This isn’t a quick read, but it is a must read…

How the Government has

Destroyed America

One way we can take back our country!

Why we don’t need another election – we need another revolution

Our founding fathers never intended for government to become a growth industry, dominating every action of our lives.  Indeed, they preached against it.  Today, our government bears little resemblance to what Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and others had fought for.

   Truth be told, we more resemble a communist regime with most of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto incorporated into our daily lives.  (See end of article for the 10 Planks).

   The destruction of America, and the middle class got its start with the creation of the income tax, which had been previously rejected by the Supreme Court.  In passing this amendment to circumvent the intent of the founders, politicians put America into a perpetual state of servitude.

   We no longer print our own money, instead, the Federal Reserve was born and most Americans still think it is a government agency.  It is not.  It is made up of bankers who charge interest on the fiat currency we use so our government can spend, spend, spend the nation’s resources without regard to its gold or silver basis.

   Thomas Jefferson warned against allowing bankers to take over as he and others of his generation knew what international bankers had done in Europe.  Although many in Congress objected, the amendment was pushed through and Americans have become serfs as a result with the Internal Revenue Service acting as the enforcement/collection agency…even today, no one in Congress has the balls to fight the IRS.

   Putting America into perpetual debt was just the beginning.  With the advent of WWII, Washington put a “temporary’ law on the books allowing the IRS to demand payment of taxes upfront by having employers withhold money from paychecks.  This temporary measure is still on the books, despite the end of the war.

   After all, Washington found its coffers overflowing with tax revenues at the end of the war and it became drunk with its spending power, launching America into its imperialistic international policies with troops in more than 140 countries in order to enforce corporate America demands or what I call, the Washington-Wall Street Cartel.

   We’re being cheated out of our God given rights and liberties by politicians and judges who seem more interested in feathering their nest than having any concern over the welfare of this country.  Too many of them have ignored their oath to uphold the Constitution and I personally feel they should be branded traitors.  I state this regardless of political party as each has proven poor stewards of the public trust and our national treasury.

Soon, Congress abandoned the principles of its founders

   It’s pretty easy to see how the government has become the master vs. the servant.  Every nightly newscast is dominated by government propaganda,  revolving around the thousands of new laws it passes each year – usually without the knowledge of the electorate.  The more laws a country creates, the easier it is to control its population and to make the courts a taxing authority as well.

   The United States now has more laws on the books and people in jail than any other country in the world.  According to an article in USA Today, the average American breaks 21 laws a week.  This is another hidden tax on Americans, which generates millions of dollars a day for the government at all levels.

   This is one of the reasons why our public education system has failed this country.  Government run schools no longer teach children about the Constitution and frequently offer revisionist history.

At this point, no one plunders your right to privacy more than our own government.  And as with everything else, they use an excuse we can all “live” with…terrorism.  Just like their no-knock warrants, search and asset seizure laws, all of which violate the Constitution, the government has reduced your freedom.  Just because it’s a law doesn’t mean it’s right.

   Every day brings new laws which turns more Americans into criminals.  Recently passed laws makes it a crime to sell tobacco over the internet and to use the post office to send them – even to our own troops stationed overseas!

   The government now restricts your right to travel abroad even if you haven’t committed a crime.  For example, your passport will not be renewed if you owe more than $2500 in child support, if you owe federal taxes, if you owe student loans and so on.

   The real crime is an out of control government curtailing the rights of its true master…the people.

   Our founders knew too much government meant trouble for its citizens.  We are top-heavy with government agencies and workers.  Government workers outnumber now those employed in manufacturing, and is now the largest employer in the country.

   The sad fact is that government workers produce nothing, except red tape and confusion, which creates an anti-business and anti-citizen atmosphere.  Why is it only government buildings are filled with metal detectors and pat downs?  Are they afraid of irate citizens?

   The facts speak for themselves as to how government policies (or lack of policies as in the case of no energy plan…let’s feed our enemies and the oil companies instead) have hurt our national interests and the middle class in particular.

The Washington-Wall Street Cartel

   As one wag put it, “we have the best government corporations can buy.”

For the past 30 years our government has been screwing the average citizen and no one seems to mind.  In fact, we vote the same people into office year after year, many who have become life-long politicians reaping a generous bounty of government benefits, salaries and other perks at our expense.

   Keep in mind, most of founding fathers served our country without pay.

   One person did not start our nation’s revolution against England, it was a group of like-minded patriots who pursued the ideal which eventually made us the freest country the world had ever known.  Sadly, as the old cliché goes, they’re now turning in their graves over what special interests have done to this country.

   Your rights aren’t subject to approval, they are guaranteed!

"As the organized Left gained cultural power, it turned into a monster that
found perpetual victimhood, combined with thought and speech control, the most
efficient way to hold on to that power. Suddenly it was the Left, the protector
of liberty, that was setting rules about what could and could not be said or
even thought."
-- Tammy Bruce
(1962-) American radio host, author, and political commentator
Source: The New Thought Police, 2001

The Art of Civil Disobedience 

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is usually, but not always defined as being nonviolent resistance. In its most nonviolent form (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government", has had a wide influence on many later practitioners of civil disobedience. The driving idea behind the essay is that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. He writes, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, 'I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico; — see if I would go'; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute."

It’s time to end legal tyrany and abuse!

Here’s how…

How to Beat the Lawless, Laws Which Erode Freedom

Jury Nullification – How it Works

Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her.  Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the evidence and the law than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, especially when that practice has drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the verity of the evidence presented, instructions that are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

Historical examples of nullification include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law, juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,  the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,  and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.  The main consequentialist issue is the tension between equal justice and anarchy.

Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal; and the constitutional prohibition on retrying criminal defendants (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy).

Judges Wish No One Knew…

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law. Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors.

 Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1977).  Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.

• First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.

• Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.

• Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising his power of jury nullification.

• Fourth, whether all legal arguments, except perhaps on motions in limine to exclude evidence, should be made in the hearing of the jury.

In some cases, a stealth juror will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law.  Some lawyers use a shadow defense to get information entered into the record that would otherwise be inadmissible

Jury nullification appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. During the 20th century, especially in the Civil Rights Movement, several all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks.  During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time.

 This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition. In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves.

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794)

It was over time that judicial and legal opinion slowly changed to consider jury nullification only a power and not a right of juries, as judges and prosecutors wanted stricter enforcement of laws that juries nullified. This shift stemmed from the 18th century conflict between two factions of English jurists, the first led by Lord Camden, which was originally prevalent in what became the United States, and the second led by Lord Mansfield. The position of the latter was called "Mansfieldism" by Jefferson and the shift has been called "Mansfieldization".

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use. The first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement on the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury.

The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840), which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Of course most judges and lawyers dislike this method of thwarting the law.  However, its use dates back in Common Law to the 1600s and is an effective means of stopping stupid laws or prosecutors who abuse the law to inflict punishment and the financial and legal weight of the government on citizens.

The primary point is:  if enough citizens make use of this practice to undermine unlawful or stupid laws then a REAL message will be sent to politicians, lawyers and judges that Americans will no longer tolerate the crush of our civil liberties by government.

   This is a simple and non-violent means of protesting the anti-citizen, unlegislated laws of bureacrats and politicians at the state and federal level.

In closing, I ask that you share this piece with everyone you know who gives a damn about what has happened to this country.  Nothing works well unless others who feel the same way, DO SOMETHING.

Perhaps a little musical motivation might help you – listen to this 1960s folk song by Phil Ochs, Outside a Small Circle of Friends, often referred to as the ‘apathy song.’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulTmmTIlM_o

Resources & Recommended Reading

Books by Judge Andrew Napolitano including:

The Constitution in Exile

A Nation of Sheep

The Case Against Lawyers by Catherine Crier

Give Me Liberty by Gerry Spence

Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate

Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberties by James Bovard (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994

http://freedomlaw.com/

Free Law Library & Legal Resources

http://fija.org/support-fija/link-to-fija/

Fully Informed Jury Association

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 
 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Please share this with a friend!