Tag Archives: Civil Rights

Is America a Nation of Gullible, Useless Idiots? (Apparently, some Communists think we are Useful—like Obama maybe?)

http://newsrotator.com/blog/post/the-rise-of-communism-in-america-a-warning-to-americans (with gratitude to Frank Mannarino for sharing)

  • THE RISE OF COMMUNISM IN AMERICA: A WARNING TO AMERICANS

    America is the last beacon of hope for the world and for freedom. If we allow freedom to slip away, our generation will forever be remembered as the generation that knew the most and did the least to prevent it. We have a moral obligation to educate everyone around us to the dangers of socialism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, the welfare state and big government. If we are to stop the destruction of what is left of the free world, we must force our government to stop funding and aiding the soviet military industrial complex.

    “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” ~Nikita Khrushchev

    “The goal of socialism is communism.” ~Vladimir Lenin

    In 1848, Karl Marx wrote and introduced The Communist Manifesto. It has been regarded as one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. The manifesto offers an analytical approach to “class struggle”, offering itself as a replacement to capitalism.

    Karl Marx

    Karl Marx
    wikipedia

    The Communist Manifesto

    The Communist Manifesto
    wikipedia
     

    Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was a KGB Propagandist who defected from the USSR to the United States in 1970. In 1984, he was interviewed by G. Edward Griffin on the topic of subversion. Mr. Bezmenov shares his insight and speaks candidly about communism, the stages that must be completed before communism can take hold of a nation and whether he believes communism is a reality for the United States of America. Mr. Bezmenov sounds the alarm to Americans and warns of the dangers already facing this nation and what will happen if measures are not taken to defeat the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

    Some of the terminology Mr. Bezmenov uses in the video is not clearly defined, so we’ve outlined some of the terms beforehand in an effort to help you better understand the video. The information Mr. Bezmenov imparts is priceless to our freedom and liberty and should be mandatory viewing for educational institutions, at all levels.

    1. “Subversion”

      The term “Subversion” or “Ideological Subversion” refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy; a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. Subversion changes the perception of reality and targets the populace of the enemy and is synonymous with psychological warfare.

    2. “Useful Idiot”

      The term “Useful Idiot” is a pejorative term used by the Soviets for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause; a term that describes Soviet Sympathizers in Western countries and in the United States in particular.

    3. “Demoralization”

      The term “Demoralization” refers to a breakdown in the moral standards of a nation. People that have been demoralized are unable to assess truth and facts, even when authentic proof has been shown to them contrary to their beliefs.

    4. “Destabilization”

      The term “Destabilization” refers to the breakdown of society within a nation. Communism generally targets capitalism and attempts to break down the economic system which will lead to crisis.

      For further reading on destabilization, please see: Capitalism Destabilized – How Do We Prepare To Overthrow the U.S. Government. Or you can view the PDF.

    5. “Crisis”

      The term “Crisis” is exactly what you would expect it to mean. Once a nation has been destabilized, the natural order immediately following is crisis. Crisis is the final stagebefore communism is fully instituted.

    6. “Normalization”

      The term “Normalization” is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Brezhnev said, ‘Now brother Czechoslovakia is normalized.’ Normalization is the exact opposite of Destabilization. At this stage, the leftists, progressives, professors, homosexuals, Marxists, Leninists and any other group of people that helped to bring about communism, are almost always eliminated from the new society.

    7. “Active Measures”

      The term “Active Measures” is a form of political warfare to influence the course of world events through media manipulations and seeks to collect intelligence.

    8. “Disinformation”

      The term “Disinformation” is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false. Disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

    9. “Propaganda”

      The term “Propaganda” is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

    10. “Espionage”

      The term “Espionage” involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, as it is taken for granted that it is unwelcome and, in many cases illegal and punishable by law. It is a subset of intelligence gathering, which otherwise may be conducted from public sources and using perfectly legal and ethical means. It is crucial to distinguish espionage from intelligence gathering, as the latter does not necessarily involve espionage, but often collates open-source information.

    The following four stages must be completed in the order listed before any existing power structure can be replaced with communism:

    1. Demoralization

      The demoralization of a nation generally takes between fifteen to twenty years to complete. This is the time to expose one generation of youth to Marxist-Leninist ideology, unchallenged by any other political ideology.

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” ~Vladimir Lenin

      There are six areas in which the demoralization process happens:

      1. Religion (Distract attention from real faith)
      2. Education (Get control of the youth)
      3. Social Life (Friendships, Families, etc.)
      4. Power Structure (Substitute elected officials with unelected people)
      5. Labor Relations (Unions are the death of natural exchange or capitalism)
      6. Law and Order (Change perception: Ex: A criminal is not a criminal but a defendant)

      Demoralization occurs in entertainment, the arts, the breakdown of the family, Social Justice programs like child support as well as political correctness.

    2. Destabilization

      The leftists/progressives are instrumental in the destabilization process of subversion, only to destabilize the nation. After destabilization is complete, they are no longer needed by the communist system. When they finally understand that they were used, they will become angry and revolt. There is no place in a Marxist-Leninist regime for dissenters and are usually eliminated from the new society. These are the people that Vladimir Lenin referred to as “Useful Idiots”.

      Destabilization generally takes between two to five years to complete and encompasses the growth of big government, the economy, defense systems, foreign relations and the promises of government entitlements.

      There are three areas of focus within the Destabilization process:

      1. Economic (Radicalization of human relations: fighting – Normal relations are demoralized)
      2. Law and Order (Society becomes more antagonistic)
      3. Media (Positions itself in opposition to society in general)

      It is interesting to note that “Sleepers” within the target country, “awake”, or rise up after the Demoralization process is complete and position themselves in jobs of leadership, such as: professors, law enforcement – within prominent public positions. These sleepers actively involve themselves in the political process.

      These sleepers, once awake and engaged, concentrate on creating chaos and strife within society. Hot-button issues such as homosexuality are made into human rights issues, demanding these groups be recognized and respected. Other issues that cause chaos are equal rights, abortion, economic issues, ridistribution of wealth (Socialism) and income inequality.

    3. Crisis

      After the crisis or collapse occurs, a violent change in power, structure, and economy takes place. Crisis can happen by either civil war or invasion.

      A crisis can take as little as six weeks to complete. At this stage, there is no turning back from communism and the fate of the nation is sealed. During crisis, the following will occur.

      1. Installation of self-appointed committees (Revolutionary committees)
      2. People will look for someone or something to save them. Government always has the solution
    4. Normalization

      Normalization lasts indefinitely. This is the stage when communism is fully instituted and the people within its society lose any rights they had prior to the takeover. Groups of people that fought so hard for rights during the destabilization phase, such as homosexuals, will no longer have “rights” and will likely be eliminated from the new society. The beautiful utopia the leftist/progressives envisioned will no longer be a reality.

    After contemplating the four phases of communism and weighing it against our current political state, it should be crystal clear that the United States is in the last stage of destabilization. If a major event, whether manufactured by the government, or real, comes to pass, it will surly be the spark that ignites and thrusts our nation into crisis.

    I consistently hear people asking the same question: “Why don’t the republicans stop Obama?” or “Why hasn’t Obama been impeached?” The answer is simple. We have a one-party system, whereby both the democrats and republicans are playing on the same side. What we see on the news is nothing more than political theater; it is disinformation. Both parties are working toward the same goal – communism.

    As you watch these videos, please keep in mind that Mr. Bezmenov spoke about communism in 1984; thirty years from the time of this article. When you consider current events and social/political climate in the United States today, you will better understand how and why our country is in the state that it’s in. Mr. Bezmenov’s words and predictions are eerily prophetic and accurate.

    Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press
    YouTube
    Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society
    YouTube
    Cultural Marxism – Why are we in Decline
    YouTube
    Congresswoman Slips – Admits Socialism Is Goal
    YouTube
    45 Declared Goals From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen
    (Completed goals in red)
    1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
    2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
    3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
    4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
    5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
    6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
    7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
    8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
    9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
    10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
    11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
    12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
    13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
    14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
    15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
    16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
    18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
    19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
    32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
    33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
    34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
    35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
    36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
    37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
    38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
    39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
    40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
    41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
    42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
    43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
    44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
    45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
    Further Reading

    Please read Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov’s  Love Letter to America  for further reading on communism.

Re: National and Local Reaction to Grand Jury “No Bills” in Regard to Recent Police Killings

Quite Simply, Grand Juries are instructed in the law by Prosecutors, and Prosecutors, like Police and judges, claim either absolute or qualified immunity from prosecution, even for the most outrageous violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights, even though neither form of immunity has ever been authorized by any constitution or statutory law.  In the U.S. Constitution, for example, ONLY Legislative Immunity is authorized, and then ONLY for members of Congress actually participating in, or on their way to or from actual participation in Congressional Debates or Votes.

Legislative Immunity is found in Article I, but no executive of judicial immunity can be inferred from any section or clause of Articles II or III. The Eleventh Amendment was enacted to support some forms of State Sovereign Immunity but the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cut back on that.

I have, for twenty years now, ever since the 7 cases I launched in Texas against the City of Lago Vista Police Department (especially Police Chief Frank Miller, the Policy Formulator, and Bart Turek, a very abusive Police Officer) and the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, been campaigning for a “rule of reason” in evaluating police actions: always ask, and permit jury review of the single question: “were the officer’s actions reasonable under the circumstances?” To implement this rule, we must amend the Civil Rights Action, 42 USC Sections 1983, 1988, expressly to abolish the Court created doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity. We must disarm the police (and prosecutors and judges) of these unjust shields and hold the Police to a higher standard of responsive and reactive conduct rather than a lower standard compared to ordinary citizens.

It’s called a Strategy of Rhetoric and Politics—Talk to Those who Oppose you!

Over the past week, Rodney Martin of the ANA has taken me heavily to task for arranging for Dr. Tomislav Sunic to speak at the Beverly Hills JEM Center as the guest of Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, in partial response to Rabbi Illulian’s invitation to ME to promote the JEM Center and to initiate a dialogue in answer to the age old question: “why to so many of your people (the gentiles) hate the Jews?”  My First Answer was that Jews Control Hollywood, and Hollywood is destroying America—but the simple truth is that not ALL Jews support the despicably degenerate and immoral values embodied in (most) of Hollywood, in in the person of Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, I have met a Jewish Rabbi who sounds more like a strict old Southern Baptist Minister in his preaching of morality than any member of the Academy or any other Hollywood “Establishment” Grouping.

  • Charles Edward Lincoln Rodney: You ask, “Why do we [AmRen, Sunic, and I suppose, I] so called WN Intellectuals seek dialog with Jews?” Because the first step to change is to confront them with an embarrassing question. I know we need to have a little private chat about this, but let me explain how I in particular came to work with Rabbi Illulian.

    As you may know, I am a “former attorney”, by which I mean I was ordered disbarred first in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, after filing a series of Seven Civil Rights Suits on behalf of WHITES ONLY asserting the same claims for civil rights as are often asserted on behalf of African-Americans and Mexicans (and Vietnamese, Filipinos, etc.) assuming that the law really did afford equal protection to white people. When they (the Federal Judges in Texas) saw I had NO intention of backing down after that initial disbarment in one Court, they indicted me on some idiotic trumped up charges which led to my resignation from the State Bar of Texas “under threat of disbarment” and the imposition of reciprocal discipline in California and Florida. Yes, I was literally licensed, “Coast-to-Coast” at one time and one of my Civil Rights cases on behalf of upper middle class white people made it to the United States Supreme Court (Atwater v. Lago Vista, 2011).

    So, a mere ten years after I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, by 2002, I found myself disbarred coast-to-coast, but I still wouldn’t give up. I continued fighting because I had absolutely nothing left to lose. I fought in Family Court against the destruction of the Constitution and Family in our Homes. I fought foreclosures and evictions and the destruction of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and private property.

    I became one of the most hated people (to the Courts at least, and Texas Office of the Attorney General which exists in large part to defend the Courts—no matter how monstrous a conflict of interest that would seem to be) in my home state of Texas, which at one time was the freest state in the Union. In January or 2006, after coming close to closing down the family Courts of Williamson County, Texas, at the insistence of already thenTexas Attorney General Greg Abbott (soon to be elected Governor by fiat…to succeed Rick Perry in the Throne of the Bush Family), I was permanently banned from litigating in the Courts of the State of Texas—even as a pro se litigant, even though the Judge Specifically ruled that I was NOT and could NOT be found to be a Vexatious litigant. Rather, he ruled that I posed too great a threat to the stability and security of the Judicial System of the State of Texas.

  • Charles Edward Lincoln And as if all of that were not compliment enough, on March 25 of 2008, Judge Walter S. Smith, Chief Judge of the Western District Texas, entered a permanent injunction against my litigating in any or all of the Federal Courts of Texas, even Bankruptcy Courts. So by that date, I was deprived of all my civil rights in the State of Texas, and I left the State Permanently. Judge Smith wrote that the injunction was necessary to stop the “crusade” I had “spearheaded among dozens of pro se litigants ..to have the Texas Family Code and Courts declared unconstitutional.”

    BUT STILL I DID NOT GIVE UP MY FIGHT FOR THE CONSTITUTION. In May of 2008, I began litigating against the Constitutionality of the Family Court System in Florida, and that led to another Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.

    In 2010, I was living in Los Angeles and met a wonderful young lady by the name of Julia Gelb, born in Godless Atheistic Russia at the end of the Soviet era in what is now the Republic of Belarus.  Julia was going through a terrible divorce in Orange County. She was Jewish, and what pained her most about her divorce proceedings was that her (soon-to-be) ex-husband was not a religious but a secular Jew who had no intention of raising their children, “in the faith.”

  • Charles Edward Lincoln I saw in Julia’s situation an amazing opportunity to develop jurisprudence and a legal theory that would support AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO SEGREGATION and “separate development.” I introduced the Orange County Courts to the writings of Dr. Kevin MacDonald and sought to explain that the Jews depended for their preservation of their identity on THE RIGHT TO SEPARATE EDUCATION and SEPARATE CULTURAL IDEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION—in short, that religious Jews Demand the right to remain Segregated and Separate.
  • Charles Edward Lincoln Julia introduced me to the father of her best friend Bracha Illulian, who happened to be Rabbi Hertzel Illulian. Rabbi Illulian was deeply impressed by my work for Julia. The truth is, we needed William D. Johnson or some lawyer of equal standing and sympathetic disposition. But it has never been possible to arrange this for a variety of reasons.

    Still, it became fixed in my mind that the destiny of the Jews as a “People who shall dwell alone, and not be numbered among the nations of the world” was an excellent model for segregation of all peoples.

    I see segregation as a positive good for all people. Segregation is security and a necessary prophylactic against the evils of globalization, which include the attempted abolition of natural evolution, be it cultural or physical.

    Since each of the Bible, History, and Kevin MacDonald’s sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have taught us that the Jews have perfected the ways and means of segregation, and that is why we should learn from them, and praise them for their successful segregation, and sue to establish the same rights for ourselves.

    It may not seem like it, but that is my SHORT answer to your question. Ask questions as you see appropriate…

England’s Civil Rights Violations against Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest

The latest statement from Megan Stammers is a mere reaffirmation that she loves Jeremy Forrest—what a shock, right? (see article copied below and original at) : http://uk.news.yahoo.com/teacher-guilty-abducting-girl-015659048.html#BosaHOx

I have no idea what course of action the attorneys for the Forrest or Stammers families might be planning in England.  And quite honestly I have no practical experience in U.K. Civil Rights/Civil Liberties law whatsoever, knowing only that “the mother country” has no inalterable Bill of Rights.  

To lack a written constitution as Britain does means that all of the rights established by the Anglo-American world’s FIRST expressly-denominated Bill of Rights (from the Glorious Revolution of William & Mary in 1689) are alterable at the merest whim of Parliament without any “Constitutional” objection.   I first saw  the effects of this Parliamentary derogation process as a teenager during the 1970s when I secretly harbored sympathies for the Irish Republicans even when they were most actively bombing and subverting the peace.  

My Galveston, Texas-born grandfather had all sorts of friends and relations in high places in England, some of whom were targeted by the IRA, so he was a staunch Tory when it came to all things English vs. Irish.  Even after he died in 1980, I think my grandmother would have been appalled and horrified if she had known that my Irish-American girlfriend of long-standing (of whom she kept a favorite picture on her dresser because “she looks like a silent-pictures movie star from the ’20s”) had an elder brother who “tithed” to the Irish Republican Army/Sein Fein and kept a picture of Eamon de Valera and other Republican heroes in his accounting office.  

But I vividly remember when I first read that the U.K. Parliament had expressly changed the rule, after almost three hundred years, that a Defendant’s silence could not be used against him in a criminal trial, to allow Crown Prosecutors and Judges to argue and instruct juries that silence was confession.  I don’t know whether this particular procedure was used against Jeremy Forrest or not, although he did not take the stand on his own behalf.  The Lewes, East Sussex, Court also appears to have convicted Forrest of crimes of which he was not expressly or initially charged in the indictment.  That seems to be the origin of the now repeated PAEDOPHILE label attached to Forrest in the Media (either that or the Media is complicit in the smear campaign, but given English libel laws I suspect it is the courts who have done this.).

So in essence, my analysis of the Civil Rights Violations against Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest, which I begin today with a mere outline list, is going to be an American, U.S.-based list rather than a genuine U.K. legal analysis.  If anyone in the U.K. reads this, I’d be pleased to know how applicable, if at all, they thing my analysis might be.   My analysis will focus and rely primarily on Megan’s First and Fourth Amendment rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of association, Jeremy’s Fifth Amendment due process rights to be free from prosecutions under statutes which are void for vagueness as applied to him, and Jeremy’s right to a true common law jury trial.

My initial list of U.S. Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations implicated by the Forrest-Stammers case is as follows:

(1)      Invasion of Megan Stammers’ privacy—even a minor has the right to privacy, and Megan Stammers obviously valued hers.  The initial investigation was “all about Megan’s conduct” even though Jeremy was the only possible legal target (until yesterday when they started floating the possibility of some sort of “witness tampering” or “corruption of justice” charge against the girl for her highly supportive testimony in favor of Forrest (see latest article below, she still loves him–what a shock—a teenage girl loyal to her convicted PAEDOPHILE lover—I’ll bet that whole notion upsets their apple cart a little bit in the Crown Prosecutor’s Office).

(2)         Infringement of Megan Stammers’ right to freedom of expression and to chose her associates.  Whether she was smart or stupid, I see not one iota of evidence to support the PAEDOPHILE (I use the capitalization that the Mirror and Telegraph seem to be regularly using now) charge or idea that Jeremy Forrest “groomed” or manipulated or coerced the 14-15 year old girl in any way that took advantage of his status, her age, or any special vulnerability such as a mental disorder or psychological problem (other than mere loneliness and lack of interest in boys of her own age).  I should mention that I do totally believe in and support the death penalty for genuine forcible rapists, including men who take advantage of mentally retarded women.   (By this standard, of course, about half of the Red Army that invaded Germany in 1945 should have been executed but that it is a totally separate issue and topic.)  But there’s just NONE OF THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE here.  There’s not even any suggestion that Megan engaged in underage drinking, took psychoactive medication, or used illicit drugs with Jeremy, at least so far as I’ve seen.   It sounds like they were just two people engaged in raunchy sex, and one of them happened to be a married teacher and the other was under 16.  Neither have any place in a Sunday school lesson on “living right.

(3)     Unconstitutional construction of the charge of “child abduction” to the case of Stammers and Forrest—while valid “on its face”, this charge becomes utterly meaningless and really and truly “void for vagueness” when applied to the facts of this case.  If intelligent consent is no defense to abduction then the concept entirely loses its meaning as a legal offense.  Strict liability for a crime of passion is basically a contradiction in terms, from the logical layman’s standpoint, but even from the legal sophisticate’s jaded viewpoint, Megan Stammers’ well-articulated love and defense of Jeremy Forrest should have had a MAJOR impact on sentencing.  Even if the law were completely constitutional, I would have argued for a sentence on the order of a fine or misdemeanor jail term (under 1 year—with credit for time served, Jeremy should now be free).

(4)      Likewise the charge of statutory rape, “PAEDOPHILIA”, and sex with a minor against Jeremy Forrest for being with Megan Stammers just smacks of the teachings of a lunatic asylum school of law that ONLY Socialist Statists could love.   “Age of Consent” is way out of touch with the modern cultural realities of the hypersexualised-media-shaped culture.  You simply cannot drown an entire population in sexual images, styles, icons, putting the trashiest of whores like Kim Kardashian on every news rack in every grocery store, chemist’s/pharmacy,  (and turning such cash-hungry sluts into cultural icons, no less, to the point of giving ordinary street-walkers a bad name because they are literally “too cheap”) and expect people NOT to feel inspire to have sex with absolutely anyone and that their right to do so is slightly more fundamental than their right to breathe.

(4A)—Hypersexualization of culture is part of the “Brave New World”; I don’t happen to like it at all; but to deny it is insane.  Aldous Huxley correctly envisioned this in his brilliantly prophetic 1931 work of that name.  The Socialist State wants teens and adults to be sexual satiated so that they don’t think so that they are “sexually intoxicated” and as a consequence can’t think too much or get very angry about the general oppression and corruption of their government.   The Socialist State also, however, wants to retain and enforce arbitrary and capricious laws so that they can randomly trap people and make everyone feel very humbly compliant with every stupid regulation.  As a consequence, I have noticed in cases from both the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, that the prosecutors’ willingness (anxiousness) to use and apply statutes in a manner which can only be called so arbitrary and capricious as to be void for vagueness, and the willingness of the courts to allow such prosecutions and convictions to continue (with the conventional Defense Bar hardly ever daring to raise a constitutional objection to anything anymore), have all become EPIDEMIC.

(5)    Denial of Jeremy Stammers’ right to a fully-informed Jury.   This is a VERY controversial point, but if EVER a case cried out for Jury nullification, it is this one.  As I have repeatedly stated during the past week, Jeremy Stammers, like Ralph Rackstraw in HMS Pinafore, should have been fully entitled to the defense “For he is an Englishman.”  To fall in love with an attractive and (physically and emotionally, if not chronologically) mature girl and to be with her is every Englishman’s right.  It is part of the traditional culture of the Anglo-American world and, sorry to tell you, but if every man who had sex with a 14-15 year old girl were to be wiped from English history—the history of the Island of Great Britain would probably be about one quarter its current length.  It is also relevant that the synchronous Stuart Hall trial raised much more valid issues of actual consent and rape without the passionate defenses of devotion, and with a lot of women, too, but the sentence was nugatory by comparison.  And as cited on these very pages, British women, female barristers in fact, have endorsed lowering the age of consent to 13 in the U.K., in recognition of cultural reality.  It is this cultural reality, above all, which the jury should have been allowed to consider, and to throw out the charges as inappropriate under the circumstances: to adjudge the laws void for vagueness as applied to Forrest, even if they are facially valid.  It should be noted that while the U.S. Constitution 6th Amendment secures the right to trial-by-jury in criminal cases, it is the application of the 7th Amendment right to have all common law issues decided by a jury which secures the right of CRIMINAL defendants to jury review of the underlying law under which criminal violations are alleged and prosecuted.

(6)    The line between Civil and Criminal infractions and offenses has been blurred.  I do not ignore the fact that Jeremy Forrest was morally deficient and spiritually deponent—he had a wife whom he left behind who is all but ignored in these proceedings.   His poor wife, like Forrest’s school, and perhaps Megan’s parents, had and may still have legitimate CIVIL claims against him.   It may be objected that a Maths teacher at a marginal girls’ school probably has no money with which to pay any civil damages.  But whether that is true or not, the equities of the situation are that Jeremy could should have been tried for reckless and irresponsible dereliction of duty as a teacher, reckless and irresponsible disregard for the feelings of Megan’s parents (and he might have beaten the WHOLE abduction rap if he had met with them even once and they had approved, or tolerated, however grudgingly, his association with their daughter, which I’m sure their daughter could have convinced or coerced them to give), and of course his wife has among the most devastating of divorce charges against him.  He’s not rich—that’a problem for all civil claimants—but to insist on criminal prosecution rather than civil suit because of a man’s financial status?  Well, that would be imply that his financial “status” is a crime in itself, and that would be very embarrassing, I think, to the IngSoc State of Oceania (I mean the Socialist State of the United Kingdom).    CIVIL RIGHTS ANALYSIS TO BE CONTINUED ON THESE PAGES AFTER A BIT MORE HARD RESEARCH.

(7)    Even though I know about Parliament having modified the “right to silence” part of the English Bill of Rights which eventually became part of the U.S. Fifth Amendment, I think that this is a major violation of fundamental rights which are traditionally English and Jeremy should have had an instruction on no presumption of guilt for failure to take the witness stand.

I still love jailed teacher – girl

Press AssociationPress Association – 5 hours ago

  • Teacher Jeremy Forrest was found guilty of child abduction following an eight-day trialView PhotoTeacher Jeremy Forrest was found guilty of child abduction following an eight-day …

The schoolgirl abducted by paedophile teacher Jeremy Forrest told how she still loves him and said she had been old enough to make decisions for herself.

Forrest, 30, was jailed for five and a half years for child abduction and five charges of sexual activity with a child.

The girl apologised for fleeing with him to France when she was 15, but said her feelings towards Forrest had not changed.

She told The Sun: “I would like to make it clear that despite the outcome of the trial, my feelings towards Jeremy remain the same, and regardless of unfair and inaccurate speculation, those feelings will not change.

“I am very sorry to those who have been profoundly affected by the things that I have instigated and the consequences of my actions.”

The girl thanked her friends and family for their support and for respecting “the decisions that I have made throughout this process, of which they know I was fully capable of making”.

During the eight-day trial at Lewes Crown Court the jury was told that Forrest groomed the schoolgirl into having sex with him before taking her to France as he attempted to avoid being caught.

The girl’s mother told the court “the (daughter) I knew is dead and it upsets me beyond words”.

In a statement she said: “I feel completely useless most of the time. I feel like I have failed as a parent as I cannot understand how someone could do this to my child and I had no idea.”

She continued: “I feel like the worst mother in the world, whatever anyone else says it doesn’t matter. Someone has got my child and I never saw it coming and never saw it as it was happening. I feel like part of (her) childhood has been robbed from me – the last day at school, dressing her up in a party dress for the school prom, all taken from us.”

Curbing (Abolishing) Official Immunity for Federal and State Officers: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, following where Senators Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond of North & South Carolina led the way

The “law” of absolute judicial immunity not only cannot be found in the Constitution nor in any statute, but in fact offends the Constitution and common sense, when articulated as follows:

     Judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities.  Immunity exists for “judicial” actions; those relating to a function normally performed by a judge and where the parties understood they were dealing with the judge in his official capacity. 
      The policy behind this principle is that judges must be free to act in a manner they view proper without fear of subsequent personal liability.  This rule is deemed essential to preserve judicial independence.  
       A judge’s errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that dissatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.
      The immunity afforded judges is quite broad and applies to all acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions. Judges are immune from liability even for corrupt or malicious acts. Liability exists only where a judge acted in the “clear absence” of all jurisdiction or performed an administrative task not embraced within the judge’s judicial duties.
Olney v. Sacramento Bar Association, 212 Cal.App.3d 807, 260 Cal.Rptr. 842 (July 28, 1989)(citations omitted).

Obviously, being a judge by these standards rights right up there with the Divine Right of Kings or even divinity itself!  Nice work if you can get it, I guess, but can we tolerate such immunity for judges, prosecutors, and even (effectively) for the police and other officers of executive and judicial function if we are to remain in any sense a free society?  “Jurisdiction” limits judicial power, as do doctrines of “judicial discretion”—but if immunity remains absolute, regardless, and only clumsy, indirect, highly technical, and cumbersome appellate remedies exist, do judges not in fact rise higher in the real power hierarchy of earth than all the gods of the Ancient Nile, Greek Olympus and Norse Valhalla combined, inferior only to the One Creator of the Universe, who for unknown reasons rarely intervenes directly in human affairs?

I oppose all sorts of official immunity: executive, legislative, and judicial, but I especially deplore and oppose absolute immunity for judges to take actions without jurisdiction which infringe upon or violate constitutional rights.  If elected to the United States Senate, I promise to fight vigorously to construe all civil rights laws to apply to judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to executive “police actions” and legislatively authorized derogations from the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional protections.  I will work to strengthen and ensure the colorblind, race neutral, application and construction of 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, which the Courts currently only apply and construe in favor of African-Americans (and occasionally but atypically Hispanics or Asians) against Whites.   White Caucasian Americans must have equal rights to assert violations of their Civil Rights, even when the civil rights involve commercial,  contractual, or proprietary violations rather than race-based violations, but as I have often stated on this blog, I do contend that the judicial constructions of 28 U.S.C. §1443 and 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982 actually DO constitute race-based infringements upon the equal rights of White Caucasian Americans to invoke the provisions of these statutes in their own defense in cases of non-race-based discrimination and oppression under color of law.  But now on to the general concept of immunity, and the roles of Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond in fighting these concepts.

“POLITICAL PROCESS” labels the mechanism by which societies allocate decision-making authority.  “AUTHORITY” means “POWER”.  “POWER without CONSEQUENCES FOR ABUSE” defines “ABSOLUTE POWER”, and “ABSOLUTE POWER” equates (in societies possessing relatively well-developed judicial systems) with “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” from civil suit or criminal prosecution for official derogations, deviations, excessive use or application, infringement, or violations of any stated limits on power or action, especially when these result in the derogation, infringement, or violation of the rights or powers of others.   English Political language contains an ancient aphorism that “Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.”  In my opinion, that aphorism needs to be expanded as a constitutional norm that “Absolute Immunity corrupts Absolutely.”  And the simple truth is that in modern America, both Federal and State Officers, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, possess something very close to absolutely immunity for all crimes, torts, and violations of the constitution which they may choose to commit in their “official capacity.”  

This problem stands as a central focus of my life and career since at least 1995 when I first perceived that Family Court Judges in Texas possessed unreasonable power and discretion to infringe on the Constitutional rights of litigants in family court actions, and that the law itself, through such hopelessly vague concepts as the statutory power of Family Court Judges to rule “in the best interests of the child” when a marriage is “irretrievably broken” constituted a wild derogation from the constitutional norms of due process of law applicable in every other field.  “Best interests of the child”, and/or “irretrievably broken” as formally enacted statutory norms, constitute extreme legislative breaches and violation of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, in my humble opinion.

On February 15, 2012, an opinion came down from a Florida District Court of Appeal which reversed a final decision rendered 19 days after my fiftieth birthday in 2010, on the grounds that “the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to render a final order disposing of the case.”  “A trial court lacks jurisdiciton to render a final order while an appeal from a non-final order in the same case is pending and, if the trial court does so, the final order is a nullity.”  “A trial court may proceed in a cause pending a non-final appeal and dispose of any matter not in form or effect interfering with the power and authority of the appellate court to make its jurisdiction effective, but the trial court may do so only short of final disposition.”  “This may all sound like legal gobbledegook to some…but jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  Many other aspects of this case offer promise and possess extreme interest to all who care deeply about the Constitution as a guiding light for the life of the United States of America, but those aspects must await the briefing of a Motion for Rehearing and, eventually, remand to the Circuit Court from whence this particular appeal arose.

In citing and quoting this very recent decision of an intermediate appellate court in Florida, I mean only to ask the question: should a judge so described by his immediate court of appeals not be held personally liable for acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction?  If his actions caused harm, why should any immunity at all attach to “judicial conduct” undertaken without jurisdiction, since “jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  

Only the bravest and most eccentric and idiosyncratic of all recent politicians have ever dared to confront the question of immunity head on.  Among these are Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond.

The Senatorial career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin began and ended with questions of legislative and executive immunity, respectively, which rocked the nation between 1954 and 1974, respectively, namely the investigations into the conduct of Wisconsin Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957) and President Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994).  

Ervin’s 1954 role in leading to the censure of Senator McCarthy for making irresponsible allegations constitutes a curious (and effectively unique) abrogation of or exception to the most basic and fundamental concepts of “legislative immunity” in that McCarthy’s conduct which Ervin’s inquiry deemed “censurable” occurred almost entirely in the context of Senate Debate’s and proceedings, and consisted entirely of verbal conduct.  In that sense, McCarthy’s censure differed from all but one of the other nine censures rendered by the Senate in United States history, which mostly commonly have concerned non-debate related issues such as financial irregularities (Hiram Bingham 1929, Thomas J. Todd 1967, Herman Talmadge 1979, and David Durenberger 1990), physically fighting on the Senate Floor (Benjamin R. Tillman and John L. McLaurin 1902) and breaches of secrecy (Timothy Pickering 1811 and Benjamin Tappan 1844).  Of these eight, only Pickering’s conduct, a breach of secrecy during 1811, actually occurred on the Senate floor during Senate debates, and even so was only very vaguely comparable to the censure against McCarthy.  Senator Sam Ervin’s role in leading the censure of McCarthy is notable as the most severe censure ever for conduct almost clearly within the meaning of the Constitution’s Article I “debates” clause (protecting members of the U.S. House and Senate as “be[ing] privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  In this connexion I consider Ervin’s role in prosecuting McCarthy historymaking: it shows (or at least suggests) that members of Congress must be held responsible for their role in obstructing or interfering with justice (and other constitutional rights) even while participating in senate proceedings.

As important and historical as Ervin’s early work with the investigation of Joseph McCarthy may have been), Ervin achieved immortality by his monumental and most memorable role on the world stage as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, 1973-1974. Richard Milhous Nixon’s extremely ambiguous place in United States and World history began as a communist-baiter (in the House, largely contemporaneous with McCarthy’s in the Senate), but ended as a communist-appeaser (seeking “Detente” with the Soviet Union and beginning the “sellout” of America to Maoist China), whom the Senate (including Republicans such as Barry Goldwater) forced to resign because of a twisted and bizarre serial episode of abuses of Presidential power in connexion with the Watergate Scandal.  Senator Sam Ervin earned worldwide reverence as  advocate for the nation’s conscience while this writer was in High School in Hollywood, California.  Senator Sam Ervin’s final year in the Senate oversaw the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, in large part due to Sam Ervin’s commitment AGAINST Executive Privilege (as Nixon referred to his claim of immunity from prosecution or even inquiry regarding his domestic actions taken as President against American citizens in the name of National Security).  

As an aside, I pledge that if I should achieve election to the United States Senate—Senator Sam Ervin would serve as my role-model on almost every issue.  I would fight both legislative and executive immunity and simultaneously uphold the Bill of Rights against all legislative infractions including the “no knock” laws which Ervin fought, which have now become routine nationwide.  Ervin, like his South Carolina cohort Strom Thurmond, feared the advent of the Police State in America long before it became fashionable or even acceptable to do so among most of the Southern and Western U.S. Middle Class—who have a terrible habit of confusing and conflating their perfectly reasonable political opposition to cultural social change with a need for legal repression and suspension of the Constitution.   All constitutionalists must deplore such confusion and conflation, for without the Constitutional protections for our freedom, no hope remains for our traditional cultural or social norms whatsoever.

Now, ironically enough, everything that Nixon did (and covered up) during Watergate is now not only legal, in the aftermath of Federal “National Security” legislation passed in 1996-2011), but Nixon’s (and his White House staff’s) conduct and career of constitutional infringements and violations pales and seems of little consequence or importance compared with what President’s now have “statutory authority” to do.  The recent National Defense Authorization Act, in particular, provides legislative statutory authority for the president to order “indefinite detention” of “terrorists” which (as a pair of connected concepts subject to wildly abusive application) is exactly analogous to the vaguest provisions of family law mentioned above regarding judicial authority to rule and render in the “best interests of the child” whenever a marriage is “irretrievably broken.”

I have in any event focused on the career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin because he was one of my first “media heroes” and I first dreamed of studying and applying myself to the resuscitation of American Constitutional Law while watching him preside over the Watergate hearings.

Less known and less famous (and much less politically correct in the modern context) to celebrate is Senator Sam Ervin’s role as the co-author of the “Southern Manifesto” with Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Richard Russell of Georgia.   The “politically correct” way to look at this document requires calling it a reactionary racist response to Brown v. Board of Education and the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court of the United States requiring school desegregation.  But forced desegregation and integration caused social chaos, first in the South, and only slightly later in the North, causing murderous race-riots even in such “liberal” citadels as Boston, Massachusetts through the mid-1970s.   Just as I have often observed that Brazil never experienced anything approaching the level of racial hatred or tensions known in the United States, precisely because emancipation took place gradually and without force there in the Brazilian Empire (and in fact in every nation of the Americas EXCEPT first Haiti and then the United States), the use of force to accelerate the implementation of social change is almost always destructive.

The authors of the Southern Manifesto saw this destructive waive being unleashed by the Supreme Court in America, and they also perceived, correctly, that pitting black against white constituted a means of destabilizing society and increasing the power of the Federal government (in particular) over the people, and of accelerating the empowerment of the police state.  

The authors of the Southern Manifesto against forced school-integration rightly focused their criticisms on Chief Justice Earl Warren.  

As I like to point out, Earl Warren’s life-long commitment to civil rights manifested itself early on in his career as Attorney General and Governor of California when he supervised the hateful and purposeless, in fact counterproductive, internment of hundreds of thousands of (as the newsreels of the time and even early “Batman” movies recited over and over again) “shifty-eyed Japs”, the Second Generation or “Nisei” as they called themselves during World War II.  

In any event, Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond led the ultimately failing Southern Resistance against Earl Warren’s Court and what became, effectively, America’s Second “War Between the States”, although this time more ink spilled in the Courtrooms than blood on the streets.

For purposes of this present topic of immunity, I will end with my repeated hymn of praise to Senator Strom Thurmond for his crafty drafting of the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a).   The United States had handed down its most dramatic and emphatic “anti-Judicial Immunity” opinion in 1984, in the decision of Pulliam v. Allen, which has been my personal favorite Supreme Court decision for more than a quarter of a century now.  Pulliam v Allen 466 US 522 104 SCt 1970 80 LEd2d 565 (May 14 1984).  In 1996, Strom Thurmond proposed a relatively minor amendment to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 & 1988 to clarify the application of this provision to judicial officers.  Under Thurmond’s leadership, Congress amended the Civil Rights Statute to clarify that judges would only be liable for judicial actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction” in the statute, and this language exactly tracks Justice Blackmun’s language in his opinion in Pulliam v. Allen (footnote 12) which reviews the tradition of limiting judicial immunity to matters “clearly within their cognizance” or “clearly within their jurisdiction”, in full (Blackmun here was in fact quoting Blackstone!).  Writing of the Judges of England, Blackstone in Volume 3 of his commentaries at pages 112-113 stated that if these Judges,

in handling of matters clearly within their cognizance, they transgress the bounds prescribed to them by the laws of England; as where they require two witnesses to prove the payment of a legacy, a release of tithes, or the like; in such cases also a prohibition will be awarded. For, as the fact of signing a release, or of actual payment, is not properly a spiritual question, but only allowed to be decided in those courts, because incident or accessory to some original question clearly within their jurisdiction; it ought therefore, where the two laws differ, to be decided not according to the spiritual, but the temporal law; else the same question might be determined different ways, according to the court in which the suit is depending: an impropriety, which no wise government can or ought to endure, and which is therefore a ground of prohibition. And if either the judge or the party shall proceed after such prohibition, an attachment may be had against them, to punish them for the contempt, at the discretion of the court that awarded it; and an action will lie against them, to repair the party injured in damages.

The Southern Manifesto co-authored by Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond (and Richard Russell?) did not expressly cite Blackstone but began:

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.  The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.”

The consequences of this language include the assertion that public officeholders (including judges) must be liable for the consequences and injuries caused by their derogations from and violations of “established law.”  Just as in the recent Florida case decided above, where a judge enters a decision in violation of well-and-long established law relating to jurisdiction and scope of authority, that Judge renders nothing but a personal statement with personal consequences, for which that Judge should be personally liable.
I ask here: should any Judge enjoy immunity from prosecution for civil rights violations and/or suit for civil rights violations when that judge violates the letter of the Constitution, especially when a litigant points out that violation to the Court and no excuse (such as a Constitutionally declared war or surprise invasion) exists to suspend the Constitution temporarily…. and temporarily only… I have often had occasion to refer to 1996 USCCAN 4216-4217 which affirms that these amendments do not establish absolute immunity for judges.  I submit that Strom Thurmond authored the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action to ensure that Judges (like Chief Justice Earl Warren) could and would be held liable for their actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction.”  Unfortunately, to date, neither the State nor Federal Courts have recognized the importance of these amendments, and continue to enforce Absolute Judicial Immunity.
The doctrine of “qualified immunity” also arose out of Watergate, particularly in the case of Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511 (June 19, 1985) in which the Supreme Court limited former Attorney General John Mitchell to merely “qualified immunity” rather than “absolute immunity.”  Oddly enough, the standard the Supreme Court applied to the Attorney General of the United States involved a determination of what a “reasonable person” would know about the law (reasonably or unreasonably, most people in the United States today know almost nothing about the law, which explains why lawyers run amok and control the country).  Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Attorney General of the United States would enjoy qualified immunity, “so long as his actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
         Rather unsurprisingly, in practice, interlocutory appeal of any and every trial court determinations of qualified immunity plus a very pro-defense, anti-plaintiff judiciary means that even for prosecutors and police officers, “qualified immunity” is difficult to distinguish from “absolute immunity.” 

I know that my critics often accuse me of writing overly long-and-windy commentaries on my blog, and I suppose this will constitute one of my more offensive pieces.  I submit that the American public have become too used to short sound bytes and non-analytical thinking, and I hope I can encourage a more “in depth” and historically-based approach here.

Regarding legislative immunity, I recently discovered a very interesting and historically based article by a journalist name Chuck Murphy (Colorado Constitution and History of Legislative Immunity):

Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England

Blame it on King Charles I.

He dissolved Parliament, made Oliver Cromwell famous and is as responsible as anyone for the get-out-of-jail-free card Rep. Laura Bradford of Mesa County used last week.

Bradford, R-Collbran, was pulled over Wednesday night on suspicion of driving while intoxicated after a Denver officer saw her make an improper lane change. But after failing a roadside sobriety test, Bradford mentioned that she was on her way home after a legislative function at a Colfax Avenue bar.

Those were the magic words.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution says:

“The members of the general assembly shall, in all cases except treason or felony, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses, or any committees thereof, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, or any committees thereof, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

That’s where Charles comes in.

By the time he took the crown in 1625, England had a robust Parliament and Charles was determined to put them in their place. He declared the divine right of the king to rule as he chose, and, after a series of confrontations, dissolved Parliament. Four years later, he did it again — and this time, he put much of the body’s leadership in prison. He was eventually defeated by Cromwell and lost his head — literally.

Say this for Brits — they have long memories.

It was 60 years later when Charles’ second son, James II (Dismal Jimmy), ascended to the throne. He wanted to impose Catholic rule on a deeply skeptical nation, and it did not go well. Within four years, he was deposed by his daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. They are better known today as William and Mary.

Parliament had invited them to take over, but with certain conditions, partly based on the naughty behavior of Charles I. One of those was the 1688 Bill of Rights, which said in part:

“That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;”

And…

“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

A couple hundred years went by before 1876, when Colorado was working on its latest version of a state constitution designed to get us admitted to the union. By then, we had the U.S. Constitution and the work of several other states to crib from, including an 1859 effort from Kansas:

“For any speech or debate in either house, the members shall not be questioned elsewhere. No member of the Legislature shall be subject to arrest — except for felony or breach of the peace — in going to or returning from the place of meeting, or during the continuance of the session; neither shall be he subject to the service of any civil process during the session, nor for fifteen days previous to its commencement.”

Look familiar? It all leaps right out of 17th-century England.

Now, say what you will about Gov. John Hickenlooper — he is impetuous, and he does on occasion show signs of a temper — but he is not about to lock up members of the legislature, not even the House, if he doesn’t get his way. I’m certain of it.

These immunity clauses exist in a majority of state constitutions today (legislators know a good thing when they see it). Arizona has discussed getting rid of theirs after their former Senate majority leader avoided arrest on a domestic-violence charge by invoking legislative immunity. His girlfriend was arrested while he went home, provoking well-placed outrage.

Legislators have no right to any protections not enjoyed by every other citizen, period, and most don’t avail themselves of this constitutional provision anyway. Even Bradford denies that she intended to avoid arrest by mentioning where she was coming from.

So who in Colorado’s legislature will take up the charge to rid our constitution of this anachronism? We amend the document all the time, with mixed results, but this seems like a no-brainer in an election year.

All it takes is a proposal to get it on the ballot. A majority of Coloradans just might go along.

Chuck Murphy: 303-954-1829, cmurphy@denverpost.comortwitter.com/cmurphydenpost

Read more:Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/murphy/ci_19849376#ixzz1mpThOiJt
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

For Family, Home, and Freedom: Restoration of Civil Liberties, Restoration of Honor in Government, Abolition of AEDPA and the PATRIOT ACT, and Social Security Reform by Restoration of the Common Law of Trusts all go Hand-in-Hand

‎”The former House speaker, who has risen in the polls, would allow younger workers to take their share of the payroll tax that funds Social Security and put it in a private account.” That’s okay. If their investments tank, he also supports euthanizing elderly people who are homeless–or at least denying them any medical care for which someone else would have to pay.

Note how DESPERATELY ironic it is that ANYONE would consider Newt Gingrich a “Conservative”.   Euthanasia of the elderly (and “antisocially” uncooperative) was supported from the earliest days of Fabian Socialism by no less renowned celebrities of the turn of the last (19th-20th) Century than George Bernard Shaw, who predicted that if “people refused to live a good life, they would be painlessly put to death” in a Fabian Socialist world—later enshrined in what Aldous Huxley called the “Brave New World”—at some future date “in the Year of Our Ford.”   Real conservatives would never support euthanasia as a matter of social policy, or deny the right of any individual to make choices for him or herself.  Real Conservatives believe in Freedom as the Highest Value, but Newt Gingrich is no Conservative, no Patriot, and No American:

In fact, Newt Gingrich deserves the hatred and disdain of all Americans who value the Constitution and especially due process of law for his role in bringing about the 1996 legislation known as the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which effectively abolished the writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States. The Constitution says Habeas Corpus will never be suspended, but it’s now almost neutered, nugatory, non-existent. Of course, what’s interesting is that his proposals were part of Newt’s famous campaign “Contract with America” (sometimes called the “Contract on America”) 1994 BEFORE the April 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. If you’re of a suspicious mind, you could even imagine that they (the Feds) planned the bombing so that they would have an excuse to enact the 1996 restrictions on Freedom. But the public reaction was insufficient. They (I mean, of course, Bin Laden) had to pull off 9-11 before the Patriot Act could go into law five years later—but it was ALL part of Newt Gingrich’s original proposal. “Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog, Ear of Bat and Wool of Dog”—I’d Say Gingrich has them all, and yes, I think he’s an evil Wizard who would conjure up more evil as President than we can begin to imagine……

So far as Social Security is concerned, I have an alternative proposal where “right meets left” I think: Maintain government management of Social Security but subject government management to the Common Law. That would mean that the government would actually KEEP its promise to create Social Security Trust fund for each individual, and would manage it as a matter of fiduciary responsibility under the traditional law of Trusts & Estates. This would be real, this would be honest, and it would be guaranteed. And if it fails, there would be direct consequences to the managers (namely the six members of the Social Security Administrators, who act as Trustees over a fictitious and unfunded trust right now, subjecting them to liability for fraud even before accounting).  https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/further-thoughts-on-the-public-debt-clause-and-social-security-a-major-lawsuit-based-on-14th-amendment-waiver-of-immunity/

Real Conservatives, Real Patriots, Real Americans believe in keeping promises and honoring the commitments made by the government as TRUSTEE FOR THE PEOPLE.  It is a sacred duty and a sacred commitment which cannot be broken.

If elected to the United States Senate, I would push forward such a lawsuit on behalf of the people of California against the United States Government.  Every Senator and Congressman who did not join me in this lawsuit would have to explain why.   I think that, given the standing of a Senator from the Largest state, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to be reformed  and subjected to the common law of trust, and Social Security would be fully funded for the first time in history, as a result of the (finally) politically feasible disgorgement of 75 years of misuse and government abuse in alliance with the major corporations.  And at the same time, the government-corporate alliance would be crippled.  And for that, the people of the United States would have something seriously to be thankful for.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes to Senate Bill 1867 to try to hide or disguise the grim, vicious reality—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Who knows corruption and oppression in America best? The victims all know….. And yes, I am one….

Why should you vote for a convicted felon?  Because you could be the next victim of injustice—and if you’re not, some relative or neighbor of yours probably is the next.  The government has set out to reduce us all to shame and compliance through a horrendous code which has already imprisoned/restricted the liberty of 3% of the population—that means that just under 1 in every 30 people, nationwide.

Some people may wonder why I am considering a run for U.S. Senate when I am a disbarred lawyer and “convicted felon.”  I find it hilarious that my detractors like to call me a “convicted felon.” It’s just so inglorious to call me a “convicted one-time misstater of his social security for no readily ascertainable reason. I am a convicted “Enemy of the State,” and damned proud of it, because “Everybody know that the system’s rotten.”

My opponents will probably get a kick out of circulating my Federal Prison system ID and mug shots I’m sure, once the campaign really starts (my Federal Prison ID number was already published somewhere on line—and not be me, either…and those who enjoy discussing my “crime” of a misstated social security number have repeatedly published my social security number INcorrectly—which you’ve got to admit is kind of funny).

But as I’ve said and written many times, I wear them all as “Red Badges of Courage.” These pictures are wounds which show nothing more than that I have deeply disturbed the powers that be so much that they feel they MUST make me into a criminal, because to allow me to stand, free and respectable, would make them all look so much less so.  To the population at large I’ll tell you: you NEED to contribute to and vote for this convicted Felon and Disbarred Lawyer because he is one of the few with the knowledge and perspective to really dismantle the corrupt system and start to make YOU free or at least free-ER and less shackled and manacled. You are all shackled and manacled in this land of false-freedom, lame-liberty, and conscience-free semi-consciousness in front of the TV.

We need to restore freedom.

We need to simplify society and restore the right of individuals to structure their own relationships with each other, and the reduce the power of government by, among other things, dismantling the unnatural infrastructures which only government can maintain, and which all depend on communistic theft and wealth redistribution, which ultimately makes us all so much poorer.   So yes, what this country needs is more convicted felons (convicted, in essence, of breathing air—or dust at the worst), all frankly, ALL lawyers, the very practice of law itself, MUST BE DISBARRED and all the practitioners set truly free, as I have been for the last nine-eleven years, to form my own opinions and come to my own conclusions, free from the oppression of Bar Committees and Judges.

So, if you’ve never been arrested, never seen any Federal or State jail, penitentiary, or “correctional facility” from the inside, you may consider yourself lucky, or worse, you may consider yourself a “really good, law-abiding citizen.”

But I would beg to differ with you.

In fact, I think you are deprived and lack information necessary to see the world as it really is: you know only what a cave looks like in electric lights, and not what one looks like in torchlight, starlight coming through an open cliffside entrance, or, indeed, no light at all.  And not to know a cave in total darkness is simply not to know the reality of a cave.

For my part, I think it is the not merely the birthright but the duty of every American to see and understand how the least fortunate in society are treated.   Only there in prison, not just watching the men and women chained together in rows but being one of them, can one really see into the heart of darkness of this bright land of the free.  I submit that no one should criticize Nazi Germany, the Soviet Gulag, or the massive slaughters of Maoist and Pol-Pot’s versions of Oriental Despotism until s/he is aware of what it feels like to live even for a short while incarcerated, surrounded by those men and women of sorrows who are hated, rejected, despised and intimately acquainted with grief.  To live all one’s life in a comfortable middle-class cocoon is hardly to live at all.  It is good and worthwhile to see up close and understand the depraved sadism of White American young and middle-aged male and female prison guards, how much pleasure they take in herding and taunting formerly free men and women like cattle, feeding them like pigs, sheering them like sheep of all outward trappings of dignity.

Ask yourself what normal person would want the job of a “Correctional Services Officer,” but also ask yourself what person could remain normal and decent while serving as a “Correctional Services Officer.”  As is so frequently advertised on late night Television—the “Correctional Services Industry” is one of the fastest growing fields and opportunities for employment in America—“Help Keep the Prison Planet Safe”—I am inclined to wonder whether the Russian Press is right that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, framed for rape, because of the revelations he planned to make about the American Financial System.  

Once you have reflected on these points, you will understand how Auschwitz and Treblinka were built, staffed, and maintained by the German people, born in one of the two or three most civilized nations in the world, who had grown up listening to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, reading Goethe & Schiller, and Nietzche and Schopenhauer.

How much easier will it be for today’s generation raised on grunge or punk (at the best) or rap (the currently universal lowest common denominator) to imprison their fellow man?   The cultural degradation of America means to me that we will soon care nothing at all for our fellow human beings, and will treat them worse than the Nazis, more in tune with the Soviet gulags and Chinese/Cambodian mass slaughters.

In state penal systems, the worst treated are the sex-offenders, alleged and real, who are the real bearers of the ultimate stigmata our courts have the power to inflict, worse than murderers, worse than bombers, sex-offenders, in or out of prison, are a category or prisoners unto themselves. They are feared and shunned even by other inmates.

In the federal “correctional” system, the worst treated are the illegal immigrants. These are honest, hardworking people from foreign lands, lured by greedy employers on this side of the border who CONSTANTLY open their doors and wallets to the illegals, and the illegal immigrants are all shuttled around on busses and on “Con-Air” and, like the sex offenders, bullied by otherwise unemployable, middle-aged guards while shackled and manacled, stigmatized for life by their offenses.

How much I loathe the state and federal penal systems in America, and the lawyers, judges, and “justice” systems, filling them with populations larger than the original population of the 13 colonies, I can never say.  And yet I am so grateful to God Almighty and indeed to U.S. District Judges Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack as well. I am so happy that I have spent two months behind bars, so that I can speak for America’s victims of injustice from personal experience, and understand the dehumanization and filth of even the most “sanitary” federal facilities.  Otherwise I never would have known about the clinical cold of the stale air conditioned air meant to depress minds and souls and simulate death, the mind washing drill of telling people that they have no rights, only privileges, while supposedly creating a more “healthful” environment (socially and biologically).

V-for-Vendetta as a movie is emblematic of my life: like the prisoner from Cell V, and also like Madame Terese Defarge in Tale of Two Cities, I count the days and treasure the memories of those who have oppressed me until the revolution will tear down all our hundreds and thousands of crowded, modern-day “Bastilles” and “relocation camps.”

The Obama Administration was elected in part to fulfill the American Dream of true racial equality, but the reality is that the jails remain disproportionately filled with people of color, and Obama has done nothing to restore the freedom of “his” people.  I am not Black or Hispanic, but I would fight for genuine penal reform, repeal of most of the Federal Criminal Code in fact, and define “the general welfare” as something better than a choice between government handouts to the unemployed, membership in the Army to destroy freedom abroad in the name of safety here at home, and incarceration for so many good business entrepreneurs who had the drive or incentive to make their own way in the world.

I am inspired to write today by reviewing the sanctimonious texts written about me on one particularly “Foggy” newsgroup dedicated to supporting and exonerating the Obama regime.   The contributors to this group are silly, all too comfortable, middle-class professionals and a few Foggy-bottom-feeding scum-suckers they collect around them.  Among the latter there is a former ungrateful homeless tenant and single mother for whom I did way too much and from whom I got absolutely nothing in return except grief.

The bowmen in the fog are indeed the detested Pharisees and Sadducees of modern times.  They who aim and show their poison-tipped darts are rare hypocrites and self-satisfied soulless creatures, who enjoy the comfort of their government or corporate jobs and pensions and care nothing for the past or future of America or the world.

I am so happy that I know first hand, coast-to-coast, what their reality is.  They are the lawyers and government employees who love the Federal Reserve System more than life itself, and who revel in the “Brave New World” ethics of “truth” generated by internet diffusion and apparent but unreal numbers.  They do not appear in their own names because they do not dare, but behind childish “avatars” and untraceable e-mail handles (unless one knows them, as I know that former tenant and single mother from Florida).

The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction know that America is in the midst of a Purge—destroying the Middle Class, and selling our homes and lands to foreigners by the thousands.  The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction probably do not all realize that they were selected for this purge by their own government—by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who favored easy credit and soft money—and that none are worse offenders than Senator Dianne Feinstein.  The Senate hearings on the mortgage crisis focused on whether the banks could escape the consequences of “robo-signing” forgery and proceed with foreclosures efficiently and expeditiously—the two major parties include few if any friends of the people, and all too many friends of Chinese investors in American realty.

But what of the millions of homeless people, in America, the inhabitants of the tent cities and “Extended Stay” hotels, uprooted by foreclosures and eviction?  They are in the extreme opposite of a jail. They are truly free, no longer shackled down by mortgages or rents or anything else.  Among their numbers are those men and women destroyed by divorce and child custody battles, destroyed by the declining income of the American population, impoverished by a dollar cheapened and weakened, oh yes, by the moneychangers, the international bankers, the finance experts and gurus, including their lawyers and the layers on layers of insanely oppressive laws and regulations which have made it cheaper and safer just to say “no” to doing business in America.

The bows in the foggy roads to socialism and dictatorship in America are many and varied, but they come down to a few key routes: (1) the destruction of the world financial system by socially engineering economists and business-strategists and lawyers, (2) the destruction of the Anglo-American legal system by those elite lawyers and judges at all levels of the State, Federal, and local judiciary, (3) the social-welfare/wealth redistribution system based on the triangulation of the Federal Reserve Banks, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security, and all the derivative Welfare Programs authorized under Title 42 and elsewhere in the U.S. Code.

The first key routes to destruction are pretty obvious.  I started my post-JD life working for Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, and I am almost as proud of how poorly I fit into that New York hellhole of a lawfirm, with its exquisitely shiny, constantly polished marble floors, hardwood desks, embossed stationary, and managing partners whose incomes exceed the GNP of many third-world countries. With the prison-like imposition of uniform styles of dress on employees, even though the cost of dressing up to CWT standards on a weekly basis cost several times the annual Federal subsidy paid for state prisoners on a yearly basis.

“Legal education and the reproduction of the hierarchy” was the subject and theme of Duncan Kennedy’s “Little Red Book” of 25 years ago at Harvard, and it’s a marvelous read on the reality of the legal profession for anyone who doesn’t know it.  Kennedy hints at the futility of waging any virtuous wars through the legal system.  And that was BEFORE the Federal Judicial improvement acts imposed all those negative “case statistic” incentives on judges to dismiss cases and lower case loads as a major policy priority.

But the third branch of the road to socialism is the real highway, and the Federal and State government programs of taxation and welfare benefits are only part of the picture.  To really understand the evils of “welfare” we need to look at the imposition of government “benefits” such as compulsory marriage licensing, divorce, and child protection services, as well as compulsory education, compulsory driver’s licenses, and mandatory bar integration.   The government really and truly seeks to extend its tentacles into every aspect of our lives.  The government must be stopped.

Sometimes it does require the expertise of those who have been victimized by the law to become the most effective advocates and instruments of changing the law.  I am such a person.  And besides. How can I help but do well in California?   This Golden State of beautiful people which exalts everything fake, that (incredibly) just managed to survive 7.5 years under the governorship of Frederic Austerlitz’ Austrian-born compatriot Arnold Schwarzenegger, and maybe they’re ready for someone who’s actually experienced the pain of a genuinely uncharmed life.   I consider myself really and sincerely beautiful, all 272 balding, out-of-shape pounds of me.  As Oliver Cromwell said, “paint me as I am, warts and all.”  When I was first hospitalized for tachycardia in October 2006, I told my assistant, “I’m too beautiful to die” and damned if I wasn’t right—I absolutely, positively was just too beautiful to die.  I could have died 6 years before that in Egypt, or, for that matter, two months before that in a terrible car wreck by the Suwanee River near Live Oak, Florida, or one of several other occasions I can think of, but every single time I survived.   To what purpose?  Maybe, just maybe, it was to show all the people with foggy intelligence who shoot their bows with poison darts at me that my authenticity can win, and that virtue is not just about pretending to be honest and beautiful, but of having an inward and spiritual grace which belies one’s outward and visible state.

If elected to the United States Senate I would conduct filibusters, be involved in 99-1 votes, and the news that someone like me was elected might just depress the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  That would be a good thing, because there is nothing more false than the notion that stock prices have anything to do with real productivity or prosperity. But whenever the powers that be line up against someone, threaten to shut down everything if a certain candidate is elected, you have to imagine that candidate has touched a raw nerve somewhere.

To elect someone like me would be good for the Hispanics of California and the United States because I am not only fluent in Spanish and steeped in their heritage and culture, but I have suffered by and chained to their brothers, sisters, cousins, and uncles who have been persecuted for their status as illegal immigrants, seeking neither more nor less than Frederic Austerlitz’ parents came here from the Austro-Hungarian empire to find in Nebraska or than Arnold Schwarzenegger came from post WWII Austria to find.  Those are two American movie-star icons, but their parents are indistinguishable socially and economically from the Hispanic masses who continue to be chained and oppressed in these United States, even in Texas where Ernesto de Zavala co-wrote and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836, and served as the new “Anglo-Saxon” Republic’s First Vice-President.

Moreover, I understand the Native American as well as the Hispanic roots of “Mexican,” Central American, and South American “Hispanic” culture(s), and I would fight for the recognition of “Mexican Indians” as Native Americans entitled to all of the benefits afforded by the Constitution to Native Americans inside the United States.  I would fight for their right to the recognition of their separate and distinct cultural heritage and identity.  In fact, I would fight for the right of all peoples to their separate and distinct heritages and identities, because “one size does not fit all” either in the educational, judicial, or political systems.  True equality means and must always mean the freedom to be who you really are and not shrived of your identity.

To elect someone like me would be good for the African-American citizens of California for all the same reasons.  I have seen and shared the degradation of so many of their relatives in state and federal prison, and know that while Hispanics are famously imprisoned in massive numbers for their status as “repeat” illegal aliens, blacks have, in the past fifty years, been more the victims of the insane “War on Drugs” than any other group (Hispanics are a close second).

I know that Blacks and Hispanics both need courts where they can really and truly be assured of full and fair justice by judges and juries of their peers, and that the present system does not provide them with such courts.   As a United States Senator I would fight for the rights of all ethnic groups to maintain their identity while enjoying full equality by equal protection of the law, including equality of rights to preserve and develop their distinct and separate cultural identities by allowing legal communities to develop distinctive and culturally adjusted laws within our multi-cultural “umbrella” of American political society.   To the same degree that globalists would erase all boundaries of cultural differentiation and identity, I would fight to allow each people to maintain and preserve their identities for themselves.

To elect someone like me would for all these same reasons be good for the Jews and Armenians, Chinese, Cambodians, and Vietnamese, who have been the victims of long genocidal wars in the 20th century, and major wars of repression.  No candidate, certainly not Senator Diane Feinstein, realizes the incredible degree to which America Under the Patriot Act (and related portions of AEDPA and FISA) resembles the totalitarian dictatorships of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Vietnam under several regimes, or how much of the equipment of mass roundups and deportation of populations assembled in modern America today resembles the technology of genocide inflicted upon the Armenians of Turkey in the first genocide of the 20th century or against the Jews of Central Europe during the most famous genocide in all history.

Truly it can be said that Earl Warren, as planner of the Nisei Camps, was the Adolph Eichman of the United States, and that his cynical, racially biased implementation and application of civil rights laws was to divide, conquer, and disperse the population of America during the 1950s and 60s. The resulting America is one in which civil rights have been reduced to almost nothing, where Federal Courts repeatedly affirm that so long as all people in this Country have the same rights as white people, it doesn’t matter how severely freedom is suppressed.

This ridiculous conclusion to 150 years of civil rights legislation remains on the books today and is large part of the reason why foreclosed homeowners cannot seek adequate relief or redeem their properties by litigation under 28 U.S.C. 1443 or 42 USC 1981-1982.  Civil Rights law should be entirely color blind, but groups should have the right to defend and protect their own customs, heritage, and rights.

And this is the final reason why the (former majority, of which I am a member) White Anglo-Saxon, Northern, Eastern, Southern and Continental European Californians would benefit from my election.  I would fight to abolish all inverse discrimination against White people in this Country.  I would fight to establish true equality under the laws, recognizing the protected equality and forced assimilation are by no means the same things.   In short, I would be good for all Californians except the Foggy Bottom Poison Dart Bow Shooting fat cats, who love the status quo because it is so easy to manipulate and maintain, and so comfortable with all their precious governmental and corporate BENEFITS…. including the right to look down on others who do not agree with them and seek to deprive the true majority of their rights, all by the use and implementation of a completely biased and unfair legal system which has forgotten all the rules of fundamental fairness, due process, and constitutional rights.