American Liberty News» Sicko War On Drugs

US drug war has met none of its goals
05-13-2010 • AP
After 40 years, the United States’ war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread. Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn’t . . . .

Read full article at: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/068826-2010-05-13-us-drug-war-has-met-none-of-its-goals.htm

Comment: The War on Drugs has become a War on American citizens. It is as useless, futile, and morally-obscene as Prohibition was in the 1920′s (Prohibition was repealed precisely because it was useless and futile). The only solution is to legalize drugs. Once drugs are legalized, anyone dumb enough to take drugs would suffer their own personal consequences from doing so, the same way alcoholics suffer from their bad decisions. Anyone taking drugs and committing a crime under the influence could be prosecuted in the same way drivers who drink and get into accidents are prosecuted. Half the people in US prisons are there on drug-related charges. Legalizing drugs would free these people. It would also save us tens of billions of dollars now thrown down the drug law-enforcement sewer that now pays for all the police, court costs, and prisons that enforce the drug laws. Legalizing drugs would also, in one fell swoop, wipe out the millions of dollars in profits that terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime now gain from the illegal drug trade.

Tweet This Post

Morally-Obscene Drug War is a Real War –– on American Citizens

ALN Contributor — Wed, 05 May 2010 19:08:58 +0000

Video of a Missouri family has their door broken down in the middle of the night by the guys whose job it is to “Serve and Protect.” Their family pets are shot–including their corgi–while their young son is a startled on-looker.

Reported by Randy Ricochet

Read full article at: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/068418-2010-05-05-drug-war-is-a-real-waron-american-citizens.htm

I Don’t Care What The Judge Said!

by Joel Turtel

“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this jury. You’re going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”

“The fact are clear as day, aren’t they?” Dillard ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun’s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.”

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.”

“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

“Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,” the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”

“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up about jury nullification.”

“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t convict, the government couldn’t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.”

“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

John Straun turned to the others around the table. “You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?”

“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million cigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have any political clout.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young. Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?”

“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”

“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re lost, the country is lost.”

“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m asking of all of you.”

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Tweet This Post

THE DRUG LORD’S CHRISTMAS LIST

ALN Contributor — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:39:03 +0000

“Boss, here’s the Christmas list you asked for. But for the life of me, I don’t know why you’re giving all this money to these politicians. These guys on your list are the worst. They yelp the loudest all year long against the drug trade, illegal gambling, and prostitution – you know, all the rackets we run. They hate our guts. Why do you want to help these guys get re-elected?”

“Jimmy, you stupid idiot, I’ve explained this to you a hundred times, but you never get it through your thick skull,” said the crime boss, Johnny Carrone. “I wouldn’t waste time explaining it to you again, except that I got nothing to do right now.”

“Now listen up. Most of the time, the crime families are at each other’s throats, but we all agreed to bribe these guys and keep them in office. You know why? Because these politicians keep us in business. They make us millions.”

“How do they do that, boss?,” Jimmy asked.

“Jimmy, you ever cracked a book in your life? You ever heard of Prohibition and Al Capone? How do you think Al and his buddies got started? How do you think they went from small-time hoods to millionaire heads of huge crime syndicates? Prohibition, that’s how. And what was Prohibition? It was these idiot politicians who passed laws that stopped average guys from drinking. They outlawed wine, beer, and liquor. Can you imagine the stupidity in thinking Americans would stop drinking just because they passed a law? Well, no stupidity is beyond these guys.”

“Know what happened after they passed Prohibition? Big liquor manufacturers and distributors, good little American companies who obeyed the law, stopped making and selling gin, whisky, and beer. What happened then? Why, golden time for the mob who spit in the face of the law. Capone and his pals had the guts to go into the liquor business that was abandoned by the law-abiding manufacturers. And since the average guy was just as thirsty as ever, and even liked the idea of snubbing his nose at the law by going to speak-easys for his booze, business boomed for Capone and the other mobs.”

“The same happened with hookers, the numbers racket, horse-racing, and then drugs. Everything people wanted that the idiot politicians forbid with their laws, organized crime supplied. The mobs flourished. They grew into huge, rich, powerful businesses. And the cops, judges, and politicians were so corrupt that Capone and the other mobs had ‘em all on their payrolls.”

“Jimmy, people always curse us or call us filthy names like gangsters or hoodlums. But they buy what we sell them, don’t they? Why? Because we sell them things they want that their own government tells them they can’t have. We’re really the good guys.”

“What harm does liquor, or hookers, or gambling do, anyhow? Why is it a crime for a guy to take drugs or see a prostitute? Who does he hurt if he does? Mostly himself. It’s called a ‘consensual’ or ‘victimless’ crime. Yeh, maybe a guy hurts his wife’s feelings if he comes home drunk or gambles away the rent money. Maybe he’s a loser or a rat for doing this. But should being a loser be against the law?”

“The same guy hurts his wife and kids if he smokes or eats fatty hamburgers that give him a heart attack, don’t he? They say that a half-million guys drop dead every year from smoking or overeating. Don’t that hurt wives and kids too? What about guys who work all the time and never give time to their families? Or violent guys who beat their wife or kids? Why don’t they pass a law that forbids cigarettes or hamburgers, or arrest guys who hit their kids?”

“When they pass laws against using drugs or gambling, they try to outlaw normal human behavior. They want to dictate people’s morals and tell them what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. They want to outlaw human stupidity. If a guy wants to scramble his brains with drugs or lose all his money gambling, that’s his business and no one else’s. It’s his brains and his money, ain’t it?”

“It used to be that they could only arrest you if you physically hurt someone. You know, knocked their teeth out, shot them, broke their knees, robbed them or extorted money from them. Something you did direct that hurt someone else. The law could only go against you if there was a real victim you hurt.”

“Nowadays, they pass a law against any stupid thing a guy wants to do to himself, like taking drugs, gambling, going to a hooker, or not wearing seat belts. These arrogant politicians claim that doing drugs or gambling is ‘immoral’ or can hurt the person doing them, so ‘we’ have to ‘protect’ people from their own stupidity. Immoral, in whose opinion? These do-gooder politicians are just ramming their moral ideas down other people’s throats. Where do they get the gall?”

“Why is taking cocaine or marijuana immoral, but smoking cigarettes or drinking beer is not? Fact is, I read that the nicotine in cigarettes is more addictive than marijuana. What about drinking? Why isn’t that immoral? Over 50,000 people die every year from drunk drivers. You know how many die each year from drug overdoses? Lucky if its 7000, and that’s only because some gangs sell shitty drugs or dirty needles. Why isn’t eating fatty hamburgers immoral if a half-million guys drop dead each year from heart attacks? Why aren’t they sending SWAT teams into hamburger joints? Why isn’t pre-marital sex banned? That causes “potential harm,” since millions of illegitimate kids are born every year and we have to pay taxes to support them on welfare. If they passed a law against anything we do that might cause “potential” harm to someone else, three-quarters of the population of this country would be in jail.”

“You see the stupid hypocrisy of these moralizing politicians? But thank God for them, Jimmy. Cause without them we wouldn’t have the anti-drug, gambling, and prostitution laws that keep us in business.”

“You know what happened when they finally ended Prohibition in the late 30′s? That put the gangs out of the liquor business. Why? Because now legit liquor manufacturers came back into the business. Capone couldn’t complete with the likes of Seagrams and Johnny Walker. We’re not in the same league with these big companies. The crime families can only profit and stay in business by selling stuff that is illegal that legit companies won’t make.”

“Well, the same goes for the drug trade today. Thank you Congressmen and state politicians, one and all, for your War on Drugs. The war’s been going on for fifty years now, with no end in sight. Their war keeps us in business. Just like liquor in the 20′s under Prohibition, we grow rich because we sell something millions of people want and will buy, regardless of all their laws, drug raids, and army helicopters burning Columbian poppy fields.”

“They can’t win their war, no matter how many billions of dollars they pay for an army of cops and drug-enforcement agencies who try to catch us. They can’t win no matter how many millions of marijuana smoker’s they lock up, no matter how many drug raids they make or new prisons they build, no matter how many drug searches of cars and people’s luggage at airports they do. The coastlines and communication routes we got are so complex and clever that every time they shut down one of our routes, we create ten more.”

“Why are we so good at beating their War on Drugs? Because we make millions selling drugs. We get rich beyond our wildest dreams. That’s why every time they arrest some small-time drug dealer, ten more crop up to take their place, ten more who also want to get rich quick.”

“And it’s the laws and cops and War on Drugs that makes us rich. Their war jacks up the price of drugs. It costs us pennies for the stuff, and we make 1000% profit on the streets. Do you really think we’re going to stop when we’re making millions? Do you think they’ll ever win their war?”

“Jimmy, I love their War on Drugs. I got a house in Bermuda, one in Monte Carlo, one at Malibu Beach. I got more money than I can spend in ten lifetimes. And I got the politicians and religious moralists to thank for making me rich. I love those guys.” “So that’s why we have a Christmas list of politicians. We give them big campaign contributions so they keep getting re-elected. The louder these guys rant about being ‘tough on drugs,’ the more laws they pass against drugs, gambling, and prostitution, the more money we give them.”

“Of course, they don’t know these bribes come from us. We hide our campaign contributions through legit front companies. And get this, they invite us to their parties, to their fund-raisers. They pin medals on us and tell us what good citizens we are to contribute to their great cause. Ain’t that hilarious, Jimmy? Ain’t that one big joke? So that’s why that Christmas list is so important. Always remember that it’s these guys who make us rich.”

Carrone looked more carefully at the list, then said, “Jimmy, what is this guy doing on the list? This Senator, Pete Malone, shouldn’t be here. He’s our worst enemy. He’s a libertarian. This guy wants to legalize drugs, hookers, and gambling. Says these laws violate people’s individual rights and the Constitution. This guy is on to us. He knows that we only stay in business because of the drug laws. Guys like this would put us out of business real quick. Cross this guy off the list right now.”

“You know what would happen if they legalized drugs? We’d be out of business in a month. Big drug companies would start selling marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs through drug-store chains and medical clinics. Drug addicts would get their habit supervised by doctors like they do in Holland. Needles would be cheap, new, and clean, cutting down on AIDS from dirty needles. The price of drugs would drop down to what aspirin or cigarettes cost today. We’d be wiped out by the legit drug companies.”

“And drug use would drop like a rock because drug dealers wouldn’t push drugs on school kids anymore. There’d be no more profit in it because kids or their parents could buy cheap, high-quality drugs from a drug store or clinic. And God help us if they legalized hookers and gambling, too. I shudder to think of it.”

“Jimmy! I told you to cross this libertarian Senator off the list right now, you hear me?”

The mob boss looked up from his Christmas list to see Jimmy snoring in his chair. Jimmy had fallen asleep while he was explaining everything to him. Carrone knew that next year Jimmy would ask him the same questions, not understanding a word he said. “Moron,” he said with a laugh to the snoring figure on the chair.

Tweet This Post

“I Don’t Care What The Judge Said!” — The Morally Obscene War On Drugs

ALN Contributor — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:28:57 +0000

by Joel Turtel

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

Tweet This Post

The Drug-Court Judge’s Wife

ALN Contributor — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:35:58 +0000

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

– Jacob Hornberger (1995)

“I’m sorry, Michael, I’m through, I’m finished. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m leaving you. I want a divorce. I love you. I always will. But I’m leaving you,” said Patricia Wellington to her husband of thirty years, Michael Wellington.

Patricia Wellington stood in the middle of their living room in their lovely home in Westchester, New York, a beautiful place of rolling green hills topped with expensive homes. Theirs was one of the beautiful homes, full of memories of their children and their lives together. Patricia was 51 years old, auburn hair, brown eyes, still lovely, wearing a summer print dress. She stood looking at Michael Wellington, seeing in her mind’s eye the tall, handsome young lawyer she had married thirty years ago, then seeing the man who had become a distinguished federal judge. She had been proud of him for so long, until he became a judge in the drug enforcement division of the federal court system, ten years ago.

The trouble started when the Reagan administration passed the mandatory drug-sentencing laws and escalated the mad War on Drugs. Michael Wellington, the man she had loved so long, was destroying lives, destroying families, causing children to be put in foster homes. He was doing this when he sentenced hundreds of men and women of all ages to mandatory prison terms of ten years, twenty years, sometimes life-terms for smoking marijuana or growing it in their basements, in their cornfields, on their rooftops. It was this that had been eating away at her — Patricia Wellington did not think that drug users were criminals, but rather that her husband had become the criminal.

“But you can’t mean that Patty, you can’t, not over this, not over this marijuana evil,” pleaded Michael. “You know I have a job to do. You know smoking or growing marijuana is against the law. It’s my job to uphold the law, Patty. That’s my job. Even if I wanted to be lenient with marijuana users, which I don’t, my hands are tied. I didn’t make the laws. The laws force me to give these people mandatory sentences. Don’t you see that, Patty, don’t you? Please don’t leave me over this.”

Patrician Wellington’s head dropped and shook from side to side in pain and sadness. This was the same argument they had for the last five years.

“Michael, if there was a law that put people in prison for smoking cigarettes or drinking beer, would you be sending those people to jail too? I smoke, Michael. Your son and daughter drink wine or vodka sometimes. Would you put them in jail if that were the law, Michael?”

Michael Wellington looked into his wife’s eyes, and said with great sadness but firmness, “Yes, Patti, I would have to. It’s the law. Without law, Patti, there is no civilization. It is only the law that stands between us and anarchy. If I, a judge, don’t uphold the law, who will? Don’t you see how important that is?”

“Michael,” said his wife, “there is a vast difference between law and justice. Law is supposed to uphold justice. Justice is far more important than law. Michael, every monstrous totalitarian regime in history has had laws, thousands of laws. Every tyranny on the face of the Earth has enslaved their people through their laws. The Nazis had such laws. The Soviet communists had their laws. And all those laws were used to enforce the State’s tyranny, to enslave their people. Michael, there is something far more important than the law. Have you ever asked yourself if the laws you defend are just? Have you ever asked if our government has the right to imprison someone for smoking a marijuana cigarette or taking drugs?

“Have you ever asked yourself whether your government has the right to tell someone what he can or cannot smoke, especially if he harms no one but himself? Isn’t the law supposed to protect people from violence or fraud by others? Isn’t the law only supposed to punish people who physically hurt others, and this hurt has to be proved to a jury in court?

Who does a person hurt who smokes marijuana, Michael? Where is the victim the law requires for a crime? If he hurts himself, so what? Doesn’t a person have the right to hurt himself? Don’t we own our bodies, Michael? Don’t I have the right to eat what I want, smoke what I want, drink what I want? Who are these self-righteous politicians to tell someone what they can or cannot put in their own body? These are the same slimy, hypocritical politicians who used drugs when they were young, who tax and regulate us to death. How dare they presume to dictate my personal behavior or the behavior of anyone else. How dare they?”

“But you, Michael, you refuse to see the difference between law and justice, between a law passed by a stupid, power-hungry politician and what is right. The law is supposed to protect our inalienable rights, not some politician’s twisted opinions he wants to shove down everyone’s throat. These politicians we elect are supposed to be our agents, not our masters.”

“Michael, the Nazi judges who they hung at Nuremberg, they said the same things you say. The same things, Michael. They said they were judges, that they were only “following orders.” They said they had a “duty” to follow the laws, the Nazi’s laws, Hitler’s laws, to sentence innocent Germans to prison, shot by a firing squad, or gassed in the chambers by the millions. The judges said the same thing, Michael. They gave the same excuse, may they rot in hell. They were cowards, Michael. They valued their job and their power more than the lives of the innocent people they destroyed in their courtrooms. It was these judges, Michael, these supposed defenders of the law, Nazi law, who should have known better.”

“You think things are that different in American today? Michael, I have contempt for drug-court judges and prosecutors. They are government employees who can’t see beyond their noses. They see a law passed and, like robots, automatically enforce the law in their courtrooms. They don’t judge the law with their conscience. They don’t see the monstrous injustice of the laws, the lives they destroy with their actions. A judge’s duty is to follow the law, but if the law is monstrous, they should quit their jobs. In effect, drug-court judges are not much different than the monster-Nazi judges who sentenced thousands of innocent people in their courtrooms. Their crimes against humanity are only of a lesser degree.”

Michael Harrington turned white, his eyes had a look of total shock. He had heard his wife’s arguments before. But never had she accused him of being like Nazi judges. It rocked him, and something inside him believed her. But something else, something stronger, shut down in him, drawing in, pulling him into a dark cave in his mind. He became furious, murderously furious with his wife for the first time in thirty years.

“Are you saying I’m a murderer, Patricia, that I’m no better than the Nazi judges they tried and executed in the Nuremberg trials? Do you think I should be executed, Patricia? Is that what you are saying? If that is the way you feel, then I think you are right. We should be divorced.”

“Michael,” said his wife, just as furious, “I am saying that what you are doing is evil. You hide behind the law, just like the Nazi judges did. You say it is your duty to uphold these evil laws. So, until you stop doing this, to me you are evil. I’m so sorry to say this, because I don’t want to. But yes, to me you are no different than the Nazi judges. And I cannot live with you any more.”

“I cannot live with a man who sentences people to twenty years in prison for smoking a marijuana cigarette, people who might need that cigarette to treat their nausea from cancer chemotherapy. There are thousands of cancer patients in excruciating pain because chemotherapy makes them violently nauseous, and marijuana is the only thing that can stop the nausea. Yet the law stops them from using marijuana. I cannot live with a man who’s decisions condemn cancer victims to excruciating pain, or to die drowning from their own vomit. I cannot live with a man who destroys families by sending mothers and fathers to prison for twenty years for smoking a lousy joint of marijuana. I cannot live with a man who thinks more of politician’s laws than of justice. I cannot live with you anymore. That is all I have to say, Michael.”

With that, she turned stiffly and walked out the door of the house she had lived in for thirty years, away from the man she had once loved.

Tweet This Post

I’m Not My Brother’s Keeper — And Neither Are You

ALN Contributor — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:45:40 +0000

“Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals – that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government – that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.”

Ayn Rand

Maybe three percent of the adult population become addicted gamblers. Yet private gambling is illegal in most cities and states, except for government gambling schemes called lotteries. Less than ten percent of the adult population has a drug-addiction problem they can’t control. Yet all drugs are illegal for all adults in this country. Only a small number of men are sex addicts who can’t stop themselves from going to prostitutes. Yet prostitution, the combination of sex and free enterprise between consenting adults, is illegal in most parts of the country. The vast majority of adults who own guns use them responsibly and keep them away from children, yet gun-control laws are proliferating like weeds. Soon the 2nd Amendment will be shredded, and the right to possess guns, the right of self defense, will be taken from us.

This is government by and for the stupid. This is a tyrannical government punishing 95 percent of the American people for the actions of the other 5 percent who can’t control their addictions. What corruption of justice allows the rights of the vast majority of decent, law-abiding citizens to be violated because a small number of people can’t handle their sex, drugs, or gambling addictions? Why do politicians we elect presume they can destroy our rights because some people are idiots who can’t control themselves? What right do they have to punish you and violate your rights because of the stupidity or illegal acts of others? They have no such right.

Mankind fought for over a thousand years in England, starting with Magna Carta, to create and defend fundamental legal principles that protect liberty against government tyranny. The English achieved two crucial legal principles that were enshrined in English common law, and later American law. These principles are “mens rea” — no crime without intent, and “actus rea” — no crime without evidence of a criminal act.

Law-abiding gun owners are just that, law-abiding. They use their guns for sport and self-defense. When anti-gun laws control and restrict our right to bear arms, such laws are unlawful punishment against law-abiding citizens who have no intent to commit any crime, and where there is no evidence of any crime committed.

Also, gun-control laws violate another fundamental legal principle fought for over the centuries — no one should be punished for the actions of another. A man should be held responsible only for his own actions. Yet gun-control laws directly violate this self-evident rule of justice. They punish and violate the rights of the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners for the acts of gun-owning criminals or a few mentally unbalanced teen-agers who shoot their fellow students in school cafeterias.

Extend this outrageous principle and see where it leads. Suppose ten percent of us are hamburger, fatty-food addicts. We can’t allow that, of course. Therefore, all Burger King restaurants must be shut down. Because some people are too “weak-willed” to eat the “right” foods, government must “protect” all of us from our own stupidity. These hamburgers addicts must be protected from fatty foods that could lead to heart attacks. We should not have the right to decide for ourselves what food we want to eat. The ninety percent of us who eat hamburgers without getting heart attacks must be punished for the acts of the ten percent who do get heart attacks. Having a heart attack becomes a crime by this principle.

Suppose fifteen percent of young males are irresponsible and get their teenage girlfriends pregnant, which government prosecutors consider an outrage not to be tolerated. We must therefore pass a law that forbids all teenagers under the age of 21 from having sex. We will have sex-police SWAT teams roaming college campuses and breaking down dormitory doors. We must also forbid sex before marriage. The vast majority of teenagers who practice safe-sex will be punished for the actions of the irresponsible minority, and punished without any evidence of any crime committed.

Thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers each year. To prevent this, we must bring back alcohol Prohibition. More than 100 million adults in this country should be prohibited from drinking wine or beer from this day forth because a few thousand people are stupid enough to drink and drive. The vast majority of Americans who drink responsibly and moderately must be punished for the small minority who can’t hold their liquor and drink while driving.

A small minority of parents beat and abuse their children. To prevent this, all parents should be forced to go through a parent-training course before being allowed to continue being parents. If they don’t, their children will be taken from them and put under the “benevolent” care of government social-service workers, who will, of course, care for your children better than you do. The vast majority of parents who love and care for their children will have their rights violated and children ripped from their homes because of the irresponsible actions of a few parents.

If there were no compulsory education laws and no public schools, a small minority of parents might not “educate” their children, either because of stupidity, indifference, lack of money, or other reasons. Because of this, the vast majority of parents who would educate their children must be punished by being forced to send their children to government public-schools that waste twelve years of their children’s life and turn them into illiterates.

These examples show the moral obscenity and consequences of laws that violate the precious legal principles of “mens rea” and “actus rea.” Today we are awash with such laws, written by politicians who have not the foggiest notion they even exist, or who have utter contempt for fundamental legal principles that protect our liberty against their power-lusting agendas.

We are awash because, to their utter shame, the Supreme Court has repeatedly let Congress get away with violating these fundamental legal principles of common law and legal decency. The Supreme Court, over the last 70 years, has become a chief villain in this matter because they should have been protecting us against government tyranny. Yet, many of their decisions have ripped-away the sanctity of “mens rea” and “actus rea”, along with other fundamental legal principles that protect our liberty.

It is understandable, and common throughout history, for a powerful majority to become tyrants who punish minorities for “aberrant” behavior. History is full of horror stories of majorities stealing from, murdering, and torturing minorities they don’t like or agree with. It is the story of human nature at it’s worst.

But what are we to make of a society where a small minority, backed by Big Brother’s guns, now has the right to rip away the rights of the vast majority? What kind of society allows the small number of stupid or careless people that have existed in every society, to destroy the sacred legal rights of the vast majority? It is a society based on the vicious moral notion that “man is his brother’s keeper.” It is a society where this principle has been elevated to the overriding rule of government and the controlling mechanism over our lives. How so?

Every social program, every entitlement program, including Medicare and Social Security, is justified today by this evil notion that men are their brother’s keepers. The swarms of vulture-lobbyists descending on Washington asking for new programs, new handouts, new subsidies for their constituents, all tell their Senator or Congressmen that their constituents “need” the help, “deserve” the help, that they have a “right” to this help.

What are their demands based on? Group whining. If some group is suffering from some temporary economic problem, “it is not their fault,” spout the power-hungry liberals. The group’s problems are not caused by their apathy, laziness, incompetence, poor decisions, lack of foresight, or lack of perseverance. No, it is bad luck, Nature’s fault, or past injustices by other groups. It is everyone and everything else’s fault but their own. Whining is in, personal self-responsibility is out.

If a man didn’t have the common sense to save for his retirement, we need heavy taxes for a Social Security system to “support” him in old age. If farmers had bad weather this year, we need food price supports. If young teenage girls can’t control themselves and get pregnant, we need aid-to-dependant-family programs. If government regulations strangle the health care industry so health insurance is too expensive for millions, then we need Medicaid to pay for poor people’s health care.

If anyone is having a problem in life, why, it is everyone else’s moral responsibility to fix the problem. Our lives, our precious time, our hard-earned money is now mortgaged to any special-interest group who whines loud enough that everyone else owes them a living. That is what our liberal-fascists in government say — “we’re all our brother’s keeper, and brother, if you don’t want to “contribute” voluntarily, why, government will make you.” How? Through strangling taxes and regulations.

Our politicians say if most Americans are not moral enough to help their fellow man voluntarily, then government must step in and see that this alleged “moral law” is obeyed. Government is the highest judge of what is right or wrong, the highest judge of how we should behave, isn’t it? If we leave these decisions to weak or selfish men and women, why, the poor suffering special-interest groups would never get help. So government has to impose the “moral law” on all of us.

To do so, they violate our must fundamental legal rights. They strip away our property rights and our right to resist government orders. Through “creative” lawmaking and “creative” Supreme Court decisions that uphold the “public interest,” government has stripped us of fundamental legal principles mankind fought for over a thousand years to protect us against government tyranny.

Hence, we have the cannibal “entitlement-state” America has turned into. Compassion turned into compulsion. Government agents point legal guns at our heads and say, “be compassionate or go to prison for tax evasion.” Compassion at the point of a government gun. “Man is his brother’s keeper,” enforced by prisons, SWAT teams, taxes that loot forty percent of our paychecks, bureaucrats who strangle us with regulations — by America turning into a police state.

When the immoral notion that “man is his brother’s keeper” is forced on us by a tyrannical government, a country and its people lose their most precious possession — liberty. When we exchange our liberty for a mess of potage from government handouts, when we expect government and our “brothers” to protect us from every ill-wind life throws at us, we end up degenerating as human beings.

We also end up hating our “brothers” who presume the right to steal the bread from our mouths. We end up punishing law-abiding men for so-called “crimes” they did not commit, did not intend to commit, and for which there is no evidence of a crime. We end up punishing law-abiding men for the actions of others. We end up destroying a once free country.

Tweet This Post