You Believe Humans Can Be Racist.

 
"You can't fix stupid, even though I've tried.  People still think different colors are different races.  How dumb is that?  We're all just humans, nothing more or less.  So, we can be bigots, we can be prejudiced, but we CAN'T be racists!!  Unless E.T. never went home." -- Gary Grey Crocket, a FB friend.

You Are Not Aware of Your Lost Freedom

My letter to the editor that I believed that Communism was starting to take hold in America.

To the Editor:

Dear Sir,

'Open Letter to One'

“As soon as you abuse the privilege of being free, you are no longer.”

Your freedoms may not be taken from you at that very instant, because a great number of other people all around you have not fallen into your plight. But it has died inside you where it counts the most.

Although the outward appearance will look the same, as you may still be able to do as you normally did before, it will appear to you more and more as you go on, that you have lost your zest in doing what before seemed a great fulfillment in your life.

Besides the fact that you are living in frustration and despair, from dreary days into drearier nights and back again. You are still but only one lost to freedom, for now you become a follower. For without a fulfillment in doing what you desire, you accept the thoughts, actions, and desires of others. You become a conformist, compromiser, pacifist and what have you.

If, as some have done, you finally analyze what you have let yourself into, but say, Oh Well! Everyone else seems OK, so I'll just coast along and see what happens. Never regaining enough of yourself to take the time and the effort to get out of this dilemma. Also never realizing just how many others have also fallen into your plight.

Others around you, without as strong will as your own, see that you are still—at least outwardly—a close image of your former self, but without expending the energy you used to use to partake in the actions that were necessary for maintaining your personal freedoms, without an apparent loss of these freedoms. So now they also, slowly but surely, abuse their own privilege of being free.

Now all these, “I'm only one,” have multiplied themselves over and over again.

Now a lot of people who have thought what they were doing was right. But, seeing this change, begin to wonder maybe some of it is wrong. Gosh! This must be the modern look, everyone else seems to be doing just the opposite these days, maybe I'd better get on the bandwagon before someone thinks I'm not keeping up with the times.

Now we have a majority from one. Hello, Communism.

Damn it! I forgot to lock my back door again. Thank You.

Yours Truly,

_________________

Norbert A. Tanguay

(The above letter was written and mailed to Time Magazine on April 28, 1961)

You Don't Take The Time To Learn The Difference

 

You Don't Act To Preserve Your Freedom (Jury Duty)

[You] and only you possess all the power to keep your freedom, no one else. Only you, you're the master. President Biden, The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Putin, Xi Jinping of China, and all the Presidents and Dictators of the world control 0% of your freedom. You and only you control the most precious item ever given to mankind . . . FREEDOM.

Then why do you fight so hard to get off of Jury Duty, as that is the only place that you can exercise that right? And, every time you do you are giving up some of your freedom.

When to vote, "Not Guilty."

1. If you believe that the law is unconstitutional.

If the law is in violation of any of the 10 Bill of Rights. The law restricts free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. This is probably the easiest of all the reasons.

Several years ago, Morton Grove, IL passed an ordinance that no one in the city could possess a gun. The 2nd Amendment states otherwise, therefore unconstitutional. If you were on the jury where a female, who had a gun because she was afraid of an ex-abusive husband, was being prosecuted for the weapons charge, how would you vote? "Guilty," or "Not Guilty."

"A juror not only has the right to weigh the facts but the law itself." John Jay, The first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Note: This also pertains to administrative laws and regulations.

"2. If the facts do not match, or you believe that they do not match, the crime charged."

Another way of looking at this section is "misapplication of the law."

A person moved to New Jersey and stayed with his sister until he could find a permanent place. He then moved from his sisters to his place in New Jersey. He was stopped by police who found guns in his car.

They misapplied the moving exception to the law. The prosecutor said that if he had come directly from out of state he would have been OK. What! Can't you move within the state of NJ? He was convicted and given four years in prison. No state law says you have to leave your guns at the old house.

The law may be all right but the facts did not match the crime charged. Ignorance of the jury members cost this man four years in prison.

Note: The saddest part about this case is that the judge was duty-bound to discard the jury's verdict, but he did not. A judge has the power to overturn a "Guilty" verdict but not a "Not Guilty."

3. If the punishment or you believe that the punishment, can or will be much greater than warranted for the action of the accused.

4. Shocks your conscience. "You don't have to leave your conscience at the courthouse door."

Here we're not talking about the crime committed by the accused but the actions of the government in bringing the subject to trial, and other moral dilemmas.

a. Excessive force/police cruelty to elicit a confession.

b. Excessively long interrogation and/or not providing proper food and water. Especially for a young person.

c. Cruel Incarceration. Seven months in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day prior to trial.

d. Convincing a mildly retarded person to commit a crime, he believing he's helping the police, then arrested and prosecuted.

e. Religious beliefs. Religious organization employees are subject to arrest for not following a law or regulation which is against their beliefs.

In a nutshell, it would be any willful and wanton conduct against due process and fundamental fairness that would shock your conscience.

Definition of Conscience. (Shortened version).

The moral sense: the faculty of judging the moral qualities of actions, or of discriminating between right and wrong; particularly applied to one’s perception and judgment of the moral qualities of his own conduct, ...

"You don't have to leave your conscience at the courthouse door."

As told to the jury; John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."

If you vote your conscience you'll never lose a night's sleep over your decision. (The author)

5. Another area seldom mentioned is if you believe that the witness for the prosecution is lying. A lawyer, whether the prosecutor or the defense attorney, is legally bound to never put on a witness that he believes may lie. If he does and is found out then he may be disbarred.

Conclusion

"You have the power but do you have the moral right?"

You cannot just make your vote based on nothing or a pet peeve. In the preceding entries, you learned many reasons why you should vote Not Guilty, e.g., nullify the jury. But let's analyze some examples.

During slavery, abolitionists would help run-away slaves which was against the law. Northern juries would not convict as they felt that slavery was immoral and evil. They had the power, and they believed they also had the moral right.

For years juries in the South would not convict a white man charged with assaulting or killing a black man. Again they had the power, but did they have the moral right.

When none of the standards are present for nullification then your vote most probably should be Guilty.

The Criminal Justice system doesn't like hung juries. It causes dropping the charges or a new trial, which is costly. When a jury cannot reach a verdict, the judge will usually call the jury back into the courtroom, and read the "Chip Smith Charge." (Chip Smith is the name of a CT case). Which in a nutshell says that you might consider the opinions of others who have equal intelligence and heard the same evidence. But the opinion must be yours and yours alone. You should listen to the charge by the judge and seriously consider it. If you feel the same, after careful deliberation, then your vote should still be "Not Guilty."

Author's Note: I hope and pray that all good citizens will stop trying to avoid jury duty. Then, and only then will we be able to preserve our freedoms by nullifying unconstitutional and unjust laws and regulations.

All reaction

 

As the Uvalde, Tx mayor you didn't take proper disciplinary action

 Because I was asked, the following is my Insight/Comment on the school shooting.

Active

Wendy Nielsen

tnrdseoSopactM m5t0obh1t02 4ralc0:3l93OP6fg8lh 9ce5 aaf99116  · 

RUMBLE.COM

New Uvalde School Shooting Bodycam: They Let Kids Bleed Out Because They Were Scared

"There's a teacher shot in there. They're still taking rounds." Real News & Commentary for Patriots: https://www.redvoicemedia.co

1Wendy Nielsen

5 Comments

Like

Comment

Share

5 Comments

• Active

  Wendy Nielsen

  Norbert Tanguay Any insight/comments?

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 1d
• Active

  Norbert Tanguay

  Nineteen babies is unacceptable.

  All, approximately 50, officers should have been fired: except the one officer who took the shooter out. And, all command officers who were in charge of the scene that didn't order an assault on the classroom, or gave an improper order should have been arrested for, "Malfeasance and Non-Feasance of Office."

  The officers were discussing what should or could be done--wrong.

  It is not, "What will we do," it's, "What will I do."

  Each officer took an individual oath: not a collective oath.

  Nineteen babies is unacceptable.

  

  • Like

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 1h
  • Active

    Wendy Nielsen

    Norbert Tanguay Insight like yours is sorely missed, Sir. I hope you, yours, and the pooch finds yourselves well these days. 

    

    • Like
    • Reply
    • 36m
  • Active

    Norbert Tanguay

    Wendy Nielsen My book contains the story of one man with only a knife on a train that was taken over by 40 armed terrorists. When several terrorists attempted to rape a young girl, he attacked, killing eight and scattering the others.

    One against 40 and the one won.

    Fifty against one and the 50 lost
  • Retired Lt. and Police Academy instructor.