http://www.alanstang.com/index.php/site/index/ en stangfeedback@gmail.com Copyright 2009 2009-07-19T20:18:01-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/why_we_shall_win_how_i_know/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/why_we_shall_win_how_i_know/#When:19:18:01Z First there was Paul Potts. Even his name was prosaic, mundane. In America he would have been called Joe Shmo from Kokomo. When he walked out on stage in nearly dead England, viewers smirked. He was overweight and flabby, his manner diffident. He would have made a Savile Row suit look like a sack. He needed dental work. His job was selling mobile phones. Would you believe he hails from a place called Fishponds? I was watching because many email mentions of his name had inspired my curiosity. What on earth could this archetypical nerd do? The smirks became groans when he told the Britain’s Got Talent panel he wanted to sing grand opera. His presence onstage was contradiction enough; now he had made it preposterous. Britain’s Got Talent, like its U.S. counterpart, “American Idol,” is the sanitized Anglo-Saxon version of the old Roman Colosseum, where competitors incapable of embarrassment offer themselves to be slain. He named the aria he would do now: “Nessun Dorma.” No! “Nessun Dorma” is my favorite aria. I don’t know why. Maybe its electronic frequencies are sympathetic to my own. Whenever I hear it, an exquisite chill along my spine makes me shiver. What would this nerd do to it? The music began. I cringed. Mobile phone salesman Paul Potts began to sing. And in an instant Paul Potts became Placido Domingo, tall, handsome, completely assured, and, most important, singing the beloved aria sublimely. The usual chill was shivering my spine. Surely this was a species of miracle and by now you know the rest of the story. Paolo Potts has become an international star. Now here comes Susan Boyle, a name as prosaic as a number, as pedestrian as Paul Potts, like everything else about her. (Apologies to the rest of the empire’s Susan Boyles.) The poor lady lives alone with her cat. She is 47 “and that’s just one side of me,” but has never been kissed, maybe because her hair looked like what you use to scour a pan. The Salvation Army would have refused to sell her ensemble. We do not need to belabor the rest of her appearance. The stout English words “frump” and “dowdy” suffice. So she was the female version of Paul, and vice versa. Like his, her lost figure was never coming back. Interviewed before she sang, she bumbled, tongue tied, like Paul. English eyeballs were rolling throughout the hall. Susan said she wanted to be as successful as Elaine Paige. I had never heard of the lady. The even faster rolling eyeballs told me that she must be a super star. (Research reveals her to be exactly that.) Susan said she would sing “I Dreamed a Dream” from “Les Miserables.” But that song is a show stopper, requiring considerable expertise. If you don’t stop the show with it, you fail. Many years ago, in the mists of antiquity, before most still living members of our species were born, I wrote a show at NBC in New York and routinely received tickets to Broadway opening nights. I was there at seventh row center when Pat Suzuki stopped the premiere of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s “Flower Drum Song” with her version of “I Enjoy Being a Girl.” In today’s corrosive atmosphere of belligerent lesbianism, would you believe that a New York audience would stop the show and give a standing ovation to a rendition of a song with such a title? It happened. I was there. Now, Susan Boyle, who has never been kissed, was saying in effect that she would do something similar in dying England, where Britain’s Got Talent but little else. But by now, the audience was united against her. Who did this uppity twit think she was? Elaine Paige, indeed! The music started. Susan Boyle opened her mouth. Now the crowd would administer her comeuppance. She would fall on her face. You saw what happened along with tens of millions of equally astounded You Tubers. In that magical moment, never been kissed Susan Boyle became Ethel Merman, the “Merm,” became Edith Piaf, for whom fifty million Frenchmen would happily have died; went nose to nose with gorgeous Elaine Paige. Susan Boyle “laid them in the aisles.” Had there been a show to stop, it would have stopped. In those few minutes she turned the audience completely around. Piers Morgan, one of the panelists, said he was “stunned” and had never heard anything like it in three years on the show. Amanda Holden’s eyes were as big as easy over eggs. Her mouth fell open. I could see all the way back to her molars. Of course, Simon Cowell, ever the smart Alec, said he had expected something extraordinary and was right as usual. In the beginning, of course, there was Rocky. Remember? A club fighter, a palooka, chosen by the Heavyweight Champion of the World to fight him merely because of his preposterous name. The “Italian Stallion?” A man who doesn’t know the difference between condoms and condominiums? You’re kidding, right? You seriously think you can get into the ring with the undisputed, the undefeated Apollo Creed, the one, the only Master of Disaster? It was to be a public relations masterpiece Creed had concocted. He would give a local boy the American Dream. It would take place on Independence Day in Philadelphia, the birth place of the nation. Creed would enter the arena wearing a Yankee Doodle suit. He would carry the Stallion a few rounds, give the fans a good enough show and then put him away. Remember? We are talking about “Rocky I” and “II,” among the greatest movies ever made. So where am I going with all this? God. God created Creation for His pleasure. How do we know that? Scripture. That is what it says. God has an exquisitely subtle sense of humor. He takes pleasure in astounding His creation. What is the theme that binds all my examples together? Remember, Piers Morgan says he was “stunned.” Something had happened that couldn’t happen, that defied the laws of physics. Any occurrence that defies the laws of physics is by definition a miracle. Yes, Paolo and Susan are great voices. But there are other great voices. Had Placido Domingo and Elaine Paige walked on stage instead, we would have enjoyed their performances thoroughly, but we would not have been surprised. We would have expected them to be great. What stunned the world here was the momentary cancellation of physical laws. Who can cancel physical laws? God erupts at the most unlikely times in the most unlikely places. Scripture tells of many times He temporarily suspended His own rules, the laws of physics. I believe that however bad it gets, He will do so again. However much dictatorship we suffer, He will confound it for His pleasure. Why? Because He can, because He is a God of endless, overwhelming, inexhaustible power. Please do not mistake me. I do not subscribe to a Pollyanna prediction that He will preserve us from discomfort. To see what could easily happen, read, for instance, Tortured For Christ, by Rumanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand. God will not preserve us from discomfort, but, when it pleases Him, He will shake the Obamatron suppuration like dust from His shoes. But first we may have to spend a season in H-e-c-k that many will not survive. For those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, God erupts in many ways that are apparent. For instance, I do not believe a thing like Beethoven could have happened by itself, by accident. The only sensible explanation for something like the Eroica, the Emperor and the rest is that God intervened, because Beethoven is the voice of God speaking through a man, which God sometimes elects to do. To underline His authorship, the Lord invoked His sense of humor by making Ludwig deaf. Notice that the critics, the phony intellectuals, the worshippers of man have always disdained Rocky, a disdain compounded by his annoying habit of falling to his knees in prayer before the fight. I awaited such an expression concerning handsome Paolo Potts and the beautiful Miss Boyle. And, sure enough, here comes the always reliable Slime magazine: “Ugly duckling stories really do not get any better than this. And Britain’s Got Talent milked them for all they were worth, cutting away to eye rolls and snickering by the audience and judges before the two wow-inducing performances. (Eye rolls and snickering, of course, can be taped at any time and edited in later, but never mind.) . . .” Paolo and Susan tried and failed, tried and failed. Slime (Time) makes a point of the fact that they were not entirely untutored and untested, as if that obvious fact dilutes the effect. The story apparently would be unblemished for Slime only had they sprung fully matured from the temple of Zeus. Of course, Slime must be cautious in its disdain, because these new super stars are so well liked. Of course they had some training and experience! That was obvious. So what? Without those things, their performances would have been impossible. Try it some time. To the normal mind, they enhance the story, along with Paul’s major bicycle accident and the fact that Susan had to care for her aging parents. She is an observant Catholic. Thank God she didn’t do a Rocky before her song. Would they have kicked her out? Why are the phony intellectuals so disdainful? Why, for instance, do they still hate Rocky so much? Because Rocky and the others are what the twisted media publicly claim to revere but do not: individuals, mold breakers who rise up from the bottom and circumvent the orthodox, akin to scientific and inventive geniuses who lack academic credentials, not members of the tidy little group of approved Pharisees. For such adventurers, today’s zombie “liberals” experience a visceral disgust. Raised in Communist schools to worship government, they do descend, as they say themselves, from monkeys – look at Ted Kennedy – unlike the rest of us, yet they worship themselves as gods. You want roller coaster terrifying? Imagine, say, Whoopi Goldberg worshipping herself, a monkey descendant worshipping a monkey. But always, despite the horror satanic men have made of things, the spirit hovers, waiting, watching; God, total power, serene, inexhaustible, overwhelming power, preparing to confound them for His pleasure. Rejoice! He rises! Media and Culture Maggots 2009-07-19T19:18:01-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/americas_first_muslim_president/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/americas_first_muslim_president/#When:21:46:00Z Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Washington Times During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton—someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male”—was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president. This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich. What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made”—in this case by him and his campaign handlers—of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright. With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech"), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators: • Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.” Non-Muslims—even pandering ones—generally don’t use that Islamic formulation. • Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Again, “revealed” is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad. • Then the president made a statement no believing Christian—certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam—would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,” Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “. . . when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.” Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were - dead prophets. Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God. In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim. In the Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah—notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood—to a degree that makes Mr. Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison. For example, Mr. Obama has—from literally his inaugural address onward—inflated the numbers and, in that way and others, exaggerated the contemporary and historical importance of Muslim-Americans in the United States. In the Speech, he used the Brotherhood’s estimates of “nearly 7 million Muslims” in this country, at least twice the estimates from other, more reputable sources. (Who knows? By the time Mr. Obama’s friends in the radical Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) perpetrate their trademark books-cooking as deputy 2010 census takers, the official count may well claim considerably morethan 7 million Muslims are living here.) Even more troubling were the commitments the president made in Cairo to promote Islam in America. For instance, he declared: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” He vowed to ensure that women can cover their heads, including, presumably, when having their photographs taken for passports, driver’s licenses or other identification purposes. He also pledged to enable Muslims to engage in zakat, their faith’s requirement for tithing, even though four of the eight types of charity called for by Shariah can be associated with terrorism. Not surprisingly, a number of Islamic “charities” in this country have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism. Particularly worrying is the realignment Mr. Obama has announced in U.S. policy toward Israel. While he pays lip service to the “unbreakable” bond between America and the Jewish state, the president has unmistakably signaled that he intends to compel the Israelis to make territorial and other strategic concessions to Palestinians to achieve the hallowed two-state solution. In doing so, he ignores the inconvenient fact that both the Brotherhood’s Hamas and Abu Mazen’s Fatah remain determined to achieve a one-state solution, whereby the Jews will be driven “into the sea.” Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant. What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces - and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy. Religion of War 2009-06-28T21:46:00-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/the_empire_strikes_back_preparing_for_the_worst/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/the_empire_strikes_back_preparing_for_the_worst/#When:17:20:01Z by William Buppert “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” ~ Thomas Jefferson The American government will be soundly defeated if a civil war ever erupts in the continental US. Not only will a single incident have a ripple effect that will spark the awakening of thousands of insurgencies but the violent over-reaction and clumsy attempts at propaganda by the American media complex in the thrall of Mordor on the Potomac will wholly exacerbate the conflicts to levels of mayhem and insurrection that will startle the normal American. There is a huge simmering and angry underbelly to the American polity that the Tea Parties are only a slight indication of. Citizens have had long and growing resentment toward the creeping socialism and incompetent central planning they have labored under for over a century. Not only will violence be spiked in the Great Wide-Open between the Marxist coastlines but massive tax revolts, burgeoning black markets, Gandhian non-compliance and active shunning of government entities will rear their heads. I think it will take one bold move from the government during the coming bad times of hyperinflation and the employment of government sponsored paramilitary operations against the wrong group to strike the match. The government is much like a swimmer at midnight in a pool of gasoline that lights a match to see where he is going. All the necessary measures to forestall or prevent this from happening are long past. The central planners will not reduce regulation. They will not cut taxes and spending. They will not respect states rights. They will not contain the unlimited power of the robed government employees. They will not leave the world alone and insist on making war on every corner of the globe with no restraint nor reason. They violate the most basic right that inspired a flag: the Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” banner. Obamunism is a seamless transition from GWB and the Busheviks: the policy differences are hard to discern. These two rulers were simply the logical extension of the Grand Imperial experiment that America embarked on with increasing speed since the regrettable conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression in 1860–65. Whatever history you learned in the government reeducation camps was no less than a sophisticated stream of fabrications and exaggerations to convince the student only larger government has the answer to every problem he faces. It is interesting to note that the year’s top Presidential picks are unswervingly devoted to using the Constitution as toilet paper and made war on some unfortunates in our land or a foreign nation. A question surfaces: how could the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military force the world has ever seen in recorded history be defeated by a non-peer military competitor who has no navy, air force, artillery, armor or structured ground forces? I defer to Bill Lind for the deeper and more subtle reasons which are legion why America will meet defeat in Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). We are presently shifting our main military effort from Iraq to Afghanistan and not because we have declared victory, for the countless numbers of insurgents are alive and well in Iraq, but because the war is lost and we know it. The war in Afghanistan has managed to sap the US armed forces of vital strength in force fatigue and exhaustion, break the back of the British Army (again), strengthen the Taliban to unprecedented levels and move the hands of the clock closer to midnight for a localized (?) nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India. That is quite an accomplishment in less than a decade. It took almost twice as long to destabilize Europe prior to the First World War to make the world safer for big government, communism and bureaucratized slaughter. We have had a hell of a time pacifying and taming the more “Wild West” sectors of Iraq not to mention the number of insurgencies alive and well in the cities. While one can suppose that most sects of Islam are rather militant and preserve a warrior ethos in the male adherents, the Afghan fighters are a different breed altogether. They are like a modern-day Sparta and they dig fighting. The surge in Afghanistan will meet with the same stunning successes we have experienced in Iraq. The death toll will be higher especially for the indigenous population with the requisite number of women and children maimed and killed by our wonder weapons with widowed men and the fathers of dead sons left to seek their pound of flesh from the invaders. In short, yet another military quagmire will emerge wherever we should fear to tread. So what does this have to do with the original observation of the present American government losing its grip and losing a conflict with brother Americans on our own soil? We face conditions much different and much worse than our predecessors in terms of national debt, fiscal obligations, cultural fissures, government corruption and the precipice of totalitarian temptation are balanced on. Inevitably, when the aforementioned unpleasantness emerges, the state and federal governments will exhaust law enforcement assets and be forced to rely on military means to quell the disturbances and insurrections that will emerge. Posse Commitatus will be suspended and Northern Command will activate National Guard, Reserve and Active Duty armed forces will be unleashed on the targeted groups and forces that contest the state’s supremacy in the continental united States. They will face the inevitable resistance of a number of their own troops to make war on fellow Americans and the inherent risk of sleepers in the ranks who will maintain a communications link with emerging resistance forces. The government will be fighting a foe that will have a hometown advantage, levels of support & assistance from the mass base in the communities and the military forces will be surprised by the small arms expertise they will encounter the farther west they are deployed in these united States. The Central Government forces will face a military conundrum: the harder they hit and fight with the inevitable collateral damage the more the mass base will shift support and allegiance to local forces fighting the invaders. In an insurgency, the force ratio numbers are extraordinary: at their peak the post-WWII Irish Republican Army fielded 500 paramilitary “trigger men” against the UK forces numbering close to 42,000. As the current fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the force ratios remain incredibly imbalanced and the successful counterinsurgency (COIN) in the history tomes is bookended by dozens of successful insurgencies. Here is a pop quiz: how many Muslim insurgencies have been defeated since the end of WWII? Zero. Neocon chicken-hawks are fond of saying that Pershing’s defeat of the Muslims in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century was a template for success. If it was so successful, what is causing the ruckus in Mindanao as we speak? The Central Government forces will face a foe that will run circles around them in the information conflict just as the Middle East antagonists have proven out. Prisoners of War will follow the cues of the Irish Republican Army and organize and stage riots and hunger strikes in the prison system. Supply lines for government forces will constantly be in the hazard. Foreign commentary on the conflict and the recognition of the embattled regions as legitimates nation-states would further complicate matters as Geneva and Hague conventions would be observed in protocol. We have to remember that the USSR recognized the state of Israel before the US did. Stranger things have happened. Read the newspaper debates between Mill and Dickens during the War of Northern Aggression. As I have inferred before, America will look quite a bit different in ten years time. The hope is that all of this can be avoided and those communities, states and entities that wish to leave in peace from an increasingly belligerent alien entity on the Potomac, may do so. I am saddened for my children by the inevitability of the coming strife but the central planners seem intent on creating a Rising. I am pessimistic and think that the same form of intellectual bankruptcy that informs what passes for government economic policy will be the same kind of impaired thinking that leads to the next calamity in these united States. War is coming home. “Deputies have spoken about whether dead men would approve of it, and they have spoken whether children yet unborn would approve it, but few have spoken of whether the living approve it.” ~ Michael Collins, Dáil debate, Christmas 1921 June 8, 2009 William Buppert and his homeschooled family live in the high desert in the American Southwest. Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.  World Government 2009-06-19T17:20:01-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/the_truth_about_homosexual_parenting/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/the_truth_about_homosexual_parenting/#When:19:50:01Z By Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s DSA -Illinois Family Institute Mark Twain is reported to have said “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is just putting on its shoes.” Never were there words more applicable to the pro-homosexual movement than these. In 2001, Time Magazine trumpeted there was “New Evidence of a Gay Gene.” The completely false notion that a gay gene has been discovered is so prevalent that many believe it is indisputable fact. And pro-homosexual organizations have seen no need to disabuse the public of that error. The mainstream media, with little apparent commitment to truth, have widely publicized the fallacious notion that homosexuality is biologically determined, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has long promoted that view. Just a few weeks ago, IFI and many other pro-family organizations reported that the American Psychiatric Association issued a remarkable statement regarding the causes of homosexuality. Here is the prior statement issued by the APA in 1998: There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. Here is the new statement: There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. The curious question is why haven’t the mainstream media retrieved their homosexuality-causation trumpet out of storage to herald this stunning reversal. The pro-homosexual movement has been effective in transforming cultural views on the nature and morality of homosexuality by feeding the masses lies. The mainstream media and public education colluding with homosexual activist groups then pump these lies into our culture. As a result cultural views transmogrify, and then when--or if--the lies are exposed, it really doesn’t matter because the ideological battle has been won. Perhaps the first lie promoted by homosexual activists and disseminated by their cozy bedfellows in the media and public education was that homosexuals constitute 10% of the population. Not only was that untrue, but it was irrelevant to a moral assessment of homosexual behavior. The next whopper that homosexualists manufactured and propagated is that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and biological sex. In other words, they make the claim that homosexuality is 100% heritable and immutable. To make matters worse, virtually no one demands evidence for that absurd and deceptive claim. Then, based on that unproven, deceitful claim, homosexualists make the equally deceitful claim that volitional sexual behavior that emerges from supposedly biologically determined desires is inherently moral. The problem is that current research suggests that sexual impulses are not in any way equivalent to race or biological sex. Moreover, no moral person would ever claim that all impulses that are influenced by biology are moral to act upon. The first critical step to undoing the cultural damage that has been done is to expose lies. Clinical psychologist Dr. Trayce Hansen is doing just that with yet another falsehood. Dr. Hansen has reviewed all the research into the sexual behavior and preferences of children raised by homosexuals and discovered that researchers are concealing the actual incidence of “non-heterosexual” identification among these children. One of the criteria she used in determining which studies to include was that it had to be conducted by pro-homosexual researchers so as not to be dismissed by critics who would accuse conservative researchers of bias. What she discovered is deeply troubling but certainly not surprising. Dr. Hansen found the following: Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children. Dr. Hansen cites two well-known pro-homosexual researchers, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, who share one reason why this finding should not be surprising: . . . it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents. Here are just a few of Dr. Hansen’s discoveries: - From F.W.Bozett’s study entitled “Social control of identity of children of gay fathers,” Dr. Hansen found that “33% of the male children of homosexual fathers identified themselves as homosexual.” - From A. Goldberg’s study entitled “(How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents,” Dr. Hansen found that “91% of them believed that having non-heterosexual parents ‘influenced their ideas about gender and relationships,’ and ‘that 17% of Goldberg’s subjects identified themselves as non-heterosexual (lesbian, bisexual or gender-queer).” - And from J.P. Paul’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Growing up with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual parent: an exploratory study of experiences and perceptions,” Dr. Hansen found that “Although 15% of Paul’s sample did self-identify as gay or lesbian, another 6% identified themselves as bisexual.” For more critical information on homosexual parenting, please read this “Letter to the Editor” from four pediatricians to Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. They wrote a courageous rebuttal of the Academy’s official endorsement of and advocacy “the elevation of civil unions and domestic partnerships to the same legal status of traditional, heterosexual marriage.” Their rebuttal of this position includes both a detailed and compelling criticism of the research cited by the Academy to defend their subversive and ahistorical position and a warning about the potential harm done to children raised by homosexual partners. What should be obvious is that homosexualists have long adopted an ends justify the means philosophy toward cultural transformation. But in the case of normalizing homosexuality, both the means and the ends are profoundly immoral. Queer Nation 2009-06-11T19:50:01-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/sherman_racist_terrorist_monster/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/sherman_racist_terrorist_monster/#When:20:12:00Z In our last piece, we saw that what Union forces conducted in the South was not just a war but a reign of terror. The man who conducted that terror was General William T. Sherman. The only thing most Americans brainwashed in government schools know about Sherman is his comment, “War is hell,” which creates the utterly spurious impression that he hated war. What do we know about General Sherman? Our source for this discussion is Michael Fellman’s Citizen Sherman (New York, Random House, 1995). It is an ideal source for two reasons. First, Fellman is a Canadian, and therefore once removed from the partiality that bedevils Americans. Second, his book is not at all an exposé. Michael Fellman admires Sherman. Let’s begin with Sherman’s attitude towards slavery and blacks: “Sherman simply was indifferent to any moral dimension of the slavery issue in large part because he did not see Negroes as humans.” Were you taught this in school? In December, 1859, Sherman wrote, “I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. . . . Negros (sic) in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves.” To his wife, he wrote, “Like Burton in ‘Toodles’ I say, ‘damn the niggers.’ . . .” These were by no means drunken aberrations, but lifelong bedrock beliefs. In like fashion, Sherman denigrated Jews: Fellman speaks of “his assumptions about the inferiority of the whole race of blacks that fitted them for slavery. This racialism was in large part replicated . . . in Sherman’s opinions of the Jews. He blamed the war on blacks as he blamed it on Jews. . . .” In a letter to his wife, on August 20, 1862, he wrote, “The cause of the war is not alone in the nigger, but in the mercenary spirit of our countrymen.” Fellman explains: “For Sherman, the personification of this evil mercenary spirit was the speculator, and the speculator was the Jew.” Drenched in so much racist garbage, you will probably not be surprised to learn that Sherman could have been insane. During the war, friendly biographer Fellman writes, “. . . Sherman could neither run a theater of command nor hold himself together. He fell into what we would now consider a clinical depression, and on November 9 was removed from command in disgrace. This catastrophe and its aftermath were the nadir of Sherman’s career and of his life.” Like his racism, Sherman’s madness was not an aberration. Later, he spent considerable time with New York journalist William G. Shanks. “. . . Sherman simply never sat still, Shanks wrote. His fingers were always busy, ‘twitching his red whiskers – his coat buttons – playing a tattoo on the table – or running through his hair.’ While sitting he would cross and uncross his legs continuously. And on and on he talked, nervously and obsessively. ‘He must talk quick, sharp . . . making his odd gestures which . . . emphasize his language. He never hesitates at interrupting anyone, but he cannot bear to be interrupted himself.’ . . .” Mrs. Sherman rushed to his side, “knowing insanity to be in the family.” She was “tortured by fears,” which “have been only in part relieved since I got here.” He had written “that he felt he might be crazy, which was rather more confirmed than refuted by the other evidence she had discovered in Louisville.” He ate and slept rarely. Worse, “he seemed to have lost normal human contact with those around him on his staff.” He was obsessive and delusional. “. . . She also noted a prior bout of depression in 1856-57, in California, to which she might have added his bitterly unhappy stay in Kansas in 1858-59 . . . . Sherman had at least one later episode of depression, in 1878, and one of his sons became a deeply depressive adult.” Finally, friendly biographer Fellman calls Sherman a “madman.” This is the madman who conducted the literal reign of terror described in my companion piece, “Yankee Genocide: Still Here.” Fellman calls him an “enormous terrorist.” Toward the end of the war, he wrote his wife, “. . . I find myself a leader to whom not only my soldiers look to but the President and the People. Not only our own, but foreigners and the South now accord me one of the Great Leaders of armies, endowed with extraordinary qualities.” It was up and down all the way, from the slough of despond to Great Leader. What kind of war did this lunatic wage? Fellman says it was “a prolonged war of purposeful terror.” The terror was “an intentional policy and not just a lack of control. . . . This madman and his swarming bummers seemed to have no implicit limits . . . .” So Sherman destroyed the modern concept of humane war that spares civilians and replaced it with the Communist idea of scorched earth. The thought is not fanciful. Historically terrorism is perpetrated by governments. Soviet dictator Lenin is supposed to have said that, at bottom, “Communism is terror.” At war’s end, Sherman was still not finished. Now he set out to exterminate the Plains Indians. The word “extermination” is not inapt. He used it himself again and again. “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.” Here is how Sherman conducted his campaign of extermination. “Although Sherman had not ordered an extermination campaign in so many words, he had given [General Phil] Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages. However many they killed, Sherman would cover the political and media front. They were freed to do anything. At the same time, Sherman maintained personal deniability—he could assert in any public forum that he had not ordered any atrocities that might occur. . . .” Very clever for a crazy man, right? So we are talking about a homicidal lunatic, who endured uncharacteristic bouts of sanity. What do we know about Sherman’s personal life? No biographical sketch would be complete without some discussion of Sherman’s womanizing. What? Womanizing? In the middle of all that killing? Your incredulity is logical. The ordinary man couldn’t do it. But, remember, we are not talking about an ordinary man. We are talking about Great Leader, the war chief, “charming, witty, energetic, and aggressive,” swarmed by women wherever he went. Fellman writes: “. . . One does not know how many women he chased, or the number of his conquests – Victorian codes of seduction were deliberately cloaked with ambiguity, and the archival record is far from complete in such matters – but judging by the available evidence Sherman must have been a very energetic womanizer.” Here is an example of Great Leader at work: “. . . Marszalek quotes the unpublished memoir of Mildred Hazen Dewey, who when the young wife of General William B. Hazen, one of Sherman’s former division commanders, found Sherman’s advances . . . quite aggressive. At one party the general backed her into a corner until she finally ‘called a halt.’” Some of you, world weary and cynical, may now be thinking, okay, so he was a womanizer. So what? Eisenhower diddled Kay Sommersby. Jack Kennedy diddled Fiddle and Faddle. Billy Bubba Slime Diddled God knows what. But Ike and Jack at least were old-fashioned gentlemen. Ike didn’t go out of his way to rub Mamie’s face in Kay. Jack didn’t rub Jackie’s face in Fiddle. Here is how Great Leader did it: “The more he thought of bringing Mary to St. Louis, the more aroused Sherman became. On December 18, 1883, he wrote her in the role of the ancient Greek kidnapper that he was coming to Washington on January 16, ‘ready to carry you bodily (willingly if possible – violently if necessary) to St. Louis, Missouri, where your friends demand your presence.’ . . . ‘You can have the guest room right over my office and though somewhat jealous of my rights, I think I will let you have pretty free range of my sanctum’ – his private dayroom and bedroom. He planned to bring his mistress to his bed right under his despised wife’s nose, passing her off as a friend of his wife and daughters.” Is that world class panache, or what? Wife Ellen on one floor, Mistress Mary on another; so that unlike your ordinary womanizer, Sherman never had to sneak out, never had to concoct a cover story. Whatever his mood, he would go to the appropriate floor. Of course, only a Great Leader could pull it off. This is the monster who ran Lincoln’s Communist war to destroy the Union. This is how we got where we are. Indeed, the reason his story is so relevant today is that the men who now control America have the very same mentality – the same lunatic, consuming hubris – and they are doing the same things. Religion of War 2009-06-03T20:12:00-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/yankee_genocide_still_here/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/yankee_genocide_still_here/#When:21:39:02Z Our source for the present discussion is War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican, Gretna, Louisiana, 2007). It is important to establish that the spiritual and political inheritors of the war criminals who committed those crimes do not deny them. They ignore them, hoping that if they say nothing those crimes will fade away; and so far they have been successful. Remember, the winner of a war writes the history of the war. They will respond only if their crimes become sufficiently known. It is important to correct the record. The crimes and the criminals need to be named. More, they must be explained, because the motives that inspired them continue to motivate the men who run our country, regardless of political party. As we shall see, little has changed. Only if we drag this continuing horror into the light do we have a chance of exorcising it. Let’s begin with a revealing contrast. In 1863, Confederate General Robert E. Lee invaded the North. The South by then had suffered two years of Yankee crimes and some Southerners thought the invasion was their chance to retaliate. Not so, said Lee. In a proclamation he reminded his men that “the duties exacted of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own.” “The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed and defenseless and the wanton destruction of private property, that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country. . . .” Remember that at the beginning of the war Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union army. Imagine the humane result had he been able to accept. We make war “only upon armed men,” said Lee. Taking vengeance for the “atrocities of our enemies” would lower ourselves and offend “against Him to whom vengeance belongeth.” What atrocities is he talking about? Our source is divided into the states of the Confederacy. Let’s begin with Missouri. Union Brigadier General James H. Lane: “We believe in a war of extermination. I want to see every foot of ground . . . burned over – everything laid waste. . . .” Whoa! A war of extermination? Why? Wasn’t the restoration of the Union the goal of all this? Wouldn’t that have been accomplished simply by occupying the offending states? As we shall see, some other motive was at work. But so it was. Civilians, male and female – yes, female – died by the hundreds in diseased Yankee jails. The Yankees stole everything they could lift. Lane himself stole a carriage, a piano and women’s dresses. My favorite was his chaplain, Rev. Hugh D. Fisher, who stole the altar furnishings from an Osceola church. He needed them for his own church in Kansas. “Brethren, let us worship.” A long caravan of stolen property wound its way to Kansas. Arson, theft and murder became commonplace. No citizen was allowed to own guns or ammunition. At war’s end, vast sections of Missouri were uninhabited. Lane’s policy of extermination had been imposed. General William T. Sherman wrote that “rebel” farms should be given to immigrants from the North. “Enemies must be killed or transported to some other country.” Deported Missourians left the state in miles-long wagon trains laden with household effects. Foraging Yankees robbed and killed them on the way. One report speaks of a road “crowded with women and children, women walking with their babies in their arms, packs on their backs and four or five children following after them . . . .” There is a word for all this. At the time, the word had not yet been coined. It is “genocide.” Indeed, that is what the UN calls forcibly removing one population and replacing it with another. Genocide was settled Yankee policy imposed from the top. In Tennessee, pastors were told to declare allegiance to the Union. They refused and were jailed. Episcopal rector George Harris was arrested and told to pray for Lincoln or be hanged. Happily, he was able to escape. The Yankees used his church to store munitions. The Communists would later do something similar to churches in Russia. The Yankees closed every church in Murfreesboro and all the schools in Nashville. In that city, there was an election for circuit court judge and the secessionist won. He was arrested, charged with treason and sent to the penitentiary. How did the Yankees treat blacks? In Athens, Alabama, they raped a slave girl at the home of Charlotte Hine. At the John Malone plantation, they went to the slave quarters and raped again. A black woman charged a soldier with the crime; his commanding officer refused to prosecute: “I would not arrest one of my men on Negro testimony.” Doesn’t your Communist school textbook say the Yankees had come to free the slaves, not to rape them? In New Orleans, Cpl. William M. Chinock raped Mary Ellen De Riley, a black woman. He was fined $40 and reduced to private. Captain S. Tyler Reed fired his pistol at William Bird, a black boy, and put out an eye. His sentence? A reprimand. Major General Benjamin Butler, known as the “Beast,” made crooked millions in New Orleans, committed outrageous atrocities and was the only Union commander the Confederacy called a criminal. After the war the people of Massachusetts elected him Governor, proving that, with some noble exceptions, they were already as stupid as they are now. In occupied Virginia, Union Brig. Gen. Robert H. Milroy wrote his wife that “my will is absolute law – none dare contradict or dispute my slightest word or wish . . . both male and female tremble when they come into my presence . . . I feel a strong disposition to play the tyrant among these traitors.” Wow! They actually trembled, Bob? So then, you must have been something like a god, correct? In South Carolina, “. . . The free blacks who made up Charleston’s force of firefighters struggled heroically to protect their city and its people.” Free blacks? In South Carolina? Trusted to run the fire department? Hmm! In Louisiana, Union brigadier general William Dwight wrote: “The scenes of disorder and pillage . . . were disgraceful to civilized war. Houses were entered and all in them destroyed …. Ladies were frightened into delivering their jewels and valuables into the hands of the soldiers by threats of violence toward their husbands. Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children.” The Union, forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah.” “The home, barn, and store of Samuel Schmulen were looted and burned. . . . Benjamin George, a fifty-year-old slave who lived nearby . . . tried to help his neighbor at least try to save the store. The effort was in vain. Then a group of drunken soldiers surrounded George, demanding to know why he, a black man, would try to assist this white Southerner. They demanded his money, and when George pleaded that he did not have any, one of the soldiers shot him in the right thigh. He survived the wound but was crippled for life.” The forced evacuation of Atlanta saw “aged grandmothers upon the verge of the grave, tender girls in the first bloom of young womanhood, and little babes not three days old in the arms of sick mothers, thrown out upon the cold charity of the world.” A Yankee reported, “The African Methodist Episcopal Church, built by the colored people with their hard earnings, was also demolished by our soldiers.” Union war criminals even introduced a criminal scheme later perfected by Chicago gangsters. One of them told a lady he had orders to burn her house, but, “I’ll insure it for fifty dollars.” Selling “insurance” against their own depredations was one extortion technique they used. “You buy my insurance or I breaka you head. Capish?” In Columbia, South Carolina, Union terrorists stole everything. “Purses, watches, hats, boots, overcoats . . . were taken from victims, white or black.” A witness says: “Commissioned officers, of a rank so high as that of a colonel, were frequently among the most active.” They took the rings from the fingers of a dying woman. They urinated on the beds. They opened graves in search of lucre and left the corpses on the ground. But here is la pièce de résistance. “Countless women had earrings ripped from bleeding ears.” A foreign diplomat wrote: “I have myself seen a lady with the lobes of both ears torn asunder.” Witnesses saw soldiers torching the Catholic convent. “What do you think of God now?” they shouted to the nuns. “Is not Sherman greater?. . .” In St. Landry Parish alone, in western Louisiana, there were 1,596 free blacks just before the war. Some owned sugar plantations and slaves. What? Yes, blacks owned slaves. Invading Yankees were shocked. One Connecticut officer was indignant because they dared “call themselves Americans.” The Yankees stole from these free blacks as well as from the whites. In Nashville, in September, 1862, blue bellies couldn’t find seats in a crowded theater. They ejected blacks from the “Negro gallery,” beat them and threw them down the stairs. After enjoying the performance, they attacked every black they found in the streets. In Gallatin, in May, 1864, they torched two new schools for black children, murdered one freedman and swore they would kill every black in town. In southeast Georgia there were many free blacks who had accumulated substantial property. Indeed, so had hard working slaves. Union goons stole it all, even threatening black wives. In some cases, black husbands had to rescue them. They stole everything from a black nurse and killed her animals. “Honey, I never knowed a Yankee that wasn’t mean as dirt. . . . What can you spec from a hog but a grunt.” And finally, in Columbia: “One black woman . . . was raped by seven soldiers of the United States Army. She then had her face forced down into a shallow ditch and was held there until she drowned.” William Gilmore Simms reported how “regiments, in successive relays,” committed “gang rape on scores of slave women.” On the Sumter District plantation, the corpses of eighteen black women were found. Each had been stabbed in the chest with a bayonet. Yankee war criminals had done with them. Remember, these are just a few examples. You really need to read the book. So what are we looking at? Obviously it is considerably different from the mostly mythical war to “free the slaves” your high school textbook told you about. Notice that it is motivated by an insane, messianic fury. The war criminals are enraged, utterly out of control. About what? Obviously not about slavery. Men outraged by slavery do not rob, rape and murder slaves. And remember that chief war criminal Lincoln was as foul a racist as ever lived, even discomfited other racists, staunchly defended slavery and wanted to ship American blacks “back” to Africa. No, what drove these Yankee war criminals insane was that the Southerners had dared to come out from under, to say no to the Leviathan state, to total government, to go their own way. They had expressed their freedom through secession. They had invoked their inalienable right to depart. A debate endures about whether they had the constitutional right to secede. I don’t know why. I can solve the problem for all time. The Founding Fathers seceded from England. In the Declaration of Independence – the nation’s birth certificate – they said that whenever a people find their government oppressive, they have the right to alter or abolish it. To argue that there is no right to secede is to say that only a few years later, these same men, would concoct a document – the Constitution – in which they would deny themselves that blood-bought right. Indeed, there were a few incipient attempts to secede before Lincoln. No one tried to argue that secession was illegal. One area that seriously considered secession was New England. What? Yes. And all through the Twentieth Century, did not the United States vociferously advance the right to secede for other people? We even fought a couple of wars, and lost thousands of the best of the best, to ensure the independence of South Korea and South Vietnam. Could there possibly be a straight-faced argument that other people deserve independence but we do not? The Founding Fathers did not create slavery; they inherited 150 years of it. Many Southern slaves were sold to the South by Yankee slavers who no longer had need of them. Slavery was an intolerable stain on the American record. That stain could only be expunged by total abolition. Other countries, including Russia, abolished it without violence. Only ours did so at the cost of some 600,000 men and the destruction of the Union, by men who claimed to revere it and who had owned slaves themselves – and who did all this to keep the South in economic subjection. But even this is not the core. Remember the strutting Yankee generals who confused themselves with God. Indeed, remember the terrorist assertion that insane mass murderer Sherman actually outranks God. Consider the messianic fury we have mentioned. Something more than mere greed was at work. It is literally a satanic perversion of Christianity, a perversion pretending to be Christianity, which erupts time and again across the centuries. From time to time people who are smarter than God appear, usurpers who have the temporal power to do the job right. If you disagree with them they burn you at the stake. If you try to get out from under them, they scream you are a rebel. You have betrayed them. They will rob and rape you, they will kill you; they will invade and burn your country to the ground, to persuade you to see it their way. Either do that or die. They are disciples of Satan. The reason this is so relevant is that this very mentality rules the nation today. That is why the federal juggernaut is so merciless, so confiscatory, so totalitarian. Reconstruction continues, not just of the South; this time of the whole nation, conducted by men consumed by hubris, who believe they can improve upon God. But Sherman is still dead. God is alive. Your Papers Please! 2009-05-25T21:39:02-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/what_to_expect_meandering_speculations/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/what_to_expect_meandering_speculations/#When:21:47:00Z For years, I have been speculating about the weapon the conspiracy for world government would use to precipitate the panic that would cause America to demand its own enslavement. When the conspiracy launched the present financial debacle, I thought the question had been answered. As obvious as it was, it had never occurred to me that the conspiracy would choose two such weapons to work in tandem. But maybe it has. Will they finally succeed in launching the deadly pandemic that has fizzled in several attempts? A pandemic offers many unique elements. When you drop bombs on people, they know they are being attacked. Also, bombs don’t kill everyone. But when you launch a weaponized pandemic, people don’t know that for sure. Sickness happens – even pandemics happen – without criminal encouragement. The Black Death happened by itself. And a pandemic involves everyone. Imagine people broke and homeless now facing a deadly disease. It is now possible that the Communists who control the Executive Branch may be deliberately trying to provoke a massive, popular reaction they can use to justify martial law and the concentration camps that would be part of it. In this case, they would call it “quarantine,” and uninfected Americans, worried about their children, would applaud when the government puts the sick on the bus. The program would include vaccinations, which would include the usual poisons. Remember that the 1976 version of the swine flu vaccination killed more people than the disease itself. Recently, the Baxter pharmaceutical company “accidentally” sent weaponized deadly, live H5N1 avian flu virus to eighteen countries, an “accident” that is impossible and was discovered only by a genuine accident. Had it been injected into humans in all those countries, there would have been an instant pandemic for sure. Czech newspapers were talking conspiracy. Now comes word that Baxter will make the vaccine to fight the Mexican flu. What? Yes. Health Ranger Mike Adams speculates that “for this to have been a natural combination of viral fragments, it means an infected bird from North America would have had to infect pigs in Europe, then be re-infected by those same pigs with an unlikely cross-species mutation that allowed the bird to carry it again, then that bird would have had to fly to Asia and infect pigs there, and those Asian pigs then mutated the virus once again (while preserving the European swine and bird flu elements) to become human transmittable, and then a human would have had to catch that virus from the Asian pigs –in Mexico! – and spread it to others.” Again, this is just one of many possible speculations. Meanwhile, we have an affirmative action pretend “President” who almost blatantly hates the system he governs. Has there ever been such a critter in world history? Even psychotic exterminators like Stalin, Castro, Hitler and Mao professed to love the countries they governed. But Mr. Big Ears delights in telling dictators who want to destroy us how criminal we are. The Declaration of Independence is the nation’s birth certificate. It can never be revoked. It says that whenever a government becomes oppressive, “destructive” of the people’s rights, they have the right to “alter or abolish it.” President Tom Jefferson says that every generation the tree of liberty must be altered with the “blood of patriots and tyrants.” Why would there be blood? Because governments don’t want to be abolished. They worship the power and lust for more. Most of the time, the only way to abolish them is by force. That is why there would be blood. The Declaration says we have that right. President Tom encourages us to use it. Obviously he is talking about usurpation so total that the government is no longer the one the Founding Fathers left us but a totalitarian perversion. In such a case, he says, it is not only the people’s right to throw off such government; it is their duty. We are very close to that situation now. Is that why people have bought every last round of ammunition in the country and then some? If Americans do as the President suggests, there would be blood, much blood, and death. Are they mentally prepared for that? Are they close to the intolerable desperation in which they have nothing to lose? Whom would they be shooting at? In the excitement of getting it, I wonder how many people now laden down with ammo have thought about all this. Would they have the heart for it? So far, I have seen no discussion of these historic questions. No one is happier than I am that our people are so heavily armed. Have they taken time to think about the answers? My hope and my belief are that, after years of exposés about the conspiracy for world government, enough Americans now understand the conspiracy is trying to provoke them to go military – wants them to rebel – providing the government the excuse to suppress them. My prayer is that such a horror never happens. But we do have the Declaration and we do have authorization, even encouragement, from the President; we do know that political liberty and freedom of speech are being squelched and that we are moving into full blown totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Permanent cancellation of elections would not necessarily be a clue. Stalin had elections. They allow the people to vent. He was always “elected.” Listening and reading about what could happen, I see a picture emerge. By the way, remember that I do not propose anything. I merely convey what I hear. In fact, I fervently hope none of this comes to pass. I am talking about the people DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, the Arizona bull dyke, is afraid of; the veterans she fears could become terrorists and who know how to do things. I am listening to them. Of course the real terrorists are the communazis who run our government and who already lay a heavy hand on the people’s necks. Remember that Lenin created modern terrorism: “Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands. . . .” Felix Dzerzhinsky, his secret police chief, said: “We stand for organized terror. . . .” Terror to Lenin did not mean people rising up against the government. It meant government terrorizing people. I believe there will be a series of incidents. The psychological pressure cooker artificially created on both sides is already too great to contain. As the Seventh Avenue girdle manufacturer once put it, “Something’s got to give.” The danger is that these isolated incidents could get out of control. Happily, I do not believe that danger is great. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee should be forgiven for not recognizing soon enough that they faced satanic Communist monsters. Had they known in time, Jackson could perhaps have followed the fleeing Yankees all the way in to Washington after first Manassas, arrested our first Communist President and restored the Union. Lee said after Appomattox that had he known what he confronted soon enough, he would have fought to the last man. But by now, after more than a century of Communism, after decades of alarms by a small band of tireless watchmen on the walls, I believe this generation of patriots is too knowledgeable to commit suicide by confronting a U.S. military liberated from the restraints of posse comitatus and persuaded by Napolitano that the patriots are “terrorists.” In lieu of such suicide, alternate scenarios are emerging. One of the strangest posits a scenario in which the administration now is openly Nazi, denying the fundamental rights the Constitution guarantees. Elections are Stalinist charades. Police state controls make rebellion impossible. The judicious period of sober observation President Tom says must pass before a decision is made to “alter or abolish” a government has long since expired. Suddenly, according to this scenario, the perpetrators begin to disappear. One by one by one, they vanish. There would be no shooting, no violence. One day they would be there, whistling while they work, reveling in confiscation of the people’s wealth, in loading people onto trucks, etc.; the next day they would not. Of course, the men I hear talking do not mean people like affirmative action pretend “President” Mr. Big Ears. All Americans are united in the fervent hope that the Secret Service will keep him safe; the Obamatrons because they are morons who believe he is the One, the patriots because they want to see him humiliated and imprisoned for his crimes. The same thing would apply to people like enemy alien chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, “the hemorrhoid.” Patriots want him safe for the same reason and he is no doubt too hard to reach, anyway. So, no, the scuttlebutt is not about Rahm. It is about the good folks who must leave the protected federal enclave to implement federal policy, not the police but, rather, the low- to mid-level people who do the confiscating, the speechmaking, the inspecting, the intimidating, etc. Certainly one thing that inspires uncontrollable fear is uncertainty. Why did So-and-So at the next desk or in the next office disappear? People disappear for many reasons every day. Most of them have not been kidnapped. Maybe they were just fed up. Maybe they took the money and are sitting on a beach in Cancun, soaking up the flu. Maybe next week they will show up. In this case, there are no demands. There is no ransom. There are no anguished telephone calls. There is nothing for Jack Bauer and his loyal band of techies to investigate. However true that is, the scenario says mere not knowing would inspire panic. So-and-So left his office and never came back. Is he in the Twilight Zone? What would happen were I to go up into the hills to inspect? The famous quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn would not apply. There would be no bloody corpses, no heads beaten in beneath the stairs. It would be something even more terrifying, more eerie: nothing. It could disrupt the smooth functioning of government, but there would be nothing for the government to attack. Of course, all of this is mere chatter, just one of the crazy ideas floating in the ether, blowin’ in the wind. Let us devoutly hope it turns out to be nothing. Politics 2009-05-01T21:47:00-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/jury_nullification_your_awesome_power/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/jury_nullification_your_awesome_power/#When:19:19:00Z Recently, we talked about the powers of the grand jury that the government has hidden from you, powers that newly informed Americans are beginning to reassert. That process, however sound and constitutional, will take some time, precisely because those powers, under remorseless judicial usurpation, have long lain dormant. Most Americans are unaware of them. This week let’s look at a power you have that is equally devastating, a power that could bring our communist nightmare to its knees, that you can begin using right now with absolutely no risk. It is another awesome power the totalitarian, legal bozos have labored long to conceal. It is called “jury nullification.” And let’s begin with something you probably already know. You certainly know it if you have ever served on a trial jury. As soon as you sit down, the judge “instructs” you. He says he will make all decisions on the law; you are there only to decide on the facts. Did So-and-so spit on the sidewalk or not? Did he or didn’t he fill out the right form? If he did or he didn’t, he is guilty or innocent. What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong is that the judge is lying. In fact, every trial judge in this country is routinely lying in every trial. What? Every judge? How? As a juror, you have the power to rule on the law as well as the facts. The lying judge is concealing that power from you, in the same way he is concealing the true powers of the grand jury, through usurpation. So, if the juror has the power to rule on everything, what is a truthful judge there to do? He is there to explain the law, to advise, and to be an umpire. That’s all! What’s the difference? Remember that an honest grand jury reduces the power of the government. An honest trial jury reduces the power of the judge. But the judge and the government want all the power they can grab. An honest trial jury has the power to repudiate bad law. Consider that if the law says you have no right to own property, no right to freedom of speech or religion, no right to keep and bear arms, and so on, then your right to a jury trial would not be worth much, were the jurors restricted just to deciding whether you illegally owned or spoke or prayed or bore arms or not. Okay, but all the trial judges in the country liars? That requires considerable suspension of disbelief. This should help. Thomas Jefferson wrote as follows about federal judges to Samuel Kercheval in 1816: “But we have made them independent of the nation itself. They are irremovable but by their own body for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities of dotage.” To Spencer Roane he wrote this in 1821: “The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” He wrote this in his autobiography: “As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law.” Finally, he says this: “If, indeed, a judge goes against the law so grossly, so palpably, as no imputable degree of folly can account for, and nothing but corruption, malice or wilful wrong can explain, and especially if circumstances prove such motives, he may be punished for the corruption, the malice, the wilful wrong; but not for the error: nor is he liable to action by the party grieved. .  . .” (Batture at New Orleans, 1812) These are a few scant excerpts. Again and again, President Tom warns us about the judges. And remember, he is writing at the best of times in our country, when the Founding Fathers still strode the earth. Today’s judiciary makes the one he feared look like the wisdom of Minerva. Today’s judges have been caught playing with themselves on the bench, hitting on women and worse, extorting funds, playing power games, etc. They are politicians in black costumes designed to intimidate, whose consuming passion is to look important. Recently, two judges in Pennsylvania were convicted of jailing some 2000 children in exchange for $2.6 million in bribes from private prison companies that belong to Mid Atlantic Youth Services. Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan sent children to jail for offenses so trivial that some of them weren’t even crimes. Fifteen-year-old Hillary Transue got three months for creating a spoof web page ridiculing her school’s assistant principal. Ciavarella sent Shane Bly, then 13, to boot camp for trespassing in a vacant building. He gave a 14 year-old, Jamie Quinn, 11 months in prison for slapping a friend during an argument, after the friend slapped her. Now that you are in the proper mood, let’s look at the history: In 1735, in New York, the English tried newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger for seditious libel. Under the law at the time, the facts showed him to be clearly guilty. But lawyer Andrew Hamilton urged the jurors “to see with their own eyes, to hear with their own ears, and to make use of their consciences and understanding in judging of the lives, liberties, or estates of their fellow subjects.” The jury did so, acquitted Zenger in the face of the judge’s charge, thereby nullifying the law and expanding freedom of the press. The jury ruled on both the law and the facts. Since the law was unjust, the jurors struck it down. Today’s journalists still celebrate the Zenger ruling. In 1794, in Georgia v. Brailsford (3 Dallas 4), Chief Justice John Jay, a Founding Father, told the jury they had the power “to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy,” and that “both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.” Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas says “the jury are judges as well of the matter of law as of the fact . . . .” If they have a question about the law, they may ask the judge about it, “which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law.” The implicit assumption is not that jurors know the law better than the judge but that the judge is untrustworthy. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the famous Dred Scott decision, 19 Howard 393, that a runaway slave had to be returned to his “owner.” That was the so-called “law of the land,” but northern juries didn’t buy it. They refused to convict – they overruled the Supreme Court – and the law collapsed. Remember Prohibition? Most people believe Congress and the States killed it with Repeal, but that was only the last act in the story. The people killed it first by serving on juries and refusing to convict. The people repealed the law. Congress and the States just wrote finis to what the people had already done. Congress typically took credit for it. In 1969, in U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F. 2d 1002, Justice Sobeloff said this: “We recognize . . . the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. . . . [T]he courts can not search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust . . . the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” In 1972, in U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, Judge Leventhal speaks of “The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . . .” He quotes Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote that “the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.” He even mentions that the Constitutions of both Indiana and Maryland require that juries be told the judge’s instructions on the law are only advisory. But he doesn’t like it. He says there is no “imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. . . .” In short, he says, hide the power from the people. Why? Because. “. . . To tell him expressly of a nullification prerogative,” would be “an overwhelming responsibility, an extreme burden for the jurors’ psyche. . . .” Can you believe the obnoxious effrontery of this judicial pimp? He is saying here that you are a wimp, that you are too puny to govern yourselves; that superior individuals must tell you what to do. In German, they call this der führer prinzip, the leader principle. Sieg Heil! So, how can you use this? Do everything you can to get on the jury. After the judge tells you he will decide on the law and not to worry your pretty head about it, he will ask whether you agree to serve on the jury under that condition. If you refuse, he will dismiss you. You don’t get to serve. So what do you do? You smile subserviently and you agree. Then, on the jury, you vote to acquit a defendant who, for instance, faces prison on an income tax charge, or for failure to report for duty in Obama’s Hitler Youth, or for selling unregistered produce or dietary supplements, or, especially, for exercising his unalienable right to keep and bear arms. You do that “in the teeth of both law and facts.” But, then, wouldn’t you have lied? Well, didn’t the judge lie? Are you required to be truthful to a man who lies to you; to a man who steps out of an alley and jabs you with a knife; to a man who would steal your freedom? You say you would never lie no matter what? I say you would and can prove it.  You have just finished watching the local news when a man breaks into your home. You have just seen him on the news. He is an escaped serial rapist and he is carrying a twelve gauge widow maker. He asks where your daughter is. The truth is that she is upstairs doing her college algebra homework. What do you tell him? You lie. You tell him you just took her to the airport. She flew to Katmandu. She will be there for a couple of years doing archeology. If you would tell him the truth, which would tell me you worship your own “purity,” that your own “perfection” is more important than your daughter, you are in the wrong place. Goodbye.  Consider that the law is always on trial. It may not be readily apparent, but even the law against murder is always on trial. The subject never is raised, because everyone agrees there should be such a law. Likewise for the laws against armed robbery, embezzlement and rape. But the more verdicts there are against unjust king’s laws, the sooner they will be swept away. Jury nullification and grand jury resuscitation fit together perfectly. We discussed the latter in a recent piece. It is something else the legal bozos have so far kept secret. To learn how to form a real grand jury, go to americangrandjury.org. Consider that doing jury nullification is much easier than forming a grand jury. All you need do is vote for acquittal. They won’t ask you why. If they do, furious, or just frustrated by your monkey wrench vote, you will not say you did it to nullify the law. If you say that, they will throw you into jail. So you will either say nothing or you will smile the subservient smile and say merely that you thought he was innocent. However ridiculous that sounds, they can’t do anything about it. Remember, Judge Sobeloff said the courts “can not search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge.” They are stuck with it. Jury nullification will become ever more important as the present administration imposes Communist law. Remember, law is too important to leave to the courts. ________________________________________ Program Note: As you may know, I try to answer all email. Some emailers tell me this is unusual; that most writers and radio hosts do not respond at all. But, during the last couple or three months, my mail has become a tidal wave. I hope I am correct in thinking the reason is the growing popularity of my articles and talk show. And most of those messages deserve my best. Many require considerable thought. The reason for this little post script is to explain that henceforth I may not be able to give your message the attention it deserves. I may not be able to answer. Be assured I shall read your message, but I may not be able to respond, for which I apologize in advance. Please, bear with me. Your Papers Please! 2009-04-25T19:19:00-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/tea_party_revolution_what_now/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/tea_party_revolution_what_now/#When:14:33:01Z The first tea party we attended was on Tuesday, April 14th, in Friendswood, a suburb of Houston. As soon as we arrived, the Love Priestess began working the crowd, assisted by her sister, Ann. She was supposed to be handing out business cards plugging my daily radio talk show via Republic Broadcasting Network, which she did, but there was something else, so secret she hadn’t told even me about it. She had papers people were signing on a clip board, during the long period before the program. It turned out they were petitions to the main speaker, Congressman Pete Olson. The Republican Party in Washington sent Pete here to take back the Tom Delay seat occupied by a Democrat when Delay was ousted, and, because this is such a staunch Republican district, he did so. The petitions asked Pete to co-sponsor HR 1207, which for the first time would subject the Fed to an outside audit under the imprimatur of “transparency.” This is something Democrats can support because, remember, illegal alien Also Known As has called again and again for “transparency” in government. No doubt that is why the proposal already has fifty five co-sponsors. This is unfamiliar ground to Dr. Ron Paul, chief sponsor of the bill. Whenever there is a vote in the House of 434-1, you really don’t need to look it up. Invariably, the lone vote against will come from “Dr. No.” Indeed, some of the signatures the Love Priestess got came from Republicans who like “transparency” but hate Dr. Paul. So, they love the message but hate the messenger. In his remarks, the congressman came out boldly against excessive spending and higher taxes, classic Republican issues calculated to set the crowd on fire. As he wound down, the Love Priestess appeared at stage side laden down with petitions. I still didn’t know what she was planning to do. By now I was merely hoping that she wouldn’t be arrested on my watch, which would have been hard to explain to the kiddos. As soon as he extruded the final syllable, she was with him at the lectern, handing him the petitions, telling him that 110 of his constituents in the audience wanted him to co-sponsor 1207. The signers were watching all this and knew what she was doing. The microphone was still on and Olson, inspired, said he would. Still not satisfied, she said, “So are you publicly committing to co-sponsor 1207?” The congressman replied, “I think I just did.” So, chalk up one congressman for the Love Priestess. Please do one thing. Because Republican congressmen, unlike the pachyderm that represents them, often forget what they said, please call Pete Olson and enthusiastically thank him for coming aboard. Ask when he will do so. His number is (202) 225-5951. The other tea party we attended was in downtown Houston. The excitement was palpable. The signs were creative. The speakers were all actual people, not politicians. The participants were both friendly and firm. And there were thousands such gatherings, large and small, across the country. This could have been the biggest single event in American history. The word is that about a million participated. The troubling question is: What happens now? In neither party we attended did anyone set forth a plan into which the priceless energy coalescing at the parties could flow. Without a plan, the danger is great that this historic outburst could turn out to be a huge feel good venting session, dissipating the energy while the Communists advance. Consider that we can win the battle for America only if we can accumulate enough power; power is the sine qua non of the struggle. The Communists in the White House are rapidly accumulating power and are using it to force the Communist lid down upon us. When and if they get the guns and put us on the bus, it will take much longer and be much harder – and bloodier – to win. The conspirators the Big Ears Communists work for have almost arrived at their historic, hundred-year goal. Not profit, not money – they don’t know how much money they have – but the power to step on your face until you choke in the mud, their bloody golf cleats grinding in your cheek. They are psychopaths who, in normal times, would be incarcerated in hospitals for the criminal insane. One of their goals is the extermination of as much as 90% of the earth’s population. What does that have to do with profit? These monsters have already murdered at least a couple of hundred million people. Now that they are so close to total victory, they are crazier than ever. They will not “see reason,” they will not negotiate; they will kill anyone they must to win. They are like a hydrophobic pit bull savaging a poodle. We can win only if we have more power than they do. They got where they are by patient, decades-long infiltration, permeation and subversion of our institutions, our government, our industry, our finances, our media, our schools, etc. They got away with it because we didn’t sufficiently recognize it. We don’t have time to do the same thing; if we did, the conspiracy would not extend us the same acquiescence. For years, I have warned that we are “in a race against time.” Finally, I am right. Only one accessible reservoir of power remains: the states. The states are beginning to awaken; they are beginning to remember what they were and could be again. The many Tenth Amendment resolutions are just one proof. If enough legislatures could be revived, the battle could be won. The states could put their federal creation in its place. That is where we should be fighting. Your congressman can’t or won’t do it. With at least one heroic exception, your congressman is a foreigner, even an enemy alien. He is no longer your representative to Washington; he is Washington’s representative to you. You need to make him shaky nervous whenever he visits the district. Without such purpose, without conductors to keep them off, the freedom express becomes vulnerable to three-day old “patriots” skunking aboard, trying to shunt it to a siding. For instance, there is Newt Gingrich, the toe fungus you struggle to get rid of but never can. It always comes back. Toe cheese Newt is making presidential noises again. A new entry is Texas Governor Rick Perry. For almost ten years, Perry has been encouraging new and increased taxes; so many and so much that Texas taxes now rival Washington’s. He imposed forced injections of Merck’s Gardasil on twelve-year-old girls, because his former chief-of-staff is now a Merck lobbyist. Gardasil is a toxic drug; it has killed and maimed girls and women around the world. Perry still defends the kidnapping by Texas child disservices of hundreds of kiddos from that Mormon sect in Eldorado, prompted by a call from a crazy woman in Colorado who later disappeared. The cops knew she was crazy, but conducted the kidnapping anyway. After all the investigations, no one was charged with anything. Rick Perry will charge tolls on freeways the people have already paid for. Despite denials, his Trans Texas Corridor, that will move Afghan drugs and Red Chinese military from Mexico through Texas to Kansas City proceeds. A Spanish company will enjoy the profits for fifty years. Freeway exits will be closed, which will kill little towns. Perry has been to Bilderberg twice. They are looking him over for possible employment as President after Mr. Big Ears deflates. That is why our Communist media say his political career is soaring. Bilderberg of course is the epitome of world government, but now, after almost ten years as big governor, here was the new Rick Perry, wearing hunting garb, talking Tenth Amendment at a tea party. He even mentioned secession before he rejected it. There is no sleazier politician in the country than Rick Perry. In Austin, Robert Morrow has organized Conservative Republicans Against Perry, which abbreviates into an unfortunate acronym: CRAP. Morrow is presently preparing a CRAP site that will list Perry’s serial CRAPS. Perry will be running in the primary for the gubernatorial nomination against incumbent Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Wharton County Republican Chairman Debra Medina, an R.N. and businesswoman. Kay Bailey and Rick are male and female versions of the same thing except that Perry is prettier. Debra Medina is a true patriot. She stood up to Republican Nazis at last year’s state convention. The tea parties also smoked out both legs of our Communist media. On the right, there was fifty million dollar fraud Glenn Beck, long the property of the Communist News Network, until Australian pornographer Rupert Murdoch, who supported Mrs. Billy Bubba Slime for President, bought him for Fox. Glenn Beck did a great show at the tea party in San Antonio. He made a great speech. He has formed his own patriotic group, which holds meetings across the country. He has been a patriot for – let’s see, now – how many hours? Last year, when his opinion could have counted, he derided Dr. Paul. Now, too late, he says Ron could be right about some things. He said he would expose the FEMA camps, fully staffed and barb-wired, empty, waiting for someone to lock up. He must have misread the script they gave him because he returned from his “investigation” to say the camps are a hoax, despite video of them shot across the country. His “investigator” was Popular Mechanics, the lie magazine that ineptly tries to discredit every revelation about Nine Eleven, one of the many subjects you are forbidden to discuss on his show. Glenn Beck, a patriot? You’re kidding. His lucrative assignment is to co-opt, neutralize, divert and control the exploding American revival. Of course he makes a great speech! Don’t they all? Didn’t Hitler make a great speech? Doesn’t Mr. Big Ears make a great speech? The left Communist media, furious, lost control of their ravening blood lust. They tried to associate the tea parties with something called “tea bagging,” which I had never heard of and don’t want to know anything about, because it is said to be a typically degenerate behavior practiced by faggots. You new people who attended with your spouses and kiddos need to know that this is what the left Communist media think of you. Of course, la pièce de résistance of the day was the performance of the CNN womanoid in Chicago, Susan something. I didn’t get its last name. It sounded something like “Rodent.” You saw it yourself on You Tube, doing everything it could to provoke a confrontation. It failed, but people did shout that it wasn’t a real reporter, which it wasn’t, and told it to shut up. The left Communist media performance indelibly proves that these people are not just fellow Americans who disagree. They are enemies who are trying to hurt you and treat you with contempt. They are trying to destroy the United States. You must recognize that and act accordingly. Do not be impressed when they arrive in the vans with the video cams. My first job in broadcasting was at NBC in New York, where I wrote a show. I was not impressed. Don’t talk to them. Make them as nervous as you make your congressman. They are vulnerable public corporations. Bring them down. Revel in the certainty that they will not fare well on Der Tag and thereafter. Because they don’t believe in guns and self-defense, the Communist juggernaut they adore will surge through them like Perry CRAP through a goose. Go to your state capitals. ACORN goes door to door. Will you? They have a plan and the will to win. Do you? You must go nose to nose with ACORN and convince them you are squirrels. Politics 2009-04-21T14:33:01-06:00 http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/grand_jury_power_take_it_back/ http://www.alanstang.com/index.php?/site/grand_jury_power_take_it_back/#When:17:50:01Z As you know, I always try in these essays not only to analyze what the conspiracy for world government is doing to our country; I also search out and offer realistic solutions, practical ways to revive our dormant, constitutional system. Recently, for instance, we discussed the true powers of the sheriff, explained by former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, who says that, in his county, the sheriff has more power than the President and can keep federal agents out. Now let’s look at the grand jury. Everything that follows is based on research assembled by New Jersey attorney Leo C. Donofrio, J.D. Leo has been a guest on my daily radio talk show. He is one of the patriot attorneys who have gone to court to adjudicate the most important constitutional issue in our history: the question of whether the man who presently sits in the Oval Office is legally eligible to be there. Leo Donofrio’s website is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. Get in touch with him for more on the question of whether we have a President or not and thank him for his efforts. By the way, one caveat. Resist any friendly invitation to play poker with him. As I understand it, Leo is a poker professional and, unless you are Peter Eastgate or someone like that, he will clean your clock. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in part as follows: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .” You have read that 101 times. What does it mean? What is the difference between a presentment and an indictment? An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, cites American jurist Joseph Story, an icon of the legal profession known to every member. The article explains: “An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action: “‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’” So, government officials prepare an indictment and lay it before the grand jury. On the contrary, the presentment originates in the grand jury. The grand jury discovers an offense on its own. It observes and collects evidence of the offense and the government has nothing to do with it. So the grand jury is independent. The court then prepares the indictment based on the presentment. The question obviously leaps from the page: Then what is the true purpose and what are the true powers of the grand jury? If the grand jury can do all the things I mentioned, then it is clearly meant to be quite a different institution from the one you may be used to, which the (government) prosecutor controls completely. So what is the answer to our question? High Court Justice Lewis Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), said this: “The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).” So the grand jury has two purposes, says Justice Powell: deciding whether a crime has been committed and protecting the citizen from the government. It gets better. In United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 47 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia, delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court: “[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U. S. App. D. C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 825 (1977).” So, since the grand jury is not part of the three branches of government set forth in the Constitution – Scalia also says the grand jury “is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.” – it is perfectly reasonable to characterize the grand jury as the “fourth branch of government.” Attorney Donofrio says this: “That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.” In the same place, Scalia says this: “. . . In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]” Notice! The only thing the judge should do, says the Supreme Court, is assemble the grand jurors and swear them in. That’s all! Again, the court does not preside over it. The grand jury goes to work “as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The grand jury protects the people. It oversees the government. It does that by investigating the government, by rooting out government corruption.  In the Creighton Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, in an article entitled, “If It’s Not a Runaway, It’s Not a Real Grand Jury,” attorney Roger Roots says this: “In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.” (Emphasis added) Correct! The grand jury can tell the prosecutor to skedaddle. The main reason for grand jury secrecy was to keep its proceedings secret from the government. For an expanded look at the incredible powers of the grand jury in action, which more than justify calling it the “fourth branch of government,” go here: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm. The Founding Fathers who wrote the grand jury into the Fifth Amendment would not recognize the puny husk it is today. Here is lawyer Roots’s description of a real grand jury: “In the early American experience, the grand jury became more a part of local government than it had apparently ever been in England. A grand jury in Virginia in 1662 was part of the country system, which meant that they would meet two times a year ‘to levy taxes and oversee spending, supervise public works, appoint local officials, and consider criminal accusations.’ Connecticut grand juries were levying taxes and conducting local government work by the middle of the 1700s. A similar active role in local government was assumed by grand juries in the Carolinas, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, all of which had sufficient independence to publicly announce dissatisfaction with government. “. . . In 1765, a Boston grand jury refused to indict Colonists who had led riots against the Stamp Act. Four years later, as tensions intensified, a Boston grand jury indicted some British soldiers located within the city boundaries for alleged crimes against the colonists, but refused to treat certain colonists who had been charged by the British authorities for inciting desertion in a like manner. A Philadelphia grand jury condemned the use of the tea tax to compensate the British officials, encouraged a rejection of all British goods, and called for organization with other colonies to demand redress of grievances.” Then why is every grand jury you have ever seen run by the government, by the prosecutor? Why does the government, the prosecutor, decide what it will investigate and who will testify? Why does the government, the prosecutor, micromanage everything it does? Because the government doesn’t want to be investigated. It does want to stay corrupt. So it has completely perverted this hallowed institution, the fourth branch of government. How? In the same law review piece, attorney Roots explains: “In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted . . . . In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.” Here is Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP): “An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment. . . .” As you see, there is no mention of “presentments.” But Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules says this: “4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.” The American Juror says as follows about Note 4: “[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]: “‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “ The effrontery of these legal bozos is breathtaking. Here they say in effect that the grand jury endorsed by the Constitution could give the people the crazy idea that they are the ultimate power in government. The bozos use the pejorative term “run-away” to denigrate the grand jury. Worse, they couldn’t remove it from the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, so they decided to delete it from the Rules, hoping that with the passage of time they could brainwash us into the belief that there never had been an independent grand jury that investigates and restrains the government. And they were successful. The 5th Amendment still says what it has always said, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor will bully you into the belief that he must sign it or the judge will throw it out. Judges and lawyers have repeated the lie so long, the people now believe it. They don’t know they have that power. Indeed, so successful has the lie been that even many legal people believe Note 4 makes presentments “illegal.” For instance, in another law review article, Professor Susan Brenner says this: “Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.” So, Professor Susan believes Congress can eliminate something from the Constitution by passing a mere law and attaching to it an even more mere administrative note. I sure hope she isn’t teaching constitutional law. Even lawyer Roots himself gets it wrong: He says the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes.” Lawyer Leo Donofrio explains: “The key word is, ‘obsolete.’ Obsolete means ‘outmoded,’ or ‘not in use anymore,’ but it does not mean ‘abolished’ or ‘illegal.’ And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution . . . . [I]n its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.” So, you have the power but you have not been using it because you don’t know about it, which has the same effect as not having it. Now you must pick it up, scrape off the crud and begin taking charge. How? Here is one example of what you are up against. I went to the chief federal judge in Los Angeles. We were alone in his office and I told him I had proof that major felonies were being committed in the courts he supervised. For instance, accused in court of intimidating banks into surrendering customer records by pretending to be the grand jury, a prosecutor told the judge: “Your honor, I have been here for ten years, and that is how we’ve always done it.” The judge replied, “I don’t care how you’ve done it. You are not going to do it in my court.” Because his admission was so outrageous, the judge threw out two of the charges. But the judge did not punish him despite his admission, on the record, that he had been committing major felonies for ten years. What would you do if you were the chief federal judge and someone came to you and said he had proof of major crimes committed in the federal courts in your district? I would ask to see the proof. But the chief federal judge in Los Angeles expressed zero interest in the matter, nada, none. Before I could say, “Objection!” I was out on the street. So you have to convince them you know you have the power. First, you need to launch a media blitzkrieg to create public acceptance. Use every available tool, talk shows, the internet, newspapers and old fashioned back fence discussions. If a lawyer is available to guide you through the process, use him. The judge and prosecutor certainly will tell you nothing. The grand jury can convene anywhere, but there will be more credibility if it conducts sessions in the court house. The foreman could ask a court administrator for use of one of the rooms there. If the court administrator refuses, the foreman could sue. Start small with cases everyone agrees should be prosecuted. Gradually restore true grand jury legitimacy in the public mind. Gargantua won’t like it but a time will come when you can kick the prosecutor out and then put Rahm “the Hemorrhoid” Emmanuel on trial. Do it now! Law is too important to be left to the courts. Your Papers Please! 2009-04-09T17:50:01-06:00