Question For Pro-lifers

Below is a story that raises a very important question. A 27 year old man was shot by a police officer in order to stop the beating being inflicted upon a 2 year old child - here's the question for pro-lifers out there: shouldn't police treat the child who is still in the womb on his way to the abortion mill with the same urgency?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502329.html?nav=rss_nation

Man Beating Toddler Is Slain By Police in Calif.; Child Dies

Associated Press
Monday, June 16, 2008; Page A02

TURLOCK, Calif., June 15 -- Police killed a 27-year-old man as he kicked, punched and stomped a toddler to death despite other people's attempts to stop him on a dark country road, authorities said Sunday.

Investigators were trying to establish the relationship between the suspect and the child they said he killed Saturday night. The Stanislaus County coroner said the boy appeared to be between 1 and 2 years old based on his size, according to Royjindar Singh, the county sheriff's deputy.

"It's been a long night of wondering why -- not only for the officers and the passersby who stopped and tried to help out, but for anyone: Why would somebody do this?" Singh said.

Because the child's injuries were so severe, he will have to be identified through a blood test or DNA test, Singh said.

The suspect had a child's car seat in the back of his four-door pickup truck. The truck caught the attention of an elderly couple at 10:13 p.m. Saturday because it was stopped in the two-lane road facing the wrong direction, Singh said.

As they got closer, the couple saw the man brutally beating the toddler behind his truck and throwing the child on the ground, according to Singh. Two or three other cars stopped, an unusual number to be passing through the remote area, he said.

"What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking," Singh said. "They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. . . . He just pushed them off and went back to it."

A sheriff's helicopter carrying a Modesto police officer landed in a cow pasture at 10:19 p.m. The officer fatally shot the man after he refused an order to stop beating the child, Singh said.

The toddler was not breathing when paramedics arrived. He was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

No children within the dead boy's age range have been reported kidnapped or missing in Stanislaus County, Singh said.

If the child in the womb is just as human as the child who has been born, why should they not be afforded the same measure of protection? Please answer this and follow the progression of logic with honesty.

Placerville: A Hate Free City!

"Move to Placerville, California Where No One Hates Anyone!"

Mayoral Breaches in California

When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized the issuance of marriage licenses in 2004 to sodomite couples (popularly known as "gay and lesbian couples") who spoke a word against this abomination?

One who did was Dick Otterstad, a pastor of a local church in El Dorado Hills and an organizer of GaymarriageNo. His group produced signs mounted on trucks for easy dissemination of the Biblical assessment of sodomy (not to mention civil recognition of the perversion as a "marriage" - "Yuck!" at the least!). The message was simple: it is a flagrant, disgusting, perversion; moreover, it is sin. But GaymarriageNo appears to have been quite diplomatically polite in its opposition to this abomination. According to Sacramento Bee report, these folks put it, actually, quite softly:

Using "truth trucks," pickups bearing signs declaring "Homosexuality is sin," and the universal "no" symbol superimposed on a photo of two men kissing, the group has passed out literature along city streets, in front of schools and at community events. Members also have displayed their message on banners from a Highway 50 overpass.

No call here for justice, viz., the proper civil (Biblically speaking) death penalty for sodomy; quite a moderate response, really. And what did Placerville do in response to these moderate actions of GaymarriageNo? Mayor Roberta Colvin and her City Council members countered this effort by issuing a proclamation declaring Placerville a "hate-free and discrimination-free city."

We must commend Dick Otterstad, his son Luke, Ron Brock and the faithful few for at least opening their mouths for truth. They successfully discriminated between good and evil, and that is much more than we can say for the other churches mentioned by the Bee.

As might be expected in this Age of Decadence, the message from GaymarriageNo was not well received by some of the citizenry. Mike Kobus, a Placerville business owner, told the City Council, "As representatives of the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce, this issue disturbs us." (Hmm. Something to do with the pocket book? What kind of clientele does the Chamber want?) Apparently, Kobus is of the notion that the city would not appear to be on the cutting edge of social evolution - or something - by tolerating opposition to perverse and lawless behavior. He said "Signs expressing hate of a specific lifestyle are not a way to greet people."

Remember. It all started with hate speech from the San Francisco mayor. He proclaimed hatred for God and His law and those who love it when he authorized sodomite marriages. So let us attempt to track this so far: 1) San Francisco Mayor attacks God, His Law, and all Christians who love God and His Law. 2) God's people in Placerville (a paltry handful) express their objection to the Mayor's attack upon God and His Law. 3) The Placerville Mayor and City Council respond to God's people by accusing them of committing "hate speech."

The tactic used by sodomites and their sympathizers across the country is to marginalize and degrade Christian spokesmen. Those who speak against these eruptions of hatred toward God and these assaults upon Christian civilization and various state codes (which still hold sodomy as a crime) are charged with being "intolerant" (or "bigoted") "haters."

And California, of all places - the land of openness and liberality toward every type of Godless expression - suddenly closes in on Christian expression suggesting economic stress as a reason to shut down the speech! (Wow! Are liberals money-driven like those nasty, greedy conservatives? Funny how those who boast of themselves openness to any form of expression of any Anti-Christian theme whether the Piss Christ "art" or blasphemous films such as the Da Vinci Code suddenly become speech monitors when the speech is not suitable to them and that they do so in the name of money! (Greedy Capitalists! Oh we could go on. Such hypocrisy!)

So "hatred" is the charge brought by sodomy sympathizers against the Christians and the justification for discouraging, if not outlawing their speech. And since that just isn't a good effectual and legal tool to stop the preaching of these Christians, another tactic is to accuse them of harming the business interests of community. That is the not-so-subtle accusation from Mr. Kobus and his comrades of the El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce.

The Expected Complicity of the "Liberal" Churches

It comes as no surprise to read about the betrayal of the liberal churches who joined with the sodomite side of the issue. The Bee reported on the praise of the city Council offered by residents and church leaders: "Bob Olmstead, a United Methodist pastor and newcomer to the city, said, 'I applaud the council in working to make this the community we thought it was when we so recently moved here.'"

The Bee also reported on the response of Steve Shortes, a deacon at the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour, who told the council, "I laud what you are doing. I wish you didn't have to do it."

But this is expected of the apostate churches which do not believe the Scriptures and are nothing but chaff blowing in the wind of the latest leftist fads.

The Treachery of Churches which Claim to Believe the Scriptures

The Bee also reported on the responses of other churches. None were named in support of Otterstad and GaymarriageNo. But one, Solid Rock Faith Center of Diamond Springs, represented by Pastor Don Pritchard, though sympathetic, was critical: "Although Pritchard does not dispute Otterstad's interpretation of the biblical view of homosexuality, he said he disagrees with GaymarriageNo's tactics."

Another local paper, The Village, reported on two other churches which offered criticism rather then support of the Otterstad church and its GaymarriageNo campaign. "Although he agreed that the Bible does not condone homosexuality, Sunhills Community Church Pastor Paul Thome strongly disagreed with GaymarriageNo's tactics." Thome said,

"We agree with the Bible in that homosexuality is not God's plan for human beings. But we would welcome people who are gay or homosexual into our church." Village reporter Crystal Vernazza interpreted Thome as follows: "There are countless sins, he said, and to alienate one particular group and attack them simply isn't following the word of God."

Pastor Thome did not seem to understand that recent nationwide gargantuan efforts to decriminalize sodomy (a crime in the West since the advent of Christendom in the fourth century ) merit a direct response from Christians, who are supposed to be the "salt" and "light" of society. Efforts to normalize that which is perverted ought to be confronted with the sincere enthusiasm displayed by GaymarriageNo. Instead, Pastor Thome has denigrated those who have been loyal to the truth saying, "I think what happens is Christians single out one particular sin and make it the sin of all sins." And not content with criticizing these faithful, he makes sure to keep them at a safe distance: "We just don't agree with their tactics and their methodology, they're not speaking for all of us."

Lakehills Covenant Church Pastor Ron Short's testimony also served to isolate the faithful: "As pastors here in this community, we're not going to stand for outsiders coming into our community and sending messages so inappropriately . . . That was not a graceful way of expressing any opinion; that reflects badly upon the church."

Well, such comments from the shepherds of Bible believing churches must have provided plenty of encouragement to those police authorities who might have been itching to make an arrest but for that doggone First Amendment. "The El Dorado County Sheriff's Department received numerous calls last week reporting the trucks, said Undersheriff Fred Kollar, but because they were not illegally parked, or committing any crime for that matter, there wasn't much for authorities to do."

Well, well. With Christian leaders like Revs. Short and Thome, Dick Otterstad doesn't need to quarrel with any fellow pastors over tactics. He has no co-laborers; no peers. He and his church stand alone, it seems, in both El Dorado Hills and Placerville.

There is no reason for a church which is doing nothing on a particular battle front to disparage in any way the work of another church which is. Posturing for the favor of public or the news media is cowardice at best. It smacks in this case of slavish sycophancy to the world and its emerging trends. We have, then, two breaches of trust. The first is the civil authorities - the Placerville Mayor and City Council have betrayed the citizens by 1) showing tolerance and favor toward sodomy and 2) desecrating the institution of marriage. The second breach has been committed by these three pastors. They have betrayed not only their fellow citizens, but the civil authorities and the church of God to whom they are especially obliged to feed the Truth.

Church Vs. IRS: Barry Lynn-An American United with others Against the Constitution

Non-profit Org Uses Tax Exempt Status to Subvert First Amendment

Back to Pastor Wiley

There is an intolerable intolerance on the part of the Leftists who admonish "reasonable" people to disassociate themselves from Pastor Wiley. It appears that some authorities in the Convention may be tempted to bow to the unholy indignation of AUSCS personnel. Will Hall, Vice President for News Services of the SBC Executive Committee and Executive Editor of Baptist Press wrote a message to one of staff members of AUSCS, Joseph Conn, as follows:

You wrote that the position of 'second vice president' is the SBC's 'third highest post.' The fact is the first and second vice presidents are honorary titles...period. Neither has any duties assigned relating to leadership of the Convention. There is no budget for either and neither has any power other than the one vote granted to each messenger attending an SBC annual meeting. The bottom line is your description appears to be an intentional misrepresentation to sensationalize AU's position relative to its public tête-à-tête with Wiley Drake. It is an offense equal to Wiley's having used the honorary title in his personal press releases.[1]

We can hope that Mr. Hall's feeble efforts to distance the SBC from Pastor Drake are a product of momentary battle-phobia (formerly: cowardice). If Pastor Drake's imprecatory prayers for his Godless tormentors are premature in the mind of Mr. Hall, he need not bow to the whines of these AUSCS apostates. Better that he be patient and confirm to Mr. Conn the essential propriety of calling judgment upon the manifest God-haters which the AUSCS represents. May God duly bring his justice to those who despise His Law and display that disdain in their calls for "separation" of His Law and ethics from the political realm, the very kingdom in which we live.

In a February 15 report, the AUSCS noted that "Religious leaders from a wide variety of faiths repudiated the pastor's tactics."[2] The implication is that the crowd must be right. Cut off Pastor Drake from the rest of the hive as the crowd stays together and moves toward a more popular and agreeable environment. Submission to such intimidation leads to betrayal of fellow champions of the faith and, ultimately, betrayal of the very Lord in whom that faith rests.

The AUSCS is led by a man ordained by the United Church of Christ. As this variety of "Christian denominations" has abandoned the historic Faith grounded in the Scripture and defined by the ancient creeds, it is no surprise that this organization is hostile to those who remain true to the Faith and the ethics which are rooted in it.

The organization is not true to its claim to be "dedicated to preserving the Constitutional Rights of religious freedom guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment to our Constitution." On the contrary, it seeks to suppress the fact that our Constitution places no restrictions upon churches. The Constitution places restrictions upon the federal government, prohibiting it from interfering with the rights of the states to establish whatever brand of Christianity they choose. That is the meaning of the Constitution as it was written in its historical context.

The AUSCS has 1) perverted the meaning of the First Amendment, 2) chosen to apply a popular misconception of the First Amendment - the "separation of Church and State" myth which words are not found in the Constitution - against a particular brand of modern churches, i.e. those that are traditional and historic in their affirmation of the authority of the Scriptures, 3) refused to apply its own misconceived Constitutional theories equally; i.e. it will not blow the whistle against "liberal churches" by the same standard it applies to "conservative churches."

---

[1] Joseph Conn AUSCS blog, posted February 15, 2008 at http://blog.au.org/2008/02/15/of-death-prayers-and-facts-a-response-to-the-southern-baptists-request-for-correction/ retrieved on February 15, 2008

[2] "Americans United Deplores California Pastor's Renewed 'Death Prayer' Campaign," February 15, 2008 at http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9669 retrieved on February 22, 2008

Michael Bray © 2008

Read the Uncle Raisin case files

Communists and Christians: Blocking Access

Not all folks who oppose the war in Iraq are Communists. But most of those engaged in the harassment of the Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley are. 1 Why is it that Communists block access to young people who want to volunteer to fight their country's wars, but they oppose and obstruct those who simply want to speak against (quite short of blocking access to) abortion? Why do we tolerate these blockaders but not Christians who block access to abortion "clinics"?

This action in Berkeley reminds us of her ideological sister city, Oakland (see our Oakland City Council story at http://www.uncleraisin.com/UR/CA/Oakland01.asp), which passed an ordinance to suppress the speech of anti-abortionists outside abortion facilities. And so it was no surprise to find Library Trustee Ying Lee, former Berkeley councilmember and former aide to Communist Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, participating in the anti-Marine Recruiting Station protest.2

Among the groups involved with the protest were "Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R., Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the ACLU" according to the anti-war participants World Can't Wait. 3 The particular three who were arrested were wearing orange jump suits and had chained themselves together to prevent people from entering the Recruiting Station.4 Their attire simulated that worn by federal prisoners and in particular was designed to show solidarity with the terrorist prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay.5

Steve Rubenstein and Kevin Fagan, staff writers of the San Francisco Chronicle, report as follows on the arrest of three orange-clad World Can't Wait members on February 2, 2008:

The demonstrators snapped their locks shut at 7 a.m. and spent the next 7 1/2 hours blocking the door, waving and chanting as hundreds of cars driving by honked in support. Finally, at 2:30 p.m., police snipped the chains and arrested them.

Two of the three were cited for blocking a business and released, and the third was booked into jail on an unrelated traffic warrant, police said...

At one point, UC Berkeley student Kyrolos El Giheny walked up to the front door and tried to go inside to talk to Lund about a possible Marine career. He was unable to get past the chained protesters.

"They told me, 'No business as usual today,' " El Giheny said. "It's kind of nutty. It's really an infringement on my rights."

Paul Chin photographed three police officers observing the action from across the street.6 They watched as three persons blocked access for an entire work day. The action of these three police officers may be sharply contrasted with that taken against Donna Holman in Iowa City. Mrs. Holman blocked no access, carried no chains, did not lock herself together with two protestors. She simply handed out tracts to women who were entering an abortion "clinic." For this, she was jailed for 30 days (after refusing to get a psychiatric evaluation and submitting to any drug treatment that might be prescribed), put on probation for a year, fined $760.00, and required to put up $1000 bail following her initial arrest. I.E. she was well harassed in consequence of handing our literature.

So what about this double standard on "protesting"? Why are anti-war blockaders treated so leniently in comparison to anti-abortion blockaders? Of course, the anti-abortionists would proclaim that their action is not simply the expression of a political opinion but the actual interposition of their bodies to directly stop the killing innocent children while yet in the womb of their mothers.

The anti-war folk might think they are arguing the same case. Thus: the young ignorant potential recruit is embarking upon a course in which he will eventually put himself at risk of death. And, like protective, self-appointed foster parents, they are intruding themselves into the process to disrupt a "bad choice." (Well, something like that must be the logic of the matter, but I do not have a good Communist brain as necessary to fully apprehend the comparison.)

1Free Republichttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964855/posts

2 Judith Scherr, Berkeley Daily Planet, Feb. 1, 2008 http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-01/article/29070, retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008.

3 http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4535&Itemid=223 retrieved from World Can't Wait web site on February 14, 2008.

4 Series of pictures of three blockaders at http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8141855 and at the San Francisco Chronicle at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=7&f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BALTUQKOE.DTL retrieved on Feb., 15, 2008.

5 Ibid., Free RepublicFree Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964855/posts Judith Scherr, Berkeley Daily Planet, Feb. 1, 2008 http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-01/article/29070, retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008. http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4535&Itemid=223 retrieved from World Can't Wait web site on February 14, 2008. Series of pictures of three blockaders at http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8141855 and at the San Francisco Chronicle at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=7&f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BALTUQKOE.DTL retrieved on Feb., 15, 2008.

Ibid.,

6 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=7&f=/c/a/2008/02/02/BALTUQKOE.DTL, retrieved on Feb. 14, 2008.

Oakland Update

Oakland Update

The Oakland ordinance that places a buffer zone of 8 feet around abortion minded women has a dubious inception. It is reported in the Christian Examiner that there were no police reports, injunctions, lawsuits, or evidence of harm being caused by pro-lifers. If that is true, what could the justification for a restrictive ordinance like this be? Could it be collusion between the City and the abortionists? We are finding it very difficult to think otherwise.

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jan08/Art_Jan08_13.html

 

Abortion clinic buffer zone approved in Oakland temporarily on hold

Christian Examiner staff report

OAKLAND, Calif. - The Oakland City Council in Calif. approved the expanded 8-foot buffer zone, Dec. 18, around abortion clinics in an effort to block sidewalk counselors from having access to potential clients.

The new ordinance makes it unlawful, and punishable by up to one year in jail, to go within that distance of an abortion business unless heading there for an abortion.

It applies to protesters as well as sidewalk counselors who help women with alternatives.

City officials maintain the buffer zone is targeting aggressive pro-life protesters.

"Right now we do have some very aggressive protesters in Oakland," Amy Moy, with Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, told a San Francisco TV station. “Their tactics include stalking people from their cars all the way to the front entrance. They also try to force misleading and false information into our patients' hands from a very close proximity, so this buffer ordinance will help eliminate or reduce some of those tactics that our patients find extremely intimidating."

Pro-lifers call the move an attempt to limit free speech.

The Life Legal Defense Foundation filed suit on behalf of pro-life advocate Walter B. Hoye II to keep the city from enforcing the law.

In a telephone conference, Dec. 20, before Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District, the City agreed not to enforce the ordinance. Judge Breyer advised the city on how to make the law conform with prior Supreme Court rulings.

City Attorney John Russo told the Alameda Times Star that the city will rework the law.

"What we're going to do is follow the judge's direction and go back to the council with an amended ordinance on Jan. 15," he said.

Until then, Oakland Police Department Chief Wayne Tucker wrote a letter to pro-life attorneys on Thursday saying it would not enforce the law until a new one is in place.

Attorney Cyrus Johnson, a free speech advocate, expressed concern in an interview with LifeNews.com about granting "the government power to say which message can be communicated and which message cannot."

He noted that there is no documented justification for the proposal.

There are "zero police reports, zero records of injunctions filed, zero records of lawsuits filed and, frankly, no evidence beyond conjecture to support the notion that there is a problem at the clinics," said Johnson.

Planned Parenthood: Harassment in the "Extreme"

When a person makes a false claim about someone else, the term psychologists use to describe that is "projection." Planned Parenthood is "projecting" when Amy Moy, associate vice president for public affairs at Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, said "federal and state laws do not do enough to protect women seeking reproductive health care in cities such as Oakland." She also said "the buffer ordinance is necessary because there is extreme harassment and intimidation in the city of Oakland."

She's right when she says, "there is extreme harassment and intimidation in the city of Oakland;" but by whom is the question? Do you hear what's being said? Since when is harassment (much less in the "extreme") not a crime? If these pro-lifers are the offenders, then be done with it and charge them with harassment. Do it now and make the consequences extreme; and watch those mean sidewalk counselors stay away. There's no need for a buffer zone law to make Constitutionally protected actions illegal.

In other words, Planned Parenthood is guilty of "extreme harassment and intimidation." They are harassing and intimidating the citizens that try to help women going in to kill their preborn babies. Who are these PROJECTORS? I can tell you who they are not: they are not "seeking reproductive health care." They are the harassers and intimidators.

The good news: now the Oakland City Counsel is being advised to rewrite the ordinance that provides an 8 foot buffer zone to Planned Parenthood. It is being argued that the ordinance is not content neutral and unfairly targets parties from one side of the issue only (the pro-life sidewalk counselors). U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer agrees and has ordered the city of Oakland, CA to rewrite this ordinance. The timeline is January 15, 2008 for the revised ordnance to be reintroduced to the city counsel.

Here we have it; Planned Parenthood doesn't want Oakland, CA to have good law; they want Oakland to harass pro-lifers - simple logic and common sense says so. Call your city councilman and let them know what you think and that you are paying attention to how they deal with this, most important, First Amendment issue.

Judge or Jury, That Is The Question

The term "jury trial" is a subtle change in the language of the court room, which hides a significant change of power by the judge that he does not have. In a jury trial, the Judge is more than just in control of the proceedings - the judge's rules control what the jury can and can't do. You've heard judges instruct the jury to "ignore this or that..." This would not happen in a trial by jury. In a trial by jury, the jurors can interpret the law (as written or as applied) in whatever way is right. It is the brilliance of our system, in that a jury can do what is right and determine the law is wrong, if that is called for. This presents a huge distinction, and not just a play on words, between "jury trial" and "trial by jury."

The sixth Amendment to the US Constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

There are two things to notice in the 6^th Amendment: 1) it uses the word "by" and, 2) it does not use the term "peer," when it speaks of jury. The right of a trial by jury is articulated clearly. However, there is almost complete ignorance on the distinction we are making; so let's cut through the smoke and try to see this with the clarity the Amendment offers.

You've heard a lot in the press lately about judicial activism; where judges make laws instead of interpreting laws. This is a real problem, and is at the core of what we are writing about. When a judge imposes rules on jurors that he does not have the legal basis to do, that judge has emasculated the jury and has robbed the defendant of his 6^th Amendment right. This is what we see happening in another case we are chronicling at http://www.uncleraisin.com/UR/iowacity/iocty01.asp. We hope to bring an education that helps solve this problem.

Just to be clear, we are saying that in a trial by jury, it is the jury that has the power to convict or acquit, not the judge. A jury may see a law that is unjust and decide contrary to its (otherwise) dictate, in spite of what the judge might say. A jury may ignore and refuse an unlawful order by the judge. In a trial by jury, it is up to the 12 jurors to speak (unanimously) to the particulars of the case, in coming to a final determination of guilt or innocence.

This power is an awesome power; in that it requires an understanding of the law and how the law comes into being. It is on this point that we Americans fall woefully short. The civics lessons we receive in our public schooling is almost non-existent; and most private schooling is not much better. In a world that removes the power from the people, why should we care? If the judge holds the power, and all that is required is to follow instructions, there is no reason to care. However, that is not what our Supreme Law of the land says.

We must take our responsibility seriously that is provided for in our US Constitution's 6^th Amendment. Without doing so, we will continue to fall prey to the whims of the court and the power they have taken illicitly. They have what is yours and mine. It is wrong to just let them have it!

As for Renato Hughes Jr., and his plight; the judge will probably arrest control and find room for the charges of racism, and rule that no jury of his peers can be found. If the judge does not expressly refer to, he will be imply, Renato Hughes Jr. is entitled to it per the 6^th Amendment. The sad part about this is, it will probably work on a populous who doesn't know any better. We shall see.