Coalition Works To Ban Sharia Law In American Courts

From Western Journalism: Just weeks after reports were confirmed regarding the establishment of an Islamic tribunal – the first in the nation – in Texas, a group of conservative activists announced the creation of an alliance existing solely to ban any form of foreign law from being observed in an American courtroom. Though the effort takes aim at any law practiced outside of the U.S. system, the obvious focus of the organization is apparent in its website name: Ban Sharia Law.

Radio host Don Smith is working with the group, which he told Western Journalism was started by Tim Selaty – the driving force behind Tea Party Community….

In addition to becoming a coalition partner and signing an online petition, supporters are encouraged to upload images of themselves holding signs that call for Sharia Law to be banned across the nation.

An interactive map provides a quick look at which states have proposed or passed anti-Sharia – or, more specifically, anti-foreign law – legislation. On its website, the group explains why the distinction is important.

“Although we believe Sharia law is currently posing the biggest threat to infiltrating our legal system,” the notice states, “most of the states who’ve successfully passed legislation didn’t actually mention Sharia law directly. This was intentional to squash the counter efforts by organizations like the Council on America-Islamic Relations…. The successful legislation was crafted towards the restriction of all foreign/international law.”

The site includes links to “graphic stories and disturbing videos” of Sharia law’s impact on society – both at home and abroad – and calls on anyone opposed to the implementation of this form of justice within U.S. borders to join the mission to prevent it.

Gov’t admits vaccines cause polio, seizures and death

Those crazy anti-vaxxers, always listening to Jenny McCarthy, Google, “random anti-vaccine web commenters and .. the U.S. government? That’s right, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a section on its National Vaccine Injury Compensation (NVIC) Program website entitled “Vaccine Injury Table” that openly lists all the severe injuries and conditions that can occur from vaccinations, including things like brain damage, paralytic polio and death!

It must be the federal government pranking us with that pesky chain email we’re constantly hearing about in the mainstream media and on late-night “comedy” television — you know, that mythical piece of digital spam from which all anti-vaxxers decide not to vaccinate their children. Because there’s never existed one single shred of evidence showing that vaccines are in any way harmful, we’re constantly told, so this must be another one of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s “discredited” studies, right?

Not exactly. The NVIC’s Vaccine Injury Table is an open admission by the government that vaccines harm and kill children. It exists to placate parents of vaccine-injured children who, having no access to the actual legal system in pursuing justice against vaccine manufacturers, have to present any evidence they can gather on their own (often without the help of their doctors) to the kangaroo “vaccine court,” which was created to shield the drug and vaccine industries from liability when their products maim and kill children.

The Vaccine Injury Table makes presenting this evidence a little bit easier by outlining injuries and conditions associated with vaccinations, and when they occur. In the prologue to the table, the NVIC admits that, when certain symptoms, illnesses or conditions emerge within a certain period of time following vaccination, “it is presumed that the vaccine was the cause of the injury….”

By Ethan A. Huff – Natural News –

Do You Really Own Your Home?

The move to confiscate all privately held wealth in the United States is well underway. In the past few years, we have experienced bail-outs, planned bail-ins, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is positioning to confiscate all 401k’s and pensions and now the MERS mortgage fraud is accelerating to new heights thanks to a rash of recent State Supreme Court decisions affirming the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) right to foreclose on your home without having recorded a valid title and the foreclosure can take place outside of a courtroom.

For the past 230+ years, the Constitution protected property rights from would-be feudal lords who would suddenly appear with a title to your home and force you out. This practice worked well until the introduction of the MERS Mortgage fraud.

MERS was a conglomeration created by the megabanks for the purpose of administering mortgages. The practice quickly got out of control as one’s home mortgage title could be transfered dozens of times without notifying the homeowner. The practice quickly turned illegal when a homeowner, unknown to them, would be paying their mortgage to a title company that no longer held the title to their home. Then, the title company which currently held the note would show up and lay claim to the home in a repossession proceeding. In some cases, people with completely paid off mortgages had their homes stolen. Eventually, the people pushed back.

Show Me the Note!

At the present rate, it will not be long until private home ownership will become a rare event.

Eventually, activists like Dave Kreiger, author of Clouded Titles, began to train local officials on how establish a chain of custody one a title. Eventually, the “Show me the note” strategy worked well in court as long as one had an attorney and many illegal foreclosures were headed off. Then MERS restored to the illegal practice of “Robo-signors” in which people off the street were paid to forge a homeowners signature on a series of title transfer documents. The issue of illegitimate foreclosures were at a stand off. However, at least homeowners would have their day in court and they could challenge the legitimacy of the title transfer documents. Recently, because MERS parent organizations of Wells Fargo and Bank of America have begun to exercise undue influence in the State Supreme Courts all across this nation, every homeowner is potentially in peril.

….These times are marked by the elite moving to own everything and using the power of the government to accomplish their end-game. Congress is complicit as is the judiciary.

When America emerges from the coming economic collapse, the middle class of this country will own nothing. We will all find ourselves living in the feudal manner with no property rights, bank account or pension. We will soon awaken to the fact that our Constitution is dead and with it all of our rights. And amazingly, we did virtually nothing to stop it.

By Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show –

Judicial defiance in Alabama: Judges refuse gay marriages

On the day that same-sex unions became legal in Alabama, local officials in dozens of counties on Monday defied a federal judge’s decision and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, casting the state into judicial chaos.

Gay couples were able to get licenses in about a dozen places, including Birmingham, Huntsville and a few other counties where probate judges complied with the judge’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled early Monday that it would deny Alabama’s request to put the marriages on hold.

But in the majority of counties, officials said they would refuse to license same-sex marriages or stop providing licenses altogether, confronting couples — gay and heterosexual — with locked doors and shuttered windows.

Many of the state’s 68 probate judges mounted their resistance to the federal decision at the urging of the firebrand chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. He is best known for refusing more than a decade ago to comply with a court order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court’s offices.

In Mobile, about 10 gay couples who had expected to be granted licenses first thing in the morning found the marriage-license window closed indefinitely….

A federal judge in Mobile ruled in their case last month that Alabama must allow same-sex marriages, striking down its ban and setting the stage for it to become the 37th state, plus the District of Columbia, to permit such unions and the second in the Deep South. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in April over whether there is a constitutional right for gay couples to marry nationwide.

Gay rights supporters likened the actions of Moore and the probate judges to those of Alabama leaders who in the 1960s defied orders to desegregate schools….

Some social conservatives cheered the actions of the defiant probate judges. Mat Staver, chief executive of Liberty Counsel, said the probate judges are not under the jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore were not compelled to comply with the federal judge’s order to allow same-sex marriages.

“I think the probate judges acted appropriately,” said Staver, whose group is representing at least eight of the judges.

Their actions show that pockets of deep resistance to gay marriage remain despite the gains made by advocates, who have seen support for their cause spike nationally. Backing for same-sex marriage in Alabama stood at 32 percent in 2012, a smaller proportion than all but two states, according to the Williams Institute, a think tank that studies gay issues….

At least 12 counties denied licenses to same-sex couples, according to AL.com, an Alabama news site. More than 40 stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether Monday, though at least 20 of those were still accepting applications for marriage licenses. Nine counties agreed to marry everyone.

A letter late Sunday from Moore, the chief justice, advised probate judges to follow state law and refuse to give licenses to gay couples. Those who violated his order would face a reprimand by the governor, Moore wrote.

“Effective immediately, no probate judge of the state of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent” with a constitutional amendment and a state law banning same-sex unions, he wrote.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) said Monday that he will not punish probate judges in the state who do or do not issue marriage licenses.

“This issue has created confusion with conflicting direction for Probate Judges in Alabama,” Bentley said in a statement. “Probate judges have a unique responsibility in our state, and I support them. I will not take any action against Probate Judges, which would only serve to further complicate this issue.”

….The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s request to stay the same-sex marriages until the justices rule later this year on whether there is a constitutional right to gay unions. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, dissented, saying they would have granted the stay.

“I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question,” Thomas wrote.

By Mark Berman,Brian Murphy,& Robert Barnes – Washington Post –

Thousands of Americans sent to debtors’ prisons monthly

Once upon a time in Western Europe, circa the 19th century, debtors’ prisons were a common phenomenon. And they were exactly what they sound like: Prisons for people who were unable to pay their debts. People who were destitute or simply had fallen on hard times and were unable to repay court-ordered judgments were “sentenced” to these prisons. They remained there until they were able to either work off what they owed or secure funding from another source.

Now, in 21st century America, debtors’ prisons are making a comeback.

According to a new report from Human Rights Watch called Profiting from Probation, more than 1,000 courts around the country “delegate tremendous coercive power to companies that are often subject to little meaningful oversight or regulation.”

Further, a summary of the report states:

“In many cases, the only reason people are put on probation is because they need time to pay off fines and court costs linked to minor crimes. In some of these cases, probation companies act more like abusive debt collectors than probation officers, charging the debtors for their services.”

Often, the group says, the poorest Americans wind up having to pay the most in fees over time, in what amounts to a discriminatory penalty. When they fail to pay, companies then can, and do, ensure that they are arrested.

So, while such incarceration is not actually called “debtors’ prison,” the result is the same.

In particular, notes the ACLU, which is taking up the cause of ending such incarcerations:

“Human Rights Watch tells the story of Thomas Barrett in Georgia. Unemployed and living off food stamps, Barrett was out on probation and ordered to pay a $200 fine for stealing a $2 can of beer from a convenience store. On top of that, Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, the company administering Barrett’s probation, charged him $360 per month in supervision and monitoring fees despite the fact that Barrett’s only source of income was money earned by selling his blood plasma.”

Barrett was forced to skip meals in order to pay Sentinel. Nevertheless, he still fell behind in payments and at one point wound up owing the company $1,000 in fees — or five times more than the $200 fine that a court had imposed.

In a bid to collect the debt, Sentinel then petitioned a court to revoke Barrett’s probation, which it did. He was then jailed.

….”Imprisoning someone because she cannot afford to pay court-imposed fines or fees violates the 14th Amendment,” says the ACLU.

And Barrett is just one of thousands of cases, the legal assistance group says.

What’s more, the trend towards more, not fewer, such cases has been growing….

By J. D. Heyes – Natural News –

Obama Sentenced Whistleblowers to 25 Times the Jail Time of All Prior U.S. Presidents COMBINED

Obama Is Arguably More Hostile Towards The Press Than Any President In History

The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

This administration has also obtained much longer jail sentences against whistleblowers than previous presidents.

ACLU legislative counsel Gabe Rottman noted last October:

The Obama administration has secured 526 months of prison time for national security leakers, versus only 24 months total jail time for everyone else since the American Revolution.

(So – as of October – Obama had thrown whistleblowers in jail for 22 times longer than all other presidents.)

Today, whistleblower Barrett Brown was sentenced to 63 months in prison.

So now we’re up to 589 months for whistleblowers. That’s 25 times more time meted out against whistleblowers by Obama than all other presidents combined.

But even that stunning figure understates the savagery of the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers …

After all, Jeremy Hammond – regarded by many as a whistleblower – was sentenced by Obama to 10 years in prison.

The trial of CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling is proceeding right now … and the prosecution is seeking a lengthy prison sentence.

If Edward Snowden or Julian Assange are ever caught, the government will seek very lengthy sentences.

And the government would have obtained lengthy prison terms for high-level NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney – and even “framed” them with false evidence – but they were brilliant enough to able to prove with bulletproof evidence that the government was lying.

Top mainstream reporters also say the Obama administration is more hostile to the free press – the folks who spread whistleblower leaks – than any other in history. And see this.

Indeed, Obama is treating reporters like terrorists and criminals. For example:

By Washingtons Blog –

What “Jury Nullification” Is And Why It Matters

If you happen to be lurking around the Manhattan courthouse where Ross Ulbricht’s trial began on Tuesday, you may notice one of about a dozen signs urging you to Google something called “jury nullification.”

Walk a little further, and you may just encounter activists handing out jury nullification leaflets. But if you ask them to explain what it is, they may refuse—because doing so could land them in jail.

Jury nullification is one of the oldest legal concepts in the world. It means that jury members have the right to find a defendant innocent, even if they believe he’s guilty of the crime with which he’s charged. They would do so, theoretically, if they believed the crime shouldn’t actually be labeled a crime. Some of the most famous examples came in the mid-1800s, when Northern abolitionists, sitting on juries, refused to convict slaves for fleeing their masters under the Fugitive Slave Act.

More recently, a jury in New Hampshire acquitted a man in 2012 who openly admitted that he was growing marijuana in his backyard. “He grows for his own personal religious and medicinal use,” one of the jurors said after the case. “[A]fter chewing on all of the possibilities…we all decided that the only fair thing to do was to vote with our consciences and acquit the defendant of all charges.”

Jury nullification has become a popular tactic among activists, academics and lawyers as the government’s $51 billion-per-year drug war has heated up. Many of these people believe it’s crazy that a person can get thrown in the slammer for 10 or 20 years simply for using or selling drugs.

Some of these same people believe that Ulbricht, who is accused of being the mastermind behind the drug site Silk Road, should be set free regardless of his guilt—because simply operating a website shouldn’t land you in prison. Nicholas J. Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee, the official group that manages the United States Libertarian Party, called on Tuesday for outright dismissal of the charges against Ulbricht, saying that trial “grossly oversteps the bounds of a properly limited government.”

This week, I spoke with James Babb, the activist who raised the money for the jury nullification ads—and who is personally handing out leaflets at the New York City courthouse. “I’m reminding people that you’ve got a conscience—use it, don’t just rubber-stamp the prosecution,” he says.

Babb won’t explicitly say he’s there for the Silk Road trial. He’s cagey because jury nullification activists have a history of being sent to jail for jury tampering. Perhaps the most famous case came in 2011, when an 80-year-old retired chemistry professor named Julien Heicklin was jailed for standing outside a Manhattan court where he distributed jury nullification pamphlets.

Heicklin, whom Babb calls his personal hero, was eventually acquitted, with the judge remarking that it’s only jury tampering if someone tries “to influence a juror’s decision through a written communication ‘made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror.’”

To make sure that no jury nullification activists breaks jury tampering laws, the Fully Informed Jury Association has recently put out several guidelines. They include:
•Stick to the public sidewalk in front of the courthouse.
•Offer literature to everyone without regard to who they are and do not try to single out jurors in any way.
•Go the extra mile to be friendly and courteous, and to avoid being perceived as belligerent, profane, harassing or a nuisance.

From Vocativ.com –

Man Shoots Down Drone, Lawyers Scratch Their Heads

By Kelsey D. Atherton – PopSci.com –

Shooting down a small drone is hard. But determining whether people should be allowed to do so may prove more difficult still. A man in New Jersey fired a shotgun at his neighbor’s drone, and as the quadcopter crashed to the ground, the incident raised new legal challenges about when and if it’s okay to shoot a robot.

Police arrested the New Jersey man, charging him with “Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose and Criminal Mischief”. In this case, courts might find that, by firing the shotgun at the drone, the man is guilty of destruction of property. The use of force is often only legally permissible to prevent a physical threat, and a wandering drone, like a trespassing cow, is inconvenient but not an imminent danger.

Courts might rule that a trespass by drone is unlike a trespass by a pet. Drones can carry cameras, so a drone flying into a backyard isn’t just trespassing, it’s a threat to privacy…

 
Continue Reading

Who Killed the American Family?

By Phyllis Schlafly – Eagle Forum –

The British press just reported the result of a new study by academics from Oxford and the University of London that children raised in stable marital homes are better behaved than classmates brought up by unmarried parents. Children raised by married parents show lower levels of anti-social attitudes and hyperactivity.

Recent U.S. surveys show that the U.S. taxpayers’ money appropriated to “close the gap” between higher-achieving and lower-achieving students has failed to achieve this goal. Contrary to conventional wisdom, poverty is not the principal cause of the gap, but whether or not children grow up in a family with their own mom and pop compared to kids who lack that advantage.

Many groups had a motive for wanting to abolish the American nuclear family. The feminists’ rallying cry from the start was “liberation,” and they meant liberation from husband, family, and care for children because, they said, taking care of small children is a demeaning occupation for an educated woman.

In the 1970s it became popular to say that the “village” should raise the child. The liberal establishment defines “village” to include all sorts of government busybodies such as public school officials, hired consultants, psychologists, custody evaluators, women’s studies courses, and especially family court judges.

The New York Times reported that judges routinely decide where the children of divorced parents may attend school and even attend church, whether they may be homeschooled, what medical care they may receive, and even whether they play soccer or take piano lessons. The system of having family court judges make decisions about the raising of children has become so universal that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Family Court judges now control the private living arrangements of 46 million Americans and have the power to transfer $40 billion between households.

 
Continue Reading