Monday, July 4, 2011

Justice Broken: The Casey Anthony Murder Trial and the Future of American Democracy

Justice Broken

The Gladiatorial Model

The U.S. model of jurisprudence is based on the notion of adversarial conflict between prosecution and defense.  The basic presumption is that the Truth will prevail as a result of the two sides fighting it out  in front of a jury of twelve citizens who must all agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty on each charge. 

The gladiatorial nature of American court room proceedings cannot be better illustrated than by the high profile, Casey Anthony murder trial.  Yesterday’s fireworks in the court room was an apt prelude to the celebrations going on today all over the nation as we celebrate our Independence and the Constitutional principles on which the country was founded.  It is a reminder to all of us not to sit idly by and to allow these principles to be compromised or lost.

As lead defense attorney, Jose Baez, called to our attention so dramatically in his closing arguments to the jury, the Casey Anthony trial has become, not a search for the Truth, but rather, it is all “about winning.”  It is about ego and media exposure.  It is about the politics that prompt the mollification of the raging beast of public opinion, which almost instantly reared its nasty head, when the details of the missing child in this case came to light.

The public outcry that resulted, when it was learned in June 2008 that the child had been missing for 31 days while her mother was partying, spending time with her boyfriend, and getting the “Bella Vita” (Beautiful Life) tattoo, was monumental.  Casey was tried and convicted of murder in the mainstream and social media shortly after (probably even before) the child’s remains were discovered in December 2008.  The outcry intensified into a lynch mob mentality and turned into a three-year long Witch Trial.  The formal trial was only the epilogue.

The antics of the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, throughout the trial is a case in point, but they were no better revealed than in his smirking, smiling, and even abortively laughing during the closing argument given by Baez.   Witness, also, the curious take-over by  Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jan Garavaglia, after her  subordinate medical examiner, Dr. Gary Utz, began examining the remains.  Utz testified that this was because Dr. Garavaglia had a good relationship with the police.  She later became the subject of intense controversy when she conducted what the eminent forensic pathologist, Dr. Werner Spitz, called a shoddy autopsy of the child’s remains.  And, this was intensified by her finding that the child’s death represented a homicide, based not on forensic evidence but upon other reported characteristics of the case.

In a capital murder case, the court room gladiators fight it out, wielding the best weapons, legal and psychological, which they can muster.  The jury looks on, not unlike the spectators in a Roman Coliseum waiting for one of the gladiators to subdue the other.  The only real difference between the situation in ancient Rome and today’s court room is that the trial judge is interposed between the gladiators and the spectators who are the ultimate decision- makers as to whether the vanquished foe should die at the hands of the victor.  At the conclusion of all the battling, the judge charges the jury to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. 

The decision by the jury is, of course, not a majority vote process as in the coliseum.  All twelve jurors must agree.  However, we hear of “compromise verdicts” in the jury room.  This is akin to the gladiator assessing the nature of the crowd reaction and since it seems to be split 50-50, he lets his adversary live, but chops off his legs.  As a defendant in such a trial, who has been wrongly charged, would you regard a “compromise” finding of guilt to a lesser charge a carriage, or a miscarriage, of justice? 

There is something fundamentally flawed in our legal system, when decisions can be made so willy-nilly and are determined by psychological and emotional factors, not to mention the group dynamics of the jury room which can involve molding group opinion through power differentials among the jury members.  Some people lead; some people follow; some people are suggestible, others may be almost hypnotic in their ability to persuade.

Furthermore, psychological research has demonstrated that most human beings make decisions based on emotion not on rational evaluation of evidence, no matter how much they might protest to the contrary.  People vary in their ability to process the large amounts of evidence and information that is presented in a trial.  Some are capable of thinking nonlinearly such that they see the larger picture of the case and not just the limited pictures which the prosecution and defense try to present for their consumption.  Others tend to function in a more linear, analytical way and cannot see the forest for the path down which their minds, steeped in their unique, past experiences impel them to travel.

Add to this the fact that most attorneys and jury experts agree that the trial is over after jury selection.  Conviction or acquittal is already written in the character of the persons selected.  Thus, I ask: Is this any way to run a system of justice?

Toward a Truer Justice 

The Casey Anthony trial is a clarion call to all of us.  What is transpiring in Orlando, Florida, as everyone awaits a verdict, has implications that rock the very foundation of our Republic.  We desperately need to rethink the archaic model of jurisprudence that we have been using.  Can we really say that it is the best?  Can we really even say that it is acceptable, especially given the fact that a person can be condemned to death based on circumstantial evidence, which has only been linked to the defendant in the most tenuous way, if at all?  This is not to mention the fact that we have so many death row cases that have been overturned because of the presentation of new evidence.  Is it not a system that is being stressed to its limits by social media like Facebook and Twitter?

Perhaps, we need a new profession, viz., individuals scientifically selected for their capacity for processing and evaluating information critically, individuals capable of using their entire brains, integrating the emotional and rational aspects of their being such that they can function with wisdom that is denied others whose minds function in a more linear, non-patterned manner.  We have professional lawyers and judges.  Why not professional jurors?  I envision that these would be the cream of the crop and because of their breadth of thinking capacity, they would be far less likely to get caught up in the typical cliques and liaisons in the jury decision process that result in hung juries and compromise decisions.  Furthermore, they could arrive at their final verdict using principles of consent, rather than coercion and compromise, whereby a dissenter is valued and not maligned as a holdout.  Such principles would recognize that dissenters may stimulate better processing of information and a verdict that is likely to be closer to the truth than the original majority view.  Such principles in decision-making have been amply discussed in the field of Sociocracy, information about which can be easily found by Googling this term.

Thursday, June 9, 2011


The American Pledge of Allegiance ends with the familiar phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” We all recite this pledge automatically, as we were taught in childhood. But, does anyone anymore really think of the meaning of these words, or have they become just words?

On a recent telecast, Nancy Grace, the argumentative news commentator, spoke of seeking justice for the dead toddler, Caylee Anthony. Then, she proceeded to lament the presence of a juror in the murder trial of the dead child’s young mother, who appears behaviorally to have doubts about the prosecution's case. She labeled this juror as a "nut job" who could prevent "justice" for Caylee. One has to question the meaning of "justice" in Grace's mind.

Is not our legal system based on the presumption of innocence of the accused?  It is not beholden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?  Thus, is not the doubt of the outlying juror to be respected, not vilified to further Grace’s agenda?  Is this not what "justice" is all about?  Justice is for everyone or it is for no one. Grace's emotional sentimentality has clouded her judgment and she is serving as a firebrand, stirring up emotions in the public, especially in women, by playing to their maternal instincts, doubts, and personal tragedies.

The sad thing about this whole sordid and tragic media circus is that it speaks volumes about where this nation has come. Many people are inclined to rush to an emotional judgment that cuts to the core of our Republic and all for which it stands. They, like Nancy Grace, are willing to sacrifice one human being and the core principles of our Republic so that they can promote their cause or personal agenda. Grace wants to see justice done for the child. Though she is arguably the worst in her demagoguery, she is not alone. tinually, other commentators in the media play upon emotions, speaking about justice for "little Caylee."  But, is it not simply justice (read retribution) for the child and not truly liberty and justice for all?  Wouldn't miscarriage of justice in the case of Casey Anthony be miscarriage of justice for Caylee?

We need continually to remind ourselves that it is the truth that is important, not the "truth" as we are inclined emotionally to see it. The Anthony family situation is so complex and convoluted and our information so limited regarding the actual circumstances and cause of death that anything is possible. There is no direct evidence tying Casey to her daughter’s death and certainly no direct evidence of murder. There are many possible scenarios and explanations for the circumstantial evidence which the prosecution has presented. A number of people have uniformly observed, both in and out of court, that Casey was a doting mother in many respects when she was seen with her child. This doesn’t mean that she was, by any means “a good mother,” but there is certainly evidence that she had a relationship with her daughter that was inconsistent with being a murderess.

Yesterday, the prosecution presented evidence of the searches performed from Casey’s computer. There were some incongruous items included with the chloroform searches that seemed to suggest that it was a young male who entered the search terms or at least one who thought like a young male, viz., self-defense, hand-to-hand combat, as well as other terms such as internal bleeding, chest trauma, ruptured spleen, head injuries, all of which might be of interest to someone who was fascinated with the potential damage to an adversary which could be inflicted using some form of martial arts.

We need, as former talk show host, Larry King, said in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, to withhold judgment until the whole trial plays out, i.e., until the defense presents its case. And, I would add that we need to respect the judicial process which requires that a jury verdict be unanimous and not be maligning jurors who don’t appear to go along with the crowd. As King said, the media has already tried and convicted Casey. He was unwilling to go along with this mob frenzy, and for this I applaud him.

If the general public is so quick to throw away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the case of a person so uniformly disliked as Casey Anthony, thus dispensing with both liberty and justice, then should we be at all surprised that these same people are not distressed when their representatives in Congress or the Executive Branch throw away liberty and justice in bending the Constitution’s commerce and general welfare causes to suit their personal agendas or those of the lobbyists who “buy” their votes.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

The Casey Anthony Trial: Shades of the "Either-Or" Mentality in the Political Process



Photo by Jonathan Horowitz

Hello, Everyone.  I haven’t posted here for more than a year and the site desperately needs updating.  However, I’ll have to attend to this task later.  Just ignore the stuff in the right-hand margin.  That being said, I want to share some thoughts that have been weighing on my mind of late.  As I ponder and lament the landslide rush to judgment which has been occurring in the Casey Anthony murder trial, long before all of the evidence and arguments have been submitted in court, I am struck yet again with the unfortunate, but characteristic, human failing that leads people to come to judgments based on their emotional reactions to situations and to pass these off as rational conclusions based on evidence.  Often the evidence that is cited is selectively and automatically chosen by the perceptual and conceptual framework within which the person operates in making judgments about the world.  And, the person making a judgment is typically convinced that his/her view is the only reasonable view that one could hold.  In other words, either the view is "true" or it is not.  Of course, the person does not want to hold a false view, so the dualistic, "either-or" mentality dictates that there is only one correct view.  The other view is manifestly incorrect.  If another person does not hold the same view, then the individual is just plain stupid, irrational, or as is so often heard in the political sphere, this person is simply a "liberal idiot" or a "conservative wing nut."  Most of us don't realize how much our intellectual apparatus determines the "truth" in which we believe.  To put it another way, "open-mindedness" is not a strong human suit.  It must "be carefully taught," as Oscar Hammerstein said to the music of Richard Rodgers in the musical South Pacific.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

In preparing for this essay, I searched for others' comments on the "either-or" mentality.  I happened to run across a very interesting post on Facebook by the Acting Leader of the Alberta Party in Canada, Sue Huff.  After meeting with residents in one town to answer questions about the Alberta Party, she wrote: 

It was a lively and intelligent conversation covering a great range of topics. But one conversation is stuck in my head this morning... a discussion about changing the way we think about politics.

I was talking with a woman who teaches education students (future social studies teachers) and she commented how their perception of democracy was limited to "majority rules". Winners win, losers lose. End of discussion.

This is either/or democracy. Take a postion [sic], pick a side and only listen to the other side to figure out how to defeat their arguments. It is a debate model and it is what we have inherited, but is it working and is it sophisticated enough for our complex, multi-faceted, integrated, demanding world?

I don't think so.

I don't think so, either.  No pun intended.   Huff goes on to say:

Maybe it's time to examine a new model, where we look at complex issues with different perspectives in ways that embrace BOTH ideas AND move us forward towards new, unimagined solutions. A both/and model of politics.…

What if the BOTH/AND attitude was applied to everything? Not because we are greedy and want it all or because we are trying to please everyone- clearly neither is possible- but because we are seeking balance, proportion and an inclusive way forward that does not create so many losers and so few winners. When a section of society continually feels they are on the losing side, resentment, disengagement, suspicion, rage and even violence can result, threatening the health of our democracy and the safety of our communities.

This will require a courageous shift in thinking. On a simple level, it's " I'm right, you're also right and we're both a little wrong. So, what can we take from that to move forward?"
I believe the best solutions have not yet been discovered, because we've been locked in oppositional, confrontational, either/or politics.

Maybe it's time for politics to evolve to meet the new realities.

I couldn't agree more with Ms. Huff.  However, I don't think that politics can "evolve to meet the new realities" without a fundamental change in the way that we educate children.  Parents are, for the most part, doing a miserable job in this regard, because no one, typically, ever taught them how to think holistically and creatively about life situations, so they can only inculcate what they have ineffectually learned.  Witness the very dysfunctional Anthony family. 

The major problem which we face is that our minds are running predominantly on autopilot and this autopilot provides us in quite computer-like fashion with prefabricated, ready-made ways of viewing situations which are based on our fundamental beliefs, which in turn have been developed out of our unique experience.  Belief is a powerful determinant of thought, feeling, and behavior.  Once it is in place, it is very difficult to shake.

I am continually appalled how the media has supported and even encouraged the rush to judgment in the Anthony case.  Although they give lip service at times to the judicial process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the great majority of them have continually prosecuted the case in front of captive audiences.  In many cases, they have already tried and convicted Casey Anthony of intentionally murdering her young daughter and are guilty of "jury tampering," by which I mean tampering with the "jury of public opinion."  Absent is objective journalistic reporting.  The Nancy Grace show is the worst offender.  Others follow close behind.  Occasionally, guests will object, but they do so with the ever-present threat that their microphones will be cut, when their views "fall from Grace."

I am even more appalled that we live in a culture which does not encourage and nurture critical, holistic thinking, in which the developing thinker is helped to learn how to assess the  data (evidence) of the world, in other words to cast a wide net, before coming to a conclusion, and to recognize that all conclusions are only approximations to the truth like scientific theories which are developed for the purpose of organizing scientific observations.  Einstein, himself, is reported to have said of his great accomplishment in developing the theory of relativity that his theory was only one of an infinitude of other possible theories that could have accounted for the observations equally as well or perhaps even better.  The development of such truth-seeking thinking can only occur, however, in the context of a healthy, loving, supportive family environment that is is not fraught with conflict arising out of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.

The talking heads in the media, who continually appear to analyze, dissect, and draw conclusions, are actually sensationally fanning the flames of presumption and premature judgment which appear rational but which rest squarely on emotional reactions.  It does not require a big stretch to understand why this is happening.  "Follow the money" works for me.

We always "react" in knee-jerk fashion when under the sway of the computer-like autopilot.  To "respond" intelligently to situations, we must remain ever-mindful of what is happening in the present moment and to make the pursuit of truth our highest priority, no matter what our guts tell us.

There is now a continual deluge of commentary on how devastating the jail house tapes are to Casey Anthony's defense.  These are video tapes of her conversations with family members.  If one approaches them with the prejudgment that Casey killed her daughter, they, of course, will seem damaging.  However, there are many alternate theories, as in the case of Relativity, that can conceivably be developed to explain Casey's behavior in these tapes and her behavioral reactions to them in court.  In addition, there are little, isolated incidents that have been recorded that just don't fit neatly with the prevailing views, and have gone relatively unnoticed and maybe even ignored, precisely because they don't fit.   For example, if George still believed that Casey was alive in the Summer or late Fall, why did he speak of Caylee in the past tense, as if acknowledging that she was already dead.  This occurred in one of the jail house conversations with Casey.  In addition, there is the early report from a neighbor who observed Casey walking her dog.  

Remember, early in the case, the neighbor's story about the dog? Casey Anthony was walking her dog on a leash and took the leash off to let the dog run through a neigbor's [sic] flowerbed. When he confronted Casey, who was still holding the leash in her hand, the neighbor asked her why she let her dog tear up his flowerbed. Casey Anthony allegedly said, "That’s not my dog." The neighbor said, "Sure it’s your dog, you still have the leash in your hand." Casey looked at him and said, "I just found this leash."

The adversarial nature of the courtroom process encourages and reinforces the "either-or" mentality.  One either accepts the prosecution view of Casey Anthony as a cold-blooded psychopathic murderer, or one accepts the defense view that Casey's daughter, Caylee, drowned in the family swimming pool , and following years of alleged sexual abuse of Casey, she participated in a cover up carried out by her father, George, who buried the body in a wooded area near the Anthony home.  Other explanations go by the wayside in the context of the courtroom drama, followed by millions of people as the media pundits whip up a kind of mob mentality, which to me is disgusting to observe.  Whatever happened to dispassionate consideration of the facts?  I can tell you what happened.  It is very difficult to be dispassionate and objective when the media personalities, especially Nancy Grace, are continually flashing the most adorable images of the dead child on the screen night after night and talking about "little Caylee" while suggesting that "Tot Mom" put her body in a garbage bag and left it in a field to rot."   Of course, a toddler's death is a tragic event, but it does not help the pursuit of truth and justice to play upon the parental sensitivities of the public to persuade people to adopt one's view.  "Tot Mom," Grace's patented name for Casey Anthony, appears to be designed to disparage Casey and to inflame the public with an emotional anchor that acts like an hypnotic suggestion.   Repeating "Tot Mom" is all it takes to bring up the mob reaction to a mother who was certainly ill-prepared to be a parent, but has not been shown to be a murderess.   Is it a coincidence that "Tot" means "dead" in German, or is "Tot Mom" simply Grace's attempt to build her ratings and to achieve greater notoriety?   In any case, many members of the media have become demagogues, and Nancy Grace is the worst offender.

A view, or theory, which is being considered by virtually no one, is that Casey Anthony is suffering from severe dissociation, a splitting of her mental process into compartments, which can be isolated from one another.  In the extreme, such dissociation can manifest as Dissociation Identity Disorder [old term, Multiple Personality Disorder], in which the personality fragments into multiple identities or alters.  Many people have expressed amazement at the detailed nature of Casey's "lies," which are convincingly delivered without any signs of uneasiness.  Such "lies," however, are totally consistent with the situation of a person who operates with different identities, most of which can be unaware of the existence of the others.  The anecdote of Casey walking her dog mentioned above is totally consistent with the dissociation theory.  So, too, is Casey's bizarre behavior during the month-long period following Caylee's last being seen alive and during which time Casey maintained that she was looking for her daughter, but at the same time was observed to act callously, as if not at all concerned about her daughter's disappearance.

The bottom line to all of this is that we don't just have just two choices, as depicted in the photo above.  We don't have to choose either Pepsi or Coca Cola.  We can back away from the machine that is our autopilot and make a different, healthier choice.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Can a Write-In Candidate Win the Texas Governorship?

wildhorses, white

Many people are inclined to think that a write-in candidacy is guaranteed to fail.  If they are only thinking of the ordinary, run-of-the-mill, write-in vote, which is not backed by a WELL-ORGANIZED effort to mobilize the electorate en masse to write in the same candidate, then they are probably right.  In many states, and Texas is among them, a write-in vote, will only be counted, if it is cast for a candidate who has duly registered his/her write-in candidacy with the Secretary of State by the deadline specified. 

Essentially, a write-in candidacy is an independent candidacy.   The basic differences are that the write-in candidate’s name does not appear on the ballot and the candidate gets a later start than the earlier registered Independent.  In Texas, this year, a write-in candidacy may not be filed before July 25, and not later than 5:00 pm, August 24. 

One might argue that write-in candidates have no chance against the well-funded campaigns of the major parties, especially since their candidates have massive name recognition and are well-funded to wage a vigorous campaign.  However, consider what Debra Medina accomplished in the course of the last six months before the Republican Primary, and she did so having only raised about $750,000 compared to the $8 million or so spent each by Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison.  Yet, in this brief, under funded campaign, she collected nearly 20% of the vote, having moved from 3% in the polls in September 2009 to 24% in February 2010, before she came under vicious attack by national talk show host, Glenn Beck.  This eight-fold increase in her support over a six-month period shows what a grassroots campaign, which spreads like a Texas wildfire by word of mouth, can accomplish.

An organization has formed in the wake of the Republican Primary campaign, which calls itself WE TEXANS UNITED.  This group seeks to pass the baton, which Debra Medina carried so valiantly during the primary, to a new candidate--a bold, conservative, freedom-oriented candidate--since Medina is barred from running in the general election after having competed in the Republican primary.  

The WE TEXANS UNITED write-in candidate will have the surprise value of suddenly entering the race with the Medina momentum machine revving up again to spread its message using grassroots strategies. It will literally knock the Rick Perry campaign off balance, as the Perryites confront the prospective mutiny of many conservatives who see the hope of electing a governor who is not "tax and spend" or "take and fend…off” the many angry Texans, who are incensed by the current governor's shenanigans that promise only to continue to rob them of their income, property, and livelihood.  And, by offering an alternative to the Perry incumbency, which is intensely disliked by so very many Texans, the WE TEXANS UNITED campaign will draw a large proportion of the more than 40% of voting-age Independents (estimated to be about 5 million Texas voters) into its campaign. 

The Indy Texans organization endorsed Debra Medina over Kay Bailey Hutchison (KBH) in the primary by 2 to 1.  Medina received at least the 60% threshold for their endorsement, whereas KBH was supported by only about 30%.  Rick Perry did not receive a single vote from their membership.  Here is how it was put in the Indy Texans press release.

Independent Texans’ members are well aware of Governor Rick Perry’s record which is why he received not one vote of support from our members. Perry has become legendary for his abuses of power and the veto pen, his revolving door for lobbyists, and for poisoning the halls of the legislature with a redistricting gerrymander on steroids back in 2003. For Texas independents Perry is the embodiment of what is so wrong in government today.

Unless given a viable alternative, the Independents will have no choice, except to endorse Bill White, the big government Democrat. By presenting a candidate who stands on the platform, which Debra Medina championed, WE TEXANS UNITED will have a revolutionary, historic opportunity to burst into the race in an explosive way which will snatch the momentum from either of the two major candidates and will also draw many voters who would vote third party into a powerful coalition for success.  We fully intend to field such a coalition candidate and the preliminaries for the selection and vetting process have begun.  The process is taking place online.  Join WE TEXANS UNITED now and participate in the candidate selection.

Once our candidate has been selected and agrees to represent us, we will begin a vigorous grassroots campaign unlike that ever seen in American History.  We are now exploring the use of novel techniques to shift voter attention from a focus on party and personality back to where it should rightly be and that is on the problems and issues facing Texans each and every day.  Imagine the political impact of our success in an endeavor, commonly regarded as doomed to fail.  Think of the shaking of the American political landscape that will occur as this novel campaign vibrates the body politic like never before in history, rivaling the most dramatic tectonic shifts of our planet Earth.

If you are a Texan resident or have family or friends in Texas, we invite you to join with all of us, who have faith in the indomitable spirit that has made Texas great, and to take up the banner of freedom, limited and honest government, state sovereignty, and true property ownership.  It is time to mount up and put your money, your time, your energy, and your passion, where your mouth is.  It is time to come together and to cooperate in a campaign whose time has come.  It is time, as someone said of Debra’s attitude when she was considering jumping into the gubernatorial race, to mount up, set you butt firmly in the saddle and be heading down the road when we come out of the gate with this historic campaign. 

Prepare to ride, amigos!

Monday, March 1, 2010

Republican Party in Wonderland: Debra Medina Saving the Soul of the GOP in Texas Governor’s Race


Cartoon from Tales from Wonderland

The GOP has become the party of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.  Pick whichever you prefer, because it really doesn't matter which you choose.  BOTH the GOP and Democratic Parties have become two heads of the same Big Government monstrosity which threatens the liberty of all Americans and the survival of the Republic.  We are merely stopping for rest on the yellow-brick, toll road which leads to the Emerald City of Oz, which is nothing but an insidious facade for fascism. We are told: “Pay no attention to the man/men behind the curtain.”

The formula for our progression toward certain disaster, which we have implicitly accepted without critical questioning, is: Big Government + Big Business = Fascism.  But, as we are unwittingly traveling this road to our Republic's demise, treading unknowingly on our Constitution and our precious heritage of freedom, there are a few side roads that beckon us to turn in new directions, dusty little roads, which will lead us back to a limited government of the people, for the people, and by the people, but which many of us ignore.   One such path has come before us in recent weeks and we must have the courage to pause in our headlong pursuit of Oz and to venture down it to see where it may lead.

There is an election going on in Texas now that will come to a climax on Texas Independence Day, March 2.  It is a struggle for the heart of the Republican Party and its survival as it is being devoured by the globalist leviathan of which the U.S. has become merely a limb that does the bidding of the globalist brain.  Debra Medina, citizen candidate, par exellence, is the female counterpart to David who is challenging, not one, but two political Goliaths, viz., incumbent governor Rick Perry, a globalist minion, if there ever was one, with presidential aspirations and long-time U.S. Senator Kay Bailey (Bailout) Hutchison who is a wet blanket of globalist domination that clings and suffocates the breath of Freedom.

In my opinion, this is the most momentous and important election of modern history, perhaps even in the history of the Republic.  Texas is the world's 12th largest economy.  In the U.S., Texas has been second only to California, which has the 8th largest economy in the world, but California is now officially broke!  So, the old saying, "As goes Texas, so goes the Republic," is even more relevant in the current economic circumstances.  Texans are up in arms and fighting mad about the intrusion of the Federal government into Texas' economic affairs and the liberty of its citizens.

So, I commend Debra Medina to your attention.  I submit that it is critical that ALL Americans learn about her and the Republic for which she stands, be that the Republic of Texas or the Republic of the United States of America, as it was originally conceived and given birth by our Founders.  Listen to her words.  They are all over YouTube.  Here is a good place to start, and here is another video of Medina speaking at a rally.

Go to 2:00 on the counter of the last video to hear Debra speak.

Visit Debra Medina's website which has increased in traffic by 710% over the past 3 months and is now at a traffic ranking on of 12,609 in the U.S. out of tens of millions of websites.  For comparison, the website representing upset winner, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, has a traffic ranking of 453,408 and the website guide to New York City has a traffic rating of 88,203 in the U.S.

Never has there been a time so critical for the preservation of freedom.  I urge you to become familiar with Debra Medina now and do what you can to encourage people whom you know in Texas to vote for her on March 2 or or you can help by donating to her campaign.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Debra Medina: Threat to Governor Rick Perry’s Run for the Presidency in 2012?


Debra Medina: Still Voter Ignorance Despite Glenn Beck’s “Gallant” Effort

I suggest that there are a number of reasons for this phenomenon.  SOME of the potential answers are already well known, following the marginalizing of 2008 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, by the media and by Republican, political operatives.  We saw this in the Republican debates where the other candidates were asked substantive questions, and when it came time to question on Dr. Paul, the questions were most often focused on some sort of fringe issue that attempted to create guilt by association, i.e., the 9/11 Truth issue.  Even when others were answering questions about the economy and healthcare, were such questions addressed then to Dr. Paul, who is not only an expert on fiscal and monetary policy, but the only experienced health care provider in the field of candidates ?  Nope!

We also saw a dearth of media coverage of Ron Paul’s campaign until it could no longer be ignored until, of course, his avid supporters broke the all-time one day record for the most money raised in a 24 hour period, viz., in excess of $6 Million.  Even then, the marginalization continued, even when they did interview him, it was always focused on his supporters or some tangential issue and not on the substantive issues on which his campaign was based such as “sound monetary policy.”  It is interesting to note that now that his predictions have come true with regard to the current economic debacle, he is a high demand on news shows.  On the Fox network, alone, by his count, he has been interviewed about 60 times in recent months and now has won the straw poll at the CPAC meeting of conservatives.

Debra Medina, interestingly, is also a health care provider (a registered nurse), who was mentored by Ron Paul, having lived and worked in the Republican Party in his congressional district, and having served as his Texas political coordinator in the national campaign.  It is no surprise, then, that her data-oriented, principle-oriented campaign is coming under personal attack, just like that directed at Dr. Paul, when she is making it too hot in the kitchen for those who wish to maintain the neo-conservative (neo-cons) and now the “tea-o-conservative” (tea-o-cons) hold on the Republican Party.  In addition, there are, accordingly, further attempts to keep remotely connected Texas voters ignorant of her candidacy and proposals for reviving honest government in Texas. 

The major radio and television outlets and the local newspapers, especially the smaller ones, who pick up their news from the conglomerates, give the local audiences predigested, political Pablum which people can easily swallow whole without ever critically masticating it and just as easily digest, never knowing that there was any other life sustaining food for thought available.  They don’t even ask for a little bit of applesauce blended in with the Pablum, although they are often given this, too, just to keep them listening for purported new developments.

One such predigested report appeared online.

I took the writer and his docile followers to task with an extended comment:

As a former university professor for many years, I have personal experience of the lack of objectivity and belief-dominated thinking of many intellectuals in academia. The reporters who listen to the professors [that you referenced] also fail to look at the objective evidence and accept the implied omniscience (know it all mental capacity) of these ivory tower intellectuals. To wit: White polled worse against Hutchison and best against Medina.

There has been a huge turnout in the Republican primary. Do you suppose that some of the voters are Democrats? I, personally, have read about Liberals encouraging people to vote in the Republican primary, since White is a shoo-in. Who do you suppose the Dems are probably voting for in the primary? Certainly not Hutchison!!

Also, as evidenced in the following statement, they [typical reporters] have ignored the fact that the “Indy Texans” have endorsed Medina almost 2-1 over Hutchison. There are 5 million independents in Texas, I am told.

"Other professors agreed and said with White being the most viable Democratic candidate since Ann Richards, any Republican will have a tough race. But, Hutchison likely less so because she can win over a more significant portion of independents who otherwise may be intrigued with the former mayor of Houston and his business-friendly attitudes.”

That being said, why only the passing reference to the Medina campaign in the article? The "professors" said that some of her votes will likely go to Perry and Hutchison. What about the backlash? I am speaking of those who were undecided and will now vote for Medina because of the unwarranted attack with the "Truther" nonsense.  If you really search for the truth, what you will find is that Medina is NOT a 9/11 Truther, but a "24/7 Truther" who is perpetually searching for the truth in the labyrinth of falsehoods that cover the corruption in the Perry administration. One example is the recent revelation confirmed by the Medina campaign after searching long and hard for the facts. Debra Medina announced this in a talk to supporters in Rockwall just two days ago. I commend this to the author of this article and to your readers.

Rick Perry Already Campaigning for 2012?

One could reasonably ask:  Could the attacks and the marginalization be coming because it is a “must win” situation for incumbent Governor Rick Perry, who is rumored to have his eye on the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2012?  Has anyone heard him say that he will definitely serve out his full term as governor?  I haven’t.

In fact, today, I just came across a website out of New Zealand which is promoting items for a Perry Presidential run. 

There is a lot of campaign paraphernalia on this page and it piqued my curiosity.  Let me ask you the questions that I asked myself:  If you were a business person, would you be willing to make such a substantial investment in stocking such items if you had not been paid up front?  Would you be willing to undertake this risk, with all of the uncertainties of the political landscape, or if you did not have hard, inside information that Perry was planning a run?  Or, unless you were the person pulling the strings on the Perry puppet?

When I searched further, I found that is a business with global outlets, only one of which is in Zealand.  There are subsidiary websites in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, with Austria and Switzerland listed as coming soon. 

I searched and found that was registered as a private, not public, domain with the owner given as only the domain company which handled the domain registration: Network Solutions.  So, it would appear that this is a big enterprise that was registered in March 2009.  Given that it has not been in existence for quite one year, I think we are talking about investment of a lot of money in this enterprise. 

Another link appearing on the zazzle site goes to  This, too, is registered privately with the same domain company, so in both cases, we cannot determine who really owns these companies.

Given that Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meeting in Turkey in 2007, it seems likely that SOMEBODY wanted him as a candidate for President in the near future, perhaps after setting up the current situation with the Obama debacle.  Perry probably could never be elected president on his own merits, but with the groundswell of anger toward Obama, there will be little incentive for the average disenchanted voter to pay the least bit of attention to the skeletons in Perry’s oversized closet.  And, I am not talking about an ordinary walk in closet the size of a small bedroom.  It would have to be more like Superdome size to fit everything in, considering only what has thus far been uncovered and then recovered by Perry’s fancy mouthwork.

I think I recall reading that he only has a 50% approval rating as a result of his political shenanigans.  This is probably not enough, given the typically sizeable margin of error of 3-5% in political polls, to avoid a runoff election, which will occur between the top two vote recipients in Texas if no candidate receives a majority of the votes (i.e., 50% +1)

So, was the Glenn Beck incident orchestrated to insure a Perry victory by stealing votes from Medina?  The fact that robocalls attacking Medina for her comments on the 9/11 Truth issue were going out to voters all over Texas, reportedly with minutes and certainly within an hour.  I recall one individual who reported that he got a call only 7 minutes after the Medina “interview” ended.  Even it took an hour to get the calls launched, it seems that this would have taken an implausibly herculean effort to pull this off without some pre-planning.

I suggest that it is time to hold Perry’s feet to the Presidential fire.  Why did he go to the Bilderberg meeting in Istanbul in 2007, and according to some, violate the Logan Act?  There has been speculation for many years that the Bilderbergers “select” the American president.  Go here for the list of attendees for the most recent meeting.  Bill Clinton went to the meeting in 1991, “just by chance invitation” he says, because he was in Europe at the time.  He assumed the presidency in 1993.  There is strong prima facie evidence that Obama attended the Chantilly, VA meeting in 2008, when he was supposedly meeting with Hillary Clinton after he “kidnapped” reporters on his campaign plane and flew them to Chicago.

So, are the people of Texas embroiled in the clandestine political aspirations of their governor or those who control him?  Are their efforts to remove him democratically from office running up against a global Leviathan which will brook no resistance?  That is the question which we must continue to ask, particularly in view of the extensive promotional campaign already in progress via

For more information on the Debra Medina’s campaign go here and to join her as a fan on FaceBook click here.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Debra Medina Leads the Second Battle for Texas Independence

The battle for Texas’ sovereignty is brewing again in the state that was an independent Republic for ten years before voting to enter the federal union.  The first major confrontation between the forces of sovereignty and those who support the ever-extending reach of the federal leviathan into state affairs will occur on March 2, 2010, the 174th anniversary of Texas’ independence from Mexico, when voters will make the final trek to the polls to cast their ballets for governor.

It is a “David” versus “Goliaths,” scenario, with Debra Medina, the young (age 47), “upstart,” citizen candidate facing Rick Perry, the longest serving, incumbent governor and U.S. Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Washington, D.C. fixture for many years.  When she entered the race, no one gave her an icicle’s chance in Hell to compete with her well-known, politically well-heeled opponents.  But, her burgeoning support has surprised everyone, except her followers who seem hell bent, not just on making it into a runoff with Rick Perry but to winning the Republican primary election outright.  Texas election law requires a runoff between the two top candidates if no one gets a 50% +1 majority of the vote.

Medina is a registered nurse, small business owner, and rancher, who has been working actively in Republican politics for 20 years.  Her common sense, anti-corruption, anti-establishment, anti-federalist message is ringing loud and clear with rank and file Texans who are incensed by what has been going on in the Texas government, bureaucratic maze of “now you see it, now you don’t” manipulations that pander to the money and influence of special interests.  One prime example is the Trans-Texas Corridor that has seemed to die five times after massive opposition from the citizens of Texas, but is still very much alive.  This project, which many people feel sells Texas out to foreign interests, i.e., a Spanish company, Cintra, would be the biggest land grab in American history if it lives.  And, if it does survive, it will give Cintra the right to collect tolls on this massive network of highways, rail lines, etc. in perpetuity!

Debra Medina is leading the fight for independence NOT in the form of secession that would return Texas to an independent and sovereign Republic, but  to a status as a sovereign state in the federal union, as intended by the Founders.  She has pledged to use “nullification” and “interposition” to tell Federal agencies such as the EPA that they have no jurisdiction in Texas.  She is sending a message to Washington DC that other federal bureaucracies had best keep their hands off Texas affairs.  This will require, as she has emphasized, working with the legislature to pass legislation that she will enforce as the chief executive.

Passionately contested skirmishes are already being fought across the state and even in the nation as a whole, particularly on the Internet, where, on Facebook, Rick Perry fans are being doggedly pursued by Debra Medina fans and the gap is steadily diminishing daily!  The fan list for Rick Perry currently stands at 25,459 and the corresponding list for Debra Medina fans is now at 21,444.  Kay Bailey Hutchison’s fans are far behind at 15,065.  This means if the election were held on Facebook, Perry would have 41% of the vote, Medina, 35% and Hutchison 24%, throwing the election into a runoff between Perry and Medina, since Perry has only a plurality and not a majority.  Related to these facts are data reported in a recent poll in which Medina trailed Hutchison 24% to 29% with Perry at 39%, very similar results when you take into account that the margin of error in this poll was about 5 percentage points, putting Medina essentially in a statistical tie with Hutchison an perhaps even ahead, given the momentum of the Medina campaign.

Recently Indy Texans, an association of Independent voters endorsed Debra Medina, with over 60% of the membership giving her the nod.  Independents comprise over 40% of the U.S. electorate and are estimated to number about 5 million in Texas.  In addition, people are already turning out in record numbers for the primary election, as indicated by early voting statistics.  In many locations, the ratio of Republican voters is 3 times the number of voters in the Democratic primary where former Houston mayor Bill White holds a commanding lead in the polls.  This suggests two possibilities, both of which are likely to be true.  (1)  Democrats are choosing to vote in the Republican primary instead of the Democratic primary because they want to pick the candidate against White will run in November.  And, since he polls best against Debra Medina and worst against Hutchison (although all Republicans are projected to beat him), it is highly likely that many of them are voting for Debra Medina.  (2)  There are many new Republican primary voters turning out, if Facebook postings are any indicator.  There are people indicating that they voted for her and had never ever voted in a primary before.  In addition, the number of new first time voters, primary or not, has apparently swollen like a Texas creek after a downpour.  We should also note that the polls typically sample only voters who have voted in a previous primary.

So, Debra Medina’s support appears to be greater than would be predicted from the plentiful media advertising by Perry and Hutchison.  Medina warriors are spreading the word by word of mouth and on the Internet.  Medina is appearing on more radio talk shows than the other candidates, yet her penetration into the electorate at large, the politically uninvolved who will cast their ballots not knowing that Medina even exists until they get to the polls, has only begun to be felt.

For more information go to:

where you will find that Debra has raised less than $500 shy of $3/4 million in small $10, 25, 50, 100 contributions.  Assuming an average contribution of $30 (an educated guess) this represents 25,000 supporter-donors who have access to the Internet.

Or, you can go to Debra Medina’s Facebook fan page and observe the spirited discussion that is incredibly more varied and fast-paced than you will find on the creeping Perry and Hutchison fan pages.

I suggest you become a fan, so that you can ask questions and comment on other posts.  It is a real education in the making.  You can “home-school” yourself. ;-)  Becoming a fan is easy if you have a Facebook account, which is free and also easy to obtain.  Just click on “Become a Fan” and voila you are good to go!