Hang that jury, vote for that mouse.

Regarding the murder of Michael Brown President Obama refers to the rule of law, a nation of laws and so on. Recently I read the Rolling Stone article about Attorney General Eric Holder's choice not to prosecute our nation's most criminal bankers. They paid a fine.
It also seems clear that the CIA, with the acceptance of the White House, will steamroll the very people who have been legally set up to oversee them - the US Senate. On and on go the lies and not enough citizens are enraged enough to demand change and see it through. I remember when, over the issue of gun control, the President said 'make me do it,' or some similar words. I think that if enough people had demanded change we would have gotten some, but we think all we need to do is vote for change every four years and it will be done. Or we thought that six years ago when we elected Obama.
I just read a few remarks from Howard Dean the former leader of the Democratic National Committee. His 50 state strategy for Democrats laid the groundwork for Obama's remarkable campaigns. The result was good for Democrats and bad for America, because as Dean admits, the Dems did not have state and local strategies for state and local governments. "All politics are local" goes the old adage, but the Dems focused too much only on winning the Presidency. As a result even Obamacare is on it's way out because of one stupid line in the law and the USA's willingness to kowtow to the royalty that is the Supreme Court. That stupid line counted on the states to set up exchanges which clearly they had no obligation to do.

We need to look at jury duty in a new light. It is our willingness to be so dutiful and a fear of falling into lawlessness that motivates the concerned citizen, yet so many prosecutors and police have no willingness to be dutiful. Our country is top-down lawless. It's time to use our own judgement. Be that 12th juror who refuses to change his/her vote. If you err, err on the side of your mind and heart not on the side of corrupted "justice." Be that change you which to see.
Deny the Presidency to the Democratic Party. Worrisome? The Republicans might lead us to hell tomorrow? Big deal because the new deal is that the Democrats will lead us to hell in a week.
These two things are within our grasp easily. If you are called for jury duty and put on that jury then do the right thing for justice, knowing that we are most certainly a nation governed by men, not laws, so be that wo/man. Most of us want change, but do not want to take it to the streets. Now that we know change is not going to come from today's Democratic Party, I say the true vote for change is the vote that punishes the Democratic Party. Mickey Mouse.

it's called "jury duty", yes and it's also our right

This link to a piece by Natasha Lennard in Salon made me do a double take. My first reaction was sympathy with the concept of non-cooperation with a grand jury investigation, but as I read on common sense overwhelmed my knee-jerk reaction. The story deals with people who refuse to cooperate with any grand jury because of anarchist principles. My synapses took me to two memories related to a time I was called for regular jury duty. I listened to a man pleading with a court officer for release from duty because he feared retaliation from the family of the accused. Furthermore, he made the case that all people of his race should be excused from juries in trials of fellow Navajos. (I name the race because it seems to leave it out would result in an assumption of the incorrect race.) One could easily make the argument that no group of people should try to be left out of trials involving one's peer group! Only those who do not understand the nature of criminal justice in America's reservation borderlands could think that all trials involving Native Americans should be handled by native laws, people, and traditions.
I told the arguments of this man to a coworker who is also a Native American. She agreed with him, but specifically stated a fear that all reasonable people should have of retaliation and, furthermore, she stated an implicit trust in law enforcement. "If they are brought before a grand jury, they must have done something"
I see this woman's argument as the polar opposite of anarchy - fascism. Both are dangerous to our freedoms. Both are stupid.
Jury duty is both a duty and a right in our democratic system. When any juror feels pressured to change his/her mind and s/he relents, that person is a moral coward. Whereas in many places in many times, freedoms have been brutally seized from the people, it is a sickening fact that Americans willingly give up our freedoms at the least hint of trouble.
The exact case that the hero of Lennard's blog refused to cooperate in was a "small, victimless explosion of an incendiary device at a Times Square army recruitment center in 2008." Oh, well, let us praise the anarchists who apply the concept of "nobody talks, everybody walks" to the terrorist threat, Natasha. In fact, the entire concept is so stupid that it reminds me of the perversions of protest that grew out of the activist '60s, the Weathermen for instance. These anarchic perversions of what is right and just do great harm to the cause of justice and freedom. They twist the simple-minded into lumping anarchists with socialists, non-violent demonstrators with molotov cocktail - throwing revolutionaries.
Ms. Lennard, are you a revolutionary or are you a CIA/FBI plant? Is Salon practicing journalism or pandering to the ignorant masses? Are we as a people still capable of analytical thought or are we programed?