What the USA must change to become a great nation
by Anthony Marr
I was born in China during the Japanese invasion which murdered some 20
million Chinese civilians. My mother was almost captured as a "comfort
woman", i.e. a sex slave to be eventually killed when used up. Had this
happened, I wouldn't be here writing this essay.
So right off the bat, I was born to think that Japan was anything but great.
And though after the war I tried to forgive and forget, Japan turned the
same blood-lust against the whales and dolphins, which has kept me seething.
No, Japan is not a great nation, not by a long harpoon shot.
When I was 5, the Communists overran China, and my family escaped with our
lives by moonlight down the Pearl River to the British Crown Colony of Hong
Kong. Had we not done so, my entire family could have been terminated in the
purges and hard labor camps which ensued. All in all the Communist regime
wiped out some 60 million Chinese people in its consolidation of power. Most
of these 60 million died of starvation when the Maoist government shipped
their food to Russia in exchange for technological and military assistance.
After the "Great Cultural Revolution", I tried to forgive and forget as
well, but the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of 3000 students forever removed China
from greatness in my mind.
From ages 5 through 20, I grew up in Hong Kong as a stateless person under
the rule of the British Empire. Though it was not a bloody regime, a day did
not pass when I was not reminded one way or another, and none too subtly,
that I was a third class citizen. By no means all Chinese, but the Cantonese
culture of Guang Dong province, to which Hong Kong is attached, is notorious
for its callous and broad-spectrum animal use and abuse. Britain, which
ruled the Cantonese people flooding into Hong Kong, had the responsibility
of enforcing its supposedly humane animal laws, but from what I saw as a
child and a teenager, nothing along this line was done. Since I loved
animals, the British did not relieve my pain. But then, how could a nation
known for its cruel sport of fox-hunting impose its will on the people of
another culture regarding humane and respectful animal treatment? Based on
the above alone, Great Britain, though the lesser of two evils compared to
China by far, left/leaves much greatness to be desired.
At age 21, I flew across the Pacific to Canada on a student visa. Prepped by
over-dramatized Hollywood movies about the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia, I set
foot on North American soil with trepidation. But almost at once, I found
the Canadian people warm, gentle and helpful, and genuinely kind and loving
to their companion animals, which made me feel very much at home. Further, I
was amazed by how people could openly criticize the government without any
fear of retribution, and on the contrary I saw smiling politicians shaking
hands with the humble people in Chinatown, which was unheard of where I had
come from. There was/is a free Medicare system for all, and a respectful
policy towards seniors. So finally, when I swore myself in as a Canadian
citizen, I felt rightly proud for belonging finally to what I perceived to
be a great nation. But it did not take me too long to get disillusioned. As
a university student, I worked summers out in the bush as a geologist's
assistant. It was then I began to see the horrific assault by logging
companies against the environment. When one year I worked in a
cathedral-like old growth forest by which I was awed, the next year, it had
been reduced to a waste land, with nothing but huge grey stumps left behind.
I saw trophy hunters shooting down anything magnificent that moved. And I
saw mines and pulp mills discharging heavy metals, cyanides, organo-chlorines,
PCBs, PAHs and dioxins on to the land. And that was before I learned about
the horrendous Newfoundland seal massacre, and finally flew over the six
hellish Alberta tar sands mines which made of the entire Athabasca watershed
one enormous carcinogen.
But at least, so I thought, I still had my freedom of speech, until I became
an animal rights activist, and found that although I could indeed shout my
lungs out in a demonstration, and could debate 100 hunters at a time without
getting lynched, the truth of the matter is that not one word I had spoken
or written proved worth a dime in the eyes of those to whom it was
addressed. And over my protestations, my tax dollars were used to subsidize
the seal hunt.
So bit by bit, then clunk by chunk, and year by year, the monument of
Canadian greatness disintegrated in my mind.
In the mid-late 1990s, I went to India to work in three tiger reserves to
help save them from habitat destruction, and the Bengal tiger from
India's great Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral
progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." From what I have
seen in three expeditions by plane, train, jeep and on foot, each lasting
2-3 months, India's animals are not well treated, especially its street dogs
and wildlife. I have personally rescued a puppy from being stoned to death
by children, while the adults stood by, doing nothing. Where animals are
concerned, India first task is to save the Bengal tiger and its complex
ecosystems. The country does have a federal program called Project Tiger,
but it is fighting a half-hearted and therefore losing battle, and tiger
habitat continue to dwindle, and tiger numbers continue to decline. The
tiger is a world treasure, but India has the responsibility to preserve it.
If we cannot even save the tiger, a species universally loved and admired,
what can we save?
Not until India has demonstrated her sincere and whole-hearted commitment to
saving the Bengal tiger and its ecosystems would I begin to consider her in
the question of greatness.
In 1999, the Makah native tribe in Washington state clamored for a revival
of their "traditional" hunting of the Grey whale. We could not stop them
from killing one young female - with a high-powered 50-calibre rifle and
towed back to shor with a motorcraft - some "traditional" whaling. But we
have legally stalled them since, so far. This was my first field engagement
with American activists, and I rapidly grew to love working with them on an
From 2003 through 2008, I conducted 6 Compassionate for Animals Road
Expeditions (CARE tours), each covering 25-41 states in 3-7 months.
I have worked with grassroots activists in almost every state on their
campaigns, and have developed a certain depth of understanding in most of
their issues and their ways of handling them. I have seen their successes
and failures, and have learned from them the dos and don'ts. In doing so, I
have also been exposed to the opposition, and the way it works, to KNOW THY
ENEMY. Most of all, I have become keenly aware of not only local trends, but
national trends (of which local activists may not always be aware), and I
have forged coalitions to deal with multi-state and nation-wide problems and
issues. As well, I have engaged American activists in Canadian issues, not
least of all the 300,000-baby-seals-per-year Newfoundland seal massacre,
with my car painted with the slogan "I AM CANADIAN. BOYCOTT MY COUNTRY!"
And I have received much support in return, for which I am deeply thankful.
I love my American friends deeply, so I wish America the best.
Unfortunately, the way I've seen it, in many ways it is not even good, much
less great. I owe it to my American friends to point a few things out from
my visiting Canadian's perspective. To heal, one must first diagnose.
Following are some of my observations:
*1st Amendment violations
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the Five
Freedoms. It is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly
prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an
establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion,
infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the
right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government.
In terms of the freedom of speech, it forbids viewpoint discrimination,
however unpopular the viewpoint may be. However, if you say as much as "Good
morning" to a hunter in the process of targeting a deer, you can be charged
with violating the state-level Hunter Harassment law, which in turn violates
the First Amendment. The hunters argue that it is the sound of the speech,
not the words, that harasses the hunter, but how can even they separate the
words from the sound? If the words of "Good morning" is protected by the
First Amendment and can be spoken, how can the sound of "Good morning" when
it is being spoken be illegal? Clearly, the HH laws are created and
administered by hunters, for hunters, including the judge in Pennsylvania
who convicted Jan Haagensen on five counts of hunter harassment - for
telling invading hunters to get off her land, and for telling a hunter
hunting from the road that what he was doing was illegal even under the
hunting laws of PA (listen to the Jan Haagensen interview by Anthony Marr on
Animal Voices in
What about the mother of the U.S. - Great Britain? Does true freedom of
speech exist there? Judging by the life-time ban of Dr. Steven Best from the
U.K. for speaking in favor of direct action in animal rights activism, the
answer is a resounding NO.
If all these curtailments of freedom, and invasions of privacy, are designed
to win the "War of Terror", then the first battle is already lost, because
the lost American freedom is the terrorists' spoil of war. The United States
and Britain have compromised and defeated themselves..
A nation whose constitution has been compromised cannot be considered great.
The way for the U.S. to correct this problem is to scrap all state-level
laws that violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Democracy means majority-rule, but minority-rule by power elite is not
uncommon, if not rampant. And it could even be written into the constitution
itself. The constitution of New Jersey, for example, stipulates that of the
11 voting member of the Fish & Game, 6 must be hunters. In most such case,
all 11 are hunters, because any odd-man-out will be ostracized mercilessly
until he/she quits. This is pseudo-majority-rule within the commission, but
real minority rule in the entire state of New Jersey. The result is a set of
hunting laws by hunters, for hunters, and the non-hunters and anti-hunters
of New Jersey, which add up to 99.2% of the population (only 0.8% of New
Jerseyan's hunt) have no say in the matter. Some democracy.
A nation which mocks and violates its own founding principle cannot be
considered great. To correct this problem, all U.S. states must have
wildlife management laws determined by a panel proportionately representing
the general population of that state, not its small-minority hunting elite.
Another point of pseudo-democracy is in the form of the so-called "public
consultation" sessions in county, city and municipal council. From my
observation, by the time the council is in session and the public is allowed
to speak, the decisions have often already been signed and sealed behind
close doors. So the public strenuously speaking their mind, to which the
council only pretends to listen, is expending their energy showing
externally what a great democracy they all live in, being able to speak out
with passion without fear of persecution.
The crux of the matter here is the composition of the council itself. A pro-funting
council will decide in favor of urban deer hunting no matter what activists
say. The solution is to make the council anti-hunting, and this has to be
done through the political process by fielding anti-hunting candidates and
campaigning to put them in office. Already existing is the League of Humane
Voters (LOHV) headed by Peter and Anne Muller, and LOHV chapters headed by
local activists (e.g. Lane Ferrante, director of the new Ohio LOHV chapter).
All this is easier said than done, considering that almost all American
politicians on all levels are puppets of the powerful gun lobby, hunting
lobby, and the arms and hunting industries. And pseudo-democracy,
pseudo-anything for that matter, has no place in greatness.
*A CORPSE-run nation
I love my American friends, each in a unique way, but there is one thing in
common. They all live in a system originally designed by conscience, e.g.
the U.S. Constitution, but eventually abused and corrupted by corporations,
opportunists, rapists, psychopaths, sociopaths and ecopaths (CORPSE) for
their own immediate profit and agrandizement, at the expense of the
innocent, the future and the whole. They have created new subsystems for the
purpose of defeating the Constitution itself, complete with pseudo-patriotic
slogans. And they attack the conscience of society itself - us.
The impact of such a system far exceeds that directed against the animal
rights and environmental movements. It can wipe out all the corals in the
sea, it can desertify the entire Amazon, it can starve millions with a
global millennium drought, it can make Earth uninhabitable for humans, and
it can wipe out over 80% of all species on Earth as the End-Permian
Extinction did 251 million years ago. If we let these CORPSEs run the show,
the entire nation will behave as if it has no conscience. Can a nation
without conscience be considered great? Can any psychopath be considered
Analyse a CORPSE-run nation, and we will see the evil manifest in a thousand
different ways, including the rise of Nazism in WW2 Germany. Following are
those that I have personally encountered through my travels in the United
States of America - "the land of the free, the home of the brave".
Even the person in the nation's highest political office can be, and to a
large extent is, a puppet. Its puppet-masters are corporations. When George
W. Bush was governor of Texas, GUI (governing under the influence) of Big
Oil, Texas ranked last in environmental protection. The oil companies got
richer and ever more powerful, so much so that they put Bush all the way up
into the White House, to make of the Unites States a large Texas. As soon as
Bush took over as president, one of his first feats was to gut the
Environmental Protection Agency by planting unprecedented numbers of
industrial CEOs into the EPA's highest ranks, who then proceeded to
eliminate as many Clinton-era protection laws as the public would allow. An
the authority-fearing and by-and-large apathetic public just let him/them do
it. And of course, whether he was genuinely ignorant of global warming or
not, he publicly voiced skepticism about global warming, and very publicly
refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty to counteract the global threat of
climate change, by virtual order of Big Oil, thereby squandering a great
opportunity to lead the world by peaceful means. Worse, 8 years of precious
time for saving the planet was wasted, when the total amount of time for
doing so is no more than 12 years as of 2000. Even Obama, infinitely better
informed than Bush ever was or presumably ever could be, is still a puppet
to an extent - of the coal industry - even though he himself, as an
independent thinker, if he has any logic at all, would not condone.
If even the top leader of a nation is a puppet, that nation cannot be
Wikipedia has a definition for a certain ism, which "comprises a radical and
authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic
ideology". That ism is called Fascism, and the United States "Democracy" is
dangerously close to it. A Fascist nation is automatically precluded from
greatness, because it subjugates the will of its citizens to that of its
corporations. An all-powerful corporatist economic policy has no regard for
human rights, much less animal right and environmental integrity. It's only
concern is economic hegemony and military supremacy.
To correct this problem there must be a new amendment to severely limit or
exclude political influence on government by corporations, and economically
powerful special interest groups such as the NRA or, to be fair, the HSUS.
The root of all political evils is corporate economic influence of political
election outcomes. Putting it bluntly, to fire each and every "best
politician money can buy" is a must for national greatness.
*A war started by a fool
The war: The Iraq War. The fool: George W. Bush. The fool is gone, but the
war remains. As long as a foolish war continues, the nation waging it cannot
*Bought global warming denial
In case the general population feels smug about corporate villainy and
politicians being corporate puppets, each citizen should be reminded that he
is himself a mini-puppet, whose very thought may not be his own. Corporate
thought control exists in many forms, in many nations, but nowhere as
pronounced and blatant and staggering as in the United States, the lair of
Big Oil. To ensure a sustained oil and coal market, Big Oil has spend some
$100 million in waging a counter-campaign to discredit global warming as a
myth. The result is that the United States ranks rock bottom in global
warming awareness amongst all western nations in international surveys. This
is a deliberate deception and dumbing down of all Americans by the American
power-elite which profits hugely from public apathy and compliance, at the
expense of the environment and our children's future.
The 8 Bush years may already have driven the planet past the point of no
return. Obviously, a nation that sabotages international efforts to save the
planet and our children's future for its own short term profit bears the
antithesis of greatness. Is Obama signficantly better? Better, yes.
Significantly? Not as long as he keeps on puppeting for Big Coal.
*The self-debeautification of America
American the Beautiful? Almost heaven, West Virginia? John Denver would
weep, if he saw what I saw that summer day in 2008, when I was in my 6th
Compassion for Animals Road Expedition. A local activist took me up one of
the mountains to witness for myself a mountain-top-removal operation by the
To call it "an eye-sore" is like calling Ted Bundy "naughty". A government
that would allow the destruction of the magnificent mountains which took
millions of years to build for the short term profit of its puppet master
Big Coal is not a great government, and the nation ruled by such a
government is not a great nation.
*Be insured, or die
In "socialist" Canada, medical care is a basic human right. In "capitalist"
United States, it is not. I don't know why some Americans hate or fear
"socialism" so much. It is just another case of McCarthyish paranoia. No
nation which says its citizens, "pay up or die." can be considered great.
Only the puppet masters have anything to fear, because - Where does the
money come from? -Taxation - of the filthy rich - stupid.
*The enslavement and slaughter of billions
Substitute humans for animals, and concentration camps for factory farms and
vivisection labs, and cattle cars for cattle cars, gas chambers for
slaughter houses, and the factory farmers and transporters and vivisectors
and slaughterers, would be no better than Nazis. Only their victims are
different. The humans are essentially the same.
Quantitatively, it's worse. Line up the cows slaughtered every year in
America for human consumption in single file, and the cow line will stretch
from L.A. to N.Y. back and forth 16 times, and the pig line, 35 times, and
the chicken line (10 billion) would stretch between the Earth and the Moon 8
times. All these add up to sentient-being-sufferings on an astronomical
A nation harboring such enormous imposed internal suffering cannot be
*Lying to The People
A government that lies to the people is criminal, by whatever political
system it abides. A nation in which a government lies to the people is
lightyears from greatness.
Here is a blatant example. In 2007, while on my 5th Compassion for Animals
Road Expedition (CARE-5), I was in Allentown PA when local activists asked
for my assistance in opposing a new bow-hunting scheme within the nearby
Trexler Nature Preserve. It was the dying wish of General Harry Clay Trexler
that no hunting be conducted within the preserve. But in 2007, the local
government announced to the public that due to an increase in the white-tail
deer population within the preserve, its ecology has been compromised, and
that the deer population needed to be reduced, and further, that the bow
hunters in the area have volunteered themselves to do the job for the
community, free of charge. Except for the resistance put up by these few
great local activists, notably Carol Loomis, Virginia Wolfe and Cheryl
Baker, the public had no comment, and the hunt did go ahead. On opening day
of the hunt, Carol, Cheryl, Chryl's teenage son and I entered the preserve,
amidst the hordes of bow hunters, male and female, all armed to the teeth.
We received many stares ranging from suspicious to hostile, but it was an
eye-opener. Were I blindfolded and driven by deep into the preserve, and
taken for a short walk of no more than 100 yards from the parking lot, then
have the blindfold removed and asked what I was looking at, I would have
answered that I was in a farm. Acres of forest had been ploughed down, and
row upon row of deer clover had been planted in its place.
Those who understand the Compensatory Rebound Effect, some hunters included,
know that with an overabundance of food, deer would maximize their
reproductive rate. Instead of no-fawn and singlet, they would have twins and
triplets, resulting indeed in an overabundance of deer, which is what the
hunters want. Local residents are usually not aware of this, at least not on
a first person basis, and that is that the bow-hunters are very aggressive
in forcing their way into potential hunting areas where the discharge of
fire-arms is illegal, including urban parks like the Trexler, and even
within the urban areas themselves - in people's backyards. It is the general
strategy of hunters to first cultivate a high deer population, then claim
deer over-population, then offer themselves as saviors of deer-damaged
communities. The truth of the matter is that the whole thing is initiated by
the bow-hunters in collusion with the hunter-friendly politicians who are
often themselves hunters, for which they were put in office by the hunting
industry in the first place. I took pictures of the plantation and submitted
them to the local newspaper, and spoke at length to its reporter, but the
article that came out the following day did not make a single mention of the
deer clover plantation, did not use my photos, but instead glorified a
female hunter for being among the first to bag a magnificent buck.
How great is a nation in which the government deceives the people to appease
its puppet masters?
*A nation run by serial killers
Let's brush aside all the fluff and window-dressing and BS and get down to
the bare bones, shall we? The cold hard fact of the matter is that not only
are the vast majority of politicians under the thumbs of powerful serial
killers, but are themselves serial killers. I am talking about recreational
hunters and trophy hunters. The fact that their victims are non-human does
not alter the fact that they have no compassion, revel in bloodshed, derive
pleasure from another being's suffering, and practice serial killing as a
form of entertainment.
When I go speaking to children, I often ask them what to them is the most
immoral reason for killing an animal - in self-defense? for food? for
clothing? for money? for fun? Without a single exception the children in all
schools have voted against KILLING FOR FUN as the most immoral reason for
killing anything. And America is ruled by a small minority of very powerful
but highly immoral people who kill for fun, i.e. who are recreational
A nation run by serial fun-killers cannot be great.
*Animal protection laws or lack thereof
Animal protection laws do exist within the United States, and on both the
federal and state levels. Federal animal protection statutes take the form
of Acts, which number almost 100, including the African Elephant
Conservation Act, the Airborne Hunting Act, the Animal Damage Control Act,
the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Animal Health Protection Act, the
Animal Welfare Act, the Animal Fighting Act, the Bald and Goldern Eagle
Protection Act, the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, the Dog and Cat Protection
Act, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, the Endangered Species
Act, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Humane Slaughter Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the
Recreational Hunting Safety and Preservation Act, etc. These may seem
impressive, but if we look between them, we'd see huge gaps through which
entire sectors of the animal kingdom could be abused, tortured, shot,
trapped and slaughtered with impunities, notably wild animals not protected
by the Endangered Species Act, and farm and lab animals place under the
"protection" of the Department of Agriculture, the very governmental body
whose purpose is to exploit them. And some of these "animal protection
laws", e.g. the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, as its name clearly
states, is to protect the animal enterprises, not the animals, and its new
incarnation the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, is demonstrably
I consider the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act unconstitutional because even
a non-violent demonstration is an act of "terrorism" if it inflicts economic
damage upwards of $10,000 on any animal enterprise. So, a boycott of a
certain company, e.g. KFC, could be considered an act of terrorism if the
company could demonstrate that as a result of the boycott, it suffered
$10,001's sertback in chicken wing sales, in which case the jail time is up
to 6 months. If the financial damage is in the range of $1 million, the jail
time is up to 6 years. In other words, if Martin Luther King or Mahatma
Gandhi were animal rights activists today, they would have been considered
terrorists. Again, the primary point is that the AETA violates the
Constitution of the United States. A conditional freedom of speech is a
contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as freedom of speech "on the
condition that you don't offend anybody."
The state level animal protection laws are far simpler than the federal
acts. Generally, they protect cat, dogs and horses which "belong to" human
individuals and some corporations, but not wild animals that "belong to" no
one. The reason for this is that the "owners" of the cats and dog and horses
would make a fuzz if "their" animals are harmed by others, e.g. shot by a
hunter, but there is no one to speak for the wild and hunted animals. So
basically, these are "animal-owner" protection laws, not animal protection
laws, which therefore concern themselves with human rights, not animal
No nation that does not recognize that animals have rights can be considered
*Government control of media
Local radio talkshow listeners may think that their own area is
exceptionally right wing. But having listened to radio talkshows in my car
while I driving from state to state, from coast to coast, I can tell you
with certainty that it is not. Where the radio talkshow scene is concerned,
the entire nation is exceptionall right wing. Over 95% of all well known
American talkshow hosts, from Rush Limbaugh pn down are right wing. And
worse, every morning, each right wing talkshow host would receive an email
from Maryland telling them the talking points of the day, and what stand to
take on each talking point. In the newspaper arena, investigative journalism
is all but dead. It is brain-washing on a grand scale.
The Allentown PA newspaper article on the Trexler preserve mentioned above,
which buried my photos of the Trexler plantation, is not an isolated local
case either. In many places, a reporter attacking or just questioning
hunting is committing professional suicide, or at least opening himself to
severe and concerted hunter attack.
Thought control and the suppression of truth is not the mark of a great
*The 5 lethal maneuvers of the House of Fraud
I have mentioned the Jan Haagensen case (listen to the Haagensen interview
by Anthony Marr on the Animal Voices talkshow archived in
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr). Haagensen was convicted by the
PA criminal court on 5 counts of hunter harassment, which involve a jail
term. She appealed to an appelate court, and had the convictions all
overturned for a total lack of evidence. Now she is taking the offense, and
is legally challenging the constitutionality of the PA Hunter Harassment
Statute. She is fighting this battle alone and deserves, and needs, our
support. But at least she could appeal.
While researching material on Steve Hindi, one of my guests on Animal
Voices, I came across the following passage by Rob Sherman in an article
which shocked even me. I will copy-paste it here verbatim:
While there may be two sides to the rodeo debate (although I doubt it), as a
professional journalist, let me assure you that you should place no
credibility, whatsoever, in anything that the Illinois criminal courts do.
The criminal courts, here, are widely recognized as a House of Fraud which
fakes the conviction of completely innocent people for the purpose of
attempting to smear the reputation of political enemies.
Here are five ways in which they do it:
1) Most judges in Illinois criminal trials are former prosecutors from the
same state's attorney's office that is now presenting the prosecution's
case. Blatant conflict of interest. The judge has numerous ways of rigging
the outcome of cases to ensure conviction, as described below, regardless of
whether the Defendant is guilty or innocent. Indeed, it doesn't even matter
if the Defendant has not been accused of doing anything that violates the
2) Block the introduction of testimony that exonerates the Defendant. The
way that this scam works is, every time the Defense asks a prosecution or
defense witness a question that, if answered, would clearly exonerate the
falsely accused Defendant, the prosecutor objects to the question being
answered and the judge, who is a former prosecutor (sort of a prosecution
tag team), sustains the objection. The jury never gets to hear the testimony
that would exonerate the Defendant.
3) Block any testimony from Defense witnesses who have the knowledge to
refute everything that the prosecutor is contending. The way this scam
works, the prosecutor objects that the testimony of the witness should not
be allowed because the testify is supposedly irrelevant. The
former-prosecutor judge, being familiar with this lawyer trick, sustains the
prosecutor's objection and the witness is barred from testifying. A jury is
required to base its decision on the evidence and testimony presented, so if
the jury is only allowed to hear from witnesses that support the
prosecution's trumped up charges, the jury has no choice but to render a
decision based solely on the prosecutor's presentation.
4) Charge and convict the Defendant for the crime of nothing. This is a
beautiful scam that any rodeo type would love. The prosecutor accuses a
Defendant of being in violation of a law, but doesn't allege that the
Defendant actually did anything that violates that law. After a trial on the
allegation of the crime of nothing, the judge says, "I enter a finding of
guilty," but not guilty of doing anything in particular. Then, when the
Defendant complains to the judge, "I didn't do anything that violates the
law. I wasn't even accused of doing anything that violates the law, and you
haven't found me guilty of doing anything which violates the law. So, just
what, exactly, is it that you found me guilty of doing that violates the
law?" To which the judge responds, "You don't understand, sir. Now that I've
entered a finding of guilty, you have lost your presumption of innocence.
Therefore, you have to tell the Court what it is that you did that violated
the law, rather than the other way around."
5) The hostage-taking scam. This scam is an extension of Scam #4, above. In
this scam, the judge takes the falsely convicted Defendant hostage every
time he has an appeal brief due, to keep him from appealing the fake
conviction. The way that this scam works, every time that the filing date
approaches for the Defendant to submit an appeal brief to the Appellate
Court, the prosecutor and judge schedule a simultaneous post-trial hearing
in which the prosecutor or court demands that the Defendant announce what it
was that the Defendant supposedly did that violated the law for which he was
falsely convicted. If the Defendant refuses to make up a false accusation
against himself and be coerced into confessing to the false accusation, the
Defendant is sent to jail, not for committing a crime, but rather for
"Failing to cooperate with the Court's efforts to help him." This is done
just in time to keep the Defendant from filing his appeal brief. No appeal
brief, no reversal of the fake conviction. Quite a clever lawyer trick by
the judge and prosecutor. On the other hand, if the trick succeeds in
scaring the innocent Defendant into making up a coerced false confession,
that moots out any appeal because the Defendant has supposedly admitted
guilt to the non-existent crime. Either way, the fake conviction sticks and
the Defendant loses.
Again, as a professional journalist, I have personally seen all of these
lawyer trick courtroom scams. It's why nobody should ever take seriously
ANYTHING that takes place in Illinois criminal court. It is truly a House of
This is downright bloody disgusting if you ask me, and even if you don't.
Tell me, how can a nation harboring this kind of miscarriages of justice and
judicial corruption be even remotely be considered great?
The solution here is obvious. Nail down these legal felons and bar them for
good. Then put them on trial for abuse of power, contempt of court and
corruption of American justice, convict them, throw them in jail and throw
away the key.
*America: destroyer of the Amazon
Americans consume so much beef that America imports huge quanitities of
extra beef from Brazil. Americans consume so much ethanol in gasoline that
America imports huge quantities of extra ethanol, also from Brazil. And
Brazil burns down the Amazon rainforest by the thousands of square miles to
create extra land for cattle ranches and soy plantations. If Americans, and
Canadians for that matter, do not voluntarily curtail their own gluttony for
Earth's dwindling resources, not only are they not world-leaders, but
world-degraders, and this is far from great.
Suppose a family has been living beyond its means, and is now teetering on
the brink of insolvency. Any responsible banker will advise the family to
tighten the belt, not to borrow more money to maintain that same
unsustainable standard of living which has driven the family to have lived
beyond its means in the first place. And this is what the U.S. is doing on a
national scale as we speak. A fiscally irresponsible nation cannot be a
*The self-impoverishment of the animal rights movement
Americans and Canadians complain about China becoming the largest consumer
on a per nation basis, while they remain the largest consumers on a per
How much does an American, or a Canadian for that matter, need to live? Less
than $20,000 per year. I can say this with certainty, because this is how
much I live on, including the cost of doing my work. So why should we
tolerate, much less accept, and far less contribute towards, the CEO of the
largest American animal advocacy "non-profit" organization paying himself a
cool quarter million dollars per year, or almost $25,000 per month, and
paying his dozen or so VPs $150,000 each, and his own secretary a handsome
$100,000, all from the donations meant for the animals? Isn't he just a
little ashamed of himself for personally profiting by robbing the suffering
animals for which the donations were meant? This organization has a
financial worth of $230 million - all animals' money - and an annual budget
of some $120 million, of which some 50% is overhead, which include the
lavish salaries, financial investments and a $6-10 million fund-raising
budget. In spite of all these mega-bucks, this insatiable organization still
stoops to charging penniless grassroots groups kilo-bucks for simple
zero-cost assistance. I have always thought that when a group has crossed a
certain size threshold, it will turn from its original cause to its own
growth as its primary purpose. But not until I have directly observed this
group over time did I realize to what abysmal depth this could sink. One
cold hard fact is that this organization, and several other similar ones
with big names and offices, the CEO of one of which paying himself, would
you believe, $750,000/annum, with their high overheads and slick
fund-raising machines, have sucked the financial resources within the
movement dry, leaving nothing for the grassroots groups, most of whose
members could not even afford health insurance, while that CEO and his VPs
and "executive" secretaries laugh all the way to the bank.
This is open and blatant corruption and betrayal within the animal rights
movement, but it is not all. Through my travels, I have stayed at local
activists' home by the dozens, and never have I encountered a local activist
without one or more animal companions, bless their hearts. If they, being
true-hearted animal advocates and activists (unlike that CEO who openly
confesses to having no personal affinity for animals), had to choose between
buying health insurance for themsleves and paying the vet bills of the
animals under their guardianship, they would pay the vet bills and do
without health insurance for themselves. I have seen families spending
thousands of dollars in vet bills while they can ill afford even food on the
table. The problem where the movement is concerned is that most of these
animal guardians would choose to pay the vet bills than to donate the same
amount to a grassroots animal rights group when they cannot do both. And the
vets, like the pseudo-animal-advocacy CEOs, seem just as intent on sucking
all financial resources out of the animal rights movement, which has indeed
We are animal rights activists, and we are the conscience of our societies,
even the conscience of humanity. If this conscience has been compromised by
hypocrisy and greedy, our societies, in fact humanity itself, cannot be
*The new world disorder
Any "new world order" designed, organized and led by a nation that is not
great will descend into disorder.
Is there a truly great nation in the world today?
Please let me know if you can think of any.
Anthony Marr, founder and president
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Return to Letters
Preserving Earth's Biodiversity
Terminate the Canadian Seal Massacre
Compassion for Animals Road Expeditions (CARE)
Omniscientific Cosmology and Integrative
Your Comments and Inquiries are Welcome