“…Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances…”

-The First Amendment from the Bill of

Rights

Our Civil Liberties

In in this day and age, the violations of our civil liberties have gone into epidemic levels. We know
this. I’ve created this information in order to be reminded on how we should fight for our civil
liberties. Our rights makes us become reminded about how we can live our lives to the fullest. Our
freedoms don’t exist from the government or some bureaucrat. They don’t even exist from us.
They exist from Almighty God being undeniable and unalienable. Life, liberty, and Property
are related to each other. John Locke wrote in his "Second Treatise of Government" book
that people want to preserve their property and power should be limited among the
government. So, it's easy to decipher that life, liberty, and property were the central, inalienable
rights that formed America. The founders believed in the triumvirate division of government (which
is the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government) whose rights are bound to each
other. When one part of the government does injustice, it affects all of the government. Some of our
political leaders claim to love life and liberty, but they pervert our rights by promoting illegal wars and
plunders. The right to life is more important than the right to property since one's lives is more than
any possession. Yet, the right to property is vitally linked to the right to life since the right to own
property is an extension of the right to life. Property is simply what an individual rightfully owns.
Labor can improve property as well. We can use our body, conscience, and our actions to improve
the realms of our property. Labor for the individual can improve our happiness as well. That is
why we shouldn't deny an innocent person the right to own property (or legally benefit in his
or her own labor. There‘s always value in labor). The Founding Fathers of Jefferson, Madison,
Samuel Adams and others realized that the paramount role of government in essence was the
protection of our liberties. In the 21st century, threats to our civil liberties occur constantly. That's all
the more reason for us to be more educated on our rights. We shouldn't accept deception and we
ought to love the truth

While numerous Americans are blinded to our diminished liberty, the big, central
government operators abide to enact policies detrimental to our fundamental God-given
rights. It just seems that the world will sink even lower in trying to eliminate the need for rationality.
For thousands of years, laws in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe influenced our laws in
America (like the Constitution, state laws, etc.). A heavy contributor to our law is the Magna Carta
that was created in 1215. This law restricted the excessive power of Kings and other rulers in the
land of Britain. The Magna Carta created rules that developed habeas corpus and the right of juries
to determine cases. Habeas corpus protects us from being imprisoned unlawfully. It made King
John of England to proclaim certain rights to freemen and respect rights. It confirmed
common law that influenced the legal perimeters of the English speaking world. The English
Bill of Rights from 1689 (including George Mason’s 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights) was a
group of legitimate laws that inspired the existence of the Bill of Rights as well. The English Bill of
Rights supported explicitly the right of the people to petition the King. The people have a right to give
grievances to those holding office. The Blackstone’s Commentaries is one of the greatest legal
documents in history. It’s related to our U.S. laws and outlined key, succinct principles that are
universally legitimate to respect plus accept in our lives. In Book 1, Chapter 1 of Blackstone’s
Commentaries the point is made that “every individual” has “the right of petitioning the
king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievance.” These Commentaries had
pro-life and other pro-liberty provisions in them as well. Of course, the Bill of Rights endorsed
a host freedoms like the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to not be searched
without a warrant or probable cause, the right to have a trial by jury, to not have cruel and unusual
punishment, etc. You have to appreciate the Anti-Federalists in supporting the Bill of Rights. Since
without them, the Federalists like Alexander Hamilton could have their way in getting rid of the Bill of
Rights centuries ago. Civil liberties should be protected not only among those with whom we agree
with, but also with those people we disagree with.

The mainstream media may spin, but our liberties are being violated all of the time. There can be
long books on even simple examples of this. One easy example is the abrupt militarized police
using random searches against innocent citizens of major cities like New York City. Nationwide,
there are illegal checkpoint monitoring citizens even within the border. The deal is that the DHS can
set up an internal checkpoints in the United States anywhere in the region (of ca. 100 miles of the
actual border) and question citizens. There is the U.S. Border Patrol having a policy of using 100
miles from the border designed as border checkpoints. These illegal checkpoints force citizens to
answer questions about their citizenships. One person named Edgar Ayala (a Forks High School
athlete and graduate with honors) was arrested in August 20, 2008. He was later deported to
Mexico. People have demonstrated against the Forks Border Patrol checkpoint. These
random checkpoints definitely have an authoritarian feel to the society of the U.S. Even the
ACLU opposes this strange policy as a Constitutional free zone. This is occurring in New
Mexico as well. The mainstream media like those from MSNBC (who is owned by GE plus others.
General Electric is a transnational corporation that manufactures helicopter engines used in Iraq
and Afghanistan. GE is complicit in the war on terror, yet so-called liberals are on there trying to
lecture us on issues) are whining about protesters using their First Amendment right disagreeing
with Obamacare when our Founding Fathers and colonial people back in the day did a lot more than
just yell at people. They used self defense against the imperialist British redcoats, threw tea in the
water, went out and preached against tyranny, yelled at the top of their lungs to disagree with the
policies of the Crown, and other things. Not only is GE complicit in mass murder, it also pled
guilty in federal court to civil and criminal charges of defrauding the Pentagon and agreed
to pay $69 million to the U.S. government in fines — one of the largest defense contracting
fines ever. It’s hypocritical to condemn the protesters as so-called “right wing extremists” when
these protesters exist from all sides of the political spectrum. Even ABC News had to admits that
these protesters are real and aren’t funded by the health care insurance industry at all. Then
Congress people won’t even read the health care bill (It has over 1,000 pages in it.
It can potentially fund abortion and have a centralized database) then expect us to
accept it. The health care bill limits judicial review as well. There is nothing wrong
with being respectful in expressing dissent, but being angry or yelling isn’t illegal. It’s totally
American to yell at evil people, criminals, or deceivers trying to violate the Bill of Rights and
Constitution. It’s not anti-democratic (as that Mormon Harry Reid lied about) to democratically
speak your mind. Some of these hypocrites omit how a protester (who was an
African American male called racial slurs by hypocritical liberal extremists)
was assaulted by SEIU thugs near St. Louis Missouri. There is an African
American woman (who is a proponent of Barack Obama’s health care
proposal) whose sign of Rosa Parks was tore up by an old man for no
reason whatsoever. That was evil. She claims that racism was the motive for
the sign tore up since she said that other signs were in the building with
slurs, etc. I don’t believe in harassing people or unfairly demonizing anyone like President
Barack Obama, but expressing our First Amendment rights in a constructive way is fine with me.
CFR member and managing director of Kissinger and Associates David Rothkopf called Americans
and those who oppose the Obama health care plan morons like the coward he is. David denies that
the government wants to pull the plug on grandma in the health care bill.

Under Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation,”

practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available,
including palliative care and hospice,” in other words the government will be in the
business of recommending euthanasia in order to “bend the curve” on health care costs, as
Charles Lane noted in The Washington Post. This isn’t equivalent to euthanasia, but this is
wrong since the government has no right to recommend end of life procedures toward
anyone. That’s between the patient, the family, and a doctor not the government. Also,
some authors of this bill and White House officials like Ezekiel Emanuel want a scale of
coverage depending on age. Later, this liar Rothkopf says that we have nothing to complain
about. That’s a lie since exporting millions of jobs to foreign slave labor gulags, stealing
trillions of dollars from the people and giving it to the criminal banksters, polluting the
food supply with GMO and soft kill weapons, installing a military police state and high-
tech surveillance grid, and torching the very fabric of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
are legitimate items to complain about. He demonizes Christians and others. His mentality
is what exactly the global elite think of us. They think of us as cattle and obstacles to their
sick global government plans. We have a right to disagree with David Rothkopf‘s
extremism completely. The lies aren’t working since most people oppose the banker takeover,
the gun grabbing, the violations of our civil liberties, and other evils. Even President George W.
Bush has been terrible in terms of civil liberties. He passed laws that violated the Bill of
Rights and Constitution like the Patriot Act, FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Violent Radicalization
and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, he allowed torture policies to exist (as supported by
John Yoo and others), Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Amended Presidential Executive Orders,
and the revocation of Posse Comitatus Act (in his various executive orders and laws).

*Our civil liberties are definitely worth fighting for. For the longest time, I’ve wanted to write about
this issue. Now, I have a chance to do it. Some members of Congress and the elite are liars. They
claim that they want common ground on abortion and then they refuse to get rid of Roe (which is a
federal takeover of the abortion issue). They claim to not to get rid of our guns when they support
anti-gun legislation in the Congress. Even Rahm Emanuel wants everyone in the no-fly list to not
own guns when many people in that list are innocent of any crime. Legislation sponsored by the
The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the
terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms. They claim that vaccines are all safe
when even mainstream scientists have exposed some dangerous vaccines for decades. They claim
that the climate bill is beneficial when much of the carbon trading system will financially benefit
people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong. It will give taxpayer money into big corporation and
international institutions. The climate change bill won‘t effect big polluters China or India at all. It will
give polluters a free pass to pollute if they have a carbon tax. The carbon tax/cap and trade plans
have been rejected even in European nations (along with many scientists rejecting man-made
global warming). The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free
speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual.
“Harmful” is ambiguous at best that can limit free speech. This represents the end of political
blogging and free speech on the world wide web if these bill was passed and enforced. . People
don’t trust the establishment in increasing numbers. Individuals want to be legitimately free.

Police Brutality

Police brutality is always evil. Frankily, you have to thank cell phone cameras and other videos
recording it. If these items never existed, the police would of lied and denied most police brutality
existing in the first place. The Republican National Convention’s police response in 2008 was worse
than even the DNC. The reason might be that more criticism is directly toward the Republicans.
That still is never an excuse for the law authorities to arrest innocent protestors in St. Paul,
Minnesota at all. There is many examples of illegal crackdown of dissent in the Minnesota area.
Indy bay from September 2, 2008 outlined how a woman was pepper sprayed in the face by the
police. She was innocent and was assaulting no one at all. She was just showing a flower to the
militarized police with black uniforms (looking like the Nazis). Glenn Greenwald from Salon on
September 2, 2008 classified the RNC 2008 as the most militarized convention on record.
There has been raids against innocent people. One example was Amy Goodman (though a
Left Gatekeeper) was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota during that time.
She was trying to free two Democracy Now producers who were also being unlawfully detained.
They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. They were arrested while carrying out their
journalistic duties in covering street demonstrators in the RNC. Goodman was assaulting no one
and questioned the officers. Protestors were attacked with tear gas as well. It isn't just them. Other
journalists have been harassed as well. For example, members of I-Witness Video, which is a New
York-based media watchdog group that records police activity in order to protect civil liberties, were
arrested for no reason by police. Armed police surrounded one of the members' home. Glen
Greenwald has been on the front lines exposing this. Glenn Greenwald reminded readers on
Sunday, that the Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force spent months recruiting people to spy on
activist groups who were planning on to protest the RNC. So, Glen deserves credit on the police
oppression in these affairs. It doesn't take rocket science to know certain aspects of the government
want certain forms of dissent quelled in American soil. These events aren't extraordinary. Militarized
police were in many conventions before 2008 and raids against innocent citizens have been
common place for decades. Now, people are starting to realize this police state atmosphere exists
not only in America, but throughout the world. It's worse in other countries where you can be
arrested and jailed for just dissenting with the status quo of the government like China, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etc. Andrew Meyer was tasered for just answering a question. That can't
be a reality in the future if we want our civil liberties protected. Government has always worked best
when it's limited by what it can and can't do. The government and law enforcement should be held
accountable for these immoral duties.

Tara Vreeland from NewsOn6 on June 12, 2009 described news about the EMT wanting
accountability from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. EMT Maurice White says he is in a way glad that
the scuffle with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper occurred. The reason is that it means that
problems will be addressed and dealt with. He wants accountability from the OHP as he told the
News On 6. “This situation can never happen again,” said Maurice White. Maurice White doesn't
want to see anyone else in the position that he was in at the business end of a choke-hold from
Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Martin. White thinks that it will happen again to someone
else unless some questions are answered. Maurice White wants light on the problems with the OHP
and in order for things to move forward. White says even when flattened against his ambulance, he
was worried about the patient in the back. It was a woman suffering from possible heat exhaustion
whom he and his partner were taking to a hospital. The truth is while a cop is choking an innocent
man (who wasn't even yelling at the cop), a woman was strapped to a gurney with an IV, and EKG,
and oxygen. This person can't moved and she is hearing her family members scream outside that
was tortured for her. She never deserved that. They (or his partner Paul Franks) didn't deserve this
treatment from Trooper Martin. If a trooper did this to another trooper or other professionals, that
trooper would be fired or suspended for a long time. The paramedics never started the scuffle as
the dash cam video proves. The trooper was out of control and showed total disregard for the
patient in the ambulance completely. The trooper said that he returning from Iraq caused him to act
in that fashion, which is a lame excuse. White told The News On 6 he holds the OHP in the highest
regard and says they generally are the epitome of professionalism when it comes to police work.
White's lawyer, Richard O'Carroll, told The News On 6 that he will get the dash cam video, but it will
take a lawsuit to do so which means there could be a civil lawsuit in the future. This should be
America not a dictatorship. Unfortunately, dictator-like laws and policies exist in the United States of
America. So, police brutality is an epidemic that must stop.
More Extreme Police Brutality is definitely occurring in America. William N. Grigg from Pro
Libertate on May 31, 2009 have exposed this issue for many years. Irma Marquez was abused
by Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes. She is recuperating in a hospital. She was accused of
"disorderly conduct" and second degree obstruction of governmental administration. Irma is a 45
year old woman from Yonkers, NY. She was physically assaulted in public in front of many
witnesses. The incident was captured clearly on a surveillance videotape. The abuse was so bad
that she had a head injury, a loss of consciousness, memory loss, a jaw fracture, 2 black eyes,
facial contusions, severe swelling and bruising, hemorrhaging in both eyes, lacerations to the nose,
etc. You get the picture. You see that some of these cops are getting away of this stuff daily. It isn't
just affecting minorities or the poor (which is wrong and we know about from the news, etc.). It's
affecting all Americans for injustice against one person, affects all people worldwide. A Federal jury
misplaced justice once again. She wasn't responsible for those injuries, but the injustice continued.
Irma was just a home health worker. The police officer was never charged with criminal assault or
any crime at all. On Wednesday (May 26), a federal jury ruled that Yonkers Police Officer Wayne
Simoes didn’t violate Marquez’s civil rights when he lifted her from her feet and slammed her face-
first into the floor of the La Fonda restaurant on March 3, 2007. Simoes tried to stop a drunken
melee at La Fonda. Marquez had too much to drink and was concerned about her niece. Her niece
was injured in the brawl. Marquez stumbled to officers like Simoes. A generation ago, most of the
police would allow her to leave the room with restraint. Simoes jacked her arm, bear hugged her,
and picked up her face then slamming her to the floor. Irma is bleeding at her feet. No one aides
her. Simoes put a knee on her back to arrest her. Testifying at the trial, Officer John Liberatore
stated that Simoes clearly used excessive force against Marquez. The prosecution didn't want
Fredericks' assessment of Simoes' action. Even though Westchester County District
Attorney Janet DiFiore didn’t see fit to file criminal charges against the bully who face-planted
Marquez, she zealously prosecuted the victim on spurious criminal charges that were quickly
disposed of by a jury in May 2008. Janet was a hypocrite for lecturing on domestic violence when
Irma was subjected to violence by a crooked cop. Wayne Simoes, petty thug and unpunished
abuser of women, prefers to be called by the supposedly exalted title “Officer.” Marquez is not a real
officer. He's a coward and an abuser of a woman.

Homeland Security
This has been a recently created bureaucracy that came about in 2001. People have accused
this organization as going to be used to suspend the Constitution and create a dictatorial
New World Order under the guise of “martial law.” Representative Ron Paul from Texas
has observed that this “represents the biggest government reorganization since the
creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940’s, and potentially the single biggest
expansion of the federal government in our history.” With this plan, ex-President
George W. Bush and Thomas Ridge, a Knight of Columbus and ex-head of Homeland
SSecurity, did try to to revoke the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This great law divulged
that the U.S. military couldn’t attack civilian citizens of the United States or face fines
and/or imprisonment. Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhardt (one of the
heads of the military industrial complex during the 9/11 tragedy), head of the Bush’s
new military Northern Command and even Democrat Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of
Delaware endorsed the ending of the Posse Comitatus Act.

This act should be preserved. Homeland SSecurity is one of the many expansions of the
Executive Brach and that branch has too much power already in this country. The
Homeland Defense Agency and Homeland SSecurity was conceived in the Clinton
administration. Two men from two parties proposed it made up of Gary Hart [CFR
globalist and Democrat] and Warren Rudman [Republican] in their “The Phase III Report
of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century” which is nothing more than a
framework for a permanent military bureaucratic American police state. Homeland
SSecurity reorganizes the whole executive and legislature functions of the U.S.
government. It makes the National Guard a national police force and federalizes the work
of science, mathematics, engineering, and made of tons of bureaucracies, etc. The illegal
Homeland SSecurity agency is built upon FEMA. FEMA have blatant protocols on how to
get rid of our Constitution and God-given rights during martial law which is illegal and
immoral. Homeland SSecurity is even given power to control the border security, the Coast
Guard, Custom Service, Border Patrol, and Transportation. Homeland SSecurity will also
try to rule over activities of the Department of Defense and assume duties from the
Department of Commerce to the FBI. This all was a reality by November 25, 2002 when
the Homeland SSecurity Act of 2002 passed. It’s made up of 40 governmental agencies and
most of the President’s Cabinet. The word “Homeland” is Nazi in of itself given the
context of this Beast Security by reason of Adolf Hitler describing Nazi Germany as
the “Homeland.” In German, the word Homeland means “Vaterland” or Fatherland
so Ridge’s job is the same as Heinrich Himmler in Nazi Germany heading the S.S. and
Gestapo.
 The Second Amendment Part 2
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been
the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever
standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms
is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a
bulwark for
the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
-James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US
President
The war on gun rights is real. Even the English Bill of Rights from 1689 supported the right of people
to bear arms for their defense as allowed by law. The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution perfectly says that citizens have a right to bear arms as exposed by these words: "..A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Founding
Fathers uniformly believed that the people had the individual right to bear arms. According to the
writings cited in "That Every Man Be Armed." "Mr. Madison has introduced long-expected
amendments…It contains a bill of rights…the right of the people to bear arms." -Trench Coxe (p.
76). Even the Supreme Court in the Heller vs. D.C. case says that the Second Amendment pertains
to individual gun rights. People may deny that some people want to take away our guns, but some
do. One example is how Diane Feinstein desired to ban firearms from citizens. The Violence Policy
Center group says that: "...“gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer ... licensing
and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.” “[We are]
the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” (“Politics,
paranoia fuel war of words over guns”, The Times Union, October 18, 2004). Janet Reno said: "The
most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of
firearm by the civilian populace." (Addressing a 1984 B'nai B'rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida,
per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of Miami). Barack Obama may not want to do it, but he
supports so much anti-gun restrictions that even innocent citizens will be greatly restricted on how
they possess a firearms. There are stories where those with guns have saved other people's lives.

Some dissent with that anti-gun agenda of the elite so much that some states are trying to take
action. Montana wants to stop federal gun control laws. Montana's proposed gun laws may
have the basis for a court showdown over states' rights (if the governor signs a bill to
release some firearms in the state from federal regulation). The proposed law aims to
exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in
Montana from federal gun laws. The bill wants to prevent federal gun laws from effecting
Montana, because Montana already has gun laws there. This can allow gun owners and
seller to not be bound under federal regulations, license requirements, and background
checks completely. "We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and
have the feds stay out of it," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association,
which helped draft the bill. House Bill 246 sailed through the Montana Legislature, but
Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not yet offered a position on the measure, which
awaits his action. The federal ATF hadn't made a firm position on the issue. "ATF is not
going to take a position on this because we don't make any of the laws, we just enforce the
laws that Congress makes," said Carrie DiPirro. DiPirro is the spokeswoman for the Denver
field division, which oversees Montana. Congress can regulate interstate commerce as the
Constitution says. This is why some promote gun regulation in America. In essence, those in
Montana want the House Bill 246 to pass, because it promotes state's rights. The Second
Amendment or gun rights is great to promote. Barack Obama may not want to ban all guns
in America, but some of his allies do. Even Eric Holder supported the D.C. gun ban. That's all
the more reason to promote the truth and preserve the right of self defense (even using arms
if necessary). There are a record number of people owning guns now. According to
Ammoland.com, data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) reported 1,225,980 checks in April 2009. This figure is a 30.3 percent increase from the
940,961 reported in April 2008.

Anti-Gun people are coming out in force. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a Democrat. She acts
like she is apart of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, but she plans on introducing an assault
weapons ban weeks ago. Kirsten is a junior Senator from NY that the NRA at one time rated
her high (because of her supposed advocacy of the 2nd Amendment when she isn't now).
She even posed with fellow gun grabber Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even Newsday
said that Gillibrand transformed into an anti-gun zealot over the course of 3 months. Rep.
Caroyln McCarthy brainwashed her to support many anti-gun policies like closing the gun
show loophole, etc. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second
Amendment. McCarthy's new bill called H.R. 6676 wants to utilize the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and
dealers. This is a violation of individual privacy of course. The federal government has no
right to know your gun records without due process at all. There are 3 other bills that would
make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns. See, "suspected" doesn't mean
you're a terrorist. It means suspected, so potentially innocent citizens can be illegally
deprived of their gun rights for just being classified as "suspected terrorists" by the
government. The House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and
Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which is being sponsored by Republican
Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the
Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives
licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” Larry Pratt said that people who are
advocates of the 2nd Amendment are called terrorists by the DHS "Rightwing Extremism"
report, so they could be deprived of their gun rights. Senator Gillibrand is working closely
with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the
Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. She sold out to anti-gun
special interest groups. Of course, the NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly love this. This
comes under the back drop of the lie that 90% of the guns used to commit crimes in Mexico
comes from America. The truth is that only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime
scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into
Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia,
Guatemala, and the Mexican Army. Some want the assault weapons ban despite of it having
no effect on crimes using guns virtually. Democrats are fearful of backlash have told the
Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons
ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose
any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.” The government
regularly exploits gun violence as an excuse to target innocent law abiding citizens instead
of solving moral issues in the right way. Solutions are teaching moral principles in society,
education, build up communities, don't allow criminals to own a gun, and have concealed
carry laws among citizens. It's imperative for us to learn about the tactics of politicians in
trying to destroy the Second Amendment completely.
 Individuals of many races, backgrounds, and ethnic groups
legitimately promoted and fought for self defense, civil liberties, and
gun rights throughout human history.

Some in the LAPD are at it again. There is a CBS news clip in California. It was featured
prominently on the front page of Yahoo.com. It talked about how the LAPD are melting down
40,000 lbs. worth of "illegal weapons." They are doing this in their claim of preventing
criminals from owning them. Yet, the catch is that most of these guns that are being
destroyed are perfectly legal and were handed in by law abiding citizens (they kept them in
their own home). The propaganda about this situation is staggering for those who know
about firearms. The CBS clip gives the impression that all guns are illegal and owned by
criminals. This is despite of the fact that the vast majority of the guns shown to be melted
down are rifles and pistols. These weapons are perfectly legal. “We’re taking illegal weapons
off the streets and putting them to better use,” states the LAPD officer at the end of the clip,
failing to mention the fact that most of the guns being destroyed are perfectly legal (and
were handed in by law-abiding citizens who had kept them at home). The anchor believes
that the weapons could of ended up in the hands of criminals, which is a lie since some law
abiding citizens gave up their own guns to be destroyed. The media is implying that the
LAPD is going us a favor by destroying legal firearms. Only fully automatic firearms can be
deemed “illegal,” yet most of the guns shown in the clip, which include a M1 carbine, used in
deer hunting, a Walther PPK pistol, as well as a Winchester Ranger Model 120 shotgun.
These weapons are completely legal to own. One officer showed a street sweeper Tommy
gun, which is legal. The new anchors say that guns are delivered off the streets. The LAPD
admits that they actually want legal guns destroyed by saying: “It’s not just criminals but
people who have them in their homes that really didn’t want them - that’s where you get the
kids accidentally shooting themselves.” The reality is that hardened criminals who want to
commit more criminal actions in the future could care less about sending their guns to the
police. Law abiding citizens giving up their guns could be defenseless from a home invasion
by a real criminal. It's Orwellian doublespeak to assume that legal firearms are "illegal
weapons." The good news is that more and more people understand that the Second
Amendment is about individuals having the right to own guns if they want to. If you are an
innocent citizen, the government has no right to steal your guns at all. The police have done
worse by stealing weapons from innocent people in the world before from Chicago to New
Orleans. There has been some good news with gun rights. This story is found in the link of:
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Tampa-woman-stops-armed-carjacker-with-
her-own-gun/lzk5OlbYpkC5occGcyQP_w.cspx. A Tampa woman stops an armed carjacker
with her own gun. She refused to be a victim. A person gun on her car in May of 2009. The
woman wanted to identify herself as "Adrianna." "I just leaned forward and punched him in the
forehead with my gun," she said. The man "screamed like a girl and almost dropped his gun" as he
ran away, she added. The Tampa police have arrested one suspect so far in what they see a
pattern of carjackings. A-Keem Carr was arrested on related charges, but 2 others are believed to
be preying on motorists in the Westshore area. Adrianna was pulling into the International Mall when
the armed man jumped in her car. She talked about defending herself. "I didn't want to have to
shoot...anyway over a car. But if it was going to be him or me..." Tampa Police warn the suspects
are becoming more aggressive and may be prone to violence. Adrianna did the right thing to protect
herself from a criminal. Now, the Second Amendment has been a key law that saved tons of lives
throughout America for centuries.
Bowling for Columbine
I wanted to show information on this issue for a very long time. A very prominent filmmaker sums up
one description for Michael Moore. What propelled him to mighty notoriety was “Roger and Me.”
That movie was about how General Motors downsized jobs and destroyed the working class
communities in Flint, Michigan. “Bowling for Columbine” in my mind is the #1 lying, misleading
propaganda flick about gun rights in history. Despite Michael Moore earning an Oscar for it, it’s a
fake documentary. David T. Hardy and others have demolished this film so bad that here’s 3 major
lies that Moore exhibited which are refuted:

1. Lie #1: Moore tried to equate the NRA to the KKK. He claimed that the NRA was founded in 1871
at the same time when the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization. He created an animated
sequence where a Klansman became a NRA member to help light up a burning cross.

The Truth: Former Union officers by the act of the New York Legislature found the National Rifle
Association in 1871. The Klan was invented in 1866 and quickly became a terrorist organization. It
became illegal by the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Enforcement Act in 1871 by President Ulysses S.
Grant. Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many
whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that
African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great
services." Grant fought the Klan and was the 8th President of the NRA. The KKK has absolutely no
relationship with the NRA at all. When Grant left office, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan,
who removed the governors of Texas and Louisiana for failure to suppress the KKK. In fact, the
JPFO (or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Organization) recorded numerous racist gun
control laws against African Americans and Jews. For example, a French Black Code in 1751
prevented blacks in Louisiana to own firearms. There were racist gun control laws in the U.S. from
the 1700’s to the 1900’s (I.e. The Black Codes, gun bans in the pre and post Civil War South, etc.).
The Gun Control Act of 1938 restricted Jews to possess firearms, which was supported by the
Nazis.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, blacks organized as NRA chapters to obtain surplus military rifles to fight
off Klansmen. Extreme gun control is truly racist. History bears out this fact.

2. Lie #2: Michael Moore claimed that Charlton Heston’s “cold dead hands” speech was in a Denver
meeting that related to Columbine. .

The Truth: The annual NRA meeting in Denver, which was preplanned. It had nothing to do with the
events of Columbine. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's
depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given
a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being
given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.
3. Lie #3: Moore believed that the shooting at Bwell Elementary School in Michigan where a little boy
killed Karyla Roland is an example of the need to extremely limit or ban gun rights. He further said
that the kid (who he portrays as a sympathetic youngster, which is sick) was from a struggling
family, found a gun in his uncle’s house, and took it to school making people wonder why he shot
the little girl.

The Truth: The boy acted wild and he was suspended from school. He fought with Karyla on the day
before he killed her. The uncle’s house was a crack house and the gun was stolen by his uncle in
exchange for drugs. This was a dysfunctional family. This wasn’t a normal family and the gun was
stolen. This gun wasn’t used by a law abiding citizen at all.

4. Lie #4: Moore wonderswhether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of
the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton.
Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.

The Truth: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space
launch vehicles for TV satellites.

5. Lie # 5: Moore implies that his film is trying to stop fear mongering.

The Truth: The whole film is an example of fear mongering directed against the Second
Amendment. In it, Moore wants us to fear almost everything: Guns; gun-owners; America;
K-Mart bullets; Lockheed-Martin; Dick Clark; Charlton Heston. He says that guns are the
problem in crime, yet he supports more police in areas to use guns to stop crime in Los
Angeles, and other places. This is hypocrisy on Michael Moore’s part since guns alone
don’t kill people. People kill people in a myriad of resources since the dawn of human
history.
History involving Self Defense and Gun Rights

There is a long history pertaining to how self defense have been crucial to survival.
This history definitely inspired the establishment of the Second Amendment as it’s
a vital part of the Second Amendment. Some folks, even those with a college
education, are ignorant on the history of the Second Amendment. As many
realized, the Founding Fathers read the classical works of Tacitus and Livy in
order to learn the errors of the Roman Empire and make their government better
than the components of the ancient Roman Empire. John Adams wrote that whenever
he read Thucydides and Tacitus, "I seem to be only reading the History of my own Times
and my own Life." Thomas Jefferson even commented that many Romans chose suicide
than rather live their lives under an Emperor. I don’t agree with suicide though. Julius
Caesar was a famous tyrant and murderer. After he used his army to subdue Rome, he
fought against Gaul. Julius Caesar stole arms of the conquered towns or areas he collected.
Henceforth, some founding Fathers like James Madison wrote in Federalist 41 that "the
liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs." In other words, if
standing armies aren’t regulated properly, a tyrannical society is all but a certain to occur.
Some ancient Romans had commonsense though. Cicero was a writer who rightfully
commented that carrying a weapon for lawful defense is fine, while carrying a weapons to
do a crime is evil. He defended Titus Annius Milo in 53 B.C. for the murder of Publius
Claudius Pulcher. Cicero believed that In several specific ways, America itself has become
very similar to the Roman Empire. These similarities between the Roman Empire and
America now are: both are invading sovereign nation in unjustified circumstances, each
legalized abortion, each once supported the evil of slavery, each are made up of tons of
ethnic groups, each use the Eagle as apart of their national emblem, each pass laws that
violate individual liberties, and each have a vivrant Christian population in its borders.
Radical gun control didn’t start with the ACLU or others. Even in England, King Henry VII
prohibited poor people from shooting crossbows or guns. That’s evil of course. In the
1600’s, Charles II and James II passed similar measure to disarm people deemed
“untrustworthy,” they forced gunsmiths to register guns that they have worked
on, and limited the import of guns. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 occurred.
This allowed William and Mary to become the new monarchs. They wrote their
Bill of Rights to guarantee people the right to keep arms in these words:

“…That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence
suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” (Walter Laquer and Barry
Rubin, ed., The Human Rights Reader, [New York: New American Library, 1979],
106).

Of course, anybody deserves the right to bear arms, not just the Protestants. The
area of colonial America had much more freedom than England did. Gun control
laws did exist in colonial America though. Some of these gun control laws were
very racist. Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies ban the sale of guns to Native
Americans. Some black people back in 1700’s and 1800’s were restricted or even
banned to own firearms (even if they were innocent citizens). Some laws were pro-
gun. A 1632 statute of Plymouth Colony ordered “that every freeman or other
inhabitant of this colony provide for himselfe and each under him able to beare
armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war with bandaleroes
and other appurtenances with what speede may be….” These previous words are
in older English obviously. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, (which was largely
written by George Mason on June 12, 1776), nearly echoed verbatim Locke’s views
on natural rights. Article One states:
 "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain
inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they
cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the
enjoyment of life, liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing
property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Article 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights further states:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained
to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that
standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to
liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

More Gun Facts and Statistics

1). According to this source (of “Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis,” Jeffery A. Miron,
Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics,
October 2001), countries with the strictest gun control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics from September 2004 (and the Naitons
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization in 2005), Brazil’s homicide rate is almost 3 times
higher than the U.S. rate. Brazil has mandatory, licensing, registration, and maximum personal
ownership quotas. Brazil bans any new sales to private citizens. Since the mostly gun bans in
Britain, it’s crime rates has accelerated worse.

2). Gun registration doesn’t completely work. According to David B. Kopel in 1992, Boston,
Cleveland, and California have city and state registration of “assault weapons.” The compliance rate
in Boston and Cleveland in the early 1990’s was about 1%. Ton Drane wrote an article called “Why
Gun Registration will Fail” in the May 1997 of the Australian Shooters. Now, he found that Germany
began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between
17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced,
leaving 80% unaccounted for. Even in Canada, gun registration of handguns in 1934
have caused over half of the registered handguns to be confiscated without compensation
in 2001. In Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from
citizens. So, to assume that registration by the federal government can’t lead to confiscation is
a myth. It historically happened before in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and
Georgia as well.

3). According to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, from Fall 1995, every year, people in
the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000
times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.151 Of these instances, 15.6%
of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by
doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. The
National Crime Victimization Survey from 2000 mentioned that when using guns in self defense, 91.1% of the
time, not a single shot is fired.

4). As of July 2006, 39 states have right to carry concealed carry laws. This is the majority
of the American population. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell after
the right to carry law have become active. 9 states restrict the right to carry and 2
deny it outright. A Gallup survey from May of 2008 confirms that 73% of Americans believe
nd
the 2 Amendment “guarantees” the right to keep guns, and that a mere 20% believe it exists
to enable state militias.

Certain people believe that there aren't folks who want to ban all guns, but they are sadly
mistaken. Here's just some words by a few of these anti-gun extremists.

Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California:

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." (Associated
Press, November 18, 1995)

Rosie O'Donnell, Ex-TV Talk Show Hostess:

"I think there should be a law-and I know this is extreme-that non one can have a gun in the
U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns." (Ottowa Sun,
April 29, 1999) [Note by me: Funny Rosie since even the Supreme Court ruled that the
police aren't even required to protect every citizen in the U.S. and the phone # 9-11
can cause delay a simple gun used in self defense by preventing crime. Also, Rosie,
you have a bodyguard who has a gun, so you're just a hypocrite whose a liberal
extremist which can validate anything with the gun issue by fact so you cry fowl.]

Major Owens, U.S. Representative from New York:

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we
register the guns which we are currently owned, and follow that wi th additional bans and
acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no spring purpose."

*This is a small taste of the anti-gun extremists who don't fully value the Bill of Rights
for if you actually honored the Bill of Rights, they would accept the 2nd Amendment
100% graciously which they don't at all. People like Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Arlen
Spector, Schumer, Feinstein, and others just want to deprive us Americans our right to
bear arms. People have a right to own all types of firearms.

CFR member George Soros is working with the United Nations to harm the Second
Amendment. A video shows that Rebecca Peters (who is the director of the International
Action Network on Small Arms or the IANSA) is working with the United Nations plus
government globally to grab guns. They are funded by the globalist George Soros. Peters is
the Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control. This group campaigned to tighten
Australia’s gun laws in the 1990's according to Umut Foundation (which is an organization
that wants individual disarmament in harmony with the European Union). Her research and
advocacy helped to get sweeping changes like uniform gun laws across eight states, a ban
on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year long buyback that destroyed nearly
700,000 weapons. Peters received the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal for her
country's highest human rights honor. Prior to working with IANSA, Peters worked for
Soros' Open Society Institute. Soros has dedicated a large percentage of his income gained
from manipulating international stock and currency markets to push for gun control. He
exploits many establishment liberals and push his gun grabbing agenda. George Soros
funnels cash via his OSI or the Open Society Institute to anti-gun groups like the Tides
Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. "...He and seven rich friends founded
their own political committee — Campaign for a Progressive Future — and spent $2
million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for
the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control
regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the
international gun-prohibitionists,” notes the NRA. “The bottom line is that international
gun banners want every gun — every single gun worldwide — to be under U.N. and
government control,” notes Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. “And that includes your rifle,
your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from
generation to generation.” Before Lou Dobbs was forced out of CNN, he exposed that the
Barack Obama administration stands behind CIFTA or the Inter-American Convention
Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms. Obama and crew are pushing
this treaty under the pretense that it will disarm drug cartels and criminals. The treaty's
aspect introduces major gun control and most of which will affect average citizens. It can
nullify the 2nd Amendment completely. In 2009, Barack Obama told Mexican President
Felipe Calderon that he would do everything in his power to get the U.S. Senate to pass the
treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations
are superior rank to national law. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified, and not having defined the
exceptions to its many requirements within our Constitution, it would usurp U.S.
sovereignty and open the door to additional legislation to support its application in U.S.
law. “Obviously, the United Nations, from its very inception, has been one of the world’s
most ardent gun control proponents. As anyone who has ever driven by the U.N. building in
New York City knows, a huge statue of an American-made revolver with its barrel twisted
in the shape of a pretzel greets every visitor. The CIFTA treaty is one of the U.N.’s pet
projects in order to achieve this long-held ambition,” writes Chuck Baldwin. In October of
2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the United Nations something. She told them
that the U.S. would support negotiations of an Arms Treaty to regulate international gun
trafficking. 2 weeks earlier, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a
resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty including an U.N.
conference to produce a final accord in 2012. It's no secret that the U.N. have had a hostility
toward gun rights for years. Secretary Annan back years ago called for international
controls on firearms like world leaders even then French President Jacques Chirac desired a
global tax on firearms. The UN Security Council's "Report of the Group of Governmental
Experts on Small Arms" called for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control and
praises the restrictive gun policies of China and France. The dismantling of the Second
Amendment as proposed by Soros, the U.N., and the globalists are apparent. They want an
international treaty to make that reality more apparent. No one in the mainstream media is
covering this issues except Lou Dobbs, who was unceremoniously bounced out of the
media recently.

Threats Against Homeschooling Worldwide

Hitler's Nazis banned homeschooling in their degenerate rise to power. To this day, Germany
bans all homeschooling. The German Court recently forced 5 kids of a family to be held in
state custod, because their parents homeschool their children. The case came about fr 6
hours in a grueling German Family Court session in early August. The Gorber family
regained custody of their 3 year old son. The judge retained custody though of the 5 other
Gorber children to the state. The case is having a pending deal with the government trying to
force psychological evaluations of their parents. The court did allow increased visitation for
some of the children up from one hour every two weeks that had been permitted since the children
were seized in a surprise raid by the youth welfare office ("Jugendamt") and police. In January of
2008, Jugendamt and police officials surrounded the German home of the family while Mr. Gorber
visited his wife at a local hospital where she had been admitted due to complications from her
pregnancy with her ninth child. The oldest son, age 21, and a daughter, age 20, were not taken by
the authorities, but all the other children were removed despite their repeated protests. This act was
plan fascism plain and simple. They forced the children out of their family's home. The Jugendamt
has been criticized for their excessive tactics. Once, fines were given to homeschoolers in Germany
and other punishments are being enacted. That's why German homeschoolers have fled Germany.
This is wrong. A member of the SPD party in Bavaria, Germany also stated in a recent radio
interview that that "Imprisonment or fines in this matter are absolutely excessive in my opinion,
because homeschooling can provide very high-quality outcomes. This topic is definitely one which
we must work through politically. There can be no black-white declarations, but we must discuss this
without ideological blinders on." That's why pure educational choice and educational freedom ought
to be promoted and perserved worldwide (not just in America).

The German government had dropped the charges against a homeschooling family. The
charges relate to criminal child neglect. The German mother and father faced up to 2 years
in jail. They also faced the loss of custody for homeschooling five of their children. This is
according to a report from the International Human Rights Group. Spokesman Jose Thorton
said that his group, which has been working on the case involving the Brause family from
Zittau, Germany, heard from the local counsel about the government's decision. The
German counsel member named Johannes Hidlerbrandt said that the court and the
prosecutor are dropping the charges against Mr. and Mrs. Brause. The case involved
custody of Rosine, Jotham, Kurt-Simon, Lovis and Ernst Brause. Thornton said the
announcement came after the court received a detailed psychiatric report that there is no
psychological harm to the children from homeschooling. The report also stated that the
children have not been harmed, which is evidenced by their exit exams from high school.
This means that the Brause family doesn't face up to 2 years in prison and the potential loss
of their children. This decision is a big victory for this family and the home schooling
families of Germany. The Brause family are Christians. They home school their children
because they want to have parental responsibility before God and the law. The Home
school Legal Defense Association researched this case closely as well. The HLDA help the
Uwe and Hannelore family from Bissingen, Germany to escape persecution because they've
homeschooled their children. Germany has a Nazi-era law that requires all children to
attend public school. They justify this fascist law by claiming that they want to control
which philosophical convictions are taught by parents at home. Therefore, home schooling
in under seize in Germany since independent home schooling is banned in that nation.
Now, I believe in educational freedom. Therefore, a parent has the right to send their
children to any form of education that they desire.
Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification is an important legal concept to comprehend. Sometimes the judge tries to sway
the jury in how to vote on a specific case. The judge's real role in a trial is to be a neutral referee in
telling the jury about the case (and the jury's rights and responsibilities). A lot of times, the jurors
don't realize their fundamental rights pertaining to a criminal case. The jury has the right to rule on
the law itself and vote on the verdict based to their conscience. Some prosecutors would pressure
getting rid of possible jurors who state their right of following their conscience. John Adams,
our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his 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." Back then, many jurors realize their right to be notified of this right to judge the law and the
defendant. Even the defense attorney would tell them about this right. The Founding Fathers
believed that trials should exist by juries of ordinary citizens. These citizens would know totally their
rights as jurors and this would make the government the servant of the people in a proper role not
the master of the people. Even the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power that
are the representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish
that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority. Even the Founding
Fathers accepted jury nullification. That means that the jury is a major way in which a law is tested
before it is to be enforced. The Founders believed that the enforcement of the law must face
tribunals before they are used to punish criminals. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial
by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be
held to the principles of its constitution." Later, the jury allowed the freedom of the press
to reign when they found John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. Zenger criticized the
Governor of the New York colony. The jury rejected a bad law and followed their conscience. Even
the jury voted to acquit William Penn for preaching Quaker religious doctrine (yet the UK
government jailed the jurors without food plus water or even toilet facilities for 4 days). England's
highest court later supported the jury's right to find a verdict according to conscience. This led to the
recognition of free speech, religious freedom, and peaceable assembly being apart of individual
rights. The American Revolution was a respond to the English suppress of trial by juries plus other
rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights blatantly supports trial by jury. Juries are a bulwark
against bad laws like preventing slaves from returning to being enslaved again. Jury nullification
is a tool to end bad legal precedents and bad laws in general. Jury nullification powers
have been concealed from American citizens (when jurors are only told that facts are
only admitted in court). Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only
8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the
jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it
has none." An officer of the court today isn't even allowed to tell the jury of their veto power.
That is why the Fully Informed Jury Association or the FIJA is trying to educate juries on their
rights to promote liberty plus justice for all. A jury has a right to understand their role in a court
procedure. However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge." The pages of history shine
upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113). Thousands of
innocent people have been in prison, because the trial juries aren't informed of their rights. America
imprisons more people than any nation in the world by percentage. Some are in prison for victimless
crimes. So, the trial by jury and jury nullification are vital legal parts of our society. We need to
institute continuity and stability in our legal framework.

By Timothy