The Destruction of the Jury System or How the Government Conned You into Thinking You Could Still Get a Fair and Impartial Trial

You Were Lied To

The American System of Justice is based on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is what they claim.  There is more to it, much more, which they do not wish you to know or understand.  As a member of a jury you are tasked with judging the guilt of a person whom the government has said violated a law.  Notice that the “GOVERNMENT” has made the charge with the claim the person has violated some law they have decided to pass (whether through a representative form of passage, a fiat passage where non-elected persons “make” law, or through popular vote it matters not).  There are crimes which need to be enforced such as murder, robbery, and a whole assortment of crimes.  These are crimes which have always been considered a violation of the code of conduct of any grouping of people.  

What duties lie with each member of the jury?  What has the prosecutor, judge, and legislature attempted to hide from those who site on a jury?  I claim no expert knowledge to answer these questions.  As a matter of fact, I’m just starting to realize how bad things really are.  It would appear the government in its zest for power and in an effort to keep the population ignorant of their rights and duties has done an amazing job. 

A Fundamental Duty

In our jury system we all know our job as jurist is to determine the guilt or lack of guilt a person has.  We cannot, in our system, determine the innocence of a person.  We hand the verdict to the judge and it is either guilty or not guilty…it is never “innocent”.  Innocent is what a person is until they a proven guilty but a jury cannot declare a person “innocent.”  That is the thing we know, the thing we have been told is the duty when on a jury.

BUT they lie to you each and every time you sit on a jury.  How so?  They neglect, intentionally, to tell you two things:  1)  The Grand Jury is charged with determining if there is sufficient evidence to hand down an indictment along with judging if the law itself is valid and 2) As a jury member YOU are charged with first determining if the law is Constitutional and, if so, ONLY then can you debate the guilty or not guilty verdicts based on the evidence.  The evidence is NOT restricted to what was presented in court but is in addition to your experience and your understanding.  They don’t want you to understand this.

Why?  I believe, like most things about government, the reason is to gain power.  People are essentially pre-disposed to a desire to empower themselves and usually at the expense of others.  This is as fundamental to human nature as the desire to survive.  In the links below you will find statements of people who make it clear the Grand Jury no longer has a function because of the lack of education the “government” has provided to the people.  There are those who make it clear that there is no reason to have a Grand Jury anymore since it serves no more use than a rubber stamp to whatever the prosecutor wishes to charge a person with. 

I don’t know everything about this.  I wish I did and wish I could explain it in more clear and concise terms.  What I do know and what I keep learning is that our fundamental rights are not being taken from us…they have BEEN taken from us.  We, today, stand at a cross-road of sorts:  We can continue moving forward and allow our government to become the ruler of us.  We can scream STOP and hold our place, hoping no further damage is done while we determine how to actually change our course.  This is not going to happen.  OR we can stand and say “No more”.  We will no longer allow the government to pass laws which interfere with our rights.  We demand a redress of grievances and the removal of ALL laws which the federal government has passed that are not expressly stated they have the right to regulate by The Constitution.  We can turn and face the enemy of our nation and our Rights.

This has been said many times and it will be said many more times…some have stood, they are usually considered to be lunatics to one degree or another.  Someday you will be asked where you stand:  Be a slave to the government or be freemen.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w235.html

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/concept72_gleichschaltung.htm

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss5/3/

The Slow, Methodical Erosion of Your Rights

You must pardon me, I was driving along and gave a nice little speech [ignore the ego please] on this and am attempting to write it from memory.  So you think your rights are still around, eh?  When someone says "What rights, I haven't lost any rights!"  Does a slave realize he is a slave if has know no other thing than slavery?  Does he realize that through hard work, perseverance, and a little luck he could actually become the owner of his own estate?  Not if has never read, seen, or experienced freedom.  When our founders first started working on a new government, the people were all about a Republican form of government.  Minor problem, the majority of the population didn't know what form of government that was.  Many knew only monarchy and wanted George Washington to be the King.  The horror which must have crossed his face when he heard this.  The founders realized that a people who knew neither history nor Liberty could not understand Liberty unless they were taught history.  As such, they knew they needed to educate the people on what their rights are and how to protect them.  This is the situation we find ourselves in today.  I am partial to the second amendment and I will focus on this one.  In certain states in this country it is the right of the local police chief to allow you to have a license to own a weapon and carry it if you ask for permission.  The fun part is if a certain town has an anti-gun police chief he can make it almost impossible to get the license.  So, the most fundamental right of a man or women of legal age can be confirmed or denied at the whim of a person who may or may not be elected by the people.  If elected, that means the people, by majority vote can deny another person a fundamental right.  If not, then a politician can deny you that right.  Either way means you do not have the right to keep and bear arms which is a right found in one of the first LAWs of the United States.  So for a person to argue rights have not been removed is rediculous.  But, those people who argue you have your rights turn around and say "Well, what do you need a weapon for.  There are police and stuff like that to protect you and you don't need to hunt for food."  This is a great indication they do not understand the second at all.  The second was not designed to protect you from the common criminal or to hunt for food.  Rather, and this is backed up historically, the second was created to help people responde to a government which behaves in a criminal way by either ignoring the laws of the nation OR by violating the rights of the individual (please do realize there is no such thing a collective rights, that is a communist concept and we all know how that played out over the past 100 years).  Your ultimate job is to protect your family from an abusive government.  A government which slowly nibbles around the edges of your rights is worse than a government which outright takes those rights.  Why?  Because a nibbler will eventually succeed in taking ALL your rights while a grabber will fail because of the knee-jerk response of the people.  Remember, Hitler/Mao/Stalin all made slow, inexorable changes and then, when it was way to late, grabbed it all.  Hitler was excellent at this.  He was able to convince the people Jews were sub-human and to blame for all the problems in Germany (the world really).  It was just one more step to exterminating the "vermin" as he would call them.  This is the situation we find ourselves in today:  A slow, methodical erosion of our rights to the point many people say "Huh, I still have my rights".  Just one more step folks, just one more.

Ron Paul and What America Needs

Paul is the closest to what the Tea Party wants and what this country needs.  BUT, it took 125 years plus to get to the spot we are in today (~1879) so getting back to where we need to be isn't going to happen in 10 or 15 years.  The one thing the communist/progressive movement have managed to do is con people in two ways:

        1)  Politicians gain power, a great thing for the progressives as it works towards their agenda.  Easily
             done, because people naturally desire power and influence.

        2)  Supply an increasingly large segment of the population with "FREE" stuff.  Again, people are naturally
             greedy, so anything they can get for "FREE" (perceptively to them) they will take.

Ron Paul is either ahead of his time or behind his time.  Paul is somewhat right on his foreign policy stance:  The United States should be concerned strictly with the United States and, I believe he sees it this way, doing so will help reduce the international problems we have.  I don't know if he is a strict isolationist or a hemispherist (I believe Teddy Roosevelt had that goal....although his ultimate was for the US to rule the world...ok, well he would do so...he would be happy being President today).  We, as TEA Party people/Libertarians/conservatives, must be as stubborn as those which would see this country destroyed.  Our goals are to reduce the power in Washington and bring it back to the towns and states where it truly belongs (and, obviously, the people).

The trick, so to speak, if finding candidates that are willing to take the reigns away from the powerful (by winning the elections) and then taking that power away from themselves.  In other words, we need people who are morally incorruptible and willing to take their power away from themselves and return it to the States, towns, and people.  These people are rare, since we all know the saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".  We need to find the strong among us, those we are most assured are willing to go to Washington and be Mr. Smith.

Oh the "Peace Loving" Palestinians

Not even a week after being released and already the lunitic Palestinians are screaming they are going to blow themselves up and telling school children to follow their example (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8836933/Gilad-Shalit-release-freed-Palestinian-prisoner-vows-to-sacrifice-her-life.html)

While in Israel, the newly release soldier (hmmm, 1 soldier for 1,000+ Terrorists????) is talking walks with his parents and not threatening to kill those who held him captive.

The dichotomy is significant.  On this side of the world those who claim the Palestinians are about peace and the Israelis are about war won't see this.  Rather they will see 1000+ poor little prisoners who have been denied their homeland and probably subjected to torture were finally released in exchange for a soldier who did the dirty world of the suppressors of those poor, innocent people.  They won't see 1000+ people who are prepared to strap on bombs and kill children (forget for a moment the adult civilians they will murder).  They won't see a society which suppresses women.  They won't see any organization which tells the citizens they have zero chance in this world because of the Israelis.  They certainly won't allow the true history of the Middle-East to be told, else their people might decide to rebel.

Then there are the government sponsored rocket attacks on schools.  Ohhhh, you thought for a moment I was going to say Israel was doing it?  No, reality is troublesome and facts are stubborn.  Hamas, alone, likes to fire their rockets near hospitals and schools.  So when the Israeli's finally get sick of their children being killed decide to attack, Hamas can call the wonderful western news media (unbiased in all things of course) and tell them the Israeli's are trying to kill innocent people.  The media, rather than reporting the reason for the attack, pretends the Israeli's did so unprovoked or minimizes the rocket attack by saying something which gives an excuse for it ("Well, Israel had a helicopter flying near the area so Hamas figured they were going to attack"). No matter, the facts are the Palestinians use women and children as human shields and that is a violation of international law (who cares right, it is the Palestinians doing it) and ALL human decency (Some, it seems, don't have that concept anymore).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel]

Since when did it become common practice to take the side of those who kill civilians indiscriminately?  Who think nothing of conning those who are weak into strapping bombs on themselves, boarding buses, and killing everyone on board?  Then, rather than saying "Hey, you shouldn't do that!" everyone tells the attacked person they shouldn't retaliate in any way, shape, or form.

Maybe a little history lesson is in order.  Hopefully it may straighten out some misconceptions.  What are the Palestinian territories?  There are NONE.  The fact of the matter is the West Bank and Gaza Strip were part of the surrounding nations (Egypt and Jordan) from 1948 to 1967.  When the nations attacked Israel, these lands were captured by Israel (PS This was an unprovoked attack with the goal of destroying all of Israel and killing all the Jews within her borders...nice people, eh?).  So, how is it the Egyptians and Jordanians can occupy those territories without being called on the carpet but the Israeli's can't?  As these lands were taken from two aggressive nations during a war that is part of the result of war.  If one nation attacks another, one of the two is likely going to loose some territory...that is the risk of war.

Prior to the '67 war, Palestinians and Jews in Israel generally lived in peace with each other.  Then came Arafat and the PLO (minor to start but he took out the competition for the most part).  Along with that group Jordan and Egypt, feeling slightly embarrassed at getting their buts kicked, figured they would use the supposed Palestinian discontent in an attempt to undermine the Israeli economy.  They offered the Palestinian people "a better life" in their nations.  So, many Palestinians were conned into thinking they could do even better than they were doing in Israel (which, looking at that period of time would have been rather difficult to do so) so many went.  What greeted them (except for the leadership of course) were tents and ghettos, corruption, economic starvation, and, finally, humiliation.  The Israelis attempted to convince the Palestinians NOT to leave because they felt they could live together and succeed, they feared the potential problems it could cause (look, the Jews are kicking out the Palestinians), and they knew what was in store for the Palestinians.  Most fell for the con, some stayed.

In Israel, today, there are Palestinians who wish this war to stop.  They fear saying anything on the record because if they do so, one of the terrorist groups (so called government) may decide to kill them and/or their family.  Is this the kind of peace the supposed progressive/liberals wish?  The Peace of Fear is not true peace and will last but a fleeting moment.

In The Beginning...there was no Liberty...then the United States was Formed

In the beginning, our world was in darkness for man had not experienced true Liberty but had, rather, been convinced enslavement by a man or group of men was the natural order of things.  There were some nations which had experienced Liberty but these did not last long because the people fell from their duty.  A few nations managed to write about the coming of Liberty and how they prospered as a result.  Among those who had Liberty were Israel and the Anglo-Saxon tribes of Europe.  These two groups believed in a representative form of government and each member had certain rights which could only be removed if it was shown that person had violated the rights of others.  Close to 1000 years had passed from the fall of the Anglo-Saxons to the re-emergence of the ideas leading to the founding of our nation.  More people have suffered at the hands of tyrants claiming to know how they should live their lives than people who have experienced true Liberty.

So you think you are free?  I hate to be the one to tell you this but, being an optimistic pessimist, I give you the truth:  You have never been free.  Your parents have never been free.  If you think you are free, then stop the government from taking your hard earned money out of your paycheck.  See how that goes...it won't.  Your employer will laugh at you and say it cannot be done.  Even if they wished to do so, they couldn't.  How much does it cost for you to travel from one city to another?  How much of that is payment to the government?  Most do not realize but when you pay any form of tax, you are giving the government your life-blood.  Oh No, What did he say?  I said you are giving the government your life-blood!  How so?  Simple:  Every minute you work you spend a portion of your life doing so.  If the government then takes a portion of your wages, they in fact are taking a portion of your paycheck which you spent time earning.  Time is the most precious commodity a human has and to take money earned by that person through spending time working then you are taking TIME from said person...therefore, to expound upon a phrase:  Your life (Life-Blood) is time, Time is Money, to take Money from you is to take your Life/Life-blood.

When you buy something, you pay a tax which is not included in the price (but remember there are taxes you can't see in the marked price).  Let's say you want to buy a $1,000 computer.  In certain states the sales is 7%, so you need to pay $1,070.  Now, if you had saved up exactly the marked price of the computer, you would not be able to purchase it...so, in essence, the government has prevented you from exercising your freedom to purchase something.  Now, please, do not get me wrong, some taxes are necessary...excessive taxation is not.

What about the children?  Yes, the children who all our hopes and dreams are emboldened (????).  The most basic right of a person is that once they have a child, they not only have the right to enrich this child as they see fit but they have the responsibility to raise the child to NOT be a burden on the rest of society (If a parent wants their child to be a burden on them, that is well within their rights).  But, as most parents who have had encounters with government run schools and supposed educators may know, the parent is under a constant threat because the system (government) has empowered the child (though the system has no power) to report abusive parents.  A child may decide a parent is abusive simply because the parent decided to punish the children for inappropriate behavior or the parent didn't buy them the latest cell phone with all the tweaks in it.  The parent is then subjected to an outsider (government sponsored) forcing their way into the home and, in many cases, a person who is NOT a parent passing judgement on an actual parent.  Freedom?  Liberty?  No, not at all.  Try to get involved with the schools in your area.  Attempt to get something that is politically correct removed out of the curriculum because it offends you and/or you don't want your children to be exposed to it.  You won't be shot down, you will be ignored at best.  At worse, you will be personally attacked and branded as something which may describe the accusers but does not describe your intent or person.  Rather, you just have standards which those who claim to be in charge don't (When was the last time a politician actually had standards....me thinks we would have to look back to the early 1800's for that).

Freedom.  A fish in water does not know it is in water.  A slave who has never seen freedom does not know he is a slave but believes he is living an average life.  A society that has never experienced freedom will never understand that until they have done so.  As the founders said, paraphrased, "The people believe a republic is lead by a monarchy, just a different level of it.  The people understand this to be true because they have only experienced monarchy and never experienced a true Republic."  Fox News is right-wing, CNN is center.  CNN is only the center and balanced if all you have ever experienced was CNN, so yes, Fox News would appear to be right-wing if they are reporting from the true center (CNN reporting from the left of center).

The government is moving the perception of what Freedom and Liberty are as a means to enslave the people (try "Boiling the Lobster" as the image..oh and we are the lobster).  The best con jobs in history have been a government being able to get the people to believe they are free while, in fact, the people are nothing more than slaves.  I, and many people I know, would rather die free than die the slow death of slavery.

Purpose

You will find that my mind wanders while writing.  I usually have a point to the wandering and it may be difficult to follow it in a logical, concise manner but hopefully, by the time you have finished whatever blogarticle I have written, you will understand the main points.

I am a political junkie.  Politics, as I have observed, is the only game which truly matters and effects our lives. Whereas a sports game, such as baseball or football, when the season ends it is over and, as far as normality goes, the results of that season will not truly effect our lives (except for those who gamble their life, sacred fortune, and honor away).  Politics as a sport, NEVER ENDS.  In truth, when an election cycle completes, a new one begins, and so, despite what those who claim to represent the interests of the people wish you to think, they are always campaigning.

Hopefully, through this blog and others like it, those who read it will become better educated in what should have been, is, and will be the future of this nation.  What should have been is based upon the design of the forefathers and their vision of what a free people are, what the future goal of their work was, and what their fears were.

"What is" deals with the current state of our government and how we arrived here.  Where did it all begin and where did it go wrong.  Who are the great players and what their current thought is.  What about those who believe in original intent versus those who claim The Constitution is a "living, breathing document" (not sure they could really define what that means though).

"What will be" deals with the two paths which this nation can take.  One is the path which it has been on since about 1879 while the other is the path which The Founders set us out on.  One path leads to tyranny of the greatest form while the other leads us to a golden age as the one we had been experiencing and which other nations, by the force used by our government on the people of this nation, are now embarking upon.

Obviously it is my position that a government which governs least, governs best.  I hope that those whose opinion differs from mine will read this blog without emotion and present arguments which support their hypothesis as well as providing meaningful critique of my writings.