Saturday, July 17, 2010
Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning 'Racist' Elements of Tea Party
Tea Party Leaders Say Political Motivation Driving NAACP Agenda
By HUMA KHANJuly 12, 2010—
First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation's largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.
The nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization will vote on the resolution Tuesday during its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo.
In her speech, the first lady focused on the issue of childhood obesity and her "Let's Move" initiative, but outside of her remarks, anti-Tea Party activism has been a key focus of the gathering, which conservative leaders say is driven solely by a political agenda.
Tea Party members have used "racial epithets," have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in "explicitly racist behavior" and "displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically," according to the proposed resolution.
"We're deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we've made," NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. "We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement." ...Read the full story here
How 'bout asking Michelle Obama to repudiate her remarks? Also...America is deeply concerned about Muslim elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress we made...The true racists reside in the White House and the membership of the NAACP. ~ Norman E. Hooben
I'm not white, I'm not black, I'm not upper class, I'm not lower class, I'm not middle class, I'm not French, I'm not Irish, I'm not Asian, I'm not European, I'm not Hispanic, My children are not half Hispanic...They are and I am what I am, An American! And I'm not hyphenated!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Meanwhile I found this summary of some of Obama's misguided anti-American policies written by John R. Houk over at SlantRight.com (ps: John is experiencing some medical problems (link), say a prayer or two for him to get well...we need his editorial expertise) ~ Norman E. Hooben
Obama: Transforming U.S. to Global Sick Man
And Brennan added this: "The President's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
From: Worldview Times
Socialist International Works on "Global Governance" agenda, Obama allies in attendance
The Socialist International recently met in New York to affirm, what is essentially a blueprint for the destruction of U.S. and Israeli independence and the advancement of a "World Governance" agenda.
At the Meeting of the Council of the Socialist International, United Nations, New York, 21-22 June 2010
Socialist International, New York, June 2010
U.S. delegates included Puerto Rican Independence Party members Ruben Berrios Martinez and Fernando Martin Garcia and from Democratic Socialists of America, Frank Llewellyn, Joseph Schwartz, David Duhalde, Alejandro Duhalde and George "Skip" Roberts, a former aide to D.S.A. member, Obama friend and ally and former Hawaii Congressman Neil Abercrombie.
Many leading Democrats and members of the Obama Administration have close ties to Democratic Socialists of America, not least, especially President Obama himself.
Participants at the SI included representatives of the Socialist Party of Albania (formerly communist), the MPLA of Angola (formerly communist), Bulgarian Socialist Party (formerly communist), Socialist Party of Chile, the Sandinista National Liberation Front of Nicaragua (marxist), Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (formerly communist), the Democratic Left Alliance of Poland (includes communists), the African National Congress of South Africa (communist dominated) and the Movement for Socialism of Venezuela. Observer parties included Polisario from Western Sahara (marxist). Consultative parties present included Fatah from Palestine (marxist/terrorist) and the highly democratic All-Nation Social Democratic Party of Kazakhstan.
The meeting addressed four main issues and priorities of the social democratic movement in its agenda: "the Global Economy in the run-up to the G8 and G20 Summits in Toronto, peace in the Middle East, working for an international unified response to Climate Change; and recent developments in the field of Disarmament and Non-proliferation".
The gathering issued statements on each area.
The statement on the Global Economy recommended;
Moving to a more progressive tax system will not only increase the sense of social justice, but also help stabilise the economy, as such taxes act as automatic stabilisers.
Today China has an increasing role in the world economy. Therefore it is vital that China be ready to appreciate its currency and give room to domestic demand.
The world must find a political way to solve the problem of global imbalances at the G-20 level. Extended multilateralism and a new financial code of conduct are needed to balance economic
Substantially more and better regulation than we had before the crises is needed. There is also a need to increase transparency and strengthen enforcement of the regulations. We must further act to dismantle tax havens and create automatic tax record exchange systems.
When we are thinking about fiscal exit strategies it is essential to remember that it was not the public sector, but the private speculative banking sector and the application of the neo-liberal ideology, which caused the sub-prime bubble and speculative boom, which were the underlying cause of the economic and employment crisis. (Note: The previous statement is an outright lie. From Carter to Clinton and up and to including Obama and both Bush administrations the financial crisis has been a carefully orchestrated plan to destroy the dollar. Although the plan pre-dates Carter he was responsible for the distribution of Saul Alinky's Rules For Radicals to community organizers (printed with taxpayer's dollars via the Vista program). Along with that distribution came the instructions to harass banks/lending institutions to make loans regardless of the ability to pay. This program was not working fast enough so along came Clinton to put more teeth into Carter's original Community Re-investment Act (CRA) with Clinton's version of the CRA. To stir the blame away from community organizers (remember, Obama was a community organizer) they used third parties such as ACORN to perform all the dirty work. To make a long story short, both Bush administrations knew of all previous CRA legislation and although they had the opportunity to reverse the trend they continued with their plans (a bi-partisan effort) for a New World Order. The next statement is also false. Without getting into a whole lot of detail, the stimulus plans are further efforts to destroy the dollar. Much of these plans originate with the United Nations which will be the beneficiary of a New World Order...and when that happens you can kiss your red, white, and blue flag good-bye. And one more important statement, "When the UN takes over you will lose your right to vote...this is already written into at least one treaty that I know of...all of which I've said here can be verified if you simply wake up and do the research and forget about your Democrat and Republican parties. ~ Norman E. Hooben) And it was precisely the public sector monetary and fiscal stimulus, which prevented the financial crisis from turning into another Great Depression.
This must be remembered if global and regional financial sector taxes are to be implemented, which would contribute substantially to the costs of the crisis and prevent speculation and irresponsible risktaking in financial markets. We must oblige the financial sector to pay their fair contribution. A financial transaction tax should be implemented on a global level. This tax could bring substantial revenues and also balance boom and bust cycles in financial markets, which make economic recessions deeper. The Socialist International recognises with satisfaction that European Union is ready to endorse this new idea.
At the global level the Socialist International welcomes the agreement of the G-20 nations to create a Financial Stability Board, which should be given enough resources and authority to assess systemic risks at the global level. The Socialist International also expects new regulation for hedge and private equity funds.
Global governance is needed, The G-20 has made important commitments to repair both institutions and the arrangements for managing globalisation. For instance, while giving China and other emerging markets more voting rights is desirable, More fundamental reforms, such as double majority voting should be considered.
Human security and sustainable development will only be successful if more democratic and effective institutional structures are created for the political system of world society. Democratic global governance is urgently needed.
Global institutions – as part of the whole multilateral and multilevel global political system – must be given the capacity, flexibility and authority to meet the mounting expectations and demands of world society's citizens concerning a secure and viable future. ..
A world order committed to the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including civil and political rights, and committed to human security and sustainable development can only function if it envisages full participation of all regions – and thus of all citizens – around the world. Reform of the United Nations Security Council and establishing a Council of Sustainable Development remain urgent challenges for all states.
On the Middle East
The Council of the Socialist International has addressed the current situation in the Middle East, together with representatives of its Palestinian and Israeli member parties. The Council is committed to contribute to find once more the path for dialogue, negotiation and progress to achieve peace, an utmost priority today for the peoples of the region and the international community.
In this regard, the Socialist International:
1. Affirms the right of the Palestinian people for self-determination and calls for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land within one year and withdrawal to the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.
2. Calls for the establishment of an independent, sovereign and viable democratic Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, within one year from now. This state should exist side by side with a secure Israeli state.
3. Calls on Israel to end all settlement activities, as well as the building of the separation wall and bypass roads and to guarantee freedom of movement of Palestinians within Palestinian territory. It also calls for the release of all Palestinian prisoners and the Israeli prisoner.
4. Calls upon the Israeli government to end the blockade of the Gaza Strip. All goods and merchandise destined for Gaza should be allowed in accordance with internationally accepted screening procedures and standards.
5. Encourages all Palestinian political parties and groups to reinstate Palestinian unity and democracy, and supports the Palestinian efforts for state building.
6. Decides to send a delegation of representatives of member parties without delay to Israel and Palestine to discuss with its Israeli and Palestinian member parties the tragic events of 31 May with the purpose of establishing the facts and to report back to the International.
With days before the G20 in Toronto and at less than six months of COP16 in Cancun, the Socialist International recalls that the challenge posed by climate change retains its full attention and priority.
Progressive thought over the last years has identified and highlighted certain points that must be taken into consideration when negotiating or finalising an international instrument which is at the
same time ambitious and realistic.
This is a collective challenge and an efficient response can only be a common one, shared challenge, responsibilities for developed and developing countries, but with differentiated obligations.
The negotiations must conclude with a binding text, with clear commitments by the parties involved, an efficient system of follow-up of the proposed objectives and corrective measures for cases of eventual failure to comply with the accepted obligations.
The developed countries must advance their efforts for technological transfers towards developing countries. The use of ecologically sustainable technologies involves important transformations in the developing countries and this requires technical assistance and economic resources. The international funds already in existence to support this process of re-conversion must be strengthened and new instruments adapted to the most particular needs must be implemented.
The world of work, in developed and developing countries must be given special attention at the moment of carrying out these substantive transformations. Thus, the Socialist International reiterates what was expressed at the Council in Budva concerning the work-environment alliance and the planning of a fair transition in the transformations that the production processes go through.
The agreement to be reached must have as a minimum standard the reduction of emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to 350 ppm, a level of gas concentration in the atmosphere that will allow the fulfilment of the goal of a maximum temperature rise of 2° Celsius above the level of the preindustrial era.
Finally, the Socialist International declares that it will continue making all efforts to advance, continuing its struggle against climate change with a progressive perspective and reiterates its trust in the building of a global model of green development as the only alternative for a sustainable world society.
The ever more rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material over the past 15 years has taken us to a nuclear turning point. There is the very real possibility that the deadliest
weapons ever invented may fall into dangerous hands.
The presidents of Russia and the United States as well as the United Nations Security Council have pronounced themselves in favour of a world without nuclear weapons.
The Socialist International continues to do its utmost to support all the efforts and initiatives that have helped generate a new political momentum and made the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons more tangible.
We welcome the conclusion of the new START treaty on the verifiable reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. This is an important step forward enabling both the global nuclear powers to fulfil their obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), thus contributing in a major way to its revitalisation.
We demand the immediate ratification of the new START treaty and negotiations between the USA and Russia at the earliest opportunity to initiate further steps towards nuclear disarmament.
We also welcome the USA's Nuclear Posture Review. The clear message it has sent out is that in future nuclear weapons will not be used for warfare but only to avert nuclear attacks. This corrects President Bush's untenable doctrine of 2002 that envisaged nuclear deterrence to counteract any serious threat to America.
We welcome the joint declaration issued by all the 189 States Party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the NPT review conference held in New York in May of this year. We regard this as a major compromise, which serves to emphasise that the ultimate objective of the complete abolition of all nuclear weapons is a binding target of the NPT ("All states shall pursue policies that are fully compatible with the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons").
We demand a new arms control agreement on limitation and the setting up of a cooperative missile defence system incorporating Russia. This is urgently needed to prevent a new arms race in missile defence systems.
We therefore appeal to the governments of the nuclear powers to make systematic progress in disarmament on the road towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Common security can only be achieved by disarmament and cooperation.
On Gun Control
Internationally binding export rules are a crucial element in the fight against the transfer into crisis areas of small arms and light arms – "weapons of mass destruction in slow motion", as Kofi Annan called them – which are the main type of weapons in most violent conflicts and internal wars.
Small and light arms should be part of the Arms Trade Treaty so that an overall framework can be established for international arms transfers.
We call for the negotiations to be joined as partners by amnesty international, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms, the instigators and organisers of the ongoing Arms Trade Treaty campaign initiated in late 2003, and other national and international disarmament NGOs.
In addition to the conclusion of an Arms Trade Treaty, existing regional and global arms trade control instruments must be strengthened, faster progress made in incorporating international standards into national law and guarantees provided of their implementation.
That's the Socialist international's vision for the future. A global welfare state administered by international bodies with the power to enforce their dictates.
An impoverished and disarmed United States government, unable to influence world affairs, but able to enforce global dictates over its 2nd Amendment deprived citizenry. An emasculated Israel at the mercy of its neighbors. A green/red future "paradise" for your children and their children and their children...............
This is no pipe dream. the Socialist International groups more than 170 parties world wide, many of them ruling, many of them still communist, or semi communist . The Socialist international has huge influence within the United Nations and other world bodies.
Most of all it has significant influence inside the U.S. government through Democratic Socialists America and its ties to both the more than 80 strong Congressional Progressive Caucus, many U.S. Senators and President Obama himself.
The Socialist International agenda will become the U.S. government agenda, unless the Democratic Party is swept from office in November.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
- We thought the many groups would unite in common strategies (WRONG!)
- We thought most patriots were ready for real action (WRONG!)
- We thought people understood that there is no difference between leftist Democrats and turncoat Republicans (WRONG!)
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2. Psychology . a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.
3. Eric Holder
Monday, July 12, 2010
The following from: Atlas Shrugs
Obama, Petraeus at odds on 'Islam'
The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.
Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech."
Mr. John O. Brennan, this one is for you!
Note from Storm'n Norm'n
I feel a little guilty to say, "I fought for you." For one year in a combat zone I was fortunate to have been shot at only twice by an enemy with the accuracy of not being able to hit hit the broadside of a barn...maybe that's a little inaccurate because I could see the tracers at night and the dirt kicking up just yards away. And then there was the night we were in alert condition one with the warnings coming in over the radio, "Tan Son Nhut, you are in alert condition one, take cover!" During the repetitive broadcast we could hear the overhead sounds of incoming missiles and surely I thought my time was up only to be relieved that the rockets were duds that landed in the mud without incident. I don't particularly refer to my time in the war as one of the warriors that defended you as did the combat infantry soldiers and marines for I was in the arena solely as support and with the watchful Eye of the Beholder above I was spared the agony of taking a bullet or spread about the ground by the explosion of a working missile. So I thank God for the poor marksman and the 'made-in-China' missile but you can thank the soldier or marine that fought for you...this is an unending story. ~ Norm
Sunday, July 11, 2010
by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.
The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWERI want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D."In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."The 5th Amendment:"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :"An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury's independent action:
'A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.' "Back to the Creighton Law Review:"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again:"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs. In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice. In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration
"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn't prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.'"What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):"At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused." Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.Now let me add my two cents to this argument:Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal," although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."
The key word is, "obsolete." Obsolete means "outmoded,", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal." And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people," and in its vampire
Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system."Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments?" The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete." First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor do they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments." Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated." Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know darn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes, grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors."The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes." That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a break.But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.
But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by 'a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.' Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:" '[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary new context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people," THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people? when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right." Yes, darn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." Id.And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] "
This miraculous quote says it all, "the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people."Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kicking.