U.N. Resettlement Programs & the NZ Shooting: What Did We Expect to Happen?

The shooting at the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand that resulted in the deaths of 49 people was a national tragedy for their country and an incident that has caused international mourning and anger. The anger and pain has resulted in memorials across the globe, and backlash against even the most “tolerant” of political and social figures. Even a pregnant Chelsea Clinton was verbally assaulted and blamed for causing the shooting by a Muslim student activist at a New York University memorial service. There’s never a reason for this kind of violence. Yet, there are so many questions left behind that are going unasked, perhaps because no one wants to talk about that big elephant in the corner.

The name of the city, alone, begs these questions, yet no one is asking “Why are there multiple mosques in a city named after a Judeo-Christian messiah?” and, “Since when did a community that has been (for hundreds of years) over 90%+ White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) of English descent, develop a large Muslim community and population that would require multiple mosques?” and, finally, “What is prompting white males to join white supremacy terrorist groups at a faster rate than ever?”

These are questions that are certainly not politically correct or sensitive, and may make you feel uncomfortable or you may knee-jerkingly assume that only a white supremacist would ask these questions. But there is a reason we should be asking these questions. This is not about demonizing a group of people from a particular region of the world, whether we agree with their religious positions or not. This is about questioning the U.N. migration policies and the consistent backlashes it is causing across the globe.

This is about sending Muslim refugees from countries like Syria and Afghanistan and Palestine into cities that are historically not demographically diverse, and then blaming the “whites” for hate crimes when the backlash and violence breaks out. This is about forcing communities to globalize and integrate, and then demonizing those same communities who attempt to protect and preserve their own cultures when the migrants fail to assimilate. The question should be asking is, “What did we expect?”

If a community feels invaded, how will this play out?

New Zealand, like many countries, works with the U.N. for their “Refugee Resettlement Program” which, without consulting the communities in which these refugees are placed, designates new homes for people whose countries are in crisis around the globe. On their government website it states, “New Zealand Refugee Quota Programme: New Zealand is one of around 37 countries that take part in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) regular refugee resettlement programme.“[1]

There are quotas, by country, of the number of annual refugees resettled into various communities. While New Zealand is certainly not even in the Top 5 in terms of quantity of migrants resettled into their country, the pressure due to lack of assimilation is clear. For a region that has spent hundreds of years with a consistent culture of 90% WASPs like Christchurch, the impact of introducing thousands of people from across the globe who practice a religion known (or believed, at least) to be dangerous to Christians and Jews, can be overwhelmingly negative.

The U.N. is not interested in the demographic or historical and cultural makeup of these communities in which they drop the refugees; only that they have enough financial resources, wealth, housing, educational, health and social assistance programs for the migrants to become established. There’s no polling of the citizens to determine if, as a whole, they’re okay with an entirely new culture establishing an overnight foothold in their communities.  There is absolutely no consideration of the existing culture. After all, if they’re white, they need to be more inclusive. A white, Judeo-Christian culture is not, in the eyes of the U.N. or socialist geopolitical hacks, a culture worth preserving.

The resettled migrant refugees are not expected to speak the language of the land, nor are they expected to assimilate in any way. Their religious, cultural and dietary needs are taken care of, often at the seeming expense of the pre-existing communities’ cultures, in their new cities. They are granted voting rights and are able to impact communities’ economic and political directions without having invested time, effort, or resources in those communities. The citizens and original community members, however, are expected to change their culture and behavior to embrace these new groups and their religions and cultures. If the existing, predominately white communities do not embrace these changes, they are seen as intolerant and hateful, racist and Islamaphobic.

Here is an excerpt for how citizens should now conduct themselves with their new neighbors from the New Zealand Resettlement Programme Syrian Refugee Quota site: https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/refugees/syria-quota-refugee-factsheet.pdf

1. If you are sitting in front of a Syrian, do not cross your legs with the sole of your shoe facing him/her (it is considered insulting).
2. Syrians stand close to each other and may hug or clasp hands. People of the same gender sometimes walk hand in hand. They may also touch you on the shoulder.

For Afghans, New Zealanders are instructed this way:

1. Women and men will never shake hands.
2. Eye contact should also be avoided between men

and women.

 For Palestinians, New Zealanders are told,

1. Men should not initiate contact with Palestinian women – wait for them to offer a handshake, or alternatively, place your right hand over your heart and very slightly bow your head.
2. Equally, women should not offer a hand to a Palestinian

man but wait for one to be proffered. 

Rohingya refugees have special considerations for New Zealanders as well:

1. Every compact village forms a social unit with the mosque as its centre for the regulation of social life of the inhabitants of the area. The eldest, most pious, and influential man in the society is recognised as the head of the village society (Samaj) who decides all disputes among them with the help of village elders.

2. The Rohingyas practise endogamy (marrying only within the limits of a local community) and sometimes polygamy.

3. Women typically do not work outside the home. They may do some street selling and domestic work close to home 

And the list continues through a large number of mostly Muslim cultures. New Zealanders (and other westernized communities across the globe) are expected to embrace these new cultures without hesitation, learn the various rules and social queues, and accept the religious, political and economic impacts of these strangers for fear of being blacklisted as racist or Islamaphobic or otherwise intolerant. 

All refugees are also granted the “assistance of mainstream services such as health, education, housing and Work & Income” courtesy of the New Zealand taxpayers. They are given permanent resident status and protections under the law. This is also the same in other countries.

What’s worse? Most of these resettled refugees are not in crisis, but what the U.N. admits are “normal” circumstances. So often these individuals are not in dire need. The U.N. report in 2017 stated that 92.5% of the resettled refugees were individuals “”where there are no immediate medical, social, or security concerns which would merit expedited processing”.[2] Less than half of the refugees resettled meet the criterion claimed necessary to warrant the U.N.’s relocation. Which begs another question, “Why are they relocating majority Muslims into Western cultures at a pace of 150% over the actual need?”[3][4]

If a person in Japan preserves their culture and traditions, no one complains. It’s admired and even expected. If a person from Nigeria, or India, or Pakistan, or Syria, or China, or Thailand, or Chile, or Cuba, or any other country where the people are not mostly white, protects and preserves their cultures and their religious and social traditions, it is absolutely understood to be a positive thing. Which makes me wonder, “Since when did it become a negative thing for a white, Judeo-Christian culture to protect itself?” and “If it’s okay for people of color or race other than white to protect and preserve their cultural traditions, and they accomplish that through exclusivity in their mosques or communities, should they be forced to assimilate if they relocate to new areas that are predominately white and Judeo-Christian? What would that assimilation even look like?”

We absolutely need to humanely address the crises that are leading to the needs of the people of these countries and create solutions for them to be able to go home, which, I imagine, is what they truly want. I cannot imagine the fear of being displaced due to persecution and war. And while I feel compassion towards the plights of those that are truly impacted by these violent events, I also see the need for the communities in which these migrants are being relocated to preserve their own cultures without being vilified for resisting these forced migration programs. The same people being accused of being racist and intolerant did not ask to have their communities changed overnight.

The lunatic in Christchurch was a criminal, a murderer, a terrorist, and a coward who took the lives of innocents who, from what is being reported, were mostly relocated to that city by the U.N. and in agreement with the government of New Zealand.  There is nothing, ever, that can justify the use of violence and murder against any group of people.  We all deserve to live and raise our children in peace, free from the fear of harm.  But what the U.N. is doing is clearly not working for communities that do not have a history of the “melting pot” as their societal norm.

Perhaps it is time we demand an open and global review of how the U.N. and our governments are handling this issue and how communities are clearly unprepared to deal with these fast changes to their demographics.  These changes are obviously causing increases in unease and openings for White Supremacy groups to increase their recruitment programs.  Perhaps also we also need to openly decide whether a white Judeo-Christian culture is as valuable and as worth preserving as all other races and cultures, and if it is not, to be intellectually honest about the real intent of this U.N. Refugee Resettlement Program, which suspiciously looks more like an effort to destroy the westernized white, Judeo-Christian communities through forced migration than an effort to help victims of persecution, based on the statistics.  And finally, if the culture of the western, white Judeo-Christian is worth preserving, teaching people to live together, in harmony and tolerance and appreciation for each other while simultaneously encouraging assimilation of migrants into their new communities.

[1] The UNHCR data shows that over 1MM refugees participated in resettlement in 2018. An overwhelming number of these individuals are from North Africa and the Middle East, where Islam is the predominate religious proclivity. https://www.unhcr.org/5c594ddf4

[2] https://www.unhcr.org/46f7c0ee2.html

[3] https://cis.org/Rush/Most-Refugees-Resettlement-Not-Matter-Life-and-Death

[4] Over 1MM refugees were resettled across the globe in 2018 alone, and over 70% of them were from areas where Islam is the main religion, often into countries and communities that have little, if any, exposure to that religion and its constraints on its followers.

Riveting Reading While You’re on the Commode

Recently, I wrote about the failures of this current Administration and the members of Congress as it pertains to our national security. Specifically, the Iranian arms negotiations, the American hostages rotting in Iranian prisons for trumped-up charges, and the naturalized US citizen-jihadist who just murdered five loyal members of our Navy and Marine Corps. in Tennessee. Needless to say, I received some flack. My seemingly anti-Muslim sentiments were met with protests and some made a concerted effort to make me seem insensitive and callous when I called for the deportation of the family members that harbored their terrorist son/nephew/brother that recently returned to the US after a trip to connect with his family (also, their family) in Kuwait, Jordan, and who knows where else. Please understand this: I make absolutely no apologies for my position on this matter.

I’ve spent quite some time reading the history of the Middle East, our relationship with the Arab states, our position on Israel, the Quran, Sharia Law, the degradation of the citizens of that region, and the highly misguided U.S. and international policies that have morphed over the past century leading us to this point. I’ve drawn multiple timelines over and again from the late 1800’s and the efforts to escape the Ottoman Empire, to today, realizing that American involvement in the Middle East was quite late in the game but so forceful, we’ve completely lost our way, destroyed cultures, and become gluttonous on resources that truly were never ours to have.

As a history and economics major, I often find myself compartmentalizing matters into two categories: Incentive and Outcome. What is the incentive for a behavior? and What is the outcome over time? If the true definition of insanity is repeating a behavior over and over and over again, yet expecting a different result, I can only assess that we are in the throws. The lunatics are officially running the asylum. All 535 of them, in Armani suits and with unlimited PAC and SUPERPAC funds at their disposal.

Personally, as the time to vote approaches, I study the federal budgets vigorously. I download each department’s commitments, spends, and the agencies that are accountable for the oversight as well as the recipient companies that grow richer and richer from the fiscally irresponsible decisions made by Congress, this President, and his predecessors. I pour over the spreadsheets and research the management teams of the corporations to answer the question: Who are they and to whom are they connected? As a taxpaying business owner, I feel it’s my responsibility. I don’t know many, nee any people who do this exercise. Many wouldn’t know how to look, or what they’re looking at. But I promise, numbers don’t lie. There is no way to misinterpret a check that is issued by one organization and cashed by another, whether it’s for a service or product, it’s certainly “black and white”. Just ask the IRS.

In my daily business life, everything is about cashflow. This government’s operations are no different, but the stakes are far higher than that of my little companies, and the fat cats that are getting rich off the backs of Americans and at the expense of millions of lives internationally is a crime that has perpetuated this horrific state of affairs for decades. Since the big industrial boom, no politician has been strong enough to ward off corporate interest and corruption and win. Not one. The politicians that resist are quickly ousted by the elite club, and more of the same back-office, dirty handshake deals are made. The cycle continues.

As a former member of the Navy, my respect for the need for national security is somewhat heightened when in comparison to my non-military friends on the “outside” of the fishbowl. Friends in the intelligence community have expressed their dismay with civilian members of the government who poo-poo military leadership advisors’ recommendations and create deadly policies for profit that disregard the fundamental philosophy of this country. After all, what do military leadership know? When you have a Congress making policy on warfare, military budgets, and national defense that has less than 100 members overall having ever served in the military and understand how it operates, the results are exactly what we are experiencing. When people in leadership are not loyal or courageous enough to serve and protect for their nation, but just vested enough to profit from their nation, there’s a serious problem.

In an effort to make already available information more available, I will be writing a series of articles on the budget, the historic timeline of the Middle East policies that have created our current state of affairs, and provide all links and documents for all of you readers to research for yourself. While I doubt many of you will tackle reading the budgets, and ponder if you even really give a damn about international, legislative, judicial, or defense policies that are eroding this country unless it starts with the names “Jenner” or “Kardashian”, I can at least assist you in understanding who is getting the cash, why they’re getting it, and which members of Congress and this Administration are profiting from it. It will be riveting. You’ll love reading it while sitting on the toilet.

Disclaimer: I am a Registered Republican but have not voted based on party lines since I registered to vote at 18 yrs of age. I vote based on research, capability, and least amount of corruption. I have been mistakenly called a “Tea Party Radical” by the Democratic Party of Florida’s member Alan Clandenin, and a “Democrat Light” by the Palm Beach Democratic Party’s Parliamentarian Ira J. Raab. I hold people accountable for their actions, including myself. I avoid the news and watch CSPAN. I’m a lousy liar. I am a feminist. I am a Veteran. I’m pro small business, pro-choice, pro-military, and anti-jihadist. I have two companies, 15 employees, 2 kids and 1 cat.

My Response to an Upset Facebooker: Hillary Clinton is NOT the Answer

I don’t support Hillary for President in 2016.  It seems almost sacrilegious as a woman, and there’s a part of me that really wishes I could get on the bandwagon.  But I can’t stand her, no matter how I’ve tried.  She’s corrupt, has shown a disdain and disinterest in the welfare of military and veterans (even worse than Obama), and has made a mess of our international policies that I simply cannot get over.

Today, as I sat on my metrosectional writing endless client content, I took a break and jumped onto Facebook.  Scroll… zombies…scroll….elections…

Nothing had changed since yesterday.  Pam “Tits McGee” Bondi is still Attorney General.  Rick “Ripoff” Scott is still Governor.  And we missed the mark on Amendment 2 to make medical marijuana available to the terminally ill, which upset me most of all.  I was only relieved that con-man William Rankin didn’t overcome Jeff Atwater for CFO.  I scrolled through my newsfeed….

I saw the disappointed yet hopeful post of a friend of mine.  She’s usually posting interesting and entertaining things, so I clicked on the post to see the comments.  My friend’s kind-hearted post sang of We tried, Florida… but still didn’t cut it.

CLICK.

“We had a lousy turnout” I posted.

A guy (her “friend”, not mine) jumped on, and you could tell he was feeling the aftershock of disappointing election day results.  He had the  Morning After Voter’s Blues.

“We have 2 years to suck it up, then HILLARY will take over. We need a women as pres. of the USA, the men have fucked it up enough!! I’m married so believe me when I say when a women gets pissed…get out of town!!!! HELP US HILLARY!!!”

He made some good points, for instance, when I’m pissed, watch out, and yes, men have definitely done enough damage.  But Hillary?  Ugh.

I sighed as I typed, “I wish there was an alternative to Hillary.”

This friend of my FB friend jumped back with, “Maybe that’s the problem with some voters. You don’t have to like someone for them to govern. Everyone liked Reagan and he gave us deregulation and the trickle-down economics. His economic policies were the start of our recession and businesses addiction to greed. Clinton got a blow job in the White House but when he left office we had billions of $ in the Federal coffers. Forget about liking our elected officials, just vote for the person that will help you, your family and your neighbors’ families to move forward not backward financially. As Americans we must evolve into better Americans not into Neanderthals….just saying….”

“Some voters”?  “Neanderthals”?  Huh?

Always ready for a political debate, I bit back, “I don’t consider her appropriate for governance of the country. My perspective was DoD when we met, so let me be more clear: I don’t TRUST her. Does that work? I’m not looking for a buddy – I’m looking for a Commander in Chief that has an inkling of understanding of national defense, which is one of the primary tenets of that office.”

And then his knee-jerk retort, “You’re ideals are the problem not the solution. A more powerful military is not the answer to our countries problems. If you’re scared of the Boggy man (I think he meant ‘BOOGY MAN’), don’t blame Hillary.”

I didn’t want to hijack my friends FB post… but this guy deserved a well-thought response without a FB smack-down.   So I “LIKED” his last comment.

Dear Floridiot that thinks Hillary is the answer to all your political hopes and dreams:

I don’t want to hijack my friend’s Facebook post, so I’ll address you on my blog.

I’m so sorry, sir.  I didn’t mean to come off as an ideologue.  I can see you are very passionate about supporting a woman for office.  As a woman, I can certainly relate and appreciate your acknowledgement that we are, by far, the superior sex.  I, however, would love an alternative to Hillary.  Her husband, while I couldn’t care less about his sex life, was a solid President and leader.  He was not without de-regulatory tendencies, however, and Hillary won’t be like him, she’ll be far worse simply based on the amount of corporations to whom she’s beholden, including Citigroup.

Bill had excellent welfare/workfare policies, was a strong advocate for the military strategically, held tightly to international relationships, and made a couple good decisions for Supreme Court and Cabinet appointments.  His immigration policies weren’t so great – but we can’t have it all.  I see a much different history, and imagine a much different future, should Hillary be voted into the Oval Office.

While Hillary is certainly intelligent, she does not hold the trust of our military members or veterans as a whole, nor should she.  They don’t trust Obama, either. I was present at his inauguration and at the Commander in Chief Ball, and witnessed how they turned their backs on him when he spoke.  It was eye-opening.  But her actions in the light of military, lack of security problems overseas, and the death of veterans in NY during her senate tenure despite cries for help to her office, are grossly under reported.

It’s not idealism… I take personal offense to Hillary having direct knowledge about federally sanctioned human testing on veterans in her state, under her watch, and her turning away from reports and pleas for help addressing Stratton Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany, N.Y., where two veterans, James J. DiGeorgio and Carl Steubing, were subjected to drug experiments by employees, and died.  She was contacted repeatedly while New York Senator, and simply never cared, never responded, never addressed the matter.  Read more here.

I won’t bother addressing Benghazi as I think Clinton’s lack of management of her department was grossly waved off as an “oops” by the Democratic Party, and over-played by the Republican Party. It was also admitted by her in an over 2 hour Senate Foreign Relations Committee Meeting in January 2013 (I suggest you watch it when you have the time).

In addition to her ridiculous inefficiencies and expenditures, her relationship with both the HMO corporations and the credit card corporations that she has been beneficiary of big finance, plus some major bad moves by her while Secretary of State – she’s not the one for President.   Just looking at who owns Hillary Clinton is enough to turn my stomach, and I absolutely cannot support her.  I wish I felt differently.  I wish you did, too.

If you don’t understand fundamental economics and policy, start with the basics of historical fact.

Attacking Ronald Reagan and blaming him solely for the start of recession and business addiction is a rookie move.  He certainly didn’t deregulate the Savings and Loans, nor did he create a total state of capitalism-corruption.  Dig deeper into history – American business addiction started long before the Industrial Revolution, was promulgated at the expense of the Native American land and on the backs of American farmers and immigrants.  Reagan had his faults – American greed and corporate bailouts aren’t singular to that president.

As for more recent history, my suggestion is to stop looking at this from a party perspective; the reality is that classical economics works for the economy, and sucks for those seeking entitlement programs.  The Marxist crux is that anything that makes money and causes a sense of “haves” and “have-nots” will always be criticized, and there’s nothing like good ‘ol class warfare to incite “Hope and Change”.

The historical fact is that deregulation is not singular to either side of the aisle.  Jimmy Carter was responsible for the deregulation of the airlines. Carter also deregulated the Savings and Loans with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980.  Reagan deregulated trucking and introduced adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) into the mortgage industry with the Garn–St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982.

But who was making recommendations on economic policy in the 70s and 80s?  Jimmy Carter appointed Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who implemented the fiscal policies of both Carter’s and Reagan’s presidencies (Reagan reappointed him).  These policies caused what was dubbed the “Volcker Shock” – hence the recession to which you alluded. So your so-called theory that Reagan’s “trickle down economics”,  of which I don’t think you quite understand how it works, caused those recessions is hence debunked:  Bad Policy is a Bi-Partisan Disease.

And Bill Clinton’s contribution to free-wheeling capitalism and deregulation?  Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation, with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. He exempted credit-default swaps from regulation when he signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and in 1995 he loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods.

Bush was screwed the moment he stepped into office – and simply didn’t have the staff, knowhow, or relationships with Congress to turn it around.  He tried, however, upon entrance into office, and was slapped down until he got the bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act across his desk to sign into effect.  He never recovered from that situation, which snowballed into more bad decision making.

Each President and Congress have made some horrible decisions – and while I appreciate your love for Hillary, who is undeniably a very intelligent (and terrifyingly cunning) woman, I can assure you – the majority of members of the military don’t share your opinion.  Whether you like it or not – we require national defense. It’s a Constitutional provision, and we have too many international interests that require involvement due to decades of our interference and/or those countries’ requests.

From an economic policy perspective, Keynesian economics (aka DEFICIT SPENDING) doesn’t work.  It has no long-term historical success data out of Europe, in fact quite the opposite (i.e., Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain).  Krugman hasn’t been right once in his defense of Keynesian economics, and we are now in the highest level of debt, with the lowest GDP and infrastructure, in decades. While I hate companies like WalMart, oligopolies like Comcast and Time Warner, and the sickening cronyism of the PACS and SUPERPACS, I hate starving even more.  I’ll take a solid fiscal and monetary policy and fight out the social programs that are discretionary expenditures on the side, thank you.

I agree, a woman is needed.  Just not her.  We need someone strong, trustworthy, intelligent, and with ethical standards.  As for the “Boogy Man” (spelling corrected) – I have no fear and no blame, so I don’t understand that statement.  I’m plenty qualified with arms (9mm to .50cal), combat, defense, and flat-out will to survive.  I appreciate your concern, but it’s certainly not necessary. 😉

Why Does Riviera Beach Police Department Need a Tank Rigged with a 50 Cal Gun?!?!

 

A tank acquired from the Feds cost approximately $2,200 for the City of Riviera Beach Police Department. It’s being outfitted with a 50 caliber gun, and AR plate for the turret gunner protection. WTF?!

On the coat tails of the #Ferguson uprising, we’ve just been made aware that another police department in a high-crime area has acquired military equipment to outfit their unit.

The City of Riviera Beach Police Department is now the proud owner of a military tank, complete with AR plating and (soon) a .50 cal machine gun.  This killing machine, used in WARFARE, is now to be used in a town full of drugs and gangs just north of the Downtown West Palm Beach, Florida city center.

These are terrifying times, indeed.

Why the Hobby Lobby Case Will Force Otherwise Republican Women to Abandon the GOP

As a woman, few things are as disturbing as studying history other than watching history unfold as progress takes a giant leap backwards. The outcome of the Hobby Lobby case has proven yet again that patriarchy (and slut-shaming) is alive and well in the United States, and may have women who consider themselves moderate Republicans rethinking their votes in the upcoming elections.

Consideration of Women in American History: “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby”?

It’s no secret that women have had to navigate a minefield in their attempts to gain a modicum of legal equality and possession over their own persons. In the early 18th Century, domestic patriarchalism was “both a set of beliefs about power relations within families and households and a description of behavior within the family. This ideology of domestic patriarchalism placed husbands over wives within the family, asserted that women were legally inferior to men, and separated the economic roles of men and women into distinct spheres.”(1) This week’s outcome in the Hobby Lobby ruling has re-opened the question: Just where do (or should) women stand politically in order to protect the underlying interests unique to their gender?

Going back in time even further to March of 1776, Abigail Adams asked her husband John to “Remember the Ladies” in order to protect women from the legal tyranny of their husbands. “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to forment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”(2) Certainly less than eighty years after women were burned at the stake for witchcraft and adultery and “Puritan ministers railed against the ‘uncleanness,’ ‘whore mongers,’ and ‘mothers of bastards’ for whom the ‘fire of lust’ led to the ‘fire of hell’”(3), Abigail saw that little had changed for her gender.

The public, relentless, slut-shaming reaction on social media outlets regarding the Hobby Lobby ruling has proven that things really haven’t changed much in 300 years.  Patriarchy and misogyny are still quite commonplace and are the products of the firmly held, religion-based beliefs that women are less valuable to society and less-deserving of equal healthcare treatment provisions than their male counterparts in the eyes of many fundamentalist Christian men.

Throughout history in America, and, in the name of Christianity, women have been denied access to preventative healthcare, land ownership, child custody, interest payments on their investments, openly belittled in publications as idiots and whores, and considered radical progressives simply for demanding equality when it pertains to voting in elections, decision-making authority over their own bodies and reproductive systems, equal pay and workforce opportunities. In 1968, the slogan targeting the young, professional female consumer by Virginia Slims “You’ve come a long way, baby” no longer seems to have merit.

If nothing else the Hobby Lobby case pushes Republican-leaning women to make an unsavory choice: vote based on their economic and fiscal philosophies that support capitalism, or vote their conscience as women who have been consistently fighting the battle to protect the medical and reproductive rights and marginal legitimacy that have taken over 300 years to accomplish in this country.

Hobby Lobby: Self-Proclaimed Fundamental Constitutionalists Are Sadly Misguided

The Hobby Lobby case is being touted as a “Constitutional” win by improperly informed so-called patriots, and since most of them are unaffected by this ruling simply due to their gender or economic status, they have jumped on an embarrassingly ignorant bandwagon. The lawsuit itself was not and is not based on the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights, an argument that is laughable yet simultaneously disturbing because (a) those (mostly male) people believe that a corporation’s First Amendment “rights” which should belong solely to individuals have been upheld, and (b) these people vote.

The Hobby Lobby case was a statutory lawsuit that broadly misapplied the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which notably, was enacted to support and enforce the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The Hobby Lobby lawsuit bastardized the purpose of a law positioned to protect Native Americans’ religious practices from the overreach of white-man expansion and oppression, and was instead used to enhance the “person”-rights of a large company to impute the owners’ fundamentalist Christian will on its staff.

Though it remains to be seen the actual breadth of this ruling, it is safe to say that at least forty other corporations are awaiting their day in court so they can deny all access to all birth control medications to all women employees. It seems unlikely the next forty companies will lose, since all it took Hobby Lobby was to cry that the heart-felt, moral beliefs of the majority owners were in direct conflict with a federal healthcare law (the Affordable Care Act) so therefore, they should not have to comply. The winners are the corporations and fundamentalist religious lobbyist groups. The losers are women employees making low wages that will have their access to preventative care greatly reduced, especially as Title X programs continue to get hit with funding cuts.

The irony of the Hobby Lobby case is that not only did the company’s insurance program previously provide for all preventative reproductive health products for women prior to filing the lawsuit, but the company’s multi-million dollar 401(k) plan is divested in Bayer, the manufacturer of one of the IUDs (Mirena) that Hobby Lobby alleged is an abortificant. Interestingly enough, the word “abortion” is not mentioned on the product description page, because it doesn’t cause abortions as alleged in the lawsuit.

It wasn’t until the Becket Fund approached this kind, Christian couple (Mr. and Mrs. Green), that they permitted their company to symbolize the anti-woman efforts of the GOP to throw us right back into the 18th century patriarchy with which they’re most comfortable. The other ironic value in all of this is that the Becket Fund represents slews of Muslims in similar cases. Fundamentalist Christians everywhere may be disappointed that they’ve been used as a pawn by a non-profit group to increase their legal celebrity. Honestly, the Becket Fund couldn’t care less about Mr. and Mrs. Hobby Lobby, and we now know, the SCOTUS majority couldn’t care less about women.

The Hobby Lobby Precedent Will Likely Sway the Female Vote Further into the Blue

The Hobby Lobby case has been eye-opening for many women, especially those that may have previously defined their political persuasion as “fiscally conservative/socially liberal.” Women who, perhaps, do not spend their time as a political and legislative watch-dogs but ample time on social media have seen Facebook strings and Twitter posts blow up in a most disturbing way. With men shamelessly making statements such as: “… if you want fuck coverage pay for that shit yourself” and “[t]he whiny ass bitches are the ones that didn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision” it’s becoming more difficult for women to jump on the GOP bandwagon.

Other comments by men when it comes to this issue are more obvious in their viewpoint of where women belong, such as “[r]oles in society are predetermined by our genetic makeup” and, “[g]o work somewhere else if you don’t like it”, and dismissive quips such as, “that’s like saying since men won’t pay for dinner anymore [so] women can’t eat.”

These fundamentalist self-declared Christian men are also, evidently, extremely knowledgeable in women’s medical care: “[t]he whole argument about the hormonal benefits of these pills that women take, but not for the contraceptive itself is ridiculous,” and that the “…extreme amount of pregnancies that women put themselves into by just sleeping with whomever they want because that’s what this generation does now” is by no means a reason to permit access to birth control that is only available by prescription.

Perhaps, women should just know their place: “Too many women believe the ‘my body my choice’ crap” and women should also keep this in mind next time she’s sexually assaulted: “Nobody told a chick to say yes. Nobody told her not to use protection. Nobody said she couldn’t say no.”

 

It’s Already Getting Ugly: The Fallout from Hobby Lobby Has Just Begun

As the slew of cases are now being heard on the coattails of Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College just received their injunction to ensure they too, will not be “overburdened” by providing an insurance policy that offers contraceptive care to women which, they feel, is in conflict with their deeply held religious beliefs. It only took a few days, and we are already watching angered women SCOTUS justices file scathing dissents against their male counterparts.

 

A Discouraged Woman will Likely Vote Democrat

Sadly, as women watch decades of progress get dismissed by the majority-male, conservative justices sitting on the bench in the Supreme Court (despite contentious dissents from their female counterparts), there are serious philosophical questions they must ask themselves: How do we protect and promote our economic philosophies while protecting my personal rights to my body, workplace equality, and prevent fundamentalist ideologues brow-beating me with their dogma? Since it’s merely a two-party system in for primary purposes, and until that changes, the GOP’s special-interest groups have placed the party at a great disadvantage when it comes to capturing or retaining female voter loyalty.

Christianity has its own form of Sharia Law, it seems, and while the American right-wing fundamentalist Christian men spew their disdain for all-things woman, legislate from the bench, and await the Rapture…female voters who once considered themselves fans of Reagan’s GOP, now must sadly consider jumping ship to protect themselves from the very party they once supported.

 

[1] See Women, Families and Communities: Readings in American History, (Hewitt & Delegard, 2008), 82.

[2]  Abigail Adams “chose to make a significant observation about women’s inferior legal status by putting a standard argument to new use and by applying to the position of women striking phraseology previously employed only in the male world of politics.” Major Problems in American Women’s History, (Norton & Alexander, 2007), 128.

[3] See Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America, (Evans, 1997), 31.

Hobby Lobby: A Backward Step for Women in the United States Workforce

One of the biggest downfalls of the Citizens United case is that we have created an environment where for-profit corporations are now viewed as “people” with the same religious expression rights of the individual and not for profit entities. This is extremely evident in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga decisions this week.  The IRS identifies a “privately, closely held company” as a for-profit company with share ownership by 5 or less individuals.  A closely held status is not based on size of the company, per se, and does not remove the for-profit status.  The Federal Government and the Supreme Court have now identified for-profit corporations as individuals that can impose their religious views on their employees’ health insurance options, and further, curtail medical contraceptive methods that may conflict with their Judeo-Christian beliefs. But rest assured… if you are a male employee that needs to “get it up/get it on” with Viagra, Levitra or Cialis, you’re covered without complaint. All that company has to do is say that theirs is a “sincerely held belief” however, and a woman’s access to equitable medications is denied.  The Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling (by a majority of male conservatives) gives way for oodles of future interpretations: from vaccines, to psychotropic drugs, to anything produced with marijuana, pig or cow materials for that matter. 

Some statements I’ve read in support of this ruling are simply don’t work for Hobby Lobby, then.  This argument implies that a potential female employee would know, upon application and acceptance of said employment with a “closely-held company” that the options in the hiring company’s insurance program prior to acceptance of the job limits her access to contraceptive care (this particular circumstance truly only affects women).  But because that due diligence rarely happens before enrollment and hire date, I’d say we can consider that possibility a moot point.  Not going to happen. Companies don’t divulge their entire insurance policy information to a minimum wage employee prior to the hire date.  The burden is just too much on the HR departments.

As for the gender implications… to ignore them is just plumb dumb.  There’s no moral objection against any “medications” for men – only women.  For a group of managers at a hobby company that view the Bible as their guidance, I can only state the obvious:  women, the crux and blame for all things evil in a book developed by several male authors in a religion created by a tent-maker with momma issues (Paul), will NEVER move forward if you guys keep this up. 

This is ABSOLUTELY a gender issue right now.  It’s an issue about ABORTION and about these religious organizations literally legislating our ovaries, and frankly, I’m sick of it.  I wish I could look forward to the day when the tables turn on others to feel the pinch, which, the way the SCOTUS left it, maybe that day will come in the form of denial of medicinal marijuana and drugs that may offend Hindu’s, Scientologists, or Jews. 

I’ve read the Bible-thumping, band wagoner’s expressions of glee with incredulity.  Who are we kidding, here?  I don’t look at this as though it’s some sort of boon for the individual – a company is NOT an individual.  Period.  To deny that this is about dictating a woman’s body and her healthcare options is an insult to any logical person’s intellect.

While men continue to request ED drugs and get them without hesitation, I think about the women they knock up that won’t have the RU-486 option available to her.  Or the women like me, who literally cannot use pills, shots or patches and have had to use an IUD for the past ten years to avoid hemorrhaging from the hormone issues caused by BC Pills, shots, and patches.  Or, the women who became pregnant while on a patch or pill (both of my children we conceived while on birth control), or a broken condom (on average it’s 2.5% of those using condoms according to a leading manufacturer), who now cannot turn to their regular physician for other options preventing an unwanted pregnancy and will be relegated to an outside clinic and no longer under the care of her physician. 

The same religious groups that don’t want to deal with young, unwed mothers (the majority of which are, contrary to some beliefs, white and Christian according to DHS and the CDC) have pushed for corporations to exercise individual rights to religious freedom denying these women access to low-cost contraceptive options.  Religious freedom is a right solely intended for the citizen, of which for-profit companies, closely held or not, do not qualify.  Or rather, didn’t qualify.

Religion: No matter how you slice it, the authors of the Bible simply didn’t value women in their society, and the pushers of these religious organizations still don’t view women as equals. 

I’m wary of ANY company that lays down Christianity (or ANY religion) as a road-map for management of their healthcare program when it comes to women’s issues.  Why?  Let’s take a look at how that book views women.  Authors are notated.

Leviticus author:  Unknown (Moses)

“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

I Corinthians author:  Paul (aka as Never-Married, Fatherless, Tent Maker)

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Exodus author: (unknown 6^th BCE priest)

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” (Exodus 22:18-20)

Timothy author: (Paul AGAIN)

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Ephesians author: (Paul AGAIN – he was a very busy man)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Ecclesiastes author: (Solomon)

“Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.” (Eccles. 25:13)

“Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” (Eccles. 25:22)

“If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.” (Eccles. 25: 26)

“The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.” (Eccles. 26:9-10)

“A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued.” (Eccles. 26:14-15)

“A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord.” (Eccles.26:25)

“For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach.” (Eccles. 42:13-14)

 

Good thing we have Hobby Lobby to make sure we women know our place in society.

 

Ann Coulter Struggles to Stay Relevant by Jumping on #WorldCup Hashtag

Today, I had the great displeasure of reading one of the most absurd articles I’ve read in a long time.  Ann Coulter, desperately striving to be relevant, lashed out against soccer in a way I can only relate to how an anti-social wall-flower responds to being forced to go to a middle school dance:  like a pouty kid, jealous that she’s incapable of having any fun.  Yes, Ann.  “REAL” ‘Mericans are having fun watching the World Cup and not watching some redundant interview with you.  Yes, Ann.  I’m one of them.  In fact, lately, you’ve made watching shows made for Disney’s HD Channel and the Home Shopping Network much more enjoyable.

To be honest, I’ve never been a huge soccer fan.  This year, I was more interested in the game because of the controversy surrounding FIFA’s debacle in engaging Brazil in the building, lack of completion of the building, and displacement of the population all for a series of games.  Though ousting people from their homes to make way for a sport isn’t on the top of my list of good citizen relations policies, I’ve watched (mostly) because I’ve been waiting for the civil uprisings and riots I was promised by all the national news channels.  Then, I read Coulter’s whine-fest in which she complained, “[n]o American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer.  One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.”

My business partner says I have a tendency to be oft-incredulous (and have an over-developed sense of justice).  I considered when I read Coulter’s article to qualify as one of those moments.

My knee-jerk response was righteous indignation and incredulity.  New Americans?!  Actually, Ma’am (she’s much older than I, so I get to call her Ma’am), not only was my great-grandfather from America, but our family dates back to the mid-1640’s settlement of New Amsterdam.  Yet, here I’ve been watching a game that you claim would require I take additional lessons in my mother tongue.   

Childless Coulter points her pen at parents, attacking them for raising pansies in a win-less, expressionless sport, “[l]iberal moms like soccer because it’s a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys.  No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.”  *Cue incredulity again because it’s Friday and I’m feeling generous: My daughter played soccer.  She was not only tough, she was out to win.  My son, who also loves the sport, is highly competitive in everything he does. Then I thought harder… way back into my memory bank.  I played t-ball and baseball – both on co-ed teams – as a little kid.   Then it hit me:  What the hell would Coulter know about raising children?  At 52-ish, I’m pretty sure she has… hmmm… none.

I shook off being considered a “liberal” (she hasn’t had a chance to meet me yet), and then I realized she resides, at least part time, in Palm Beach.  Of course she does.  My hometown is constantly getting infiltrated with idiots who are middle-aged, self-important, ignorant, and entitled.  Fools vying desperately to hold onto their looks, their relevance, and their audience, swarm to this sunny place for shady people like flies to spoiled meat to take what they want and debase the rest of us.  Please go back to Albany, NY.  We don’t need any more jerks down here.

After I read her article, I was reflective.  I’ll never get the thirty seconds that it took me to read her bunk article back.  Ever.  Then I began to think of what I could have accomplished in those thirty seconds that would have been more worthwhile.  For instance, I could’ve gone to the bathroom, cleaned out my coffee mug, or hugged my child.  Damn you, Coulter.

As a partner in a social media and integrated marketing firm, I give props to her for jumping on the #WorldCup hashtag bandwagon.  It’ll generate traffic, most definitely, and give her the boost from her missing “new American” viewership who would rather watch the soccer game re-runs than watch her squawking on Hannity. I think there was a time when I actually agreed with some of Coulter’s opinions, or at the very least, felt she had something interesting to contribute to political media, but I wouldn’t even admit it anymore.  I haven’t run the stats, but I imagine she’s getting a lot of traffic on the article, and with that she is S-M-R-T. 

Coulter is simply unlikeable and (obviously) ignorant when it comes to parenting.  Personally, I resent that she shares a zip code with my family and I, but I know she can live wherever she wants because of “freedom” and all that stuff that not only my family members fought for, but that I also served to preserve.  You’re welcome, Ann.  Coulter is flat-out ungrateful for what soccer is doing for her at this very moment.  Creating more traffic to her site and more hits on her social than she’d ever get without another Benghazi.  My message to Coulter as a Daughter of the Revolution:  I’m American (old, not new) and believe that soccer may one day save your life…. It certainly saved your social backlinks and traffic volume this week.

Gun Control May Not Be THE Answer to the Child Shooting Pandemic

The Valerie Strauss article published in the Washington Post this past February identified over 44 school shootings since Newtown. A chilling reality prompting many to call, née scream, for tighter gun control laws.

(Read it here: Washington Post Article)

Many non-parents see this pandemic solely as a “gun control” issue. I disagree. Though there is a completely unnecessary number of weapons in the hands of untrained individuals (adults) who think the country is set to collapse tomorrow, this is really about parents – and lawmakers – that are in total denial. The reality?

This is a cultural problem promulgated by a society that has turned out some of the absolute worst parents ever. We can thank government to an extent-the hands of parents and teachers have been tied by agencies like DCF that simply don’t see any value in discipline or rules and a softer-gentler approach to the word “NO” that includes bargaining and negotiating with toddlers, setting the stage for parents and school administrators to simply give up with the Tweens and teens that are focused and hell-bent to get what they want, when they want it, with absolutely no ability to consider long-term consequences (read Miller v. Alabama).

Coupled with the false correlation of “bad behavior = ADD/ADHD” or some other diagnosis that removes parental responsibility and repulsive “zero-tolerance” policies that no longer force school administrators to hold a singular child responsible for bad behavior (similar to the everyone gets a trophy philosophy) this has been a recipe for disaster that is finally becoming apparent in the monthly (if not weekly) reports of child murderers.

I have a possible solution. Instead of “gun control” measures that will be opposed and never make an actual impact, let’s make parents criminally responsible for the behavior of their children. Though some states have civil penalties for parents,the statutory criminal liability in most states for parents is typically confined to driving and vandalism crime parental responsibility. That’s not enough incentive to force parents to, well, parent.

My message to parents (as a parent myself):

▪️You don’t know your child as well as you think.

▪️Your child doesn’t have a right to privacy-no matter what the genius courts have ruled or what school districts and physicians and HIPAA laws say.

▪️YOU are not more important than your child, and have an absolute duty to protect society from your problem child.

▪️YOU are not a teenager-and your teenager is not an adult. He/she is also not your friend.

▪️It doesn’t take a village-nor is it that village’s responsibility-to raise your child.

▪️Stop partying and start parenting. You decided to procreate and therefore the party is over.

▪️Inspect your child’s room, meet their friends and their friends’ families.

▪️If your child commits a violent crime YOU should be held criminally responsible for negligence and charged via a felony-murder rule and face life imprisonment or the death penalty.

▪️Let’s see how fast the prospect of life in prison (for you) motivates you to parent.

Admittedly, this is not an instant fix-but neither is the idea that “gun control” will change behavior or a pharmaceutical-riddled society who seeks diagnoses over accountability. Gun control, though well-meaning, is a fallacy; just as living in a gated community makes you “more safe.”

Parental responsibility is the answer. Hold the feet of these irresponsible breeders to the proverbial fire.

Why You Shouldn’t Talk to Law Enforcement Without a Lawyer… EVER.

If the police are questioning you in relation to a crime that took place, you may already be a suspect.  At best, you are being questioned as a witness who may possibly be used to testify at trial.  At worst, you are under suspicion for the crime, and a criminal defense attorney is the best means of protecting yourself against self-incrimination and falling prey to tactics by the police to evoke a statement that may be construed as an admission of guilt.  The police are well trained to trick a suspect into confessing to a crime, and even if you didn’t commit the crime, you’d better have a lawyer present during any and all questioning.   

Police Know How to Evoke a “Confession” From You – Even if it’s False.

Too often, false confessions are the result of hours of threats, psychological stress, mental disability, and a slew of other factors.  A common method used by law enforcement to obtain “voluntary” confessions is the criticized Reid Technique. The Reid Technique, developed by John E. Reid and his colleagues in 1947, is a nine-step process used by law enforcement for interrogation.  These nine steps, outlined in an educational piece entitled “The Reid Technique of Interrogation” written by Brian C. Jayne and Joseph P. Buckley (President of John E. Reid & Associates) and published in 2004, makes statements that should alarm the criminal defense community, as well as place all citizens that are facing police questioning on notice.  For example, “[a]ll suspects start off denying involvement in the offense. The guilty suspect eventually becomes quiet and withdrawn.  At some point the guilty suspect starts to mentally debate whether or not to confess.  It is at this stage that the investigator seeks the first admission of guilt.” The Reid Technique takes an assumptive stance that all suspects “start off denying involvement” and presumably, that every suspect is a viable candidate for voluntary confession, regardless of that initial denial or the actual involvement in the crime.  The document states, “[m]ost guilty suspects and all innocent ones will offer denials during theme development. An important principle with respect to denials is that the more often a suspect denies involvement in an offense, the more difficult it is for that person to tell the truth.  If a suspect is permitted to voice too many denials he becomes committed to that position and no amount of persuasion will allow him to save enough face to tell the truth.  For this reason, the investigator will discourage the suspect from offering weak denials.”  If you are facing questioning by law enforcement in relation to any crime, remember that law enforcement utilize the Reid Technique on a regular basis.   

Wrongful Convictions – American Society’s Pandemic

According to the Innocence Project, “[i]n approximately 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made false confessions, admissions or statements to law enforcement officials.”  Those defendants spend an average of 13 years in prison before exoneration.  In their efforts to convict for a crime, law enforcement (and state prosecutors) sometimes hone in on the wrong person of interest due to faulty detective work or inadequate evidence.   If you’re being questioned in a criminal matter, the police are likely suspicious of you; they are seeking an arrest and the state is seeking a conviction.  By not having the right representation, you may be vulnerable to a system that has a history of obtaining convictions through inaccurate evidence, mis-identification by eye-witnesses, and false confessions made under duress.  

Wrongful convictions and the imprisonment of innocent people is an increasing phenomenon, and as science and law continue to intersect, more exonerations are occurring with the acceptance of better post-conviction DNA testing laws, recanted and/or corrected witness statements, invalidated forensic science results and acknowledgement of bad government procedures.  But at what price?  Thousands of innocent people, who likely thought they’d never need a lawyer because they were not guilty of the crime have been put behind bars, or worse, placed on death row.  According to the National Registry of Exonerations there were 90 exonerations of wrongful convictions in 2013 alone – and that’s certainly not the national total of individuals improperly imprisoned for crimes they didn’t commit.  Some experts estimate the number of innocents imprisoned has skyrocketed to over ten thousand people.  A study spearheaded by University of Michigan law professor Samuel R. Gross was published in April 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. In this examination entitled Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death, Gross and his fellow researchers state that identifying post-conviction, material factual evidence that proves the innocence of a convicted person has simply not been a priority as “legal review of a criminal conviction in the United States focuses primarily on procedural errors at trial rather than on the factual accuracy of the trial court’s judgment.”  The best way to avoid these types of factual errors before it’s too late is for every citizen involved in an investigation to engage an experienced criminal defense attorney right away.

Even an innocent person needs a lawyer during police questioning.  It doesn’t make you “look guilty” by invoking your right to have an attorney present.  If you are arrested or simply brought in for (seemingly innocent) questioning in a criminal matter, asking to speak with your lawyer won’t be enough to invoke your right to counsel.  You must firmly state the following:  “I am invoking my right to remain silent.  I am invoking my right to have my attorney present.”  It is then that the police should stop their line of questioning until you have retained a lawyer to be present during questioning.  Don’t place yourself in a vulnerable position in a criminal investigation. With the rates of incarceration skyrocketing, it’s simply unwise to talk to police without a lawyer on your side.

A Jury of (a few of) Your Peers

You may have heard of the film “12 Angry Men” the 1957 Sidney Lumet drama starring Henry Fonda. It depicted the deliberations of a jury facing the quandary of reasonable doubt and a unanimous verdict requirement (that’s not quite accurate) in the criminal trial of a young man charged with the stabbing death of his father in which a guilty verdict would result in the death penalty.

Earlier this week, I wrote an article for a criminal defense attorney about juries and what exactly comprises a jury? You may be surprised to learn that the size and makeup of a jury has been debated quite a bit – and not in the favor of the citizen, but certainly, in the favor of the state. And that idea of unanimous verdict…? That’s not what you might think, either. Read on…

“Why do juries have 6 or 12 people? Why not 5? Why not 50?”

The number of jurors in criminal cases is a highly debated topic within the legal community. Under the Sixth Amendment, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committee.” The Sixth Amendment insures the right to a jury, and combined with the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, there is a right to a due process in determining the composition or structure of a jury. However, the specificity as to how many of those impartial jurors are necessary to ensure a fair trial for a defendant, while simultaneously providing a representative cross-section of the community, was not clearly outlined by the framers of the Constitution, and this ambiguity has caused much controversy over the past century.

The number of jurors assigned to criminal trials historically relied on the Magna Carta of 1215 (also known as The Great Charter), and English Common Law. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan penned, “When Magna Charta declared that no freeman should be deprived of life, etc., ‘but by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land,’ it referred to a trial by twelve jurors” Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 350 (1898). The general rule adopted by the Court was for a jury of twelve (white) males.

It was in 1970 that Justice Byron White opined that the generally accepted twelve-man jury was arbitrary, even historically accidental, and that a six member jury was constitutionally sufficient. The opinion effectively altered the generally accepted jury size of twelve men. He stated, “[i]n short, while sometime in the 14th century the size of the jury at common law came to be fixed generally at 12, that particular feature of the jury system appears to have been a historical accident, unrelated to the great purposes which gave rise to the jury in the first place.” Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 (1970). While Justice White found the twelve-man jury to be unnecessary, accidental and somewhat arbitrary, Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, “[a]s I see it, the Court has not made out a convincing case that the Sixth Amendment should be read differently than it was in Thompson even if the matter were now before us de novo—much less that an unbroken line of precedent going back over 70 years should be overruled. The arguments made by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN in Part IB of his opinion persuade me that Thompson was right when decided and still states sound doctrine. I am equally convinced that the requirement of 12 should be applied to the States.” Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 117 (1970).

Eight years later, another case that called to question the matter of jury size came to the Supreme Court, and the Court acknowledged that, though the number six was a bit arbitrary, they had to draw a line somewhere. Justice Powell, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist, admitted in Ballew “the line between five-and six-member juries is difficult to justify, but a line has to be drawn somewhere if the substance of jury trial is to be preserved.” Justice Powell then questioned the methodology with which the Court came to its conclusion stating, “I have reservations as to the wisdom— as well as the necessity—of Mr. Justice Blackmun’s heavy reliance on numerology derived from statistical studies. Moreover, neither the validity nor the methodology employed by the studies cited was subjected to the traditional testing mechanisms of the adversary process. The studies relied on merely represent unexamined findings of persons interested in the jury system.” Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223, 246 (1978).

From an outside point of view, jury size debates may seem more like hair-splitting bickering between attorneys, bar associations, courts and legislators. The reality, however, is many case-critical issues arise from a reduced jury size. Many scholars allege that the Williams decision was made using mostly untested research and possibly misinterpreted empirical data and that six-person juries are unable to confer and communicate as effectively during deliberations, often eliminate essential minority group representation, and that their collective memory for factual aspects of the cases are significantly less than in the larger twelve-person jury. Smaller juries, argue academics and scientists, result in more convictions and a higher probability of convicting innocent defendants.

Though six-person juries are considered constitutional by the Court, there is a caveat that was outlined by Justice Rehnquist in his opinion: “However, much the same reasons that led us in Ballew to decide that use of a five-member jury threatened the fairness of the proceeding and the proper role of the jury, lead us to conclude now that conviction for a nonpetty offense by only five members of a six-person jury presents a similar threat to preservation of the substance of the jury trial guarantee and justifies our requiring verdicts rendered by six-person juries to be unanimous.” Burch v. Louisiana, 441 US 130, 138 (1979). In other words, twelve-person juries do not require a unanimous verdict – but six-person juries do.

The questions remain: What size jury is truly a representative cross-section of the community? Are the smaller juries statistically and repeatedly resulting in the convictions of innocent persons? As more scientific and empirical data is collected, analyzed, and more cases are tested in front of the Supreme Court, we may see a revision to those numbers again in the not-to-distant future.