Saturday, August 6, 2011

Commando Team Wiped Out in Afghan Crash?

31 Americans, 7 Afghans killed in helicopter crash

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos. It was the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

Never miss an opportunity to sell war propaganda. Instead of just telling us about the news, right there in the first paragraph we have to pull out the ghost of Bin Laden again.

Sometimes, when I hear news like this, I wonder if a crash even happened at all. It's not like our troops aren't in harm's way though, so let's not go too far off the ranch here, and go ahead and assume this crash did indeed occur. That the Chinook helicopter a group of commandos were flying in, was shot down by an insurgent rocket. But let's take a closer look at what's being reported here.

In the opening paragraph, they lead us to believe that the men who were killed are the same "heros" who killed Osama bin Laden. Indeed, that is what everyone is talking about. That the heros of the BinLaden raid have been murdered by the Taliban. Well, that's pretty convenient that the men who supposedly killed BinLaden are now dead too. After all, dead men tell no tales. And if you think Bin Laden was killed in that raid, then I will tell you about how my buddy just killed Bigfoot in Japan.

But digging a little deeper we see that the information about who was actually killed in the downing of the helicopter during a raid on insurgents, comes from unnamed sources. In other words, it could be completely fabricated. A yarn spun to pull at the heartstrings of Americans.

One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included more than 20 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden. They were being flown by a crew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because families are still being notified.

That's not all I smell.
The Associated Press leaves themselves a back door here though when they add:

None of those killed in the crash is believed to have been part of the SEALs mission that killed bin Laden, but they were from the same unit as the bin Laden team.

Ok, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did!

Let's just see if there's anything missing!!!
But how about that Seal Team Six anyway? Oh, you mean that Seal team that doesn't exist? Oh, I get it, super-secret elite group, like our very own Al-Qaeda right? So secret they keep making headlines around the globe. Well, maybe Seal Team Six probably exists, they just can't tell us much about them right?

Naval Special Warfare Command is organized into the following configuration:

  • Naval Special Warfare Group 1: SEAL Teams 1, 3, 5, 7
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 2: SEAL Teams 2, 4, 8, 10
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 3: SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team 1
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 4: Special Boat Teams 12, 20, 22
  • Naval Special Warfare Group 11: SEAL Teams 17, 18 (formerly Operational Support Teams 1, 2)

You know what I don't see there? A Seal Team Six.They might as well be telling us about the further adventures of the elite G.I. Joes.

Now just to be clear here. I am not trying to undermine the real tragedy here. I have close family in Afghanistan at this very moment, and have lost friends in Afghanistan and Iraq. Losing that many men in a single incident is a terrible loss. And they may very well have been elite forces as well, making it a severe blow to a small community of America's most prized operators. But just the same, let's not smear the tragedy with a face full of bullshit from the propaganda machine.

In case you missed the inline link above, be sure to check out:

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

Monday, July 25, 2011

Homeland Security spreads more crazy conspiracy theories

ABC News spreads lies on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, to keep Americans living in fear and wiling to hand over more billions of dollars to fund our own Orwellien enlsavement. The article begins...

Sabotage by an insider at a major utility facility, including a chemical or oil refinery, could provide al Qaeda with its best opportunity for the kind of massive Sept. 11 anniversary attack Osama bin Laden was planning, according to U.S. officials.

A new intelligence report from the Department of Homeland Security issued Tuesday, titled Insider Threat to Utilities, warns "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions," and that "outsiders have attempted to solicit utility-sector employees" for damaging physical and cyber attacks.

Well, if they know this for a "fact" then why haven't we heard about any arrests in this plot of Bin Laden's ghost? Well, gee, because...

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement there was no specific threat.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

New World Order initiation video

Satire, propaganda, or hiding in plain sight? These nefarious sorts have a long history of hiding in plain sight. Is this yet another example of them publicly declaring their agenda?

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Two articles that debunk the myth...

Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

The idea that an individual can live in a surveillance society with nothing to fear so long as they have nothing to hide may, on the face of it, appear attractive. For those of us who think of ourselves as 'honest' - we pay our taxes, don't commit murders and are loyal to our partners - why indeed should we fear surveillance?

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:

Full article at link:

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

When the government gathers or analyzes personal information, many people say they're not worried. "I've got nothing to hide," they declare. "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private."

The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. The data-security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the "most common retort against privacy advocates." The legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as an "all-too-common refrain." In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal, thus making the contest with security concerns a foreordained victory for security.

The nothing-to-hide argument is everywhere. In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television. In a campaign slogan for the program, the government declares: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Variations of nothing-to-hide arguments frequently appear in blogs, letters to the editor, television news interviews, and other forums. One blogger in the United States, in reference to profiling people for national-security purposes, declares: "I don't mind people wanting to find out things about me, I've got nothing to hide! Which is why I support [the government's] efforts to find terrorists by monitoring our phone calls!"

The argument is not of recent vintage. One of the characters in Henry James's 1888 novel, The Reverberator, muses: "If these people had done bad things they ought to be ashamed of themselves and he couldn't pity them, and if they hadn't done them there was no need of making such a rumpus about other people knowing."

Full article at link:

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Trooper cuts off motorcycle, biker to face charges

Southeast, NY - A motorcyclist is still alive and in stable condition at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut, after hitting the right side of a New York State Police patrol vehicle, a guardrail, and then being thrown from his bike at high speed. 20-year old Matthew Hillman was rescued from a ditch by firefighters.

News reports indicate that a State Trooper positioned on a center-median in Fishkill, NY clocked the bikes at 100-mph, but was unable to pursue and then radioed ahead to another patrol to intercept the dual menace. That patrol engaged the first bike which passed by, cutting off the approaching second motorcycle, when the crash occurred.

The injured biker will face charges.

Wait, what? What about the Trooper? The Trooper must have known that there were two bikes to be on the lookout for to begin with. Second of all, just because someone is speeding, does not give the police the right to pull out in front of them and cause a wreck. Particularly with a motorcycle, which could easily cause a fatality.

And for that matter, we don't even know if the biker was actually speeding at that point. Okay, so maybe they were clocked at 100-mph in the next county, that is no proof that the biker was speeding when the police-patrol vehicle deliberately collided with him.Hard to imagine anyone actually surviving a 100-mph impact on a bike.

But maybe it was just an accident. Maybe the Trooper didn't actually see the second biker coming down the long stretch of interstate highway, at night, with his headlights on. Maybe the biker really was going so fast the Trooper didn't see him in time before pulling out and cutting him off by accident.

Somehow, I doubt that. I really don't care so much that the biker was running out his machine a little in the middle of the night on an open stretch of highway. I am far more concerned that a State Trooper appears to have tried to kill him because of it.

Prosecution would have used false evidence to execute Casey Anthony

One of the main sticking points by the lynch-mob couch-lawyers that Casey should have been hanged, is the supposed computer search for information on chloroform. During the trial the prosecution claimed that Casey had searched the term 84 times, based on the testimony of their computer expert John Bradley. Now it appears that not only was that information false, but that the prosecution knew that it was false, and never corrected the matter to the jury or shared the revelation with the defense.

This matter is not only a sticking point in the trial-by-media which still continues, but was in fact a primary reason that the prosecution intended to seek a death sentence against Casey. So not only did the prosecution let the jury believe that Casey had searched for chloroform 84 times, but they were going to execute her knowingly based on false evidence.

Was it really false evidence though? It does appear that the term was in fact searched one time from the Anthony home computer. But is that enough for a conviction? Is that enough to execute someone? I can tell you that I have searched chloroform a number of times since this trial, and on at least one occasion before the trial after I saw the movie The Vanishing. We also must consider too, who actually did the search.

Suppose this is why the State Attorney’s office has decided not to seek perjury charges against Cindy Anthony? Casey's mother testified at trial that she put in a search query for chlorophyll, and mistakenly entered chloroform. As anyone who as ever Googled knows, when you begin to spell out a word, it pops up with a list of closely spelled suggestions. One click is all it takes to land you someplace other than where you searching originally, either mistakenly, or because a new topic or term catches your interest in the moment.

When clarifying the error in an interview with the New York Times...

The Google search then led to a Web site,, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.

So, in a nutshell, the police used an incompetent programmer to design the software for their invesitgation, the prosecution used false evidence in order to prosecute someone and then did not disclose that fact to the defense when the programmer discovered an error, and were also planning to use that false evidence in order to execute someone. And you really want to give those people MORE power?

Say No To Cayleee's Law

Be sure to check out these two related articles from the big boys of media for more details:

Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial

Casey Anthony Trial Witness John Bradley Backtracks After Blasting Prosecutors

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Government subsidized obesity? You betcha!

Why Americans can't afford to eat healthy

The real reason Big Macs are cheaper than more nutritious alternatives? Government subsidies

By David Sirota

The easiest way to explain Gallup's discovery that millions of Americans are eating fewer fruits and vegetables than they ate last year is to simply crack a snarky joke about Whole Foods really being "Whole Paycheck." Rooted in the old limousine liberal iconography, the quip conjures the notion that only Birkenstock-wearing trust-funders can afford to eat right in tough times.

It seems a tidy explanation for a disturbing trend, implying that healthy food is inherently more expensive, and thus can only be for wealthy Endive Elitists when the economy falters. But if the talking point's carefully crafted mix of faux populism and oversimplification seems a bit facile -- if the glib explanation seems almost too perfectly sculpted for your local right-wing radio blowhard -- that's because it dishonestly omits the most important part of the story. The part about how healthy food could easily be more affordable for everyone right now, if not for those ultimate elitists: agribusiness CEOs, their lobbyists and the politicians they own.

As with most issues in this new Gilded Age, the tale of the American diet is a story of the worst form of corporatism -- the kind whereby the government uses public monies to protect private profit.

Get the full article at the link:

Also, be sure to check out a well-researched article on the same topic, chock full of information...

Let them eat cake! (The nutricide of America)

Friday, July 15, 2011

An open debate on Caylee's Law

I would like to take this opportunity to make an open rebuttal to the page Get Caylee Justice, in regards to their support of Caylee's Law.

As many readers here know, I am against Caylee's Law for many reasons, including the painfully simple fact that it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Nevertheless, so many folks continue to deny the facts, and come up with any number of illogical reasons why we need this law. Using the lengthy response from this one page as an example of the oft-repeated points by supporters of Caylee's law, I will now refute their position through applied logic and the exposure of their application of the classic 25 Rules of Disinformation. Point by point, in parentheses, I will cite the tactic being applied, so keep the list handy.

Let us begin...
Absolutely amazed with people. I didnt not ban you yet so I can explain a few things to you about Caylee's law and effective parenting.
Right out of the gate, we see the opponent try to goad us (5, 18), while threatening to ban us (25, 6) and then attempt to establish themselves as an authority (8) as if they are the only good parent on the planet, while assuming that we know nothing about good parenting.
One, on average a child who is abducted is killed with in the first six to eight hours. SO to be quite frank, without a doubt, every second counts.
Here the opponent exposes the fallacy of their position, and is "quite frank" about it, establishing a fall-back position (11). While anyone would agree that indeed seconds do count either in an abduction, or even of course in a medical emergency, the proposed Caylee's Law only makes it a felony crime to not report a missing child after 24 hours, not the first six to eight in which the child is actually killed, according to our opponent. Therefore, Caylee's Law is not a practical measure or standard for dealing with a child who may have fallen into harm's way.
Second, to all of your little attempted theories about well what if you didn't know in the first hour or 24 hours, it is after you discover. Sure, a child might go off to a friends house, but I can tell you, my daughter will need to call me whenever she gets to where she is going, and if she leaves that place to go to a new place. A rule every parent in my mind should have into effect. 
In the first sentence they ridicule earlier statements we had made in the course of previous discussion on the issue. as "little attempted theories" (3, 8, 18) rather than seeing the points raised as the legitimate and logical points they were (1, 19). That discussion can be viewed here. Or if they remove the thread/comments, we can add the screenshots later that we took of the conversation.

As to the specifics of the proposed law itself, most versions propose to make it a felony if you fail to not report a missing child within 24 hours, or a child who has died within 60 minutes. Now, in general, a reasonable person should not have to point out how these time constraints may be impractical in the real world for any number of reasons which may not otherwise be considered to be criminal or even immoral.But more to the point, our opponent here specifies that the point of "discovery" is when the clock starts ticking. There is no such provision made in the laws I have seen proposed. If it were, it would again make the law itself pointless. After all, a parent accused of wrongdoing could claim that they didn't know, had not made the discovery for any number of reasons, for any amount of time. Indeed, in the Anthony case itself, Casey never did admit to discovering her deceased child at all, at any time. The only thing that can be factually established is the time of death, not when the parent actually discovered the child was deceased.

Next we see the "MY child" logic (2) so often applied in these discussions. Again in an attempt to establish themselves as the perfect parent with perfect children (8, 11) while simply ignoring (9) the many, many examples of why a child may be out of touch with a parent for more than 24 hours, and why it is not necessary to always have the police micro-manage how you raise your child. Maybe the child simply forgot to call. Maybe because of scheduling between work and school the parent and child fail to connect. Perhaps the child has run away from home in a fit of rebellion against an overbearing and obnoxious parent who fancies themselves perfect and who demands nothing less than perfection from the child. Is it a good idea to set out rules like this for a child to keep in contact and be communicative? Absolutely. But trying to force them to act in this way will only encourage rebellion and leave the parent in situation after situation where they will not in fact be able to find their kid. And more importantly, it should not be a FELONY on the parent if the child breaks this household rule.
Also if you do not report your child after as you say been floating in the pool for twenty hours, you are going to have some serious felonies on your hands anyhow with federal level child negligence and abuse.
Yet again we see the opponent actually make the point for us, that Caylee's Law serves no practical purpose (15), because as the opponent themselves have pointed out, there are already laws on the books which can be applied. Murder, negligence, all of these things are already illegal, and did nothing to save the life of little Caylee, nor was Casey proven to be responsible for her daughter's death. If this law had been on the books already, prosecutors would have had an even more difficult time actually proving that Caylee was even in her care at the time of the baby's death/disappearance.
Third, every law has acception to the rules. Technically if you were to be walking by a man screaming for help while drowning in the river, and you didn't jump in and save him, you can get first degree murder, not even man slaughter, murder. This law was added to be able to charge everybody in a group killing with first degree murder. Now how many people do you know charged with murder because they didn't jump into a save a stranger over something they had nothing to do with? It is an exception to the rule.
This passage is outright false in a number of ways (3, 4, 13, 20, 22) and the opponent is trying to use a "red herring" in order to distract us from the facts. To begin with, no as a matter of fact, laws do not have exceptions to the rules. Nor should they have any.

"The duty we owe our constituents obliges us to be as attentive to the safety of the innocent as we are desirous of punishing the guilty; and we apprehend that a doubtful construction and various execution of criminal law does greatly endanger the safety of innocent men." ~JOUR. HOUSE OF BURGESSES (1773-1776) 

Arbitrary justice is no justice at all.When a particular police officer, prosecutor, or judge can pick and choose who they will and will not prosecute based upon their own personal biases, hunches, political affiliations, etc., rather than on the rule of law applied equally to everyone, you wind up with fiefdoms of absolute dictatorship.

Now again, the example of the man drowning in the river is patently false. There is no such law that requires anyone to risk their own life and limb to save anyone. Even the police are not required to take any such risks. No murder charge, no manslaughter. In fact if you did jump in to save them and failed, then you could actually be opening yourself up to charges and a lawsuit. Same goes for rendering first-aid of any kind, Heimlich maneuver, CPR, etc. The only way you can be charged with murder in a group setting, is if you conspire to and are in the process of carrying out a felony. If you and a friend decide to rob a store at gunpoint, and your friend shoots the clerk, you are going to prison for murder as well, even if you did not know your friend was going to kill the clerk.

So end all be all, the opponent here has failed to establish a rule, and therefore cannot establish an exception to the rule. 

For further information, you might like to watch this video discussing a recent case where people stood by and watched while a teen girl was brutally raped.
As I have read posts on your page, let me explain this to you. Caylee's law was not made to "bring back a dead child" it is infact to bring harsher punishments on things such as this to maybe deter somebody from killing their or anybodies child (if you read the entire law, it isn't just for parents, it is for adult in a caregivers position, like if your kid went over to a friends house and went missing it would be the responsibilty of that adult. Like the Haleigh Cummings incident where she wasn't reported for a few hours.
Again we see that our opponent is trying to put words in our mouth (4). No one ever said anything about bringing back a dead child, though the logic (13) of some opponents in that camp seems to often imply it, or that the law would actually prevent a death. If the threat of execution or life imprisonment on a charge of murder does not deter someone from killing their child, then they certainly are not going to be deterred by Caylee's Law.

Yes, we are aware (8) that the law applies to all caregivers, not just parents. Which actually only complicates matters further. How does one prove who's care the child was actually in when they disappeared or died? This was one enormous gap in proving Casey guilty of murder in the first place, so how will this new law actually help in that regard? It also opens the door to wrongful prosecutions.
I know you think it want stop people from commiting crimes but a lot of people do like to obey the law. There are some people who dont care if they are going to get the death penalty and are going to do things regardless of the punishment. But some of us respect the law. You wouldn't rob somebody for a million dollars if it was completely legal and you werent going to hurt anybody? The law stops you from doing that because you dont want to go to jail. It is to try and stop those who can be stopped.
Again we see circular logic being applied (13) along with assumptions made as to what we would do in a given situation (4). No law ever prevented a crime. If someone is willing to murder their child, then obviously they don't care enough about the law to worry about another few years getting tacked on to their life sentence thatnks to Caylee's Law. And those of us who respect that law, who don't murder and abuse our children, should not go to prison not meeting some arbitrary reporting deadline that fails to take into account the many nuances of modern family life and the many reasons why a parent may not be able to, or may feel it is best not to report to police. 
Also the law was created to try and preserve the evidence so nobody can walk away free because the body was to decomposed.
Which now bring us to the entire crux of the matter. This law is created to destroy YOUR Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Your right to not provide evidence against yourself or to self-incriminate.

But we also see here again the fallacies of our opponents position  (1, 9, 13, 15, 20)  since we all know full well that many people have been successfully prosecuted without a body ever being located at all, or in very poor condition for examination as was the case in the Scott Petersen trial.
And in mind, anybody who is complely opposed to this law, should think twice about becoming a parent.
So then our opponent finally signs off by invoking a whole slew of disinformation tactics in a single sentence. (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18)

I expect rules 24 and 25 will follow soon as well. So let me sign off here with a little of the old number 18.

And also be sure to join the Facebook page Say No To Caylee's Law.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." -Adolf Hitler

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

When journalism fails the public (and the story of a brutal crime)

We often cover and link to stories here of police corruption and brutality. Indeed, it is a daily occurrence in America, so much so that it has been impossible to keep up with. Instead, we cherry-pick the news for the stories that really make our blood boil the most, and pass them along to you.

This story is yet another story of police corruption. Of innocents jailed and denied justice after being the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators as charged. But it is more than that.

This is also a story of another trend in America today. That of the failure of the press, the failure of journalism to accurately and effectively report on events without bias. Is the press corrupt, actually taking payoffs and favors from different groups such as corrupt police departments, to look the other way and not report on key information, or to slant news that can't be covered up? Are these news outlets knowingly complicit in crimes against the people, rather then being the eyes and ears of the people? Or is corporate journalism simply inept, no longer up to the task of rooting out corruption and reporting truth?

And now, from an alternative media news source, the tragic story of...

Skinheads Hunt Native American Family: Guess Who Gets Arrested? 

Also check out a recent article from a local page, on the lack of integrity in corporate media, with additional links to more supporting information...

Newspaper threatens to sue blog

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Was Casey Anthony trial propaganda-coup to destroy the Fifth Amendment?

From the start, I wondered why so much attention was given to this one particular case when, sadly, so many children are killed every day in America. Was it simply media profiteering as they do off the misery of others, or was there something more sinister afoot? Has the media been actively engaged in a propaganda campaign to condition Americans to accept, nay, to demand a law that would be tantamount to a repeal of a key right outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America?

Seems far-fetched I suppose on the one hand. But we have to accept that the mainstream media are whores, who do willingly engage in propaganda to shift public opinion on any number if issues, ideas, products, etcetera. We also have to accept that this country has gone to hell in a handbasket these past years. I don't think it is an accident or coincidence.

Now let's pretend for a minute that we lead a group of powerful people, bent on the destruction of liberty and the Constitution in order to establish a fascist oligarchy, or some-such tyrannical form of government. (This is not imaginary, there are powerful people in the world who seek to destroy America, you know this.) The next goal on your agenda is the destruction of the Fifth Amendment clause which bars self-incrimination, which will then open the door to forced confessions and torture of citizens. How would you achieve that goal? You can't do it overtly, because the people would never stand for an open repeal of the Fifth Amendment. So, you will have to do it covertly, conspiring with your allies in government and media. There is a term known as "problem-reaction-solution" which has been employed by the powerful against the interests of the people for longer than you can imagine, which is a sure-fire way of covertly achieving such a goal. Basically, it is a sleight-of-hand magic trick that you can pull on the public. 

Here are some links that detail the method and provide historical documentation of how it has been used far back into ancient history even:

U.S. Pavlovian Conditioning

Diocletian's Problem-Reaction-Solution

The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

Problem Reaction Solution Explanation (on Youtube)

Step One, Problem. Our problem, imagining again now that we are the would-be dictators, is that the Fifth Amendment stands in the way of our goals. But we need to create a problem that will attract the attention of the people. In the geo-political scheme and in military operations, the old false-flag attack is often employed as the opening salvo of a problem-reaction-solution campaign. But for our ultimate goal here in destroying the right to not self-incriminate, let us take advantage of a social problem that we have no intention of actually solving. We don't have to create the problem, when we can take advantage of one which already exists. (Or one that we had created earlier through a wide array of socio-economic conditions which spawn criminals in the first place.) The neglect and murder of children in America, always a tug at the heartstrings of decent people everywhere. We will call in support from our friends in the courts, to find the perfect case that will solicit maximum emotional response from the public. Covertly, we will set the stage for a pre-determined outcome. Then our friends in the media will bombard American living rooms and break-room tables with specially selected images and details of this one particular tragedy. The media will sell the story to the public, vilify the defendant in the worst ways possible to garner public support for the government (prosecution), and leave the people believing that there is only one possible outcome for justice to prevail.

Step Two, Reaction. We want the public to be shocked, absolutely outraged, to the point where they will throw all logic out the window. to the point where they themselves would do murder. A completely malleable emotional mob. Frenzied, like a stampede, that with a little nudge, we could drive right off a cliff if we chose to. And how do we solicit this reaction? By denying the public "the only possible outcome." By letting Casey Anthony go free. Maybe we knew she was innocent all along and that the justice system would work just fine to exonerate her. Or maybe, she really was guilty, and our friend the prosecutor deliberately bungled the case. It doesn't matter. Our goal has been achieved. (The lives a few individuals is inconsequential to master manipulators who wipe out hundreds of thousands of innocent people with a simple pen stroke, declaration of war, carpet bombing campaign, etc. So the case is irrelevent other than how it can be used to serve our goals. Which of course, is why this particular case among many thousands of dead children, is being tried in the court of public opinion.)

Step Three, Solution. We wanted to destroy the Fifth Amendment clause which prevents self-incrimination. Now the public, by the millions, demand a law that will do just that. All in the name of one little girl. The public has been tricked into believing that giving up their own rights, that undermining a primary tenet of justice and liberty is somehow a good thing. It satisfies the bloodlust of some who want to see people imprisoned no matter what a court can prove, it satisfies the naive notions of others that such a law might actually save someone's life.

Caylee's Law will not save anyone. Instead, it will open the door to the persecution and torture of innocents. And just because you supported Caylee's Law, will not make you immune from the system coming after you next. After all, it was "We the People" who they were after all along. Our rights. We are the threat to their power. Still sounding far-fetched? Don't believe me that there is a nefarious cabal out to take away our fundamental rights as Americans and as human beings? Well who would you believe? A past President perhaps? Someone loved and adored by the public in his time. A legend? How about JFK?

Caylee Anthony is the poster-child for justice gone awry alright. She is the face of the little girl who convinced Americans to sell themselves out.

But Captain Six, how will Caylee's Law violate the Fifth Amendment, you ask? Well, let me go ahead and pull a quote here from my previous article on the matter.
If Casey Anthony were guilty of any crime whatsoever involving the death of her daughter, requiring her to report her daughter missing to police would be a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights which protect her against self-incrimination. That doesn't mean a self-incrimination of murder either. It could have been something as simple as a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully dealing with human remains, or being high on marijuana at the time of the Caylee's disappearance or death even if she was not present.

Therefore, the only time this proposed law could be applied in accordance with the tenets of the Constitution of the United States, is if you first proved that the parent/guardian was in fact innocent of all other crimes related in any way to the disappearance of the child. And of course then, a person who had done nothing else wrong whatsoever, is the last person you would actually want to send to prison for not reporting their child missing.

Read more:

At the end of the day though, it is a conspiracy theory I suppose. I can't say for sure if this was ever an intentional plot against the Constitution. But does it really matter if the end result is the same? If we are left deprived of liberty, and opening the door to police coercion, threats, even torture of suspects?

The writing of a new law is no inconsequential thing. It's impact far exceeds it's immediately stated aims. Law is not a linear "x = y" concept. It is an ongoing chess-match, in which hangs the balance of liberty over tyranny. The rights of mankind over the privilege of the few.

Take something as seemingly simple as traffic law. Think you know traffic law because you read the learner's permit handbook? Think again. These laws far exceed their perceived mandate of public safety, and regulate so many aspects of our modern life, economically, socially, how we interact with the police, and so forth.

Now consider criminal law. Nothing is more defining of a society and yet so personal, defining us not only as a nation, but as a people and as individuals. Indeed, the concept of freedom from self-incrimination has not only been a key tenet of defining us as Americans, but has defined liberty and justice for Western Society since the Magna Carta of 1215 A.D. It is not only a tenet of the Constitution, but a tenet of law itself!

Will all of that be undone because of the bloodlust of the American people for vengeance? For a misplaced sense of justice?  To be replaced by a lynch-mob anarchy bastardization of justice?

"The duty we owe our constituents obliges us to be as attentive to the safety of the innocent as we are desirous of punishing the guilty; and we apprehend that a doubtful construction and various execution of criminal law does greatly endanger the safety of innocent men." ~JOUR. HOUSE OF BURGESSES (1773-1776), p. 22.
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." -Adolf Hitler

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article contributed by Station.6.Underground, used by permission.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Alert: Americans are stupid! (terror threat issued)

Well well well. Surprise surprise. All the money spent, all the citizens harassed, all the children molested at airports, all the fascist expansion of power with the newly minted TSA, etcetera, and what do we wind up with? A terror alert that verifies exactly what anyone with half a friggin brain said right from the start, when the government started with the pat-downs and nude imaging back-scatter x-ray machines at the airports. That these new measures would do nothing to stop terrorists.

Alert: Terrorists Look to Implant Bombs in Humans

Wow, I am stunned, no one would have ever thought of that. Yeah, that was sarcasm. Wake the fuck up people. You are twice as likely to die from being crushed under a vending machine than be killed in another terrorist attack. I don't see any guards posted to make sure you get your corn-chips and cola safely. The government could give a shit less if a plane blows up, and they don't give a shit about al-Qaeda either. The people, you and I, the American who has not been lobotomized by television and junk-food, WE are the threat to their power, not some phony terror cartel. WE are the ones they are watching. We are the ones being forced to live in a prison without walls.

So they pump the propaganda at us, sell us fear, so that we beg to be deprived of freedom. They give us these bullshit alerts telling us what we already knew as if it was suddenly some genuine revelation. As if it were a plot cracked wide open by some clandestine operative embedded deep within a terror network. It's bullshit. They rattle the public, as an excuse in order to justify...

" may find themselves subjected to more scrutiny when flying in the heart of summer vacation season..."

...despite the fact that...

"Still, there is no current information that points to a specific plot involving surgically implanted explosives, a U.S. security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss such sensitive matters."

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off for a second. "Such sensitive matters" huh? Hate to tell you guys that just got the memo, but this is not breaking news, this is not ingenious tactics of a terror mastermind uncovered by a super-spy. Drug-smugglers have been doing this for years. This is a bullshit propaganda piece spun out by the Associated Press to hit the front page of every mainstream media news source across the nation.

"Aviation continues to be a special target, and evidence from Osama bin Laden's compound showed that the al-Qaida leader retained his fascination with attacking airplanes until his death in May."

Oh, is that so? First I'm hearing about it. Are you telling me that the grand mastermind of the most devastating terror attack in the history of the world, couldn't bring down another plane at any point in the next decade after the 9/11 attacks? But since we are on the topic, how about you SHOW US the evidence in documents, tapes, whatever, of this "fascination." In fact, show us some evidence that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 in the first place, since he was never indicted and even his FBI Most Wanted profile did not mention 9/11. Better yet, show us one bit of proof that he was even killed in that compound.

Okay, so what are we going to do about this terrible threat of terrorists packing their ass with plastique or stitching a mini-nuke into their abdomen?

"Officials did not want to discuss specific security measures under consideration so as not to tip off terrorists who could seek ways to get around them."

Don't want to rile up the public just yet and tell them that by this time next year it will be full cavity searches for random hot chicks, dudes that give them a hassle, and well, kids and old folks too just to make it unbiased. Wait, here we go, the excuse for feeling up women's breasts, gotta love it.

"Surgery to implant explosives could be done a couple of days before a planned attack, said James Crippin, an explosives expert in Colorado. In order for it to work, there would need to be a detonation device, and it's conceivable that if the explosive was implanted in a woman's breast, the detonator could be underneath the breast so that all the operative would have to do is press downward, Crippin said."

So we better be diligent about really getting up under some titty fellas. Because terrorists would never think to use a remote detonator or a timed charge. Well, maybe they really wouldn't I guess. Seems to me that every terror plot since 9/11 has been carried out by some bumbling buffoon with matches and a propane tank, or underpants that sizzled rather than bring down an airliner.

"The al-Qaida offshoot in Yemen has emerged as the most inventive terror organization these days and has been behind two plots that nearly brought down planes over the U.S. The group, known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, was behind the Christmas Day attack in 2009 when a Nigerian hid a bomb in his underpants and nearly brought down an airliner over Detroit."

Oh good, more official sounding horse-shit. AQAP, are you friggin kidding me here? Couldn't the propaganda artists at least come up with something a little more clever sounding? There isn't even any such thing as al-Qaeda in the first place anyway, so there sure as hell is not some organization called AQAP, but your average Joe Six-Pack eats that shit up like a bag of Doritos when you make things sound all official like that using acronyms and titles. Here, let me try. Arabs who Stalk, Shoot, Hate, American Troops. ASSHAT.I hope I never run into an ASSHAT  operative on a plane.

"'Due to the significant advances in global aviation security in recent years, terrorist groups have repeatedly and publicly indicated interest in pursuing ways to further conceal explosives,' TSA spokesman Nick Kimball said..."

No shit Sherlock. Did you really think the terrorists were going to say, "Oh darn, backscatter x-ray machines, guess I'll go back to selling used cars."

"...adding that passengers flying into the U.S. may notice additional security. 'Measures may include interaction with passengers, in addition to the use of other screening methods such as pat-downs and the use of enhanced tools and technologies.'"

Nothing new there either geniuses. Passengers are already subject to the most intrusive, un-Constitutional searches on a regular basis than any nation on the planet has ever seen. And we call this the land of the free? Pardon me while I fart in your general direction TSA.

So all in all, we have this big headline news piece, blaring an alert, for news that is decades old and reinforcing lies that have been told time and time again. This is news how? It's not. It's propaganda.

Here, get the propaganda "main-lined."

And it certainly looks like we will be seeing a LOT more of this...

I need some music...

Friday, June 24, 2011

Guilty until proven innocent - Florida to take DNA upon arrest

This is a serious affront to liberty and due process. Media coverage and public apathy are just as offensive.

The Florida legislature has now approved $1.2 million for police to begin collection of DNA samples for all felony arrests. While some may view this as a unique and powerful crime-fighting tool, it is equally true that such sampling will be misused and exploited to nefarious ends by police, government, and corporations.

About this time last year we did a story outlining the preciousness of freedom and the dangers posed by DNA profiling in our article...

L.A. Touts Serial Killer Arrest to Quash Civil Liberty Concerns (UPDATED)

No need to rehash the points of that article here again, but be sure to check out that link of course. In the meantime though, let us have a look at this article from ABC-7 WWSB to expose the classic tactics of disinformation.

To begin, there is...

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

We see that there is no mention of resistance to this new program, no moment of pause, no consideration for the many valid reasons why DNA collection from anyone should be met with the utmost skepticism. And certainly there should be open discourse on taking DNA from citizens who have not been convicted of any crime.

Next we have...

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

...with the article reporting...

"We are very pleased with the decision," said Manatee County Sheriff's Office spokesperson, Dave Bristow.

Of course you are pleased the decision Mister Bristow, and the average Dorito-munching Wheel-watcher on the street will trust the word of the police authority, even if is the police themselves that we should be most afraid of in reality. And we should certainly be concerned about this end-run around the Constitution and due-process as well.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." ~Patrick Henry

Heck, police cannot even force you to take a breathalyzer because it is unconstitutional, but now they are going to be allowed to create a genetic profile of you from a DNA sample? But if the general reader even bothers to think about these things, next up on deck we have the emotional appeal to rhetoric. Invoke mental imagery of a ravaged and murdered little girl and a grieving father with...

Drew Kesse is also pleased with the decision. He has been lobbying for the change for years."The more we can take the scum off the street, that's what we need to do in this world," Kesse said. Kesse's daughter, Jennifer, was abducted from her vehicle at an Orlando area apartment complex in 2006

...which could fall under any of these headings if his authoritarian will were challenged...

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

...Pretty much self explanatory, but of course you would expect him to scream out the "how dare you" appealing to your emotions for his suffering and that of the victim, which then sets the stage for...

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

...With the emotional swirl of an abducted little girl, you can pretty much demand whatever you want from the public. After all, to go against whatever this man wants as a solution to his suffering, you must be "for" horrific crimes against children. Which of course is a fallacy, as is his...

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

...tactic. He jumps right to the conclusion that anyone who is ever arrested is not only guilty before the case ever goes to trial, but that they are also "scum." I for one, do not equate an arrest with a conviction. In this say and age, we have good reason to even take a conviction on a murder charge with a high degree of skepticism.

Take for example, the case of Barry Gibbs, who spent nearly two decades in prison after being framed by two NYPD Detectives. And even in the end, it was not some new DNA evidence that freed him, like so many convictions overturned by the Innocence Project. He just got lucky, the crooked cops were exposed and their cases reviewed.So let's not jump to the erroneous conclusion that DNA testing will prevent any false convictions. Indeed, it even raises the specter of using false DNA evidence to a secure a conviction that could not ever hope to be overturned by the Innocence Project.

The article then goes on to report that 21 states already have such databases. Indeed, it is quite alarming that this trend has been allowed to continue and has not been overturned as being an affront to the liberty of all citizens, whether guilty or innocent, convicted or acquitted. You see, even if you go to trial and are found not-guilty, it's too late. Your sample has already been taken and stored. The United States now has the largest DNA profiling database in the world which is right in line with the fact that we also have the largest prison population. The US has only 5% of the world's population but 25% of world's prisoner population, not including supervision programs such as probation.

Now lastly, the article rounds out with this enigmatic claim...

And to give you an example of the economic success of the database, law enforcement agencies around the state of Indiana were able to save $60 million over the past year with this program.

So there we have a news station, rather then being objective, offering up a financial endorsement without any substantiation or explanation. How does one save $60 million, by spending a few million more? Of course, again, your average brain-dead reader will simply think "oh, it saves money, I'm all for it," and flip to the next page without thinking twice about it.

Meanwhile, that statement could actually fall under any one of these categories...

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

As well as the aforementioned...

9. Play Dumb.

8. Invoke authority.

...and even...

4. Use a straw man.

...since cost is not really even relevant to infringement on liberty, or for that matter, catching a child-abductor. And finally...

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

...seeing as how they made such a brief little article, chock full of disinformation tactics but reporting little of substance on such an important story for the future of our society and the Republic for which we stand.

And just as one added side-note. With familial DNA mapping, it is not only you who will be genetically mapped if you are arrested, but your family as well.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Social programming on cigarette packs not what you think

So the government has seen fit to mandate how cigarette packs are labeled once again, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that smoking, or second-hand smoke actually causes the diseases they claim.

Despite this lack of evidence, cigarette packs were mandated to have a Surgeon General's warning declaring that smoking MAY cause a whole list of deadly ailments. Now, the Federal government is taking it a step further... and a step too far.

New Labels on Cigarette Packs to Prevent Smoking

Graphic new warnings coming to cigarette packs

Warning labels for cigarette packs take a grisly turn. Will they work?

Now the government is ordering cigarette companies to label their product with horrific graphic images that no one wants to see, smoker or non-smoker. It's like the abortion issue. No matter where you stand on that topic, no one wants to see pictures of aborted fetuses on a billboard and having to comfort the traumatized children in the backseat who just caught a glimpse.

Really, I am not going to say that smoking really is good for you, or try to encourage smoking. You don't need a scientist to tell you that smoking, particularly heavy smoking can leave you winded, is generally a poor lifestyle choice, and probably does contgribute to other ailments. But there is NO proof that smoking is actually the cause of the fatal diseases they appear to claim saying "may" cause blah blah blah.

We DO know however, that things like alcohol, and fast food can be fatal. But we don't see labels on liquor bottles and cases of beer showing macabre images of fatal car wrecks. Your Big Mac does not come branded with a label that has a picture of the last guy who dropped on the floor of the place with a heart attack. (Ironically enough, my grandfather actually had a heart attack in a McDonald's.)

So what's really going on here? Why the assault on cigarettes, when there are far more deadly and PROVEN threats to our safety, health, and general well-being? I say put a disclaimer on your tax form that reads "warning: paying taxes directly funds the death of thousands of civilians each year."

You wanna know why? I'll tell you why. It was all too clear to me when my grandmother handed me a newspaper snippet reporting the news about the new labeling. My first reaction was... to go have a cigarette. This new campaign will actually ENCOURAGE smoking and inflating the highway robbery tax cash cow of state governments in particular. I pay over $10 a pack, while in NYC, it's over $15.

Now just to be clear here, and to put my own personal bias on the line, I am not a heavy smoker. I enjoy the occasional cigarette, and if I didn't drink, would make a pack last a month or two. As it is, I smoke about two packs a month. But no label is going to make me quit, and as I just pointed out, just the idea of the new labeling was enough to make me smoke more. It pissed me off and filled me with fear.

And THAT my friends, is the REAL heart of the matter. It is not about getting people to quit. It is about instilling fear, and creating resentment and divisiveness among the masses. It is about creating a world in which you can utterly despise someone you never met and know nothing about, solely based on a pack of cigarettes. A level of contempt on par with that of child pornographers and rapists even.

What is the real end result though, for the smoker, for society? In a word, desensitized. These images, after a few packs will become as meaningless as the Surgeon General's warning. And I'm sorry, but making images of death and horror become meaningless is NOT a good thing. In the long run, these images will only make such horrors "acceptable."

So really, there is only one question left to ask. What are they really preparing us for so that we don't think twice about seeing a man laying dead with his chest ripped open?

Oh, I know, you don't believe in conspiracy theories. The government would never profile and collect data on smokers habits, and how it can be applied to the larger framework of social engineering, right? Would never lie to the people and screw them over? Moron. Believe me, they are thinking about all of it and have the apparatus to do it. What have you got? Snooki.

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." ~Adolf Hitler

The "war on cigarettes" is a war on your mind.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Facebook blocks news: Undeclared Israeli Nuclear Weapons

Interestingly, when I tried to post this story on Facebook, I found that it had been flagged and blocked. Facebook will not allow me to post a link directly to the story. So I am going to go ahead and copy a portion of the article here and a link to the source to get around the censors.

This may be old news to those of us who frequent conspiracy boards and so forth, but not many people really know about this. Have a look...

Undeclared Israeli Nuclear Weapons: CIA Knew In 1974 That Israel Had Nuclear Weapons

Much attention has been placed on Iran and their supposed nuclear weapons program by the United States and Israel.

What isn’t talked about on a regular basis in the corporate controlled media is the fact that Israel has an illegal, undeclared nuclear arsenal.

While many are already aware of the facts regarding the Israeli Nuclear Program, there is an absurd amount of people who still pretend Israel is a sitting duck surrounded by powerful enemies.

The reality is that our government knew, as far back as 1974, that Israel most likely possessed nuclear weapons.

Get the full article with all of the supporting links and data here:

Monday, June 13, 2011

Sexual subliminals in kids' shows

This has been talked about for a long time, but still a lot of people don't believe it and have never seen it. Well folks, this is no urban myth. Here is a brief artilce with videos and images included...
Top 10 Hidden Images Found In Cartoons

Everyone loves cartoons – both children and adults. There is always a temptation by a cartoonist to slip in a bit of something extra – something only they are aware of, but thanks to scores of teenaged boys with a pause button and too much time on their hands, we are all able to see these little in-jokes. Unfortunately for companies like Disney, some of them are a little on the naughty side and they have been the root of legal battles. Here is a list of 10 naughty moments found in cartoons.

So, okay, maybe a few cartoon artists have just slipped a little adult humor in there for fun. "Easter eggs" are not uncommon in movies in general. Even if a little distasteful in a kids cartoon, maybe just a practical joke of sorts right? Well, maybe not. Check out some of the dirt that has been gathered on Disney over the years at this site...

Evil Disney

Is it just coincidence that former Moueketeers like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Demi Lovato, and Darlene Gillespie have all had bizzarre moments and serious breakdowns? Here is a recent article about former Disney prodigy Britney Spears...

Britney Spears, Mind Control and “Hold it Against Me”

Here's a brief little article that is related to the topic here...

It's A Brainwashed World After All

Now this Google-video is a little hokey, and no one will probably take the time to watch it, but it's got a lot of information anyway, going into trauma-based mind control and ritual abuse, which many believe is really at the core of the Disney enterprise in collusion with other dark forces operating in our midst...

Anna Nicole, Britney and Mind Control

Then we have these shorter little gems that I pulled off of YouTube of 90's kid show Kids, Inc....

Okay, so what's wrong with that right? Well did you get a load of his outfit? If you're not in the 30+ crowd you might not get it, but hell-o!

Okay okay, maybe I'm stretching there a little. We all know Pee-Wee was a perv. Even as kids we knew that Pee-Wee's Playhouse on Saturday morning was pretty screwy with magical phrases such as, "Mecca-lekka-high, likka-hiney-ho."

But get a load of this one, as about half way through the creepiest clown since John Wayne Gacy shows up on set...

Now of course, we as adults have come to equate clowns with pervs and serial killers, but maybe it's not fair to draw those conclusions for a kid's show. Maybe we need something a little more blatant to get the point across here. How about a group of kids screaming and shouting to a song about the female orgasm?

Well, if that doesn't just about say it all. But in case you weren't sickened enough, how about a little black on white male rape...?

So, now I ask you dear reader, what is wrong with this picture? And...

Sunday, June 12, 2011

USAF vs UFO battle over Vietnam?

This piece is not only an interesting bit of news, but yet another example of the failures of the mainstream media to report news and their complicity in the manipulation of human consciousness...

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

On July 1st, Florida will become the first state to begin mandatory drug-testing of welfare recipients. While at first glance this may seem to be a great idea, really it is an appeal to emotional rhetoric and typical knee-jerk reaction by the public which sells this bill. Under closer scrutiny, the public would see that this is a terrible idea, more bureaucracy, more government control, with no net gain for the public at large or the taxpayer. So let us look at the reasons, point by point, why drug testing of welfare recipients is actually a very bad idea.

Cost effectiveness

It's not. Plain and simple. The biggest reason that people are supporting this new law is that they believe there will be a major savings to the taxpayer by kicking a bunch of people off of welfare. Even if there were a savings, the voter must make an erroneous assumption that any such savings would grant them any tax relief in the first place or that the money would then be spent on “people who really need it.” But more to the point, this program will be enormously expensive and yet another huge burden on the taxpayers. A Congressional committee found that drug-testing government employees, would cost $77,000 for each positive drug test in 1992 dollars. Is it really worth spending somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred-grand, just to catch one drug user who may be getting twelve-grand a year in benefits?

According to some sources, drug tests may run as high as $75 per test. The average is expected to land around $42 per test. With 100,000 people on the welfare rolls in Florida, you are looking at a cost of $4.2 million to test everyone once a year for the 420. An expense that the very poorest people of the state will be expected to pay up-front, and then be reimbursed later if they pass the drug test. Of course, the cost of the tests are only the tip of the iceberg too, as all of this information will now have to be digested by the welfare bureaucracy. It would probably be conservative to estimate that the true cost might be three times the cost of the actual test itself, when you consider all the different social workers who will have to check and double check the paperwork, meet with recipients, speak with clinics, etcetera. A red-tape nightmare with a very hefty price tag. And for what? Arizona has also considered such a law. They projected they would save a measly $1.7 million by kicking people off of welfare. That is a net loss of $2.5 million to the taxpayer by comparison. And that is of course, if each person were only tested once per year.

Cronyism, Politics for Profit

That net loss by the taxpayer is a gross gain for the drug testing companies. As it turns out, Florida's governor Rick Scott co-founded and owns 70% of Solantic, the company that will be doing the drug-testing on welfare recipients.


There is substantial risk that people will test positive for drugs even if they did not take any drugs. A “blank” false-positive, or one that would have come up positive regardless of what the specimen actually contained runs about 5-6%, even if it were distilled water. When you add to that the fact that things like poppy-seed buns, or Mountain Dew can trigger a false-positive, the rate increases to about 15%. Not to mention people who are taking prescription medications. Some sources indicate false-positive rates can run as high as 1 in 2. So there we will see 15-50,000 innocent people kicked off of welfare for using drugs, when in fact they were not drug users at all. A first offense will mean that the applicant can no re-apply for one year. A subsequent failure would bar the applicant from re-applying for another three years.

Will a second test be granted, and at who's expense, to re-test to insure that a false positive was not returned? Double-testing would of course double the cost to $8.4 million. But even granting a second test in an attempt to offset false-positives does not guarantee that innocent people will not by kicked off of welfare, leaving them and their kids to starve in the streets.

You can check out a huge list of substances that will return a false postitive at the link below this quote from AskDocWeb...

What is a false positive? It is a test result that is returned when a substance tests positive for another compound. It is a case of mistaken identity. For example if you eat a couple poppy seed cakes before testing, you can get a positive result for opiates.

The chances of you getting a false positive depends on the quality of the laboratory that does the testing. There seems to be about 1,200 of these labs in the United States currently testing for drugs. Less than a 100 of these meet federal standards and most of the individual states do not regulate drug test labs. The number of false positives returned range from 4% to over 50%, depending on the lab.

A concern here is that, if your company tests for drug usage, they are probably not required to use a certified drug testing lab, which means you have a greater chance of getting a false positive.

Ineffectiveness of drug testing, and substance bias

The truth is, drug-testing is actually a very ineffective way of uncovering substance abuse and addiction, especially when done randomly or sporadically. To even hope to be effective, recipients would have to be tested once a month or more. For a whopping total of $50.4 million a year cost to the taxpayer for the tests alone, and now triple that to guess what it will actually cost to process those results through the bureaucracy of Social Services.

Alcohol abuse is probably the most prevalent substance abuse problem in our society today, but welfare cannot test for that for two reasons. Firstly, because alcohol is not illegal and secondly, because it processes out of the system so quickly, unlike marijuana which can stay in the system for up to 30 days. Even the casual user can have lingering traces in the system for 10-13 days. Which makes pot smokers the real target of this witch-hunt among welfare recipients. Not drunks, and not even crack-heads or heroin junkies or meth freaks, since those substances only take a matter of hours to filter out of the system. So Florida is going to spend all of this money to catch pot-heads, while likely turning addicts toward harder, more dangerous drugs which are not so easily detected.

Even with just the pot-heads though, how effective will the testing be? Pot smokers have been getting around drug tests for years, with various methods, including elixirs that can be purchased at you local head-shop or online. I'm sure there are similar tricks available for any drug user. More complex tests will only cost even more money. So clearly, many people who are on welfare and doing drugs will never be detected despite the many many millions that will be spent searching for them.

Stigmatizing the poor

There is a false notion in our society today that people on welfare are there as a matter of choice. While there are certainly examples of people who lie and abuse the system, those instances are much more rare than we are led to believe. Again we can take drug abuse as an example. The popular notion is that most people who are poor and on welfare are drug addicts who simply don't want to work. The facts do not support this notion however. Before Michigan's drug testing of welfare recipients was struck down as un-Constitutional, they found that only 3% of recipients were using hard drugs such as cocaine or methamphetamine. That rate is about in line with the general population showing clearly that there is no rampant drug abuse among the poor and disenfranchised. Indeed, another study found that 70% of all drug users in the U.S. were between 18-49 and employed full-time.

Now some might say that if they are employed they have the “right” to do drugs. But by that logic, one must assume that their drug use will not affect their job and finances to the point that they might wind up on welfare in the end thanks to their drug abuse. Which then of course brings up the entire moral basis of even having welfare in the first place.

(Here is an excellent short film about the realities of poverty. It is a little dated in the statistics, but you will get the gist of it anyway I'm sure... )


We as a society have seen fit to put money aside to help our fellow countrymen in their time of need. “Blame” is something that can be thrown around all the livelong day, but at the end of the day we still see a person in dire need of assistance for the basic necessities of life, regardless of the reasons why or how they got there, which more often than not is the result of our nation's terminally flawed economic policy, rather than personal choices. Does that need simply disappear because someone is battling with addiction? Or was their drug addiction necessarily the cause of their economic straits in the first place? Certainly not. As we just noted above, the stigma attached to the poor in regards to drug use is false.

Regardless, it is probably the addict who is most in need of assistance, as much as anyone else suffering from some debilitating disease. Should we kick a homeless vet off of welfare because he chose to join the Army and go to Afghanistan where his legs got blown off? Absolutely not. So we see that choices, mistakes, or anything of the sort is actually irrelevant to the moral question of whether or not a drug user should be given welfare benefits. We do in fact, have a moral obligation to help even the most wretched creatures among us, and the most destitute, regardless of how they got there or what their condition is today.

Forcing the hand is illogical

Simply put, you cannot force people to be, or to do what you believe they should be doing or who you think they should be. All too easy to judge someone else without having walked a mile in their moccasins. There is a long list of medical associations who oppose mandatory drug testing and treatment for any number of reasons.

American Public Health Association, National Association of Social
Workers, Inc., National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National
Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and
Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project, National Association
on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability, Inc., National Advocates for Pregnant
Women, National Black Women’s Health Project, Legal Action Center,
National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center,
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

But perhaps the most glaringly obvious reason is that the addict must want to get better. Forcing someone into the streets, starving them, forcing them into a rehab program that they have no interest in is counterproductive and only compounds the addicts justification for their addiction. It will not make them better, it will not help them to become a productive member of society, it will not address the reasons why the addict turned to substance abuse in the first place.

Instead, the end result of forcing the hand will be an increase in criminality as these addicts will only become more desperate than ever. So we can pay to give addicts the basic necessities of life while they try to find their way to their own destiny and hopefully a moment of clarity where they might recover and once again be productive members of society. Or, we can pay to house and feed them in prisons after they have robbed or killed you or someone you love. Keep in mind too, that the U.S. already has the largest prison population in the world, housing a full 25% of the total global prison population.


Now we come to the very bedrock of what it means to be an American citizen, with the promise of liberty as prescribed by the Founding Fathers in our beloved Constitution. In 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of Marchwinski v. Howard ruled that the state of Michigan's policy for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients violated our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Some have argued that if we can be drug-tested at work, then the government has the right to drug-test welfare recipients. Again though, this is an illogical apples and oranges comparison. Aside from my own personal opinion that even employers should not be able to test workers without cause, a private company or employer is not the government. You have a choice to go work somewhere else. You have the choice to boycott the company that drug tests their employees. Granting the government this power over all the people of this country is a very dangerous precedent.

It is important to keep in mind here, that this isn't just about welfare recipients. This is about the balance of power between government intrusion into our own personal lives and liberty. This is about your rights, not just the rights of some pot-head buying Doritos with food stamps. You never know when you might be in need of welfare or some other public assistance of some kind. Indeed, this sentiment is echoed by U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts when she ruled ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients...
“...could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”
The ACLU adds...
Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.
We can even take it a step further and see that the government might use such a precedent to shove us down a slippery slope where you would have to pay for and submit to a drug test for any transaction at the DMV, or any time you are arrested, ticketed, even questioned by police. And then how long before it gets to the point where the government begins drawing blood from whoever they please, and profiling your DNA? How long then before you are forced to be implanted with a government chip that tracks your every movement and every word you say?

Sound far-fetched? If you had told me ten years ago that the government would be molesting children at airports under the guise of looking for bombs I would have told you that you were insane. And I am the police-state conspiracy nut. You can bet that if this is allowed to stand in Florida, the government will use that precedent to get into your life in ways you never imagined.

In conclusion, it is my humble opinion that rather than finding new and clever ways to fuck over the poor, they need to start finding ways to do more to help the poor. Namely, creating more jobs and better paying jobs. The government needs to take responsibility for their failures, rather than spending even more tax dollars to try to sweep the problems under the carpet. There is no reason why in the richest, most powerful country in the world anyone should want for the most very basic necessities of life, no matter who they are.

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." -Adolf Hitler

For further consideration:

Economic Bill of Rights

Unemployed forced to clean subways

Prison labor re-education camps for welfare recipients 


When posting comments, please refrain from using obscenities or your comments will be deleted. Self-imposed censoring by inserting symbols to "bleep" your swear words is acceptable.

The views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the MSMReview or November-Blue Enterprise. We encourage open discussion with a wide variety of viewpoints and the open sharing of information. Please feel free to leave comments and to engage in respectful debate.