Ayn Rand...

At the beginning of each trial by jury, the presiding judge instructs the jury as to their obligations and the rules of  jury trial. The charge is usually a little lengthy but will include the following although the wording may differ:

        "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: At this point in the trial, I am required to inform you as to the law governing this case to guide you in your deliberations. This statement by the Judge as to the law of the case is known as a Charge; it is also called instructions.

        It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case.

        You, as jurors, are to decide the facts. But in determining what actually happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law that I am now in the process of defining for you.

        You must not change the law or apply your own idea of what you think the law should be. Both you and I are bound by the law as stated in this charge.

        You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole. Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law is or ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any view of the law other than that given in the instructions of the Court, just as it would be a violation of your sworn duty, as finders of the facts, to base a verdict upon anything other than the evidence in the case."

The juries are triers of fact...or so they are told.

But, what if the jury does not agree with the charges against the defendant? What if the jury does not agree that the charges are fair or appropriate or "just" as applied in the trial in which they sit? What if the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges levied against him but the jury thinks the circumstances of the infraction of the law by the defendant are such that the law has been applied unfairly? Remember...the judge has instructed that only the law can be considered. THE JURY CAN STILL ACQUIT!

This concept...one of NOT applying the law in a specific case, is called jury nullification. The jury can decide that the law is unfair as applied IN THIS ONE CASE and ignore the law and find the defendant "not guilty". If repeated cases using the same law also result in a not guilty finding, the law may be later challenged as not effective or not enforceable.

This Jury Nullification is a safety check that helps to insure that unfair or biased laws cannot be successfully applied by  those who have passed a law that suits a particular point of view or effort.  For instance, a law could be passed in an area in which the majority of it's residents believe that owning a dog should not be legal and therefore a law banning dog ownership is written.
See this article: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Here is where insult to injury is blatantly demonstrated. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY CAN NOT "INFORM" THE JURY OF THIS RIGHT OF NULLIFICATION. He would face charges of contempt of court if he brings up or even hints to the jury that they have this right. The most vocal and the largest group whose purpose if to spread the word about jury nullification is the "Fully Informed Jury Association".   http://www.fija.org/

Every American should be aware of the right of jury nullification. Please help spread the word. Tell others and help protect our Constitution.

 One thing is certain and cannot be disputed. He has incited interest in this election...and action. Voter turnout in the primaries has been at record levels. People who have, in past elections, stood by passively, have become interested...and some actually involved this time around.

Consider this question..how would the election of Obama sit with the rest of the world? On pure... initial reception...how would the rest of the world react to the election of Obama? Of course you say...EVERYBODY will figure Obama will be an improvement over noodle headed Bush. But from a realistic standpoint...would  the world give Obama a fair start?

I guess the place to start here is a brief outline of the history if the ACLU. In 1920, Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU. Today the ACLU reports a membership of over 500,000 and it's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the constitution and laws of the United States." The ACLU is a marvel of organized efficiency. In order to focus upon important local issues, this organization bases it's headquarters in New York City but has 53 locally based operating agencies or affiliates, each with it's own board of directors and staff. Each of these affiliate offices is registered as separate 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities.  This allows tremendous flexibility with respect to responding to very local situations and the need for help or council. It also is beneficial with respect to the educational efforts of the ACLU as they are able to better target these efforts. The ACLU operates as the ACLU Foundation which focuses on litigation and policy distribution and education and as the American Civil Liberties Union which, because it's effort is geared toward legislative lobbying, does not have tax exempt status. Most of the funding for the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation comes from private donations...about 87%. Other sources of income include awards of legal fees from litigation, royalty income, the sale of literature and from investment income. It also receives funding from certain foundations.

Most of us are familiar with at least some of the efforts and court cases in which the ACLU has been a part.  And most of us have cheered a cause or effort the ACLU has taken on ... and I'm sure, cussed a few also. From this point forward this article will be riddled with my personal opinions. I will be biased and unabashedly so. The comment feature of this blog site allows for rebuttal and I encourage it's use.

The ACLU is the watchdog for rational thought and logical application of equal opportunities and Constitutional guarantees. Rational and logical are key words here. Most of the decisions we make are best considered without or in the absence of emotion and that is why many of the efforts of the ACLU meet with so much controversy. Briefly, here are the major positions of the ACLU:

Religious liberty...meaning that the protection of the first amendment is of paramount importance to the continued freedom of the  choice of worship or non worship we own. Most of us are in support of this effort, however there are some who have made a mission of insisting that superior insight gives them permission to insist that all are subject to the moral judgements of their interpretation of their god's laws. This group of people hates the ACLU.

The separation of church and state......In order to allow for religious freedoms for all, no state agency must be influenced by any of the various religious entities. Again, most of us subscribe to this policy, but there are some who want their religion to be part of the government. This group of people hates the ACLU.

Full freedom of speech and the press...we all are allowed to speak our minds. Dissent is even protected when it is directed against the government. Some think that they alone are specially qualified to think for the rest of us. This group of people hates the ACLU.

Abolishment of capitol punishment....this is one of the most debated topics the ALCU has addressed. Opinion is all over the map on this one and each side has valid points....proponents of the policy of capital punishment frequently hate the ACLU.

Reproductive rights or the right to use contraceptives AND the right to have an abortion.  This is bigger than the capitol punishment issue. Another reason for some..a bunch of people, to hate the ACLU.

Full civil rights for  lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans gender people, including government benefits for same-sex couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones. Narrow minded, often the morally anointed and thus morally superior hate the ACLU because of this stance.

Affirmative action as a means by which racially diverse student body can be established. Hey...I hate the ACLU for this one!!! 

The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional practices....almost all of us are afraid of a run away police state and abusive police powers..few hate the ACLU because of this ACLU effort.

The decimalization of drugs...pot, heroin, opium, coke...all that stuff... I could really get going on this one. The war on drugs..ie.. the war against the rights of any of us to destroy ourselves if we wish is a hot topic and one of the most flagrant violations of logic and reason we have ever been a part. But still, many hate the ACLU because of this effort.

The protection of privacy...this has become a lightening rod of support for the ACLU as the current administration has violated the monkey shit out of this one.  Some hate the ACLU for this one, but they are probably a part of the very small percentage of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job. This dwindling number includes mostly delusional, brain dead and morally corrupt members of our society.

Immigrants' rights...this topic of concern is, in my opinion, given the least consideration and careful thought by most Americans. It's a complex issue, but one that is tainted with a high level of emotional distortion. Some of us hate the ACLU because of this support of immigrants' rights, but I think those have not REALLY considered the complete issue and the facts of this policy.

Gun control...the ACLU has basically declared itself to be neutral on this issue!  The ACLU has determined that the Second Amendment is not an individual guarantee to keep and bear arms and they have stepped aside in order to encourage each individual STATE to determine how much freedom of protection should be allowed the residents of each state.  Hey...I hate the ACLU for this one too...well I hate this policy of the ACLU's.

The above outline of the ACLU's positions was taken, mostly from wikipedia. It's just a general outline of these positions and is not complete with regards to all of the activities of the ACLU.  

There are many organizations who have dedicated themselves to the opposition of the ACLU....like this one: www.stoptheaclu.com . This is amazing. Rather than take separate issue with the ACLU depending on the topic at hand, these people are at complete  odds with the ACLU...this is a quote from one of the letters posted on their website, "If you are a faithful Stop the ACLU reader, you know full well that we do all we can to expose the ACLU and its affinity for the unnatural and perverse".  Do what???

The application of reason and logic to the decisions we make as we determine our parameters of freedom cannot be allowed by those who have narrow minded, bigoted beliefs. My effort as I write this article, is to encourage the unbiased consideration of all the facts and ramifications of each topic we address rather than the blanket dismissal of one of the most valuable groups of Constitution protectors we have. "If the rights of society's most vulnerable are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."

Even when the ACLU is protecting the rights of someone we consider to be the worst of the worst...we can only support their effort and we must realize  that the overall concept and protocol is more important than the specific individual the ACLU protects. Actually there is really no such thing as specific protection...the protection is one of the protection of an ideal....in the broad sense. Just as the trial defense of a known child molester has to be vigorous and complete, we must allow for concept of presumed innocence. Our legal system would collapse otherwise.

I am of the opinion that the ACLU is one of the most important organizations  in existence. I don't agree with everything they do...no one does. But the thing to take into close consideration is that we are being protected by the ACLU...all of us.  

I have a theory. OK...maybe not a totally original theory, but  let's not nitpick. Huckabee thinks there is a chance that McCain will drop dead. It's as simple as that. McCain is getting on up there and with that temper and all... he could just drop dead of a heart attack or stroke. High blood pressure IS the silent killer. Especially if he keeps pissin' the conservatives off. They have connections you know. I'm not really sure how the process would proceed if Mac does kick the bucket. Surely this has been considered and there are rules in place.

There is another possibility. What if...what if with all the dirt digging that's going on...you know, the digging for trash against McCain that is underway...what if somebody finds something really bad. Really, really bad... illegal and he is indicted for a felony? The Republicans can't run a candidate for the presidency who is under indictment. Can they? What if he is elected anyway and then sent to prison? You see, by hanging in there, Huckabee stands to be next in line if something goes really wrong for McCain.

The kicker is this. Huck can then claim that whatever happens to McCain is God's will.

I can't prove any of this. Hell, that's what conspiracy theories are...unprovable speculations. And there have been other hangers on like Huck. Jerry Brown did it, so did Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, George H W Bush and Ronald Reagan...and others. Were they all secretly waiting for something to happen to their opponents? I'm just sayin'.

And how would we get those folks to pay? We would simply take away their businesses by legalizing all drugs.  Hang with me a second. First and foremost...I am not advocating the use of drugs, but at the same time, the use of drugs is a personal matter and the fact that the sale and use opiates and crack, pot and meth...all those "street drugs" is illegal has not stemmed their use. What we have actually done is create a crime wave. What if we stop the war on drugs? What if we not only stop the war on drugs, but we legalize all those street drugs and sell them legally...with a substantial tax attached. While it is impossible to calculate the cost of this ineffective effort to make people stop using drugs, take a look at these numbers: the feds spent over $19 billion in 2003 for the war on drugs that's $600 a second..and that was in 2003 (Office of National Drug control Policy) State and local governments spent another $30 billion plus. If we adjust those two figures to reflect the increased spending that will occur in 2008...we are at about $55 or $60 billion. That is the money spent just to try to catch the drug dealers and users. We will spend another $40 billion or so for jails and prisons for federal drug offenders, $10 billion for police protection...hey the war on drugs is expensive and IS NOT WORKING.

We would, by taking away the high profit products of the gangs, reduce the cost to fight gang crime and reduce the costs associated with robberies and thefts by drug users who need $200 or $300 a day...sometimes more just to pay the inflated street prices for their drug of choice. OUR CRIME RATE WOULD GO DOWN! OUR INSURANCE RATES WOULD GO DOWN! THE STREETS WOULD BE SAFER!

Now then...the next thing we will have to do is  make the drugs available and tax the crap out of them...you know..tax at about the same rate we tax our legal drugs...tobacco and alcohol. How much revenue would this produce? I don't know, but I'll bet you the tax revenue would be HUGE...billions..maybe more! Then we spend the combined savings of not waging war on drugs and the tax revenue from the sale of drugs and buy socialized health care for all. Not health insurance...why would we pay the insurance companies a profit to pay out our money that we have agreed to use for health care?

If you can't stand the thought of just saying yes to drugs...please consider what you are really advocating. You are saying that you are in favor of reduced health care for America, spending billions on a war that will not work, and you are happy with America's crime rate.  An effort at rational thought can be a real jolt...be honest and relinquish your emotional obstacles...face reality....or convince me and others of like mind in this matter that we are wrong. Go ahead...give it a shot.

Even Richard Nixon, who had to resign from office had, at his lowest standing,  had a 23% approval rating.   The previous record low rating was held by Harry Truman during the Korean War. In February of 1952, his rating hit a low of 22%.

George Walker Bush...how could any one person lie as often and screw up as much as Little Bush has? The kicker here is that Bush actually thinks he has done a good job. He thinks history will prove him right...and sane. There is absolutely no use in listing all of his screw ups and lies and idiotic statements...we all know the scandals.   

I have a countdown clock in the control bar on my computer. This clock ticks off the number of days remaining until Bush leaves office.  You can check the countdown clock here.  Hey, consider this...as of today, February 21, 2008, Bush has 334 days...and a couple of hours, remaining before he leaves office. What do you suppose his final approval rating will be? Can he break 15%? Can he break 12%?   I'm just sayin'.

The truth is that it doesn't really matter what you think. It doesn't really matter that (if) you think these guys make too much money. They "earn" what is given to them...just as movie stars "earn" what is paid to them and sports stars "earn" what is paid to them. None of these folks would earn a dime if we did not pay them. We, collectively I mean... pay for the things we either think are important or necessary....or entertaining and those who give us the most or the best get paid the most. If and when one of us reaches the conclusion that the third baseman who makes $10 million a year or the movie star who makes $20 million a picture is making too much, we have a choice to make. We can continue to support them...or we can stop supporting them. I have over simplified here, but my point is that we will pay exorbitant amounts of money to be entertained (made to feel good). By the same token, the church member who may be  having trouble paying his mortgage or paying his bills or feeding his family will contribute to the affluent lifestyle of a superstar preacher if that preacher tells them what they want to hear.

This is where things get fuzzy for me. This is the point at which logic becomes fractured and muddy. Do those who support the superstar preachers do so because that superstar preacher's message is more valid than the message delivered by a less well heeled preacher? Is it because the superstar preacher is being supported by more people so the perception is that the superstar preacher is worth more...or is the superstar preacher just better at his trade?...... The answer is, I think, because the superstar preacher is better at his trade. He is better at getting people excited and he is better at delivering his (God's) message. He is better able to cause action. But, as we have seen time and time again, he is not necessarily a man of integrity, nor is he necessarily honest nor is he necessarily a decent person or an actual follower of God and God's word.

The time to quit paying the preacher is when the preacher has been exposed as a fraud...when his deeds cannot be used as an example for the words he speaks...fire him. Why would anyone even consider any other action?

So here is my fuckit list, or at least the beginning of my fuckit list...with exception of the first item on my list, nothing is in any particular order:

1)   I will never join AARP. 
I will never read "War and Peace"..it's too long, or "Gone with the Wind"...saw the movie, or anything written by L Ron Hubbard.
I will never visit the Middle East.  
I will never go to a Yanni concert.
I will never attempt to learn Cantonese.
I'll never pay to go where it's cold.
I'll never try to find Jesus or be born again.
I'll never play bingo.
I will never participate in a line dance, including but not limited to the electric slide, the El Paso or the cowboy cha-cha or any type of group  dance including square dancing.
I will not wear a t- shirt that says, "I'm with stupid"
I'll never wear plaid Bermuda shorts, white shoes or any garment that uses Velcro as a fastening device.
I will never visit Branson,  Missouri.
I will never get a hair transplant or attempt a comb over.
I will never, never, never  voluntarily listen to any rap "music", hip hop or any variation of either.

So there...I've started my fuckit list. It's short.... I know..I have lots more to list and I will return with more things I'll never do and the list will grow.  Stay tuned.

     In the 1930s, Johan became a teacher in that very room where the copy of the Ten Commandments was still posted on that same wall. He had vowed to live a very good and moral life. This was proving to be difficult, as there was bad behavior all around him, including the actions of his shrewish wife Hedda, who was becoming increasingly intolerant of some Germans, the ones who she felt lacked proper racial purity. In fact, during one of her verbal tirades against those she deemed tainted by blood, Johan, a very good man, suddenly blurted out, "Gottam dem! Hedda! Listen to yourself!" thus violating the 3rd Commandment prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain.

     Again, Johan had commited another terrible wrong, and fell into some despair. Johan would have been even more exasperated with Hedda had he known she was conducting an illicit affair with the local SS commander, Heinz Fleischer, who also had attended school as a child in that classroom which had that copy of the Ten Commandments posted on the wall. It was this same Heinz, along with two other soldiers, who cornered Johan in his toolshed one fateful Sunday afternoon. This needs some explaining.

     Across the street from Johan, in a handsome dwelling, lived his neighbor Wilhelm. Despite himself, Johan, a very good man, wished he lived in such a fine structure as Wilhelm's, thus violating the 10th Commandment prohibition against coveting anything that is thy neighbor's. Wilhelm was a history professor at the local university, and was considered to be an intellectual. Some of his ideas, such as fair treatment for everyone, were controversial, and he was considered by many to be an enemy of the state.

     Wilhelm knew this put him in danger, so he had arranged for himself and his family to flee the country. Unfortunately, the logistics of their escape did not allow them to bring along their housekeeper, Marica, whose existence was also threatened. She was known as a "wanderer," a group of people who were becoming increasingly persecuted.

      Wilhelm had earlier told Johan of his plans to leave, and asked help in protecting Marica -- just for a few days -- until Wilhelm had time to arrange for her to also escape. Johan agreed, telling no one of this conversation except his parents, who he felt he could trust.

     After Wilhelm and his family had successfuly fled the country, Johan, without Hedda's knowledge, had hidden the lovely Marica in the toolshed behind his house, where he was only too happy to bring her food, water, and encouragement.

     So it was on a Sunday afternoon, three days after Wilhelm's departure, that Heinz and the two soldiers burst into Johan's toolshed to find Johan and Marica together. During the subsequent questioning, it became apparent to Johan that his own parents had turned him in. This caused Johan, a very good man, to curse his parents under his breath, thus violating the 5th Commandment admonishment to honor thy father and mother.

     Johan vainly tried to protect Marica by falsely claiming that she had refused the opportunity to leave because she loved her Fuhrer too much and couldn't bear to part from Germany. During this telling, Johan, a very good man, violated the 9th Commandment prohibition against bearing false witness aainst thy neighbor by sticking to a previously agreed upon story, portraying Wilhelm as an unpatriotic lout of little moral worth, and further denounce him as a man who had never loved his country.

    The situation was getting desperate. Johan wasn't overly concerned for himself, but Marica would surely be deported to one of the camps and perhaps cease to exist. Johan had been getting very attached to her. Catching one of his captors in an unguarded moment, Johan acted quickly and boldly, wrestling a rifle away from one of the unfortunate young Nazi wariors. During the ensuing commotion, he unavoidedly shot and killed the other soldier.

     Thus, Johan, a very good man, had, with one swift action, violated two more Commandments; the 4th by not keeping the sabbath day holy, and the 6th, which forbids killing. He then further contaminated the sabbath by sending Heinz sprawling from a well-place rifle butt smashed against the SS commander's jaw. Despite these unholy activities, Johan and Marica somehow managed to make an improbable escape.

    They made their way into the surrounding countryside, and, with great difficulity, were able to avoid being captured. Invariably, only a short time later, they fell in love. This caused Johan, a very good man, to violate the 7th Commandment, which prohibited adultery.

     Johan and Marica suffered through much hardship as they made their way south towards the Swiss border. At times, Johan, a very good man, was forced to steal food or warm clothing, thus violating the 8th Commandment prohibition against theft. This may have been wrong, but he had to take into consideration Marica's survival.

     Johan and Marica were spotted by an army patrol just before reaching the border. In the ensuing chase, Marica managed to escape to safety, but Johan was shot and seriously wounded only a few yards short of neutral territory. This was, perhaps, divine retribution for his moral failures, but, then again, it could be possible that he was just unlucky to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time. None of this really mattered to Johan at that point, because he was now lying helpless on his back in the wet snow,

     When the young Nazi approached, revolver in hand, Johan's eyes focused only on the soldier's belt buckle. It contained the last image Johan would ever see. A fierce eagle was embedded in the center, wings spread wide, grasping a Nazi swastika in the left talon. Semicircled just above, engraved in large letters, were these words: GOTT MIT UNS (God with us).

                            * * *

     Johan, a very good man, who violated every one of the Ten Commandments, is currently in hell, writhing in agony for every split second of eternity.

    Marica went on to live a long and productive life as a relief worker for the International Red Cross. Her afterlife is yet to be determined.

    Heinz, the former SS Commander, managed to escape to the United States. As a manufacturer of industrial chemicals, he was able to accumulate great wealth. He sent for Johan's troublesome widow, Hedda, and they lived a stormy, but profitable, life together.