Want to Get Out of Jury Duty? Here’s a Foolproof Method!

Let's start with some background on courthouse security. On August 7, 1970, a deadly incident took place at the Marin County Courthouse in California. Judge Harold Haley was killed when Jonathan Jackson, using guns allegedly supplied by Angela Davis, attempted to free three inmates, taking several hostages in a violent escape attempt.

Another serious courthouse event occurred on September 22, 1971, at the Cook County Criminal Courthouse in Chicago. I was actually in the building, two floors below, when it happened. Convicted murderer Gene "Iceman" Lewis, during his court appearance, grabbed a gun left for him on a bookshelf by a lovestruck lady court clerk. He then disarmed the chief bailiff and took two hostages. He was quickly shot and killed by three police officers. After this incident, Presiding Judge, Joseph A. Power issued an order requiring every person entering the courthouse to be physically searched by Sheriff’s Police. This was the first courthouse in the country to implement such security measures, and soon after, courthouses nationwide followed suit.

Initially, Sheriff’s Police had to conduct hand searches, as metal detectors were not yet in use. For the first few months, they averaged 30 arrests a day for illegal concealed weapons until word got out. Eventually, court bailiffs took over these duties, and metal detectors are now standard.

So, you want to know how to get out of jury duty?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, stating: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Court orders requiring searches depend on you voluntarily waiving your Fourth Amendment rights before entering the building. The truth is, you don't have to submit to these searches. Of course, security won't let you in without complying, but this is where your strategy comes in.

When you receive your jury summons, write a letter to the presiding judge of the court. Politely state that while you are willing to serve on a jury, you are not willing to waive your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Indicate that you will not voluntarily submit to a search like a common criminal. Conclude by saying that you are happy to serve, provided they can ensure you are not subjected to any search of your person or property when entering the courthouse.

The court has no legal way to force you to waive your constitutional rights. They certainly won't want to set a precedent by making exceptions. As a result, they will excuse you from jury duty.

If I need you, I’ll page you! Ouch!

Beirut, Lebanon—In a turn of events that even Hollywood couldn’t script, Hezbollah just got a mouthful of their own medicine. Israel has been making waves, laser-targeting Hamas and other terror leaders by exploiting cell phone vulnerabilities like a hacker in a spy thriller.

To dodge these high-tech takedowns, the terrorists thought they'd outsmart the system by dusting off some 90s relics—pagers. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, pagers are “unhackable,” but there’s one little hiccup: they’re one-way communication devices. Not exactly cutting-edge, but hey, it allowed them to shoot off a mass page and summon their foot soldiers for military action. Low-tech and effective... until it wasn't.

In a desperate rush, Hezbollah bought up a batch of pagers. Now, where they found these ancient gadgets is anyone’s guess—eBay? A RadioShack that never closed? But credit goes to some real Einstein who figured out a way to booby-trap them. These pagers came with a “special delivery”—an explosive surprise rigged with buckshot. One mass call later, a series of pager bombs wiped out Hezbollah’s finest in the blink of an eye. Eight top fighters were turned into history books, and another 3000 were maimed, some beyond recognition.

Medical resources? Completely overwhelmed. Terrorists? Benched—some permanently. Talk about a tactical takedown!

No one’s claiming responsibility for this inventive military strategy, but all eyes are on Israel. Hezbollah is vowing revenge, but with most of their fighters now wearing hospital gowns, good luck with that!

Adding insult to injury, paranoia has gripped the ranks. Who’s going to trust any communication device now? The mere thought of checking messages could trigger their newly acquired PTSD. Fighting a war without communications? That’s like playing chess blindfolded.

And let’s be real: Iran might want to sit this one out. Israel's got a nuclear hammer, and Iran’s looking pretty light in the arsenal department. 

So You Want "James Bond" Style Silencer? It’s Easier Than You Think!

Dallas, TX— Silencers or suppressors have often been glamorized in movies, exaggerating their effectiveness in quieting firearms. While once legal, the National Firearms Act of 1934 introduced a $200 transfer fee, heavily taxing ownership rather than banning them outright.

Until recently, buyers of suppressors had to wait months for approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). However, reports now indicate that BATFE is processing applications in just days, perhaps because of impending court rulings that may eliminate their control over these devices. Three ongoing court challenges could remove suppressor regulations altogether.

Despite their mystique, suppressors can’t defy the laws of physics. Bullets traveling faster than 1,100 feet per second still produce a sonic boom. While suppressors reduce sound levels, they’re not as whisper-quiet as Hollywood suggests. Instead, they primarily protect the shooter from hearing damage, a significant issue—especially among military personnel. In fact, the VA purchases more hearing aids than any other entity worldwide.

Currently, eight Democrat-controlled states and the District of Columbia ban suppressor ownership. While legal challenges are ongoing, BATFE still restricts these devices in those areas. 

States currently prohibiting civilian ownership of suppressors include:

1. California

2. Delaware

3. Hawaii

4. Illinois

5. New York

6. New Jersey

7. Rhode Island

8. Massachusetts

9. The District of Columbia

Local cops using LPR Data captured would be presidential assassin Ryan Wesley Roth.

 

Martin County, FL—An anonymous bystander played a pivotal role in the capture of would-be presidential assassin Ryan Wesley Routh. Using his phone, the individual snapped a photo of Routh’s license plate and quickly alerted authorities. Police utilized License Plate Reader (LPR) technology to track and arrest the suspect.

LPRs are high-resolution cameras that capture license plates, along with the time, date, and location of a vehicle. These devices are either stationary on roads or mounted on vehicles. In this case, a network of LPR cameras in the area helped localize the suspect.

LPR technology is becoming an essential tool in modern law enforcement. It can place a suspect near a crime scene or miles away, offering crucial evidence in trials. Data from LPRs, far more reliable than eyewitness accounts, are increasingly used in court to either incriminate or exonerate suspects. Along with other data related surveillance tools, LPRs have significantly increased crime-solving efficiency.

While the use of LPR technology and operators is protected under the First Amendment, it raises privacy concerns, as it can track individuals without their knowledge. However, its applications extend beyond crime-solving; LPRs have been used in cases of infidelity and other personal investigations. As LPRs proliferate, their impact on both public safety and privacy continues to grow. For those interested in deploying this technology, LPR systems are readily available for purchase on platforms like Amazon.

This incident highlights both the power and the privacy implications of LPR technology, which is becoming more prevalent in law enforcement and personal use.

The Rise and Fall of New Times Founders, Michael Lacey and James Larkin

Michael Lacey and James Larkin

Phoenix, AZ— When I moved to Arizona, I came across an interesting free newspaper—an alternative publication filled  with articles by incredibly talented writers. The paper offered long-form articles that you just don’t see in the daily newspapers across the country. The New Times had no hesitation when it came to exposing government waste, fraud, and corruption. Sadly, today’s media offers very little in terms of criticism aimed at the government, perhaps because journalists fear becoming victims of political retaliation.

The New Times was founded by Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin. While I don’t know much about Larkin, Lacey was a highly regarded journalist with a significant public profile.

Together, the duo expanded their New Times brand, creating numerous publications in various cities. These papers have won countless awards for their outstanding journalism.

During this time, newspapers across the country failed to notice the growing competition from Craigslist. But they certainly noticed when their advertising revenue started shifting to the new online platform. In response, the New Times began accepting ads from massage parlors, escorts, and others selling sexually suggestive services. 

Lacey and Larkin made hundreds of millions of dollars from the ads on their Backpage.com. Not bad for a free publication.

The federal government eventually went after Lacey and Larkin, not because of the ads themselves, but due to the illegal activities of those placing them—pimps, human traffickers, and desperate individuals, including women forced into prostitution to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Historically, humans have always found ways to profit from sexual services, including child trafficking. I don't believe Backpage did anything illegal, but that didn’t stop authorities from arresting Lacey and Larkin and charging them with a mountain of criminal offenses. They were forced to wear ankle monitors throughout the lengthy pre-trial period. When the case finally went to trial, the jury failed to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. The government wasted no time in seeking a retrial.

As their attorneys prepared for the retrial, Jim Larkin tragically took his own life, seemingly overwhelmed by the ordeal. When the case returned to court, the new jury only reached a verdict on one count of money laundering. Successful companies often hire accountants to creatively handle their finances, particularly to minimize tax liability. Was this guilty verdict merely a compromise to satisfy the prosecutors’ efforts?

Lacey was ultimately sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay a $3 million fine. Meanwhile, most of the sex-related charges could potentially be retried for a third time, dragging this costly case through yet another chapter of a taxpayer-funded legal Odyssey.  

Lacey, now 76 years old, which coincidentally is the average life expectancy for American males. He’s been ordered to report to prison this month, and if the government moves forward with a third trial, he’ll be dragged out of prison to face it. At this point, another trial seems as pointless as beating a dead horse.   

American gun prohibitions were not born out of public safety fears, but abject racism.

 

In the United States Supreme Court , Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (60 U.S. 393, 417): Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made remarks that implicitly referenced the right to bear arms as one of the fundamental rights that would have been extended to African Americans had they been recognized as citizens. While the case is primarily known for its rulings on citizenship and slavery, Taney's opinion lists several rights that would have followed from recognizing African-Americans as citizens. One of these rights included the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Here is the relevant passage from Chief Justice Taney's opinion:

“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

This part of Taney's opinion suggested that one consequence of recognizing African Americans as citizens would be granting them the constitutional rights associated with citizenship, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He used this as an argument against recognizing African Americans as citizens, as it would entitle them to the full protection of the Bill of Rights.

The language here reflects the mindset of the time, where extending these fundamental rights to African Americans was seen by Taney as undesirable and inconsistent with the legal and social norms of the era.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in early 1956, shortly after his house was bombed during the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama. At the time, Dr. King and his family were under significant threat due to his leadership in the civil rights movement. 

The incident that prompted Dr. King to consider arming himself occurred on January 30, 1956, when a bomb exploded at his home in Montgomery, Alabama. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but this attack deeply alarmed Dr. King and his supporters. In response, Dr. King sought a permit to carry a firearm for self-defense. However, despite the heightened threats against him, his application for a concealed carry permit was denied by local authorities. Alabama, at the time, had a discriminatory system that made it difficult for African-Americans to legally carry firearms.

Mahatma Gandhi made a notable remark about the British policy of disarming the Indian population in his work, "An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth"(1927-1929). Here is the exact quote: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” This statement reflects Gandhi's belief that disarming the Indian populace was a grave injustice. 

Make no mistake: early American gun laws were rooted in permit systems specifically designed to prevent Black people from owning or carrying firearms. These gun control measures quickly spread up the East Coast like wildfire. When they reached New York, the issuance of permits depended largely on which ethnic group held the majority at the time. Throughout U.S. history, it became common practice for local sheriffs to sell gun permits for cash, turning the process into a tradition of corruption.

The Tactics of Gun Control Zealots

I first became aware of the concerted efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment as we know it back in the 1960s. It was then that I realized just how relentless these anti-gun advocates are, and they haven't stopped since.

For years, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ignored blatant violations of the Second Amendment. They hadn’t taken a case on this issue since United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Miller case was an aberration , and by the time it reached the High Court, the defendant and defense lawyer had vanished, leaving no one to argue the case. The justices, lacking proper firearm knowledge , rendered a factually mistaken opinion. They absurdly claimed that short-barreled shotguns had no military application—despite the military’s use of 12-gauge trench guns at the time. The Court did, however, acknowledge that those weapons useful to the military were indeed protected under the Second Amendment But they refused to protect them. 

The Miller ruling allowed significant restrictions on certain arms and "destructive devices," requiring registration and hefty taxes—$200 per weapon—on these military weapons. Yet, these weapons weren’t banned outright, just regulated into near-obscurity through burdensome requirements.

The 1934 gun control act clearly violated the second amendment.  The high court refused to take even one case that would until 2022 with Bruen. 

Decades passed, and a liberal-dominated Supreme Court conveniently avoided Second Amendment cases, particularly those questioning whether the Second Amendment was enforceable against the states via the 14th Amendment. That changed with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In Heller, the Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban. Then, just two years later, the Court delivered another victory for gun rights in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).  McDonald applied the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment, forcing cities like Chicago to allow gun owners to obtain shall issue concealed carry permits.

Fast forward to 2022, and we saw the most significant gun rights victory yet in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Bruen ruling essentially signals the end of almost every restriction on the possession and carrying of modern firearms. If applied correctly, it could invalidate the National Firearms Act of 1934 and nearly all state and local gun control laws.

Now that we’ve covered the legal landscape, let’s dive into the deceptive and manipulative tactics employed by those who despise gun rights. My first exposure to this came from Connecticut Senator Thomas Dodd, who introduced some of the most ridiculous gun control bills every session. Fortunately, most of his ideas went nowhere.

In the 1960s, a grieving father named Peter Shields, whose son had been murdered with a handgun, and armed-robbery victim Mark Borinsky launched a crusade to abolish handguns. They founded Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as Brady: United Against Gun Violence). Named after James Brady, President Reagan’s press secretary, was shot by John Hinckley during the infamous 1981 assassination attempt. After Brady's tragic injury, his wife Sarah Brady took up the mantle of the gun control group, and Brady became a household name.

These fanatics have tried every trick in the book to manipulate public opinion about firearms. Their first campaign aimed to ban all handguns, but that failed. Next, they went after small, inexpensive pocket handguns, branding them "Saturday Night Specials." That effort also flopped. Undeterred, Sarah Brady and her team switched tactics, stoking fear among the ignorant public by labeling semi-automatic rifles—such as the AR-15 and AK-47—as "assault rifles." These firearms may look like military weapons, but their military counterparts are fully automatic and classified as machine guns. The Brady Bunch conveniently omitted that fact in their propaganda.

Not stopping there, they turned their sights on compact firearms of .38 caliber and larger, branding them "Pocket Rockets." That campaign failed as well, but it didn’t slow down their zealotry. The leftist media played right into their hands, acting as a mouthpiece for Brady's misleading campaigns, amplifying their falsehoods to a broad audience.

Nothing was too outlandish for these anti-gun crusaders. They eagerly spread fabricated studies that portrayed gun ownership in the worst possible light. One of their more infamous lies was that Glock pistols were invisible to modern metal detectors used in airports. This scare tactic led our brain-dead Congress to outlaw undetectable firearms that don’t even exist!

Since Sarah Brady’s death, the torch has been passed to other groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. These groups, like Brady, are pushing Congress and state legislatures to pass law after law—laws that, thanks to the Bruen decision, are destined to be struck down.

Many of these anti-gun organizations are nothing more than money-making machines operating for looting much like the master embezzler, Wayne LaPierre did absconding with millions in NRA membership dues.  They collect dues from America’s gun-hating zealots, but rather than making any real progress, they use the money to fund their leaders’ luxurious lifestyles. The hypocrisy is glaring.

The voters of Santa Monica are incredibly stupid people.

 

Santa Monica, CA— this was once a gorgeous seaside tourist attraction.  Had an amazing pier with good restaurants and the Third Street Promenade was loaded with thriving businesses.  Every evening talented street performers were everywhere to be found.  Over the past 20 years, the politicians have allowed the mentally ill and criminals to victimize tourists and residents alike.  As a result the area has lost its luster along with scores of businesses of course, the tax revenue they once enjoyed..

Santa monica was taken over by a bunch of fiercely committed socialists that unleashed the worst possible policies on its population.  The residents keep voting for these incredibly destructive. Democrats are responsible for the destruction of Santa monica.  Frankly, they deserve the huge increase in crime.  They can’t even go for a peaceful walk to a Starbucks.  Either their streets are too dangerous or the Starbucks is gone.  

The voters of Santa monica must be among the most stupid people on earth.  They turned a once beautiful, thriving community into a shit hole.  

Social Media is in a Full Fledged Civil War

 

In the chaotic maelstrom of the Information Age, the manipulation of truth is nothing new. First, it was newspapers. The printed word became gospel, and if it was inked on paper, it was automatically deemed true. Radio followed, its trusted voice reaching living rooms across the globe. People, ever eager to believe in authority, took these mediums at face value. But as always, propaganda lurked behind the curtain. 

Then came a master manipulator who elevated this art form to a terrifying new level. Joseph Goebbels, with cold precision, orchestrated a multi-platform strategy, deploying print, radio, and film to craft a narrative that swayed the masses. The German public, like so many before and after them, trusted these platforms, believing they were consuming pure, unadulterated truth.

But Goebbels didn’t stop there. He infiltrated Germany’s schools, poisoning young minds with propaganda disguised as education. Trusted institutions became tools of manipulation. The power to control public opinion through propaganda, as Orwell rightly observed, is nothing short of horrifying.

Enter Adolf Hitler, catapulted to fame and power by the very machinery Goebbels mastered. The lessons learned from this dark chapter weren’t lost on governments around the world. In America, President Franklin Roosevelt took to the airwaves, his "fireside chats" a precursor to the Left’s future domination of media. Roosevelt’s team of propagandists set out to claim ownership of every information platform, nudging America ever further leftward.

Fast forward to the 1980s: a new medium emerged—talk radio. Not that radio itself was new, but its use as a vehicle for conservative thought was revolutionary. It wasn’t ideology that made this happen—it was economics. Conservatives, systematically blocked from newspapers and television networks, found an untapped market. It was in this space that Rush Limbaugh rose to prominence, and the Left, threatened by this disruption, sneered at it as "hate radio."

The television landscape wasn’t much better. Rupert Murdoch, a Left-leaning mogul, saw a business opportunity in launching Fox News, catering to a conservative audience starved for representation. But as the channel's personalities gained popularity, they were abruptly axed, leaving Fox News as a pseudo-conservative echo chamber. The illusion of opposition served Murdoch’s interests well.

Then came the Internet, promising a digital utopia of free speech. Yet, as it evolved, the major platforms—Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook—fell into the hands of leftists bent on censorship. Their mission was clear: stifle conservative voices. And they did. Shadowbanning, manipulated algorithms, and convoluted terms of service were deployed to muzzle any dissenting opinion. Conveniently, it was always the conservatives who were silenced.

Amidst this, foreign powers like Russia and China entered the fray, adding another layer to the propaganda war. And let’s not forget the rise of clickbait—an obnoxious tactic designed to lure people in with sensational headlines, only to deliver empty content. The entire Internet, once seen as a beacon of free expression, had become a battleground where truth was a casualty.

In political campaigns, the Internet breeds chaos. Campaign finance laws mean little when digital advertising and viral memes can shift elections overnight. I’ve long avoided contributing to campaigns directly, opting instead to wield my voice on social media. But even that space is under siege, with so-called "fact-checkers" and censors working tirelessly to suppress anything that doesn’t fit the Left’s narrative.

And now, artificial intelligence looms on the horizon, an unpredictable force that will undoubtedly be used to further control the masses. Orwell warned us about this—the endless desire of those in power to manipulate, to dominate, to control minds. Today, in the age of digital information, that warning has never been more prescient.