District used to be one of the best and that being the case they decided to mess with it. They got rid of memorizing math tables and phonics, introducing touch point math and sight reading, etc. You get the picture. If it was something that had worked for years they decided to try something new and stupid. The bunch responsible for that has since been run out of town on a rail for the most part and the rest have been sufficiently cowed into acting like real educators instead of facilitators in a loony bin. I suspect the remaining few who still want to be facilitators will leave eventually. What I’m talking about was the encroachment of liberal ideology into the school. Why did we stay? Well there really wasn’t anywhere else to run to. The kids survived it even though they got a few bumps and scrapes.
 
I do enjoy listening to those on the left coast bashing Southerners these days. I believe much of it is born out of a jealousy. Here in the South you find most of the military people or future military people. Those folks are great. Like most Southerners they don’t mince words and really don’t like it when somebody half states their position. It is viewed as dishonest and, more importantly, cowardly. There are some discussions that get a little heated but most of the time everything ends up with each respecting the other for being man enough to act like an opinionated idiot and not back down. Or shall I say agreeing to disagree. That is something I haven’t found very often on the two left coasts. There you either agree that abortion is okay as birth control but defending ones own life isn’t, or you’re scorned and reviled. I truly think a lot of those people should have swastikas centered in lavender lambdas tattooed on their foreheads. I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when they call me a fascist or McCarthy clone.
 
I’m not saying we don’t have a few problem people here because we obviously do. But let’s list and remember a few of those who trash the South regularly. We have an ex-Arkansan carpetbagger Senator in New York and her icon of virtue husband, an anti gun with a conceal carry license Senator in California known to me as Frankfeinstein, and Irreverent Jackson who has no church I have ever heard of and makes a living by shaking down honest businessmen for donations, and the list goes on and on. What I’ve noticed about just about all of them is a Socialist ideology and a say one thing but do another viewpoint. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Don’t say you weren’t warned. They have even invented a new Constitutional ‘Right’. It is the right to not have your feelings hurt. The leftists have a veritable army of lawyers to enforce their new right by suing people. They claim to support First Amendment rights but they only support their own. And they only care when their feelings are hurt.
 
While I was living in the North I noticed a few things. There is a lot of racism there but it is hidden. I prefer it in the South because if there is any racism it is out in the open. One of the most amazing things created by the radical leftists is the welfare state. It is quite honestly a paid electorate and they earn their money by voting the money changers into office over and over again. A system has been created which keeps them in the position they are in. The moment they are ready to get off of the system or make that move they find their benefits cut so it’s back to ‘the system’. The real shocker is that if you talk to some of the more radical people in that system, they blame the conservatives for the entire thing. I have noticed that the leftist media always shows us a minority family when they speak of welfare. The last time I checked nearly eighty-five percent of the people in the welfare system were white. I just thought I’d throw in that example of the hidden racism of the leftist elite.
 
Me? I plan on staying here for good, or at least until the rest of the country straightens out. It appears as though some of the states are finally beginning to wake up. I have to thank the Clintons for having done that. They represent quite nicely the pinnacle of radical liberalism in all of its arrogance and folly. They talked about doing a lot of things but accomplished nothing positive. After having seen the Clintons version of child protection in Texas I’m glad we didn’t get subjected to their medical plan.
 
I hear a lot of talk about secession and I’m glad the talk isn’t serious. I think the better idea would be to force the fifth column communists into a few specific states and then throw them out. Why should we secede when they are the ones wrecking everything? Why don’t we force them into a dialogue of seceding? All we have to do is continue to stand up to them and make them want to leave. I can assure them that there will be no war of Southern aggression. Most of us will be perfectly happy to see them go.
 
(c) 2003 R.A. Hawkins     
 
Comments are always welcome. Please send them to ironwyng@aol.com.

R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva".  He was born in Aurora, Colorado and grew up in Littleton, Colorado. He has been married for twenty-five years, and worked for the same Aerospace Company for twenty-six. His primary interests over the years have been his family, sociology, mastering his survival skills, windsurfing, music, politics, raising wolves, art of all types, mycology, perma-culture, archeological anomalies, geo-politics and staying gainfully employed; not necessarily in that order. He often describes himself as a separate subspecies of human - 'Eclecticus-Iconoclastimus'. His primary driving force is his unwavering belief that as sovereign citizens we are each responsible not only for our own beliefs and actions, but where those beliefs and actions take us in life:  That the truly intelligent person learns to determine what that consequence might be and then acts accordingly. Our individual actions always affect far more than we can imagine.

Originally posted from 06-29-03 to 07-06-03
Good Parents: Don't Kid Yourselves
by Tempest

In "Don't Kid Yourself", Lady Liberty described the right and wrong reasons for having children. She discusses good parents and the pure joy these good parents experience. It paints a lovely, ideal situation where children are raised by loving parents and grow up to be happy constructive members of society, above mediocrity. But if you've decided you'd be that good parent creating that lovely idealistic situation, and believe you'll be respected by society for it, you're kidding yourself.

The first years of your child's life are spent visiting pediatricians on a frequent basis, beginning in the hospital at birth. Have a newborn that cries non-stop when taken by nurses like mine did? Your infant will be tested for drug addiction without your permission. At the pediatrician's office, your child is compared to national standards and expected to receive immunizations. Tubby toddlers are expected to be put on diets to slim them while trimmer, breastfed children are put on diets to make them meatier. Parents with more than one child know the baby takes a bit longer to talk. This is not acceptable to society and speech therapy is recommended. Refusing to cooperate with the doctor's recommendations gets you accused of neglect, and in come your state social workers. The newly required Hepatitis B immunization at birth contains whole blood. Many parents know whole blood based immunizations increase a child's chance of contracting blood-borne diseases. Some areas allow a parent to choose between that and a later three-step immunization not based on whole blood. Many areas do not. In those that do not, be prepared to lose custody of your child if you refuse the immunization ( http://www.forcedvaccination.netfirms.com/ ).

Next come the preschool years. Some parents will keep their children home while others put their children in preschool. If you keep your child home, you will get funny looks from self-proclaimed good parents who want their children prepared for kindergarten and view you as irresponsible and/or neglectful. If your child does attend preschool, be prepared for more national averages and reccomendations. Have a smart child who just doesn't feel like cooperating with a teacher? Be prepared for ADD and ADHD discussions along with Ritlain reccomendations. Refuse to cooperate with a strong reccomendation? Say hello to the social workers.

K-12: Ah, this is when it gets serious. Schools have family unit studies where each child gets to share what their family is like, beginning in kindergarten. As they advance grade levels, standard tests include questions such as, "Do you feel loved?", "Do your parents argue?", "Do your parents hit you?", and "Are there guns in your house?"

Is your child advanced? Good luck getting his or her needs met. Most schools have cut back and your child will be put in special ed with the handicapped or held back by the class. Anything above mediocrity is a threat to our increasingly socialist society. Teachers are on the lookout for anything unusual. If your child is diagnosed as not "normal" by a teacher or counselor, welcome social workers, special ed, and Ritlain discussions. Fight it, and you are emotional and unfit.

Many a loving parent decides to homeschool. Homeschooling is gaining momentum, however you will still bump into the person at the grocery store or library who wants to know why your child isn't in school. You'll have the occasional neighbor who knows you homeschool and wants to know why your kids are playing in the yard during the day rather than locked in your house doing their school work. If your family is against homeschooling, as mine was, be prepared to have social workers on your doorstep investigating educational neglect.

What if your free, happy, active child gets into something he or she is not supposed to? Or maybe the two-year old has decided to be a nudist (how many don't?). Hope a neighbor doesn't see it and call Social Services. If that something they're not supposed to get into hurts them, the emergency room is a place where both you and your child get to repeatedly tell how it happened. Nurses, doctors, receptionists, intake workers, and other patients all feel obligated to ask. If your child is shy, he or she must be afraid to speak in front of you! You must be an abuser. Not sure if you have tetanus shots up to date? You are neglectful.

Then come the unexpected problems. If your child has a disability and you call Social Services for programs to help, you are on their radar. You have admitted you are unfit to deal with your child's disability, whether it's for financial reasons or not. Say hello to your case worker. I hope she's not one of the childless ones who resents you for having the ability to bear children, or that you're not in a state that hasn't yet increased the amount of children adopted out, thereby failing to earn a federal bonus ( http://www.os.hhs.gov/news/newsletter/weekly/archive/29sep02.htm ).

Divorce: it happens. If you're a stay-at-home protective parent, be prepared to be painted as emotionally unstable by your spouse's attorney. If you're a good parent, you probably didn't want a divorce for frivolous reasons. If abuse by your soon to be former spouse is involved, be prepared to be accused of causing Parental Alienation Syndrome and losing your children, or losing them for failing to protect them (this happens to both fathers and mothers). Have a neighbor with a fetish for children? Call the police to report it, and say howdy to the social worker because you failed to protect your child from an abuser

Do I think good parents therefore should not have children? Absolutely not. But I do think all good parents should do their best to stay out of the state's sights and be as prepared to deal with Social Services as you would be for the financial burdens of parenthood. Our society is not ideal for ideal parents. Do your research and prepare well. Knowledge is power. May you never have to use it.

Originally posted from 06-22-03 to 06-29-03
The Civil Cold War of the United States of America 
by Jennifer Seago 

A storm is in full swing in the USA and has been for many decades now.  The effects of this storm are political correctness and pacifism. The unforeseen consequences are liberalism and the loss of freedoms. The fuel of the storm is the cataclysmic clash of socialism and capitalism.

Perhaps the first sign of this Civil Cold War started with Woodrow Wilson. He greatly expanded the role of the federal government in agricultural, educational and road building departments, and Wilson quickly took full advantage of the then recently passed Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution within the first few months of his presidency. With the infamous Underwood act or "Tariff Reform", Americans first had their incomes directly taxed for the sake of lowering tariffs. During his presidency, he and the Congress grew several governmental departments that have turned into behemoths, and they rule every single American's lives one way or another. They fly viciously in the face of capitalism, taking away from U.S. citizens the right to create new private entities by installing a government monopoly on those industries of which it is mandatory to participate in. One must wonder what American life would be like now without the socialist leaning presidency of Woodrow Wilson and his so-called "New Freedom".

Also, political correctness has thrown Americans into a tailspin. We live in a world where it is a near sin to call someone 'black' instead of 'African-American', where we are to believe that the strangest among us are the most unfairly victimized and martyred, and where mothers who drown their children are not to be hung at the stake, but lauded as the great victim of society that no one ever even tried to understand. It is an absolute hoax. In a world where the majority of Americans are brow beaten into believing that they are evil people for thinking the way that they do, is it no wonder that pacifism is taking hold? If you beat and kick an animal, does it not shake and shiver and come to believe that it cannot fight back? How else can you tie an elephant to a flimsy stake in the ground? 

Is it no wonder that so many Americans accept bad behavior from others? Let's look at the 'Rachel Green'/Jennifer Aniston effect. On "Friends", she has the act down very well, and our young are learning it from her. She has perfected the ability to ignore the uncouth and selfish. Yes, I am talking about 'Ross'. In one episode in particular, Rachel has just given birth to Ross' unwed child, and he comes in with a ring for her. Is he going to propose to her? No. It is a "let's get together" type ring. This would be an outrage for any normal woman in her prime! Yet, she reacts by ignoring his bad behavior and then is put on a pedestal for her utmost 'tolerance'. She accepts this ring and turns her eyes slightly away, and by this action she accepts his ineptitude. This is political correctness at its core, and it is highly ignorant.

Thus, with the ignorance of bad behavior in this country, how are we to decide what the appropriate punishment is for certain crimes and when will non-crimes be punishable by law? Are we to accept the murdering mother but alienate the smoker?  Should we give gangsters a second chance, but throw away the key when it comes to drunk drivers? Already, many women blame and sue the doctor when their child is stillborn, but then encourage others to eliminate the child that still lives in the womb. Compared to fifty years ago, this country is completely topsy-turvy.

People who are so pacifist and politically correct are quick to accept socialism. Those that are 'tied to the stake' will easily accept government programs that raise them from cradle to grave. Such liberalized people are easy to control. It is easy to take guns from them, and they would simply turn their eyes away even with such an affront to their liberties.  They would think nothing of a strange person in the White House who would be obsessed with how they ate, drank, slept, looked and acted in general. Such socialists in control over their lives would not strike them as being slaveowners, and dictatorship would not be far behind.

Therefore, the capitalists must be strong during these times.  They must stand up and shout for what is right and not allow their America to be torn asunder! Capitalism made this country strong and made a huge leap over Britain by going straight from monarchy to a free market society. In the end, the capitalists will win this Civil Cold War because, though America may have strayed from its path, the people will find their way back to their roots time and time again. Those roots are in capitalism, and it's here to stay.

References:

1. http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/Gilded~1.htm
2. http://library.thinkquest.org/12587/contents/personalities/wwilson/ww.html

Originally posted from 05-11-03 to 05-18-03
Pelican People
R.A. Hawkins

I have come to the conclusion that we are surrounded by a bunch of pelican people. What I mean by that is.. well, the size of the mouth in relation to the brain and the butt. Many pseudo conservatives are ranting about the assault weapons ban and Bush supporting it. Give me a break folks. Aren't you some of the same people who complained endlessly about the UN co-opting our national sovereignty? About the UN taking away our guns and how anti-American and anti-gun they are? Then when we finally did what should have been done years ago in Iraq weren't you the same people that whined because we didn't have legitimacy provided by the UN blessing our actions? Grow up and quit listening to the liberal media!

This same group of human pelicans is now ranting about how Bush is going to sell out our rights to the liberals in Congress. I have noticed most of these whiners don't even vote. Their primary contribution is noise and if they do vote they are the type who will write in some unheard of individual named "Phil at the store on the corner in Podunk because he really knows this stuff." They are simply contrary and don't bother thinking anything through adequately before reacting. I would like to first point out that I don't mean to shut anybody up on this issue and I actually expect people to continue to make a lot of noise about Bush signing an extension of the assault weapons ban. But please don't sound so stupid when you do it.

First let's examine what Bush was really doing to the UN. Yes I said to the UN. He didn't necessarily seek their approval. He delivered an ultimatum "Back your words with deeds or get chucked onto the same scrap heap as the League of Nations." They apparently chose the scrap heap and to celebrate it, they had the no pay day in the UN cafeteria where everyone looted the premises when the cafeteria workers went on strike. What has occurred a lot lately is they have shown their true colors. There they were doing in the cafeterias what they are supposed to be out preventing in the world. That does help to explain the make up of some of their silly councils doesn't it? Bush, as he went back each time, drew them out a little further. They overreached a little more and became a little more irrational after each visit. At the same time he managed to draw our fake friends in Europe out into the open. They became more and more vociferous and openly hostile towards us. Once we went into Iraq and began the intelligence gathering, the Euro-trash (France, Russia and Germany) was exposed for being the duplicitous scum they so often are. Suddenly we all knew who our real friends were, and weren't. Chile has found itself on the outs because of their stance on the war. We didn't sign the new trade agreement with them. We did sign one with Singapore which I'm certain didn't make China or North Korea too happy either. Bush exposed our enemies but the pelican people didn't notice. They just continue to display their anatomical anomalies as their matching butts and beaks dither due to an overactive, yet under-sized, brain.

Bush said the assault weapons ban was a good law. There really wasn't any elaboration on that comment either. Did he mean it was a good law because it's going to go away in 2004? One of the first things he did when he got into office in Texas as the Governor was to pass a conceal-carry law. That really sounds anti-gun to me. Many people like to cite that Bush's father passed a law banning the importation of SKS rifles. I suspect the reason he did that was because the Chinese were sending their cheapo guns over here so they could upgrade their own arsenal. At the same time the Chinese were quite aware of who was more likely to buy those rifles at thirty-nine dollars a piece. The same people who are buying all of the communist propaganda and can't hold a job, that's who. When Bush forty-one left office I was actually able to buy about all the Ammo I wanted with no questions asked. Prior to he and Reagan I had to fill out a form whenever I bought ammunition. Now you can mail order it and that is something that goes back to the Bush forty-one administration. The Clinton administration was the one that tried to taxweapons and ammo into nonexistence. When that didn't work they tried to legislate from the bench. During that time a whole new generation was created which didn't trust the government at all. Those types have failed to notice that Clinton is gone for now. They have also forgotten that it is in the second term that things, and I mean really big things, get done.

What I see and hear now is a bunch of pelicans trying to control the GOP to make it bend to their childish little time table of "I want it now or I'm taking my toys and going home." Both the Anti-gun control crowd of, which I'm a proud member, and the religious right suffer from this same childishness. Rather than set their sites on a few obstacles in Congress who are obviously against them, they set their sites on Bush who is trying to work around said obstacles. With allies like that, Bush doesn't need any enemies. Never mind the fact that Bush is trying to appoint judges that will follow the Constitution instead of killing it. If we didn't have a bunch of dummy judges legislating from the bench we wouldn't have such a mess right now. Those corrupt judges are what the radical left has used to undermine the Constitution.

In case nobody has noticed there is quite a fight on the hill over that very subject. The usual lefties are fighting every appointment. They should be run out of office in the next election but I bet a lot of the pelicans will be looking at Bush instead of the obstructionist radical left wingers in Congress. Some pelicans are claiming their voters will not vote if they don't get their way. The radical lefties will thank you for your support by sitting it out. That is exactly what they want you to do. That was why Feinstein and Schumer congratulated Bush on his stance. They were giving him the same support that the gallows rope gives the hanged. That is a Stalinist ploy by the way. Let it not be said we don't have our own Jackson and Sharpton-like idiots on the right. We obviously do. Honestly what do you think the likelihood is of Congress passing an extension and putting it on Bush's desk? That is what he said he would agree to by the way. If they put it on his desk to sign he will sign it. He knows that won't happen so it is a safe comment to make.

All I have to say to you pelican people out there is go ahead rant and rave all you want. Like the pelican, it is a bit difficult to tell what part of your body is running the show. Please try to pay attention to history. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. You could also spend a little time learning what the Hegelian Dialectic is. Once you learn what it really means you might understand what Bush is actually doing a lot of the time. Liberals and the media have been doing it to you for years. Spend some time learning their tactics.

(The Hegelian Dialectic is a concept wherein a concept is co-opted through consensus. Two opposites, thesis and antithesis are merged and a synthesis occurs. Eventually the co-opting principle wins out and the opposition is gone. A good example is the media openly backing Bush on the war and then only showing negative coverage. They give the appearance of supporting him because that is safe. Eventually they convince enough people through lies and omission that Bush was wrong in starting the war. They don't do it themselves. They show only what is needed and the public begins to make that choice. Pretty soon the ignorant create a groundswell of idiocy and the media wins but they look surprised because they were, after all, supportive. The reason the old media hates the new media is they have to work a lot harder because we can get out on the internet and find the truth. So sad!)

Comments are always welcome. R.A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva", available through Amazon.com. Visit Entropical Paradise - The Home of R.A. Hawkins for more commentaries and editorials by R.A. Hawkins.

(c) 2003 R.A. Hawkins

Originally posted from 03-16-03 to 03-30-03
FIJA (Part 3)
Gun Freedom Now!
b y Alexander Daubé

Most gun owners are aware of the myriad gun-control laws which plague our nation and violate our Constitution. We are frustrated that more of these asinine laws continue to get passed every year. However, what most people don't know is that we can protect each other from these laws using a simple, traditional right that has been with us since our nation was founded.

Our Founding Fathers understood that one of the main purposes of jury trials was to protect people's rights from infringement by the government. To quote Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." That means it is a jury's duty to insure that government doesn't overstep its constitutional limits and violate the God-given rights of citizens. How? Jurors can "just say no" to bad laws by refusing to convict people accused of violating them. Lysander Spooner said, "It is also their [the jurors] right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive." That right is called "jury nullification" or "jury veto-power" and it is foundational to our freedom as Americans.

Today, however, this right is being trampled by judges in most states in America. Judges will tell jurors that they cannot use their consciences in determining a verdict; that they can consider only the facts of the case and must obey the law as he gives it to them. In short, they lie.

What can we do to regain our rights? Two things.

First, we can join together and work to change the judicial procedures at our state, county and city levels. Concerned gun owners can mail prepared letters (or write their own) to their representatives and legislators, and even help hand out Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) literature at court houses. Despotic judges HATE that.

Second, until we are able to get the laws and procedures changed we can use the time honored practice of peaceful civil disobedience. Let me explain.

We The People of the United States created government to serve us and protect our rights. When it fails to do so it is violating its covenant with us and then it is our right--indeed our duty-- to step in and take action. If you doubt this then simply read the Declaration Of Independence. When judges remove people from juries who understand their rights as jurors, or force jurors to take an oath to obey the law as the judge gives it to them, those judges are acting as despots and tyrants. We need not obey them.

Say whatever you have to say to get on the jury. Since judges have no right to ask prospective jurors most of the questions they ask, we are not under any moral obligation to tell the truth. If you are asked if you own a gun, say no. If they ask if you have any pro-gun bumper stickers on your car, you don't. If you are worried about them checking on your car in the court house parking lot, just park somewhere else. You don't belong to any gun clubs and you're not an activist. Present yourself as a middle-of-the-road, average American, who doesn't have any strong feelings about gun issues, jury rights, the U.S. Constitution, or freedom. Like good American sheeple you will, of course, agree to obey anything the judge tells you. Just don't say "baah" during the questioning--that might give you away.

Of course, anyone who practices civil disobedience takes the risk of being found out, and in this case it is possible, though unlikely, that after the trial the judge could find out that you lied and bring charges against you. Nobody ever said that fighting tyranny was safe or easy, but if we're not willing to fight for our rights then we don't deserve them.

Once on the jury, determine whether the defendant is guilty of a mere technical violation of some asinine firearms law and is therefore innocent, or if he has harmed someone without cause using a firearm and is therefore guilty. If you think he's innocent you have two choices when you are sent to deliberate in the jury room.

If you're brave you might want to try to convince your fellow jurors to find the defendant innocent. This may entail educating them about jury rights, the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment, etc. However, using this method you run the risk of a jury member telling the judge and getting you cited for contempt of court for not "obeying" the judge's instructions. Welcome to police-state America.

If you're not that brave then you can simply refuse to convict. However, since power hungry, judicial despots recently made "failure to deliberate" a reason to remove an obstinate juror from the jury, you need to do this properly. You can tell the other jurors that you're not convinced by the evidence; that you don't believe the testimony of the cops or the witnesses (you got the impression that they weren't telling the whole truth, that they were holding something back or lying); that you don't believe the defendant's confession. You have the right to disbelieve any and all testimony. As long as you give any of these reasons for voting "not guilty", you cannot be removed from the jury. Neither the jurors nor the judge can force you to explain any more than this. Even if all the other jurors want to vote guilty, your vote will "hang" the jury and the defendant cannot be convicted.

Jury nullification is our last peaceful line of defense against government tyranny, and it has never been needed more than today. It's high time that We The People "reminded" our government that we don't exist to serve it--we created it to serve us! Freedom isn't free--and it isn't guaranteed to last.

Please also join the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) to help fight for jury rights nation wide. Call them at 1-800-TEL-JURY and visit their Web site. If you live in the Colorado Springs/Denver area, feel free to call me at (719) 473-4241 (or write: address is on FIJA Web site) to help with our fight for freedom locally.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFO: Alexander Daubé is an area coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. Alexander lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with his wife, Julie, who is author of the apocalyptic, pro-freedom novel, "The Shadows of Babylon" (click here for more). Alexander's passion is to restore justice to the courts. His articles have appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette, The Free Press, and The Price of Liberty.

Originally posted from 03-09-03 to 03-16-03
FIJA (Part 2)
Juries Have the Power to Rein in Government
by Alexander Daube

America is at war. Our nation is locked in a war for ideas that will end with either a return to true freedom and limited government, or rule by despots. While most Americans have their heads in the sand, our government is progressively reducing our rights to mere privileges and our constitutional guarantees to confetti, with no end in sight.

One crucial battlefront is our right to a fair trial by jury, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Our Founding Fathers knew that one of the main purposes of jury trials was to protect people's rights from infringement by the government. To quote Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." That means it is a jury's duty to hold government power in check and insure that it doesn't overstep its constitutional limits and violate the God-given rights of citizens. How? Jurors can "just say no" to bad laws by refusing to convict people accused of violating them. Lysander Spooner said, "It is also their [the jurors'] right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive." That power is called jury nullification or jury veto-power and it is foundational to our freedom as Americans. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is that today, self-serving, power-hungry politicians and judges no longer want us to have that right. To that end they have twisted and corrupted the jury system to the point where justice can be manipulated and juries are reduced to a pathetic group of "yes men" (and "yes women"--don't feel left out) who will, like good little puppets, obey the judge and not let trivial matters like a defendant's Constitutional Rights stand in the way of a conviction. The process of voir dire (jury selection) is now routinely used to remove any jurors who would dare to question the law or use their consciences in determining a verdict. This, quite simply, is an act of tyranny against the American people. When a judge makes jurors swear to uphold the law as he gives it to them, that is an usurpation of power--an act of tyranny! When a judge tells jurors what they can or cannot discuss in the jury room, that is an usurpation of power--an act of tyranny! When a judge refuses to allow a defendant or his counsel to argue the law, its interpretation and its validity to the jury, that also is an act of tyranny! When a judge refuses to allow the accused to present important evidence or expert testimony for his defence, that, too, is an act of tyranny!

Incredibly, these crimes against American citizens are committed routinely by judges all across America. The case of Channing Wilson of Durango, Colorado, who was railroaded into a conviction by a corrupt judge named James M. Robb, comes to mind. Without even looking at the evidence, Judge Robb refused to allow Mr. Wilson to present any of the twenty-six exhibits he had prepared--including a copy of the U.S. Constitution--and refused to allow either of the two expert witnesses, who had been flown in from out-of-state, to testify! In other words, Mr. Wilson was not allowed to defend himself! It is very unlikely that Judge Robb, who has since retired to Grand Junction, will ever be held accountable for these crimes because the judicial system has become so utterly corrupt. Meanwhile, Mr. Wilson languishes in a federal prison in Longmont.

Things are no better here in El Paso County, Colorado. This writer mailed information about jury nullification to judges Thomas Kennedy, Larry Schwartz, Stephen Sletta, Geoffrey DeWolfe, Caroline Benham, Rebecca Bromley, Barney Iuppa, Lawrence Martin and James Patterson, asking them to call or write to discuss this important matter. Not one of them even bothered to respond.

What We The People have to understand is that we can't count on judges and other government officials to protect our rights. Attacks on property rights, parental rights, gun rights, privacy, even free speech and freedom of the press, are escalating. Jury nullification--our last peaceful line of defense against government tyranny--has never been needed more. It's high time that We The People "reminded" our government that we don't exist to serve it--we created it to serve us! Let's begin by reclaiming our lost jury rights. Freedom isn't free--and it isn't guaranteed to last.

Learn more by calling the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) at 1-800-TEL-JURY or visiting our Web site www.FIJA.org. Please also call this writer at (719) 473-4241 (or write: address is on FIJA Web site) to help with our fight for freedom locally.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFO: Alexander Daube is an area coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. Alexander lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with his wife, Julie, who is author of the apocalyptic, pro-freedom novel, "The Shadows of Babylon" (click here for more). Alexander's passion is to restore justice to the courts. His articles have appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette, The Free Press, and The Price of Liberty.

Originally posted from 02-23-03 to 03-02-03
FIJA (Part 1)
 Nullification Returns Power to Juries--Where It Belongs
by Alexander Daube

We Americans, sadly, live in a day of ever increasing government control over our lives. Many people are frustrated and fed-up with their ever shrinking sphere of freedom and are looking for ways to protect themselves from government abuse.

Look no further. The answer lies in a relatively obscure subject known as 'jury nullification' or 'jury veto-power'.

Jury nullification is the power and right of jurors to find the verdict according to their consciences and to judge the law as well as the facts in all criminal trials. Jurors have had this power to nullify bad law since our nation was founded and it used to be standard practice for judges to inform them of this. This practice was stopped in the 1890's and from that time on, ignorance regarding jury rights has been spreading. This ignorance has allowed judges to exercise near-absolute power in the courtroom.

In defiance of history and justice, most judges today tell jurors that they cannot judge the law or use their consciences--they can only judge facts. This is a tyrannical usurpation of power by the government. The ability of juries to act as a check on unreasonable government powers and laws is foundational to our free society. Here's some history:

Back in Colonial days there was a law which said that the Church of England was the only legal church. A Quaker preacher named William Penn ignored the law and preached a Quaker sermon. He was arrested. The jury, in defiance of an unjust law and the judges' instructions, found him not guilty. The judge was furious so he fined the jury and threw them in jail. Finally, England's highest court had them released--acknowledging and establishing that trial jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. This effectively established freedom of religion in the colonies.

Another case involved a journalist named John Peter Zenger. He broke the law by printing an article accusing the Royal Colonial Governor of New York of corruption. He was arrested and tried for sedition. In defiance of the judge's orders and the law, the jury refused to convict Mr. Zenger. Thus, freedom of the press was established.

It was because jurors voted their consciences--in defiance of bad laws and judges' instructions--that today we enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of the press, right to assembly, etc. The power of the jury to judge the law was well established by our founding fathers and other important people in the early days of our country. Consider these examples:

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
--Thomas Jefferson


"Jurors should acquit even against the judges' instruction...if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
--Alexander Hamilton

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
--John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

"It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
--John Adams, second U.S. President

There are many more such quotes but I believe these are sufficient to prove the point. Jurors have the absolute, unquestionable right to judge the law as well as the facts and to vote according to their consciences. Even in this century there is a good example of jurors exercising this right.

Remember prohibition? The law made alcohol illegal but so many people disagreed with the law that there was usually at least one pro-alcohol person on any jury which tried people for alcohol-related offenses. Thus, offenders were rarely convicted. Even with the anti-alcohol law on the books it became impossible for the government to enforce it. Through the power of juries, the people spoke and that unpopular law was eventually repealed.

Today unfortunately, in an arrogant defiance of justice, judges routinely remove anyone from the jury who disagrees with the law or might want to vote according to conscience. This is a horrible usurpation of power by judges and needs to be stopped.

Some states have adopted constitutional amendments or have enacted laws protecting jurors' rights to vote according to their consciences. Unfortunately, Colorado is not one of them. In the Denver area a juror named Laura Kriho was recently arrested by the judge for voting according to her conscience. Our court system has degenerated back to the point where William Penn found himself so many years ago. We've come full circle. Government abuse and oppression is actually worse now than when King George III was our ruler, and the tyranny is growing.

Make no mistake--as our government continues to degenerate into despotism it will eventually become illegal to write articles like this one. It will be considered sedition, and even having a copy will get you thrown in jail as an enemy of the state. Every concerned American needs to become involved in restoring our freedom now--while there is still time.

For a free Jury Power Information Kit call the Fully Informed Jury Association at 1-800-TEL-JURY or visit our Web site at www.FIJA.org. Feel free to call this writer at (719) 473-4241 to help with our fight for freedom in the Colorado Springs/Denver area.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFO: Alexander Daube is an area coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association. Alexander lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with his wife, Julie, who is author of the apocalyptic, pro-freedom novel, "The Shadows of Babylon" (click here for more). Alexander's passion is to restore justice to the courts. His articles have appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette, The Free Press, and The Price of Liberty.