Archive for the Category » truth «

June 09th, 2010 | Author:

Runnin’ late – again! – this week, folks. Leave your link, and I’ll update later in the day.

Not only am I runnin’ late, I’ve run out of time. We’re going camping, and I’ve got one more day to get everything ready, so this week’s post is short and sweet.

It’s one of those passages that just womped me one day and has never really left.  Think of it the next time you’re tempted to tell a little white lie.

Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12)

Share
May 22nd, 2010 | Author:

When I was in the eighth grade, our English class spent several weeks studying Greek and Roman mythology. At the end of the project, we each had to create a myth of our own.  As a self-proclaimed “creative writer”, I was delighted with the assignment.  I spent several days considering options, and finally settled on a story about a family of giants who used to live in New York State.   The details have been erased from my memory, and I destroyed the paper soon after writing it – for reasons that will become apparent – but the highlights involve the death of the giant baby, the parents dying from grief, and the fall of their bodies creating what we now call the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers.  The water feeding these rivers came from the parents’ tears.  I spent a lot of time on this assignment, and I was proud of the final product as I turned it in.

When the teacher returned our graded papers, I was stunned – not only because she had given me an “F”, which would have been enough shock for an “A” student who loved English, but because of the note she had written on it.  She said that the previous year a student had submitted a myth very similar to mine – therefore I must have cheated and she graded me accordingly.  No questions.  No benefit of the doubt for previous work.  No investigation.  Just her summary dismissal.

I remember how devastated I was by the false accusation.  The humiliation.  The sense of betrayal.  The lack of opportunity to defend myself.  The injustice.

My feelings from this small event  – that changed my attitude toward this teacher, but not my whole life – all came rushing back today, forty-plus years later, as I watched the following video.

It’s from a celebration, of sorts, for nineteen people who spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit, but through The Innocence Project and DNA testing, have finally been exonerated.

As you watch it, I hope you’ll feel compassion for these individuals whose lives were derailed.  And I hope you’ll understand that, in many cases, innocent people are tried and convicted with false or flimsy evidence simply because we clamor to put someone – anyone – in jail when a heinous crime is committed.

We are all responsible.

Share
Category: justice, liberty, truth, video  | Comments off
January 23rd, 2010 | Author:

Do you feel powerless to stop the encroachment of our civil rights?  Are you outraged at laws that get rammed through to criminalize anything that doesn’t support big government power?  Do you want to take back your life and our Bill of Rights, but just don’t know what to do?  Well, here’s an idea.

Jury duty? Yes, jury duty. If you are called, don’t complain or try to get out of it. Use that opportunity to effect change where it matters most – right in your own community.

I learned with amazement about jury nullification a few years ago. They sure don’t teach it in public schools, and you won’t hear about it from a judge when he’s charging the jury. You won’t even see it on TV. But it’s the truth about our jury system, and I encourage you to learn just what it means.

The following quiz is taken directly from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) website.  See if you’ve believed any government lies.

THE JURY QUIZ

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. The primary purpose of the jury is to prevent oppression by the government.

2. The jury is an independent arm of government.

3. The defendant is innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty by the government.

4. The judge can require the jury to find the defendant guilty.

5. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, even if the defendant broke the law.

6. If the jury finds a defendant not guilty when he is clearly guilty, the judge can punish the jurors.

7. The judge decides all questions of law.

8. The jury is not required to reach a verdict.

9. The jurors can vote according to their consciences.

10. The jury must take the law as the Court gives it, whether they believe the law is right or wrong.

11. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, because they believe the law is unjust.

12. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

ANSWERS & EXPLANATIONS

1. TRUE: The criminal trial jury was created by the constitutions of the Federal and State governments to be a guardian of the individual’s rights.

Its purpose is to prevent oppression by the Government.. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. – Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 155 (1968)

The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power….– Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522, 530 (1975)

2. TRUE: The Constitution divided the government into three branches –the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – in order to prevent an unhealthy concentration of government’s powers. And it created the Jury – the Fourth Branch of Government – in order to hold the first three branches in check. In order to fulfill its purpose, the Jury must be independent of the other branches of government.

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, letter to Thomas Paine, 1789

3. TRUE: Under our system of government, it is a sacred principle of criminal law that the government has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. The government makes the criminal accusation and must prove its accusation to the satisfaction of the jury.

4. FALSE: Not legally! The judge has no authority at all to compel the jury to find a defendant guilty. The jury is absolutely independent in this function.

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. – 4th Circuit Court of Appeals United States v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1006 (1969)

5. TRUE: The jury can find the defendant not guilty, regardless of what the law says, and regardless of the facts. The jury has the power to find the defendant not guilty for any reason which appeals to them. This is usually called “jury nullification” of the law. In short, the jury has a veto power over bad law and bad judges.

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Horning v. Dist. of Columbia 249 U.S. 596 (1920)

In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position. – U.S. v. Wilson 629 F.2d 439, 443 (1980)

6. FALSE: No one has any authority to punish a juror because of his vote. Period. This issue was resolved in 1670 in London in the case of Edward Bushell – one of the jurors in William Penn’s trial.

But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges. – Justice Robert H. Jackson Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246

7. FALSE: The judge has the authority to declare to the jury what he believes the law to be. But the jury has the authority to ignore that advice, to determine for them what the law says, and to judge for themselves the justice of the law.

It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issue of guilty or not guilty. – Justice Gray, U.S. Supreme Court, Dissenting Sparf v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, 172 (1894)

8. TRUE: A verdict is the guilty or not guilty decision of a jury. All jurors must agree to the verdict. Otherwise, they must report a “hung jury.” That means that the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. Each juror is free to vote in accordance with his or her conscience and cannot be forced to vote for conviction or acquittal just to reach a verdict. In the event of a hung jury, the government may bring the defendant to trial again in front of another jury.

9. TRUE: The jurors have not only the right, but the obligation to vote according to conscience. If the jurors believe that the law itself is unjust – for any reason – they have the power to do justice by simply voting not guilty. Every juror has a right to leave court with a clear conscience.

…it is the conscience of the jury that must pronounce the prisoner guilty or not guilty. – Lord Chief Justice Mathew Hale 2 Hale PC 312 (1665)

10. FALSE: The court has no authority to dictate the law to the jury. However, many courts will force jurors to swear an oath to accept the law as the Court dictates. Such an oath violates the Constitution. But anyone refusing to take the oath will be excluded from the jury, thereby depriving the defendant of an independent jury. Such an oath is taken under duress. And nothing agreed to or sworn to under duress is binding. It is ironic that the same judge who demands that jurors take such an oath is violating his own oath to uphold the Constitution.

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. – Chief Justice John Jay State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4

The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate…. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. – Georgia Constitution Art. I, § I, Par. XI (a)

11. TRUE: To be faithful to their duty, the jurors must vote not guilty, if they think the law is unjust.

It is not only [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 (1771) Yale Law J. 74 (1964): 173

12. FALSE: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” may have made sense centuries ago when the law confined itself to real crimes with real victims. Everyone knew that murder, rape, robbery, arson, and other such crimes were crimes. Today, with government passing thousands of new laws each year, no one can understand all his obligations under the law. If the jury does not believe that the defendant knew of his obligations under the law, it has the power to find the defendant not guilty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse if the jury says it is.

This preposterous doctrine, that “ignorance of the law excuses no one,” is asserted by courts because it is an indispensable one to the maintenance of absolute power in the government. –Lysander Spooner Massachusetts Attorney An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

* * *

So, did you learn anything?  If you did, and you know other people who are ignorant of jury nullification, the FIJA website is a gold mine of information, including:

Help spread the word and maybe justice can prevail … at least in your neck of the woods.

Share
October 27th, 2009 | Author:

When I was growing up, they called this lying. But that’s not politically correct anymore, so I’m putting it in Obama’s Dictionary. From CNSNews:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.

As I haven’t had time to keep Obama’s dictionary up to date (dodging through all the smoke & mirrors is a dangerous and time-consuming process) I’ve decided to finish it right here and now. I think these two last entries should cover just about anything the man might say.

Entry #8: no = yes

Entry #9:  yes = no


The End
Share
October 21st, 2009 | Author:



I never had any illusions that Lew Rockwell was a Christian, but until recently I thought he was honest. Alas, that has changed, and I thought it was worth sharing.

On Oct. 8th, he posted the following on his blog, titled “TV Censorship”:

  • FOX has genuflected to the DEA, and changed its show House, because the lead character was taking pain medications. For a very long time, the moral monsters of the drug war have sought to deny relief to chronic pain sufferers. Now they have included fictional sufferers as well. (Thanks to Felipe Franco)

I followed through the links, and sent Rockwell an email:

  • Lew, you need to be more careful what you post. If you follow the links back, the source for this story was an anonymous commenter named “Bruce”, who suggests we file FOIL requests with the DEA to verify his story. Bruce apparently doesn’t have time, because he posts reviews of TV shows on a regular basis.

The exchange continued as follows:

  • Rockwell: Well, I talked to a friend who is a fervent Housian, and she confirmed the change.
  • me: Well, the change in the show is accurate, but there’s nothing that says the DEA was involved.
  • Rockwell: Only the drug war can be at fault. Does that mean the DEA specifically mugged the show, or just created the climate? In either case, it is responsible.

I don’t know about you, but this has bothered me ever since. Apparently, it doesn’t matter to Rockwell whether his initial post was truthful or not, as long as he makes his point – any means to an end. Apparently, he doesn’t care whether he misleads people, as long as his underlying agenda is supported.

And I’m sure he won’t care that I’ve removed my links to his blog and other articles. But deceit has far greater consequences, and I hope he takes the time to mull them over. In fact, we all should.

You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.
(Psalms 5:6)

He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me.
(Psalms 101:7)

Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, But those who deal faithfully are His delight.
(Proverbs 12:22)

A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.
(Proverbs 19:5)

“These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate,” declares the LORD.
(Zechariah 8:16-17)

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
(John 8:43-45)

Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:8-12)

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:8)

Share