America’s Conflict with Radical Islam Dates to 1785


Visit the new MLLG website; it contains the best posts of all time.
Conflict between radical Islam and America goes back 231 years.
By: George Noga – February 28, 2016

     We will get to America’s first encounter with Islamic terrorists, but first a few words about our new More Liberty – Less Government website. The website now is ready with most writings from mid 2011 to the present already on the website and more being added each week. Eventually, there will be over 75 past posts plus all 2016 posts. The website already has experienced thousands of hits even though I have yet to mention it in a post. Moreover, our posts now show up in Google searches (especially our Guns in America series). Go to and you will find the following:

  • A heading titled “About MLLG & Author” with much background information
  • Most posts from mid 2011 to the present – more being added all the time
  • Chronological and topical indexes plus a “Search Window” for finding posts
  • The best posts of all time and the best series of all time
  • All the most recent (2016) postings in order of publication
  • A portal to subscribe to the blog so you will receive all posts via email
  • Links to all the usual social media

    You will find extensive information about MLLG and also about yours truly, including some things that may surprise you. If you enjoy reading our posts, you will enjoy browsing the website and finding all our most popular posts and series including: Defining Liberalism, IQ in Society and Public Policy, The Gods of the Copybook Headings and many about climate change including Warming Throughout the Solar System. It also is a great way for your friends and associates to learn about our work.

America’s First Encounter with Muslim Terrorism

     In 1785 (231 years ago) Dey Muhammad of Algiers declared war on the United States and captured several American ships. Soon thereafter,  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, American diplomats in London at the time, requested a meeting with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States. The meeting took place in early 1786 and Adams and Jefferson sent a letter dated March 28, 1786 summarizing the meeting to John Jay, at that time the US Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation.

    Adams and Jefferson asked the ambassador why the Barbary States made war upon the United States which had done them no injury. Adams and Jefferson went on to say that America considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador’s response to Adams and Jefferson as contained in their letter to John Jay is excerpted in the following paragraph.

     “The actions of the Barbary States are founded on the laws of our Prophet, Mohamed. It is written in our Koran that all nations who do not acknowledge our  authority are sinners. Therefore, it is our right and our duty to make war upon such infidels wherever they can be found and to make slaves of all that are taken prisoner. Moreover, any Muslims slain in battle are sure to go to paradise.

     Eventually, the US fought two Barbary wars in 1801-1805 and again in 1815-1816. In the first war, a combined land and naval assault by the US Marine Corps on Tripoli won the war; in the second, the US Navy, led by Commodore Steven Decatur, forced a peace treaty on the Barbary States. Thereafter, the Barbary States did not capture any more US ships although they continued to pillage and plunder those of other nations.

     Not much has changed in over 230 years; is there a lesson here from the past?

 The next post revisits our favorite topic – climate change; it is not to be missed!


Jury Nullification – Closing Argument to Jury

By: George Noga – October 10, 2014

      Of all I learned writing this blog, nothing is more crucial to achieving more liberty and less government than the issue of jury nullification, i.e. the idea that juries are sovereign and have the absolute right to vote to acquit for any reason. The right to a jury trial was enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights not solely for the defendant, but for the jury. Nullification is not to be used lightly; but following are 10 specific examples where it may apply.

  1. Laws have proliferated such that honest citizens acting in good faith unknowingly violate laws they never knew, or reasonably should have known, existed or that were so vague as to be meaningless;
  2. The accused never intended to commit a crime and did not have a mens rea – or guilty mind – which formerly was a requirement for charging or convicting citizens;
  3. Victimless crimes;
  4. Laws that shouldn’t exist like Wisconsin’s making it a crime for a farmer to provide raw milk to the owner of the cows he boards even though consuming raw milk is perfectly legal;
  5. Crimes for which the probable sentence (or minimum sentence) is out of proportion;
  6. Disagreement with the law or the way it is being applied; laws only seldom or selectively enforced;
  7. Abuse by police or prosecutors and/or charges that are political in nature;
  8. Overzealous enforcement or profiling – one third of all adults have been arrested as have 40% of males before age 23 – 50% for black males under age 23. This is prima facie unreasonable;
  9. Instances where justice is not being served; and
  10. Matters of conscience.
     Although widely sanctioned and practiced in the early years of our republic, today defense attorneys seldom are permitted to raise jury nullification at a trial. It should be permitted throughout our land. Following is the closing argument I would address to a jury if I were the defense attorney in a case that cried out for jury nullification.
Closing Speech to Jury from Defense Attorney
      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: Under our Constitution and common law you, when sitting as a jury, are sovereign. This means you can vote to acquit and thereby nullify the charges against my client for any reason or even for no reason and not be held to account or even asked to explain. You have absolute power including the right to ignore your juror’s oath and the judge’s instructions. This is a sacred right with a lengthy and honorable provenance.
      In 1670 William Penn was tried in London for the putative crime of preaching Quakerism. The judge wanted him convicted but the jury refused. The judge then jailed the jury for four days without food, water or toilet facilities; they still refused to convict Penn. Ultimately England’s highest court ruled that a juror’s right to reject law and to vote conscience is traceable to the Magna Carta signed nearly exactly 800 years ago in 1215. Our laws are based on and incorporate English common law which, of course, traces back to Magna Carta and even earlier.
       In America, a juror’s right to vote conscience emanates from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution provides five separate sources with effective veto power before any law can be used to punish an offender; these are: (1) house of representatives; (2) senate; (3) president; (4) judiciary; and (5) jury. Even Congress passes a law, the president signs it and the courts allow it, the law will not stand if juries such as this one refuse to convict under it.
       The right of juries to nullify was well understood by our founding fathers. President John Adams said: “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” President Thomas Jefferson said: “Trial by jury is the only anchor by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” The first chief justice, John Jay, stated: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” I could continue for a long time with other similar quotes from great Americans, but I believe you already understand.

      Jury nullification has a long and glorious history in America; let me tell you about just a few of the many instances where valiant juries have voted their conscience.

  • The Salem witch trials in 1692 ended for one reason and one reason only: jury nullification. Beginning in 1693 there were 52 consecutive hung juries and/or acquittals and prosecutors ceased bringing new cases.
  • In the 1760s juries refused to enforce forfeitures under the Navigation Acts. England then restricted jury trials as part of the Intolerable Acts which led directly to the American Revolution.
  • In the 1850s northern juries began acquitting abolitionists under the Fugitive Slave Laws.
  • In the 1890s corporations began losing jury verdicts in cases involving the organization of labor unions and strikes resulting in workers winning the right to organize.
  • Jury nullification played a big role in ending prohibition in the 1930s.
  • During the Vietnam War, juries acquitted protesters when informed of their sovereign power.
  • Juries refused to convict admitted consensual sex among adult gays under sodomy laws.
  • In 2012 an Iowa jury acquitted an “occupy” protester who admittedly violated curfew and trespass laws to remain on the grounds of the statehouse to peacefully protest. Immediately thereafter, 15 others accused under the same laws demanded jury trials.
      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case cries out for you to nullify an unjust law. Use your independent life experience, concept of justice, wisdom and beliefs; do not mindlessly follow the judge, other jurors or a bad law. You can and must hang a jury, by yourself if necessary, if your conscience so dictates; you must resist all pressure from other jurors to compromise. Ignore the cost of a retrial. It is your right and your duty.
“A majority is one person with courage.”
     History shines upon courageous juries. Remember what your valiant ancestors did for peaceable Quakers, accused witches, fugitive slaves, workers’ rights, war protestors and persecuted homosexuals and do your duty as a sovereign jury. By doing so, other juries will follow suit; even one solitary American citizen voting his or her conscience can overturn an unjust law for a nation of 315 million. Finally, always remember that a majority is one person with courage!