MAINSTREAM MEDIA REVIEW

1%er MC Target of Defmatory Remarks

2011-11-11T21:56:00.004-05:00

Before we get started here, a disclaimer. This article should not be construed as an endorsement of illegal activity, nor of any particular club, group, organization or faction. The intent of this article is purely to examine the phenomenon of defamatory and libelous statements made by law-enforcement officials and the press, against persons or groups whom are viewed as "enemies" of the status quo. In this expose, we examine they hypocrisy as it has been carried out against the Vagos Motorcyle Club.

In August, the outlaw MC settled a defamation lawsuit against Riverside County (California) after officials slammed them with a number of unfounded accusatory remarks. According to this linked article...

The comments were made after a March 2010 law enforcement action that targeted nearly three dozen alleged Vagos members during an investigation of attacks that included torching four Hemet code-enforcement trucks and setting up a zip-gun booby trap that fired a bullet at an officer when he opened a security gate.

A month after that case was settled, the Vagos were again making headlines as a new sweep by law-enforcement across a number of counties netted the arrest of 12 members...

...some of whom are accused of crimes including rape and solicitation of murder...

...according to this linked article. Who exactly is doing the accusing though? What were the charges that were actually filed against them? Is this simply a matter of the press taking creative liberties from tidbits of information supplied by law-enforcement? The only charge actually listed in that article was against one member, charged with possession of body armor, with gang enhancement. He faces 3 years in prison if convicted. No rape, no murder for hire. Again, the same article reports...

The raids were the latest effort to dismantle what officials have labeled an outlaw gang...

...while all but ignoring that 25 other people were also arrested during this 18-month long investigation. Assuming that the Vagos members who were arrested are even guilty of anything at all, one must ask if this was indeed a Vagos enterprise, or an enterprise carried out by some people who incidentally happened to be members of the Vagos Motorcyle Club? If you live in building where 12 people are arrested in a raid, does that make your tenant's association an "outlaw gang"?

Now we all know that this club is made up of some bad-asses who are probably not beyond committing some crimes, but if people were convicted purely on hunches and who you know, we would all be in a lot of trouble. That is simply not the American way. Not supposed to be anyway. Moreover, it is against the law to state as a matter of fact that someone is guilty of a crime without proof. If you call someone a rapist, for example, you damn well better be able to prove it.

Nonetheless, some law enforcement officials and news reporting agencies like to gamble a little with making such defamatory and libelous remarks. They count on their presumptions panning out for one thing, and then they count on certain "protections" from the system if they don't pan out. After all, who is really going to stick up for a bunch of badasses from a motorcycle gang right? And why should we? Why do we presume that the accused are innocent until proven guilty?

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ~Thomas Paine

Now keep that quote in mind here, as we have a look at what else this "news" article had to say, stating...

...as well as the rape of a woman by four Vagos members at a Los Alamitos bar in March.

No arrests have been made in either case, but authorities were asking for the public's help in identifying the rape victim.

"We feel like she's been threatened, and that's the reason why she hasn't come forward," King said.

Is this really news, or is this propaganda? Since when does what some cop may "feel" mean the same thing as stating unequivocally, after a conviction in a court of law, by a jury of peers, that someone is in fact guilty of rape?

A rape is not a rape at all without a victim. Rape is not rape at all until someone states that they were sexually violated. Who are the police to distinguish through someone unknown witness (or witnesses) of unknown motives, what was an act of rape or a consensual sex act, that may or may not have even occurred in the first place? And who are the Associated Press to make any such determination at all, printing as they have that a rape did indeed occur and that the perpetrators were members of the Vagos MC?

We don't know that a rape occurred, but they are stating it as fact. Even if a rape did occur, they are stating as fact, without proof, that the perpetrators were Vagos members.

So really, all it might take to "convict" the Vagos in the eyes of law-enforcement, the press, and ultimately the public, would be to, let's say, dress up like a Vago and have rough sex with my old lady on a pool table in a bar? Is that really all it takes to have my enemies' reputation destroyed by local law enforcement and the national press?

If that is the case, and apparently it is, how long before someone who doesn't like you, decides to do something that makes you look like a criminal? To do something that might land you behind bars for a crime that never happened in the first place?

Outlaw MC's may not be what we would call the "good guys." But at the same time, when our supposed good guys are blatant hypocrites, it makes one wonder if there really are any good guys left at all. Or are we just caught in the crossfire and listening to Hell's Bells all along?

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~Thomas Paine

Paul McCartney Schools MSM

2011-08-13T00:43:00.002-04:00

Commando Team Wiped Out in Afghan Crash?

2011-08-06T17:34:00.000-04:00

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/31-americans-7-afghans-killed-helicopter-crash-145151275.html

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

Homeland Security spreads more crazy conspiracy theories

2011-07-25T02:26:00.000-04:00

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.

New World Order initiation video

2011-07-24T23:24:00.002-04:00

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?

2011-07-24T18:34:00.000-04:00

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:

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

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:

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

Trooper cuts off motorcycle, biker to face charges

2011-07-23T21:53:00.000-04:00

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

2011-07-23T18:19:00.001-04:00

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, sci-spot.com, 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

Government subsidized obesity? You betcha!

2011-07-19T18:24:00.001-04:00

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:

http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/15/vegetable_price_politics/index.html

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)

An open debate on Caylee's Law

2011-07-15T21:58:00.002-04:00

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

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

2011-07-13T22:04:00.000-04:00

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

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

2011-07-10T22:06:00.002-04:00

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: http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/07/caylees-law-do-we-need-one.html#axzz1RleErvzw

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.

Alert: Americans are stupid! (terror threat issued)

2011-07-07T22:11:00.000-04:00

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...

"...travelers 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...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I need some music...

Guilty until proven innocent - Florida to take DNA upon arrest

2011-06-24T21:25:00.001-04:00

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.

Social programming on cigarette packs not what you think

2011-06-22T22:15:00.001-04:00

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.

How to sound like a financial wiz on TV

2011-06-20T22:18:00.000-04:00

16 Meaningless Market Phrases That Will Make You Sound Smart On TV

How to sound like a financial wiz on TV

2011-06-20T13:49:00.000-04:00

16 Meaningless Market Phrases That Will Make You Sound Smart On TV

Facebook blocks news: Undeclared Israeli Nuclear Weapons

2011-06-16T22:54:00.001-04:00

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:

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/15/undeclared-israeli-nuclear-weapons-cia-knew-in-1974-that-israel-had-nuclear-weapons/

Sexual subliminals in kids' shows

2011-06-13T22:59:00.000-04:00

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...

USAF vs UFO battle over Vietnam?

2011-06-12T20:52:00.000-04:00

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...

Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

2011-06-07T23:02:00.000-04:00

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.

False-positives

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.

http://www.askdocweb.com/falsepositives.html

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... )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YYG-f3qYE8

Morality

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.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf

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.

Constitutionality

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

Freedom declared threat to police

2011-05-23T15:33:00.002-04:00

A recent brief on PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement personnel to share information, declares "sovereign citizens threat to cops." What a shame that the police are so far around the bend, that they don't even realize the oath they took to uphold the Constitution was an oath to defend these principals, not to declare the adherents a threat. This is the true face of the police-state today, and a clear example of the perverted justice they uphold.

Government corruption, economic ruin and wanton violence against the people by a paramilitary police-state apparatus, has never been more prevalent or obvious. Yet in propaganda pieces like the segment from 60 Minutes that I will share here, the powers-that-be resort to flawed logic and rhetoric in order to make their case that freedom is bad, and that people who adhere to the founding principals of this nation are a threat to the nation. Yet they will show no proof that the claims of a sovereign are either incorrect or illegal. I'll let you go ahead and watch the clip first, then we'll talk more about it...

Normally I think 60 minutes is a fantastic program. But this time it seems clear that they are being used as a propaganda tool, just like every other mainstream media source. Right off the bat, they try to portray sovereign citizens as some sort of new-fangled organized "movement" when really that is not the truth at all. They are not a society, they are not an organization, they are not a political movement. Tthey are citizens, just like you and I, who adhere to strict interpretations of our Constitution and who seek to legally unbind themselves from a complex web of statutory contract law.

This is a concept that is really not understood by the layman, and I am not about to explain it all here. I do suggest you look more into it yourself though by surfing the web a little and learning about it. But as an example to the reader, let us take a look at your driver's license and all the statutory regulations that go with the "privilege" of driving. The fact is, you have a Constitutionally protected God-given right to freedom of movement by whatever means you so happen to choose. So where do the police get the power to issue you a ticket for driving with s suspended driver's license, or for not paying the state tax to have your car registered? You gave them the power. When you signed on the dotted line to get your state-issued driver's license, you made a contract agreement to abide by the state laws or "codes" of the road. The sovereign refuses to be subject to or bullied into contract agreements that are contradictory to the liberties spelled out in the Constitution. That's it. It has nothing to do with shooting people, has nothing to do with taking control of the government (we are the government, in theory anyway), has nothing to do with recruiting new adherents to a Conservative wet-dream. The sovereign has many different social ideals, economic beliefs, and religious values even if it is no religion at all. That really is the entire point. Freedom.

So now the government has declared folks who take the Constitution literally to be "among the nation's top domestic terror threats" because some have become violent. If we are going to use that criteria, I suggest that perhaps it is the police who are among the nation's top domestic terror threats. When was the last time a sovereign citizen molested your child at the airport? When was the last time a sovereign citizen tore off your wife's clothes because she called for help, and then laughed about it (last second of vid)? When was the last time a sovereign citizen smashed a man's face in for using a video camera in his own front yard? When was the last time a group of sovereign citizens beat up on unarmed women in a restaurant? When was the last time a sovereign citizen got away with murder because of corruption and lies? When was the last time a gang of sovereign citizens broke into a war veteran's home and executed him in front of his wife and child?

And the favorite excuse of the apologists? "Cops are just people too." You're goddamn right they are just people too, which means they have no flipping right to do the crap that they do no matter what some court rules. The courts, no matter what they decide on paper or in collusion, have no damn right to decide that you no longer have your Constitutionally protected God-given rights of free men. They have no right to tell you that you cannot protect yourself against a home-invasion.

Of course, court mandated and approved supra-Constitutional police powers aside, there are also plenty of cases of police officers committing actual crimes as well, not just abusing the rights of citizens. Blatant criminal acts that sometimes we actually hear about, on that occasion when such acts make it to the light of day through the blue wall of silence and multilayer system of corruption, cronyism, and propagandist white-washing. So if we are going to use the "few bad apples" excuse for police, who we should actually expect to be held to a higher standard with all of their power and authority, not a lower one, couldn't that same "few bad apples" excuse be used for any other group, including citizens?

So let us be clear here. I am not defending the actions of this man and his son who went over the edge and chose to murder two police officers for no obvious reason. That is not freedom, that is not liberty. I do not endorse violence for the sake of violence or to make some bullshit statement. But I will say this. With more and more proud, freedom-loving Americans being shoved around one too many times and left no place to turn, it hardly surprises me to see things like this happen, where folks decide they have had enough, and decide to shove back. Nevertheless, portraying some down on his luck supposed scam artist and his son as the spokespersons for citizens who value the Constitution is like saying that Biggie Smalls spoke for all New Yorkers.

In the first segment of the clip they focus on the actual shooting. I don't see anything in that video that would justify the actions of that man and his son. Of course, there might be something in the editing that I am missing. But really, I am a firm believer in "live to fight another day." I see no reason to kill a police officer unless a police officer is about to kill you, or to kill anyone else for that matter unless your own life (or another innocent) is in danger. As much as I "hate" cops from an ideological standpoint, I hate no cop personally just because of what he does for a living. (I've also met a criminal or two that were actually real good people, if misguided.) So seeing that bit of video, where the chief arrives at the scene, that got me choked up. I can hardly imagine what that must have been like.

Nonetheless, with the two shooters dead 90 minutes later, I wonder if the Chief is looking for someone else to blame. Indeed, even 60 Minutes calls sovereign citizens the Chief's obsession. A natural, psychological, human coping mechanism to try to find someone to blame for such a shocking and tragic loss, but it was not some movement that killed his son and son's partner any more than it was their job that killed them. It was a young gunman and his father, who are now dead. There is no one else that can be blamed.

Next up in the piece we hear from J.J. McNab, a self-employed, self-avowed "expert" on sovereign citizens who's last job was as a financial planner. I see nothing in her resume that says she is lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar. Yet 60 Minutes interviews her as if she were indeed an authority, when clearly she is not. She begins with an erroneous and inflammatory statement claiming that the sovereign citizen claims they are "above the law" when in fact the exact opposite is true. The sovereign citizen sees that the government, the courts, and the police, are putting themselves above the law. And that of course is my very own interpretation, since the whole point of being a sovereign is that nobody tell you what to think or can tell other people what you think. Maybe she should look up the word sovereign.

She goes on to talk about the sovereigns' "twisted" view of history, yet she is no historian at all by any credential. She claims that people of the 18th century saw themselves as free of all legal constraints, and that sovereign citizens today also believe that and want to "return" to that time. The fact is, that people of the 18th century very much believed in the rule of law, a just law, prescribed by the document they put forth called the Constitution. The core values of what made this nation a nation in the first place, free of tyranny and oppression. The values which inspired a Revolution and set men free to prosper in a nation where one man would never have to bow before another. So then the question really becomes, at what time did the government see fit to deviate from that rule of law, from this promise of liberty?

The segment then goes on to equate sovereigns with anti-government forces. How can the people be anti-government in a true democratic republic when the people are the government? They equate the movement with terrorism, and even racism but then in the same breath say that black actor Wesley Snipes used "sovereign language" in trying to combat the IRS.

Back again to the self avowed expert who now profiles what to look for in a sovereign citizen. A30-35 year old (white man) in economic dire straits who has probably lost their job and their wife. Many are "paranoid, conspiracy theorists" according to her. Nevermind the fact that she is not a psychologist or in any position at all to judge whether or not someone is paranoid, and nevermind the very relevant questions that so called conspiracy theorists put forth. There was once a time when people who said the world was round, or who believed in the Mafia were conspiracy theorists too. Simply more vilification of any who dares to question the status quo. And of course, nevermind too that profiling disillusioned white men is about as ignorant as saying a nigga from Brooklyn is probably a cop killer.

In the next segment they do a real hack job on the guy trying to explain what sovereignty is all about, so I don't have too much there to comment on, other than to say I don't trust the government any more than he does. Any true patriot will distrust their government.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

But just after that, they go on to talk about different seminars and "scams" that are all over the internet. On that point, I do offer a word of caution. There are indeed many scams out there. Even someone as affluent as Wesley Snipes found out the hard way that trying to pry oneself out of the web of contract law is next to impossible. I do not declare myself a sovereign for that very reason if no other. Not because they are wrong mind you, but because I do not have the time, education, or skill to dedicate myself to the subtle nuances of sovereign law. One slip-up, and you wind up in the penitentiary with Wesley. But it can be done...

...and stuff like that folks, is why the system will degrade you, smear you with propaganda, imprison you, and ultimately murder you if they get half a chance. Because being a sovereign is a direct threat to your God-given rights. One mis-step, and they will come down on you with all the fury Hell hath to offer.

Nonetheless, as I said, it can be done, in more ways than one too. A smart sovereign would never go out and make a spectacle of themselves as a would-be martyr gunned down in some delusional blaze of glory. The true sovereign is the one who knows how to navigate this complex web of deceit, which is more than a century in the making. The true sovereign, and the real threat to the usurpers, are the sort of folks they point out in the next segment. The ones who use the system, against the system. What the 60 Minutes reporter calls "retribution" is completely legal, and some might say, completely justified. In that segment, they actually admit that sovereigns are not the "delusional" sort that JJ McNab tries to portray. While she claims these folks have turned off their "common sense switch," many have used the system's own rules and statutes against gate-keepers. The same sort of loopholes that might leave you stranded by the side of the road after police have impounded your car for a dirty license plate, or being charged with felony assault of a police officer for farting at a cop.

Next segment we have a judge from Queens holding court in Rosendale NY, a small local community I know well, claiming he is scared to death when he learns that some moron in his court over a misdemeanor traffic ticket had "contacts" with the West Memphis shooters. Number one, I would like to know what contacts that actually was. Passed eachother in some chat forum, subscribed to the same newsletter? Second of all, does he really expect us to believe that a judge from Queens who worked 30 years in the penitentiary with the most depraved human beings alive has never felt unsafe in his life before coming up against the "sovereign citizens"? Even in the video segment it appears that the judge himself can't even hold back his laughter.

And did you get a look at those goofballs that are this supreme threat to national security? To this judge to the point that he is sleeping with a gun under his pillow? Newsflash judge, if you are that scared maybe you should start lobbying the state to stop shutting down mental health units. Is the crux of this whole report telling the American people that our entire nation is about to be brought down by the Three Stooges? Seriously? Now Wesley Snipes, I might have bought that one.

Back again now to the brief segment with the man 60 Minutes has labeled as the "sovereign guru." The man is completely reasonable talking about the Second Amendment, and the purpose of the right to bear arms. He is absolutely right, it was never meant to protect our right of suck hunting. It was put into the Constitution to provide a sovereign natural right to resist tyranny, by force if necessary.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." ~Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Quick cut to the police Chief who's son was murdered, who states, "Obviously the guy is crazy, and I think he should be brought up on charges."

There you have it folks, in clear. no uncertain terms, according to the police chief of West Memphis, if you believe in the Constitution, "obviously" you are crazy and should be brought up on charges.

"If they want to come after me, I'm very easy to find. The polic Chief in West Memphis, Arkansas... If they come after me, I have absolutely no problem with it, and might even like it."

"...and might even like it."

"...and might even like it."

Spoken like a true pig there Chief.

Rodney King trial evidence, LAPD radio transmissions, 1:13 a.m. from Powell and Wind to the foot patrol: "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

Now don't get me wrong, if someone killed my boy, I might feel the same way. But what the chief fails to recognize, is that no one went after his boy. His boy went after them.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine

Supplemental:

Operation Vampire killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule

Copyright, November-Blue Enterprise, used by permission

Botox Mom was a hoax

2011-05-20T23:08:00.000-04:00

Well well, another media sham. Another good reason to not trust the news. It appears that the entire story was a hoax, that the child is not even a pageant contestant, and that they didn't even use their real names in the interview. The mother was paid $200 by British tabloid The Sun to carny out the media campaign. Sadly, the child actually did get taken away from the mother, and now she is being accused of having form of Munchhausen's Syndrome. Nevermind of course, the fact that the blame really lay with the media for starting this whole thing and then running with the ball for ratings. Some are calling this is a hoax, I call it a psyop. Look at the buzz it created. Do you really thing the powers-that-be were not collecting data on everyone's tweets and FB posts to get a profile of public reactions? This is how social engineering works people. This was an experiment, a data-mining psychological profiling operation, not a hoax. Just like the Airforce One flyby over Ground Zero a few years ago.

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/thefamous/botox-mom-made-200-off-her-hoax/1325

Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden

2011-05-20T23:05:00.000-04:00

What a bunch of horseshit. They haven't shut the fuck up about Bin Laden since the hour the fist building fell, now suddenly they tell us to shut up and forget OBL ever existed. Okay Pentagon and affiliated government officials, how about you show us the proof that this whole thing hasn't been a steaming pile of horse-apples right from the very beginning. And while you are at it, we will take the death photos and DNA evidence as well.

WASHINGTON (RNN) - Top Pentagon officials expressed concern Wednesday over the sensitive details revealed to the media about the assault that killed former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

"It is time to stop talking, and we have talked far too much about this. We need to move on," said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen during a joint news briefing with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. "It's a story that if we don't stop talking, it will never end, and it needs to."

Complete brief at link:

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=14670466

"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

Freedom a threat to police

2011-05-17T23:11:00.001-04:00

A recent brief on PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement personnel to share information, declares "sovereign citizens threat to cops." What a shame that the police are so far around the bend, that they don't even realize the oath they took to uphold the Constitution was an oath to defend these principals, not to declare the adherents a threat. This is the true face of the police-state today, and a clear example of the perverted justice they uphold.

Government corruption, economic ruin and wanton violence against the people by a paramilitary police-state apparatus, has never been more prevalent or obvious. Yet in propaganda pieces like the segment from 60 Minutes that I will share here, the powers-that-be resort to flawed logic and rhetoric in order to make their case that freedom is bad, and that people who adhere to the founding principals of this nation are a threat to the nation. Yet they will show no proof that the claims of a sovereign are either incorrect or illegal. I'll let you go ahead and watch the clip first, then we'll talk more about it...

Normally I think 60 minutes is a fantastic program. But this time it seems clear that they are being used as a propaganda tool, just like every other mainstream media source. Right off the bat, they try to portray sovereign citizens as some sort of new-fangled organized "movement" when really that is not the truth at all. They are not a society, they are not an organization, they are not a political movement. Tthey are citizens, just like you and I, who adhere to strict interpretations of our Constitution and who seek to legally unbind themselves from a complex web of statutory contract law.

This is a concept that is really not understood by the layman, and I am not about to explain it all here. I do suggest you look more into it yourself though by surfing the web a little and learning about it. But as an example to the reader, let us take a look at your driver's license and all the statutory regulations that go with the "privilege" of driving. The fact is, you have a Constitutionally protected God-given right to freedom of movement by whatever means you so happen to choose. So where do the police get the power to issue you a ticket for driving with s suspended driver's license, or for not paying the state tax to have your car registered? You gave them the power. When you signed on the dotted line to get your state-issued driver's license, you made a contract agreement to abide by the state laws or "codes" of the road. The sovereign refuses to be subject to or bullied into contract agreements that are contradictory to the liberties spelled out in the Constitution. That's it. It has nothing to do with shooting people, has nothing to do with taking control of the government (we are the government, in theory anyway), has nothing to do with recruiting new adherents to a Conservative wet-dream. The sovereign has many different social ideals, economic beliefs, and religious values even if it is no religion at all. That really is the entire point. Freedom.

So now the government has declared folks who take the Constitution literally to be "among the nation's top domestic terror threats" because some have become violent. If we are going to use that criteria, I suggest that perhaps it is the police who are among the nation's top domestic terror threats. When was the last time a sovereign citizen molested your child at the airport? When was the last time a sovereign citizen tore off your wife's clothes because she called for help, and then laughed about it (last second of vid)? When was the last time a sovereign citizen smashed a man's face in for using a video camera in his own front yard? When was the last time a group of sovereign citizens beat up on unarmed women in a restaurant? When was the last time a sovereign citizen got away with murder because of corruption and lies? When was the last time a gang of sovereign citizens broke into a war veteran's home and executed him in front of his wife and child?

And the favorite excuse of the apologists? "Cops are just people too." You're goddamn right they are just people too, which means they have no fucking right to do the shit that they do no matter what some court rules. The courts, no matter what they decide on paper or in collusion, have no fucking right to decide that you no longer have your Constitutionally protected God-given rights of free men. They have no right to tell you that you cannot protect yourself against a home-invasion.

Of course, court mandated and approved supra-Constitutional police powers aside, there are also plenty of cases of police officers committing actual crimes as well, not just abusing the rights of citizens. Blatant criminal acts that sometimes we actually hear about, on that occasion when such acts make it to the light of day through the blue wall of silence and multilayer system of corruption, cronyism, and propagandist white-washing. So if we are going to use the "few bad apples" excuse for police, who we should actually expect to be held to a higher standard with all of their power and authority, not a lower one, couldn't that same "few bad apples" excuse be used for any other group, including citizens?

So let us be clear here. I am not defending the actions of this man and his son who went over the edge and chose to murder two police officers for no obvious reason. That is not freedom, that is not liberty. I do not endorse violence for the sake of violence or to make some bullshit statement. But I will say this. With more and more proud, freedom-loving Americans being shoved around one too many times and left no place to turn, it hardly surprises me to see things like this happen, where folks decide they have had enough, and decide to shove back. Nevertheless, portraying some down on his luck supposed scam artist and his son as the spokespersons for citizens who value the Constitution is like saying that Biggie Smalls spoke for all New Yorkers.

In the first segment of the clip they focus on the actual shooting. I don't see anything in that video that would justify the actions of that man and his son. Of course, there might be something in the editing that I am missing. But really, I am a firm believer in "live to fight another day." I see no reason to kill a police officer unless a police officer is about to kill you, or to kill anyone else for that matter unless your own life (or another innocent) is in danger. As much as I "hate" cops from an ideological standpoint, I hate no cop personally just because of what he does for a living. (I've also met a criminal or two that were actually real good people, if misguided.) So seeing that bit of video, where the chief arrives at the scene, that got me choked up. I can hardly imagine what that must have been like.

Nonetheless, with the two shooters dead 90 minutes later, I wonder if the Chief is looking for someone else to blame. Indeed, even 60 Minutes calls sovereign citizens the Chief's obsession. A natural, psychological, human coping mechanism to try to find someone to blame for such a shocking and tragic loss, but it was not some movement that killed his son and son's partner any more than it was their job that killed them. It was a young gunman and his father, who are now dead. There is no one else that can be blamed.

Next up in the piece we hear from J.J. McNab, a self-employed, self-avowed "expert" on sovereign citizens who's last job was as a financial planner. I see nothing in her resume that says she is lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar. Yet 60 Minutes interviews her as if she were indeed an authority, when clearly she is not. She begins with an erroneous and inflammatory statement claiming that the sovereign citizen claims they are "above the law" when in fact the exact opposite is true. The sovereign citizen sees that the government, the courts, and the police, are putting themselves above the law. And that of course is my very own interpretation, since the whole point of being a sovereign is that nobody tell you what to think or can tell other people what you think. Maybe she should look up the word sovereign.

She goes on to talk about the sovereigns' "twisted" view of history, yet she is no historian at all by any credential. She claims that people of the 18th century saw themselves as free of all legal constraints, and that sovereign citizens today also believe that and want to "return" to that time. The fact is, that people of the 18th century very much believed in the rule of law, a just law, prescribed by the document they put forth called the Constitution. The core values of what made this nation a nation in the first place, free of tyranny and oppression. The values which inspired a Revolution and set men free to prosper in a nation where one man would never have to bow before another. So then the question really becomes, at what time did the government see fit to deviate from that rule of law, from this promise of liberty?

The segment then goes on to equate sovereigns with anti-government forces. How can the people be anti-government in a true democratic republic when the people are the government? They equate the movement with terrorism, and even racism but then in the same breath say that black actor Wesley Snipes used "sovereign language" in trying to combat the IRS.

Back again to the self avowed expert who now profiles what to look for in a sovereign citizen. A30-35 year old (white man) in economic dire straits who has probably lost their job and their wife. Many are "paranoid, conspiracy theorists" according to her. Nevermind the fact that she is not a psychologist or in any position at all to judge whether or not someone is paranoid, and nevermind the very relevant questions that so called conspiracy theorists put forth. There was once a time when people who said the world was round, or who believed in the Mafia were conspiracy theorists too. Simply more vilification of any who dares to question the status quo. And of course, nevermind too that profiling disillusioned white men is about as ignorant as saying a nigga from Brooklyn is probably a cop killer.

In the next segment they do a real hack job on the guy trying to explain what sovereignty is all about, so I don't have too much there to comment on, other than to say I don't trust the government any more than he does. Any true patriot will distrust their government.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." ~Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"If they want to come after me, I'm very easy to find. The polic Chief in West Memphis, Arkansas... If they come after me, I have absolutely no problem with it, and might even like it."

"...and might even like it."

"...and might even like it."

Spoken like a true pig there Chief.

Rodney King trial evidence, LAPD radio transmissions, 1:13 a.m. from Powell and Wind to the foot patrol: "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

Now don't get me wrong, if someone killed my boy, I might feel the same way. But what the chief fails to recognize, is that no one went after his boy. His boy went after them.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine

Supplemental:

Operation Vampire killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule

Cellphone providers now required to transmit government propaganda

2011-05-11T12:37:00.000-04:00

As with all technology, this looks like yet another double-edged sword. On the one hand, I might like to be provided with news about emergency events and other alerts, via cellphone. Forcing me to receive those alerts however (and attaching a hidden cost to my cellphone service in the process) is not something I am comfortable with. And really, what better way to corral the masses into certain mindsets at a certain given time, to the point of even literally driving their physical movements within a city?

Emergency officials will soon be able to blast critical alerts to anyone with a cell phone in a certain section of the city.

If Times Square needs to be evacuated because of a bomb threat or if a hurricane is bearing down on Queens, warnings will be bounced from cell towers.

NY Daily News

Not only will I be forced to get these alerts, but these alerts will interrupt your service and whatever task you might be performing (data, voice call, text, etc.) in order to get these alerts. The crying wolf amber alert system may be something that someone might be interested in getting updates from, but I sure as hell don't want whatever important call I may be on to be dropped simply so that I can be notified of another custody battle gone wild.

Also from the Daily News Article...

The messages, including urgent blasts from the President, information on imminent threats and Amber Alerts about missing children, will supercede all other phone traffic so they won't be stalled or delayed.

While the mainstream media outlets such as the Associated Press and CBS have touted this latest government intrusion into our lives as something beneficial, with catchy little quotes/soundbytes from the likes of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said this is a "quantum leap forward in using technology to help keep people safe," I prefer the counterspin reporting of infowars.com who reported...

It’s not enough the government and its corporate media propaganda tool commandeer the television and radio with phony terror alerts and incessant nonsense about Muslim miscreants who are inspired by FBI agents provocateurs to talk about terrorism.

Soon it this propaganda will reach out to your cell phone. It will be mandatory to receive this propaganda.

CBS and the AP report today that next year the government will mandate all new cell phones will be required to have a chip that receives government propaganda and fear-mongering. Many smart phones already have technology easily commandeered by the state. Government propaganda will supersede all other calls.

Carriers AT&T and Verizon say they will implement the technology. Eighty-five percent of Americans over 18 own a cell phone.

Following the debunked Osama death raid, the government announced it will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system will warn people about terrorist attacks, natural disasters or other emergencies.

The new system will be in place in New York City and Washington by the end of the year and in cities across the country by the end of next year, according to CBS New York.

In addition to Amber Alerts and warnings of imminent doom from terrorists who hate us for our freedom, the system will send out “urgent blasts from the president,” according to the New York Daily News.

This article compiled by station.6.underground.

Cellphone providers now required to transmit government propaganda

2011-05-10T23:31:00.001-04:00

Emergency officials will soon be able to blast critical alerts to anyone with a cell phone in a certain section of the city.

If Times Square needs to be evacuated because of a bomb threat or if a hurricane is bearing down on Queens, warnings will be bounced from cell towers.

NY Daily News

The messages, including urgent blasts from the President, information on imminent threats and Amber Alerts about missing children, will supercede all other phone traffic so they won't be stalled or delayed.

It’s not enough the government and its corporate media propaganda tool commandeer the television and radio with phony terror alerts and incessant nonsense about Muslim miscreants who are inspired by FBI agents provocateurs to talk about terrorism.

Soon it this propaganda will reach out to your cell phone. It will be mandatory to receive this propaganda.

CBS and the AP report today that next year the government will mandate all new cell phones will be required to have a chip that receives government propaganda and fear-mongering. Many smart phones already have technology easily commandeered by the state. Government propaganda will supersede all other calls.

Carriers AT&T and Verizon say they will implement the technology. Eighty-five percent of Americans over 18 own a cell phone.

Following the debunked Osama death raid, the government announced it will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system will warn people about terrorist attacks, natural disasters or other emergencies.

The new system will be in place in New York City and Washington by the end of the year and in cities across the country by the end of next year, according to CBS New York.

In addition to Amber Alerts and warnings of imminent doom from terrorists who hate us for our freedom, the system will send out “urgent blasts from the president,” according to the New York Daily News.

NY overturns Family Court decision to bar level 3 sex offender from his kids

2011-05-10T12:25:00.001-04:00

James Colliton was a half-million dollar a year tax attorney with a Manhattan apartment and a home he shared with his wife and children in upstate Poughkeepsie, New York. Today, he is a convicted level-3 sex offender after pleading guilty to rape, among other charges, for patronizing teenage prostitutes who were pimped out by their mother according to prosecutors. Initially he took his family and fled to Canada, was arrested but released in Ontario, before finally being arrested again in Manhattan to face a 43-count indictment. By the time of his 2007 conviction, he had been in jail for 19 months and was sentenced to one year, time-served, in a plea deal that let him off the hook for a potential 30 years in prison. The mother of the teen girls had previously pleaded guilty to charges against her for pimping the girls out to Colliton.

In Plea Deal, Lawyer Admits Having Sex With Teenagers

Seem like a pretty open and shut case of a real creep who probably got off a lot easier than he should have. I mean, just getting a look at this guy's mug is almost enough to convict him. Tell me that doesn't look like the textbook pic of a pedophile.

Since his conviction he has gone from tax attorney to pro se litigant, suing everyone from American Express for revealing account information leading to his arrest, to his former employer for not paying him his bonus, to the Town of Poughkeepsie and Dutchess County for violating his Constitutional rights and rights to privacy while monitoring him as a registered sex offender. Now it appears as though he might have grounds to go after the county's Department of Social Services with the NY State Court of Appeals ruling in his favor against the Family Court and recommendations of DSS which forced him out of his home for the next three years after his conviction. According to the Poughkeepsie Journal...

The Dutchess County Department of Social Services filed neglect petitions against both parents alleging the father was an untreated level-three sex offender, deemed likely to reoffend, whose crimes involved young teens, and that the mother failed to protect the children from the father.

Enough to make your blood boil right? One article I linked above there they called him "the most ridiculous pro se litigant of all time." And I am sure much worse has been said about him. Certainly enough to piss off the average Joe or Jane to see a creep like this using his legal expertise in to start snagging up loopholes in order to sue various parties for hundreds of millions of dollars. You would think he would have been happy with getting such a lucky break at sentencing for his admitted crimes.

Well, if you know me, or as you get to know me, you will see that I like to play the devil's advocate a lot. I am not easily swayed by rhetoric and shock-value reporting. I don't have the same knee-jerk reactions as most people do to words like communist, terrorist, sex offender or pedophile. So I tried to think about this objectively. Should this man have been forced from his house and barred from his children simply because he was guilty of sex with a teenage girl for money?

Of course I understand that these girls were underage and what he did is indeed a crime, but I am not quite seeing the correlation that shows he would actually attack his own children. It's kind of like the assumption that homophobes always make when they find out a guy is queer. All the sudden the straight guys all think the queer guy is going to try to have sex with them. You see that assumption too when it comes to homosexuals interacting with children. Legal or not, homosexuality is still often seen as sexual deviancy, that the homosexual might be more inclined to molest children and therefore should not be allowed to adopt or work with kids. Even if there were data to support such a notion, there is certainly nothing that says all homosexuals are likely to attack children.

So just because he pled guilty to having sex with a minor, does not mean that he is likely to attack any and all minors, especially his own children. If he had sex with a prostitute that was of legal age, would that be a sign that he was likely to proposition his children for sex when they became legal age of consent? Certainly not, yet that is same sort of logic which was applied to bar this man from his house and his kids.

Applied logic doesn't always pan out though in the real world. My gut was still telling me that this guy is a creep and his kids would be better off without him. I would certainly sleep better at night knowing that this guy was nowhere near kids, his own or otherwise. But then again I am conflicted between what my gut is telling me, and what my morals tell me. And my morals tell me this has nothing to do with how I sleep at night. My morals tell me that this has nothing to do with what my gut tells me "might" happen. My morals tell me that just because a man is guilty of one crime, I have no right to assume he is destined to be guilty of any crime my imagination conjures up.

Therefore, I must conclude that the judges in this case did in fact make the right decision in their ruling. A difficult decision on their part no doubt, and an unpopular ruling it is likely to be in the face of hyperbole and the public's utter contempt for sex offenders. Nonetheless, we see that they had statutory basis for their ruling.

...under New York's Family Court Act, they cited two findings that required them to determine neglect. The first is "proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child." Second is the danger "must be a consequence of the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care."

The court noted the statutory test is not best or ideal care for children, but a minimum degree.

So it does appear that the Department of Social Services did wrongfully separate this man from his family, falsely accusing both himself and his wife of neglect. And as much as I hate to admit it, he should be compensated for that. As this story begins to unravel, now we must consider too that perhaps his other lawsuits were not so frivolous as we had assumed. What if this man were not guilty of statutory rape? I think that perhaps me might actually give him more serious consideration. Which we should anyway. Just because someone is the perpetrator of a crime, no matter how heinous, that is no justification for others to commit crimes against him or to deny him his rights, lest one day we too are abused simply because we are not popular.

Digging a little deeper now, I am confronted by articles that paint a very different picture than what has been portrayed by the prosecution and in most media sources reporting on the case. What if this man really is not in fact guilty of the crimes he was convicted of? It would seem incredulous, unthinkable to even suggest such a thing. How dare I even doubt for a second that such a creep is not as guilty as sin. After all, he pled guilty, and so did the mother who pimped out those poor girls.

So let's go ahead and take a second look at that woman, who also pled guilty in a plea arrangement. How could a mother do such a thing to her daughters? Well, the case comes undone a little more as we pull at the loose ends as they begin to fray.

"The one that was prostituting my [now] 15-year-old daughter was my [21-year-old] daughter," the mother said in her sparse apartment in lower Manhattan. "She's the devil's child, period."

The mother said her vengeful child had been out to get her since she called ACS to report her daughter's boyfriend was abusing her granddaughter.

But it also appears the girls weren't just out to get the mother. According to another article, these young girls have lied about an awful lot in this case, even lying under oath to the grand jury. So what can we really believe? The window of reasonable doubt is suddenly wide open it appears, and perhaps James Colliton should never have pled guilty to what may have been false allegations from the start.

The older sister had alleged that her own relationship with Colliton began when she was 15. This is disputed however by a cousin of the sisters, identified only as "Shorty," who states that it was she who introduced the older sister to Colliton and that it had been three years later than claimed, when she was 18, a year older than the legal age for consent in New York State. If that is true, then one of the rape charges against Colliton goes right out the window. Plainly not guilty of statutory rape, even if guilty of patronizing a prostitute.

The younger girl has now admitted that she lied about her mother pimping her out, but maintains that she did in fact have sex with Colliton for money and gifts at the behest of her older sister.But that too must be met with the utmost skepticism at this point, considering how this whole case came about in the first place. The elder sister became pregnant by another man, but then began extorting Colliton until finally he demanded a DNA test be done. This is where the younger sister comes into the picture.

By some accounts, still needing cash, the older sister began offering up her younger sibling to Colliton. At first to clean his apartment in exchange for money, but eventually he is alleged to have begun paying in cash and gifts for sex with the younger girl for the next several months. By her own admission, the younger girl began extorting Colliton, threatening to have him arrested.

"I started threatening him that if he didn't give me money that I'd call the cops on him. I told him to give me whatever he could give me. I didn't want to have sex with him anymore," she said.

Maybe she never had sex with him in the first place. The older sister convinced the younger to report Colliton to ACS Administration for Children's Services) while implicating their mother becasue she was too strict on them. As if the credibility of these two girls was not already in serious doubt, we also have the case of José Mangual, the ex boyfriend of the mother of these two girls, who has come forward stating that he was the subject of false allegations made by these two sisters.

Mangual said he ran afoul of the older sister when he moved into the family's Manhattan home and the mother began paying more attention to him than to her kids.

The older girl, then 17, filed physical-abuse charges against the mother with the Administration for Children Service and allegedly persuaded her younger sister to accuse Mangual of sexual abuse.

Mangual said he was never arrested but hired a lawyer to defend himself in family court. He said that the girls' claim fell apart under questioning and that the case against him was dismissed. He and their mother later broke up.

Considering that Mangual came forward and the testimony of the girls had been all but disproven by their own public statements to press, it is hard to imagine how the charges against either the mother or Colliton still stood at all, much less why they might have elected to plead guilty to those charges. Of course, there are those who will maintain the naive notion that "only a guilty person would plead guilty." But sadly, that just is not the truth in this day and age of the presumption of guilt over innocence. The police and courts are too well trusted, while someone as loathsome as a child molester or an unfit mother will hardly be afforded any reasonable doubt even when only the weakest of evidence is brought against them.

So considering that. Considering the very real possibility that they may spend decades in prison for something they did not do, it is really little surprise that such a fear would get the better of someone. And that they would rather just plead guilty, go home and try to move on, leaving the whole sordid tale behind them the best they can. And that my friends, is a big reason why our system is broken. Because the accused, even with the best lawyers often, know full well that there is no such thing as the presumption of innocence anymore. How did that happen? How do we change that?

Pentagon video of OBL filmed in America?

2011-05-08T23:25:00.001-04:00

Conspiracy forums are buzzing with another recent astute observation. In the video released by the Pentagon allegedly showing Osama bin Laden watching himself on television, it appears that the electrical outlets are all in the format used only in North America and Japan.

A little info for folks who don't understand, different countries and regions throughout the world use different voltages and different electrical plug formats. The plugs shown in the video, both on the wall and another power-strip on the floor, appear to show plugs of the format used in North America (and Japan), not the sort used in Pakistan.

Electrical Plug/Outlet and Voltage Information for Pakistan

Fox News reports OBL death a few days too early

2011-05-07T23:22:00.000-04:00

According to this Tweeter, she saw the Fox News ticker report that Osama bin-Laden was dead on April 28. So either she got into Twitter and hacked her account to change the date stamp, had a psychic premonition, or this is for real.

Here is a link to the Twitter account in question:

http://twitter.com/#!/megneverlands

***

Flashback to another pre-emptive reporting by the press...

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

2011-05-04T23:19:00.000-04:00

This really pisses me off to no end. Since the very first hours after the attacks of September 11, 2001 we have been fed a string of lies, and stonewalled from getting any real answers to very serious questions. And now the whitewash is complete. No body, no photos, and weak promises of "Bin Laden is dead."

Well, he may indeed be dead. But this whole yarn spun straight from the pages of some Tom Clancy novel is a bunch of bullshit. So let's just recap the events of the past few days here to get the facts straight.

Late Sunday night, while most people in America were going to bed, we began to hear rumors that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Initial reports from "inside White House sources" said that he had been killed in a missile strike about a week earlier, and that the news was delayed so that they could positively identify the remains through DNA analyses.

But when U.S. President Barack Obama came to the podium in the White House to make the official televised announcement, the story was quite a bit different. According to the President, OBL was killed that very day, in a daring raid by commandos. Okay, fine. Maybe some miscommunication in there, maybe a little deliberate obfuscation by the inside sources to cover their own butts for talking to the press. I roll my eyes, but okay, let's give a little benefit of doubt there. But let's have a look now at how the rest of the story has unfolded.

To begin with, the White House has already changed their story a number of times since the President's official announcement. Now we are not talking about leaked insider information being misinterpreted. We are talking about the White House making authoritative statements of fact, and then reversing themselves. The excuse they use is "the fog of war." Bullshit I say. If they didn't "know" they wouldn't have shared the information. They keep slipping up, getting called on it, and have to change their story each time to make it appear believable.

The Raid.

So as I said, it went from a missile strike a week earlier, to a daring commando raid on a compound less than a mile from a prestigious Pakistani military academy. Doesn't say much for Pakistan's ability to protect their borders for one thing. Okay though, let's assume that it was within the capabilities of US elite forces, without any Pakistani clearance, to storm a compound a mile away from their equivalent to our West Point.

As it is being reported now, a forty-man group of operators from CIA SOG, and so-called SEAL Team 6 (who don't even officially exist), flying in two Blackhawk helicopters descended upon the compound in the dark of night. There was a "fierce" firefight, even though, according to their own reports, OBL had no body guards. Several people are reportedly killed, including two couriers, the same couriers it is believed who led them to the compound to start with, and one of OBL's sons. One of OBL's wives is allegedly wounded in the raid as well, and another woman is killed.

The raid culminates with the execution of the alleged terror mastermind himself, Osama Bin Laden, with a precise shot to the forehead, and another in the chest. Initial reports claim that he was armed and that he used his wife as a shield. But as it turns out now, he did not use his wife as a shield, and in fact was not even armed. So what does that really say about our most elite military unit? That they cannot take in an unarmed man alive. A man who should have been taken alive at all costs even if he was armed. Forget about the moral questions of arbitrarily executing an unarmed man, even one so loathed as OBL. But consider the treasure trove of intelligence that was lost by killing him, if in fact he was the terror mastermind he has been made out to be all along.

The dead part of "wanted, dead or alive" is there because we were willing to pay for his remains if someone else killed him. US forces though? US forces should have taken him alive at all costs. It is clear though, that this operation never intended to take him alive at all. This was an assassination mission right from the start. Why? Because we already know everything he knows. We did not need to wrest any information from him. We needed to silence him. And why the "need" to silence him? Well ask yourself this. Why wasn't he wanted for the 9/11 attacks? On his official wanted posted at the FBI, not a single mention of 9/11.

And al-Qaeda? No such thing.

He needed to be brought to justice so that the world would know once and for all that OBL was indeed the terror-chief he has been portrayed as ever since 9/11. That indeed the threat has been real all along, and not staged to further American geo-political agendas, imperialism and war profiteering by the corporations who control the US government.

At some point during the raid one of the helicopters went down due to some mechanical failure. Some reports say that it overheated from hovering for too long in ambient air temps that were too high. So somehow they managed to squeeze 40 men and a dead body into a single helicopter along with a "treasure trove" of computer hardware.

The compound had no internet connection and no telephones, yet contained this supposedly marvelous cache of intelligence data. And nevermind of course, that they had just executed the most important piece of intelligence they could have ever gotten their hands on.

The Body.

Along with the assassination team and the electronics hardware, the body of Osama Bin Laden was loaded onto the Blackhawk helicopter, and brought back to a base in Afghanistan. A base allegedly so modern and well equipped in the middle of the most ferocious war zone in a third world country, that they were able to make a thorough and conclusive DNA identification of the remains, in a matter of a few hours.

Meanwhile, here in New York State, an autopsy alone can take days. The full lab reports in a the recent high-profile murder of teenage girl who's body was dumped in a suburban ballpark took over a month to complete. Yet in the middle of some stone-aged desert town the U.S. managed to get a conclusive, highly technological, complete scientific analyses of the remains of the most wanted criminal in history done in a matter of a few hours. Of course, we had to do this, in order to make sure that we conformed with Islamic custom to bury the body as soon as possible. How convenient.

So we bury the body in the Arabian Sea. Wait what? We go to all this trouble and then just dump his body in the ocean. What ocean? The Arabian Sea. Now, I know most Americans are terrible at geography and if they actually looked at a map they couldn't tell you the difference between Australia and Afghanistan, but here's a big clue folks. They are opposites, Australia is an island, surrounded by ocean. Afghanistan on the other hand, is a land-locked country, surrounded by the land of other coutnries. There is no ocean on any of it's borders.

Abbottabad, the city where this raid is said to have taken place, is on the Northwestern frontier of Pakistan, along their disputed border with India. That city is a thousand miles from any ocean. So we rushed the body from Abbottabad, to some base in Afghanistan, did a rush autopsy, lab work and DNA test, then packed his corpse onto some other aircraft, another helicopter or light transport plane capable of landing on an aircraft carrier over a thousand miles away, to get his body dumped in the ocean in less then 24 hours. The flight times alone for such a journey really stretch the believability if you stop to actually think about this story we are being told.

Okay, so let's assume that the bullshit story of trying to conform to Islamic tradition is true. We really did want to bury him with the dignity of his faith which says it should be done quickly. Why dump him in the ocean? That is actually an affront to his religious dignity. A Muslim who dies on land is supposed to be buried in the land. Now their faith does allow for burial at sea if the person dies at sea and cannot be buried in the land, but that was not the case here. It is also offensive to transport the body. Muslims are supposed to be buried in the land where they died, and are not to be transported. The body is to be washed and shrouded, placed in a Mosque, funeral prayers offered, and then be buried within 24 hours.

Tombstones, elaborate grave markers, and gravesite offerings are discouraged. Which basically shoots down the American excuse that they didn't want his grave to turn into some terrorist shrine. Besides that, there were plenty of other things that could have been done to prevent that. Like bringing the damn body back to the States for one thing. For another, they didn't seem so concerned about what happened to the corpse when they offered to turn over the body to Saudi Arabia, who declined.

Okay, to recap, we went out out of our way and bent over backwards for one tenet of his Islamic faith while ignoring just about all the other funeral traditions, and while ignoring the need for scientific analyses of the remains, to pack his dead ass back onto another helicopter and fly him over a thousand miles, back out across Pakistan by the way, to drop him on a ship and dump his body in the ocean. And that makes sense to people? Why go to all that trouble to dump him in the ocean if they weren't hiding something?

The Photo.

On the night of the announcement, several main stream media outlets began circulating a picture of what was believed to be the body of Osama bin Laden. A fairly gruesome image, that fits the description that the White House is still using. A bullet entry wound just slightly off center in the forehead, with both eyes exploded in their sockets.

That photo was quickly proved to be a fake, and the propaganda machine was pushed back on its heels. Of course, most of us expected to see a photo, and when the first one proved to be a fake, we expected to see the "real" one. Today, President Obama has decided that he will not release an "authentic" photo of the body. And it appears that a bunch of morons out there are just fine with that.

Supposedly, the President does not want to incite unrest, does not want it plastered over front pages and television screens where the children might see it (oh no, not the children), and is basically saying "America doesn't do that, we are better than that." Yea right. Every other time we killed someone, like Saddam's sons, the pics were released. We have always released pictures of the bodies. And even this time we are doing it. We will get to see pics of OBL's son who died in the raid as well as a few other people in the compound. But no pic of the grand prize.

How the FUCK do Americans find this reasonable?

Especially considering all the questions and conspiracy theory swirling about 9/11 still a decade later, this event had to be executed perfectly. to give real closure to the victim's families and survivors of the 9/11 attacks. To leave Americans no doubt whatsoever that Osama bin Laden was dead, and that the whole thing went down the way they said it went down. But nooo, our government couldn't even get that right. You know why don't you?

I mean seriously, are they just trying to prove how flippin stoopid Americans really are?!

Won't get fooled again - When false flags don't fly

2011-05-02T23:15:00.001-04:00

Domestic violence debate still rages nearly a year after murder-suicide

2011-05-01T21:04:00.005-04:00

This piece is brought to us by contributing author Rogan Mattock. It is a question-posing rebuttal to a column written by Jaqueline Axt, an advocate of domestic-violence related legal reform and the sister of Linda Riccardulli, who was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in July 2010.

A related article published previously by the MSMR can be viewed here...

Murder-suicide case raises questions about right to bear arms

* * *

It is only appropriate that I begin by expressing my sympathies and offering my condolences to the family and friends of the departed. I am truly saddened by this horrific crime, and was as shocked as any native or local of Dutchess County, New York, where this event took place when I began to hear the news of what had happened.

In the very early hours of a July morning in 2010, Anthony Riccardulli shot his wife Linda several times, killing her, before turning the gun on himself as police stormed the family's Hyde Park home. He was pronounced dead a short time later at a local hospital. One of their children was present in the home at the time of the murder-suicide.

A crime and tragedy the likes of which most people would have trouble comprehending the full gravity of. Which is why it is no surprise that Linda's sister Jackie Axt has become a vocal advocate for changes she hopes will save lives and prevent anything like this from ever happening again. I can't say that I blame her. There is probably no greater feeling of grief and powerlessness as that which is experienced by the loved ones of a person who has been murdered.

Regrettably however, I do not agree with the ideas and changes proposed by her and her fellow advocates, who have begun a new domestic violence initiative in the mid-Hudson Valley region. Which leads me to make this direct, open rebuttal to a column written by Ms. Axt, advisory council member of the newly founded Tri-County Crisis Center. A complete copy of the original column can be found at this blog, a movement against domestic violence.

After a brief introduction she states...

“I'd like to set a few things straight. My sister, Linda Riccardulli, was not helped by Grace Smith House.”

The Grace Smith House is a shelter for battered women. They offer no services for male victims of domestic violence, but do provide shelter and services to women who claim to be fleeing a household where they have been the victim of domestic violence.

Sadly, the mere fact that this is an organization which caters to women alone actually encourages women of little means to falsely accuse men of violence toward them, in order to secure a safe, short-term place to stay rather than a standard homeless shelter or the streets. So right off the bat here, we see a serious financial factor in domestic violence and a motivation for women to lie about domestic violence.

But let's just be clear though, it is plainly obvious that Linda was certainly not making any false claims of domestic violence. She could not claim anything. She was brutally murdered by a husband who was quite obviously deranged. And as far as I'm concerned, murder certainly counts as domestic violence.

So let's cut to the chase here with my first question to Ms. Axt. Did Linda request help from Grace Smith House? What could GSH have offered her? Shelter is one of the primary services that GSH provides, but Linda had shelter. A nice house in the country. How was GSH supposed to know she needed help? What help could they have offered that she would have taken? A crummy converted motel room? I doubt she would have taken it, and I can hardly blame her really. GSH is the end of the line for woman who really have no place to go. Not a service that Linda could have benefited from or would have chosen to use I don't believe.

“She did not get directed to a Domestic Violence Court in Dutchess County.”

To my knowledge, there is no DV court in Dutchess County, no plans for such a court, and frankly, I don't see the need for one. When someone is the victim of an assault, that is a criminal matter. It makes no difference in the eyes of the law, nor should it, if the victim is a one-night stand, a lifelong spouse, a sibling, parent, etc. For other matters which can complicate domestic relationships, we have family courts, divorce courts, and civil courts.

Courts are not advocacy centers, nor should they be twisted to be, at substantial taxpayer expense. Ms. Axt, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but what makes victims of DV more “special” than the victims of any other crime?

Please don't misunderstand, I am not ignorant of the unique problems posed by a domestic assault as compared to, say, a random assault on the street by a total stranger. But those problems are not something that are going to be resolved by a new court system.

The idea sounds good at first look, but at second glance, all I see is another big ball of government red-tape, more tax dollars down the drain, and handing over more power to a government that neither you nor I seem to trust or have much faith in.

“She was not assigned a DV Divorce Lawyer who would have given her appropriate council.”

And who precisely should “assign” a divorce lawyer? I am sure Linda had a phonebook and knew how to use it. Or are you proposing that a woman who claims to be the victim of DV should get a “free” tax-payer subsidized divorce lawyer?

Does the man also get a court appointed divorce lawyer? After all, Anthony had not been convicted of any crime. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. Anthony obviously turned out to be a killer. A man who, for whatever reason he may have thought he had, murdered his wife. But that is hardly the norm. Most men do not murder their wives, no matter what the problems are in a relationship or the stakes of a divorce.

More importantly, a man or woman in this country is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, with a right to be judged by a jury of peers, and a right to legal counsel. It could hardly be considered justice to deny one spouse access to a subsidized attorney, in favor of the other spouse, simply on the basis of an accusation. Or, for that matter, even based on a history of criminal conduct. If that conduct pertains to a divorce, that should be judged by the court, with both parties being afforded equal opportunity for legal representation.

If you were the victim of a robbery, should you be denied a lawyer to sue the perpetrator because you got arrested for shoplifting once when you were a kid? Should you be denied a lawyer because someone accused you of being a thief even though you had never been convicted of any crime?

At the end of the day, it is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's lawyer in a legal proceeding that decides who gets what in regards to property that is not mine and has nothing to do with me. As empathetic as I may be to folks who cannot afford a good divorce lawyer, it is hardly the responsibility of the taxpayer, regardless of the circumstances,, to manage the affairs of another citizen.

“She and her children were not protected by the "Order of Protection" that was given to them. Her estranged husband who was a danger to himself and others was released from jail and what she was given was 40 minutes notice that he was out. That was the "model" that did not save Linda's life last summer, the same model I keep reading about.”

For readers who are not familiar with this case, Anthony had been accused of a previous violent attack on his wife, a month or so before the morning of the murder. From what I gather, she was not severely injured in that altercation, but the alleged attack was said to be quite violent nonetheless, employing the use of household objects as weapons. It is not known what triggered the reported attack, or if there was a history of violence in the household. Regardless, he spent about a month in the county jail before a large bail was posted, and he was released pending trial, with an order of protection against him ordering that he was not to contact or be in the vicinity of his wife.

Orders of protection are not a magic shield. The only thing such an order ensures, is that if the person violates that order, they will face a separate, additional, felony charge if they violate it, on top of whatever other crime they may be accused of. So really, an order of protection is only a deterrent, just as all other laws are.

No order of protection, and no law will ever protect you from a person intent on doing harm or committing a crime. Sadly, when Anthony appeared at the house that morning with a handgun that was not registered to him, Linda and her daughter were unarmed. That was no accident either. Thanks to pressure and legislation by previous domestic-violence advocates, a judge had ordered that all the guns in the home be removed when Anthony was arrested. The one single tool that was left at Linda's disposal, to protect herself from an armed deranged man coming into her house to kill her, had been taken away by a judge in order to “protect” her.

So now we must really ask ourselves... Did Linda die because the government didn't do enough, or because they did too much?

Ms. Axt complains that her sister was only given 40 minutes notice, yet her killer did not appear at the door until days later. So what good would have 12, even 24 hours of notice have done? A pretty nice gesture on the part of the jail to notify her at all. Most crime victims are not notified when their attacker is released. Would you or I be in any less danger of, let's say, a thug coming to get revenge and silence us after they had robbed us at the store where we worked? Or if a stranger who had burglarized our house had been released on bail? In fact, 40 minutes is actually a pretty good amount of notice. Probably about as much notice as the jail themselves had. When someone comes to post bail for a detainee, they have to release that person as soon as the paperwork and processing is completed. It is not the job of the jail to hamper a release or to otherwise harass a suspect who might in fact be innocent of the charge against them.

That point is important to remember. Anthony had not been convicted of any crime. Nor was he found by any court or mental health professional to be a “danger to himself and others.” So what model do you propose here Ms. Axt? That any person, man or woman, who is accused of getting into a spat with their spouse be locked up for a year or more waiting for a trial in which they might be found to be innocent and of sound mind?

“I can not correlate the military level response to the woman who was being evicted from her home, to the lack of response that Linda encountered in Dutchess County when she brought her multiple OP violations to her lawyers, the DA and Police, and ultimately as she lay bleeding in her home on the night she lost her life.”

That is correct. You cannot correlate the two. Two entirely different incidents. The woman who was being evicted is an accused burglar who pointed a gun at police. I think they were awfully heavy-handed in their response in that matter though, calling in SWAT and tanks to disarm a little old lady armed with a BB gun, but maybe they over-reacted precisely because of the recent string of DV incident in our region.

Moreover, police were actually in the process of mobilizing such a response to save Linda when she was killed. Time ran out in her case, where the other incident dragged on for many hours.

As far as alleged orders of protection violations, I am only aware of one that was reported. When Anthony was released from jail, he reportedly placed a phone call telling Linda that he needed important financial documents. Papers that were necessary for him to get the money that paid for the house and the bills where she was still living with the kids while he was told to stay away and had to find some other place to stay. Allegedly he tried to arrange a meeting at the police station in order to receive those papers and some personal affects.

When Linda reported the call to police, the only evidence she had of the call was a caller ID phone number that came back to Anthony's mother's cellphone. Of course, common sense tells us that it probably was him that called, in violation of the court order, but you cannot prosecute someone in a court of law on “maybe.” You have to have some proof other than someone's mother's telephone number. According to newspaper reports, Linda herself refused to press charges in order to have him arrested for violating the order of protection.

Unless she was willing to make a sworn statement that she had gotten a call from her husband, in violation of the court order, the only thing that the police had as evidence was that a phone call had been placed from his mother's phone to Linda's That is no crime at all, nor a violation of the court order. It was up to her to press charges and swear in a statement that he had contacted her in violation of that court order.

As far as her bringing multiple OOP violations to her “lawyers,” I thought you said she didn't have a lawyer?

“I really cannot fathom the reluctance that the advocates I work with, Maria DiBari and Alyssa Kogon have encountered trying to offer solutions to the problems. Not far fetched solutions or unproven theories. These are solutions that have been proven effective in other places. Ideas that have been dismissed or ignored, and in some instances, many months later, are being touted as their own.

As previously mentioned, the press conference we held in September for "Linda's Laws" was not attended by anyone from any DV assistance group even though they were all invited.”

Again, I don't mean to sound cold ma'am. But you are hurting, and the people you have aligned yourself with are carrying on an axe-grinding agenda. If other DV groups are not standing beside you, there is a reason. And that reason is, your proposals are unreasonable.

On the other hand, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. As much as I may oppose your ideas, the last thing I want to see is some bum politician or group of cronies taking credit for the things you have worked on. I am also not entirely thick-headed, and might be more amendable to some of our proposals if constructive dialogue could be achieved.

“The latest slap in the face was the Committee hearing on April 7th. You can see for yourself how the discussion of the GPS proposal was mentioned and tabled and the reaction from the Angela Friesland -R who seemed annoyed that it was even being brought up. I wrote a letter to the Legislature/Advisory Committee regarding my feelings from a victims point of view. (letter attached below)

I got three responses (Thank you!) out of 25 people in the Legislature. Most notably , I received no response from Leah Feldman who is the Project Coordinator of the Universal Response to Domestic Violence. The most resounding response I got was the Web Cast taken down the day after my letter was received by the Legislature. Only after complaints from the public, the Webcast was put back up and a letter from the Advisory Committee went out to appease those concerned and angered about the Legislature Meeting.”

I only saw bits and pieces of the hearing, so I cannot comment authoritatively with a solid opinion one way or the other on that. In general though, I have a healthy distrust of government and politicians, hence my reluctance to give them any more power than they have already usurped from our beloved Constitution. We all know though, that government is a lumbering oafish giant, and very little of substance ever happens at all, much less quickly.

On the other hand, those delays are for a reason too. That is the price we pay for democratic government. Your opinion, even as a victim, is not the only opinion to be acknowledged, and Linda's death is not the only fact to be considered.

Specifically to the point of GPS monitoring though. What criteria do you propose that would mandate someone be placed on electronic GPS monitoring? How would that have saved Linda?

On the one hand, I am inclined to say that GPS monitoring of an early-release felon might indeed be helpful in preventing and/or solving other crimes. But at what cost? At what cost financially to an already overtaxed citizenry? A people so overtaxed that it actually induces domestic violence.

And at what cost to liberty? Is anyone who is simply accused of a crime to be tracked and monitored like cattle? Are our public streets to become the new prisons littered with folks being electronically monitored? A very slippery slope there, that gives the government and the powers- that-be a motivating factor to accuse and convict any and all of us on some trumped up charge in order to track our every move. Rather Orwellian don't you think? It's bad enough that we already keep more people in prison than Communist China. The US has less than 5% of the world population but a full 25% of the world's total prison population, not including parole, probation and other monitoring already in place. Has that made us any safer?

I don't want to see domestic violence be exploited as yet another in a long line of “flavors of the day” to bring about even more oppression by an ever-more corrupt and broken government. And I certainly don't want to see DV laws that actually perpetuate more DV.

But let's cut back to the chase again. Would Linda have been saved by a multi-million dollar surveillance apparatus? Probably not. From what I understand, police got the call not long after he arrived at the home. An army of police were already outside when Linda was killed. So in that instance, we can see, that millions of dollars would have been spent and Linda would still be gone, all because she did not have a $300 shotgun in the house or strong enough locks on the doors. Now granted, a shotgun may not have saved her life, but it sure as hell is a better bet than a GPS system and a fistful of court orders.

“Stop using my sister as a political pawn. I am appalled that these groups keep invoking Linda's name when I know first hand that they did not help her before her death, nor have they supported or even acknowledged the family in the wake of her murder.”

I'm sorry, but that sounds rather egotistical. They are trying to push through some slow-moving legislation on behalf of your sister, but you are mad because they didn't make you the captain of the ship. Maybe we should all just stop trying to invoke boutique laws in the name of one person or another, and start applying the laws that are already on the books... along with some good common sense.

"ATTACHMENT LETTER TO LEGISLATURE 4-14-11

County Legislature,

I would like to thank those Legislators in Dutchess County that value saving the lives of domestic violence victims in the community and were willing to speak out, along with the unpaid advocates in the county.

However, I'm sorry that the value of saving lives for some is not as obvious as the value of a free ice machine."

If you want to hold a rally for Linda, then do it. A county legislature meeting is held to conduct business. Everything from considering proposed legislation to prosecute the most heinous criminals, to who is going to install a new ice machine in the county office building. Linda is not the county's only order of business. I get it, you are hurting, your sister did not deserve to die like that, but Ms. Axt, life goes on even after we have lost someone close to us.

“I am shocked and appalled by what occurred in the committee meeting on April 7th. it is unbelievable that the committee was so quick to table the GPS proposal with nothing more than a vague "We're looking into it" from the Advisory Committee Liaison. That Leah Feldman, the Project Coordinator for the Universal Response for Domestic Violence had nothing to say on the matter is baffling.”

What can she say? They are looking into it. You may think they should have just enacted every law you wanted at enormous taxpayer expense and without question, but you are not a dictator, you are not providing funding, or even an articulate plan on how to implement these measures.

“Furthermore, my family and I are offended by the callus comments made by Legislator Angela Flesland as though it was out of line to bring this proposal to the meeting. My sister, Linda Riccardulli, is dead, and other families in addition to my own have been destroyed by homicides related to DV since. The Committee is not working fast enough where domestic violence is concerned. The offenders were all out on bail. Victims go unprotected. The GPS would have saved lives, and as part of a solution deserves discussion, not distain. You must remember we are dealing with lives, not political agendas.”

I don't know what comments were made, but judging by the tone of your piece, and how you became continually more aggressive and frustrated I can see how certain officials may have become exasperated by your impatience and lack of understanding as to how the democratic process happens. Only in a dictatorship does an idea today become a law tomorrow.

Domestic violence is a scourge, granted, but it is not going to be solved by some hip-shot legislation.

And what difference does it make that the offenders were out on bail? You do understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, do you not? You do understand the purpose of bail?

GPS would not have saved lives, but it would cost taxpayers a fortune in a vain attempt to protect people who choose not to protect themselves. Victims are unprotected thanks to previous DV legislation that take away from them the very best tools they could ever have to protect themselves. You want to feel safe? Get a dog. You want to be safe? Get a gun. If I feel threatened by someone, I would take a Smith&Wesson any day of the week and twice on Sundays over some enhanced bail criteria, a timely phone call from the jail, or a GPS tracking device being monitored by a sleeping fatass in front of a bank of TV monitors.

Your sister's death was a horrific tragedy, there is no disputing that. But nothing in the proposals I have seen would have prevented that tragedy. We must make our own choices, not expect society and government to wave some magic wand to make everything “better” for us. There will always be mistakes, failure, and tragedy. This is the price we pay for living in a free society.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” ~Thomas Jefferson

Western Media Blackout of Libyan Rebel Atrocities

2011-04-24T22:07:00.000-04:00

What the fuck are we really doing in Libya? That's the big question. But this article also reveals how the propaganda machine works, how Americans are being lied to, and how the real news is being blacked-out even from alternative sources.

Check out the article including graphically violent video at this link:

http://msmreview.blogspot.com/2011/04/western-media-blackout-of-libyan-rebel.html

Western Media Blackout of Libyan Rebel Atrocities

2011-04-24T01:37:00.001-04:00

With the U.S. and NATO forces now actively engaged in supporting Libyan rebels it is little surprise that Western media would do their best to spin the story in a manner that supports the mission of Western forces. Whatever that mission might actually be, with Libyan rebels openly admitting ties to al-Qaeda and committing atrocities worse than anything the Quaddafi government was ever seen to be guilty of. All major U.S. publications are pushing for support of the rebels, and justifying rebel atrocities as being the result of a lack of armament.

Thankfully, we here at the MSMR and our readers do not rely solely on corporate mainstream media news sources for our information. Recently however, we were disturbed to find that even alternative news sources were having their information blocked and deleted. Last week, the Business Insider published an article titled "LIBYAN REBEL WAR CRIMES: The Videos America Doesn't Want You To See." Included in that article was a letter, presumably by a Libyan national, accusing the western media of lieing to Americans. The letter included a long list of YouTube videos showing atrocities committed by the rebels.

Since that article was published, YouTube had removed all but one of the videos linked in the letter/article, and states that the users account has also been removed. Now it is true, that some extremely graphic videos are sometimes deleted by YouTube. This however, is a legitimate news topic that is being systematically scrubbed from YouTube servers. There are many video on YouTube which depict graphic violence, but that are interrupted before play with a disclaimer so that the user does not proceed without warning. So why are these particular videos being systematically deleted?

At this time, we can only find one video that is still functioning. We will see how long this lasts though. Be warned, the video is indeed graphic, with the worst images coming in the last 30 seconds or so of the video.

The MSMR also recommends this article by Blacklisted News:

Libyan War Gets Weird

(((WARNING: Graphic violence)))

Police State of Mind

2011-04-08T17:26:00.005-04:00

The following presentation is brought to us by Station.6.Underground, used by permission.
...

I just came across an article written for USA Today newspaper titled, "New iPhone apps help drivers evade police...The iPhone and Android applications spot checkpoints and speed traps." The article was hosted by PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement.

These apps can be used to detect things like speed traps and red-light cameras, but the focus of the article goes to checkpoint detection.

The apps' DUI checkpoint feature -- which sends alerts about drunken-driving checkpoints that have been reported by other drivers -- is troubling for some police agencies. "If people are going to use those, what other purpose are they going to use them for except to drink and drive?" says Capt. Paul Starks of the Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department.

F@ckin cops are so indoctrinated in their Gestapo mindset, that they can't even fathom the concept of freedom anymore. That someone might actually use that app just to avoid being caught up in a traffic jam caused by the DUI checkpoint, or better yet, that a person might want to avoid being held up, harassed, have their car ripped apart and searched without a warrant, or even have their car impounded even though they aren't drunk! In 2009, Los Angeles impounded 24,000 cars at DUI checkpoints, yet only 3,200 DUI arrests were actually made.

The USA Today article then goes on to quote Starks saying...

"They're only thinking of one consequence, and that's being arrested. They're not thinking of ending the lives of other motorists, pedestrians, other passengers in their cars or themselves."

So the cop is assuming that everyone who uses theses apps must be drunk for one thing. But you're damn right Starks, the first thing on any civilian's mind should be the consequences of being arrested...

...But of course, it is important to keep in mind that many, many people who are stopped and searched, even placed in handcuffs and arrested, are not guilty of any crime whatsoever. All the police have to do is claim that they smell weed...

I don't know about you, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that anybody in their right mind would prefer to avoid that shit.

In this video, a guy from NY State tries to exercise his 4th Amendment rights by refusing to give the Sheriff's department consent for a search. There is some back and forth over whether or not the deputy needs a warrant once the K-9 has "alerted" on the vehicle. But in the end, the deputy decides to impound the car and have it towed to the station while he waits for a warrant to come through from the D.A.'s office. The civilian is cuffed and put in the back of a squad car, denied his doctor prescribed medication that was supposed to be taken during the time he was in custody, and finally after 4 hours of filming his camera goes dead. He posted the highlights of the footage in this Youtube video...

But then again, you don't even have to be in your car, or at home, like on this occasion when police searched a man's car while it was sitting in his own driveway after he left to go to the music store. Police claimed that they got a 911 call from the house, even though there was no phone line in the house...

Still think the police give a flying fuck about your rights or the Constitution? Do you still think that the Constitution even exists? Wake up and smell the Fascism folks, the house is burning.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment

Recipients of unemployment benefits to work again cleaning subways

2011-03-29T21:31:00.004-04:00

This is another one of those ideas that looks great at first glance, until you stop to think about it for a second and realize this is yet another propaganda piece, and actually a very terrible idea. “Why,” you ask, “would it be a bad idea to put people on welfare to work?”

Well right out of the gate we have a problem there. Unemployment insurance is not welfare. It is an insurance program paid for directly by tax-paying workers, in case they ever lose their job through no fault of their own and are unable to find a comparable job quickly. So we aren't talking about people who don't want to work, or are normally unemployable for some reason. We are talking about people who have lost their job through no fault of their own, and have paid into this insurance system. So in other words, this is like being told that you can't collect on your Social Security at 65 unless you go mop out subway trains.

I find it offensive, yet curious that the Daily News does not have the wherewithal to make that distinction in their article. Is the newspaper truly that ignorant, or is this yet another subtle ploy for the hearts and minds of the sheeple, in order to divide and blind them? Notice how in the article, they state that just about every one they spoke with in the subway thought it was a good idea. Also note that the poll questions shows shows about 99% of the people in favor, while reading over their comments section there is nowhere near that same rate of approval.

Here is a link to the Daily News article...

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/03/29/2011-03-29_cashpoor_mta_may_put_recipients_of_unemployment_benefits_to_work_again_cleaning_.html

Well since I have started asking questions now, here is another big one that needs answering. If the MTA has work available, why aren't they hiring these people directly, and keeping them off of welfare in the first place?

Oh, but these aren't actually paid jobs.

You know, there is a word for forcing people to work without pay, it's called slavery.

But it's not really slavery because they are being paid in foodstamps, and given shelter with programs like section-8.

Now this may come as a surprise to you, but even slave-owners fed, sheltered and clothed their slaves. Slave-owners knew that they had to take good care of their slave-worker, the same way you might take care of your car, or a farmer takes care of his tractor.

But this isn't really slave labor because these people have a choice, they could have gone out and gotten a job.

Oh really? So in the last few years tens of millions of Americans up and decided to become lazy all of the sudden and not take any of these millions of jobs that are out there? Yes, that is sarcasm you are detecting.

Now let's not forget, that it was the banks who drove our economy into the ground in the past few years, putting millions out of work and onto government programs, and it is banks like JP Morgan and Chase who are now clocking a fortune off of welfare Electronic Benefit Cards. When private companies control the government, you have fascism folks.

So slavery doesn't bother you? Not afraid of Fascism? Well try this on for size you good Republican voter, or you mindful Conservative Democrat. What do you call it when you have a separate class of workers who receive no pay, but instead live is state-tenements, wearing state issued clothing, and eating food bought with government ration vouchers? Thaaaat's right hot-rod. Communism. If you support this program, you are a dirty Commie. You are telling the government that the American worker is not worth anything more than some crappy one-room roach dorm and a few slices of processed cheese.

Don't let Americans become slaves to Communism. Hold our leaders accountable. Tell them that this idea sucks. Welfare is not the result of laziness and bad choices, it is the product of failed policy and vampire economics. Last year the MTA laid off over 3,500 paid workers, only to turn around and replace them now with unpaid welfare workers. Coincidence? Does that really even sound like a “solution” for welfare to you?

And for some background info, this isn't the first time they have “tested the waters” with this sort of idea. Check out this article from the MSMR written when Republican candidate for N.Y. governor Carl Paladino has said that he would like to send welfare recipients to go live in vacant prison cells and do work for the state....

http://msmreview.blogspot.com/2010/08/prison-labor-re-education-camps-for.html

...There is an agenda folks, and you aren't scheduled to be one of the winners. Also, check out the article “Unpaid Jobs: The new Normal?” linked here...

http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/03/unpaid-jobs-new-normal.html

Opinions as headlines

2011-03-29T00:00:00.002-04:00

We are all entitled to our opinions, and free speech should be just that, free. But there is still something inherently wrong with newspapers that deliberately and blatantly spread propaganda. It has certainly become more and more prevalent as more and more media outlets come under the control of fewer and fewer companies. And as blatant as it may be sometimes, it is almost as if it is hidden in plain sight with headlines like this one...

Obama strongly defends US military action in Libya

Now there are a few big problems with this headline. The first being the use of the word "strongly." So much for objectivity in reporting stating an opinion in their headline.

Second of all, did you actually see that speech? So chock full of the same flag-waving garbage rhetoric that we have been hearing for years that I might have thought Bush was standing up there if Obama had managed to fumble a few words. As if we have some inherent duty to "help" the Libyans, while throughout the rest of Africa, indeed throughout the rest of the world, despots slaughter and starve their people with impunity.

Well enough of my own opinions on the subject, but one simple fact remains. That this newspaper has used a statement of opinion as a "factual" reporting of news in their headline. Trashy reporting or subtle brainwashing?

Congressional hearings on Islam: Rise of the Fourth Reich

2011-03-09T21:24:00.005-05:00

Congress will begin hearings Thursday on the threat of radicalization of Muslims, despite protests and questions of Islamophobia. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) who is the the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has stated that the goal of the hearings is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community."

So in other words, it's stated purpose is propaganda. King has already made up his mind and now seeks evidence to support his biased position after the fact, and a pulpit from which to spread his message to the American people. In one breath he says that his only target is al-Qaeda, but in the next he talks about how the Muslim community is not doing enough to deter extremism in their midst.

But let's stop right there for a moment. Al-Qaeda. While the government and the media still use the term to instill fear in the hearts of Americans each day, it has been well established that there is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There is no monolithic terrorist network, there is no organization taking orders from Osama bin-Laden or any successors.

Okay, so there really is no al-Qaeda. But is there a threat from radicals and fundamentalists on American soil among American-Muslims? King brings up 9/11, of course. So ten years after the fact, Congress suddenly now finds the need to have these hearings on the threat of Muslim radicals in our midst? Let's not forget that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were not Americans. Not even Afhganis of Iraqis for that matter. They were mostly Saudi Arabians. That is of course, if you take the government's word for it.

Okay, so maybe there are still questions about 9/11, but we know there are religious radicals. The question then is, are religious fundamentalism really a threat here in America, domestically? Well, we know that the Oklahoma City bombing was done to avenge the deaths of radical Christians. That bombing was entirely domestic. Everyone involved were American citizens. So why did we never see Congressional hearings about Christian fundamentalists? Or, for that matter, radical elements within the U.S. Military? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated war hero.

See our related article: Border War: The Blind Eye of America

In the wake of 9/11, such domestic threats are overshadowed by the fear of Muslim extremists, the sort who are alleged to have carried out the most spectacular act of terrorism the world has ever known. So how many extremist are there in the world? What are the chances of something like that actually happening again ? What is the real threat? One in five people on the planet are Muslim, yet the world is not ablaze with daily horrific acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. The reason for this is that the fraction of Muslim fundamentalists which exist could be likened to what the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Now among that faction of radical Islam, we actually have to look a little deeper too. How many Muslims are really so committed to their rhetoric, that they are willing to die for it? How many would act, and not just spew hate speech? A much smaller percentage again, to be sure. Just like the KKK and their ilk, they talk a good line, but when was the last time you heard of a Klansman even going to prison for his beliefs, much less dieing for them? But let's go ahead and assume that some of these Muslim radicals are a little more committed than their Christian counterparts Out of what is estimated to be a few thousand truly hardcore radicals around the globe, from more than a billion Muslims, how many would actually be able to carry out an attack on American soil? Especially one anywhere near the scale and complexity of 9/11. How many radicals would actually have the will, the commitment, the capability, the skills, the connections, and the resources to carry out such an attack? When you think about it that way, it's pretty hard to imagine how a ragtag group of hard-drinking strip-club visiting cocaine snorting supposedly strict adherents of fundamentalist Islam were able to even carry out 9/11 in the first place.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Muslim terrorists didn't actually carry out the 9/11 attacks. That can be debated elsewhere. It also doesn't mean that it would be impossible for Islamic radicals to carry out a terror attack, on any scale, here on American soil, however unlikely that prospect might be. But is that enough to have Congressional hearings singling out Muslims as a threat or as harboring a threat against the American people?

According to the official story, Muslim radicals are responsible for 2,998 American deaths, in one, single, coordinated attack on American soil. Last year, 5,890 people were murdered by a black person. This means that in 2009 you were almost twice as likely to be murdered by a black person, than you were to be killed by a radical Muslim in the year the attacks actually happened. Now compound those odds over a ten year period, since 2001, in which no more attacks have happened, and you can see that blacks are are a far greater threat to Americans than any Muslim.

Oh, did you find that offensive? Good. Because these hearings are just as offensive, with even less merit.

Some have called these hearings a return to McCarthyism. No folks, it is far worse than that. This is the face of Fascism, on the order of what happened in Germany in the few short years before the Holocaust. This isn't about political ideals. This is about the United States Congress making an open attack on a religion, with strong racial and ethnic overtones.

The only question then is, why? Feel free to contact us if you really don't know at this point, but let's finish off with this. There is no real threat from Muslims. No more so than any other group of people, far less in fact. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Your odds of being killed in a 9/11 style terror attack are about 8 million to one. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning... four times.

Fallout from Wikileaks already hitting home?

2010-12-17T16:54:00.005-05:00

In recent weeks, the disclosure of classified material by non-profit media group Wikileaks has been the subject of much discussion. So just a quick re-cap here to start off, for those that may not be familiar with the story. Wikileaks has published hundred of classified and sensitive documents, diplomatic cables, that give a revealing look inside America's international political and war strategies. Wikileaks claims to now have hundreds of thousands of such documents, which they promise to publish over time. The U.S. military claims these documents were leaked to Wikileaks by an Army Private whom they have kept in solitary confinement for the last seven months.

As a sort of sideshow now to this whole affair, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been detained in England on a warrant by Swedish authorities who want to question him over charges of sexual misconduct. Swedish officials claim that there is no political motivation behind these charges, and that the charges are unrelated to the goings-on at Wikileaks, despite the fact that he was already detained and questioned while in Sweden this past summer on these same charges. With the release of new material came this renewed effort to arrest Assange once again. The timing of all of this is certainly coincidental at the very least.

Jiulian Assange Interrogated by Swedish Police

But now to the topic at hand, as it most directly pertains to the freedom of speech. In the United States, free speech is protected under the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -First Amendment

Free speech is also recognized internationally under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -Article 19

Nevertheless, debate has raged as to whether or not Wikileaks is guilty of high crimes for publishing the classified material. The debate centers on whether or not free-speech protections extend to the publication of classified government documents and if Wikileaks did in fact break any laws that are already in place. Assange and Wikileaks were no doubt confident that they were breaking no laws, as numerous U.S.-based publications have printed sensitive material in the past without facing the threat of prosecution, and no pertinent laws have been put on the books since the First World War. (Not to mention the fact that Assange is not an American citizen, Wikileaks is not an American organization, and any such "crime" did not take place on American soil.) So it would seem that opponents of Wikileaks are really more concerned with how damaging the material is, rather than the fact that classified material is being published.

Speaking from a supporter's home in England where he is staying under house arrest, Julian Assange stated today that he fears an imminent indictment by U.S. Authorities against either himself or Wikileaks by a secret grand-jury. An msnbc.com legal panel also predicts that there will be an indictment.

A report of the panel's discussion can be found at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

The implications for free speech, and freedom of the press would be profound if such an indictment were handed down, and certainly if a conviction were secured it would completely undermine the very foundations of a free press in America. At stake here is one of, if not the most cherished and fundamental liberties that define us as a nation. More alarmingly, let us have a look at what effect this is having already on the American press. There is a virtual media blackout on the contents of the information published by Wikileaks, as the U.S. media runs spinelessly in full retreat of what has already been reported publicly, not only by Wikileaks themselves but by other news organizations in Europe and elsewhere. As Dr. Ron Paul points out in the audio recording here below, the main-stream corporate media are completely focused on the leak, rather than the content.

Also, U.S. Based servers have dropped or blocked access to the Wikileaks website, and an American must now access servers on foreign soil to read the content at all. So exactly what does it mean to be an American today, when we must travel to foreign soil, even digitally, in order to practice our Constitutionally protected rights? With corporate media already dominating the mindset of the masses with biased and incomplete reporting, outright blackouts of news, and then cramming their content with tabloid “junk-food news,” the last bastion of hope for free speech now is the internet. And that folks, is why there is a war on now to censor the internet. There is a war on to control what Americans think, and what Americans can and cannot see. You can read more about that here in one of our previous articles...

Book Burning in the Digital Age...and so it begins

Some might say that American companies and press outlets have good reason to avoid Wikileaks like the plague right now, at least until the chips do fall where they may. Spineless as it may be to not defend the core principals by which a press organization operates in the first place, their fears are not without some merit. It does however show a lack of integrity, and boldly hints that profits are more important than the actual reporting of news. It also goes to show how oppressive our government actually is, that in this supposedly free country, the press will run and hide from anything that might upset the government, before any case has even been made. Now it appears that this hint of trouble has already undermined our ability as a people of a so-called free and open society to get the story, the full story, the true story. And now it has spilled over into general reporting, beyond news that has anything to do with the Wikileaks story.

Take the news that is being reported today for example, by the Associated Press, as it appeared on Yahoo. The story is about the CIA station-chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, being recalled from his post in the wake of his cover being blown in a Pakistani lawsuit accusing him, and others named in the suit, of killing civilians there with missile strikes. Threats have been made against him, and his name is being openly reported overseas, in Pakistan especially. Yet here in America, we are barred from knowing his name because, as the AP claims, “...he remains undercover and his name is classified.” So while the enemies of America now know full well the identity of the CIA station-chief, we here at home are still barred from this information. For what purpose?

CIA station-chief pulled from Islamabad

Clearly, material that was once considered classified, is no longer in fact classified once it is leaked to non-classified persons, regardless of the circumstances or the sensitivity of the information.

classified clas·si·fied [klas-uh-fahyd]
adj.
1. Arranged in classes or categories.
2. Available to authorized persons only, as for reasons of national security: a classified document.

This fact not only shows that the AP is being shamefully cautious and “white-gloved” when dealing with information that the U.S. government may object to being reported, but goes right to the heart of the matter as it pertains to the Wikileaks dissemination of formerly classified material. Once the material is leaked to non-classified personnel, it is no longer classified by the very definition of the word.

How much other material is being censored by the AP, or other news sources, which the American government may find objectionable? Are we to tolerate wholesale censorship and the destruction of our fundamental liberties, simply because the government might be offended by the reporting of fact, truth, or opinion? And when did this government for the people and by the people, suddenly become the masters of the people, dictating what is and is not allowed, in direct opposition the ideals put down as inalienable rights of the people in the founding document of this nation?

Some have argued that this whole matter with Wikileaks has been a “false-flag” operation all along, an “internet 9/11” as some conspiracy theorists have termed it, in order for the American government to seize control of the internet. Whether or not Assange and Wikileaks are actually a CIA asset is debatable, even if not likely, but one thing is clear; the American government is poised to exploit this matter in a way that stands in stark contradiction to the ideal this nation once held most dear.The days of freedom of speech and freedom of press in America, as we have known them for hundreds of years, are at an end.

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. ~Felix Frankfurter

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. ~Edward R. Murrow

I believe 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, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

Nations grown corrupt
Love bondage more than liberty;
Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.
~John Milton

(Special thanks to Ahkronn for contributing to this article)

Did you vote?

2010-11-03T00:45:00.002-04:00

Devious Censorship at Esteemed Newspaper

2010-11-01T22:30:00.000-04:00

The MSMR has just received an email letter which is quite unsettling, but sadly, not surprising at all. It is not necessary to make an entire report, but we will instead publish the letter verbatim, as the author has given us permission to do. Special thanks to that author, "Jackinthebox," for taking the time to bring this to the attention of our readers.

Dear MSMReview:

Something has happened in the past few days that I think may be of some interest to you and your readers. A clear example of censorship on the part of a mainstream and “trusted” publication. Now I understand that in some cases, what is perceived as censorship can really be explained as necessary management of content, in a responsible manner. For example, just because your letter to the editor did not get printed, it is not necessarily deliberate censorship. This event however, is not one of those cases, and completely undermines the integrity and credibility of the publication in question.

Please let me start by introducing myself. I am “Jackinthebox.” an internet personality and avid message-poster across forums, message boards, news outlets, etc. Sometimes my name takes on variations on different forums in order to get through their registration process. For example, at the publication in question here, my member name is “Jaknthebox.” I have been a member there since August of 2009, and a lifelong reader of the print edition.

The publication in question is the Poughkeepsie Journal. A revered publication with a history of more than 220 years, making it the third oldest newspaper in the nation. It could be considered a local paper, but is much more than a backwater “hometown” print, having high readership in the historic Hudson Valley region north of New York City. It is no leap to say that many, many thousands of people read the Poughkeepsie Journal, as their primary source of news. It has been owned by the Gannett Company since 1977.

Because of its prominence, the integrity of such a news source is paramount in a nation built upon principals of liberty and free speech. Even more so in this region rich in history, which was first settled more than a century before the United States even existed. Of course, and in this day and age, any objective reader has to take into account that most stories reported to us are skewed in one way or another, often intentionally. Corporate gain, political bias, even intelligence agency psychological operations have all come to have an oppressive and overbearing influence on the public perception of events. It is one thing though, to report a story with a “slant” as me might expect FOX news, for example, to report from a Right-wing perspective. It is quite another to resort to blatant tactics of deliberate deception and tactics of disinformation. A news source is nothing without integrity.

Which now brings us to the issue at hand. In the time since I activated an account with the Poughkeepsie Journal's online edition, I have been quite active with my commentary. Being a life-long resident of the area, with family roots that go back to the first Dutch settlers who came here in the 1600's, local news stories are of particular interest to me. With an active account, readers may comment on most articles there, and I thoroughly enjoy doing so. Having such an outlet for readers to express their own opinions and perspective on issues related to those stories reported creates vibrant discussion and fosters greater understanding among fellow citizens. It also has the added benefit of “keeping them honest” so to speak, with readers able to critique the elements and veracity of each story.

Rarely though, is there ever much question of the integrity or factual basis of the articles. There have been some irregularities that I, and others have noticed in both print and online editions over the years, but I suppose that a certain amount of this is to be expected. No writer is perfect, and no operation operates flawlessly. Though they should strive to of course. Not all of their stories are original material either, as they share reports from other news sources such as the Associated Press, as most news outlets will do. Therefore, my commentary stayed focused on the issues, rather than getting involved in discussions which called their integrity into question. I also felt a certain sense of loyalty to the paper, and felt it was inappropriate to nitpick or to “attack them in their own house” so to speak. They have chose to personally reward me with a blatant insult which has thoroughly undermined their journalistic integrity and professionalism.

For several days I noticed that no one was checking the “recommend” counter on my comments as readers will do for comments that they enjoy or agree with. Nor was anyone quoting my posts to continue discussion based on what I had said, or to raise counter-points. Perhaps if my ego were larger I would have noticed sooner, but I didn't think much of it for maybe a week or more. That was until last night when I finally learned the truth of the matter. My comments have been removed from each and every article that I have commented on. On occasion they will remove member comments that are inappropriate but will leave a statement in such a comment box, stating that they have done so. “Comment has been removed for violating the terms of service.” Now some might consider that censorship, but I do understand the need to maintain some level of decorum for publicly viewed comments on their pages. My comments have been removed entirely though, as if they had never existed, without notice or explanation. Apparently my latest comments never appeared at all, except to me. But even in older articles where other members did in fact quote me in their own commentary, my original post which was quoted, is gone. I will attach captured screenshots to this letter in order to verify this.

Not only do I take this as a direct and personal insult, but so too should every member I interacted with, and so too should every reader of the Poughkeepsie Journal in the face of such blatantly deceptive censorship, calling into serious question the virtue of their entire operation. At the very lest they have completely disrupted the continuity of the ongoing commentary in many of these stories. I was not notified of any violation of their terms and conditions. I was not asked to modify the conduct of my posting habits in ways which may not have been covered by the T&C. My account remains open, and all of my comments are visible to me when I am logged in. They are not visible to any other members or readers though. My account profile is active when I am logged in, but any other readers will find a notice which states, “This community member's page is currently being reviewed by the editors. Jaknthebox has not made any contributions yet. Check back for updates or leave Jaknthebox a message.”

Clearly, this is censorship on the part of a company who should be doing everything possible to fight against censorship in order to bring information to the public. Moreover, it is being carried out in a highly deceptive and deliberate manner. Sadly, I had expected much more from the Poughkeepsie Journal. I had thought that they were large enough to cover all the current and relevant news, yet small enough to evade some of the more nefarious practices of larger main-stream media outlets who have been undermined by any number of behind-the-scenes groups and agendas.

People need to see that this sort of thing is happening. That this sort of thing is real, not the figment of the over-active imaginations of basement conspiracy-theorists. This is not crime of the century of course, but it is symptomatic of a systematic undermining of truth and fundamental American ideals. It is all too easy to take for granted what is reported as true and factual. All too easy to accept our news sources as the authorities of fact.

It happened to me this time, I'll take my bruises and move on. But I am certainly not alone. What will others do when it is their turn, their spouses turn, their parents turn, to be marginalized and silenced? To be lied to by those we trust? Really what can we do?

I was not sure where or how to air such a grievance. I expect I will make other inquiries into the matter. But in the meantime, I figured that this would be a story of interest for the Mainstream Media Review to take note of. Right up your alley in fact?

Thanks for taking the time to have a read.

Sincerely,

Jack

Please keep us posted Jack if you get anywhere with this.

Wikipedia - Poughkeepsie
Wikipedia - Poughkeepsie Journal

Tea Party or Brownshirts?

2010-10-20T19:20:00.004-04:00

Alaska Dispatch editor and founder Tony Hopfinger was arrested Sunday as he posed questions to U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller. Following a town hall meeting at Central Middle School in Anchorage, Hopfinger pressed the Sarah Palin endorsed candidate if he had ever been reprimanded for politicking and other irregularities while working at the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2008. Bodyguards told him to stop asking questions, or leave the public school building. The henchman refused to identify themselves, but threatened to arrest Hopfinger for trespassing, then acted, putting the journalist against the wall in an armbar and then slapped on a set of handcuffs, stating that he was now under arrest.

During his detainment, other reporters began filming and posing questions to Hopfinger, at which point the security detail also threatened to arrest them and pressed them down the hallway away from the detainee. After about 30 minutes, Hopfinger was finally released when Anchorage police arrived and refused to take him into custody.

In the wake of the arrest, Joe Miller told Fox and CNN on Monday that he had been required to bring his own private security detail for his town hall meeting at Central Middle School. The school district said that they made no such requirement however, that a hallway monitor and parking lot monitor were all that was expected. The Miller event failed to meet their contractual obligation to make an “expectation speech” at the beginning of the event, reminding people to be respectful, to park properly, and to remain only in permitted areas.

It is left to Anchorage Municipal Prosecutor Al Patterson to decide whether to charge Hopfinger with trespassing and assault alleged by the security team now identified as Dropzone Security Services. The basis of the assault charge stems from the fact that the Anchorage Dispatch editor shoved one of the guards. He counters that it was a defensive move to counter the encroachment upon his freedom of movement by the guards, which is a violation of his civil rights and can lead to liability under false imprisonment or even kidnapping if he was not breaking any laws by being there. But were the guards legally justified in making such a detainment, blocking his freedom of movement, based on a charge of trespass? Perhaps.

What many folks don't realize, is that private security actually have more authority than a police officer in some respects. Whereas a police officer must establish probable cause to make an arrest, a security contractor has no such obligation and can dictate conduct arbitrarily and at his own discretion as a contract agent of another person or the place being guarded. Something to think about there folks. Another unseen but potent facet of the corporate sponsored police-state that has been built up around us. Private security have more power than your local public servant peace officer. So long as they are operating within the confines of their contractual agreement.

In other words, yes, security guards can in fact kick you out of a public school that has been rented out for private use, and arrest you for trespassing if you refuse to leave. More on that in a moment though. This is hardly the sort of thing that a U.S. Senate hopeful should be endorsing anyway, legal or not. Refusing to answer a reporter's questions certainly leads one to conclude that the candidate might be trying to hide something that the public should know. Even if it were simply frivolous badgering by a reporter, having that reporter arrested hardly seems to be the sort of conduct we should expect from a Senate hopeful at a political event which the public had been invited to, even if it was paid for with private campaign funds. This was not some private fund-raising dinner in a hotel where a heckler came in and started upsetting tables. This was a public “town hall” meeting at a public school. Having a reporter arrested for asking questions hardly seems to be an expression of freedom and openness by a man hoping to represent Alaska in the United States Senate. And so much for the lip-service given to Constitutional liberty by right-wing politicians. Once again we see that there is an asterisk next to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, that reads, “in designated areas, by permit only” where contract law supersedes the Constitution.

But had Mr. Hopfinger actually been trespassing in a designated area, privately secured under contractual agreement? The fact that the guards did not identify themselves and were not in uniform is one important point. If they failed to express by what authority the arrest was being made, the arrest may be invalid leaving them open to lawsuit for false imprisonment, even if they did in fact carry such authority. But did they even really have such authority there in the hallway of the school? No, in fact they did not. The event contract states that the district leased the stage, the cafeteria, and the parking lot, not the hallway in which the arrest took place. Therefore, those security agents had no more authority to arrest him there than if he were standing on a public street corner yelling through a bullhorn. They cannot charge that he was trespassing in an area in which they had no contractual authority over, any more than they could walk into a public school and arrest anyone they want on any other day.

Another sticking point is that Dropzone Security was practicing security without a business license. That's correct, Joe Miller hired a rogue, unlicensed security firm for his event. Depending on the laws of the state, this may in fact be a crime, and Dropzone is also in violation of the law. The IRS might also be interested look into the fact that this company has been operating a for-profit venture without a license for almost a year now. And hopefully Mr. Miller's accounts are in order as well, as to how he was actually paying this fly-by-night outfit. Regardless, the fact that Dropzone security no longer exists in the eyes of the law invalidates all authority of Dropzone security personnel and their contractual agreements. Now if each individual was contracted to Joe Miller directly, then we would have to look at their individual security licenses, and their personal contract agreement with him. That would also mean, that they were acting as private bodyguards, and not as event security staff, which also mean that they had no authority to make an arrest based in trespassing.

A little sidebar here for a moment. The authority of a security guard emanates from what some may call a citizen's arrest, or a private person's arrest as it is called in Alaska. This means that anyone can arrest anyone else if they witness that person commit a crime. If you contract to perform this task on behalf of another person or organization, this is called practicing security, and requires a license issued by the state. So contracting without a license is illegal, but you still have a right as a citizen to make an arrest when you witness a crime. So then, could these security guards have still made the arrest then, even if the contract with their employer was invalid? No, because as we said, the event lease only covered the stage, cafeteria, and parking lot, therefore the crime of trespass did not in fact occur. At that point, only an authorized representative of the school district could have validated such a charge.

Now back to the identity of the security guards. Each individual failed to identify themselves, to properly display or to provide on demand their Alaska state license to practice security, to identify the company they were working for, or to otherwise state by what authority the arrest was being made. As if that weren't bad enough, as it turns out, two of the guards that assisted in the arrest and tried to prevent reporters from filming the detention, are active duty soldiers of the United States Army, 3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Richardson. That's correct, the United States Army has now become directly involved in bullying and detaining reporters in public for political reasons. It should be noted however, that public information officer Maj. Bill Coppernoll has stated the soldiers did not have permission from their current command to work for Dropzone. That point of course could further complicate the validity of the arrest, and strengthen the case for a counter-suit of false imprisonment if Hopfinger should he decide to prosecute.

In short, the press is being bullied, detained, and accused of committing criminal activity by members of the U.S. Army on behalf of a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, after daring to ask questions about that candidate's improper use of public resources for partisan political activity. Brilliant.

DoD DIRECTIVE 1344.10

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty

b. A member on AD shall not:

(1) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

...

(3) Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.

Having active-duty military forces participate in partisan politics is un-democratic to say the least. Soldiers tieing up journalists on behalf of political candidates is so far over the line that it really calls into question just exactly what sort of country have we become. And what sort of candidate for the Senate would come out to emphatically support what happened? The true nature of of the Tea Party is revealed to be more authoritarian and fascist in practice than the “small government, pro-constitution” soundbites they offer up to the media. Yes, this is Joe Miller, Tea Party favorite. He refuses to speak to the press outside of carefully staged engagements, and uses the United States Army to threaten and imprison journalists in public should they dare to ask questions outside of his campaign format.

Alaska Dispatch editor detained at Miller event

Miller bodyguards at forum included active-duty soldiers

Breaking news from “Sarah Palin's Alaska”

Internet Security vs. Civil Liberty

2010-10-16T20:47:00.009-04:00

From Washington DC it is being reported that the US government is taking a look at a new program now set to be rolled out in Australia, to make the internet “safer.” Before we get right to the topic, as a side note, it is worth mentioning that this is not the first time the Land Down Under has become the proverbial canary in the coalmine. In the late 1990's these freedom-loving people in a land of vast wilderness expanses was subject to new draconian restrictions on citizens' firearms. Today, statistics show that these heavy-handed restrictions by the government have done nothing to improve public safety. A fair argument can even be made that the loss of gun rights put the citizens there in more danger, at a very high monetary cost, yet the failed policy remains in place more than a decade later. Moreover, those statistics cannot show what the real cost may be when it comes to the values of liberty and freedom heralded by America, but supposedly also cherished by the rest of the “free world.” It seems that the global powers-that-be like to use a freedom-loving but sparsely populated land like Australia as a testbed for their control mechanisms over populations.

Here is some information on the impact of gun-control in Australia, information that you may not be allowed to view much longer if you are in Australia and your ISP doesn't want you to see this web-page...

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

Today, information is power. So it only stands to reason that the internet, the last bastion of unrestricted exchange of information, would be viewed by some as an entity which must be controlled, like all the other facets of our lives that have come under restrictions. It seems most of the so-called rights we are left with today require a user handbook in order to know how you can actually apply those rights without violating the law or some civil statute that may leave you broke and destitute should you stray afield of these control mechanisms. The internet however, is not so easily policed, with rapid dissemination of information made easy and with violators of public code more difficult to identify.

So it is no surprise that the current Presidential administration is meeting with industry leaders in order to find a way to put clamps on the internet. To impose security measures in the name of “safety” while claiming that civil liberty concerns are being weighed as anything more than a stumbling block to symbiotic government/corporate control of the internet. They are looking closely at portions of Australia's plan that are set to go into affect in December.

There, internet service providers will be allowed to alert a customer if their computer has been taken over by hackers. Seems like a good idea on the surface. As White House cyber-coordinator Howard Schmidt puts it, "Without security you have no privacy. And many of us that care deeply about our privacy look to make sure our systems are secure," But of course, the question then is, how effective is the software that is being used to identify threats? This also opens the door to “selective” policing, and lulls the public into a false sense of security. A very good hacker working on the cutting edge of up to the minute technology probably won't be detected. Government intrusions will not be reported most likely, even if they were detected. And of course, the corporations with their varying agendas will exploit this inherent vulnerability in selective policing. If your ISP is gathering usage data on you and selling it to another company, they certainly aren't going to send you a report about it.Besides, who better to judge their own security need better than the individual? Are legislated or corporate imposed requirements actually necessary?

Schmidt went on to say that the American public would go along with it if a company is willing to give them better security. Sure, why not? That is the real question. What is the real cost here? Because “giving” us better cyber-security is bound to have some strings attached. Nothing is free in this world, and no company, nor the government are about to spend millions, even billions of dollars and go well out of their way to “give” you anything, except syphilis perhaps.

Cyber-security expert James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies is of the opinion that the public would be amendable to the idea of having their ISP warn of cyber attacks, while helping them to clear malicious software from their systems through instructions, patches, and anti-virus programs. But isn't such help already out there? Well granted, security software and monitoring is not done by your ISP, but it's not like most of us are surfing the net without firewalls, malware removal tools at the ready, and even full retail grade security suites. Of course, much if it is not free, and some folks say in a sort of tongue-in-cheek manner that it is the cyber-security software companies themselves that are creating these threats in order to maintain the demand for their products and to insure continued update subscriptions. So will ISP's be providing for free what software companies have been charging for? Not for long, because as Mr. Lewis also explains, the public may be willing to pay a monthly service fee, just like all the other fees that are already attached to our utilities and communications services.

So rather than having the choice of whether or not you want to spend money on internet security, it will be mandatory that you now cover those costs as part of your standard contract with an internet service provider. For now though, the public is being softened up to the idea, like a crack dealer who give you your first few hits for free. Comcast is set to expand their Denver-based pilot program which alerts customers when their computers come under the control of a botnet. That program will go nationwide in the next few months. Seems all well and good, but even if the service is not itemized as a pay service, surely Comcast is not promising a freeze on general rate increases, which would help to cover the cost of the program, and whatever future security enhancements they may choose to “provide.”

Like Mr. Lewis said though, the public will probably be willing to pay a small fee with a non-chalant, “thanks for the info, good to know” sort of approach. After all, it could still be considered voluntary what company you choose as an ISP, though those options seem to have become more and more limited because of mergers. But in Australia, they are taking it a step further now. It's not just good-to-know info, but your ISP will insist that you do something about it. They are planning everything from warnings, to blocking outbound emails, to actually quarantining your entire system from the internet. That is not just one company, that is set to be the industry standard for all ISP's in Australia. It's one thing to be provided information to help keep your system safe and secure, it is quite another to have your access to the internet terminated because you are not up to date on your security maintenance tasks.

There are a few very big problems with that approach. Here in America, it could and should be seen as a direct assault on the First Amendment. To have your words, perhaps in the form of an email for example, being barred from distribution by some private corporation is a clear affront to liberty, even if it is in the interest of “internet security.” That's like saying that you cannot say what you want while standing on a street corner, because the guy who built the sidewalk is worried that you might cause damage to the sidewalk. Guess we'll have to go buy a pair of bowling shoes first. Freedom of speech, by paid permit only with proper attire.

Just because a person cannot afford internet security software, does not mean they should be barred access to the internet for one thing. But perhaps the ISP will be providing these fixes and software “free” of charge. Of course, then that means that your ISP could be installing who knows what into your system. What if the threat you are most concerned about is in fact your own ISP that you have been railing against on your web-page, or some other company that does business with your ISP, or the government who, no doubt, also have a cozy relationship with ISP's. What if these supposed fixes are malware themselves? What if these supposed fixes create system errors, as unnecessary system updates may do from time to time. But at least there, we still have a choice as to whether or not we update our systems. These new security ideas allow for no such freedom or choice in how you will maintain your system.

There is yet another serious concern, especially to folks like small business owners, folks who work from home, who depend on their computers for income. There may be times when a person is operating on a deadline, or may have some other immediate need for internet access such as a family emergency. A sudden and announced block could have serious and costly repercussions. Even for the person who is diligent with their system security knows that on occasion they may be subject to an attack or error that can take days to repair. Now you will be restricted or even barred from the internet during that time. Not to mention the fact that you might very well need internet access in the first place to make the repair. If you think they already thought this through, guess again. There is a whole nest of unforeseen problems that may or may not be fixed, as it is the consumer's problem, the citizens' problem, not theirs once these things are put in place.

Now a personal anecdote for a moment, if I may. In the US, a land-line telephone is considered so important, that even if you don't pay your bill, there are FCC regulations that bar outright and immediate termination of service. It can take months before that line is finally cut completely, and in that time the person who is in default will get many notices and still be able to dial the operator as well as 911. Several years ago I found out the hard way that digital communications are not governed by the same FCC regulations as the telephone company, and to not trust these companies any further than I can throw a television. I signed up for a triple-service plan with Cablevision, to have my telephone, television and internet all be provided by them for a single monthly rate. Because I made the switch part-way into the month, it created a billing error. I was told not to worry, that I had in fact been over-charged, and to not pay anything until my next regularly scheduled billing statement arrived. A few nights later, in the middle of the night, my roommate stopped breathing. I ran for the phone. I could not make a call. No, “sorry, your service has been suspended,” no dial-tone, no operator, no 911, nothing. I woke the neighbors, and got an ambulance there. My roommate was fine after a quick visit at the hospital. But you can bet that the next day I raised holy-hell with Cablevision, and a snotty supervisor that I finally got on the line from a neighbor's phone. That was how I learned the hard lesson of how not all service providers are the same or governed by the same regulations as technology advances. When I went back home, I found that she had in fact turned the telephone back on...and then an hour later my television and internet went dark. I ripped the box out of the wall and never dealt with Cablevision again.

Now just think of what an internet service provider like that will do if and when they are handed real power, as society becomes ever-more dependent on the internet. Are we really going to allow this sort of thing to be legislated into law, in the name of public safety, and then be forced to pay a fee on top of that? Apparently, because Mr. Lewis also tells us that it is inevitable that ISP's will play a role in internet security. Dale Meyerrose, vice president and general manager of Cyber Integrated Solutions at Harris Corporation states, "There are people starting to make the point that we've gone about as far as we can with voluntary kinds of things, we need to have things that have more teeth in them, like standards.” Teeth huh? Sounds like some folks are talking about sinking their teeth into the Constitution and our wallets. Standards? The same sort of standards that leave a person who has stopped breathing without a lifeline to the outside world? What threat justifies corporations or government imposing such standards and measures that will cause so many problems at considerable cost in time, money, and personal liberty?

According to former chief technology officer for the National Security Agency, Prescott Winter of California-based cyber-security firm ArcSight, the unfettered and unfenced technological wild-west is not secure, stating, “we need to take steps to make it safe, reliable and resilient.” Uh huh, so we keep hearing, but the reasons why are not so clear. It seems the spectre of oppressive corporate sponsored government is far more prevalent than the threat of any serious attack.

By what right does a corporation or government presume to dictate what level of security the individual may find necessary for their internet needs, or what they can afford? If one wants to buy some old laptop from a yard sale running windows 95 and go power up at the coffee shop to jump online, they should have every right to do so. But that is not the future envisioned by Mr. Meyerrose. Instead, he sees public wifi hotspots restricting access, blocking those laptops which are not equipped with certain security software, that do not meet whatever criteria the industry decides is the standard. Moreover, he sees that it will be your tax dollars that will be used to impose those standards, as tax breaks will be given to those providers who comply with the demands.

"I think that, quite frankly, there will be other governments who will finally say, at least for their parts of the Internet, as the Australians have apparently done, we think we can do better," says Prescott Winter. So it appears that they are indeed the canary in the coalmine, and that we are expected to go jump off the bridge behind them.

A report on this subject was made by the Associated Press and can be found at the following Yahoo News page...

US studying Australian Internet security program

For further reading on internet security, it is highly recommended that you read our previous article...

Book Burning in the Digital Age...and so it begins

Agenda 21

2010-10-08T18:39:00.003-04:00

CIA Psyop: Cordoba Initiative

2010-09-24T02:57:00.010-04:00

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.” ~Adolf Hitler

Wise words, from an evil man. How easily the masses are manipulated through emotion, that they will ignore all reason, not only allowing their most cherished values to be pushed aside, but demanding that they be swept away, so as to assuage their own anger and sadness. No case in recent history exemplifies that more than the fervor over the Islamic cultural center in downtown Manhattan. In a frenzy the people chant, “No mosque at Ground Zero!” Well folks, there are no plans for a mosque at Ground Zero. There are plans for a cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero. Would there be such outrage if there were plans to build a Young Men's Christian Association (Y.M.C.A.) two blocks away from the site where a Christian fundamentalist blew up a Federal building, in Oklahoma City? Certainly not. But in this case, Americans are suddenly not only willing to allow, but are demanding that the government step in and trample the most very basic values of what it means to be an American in the first place. Have we made such great strides against racism and bigotry in this country, only to revert back to a “no n@ggers in this neighborhood” mentality?

The project for this cultural center was was begun in 2004. Their objective, to restore the old Burlington Coat Factory building and to upgrade the premises so that it is more suitable housing for a cultural center rather than the mosque that has already been operating there since the project's inception. Any city might be grateful for such a project restoring a dilapidated old building to improve a blighted property right smack dab in the middle of the busiest part of town. New York City may in fact be grateful for such development, but it is a national, even an international issue now. Suddenly after more than six years, and just in time for midterm elections with a Democrat as President and a Democrat controlled Congress, this smear campaign is launched into the headlines and used as a rallying cry by Republicans and their more rabble-rousing counterparts in the Tea Party movement.

But this isn't just about Republicans and Democrats. It never is anymore. As we have pointed out here before at the MSMReview, it is never as simple as Left vs. Right, and both parties are little more than two faces of a self-serving monolith giving the appearance of choice to the humble and near-sighted masses. By hobbling the Democrats in this election, it will become all the more easy to justifiably maintain the status-quo and to marginalize the chances of any real productive business from being done at all in Washington for another two years, as each side blames the other for the stalemate in any proposed initiative. At the same time it gives the power to the Democrat President to prosecute war in the middle-east as aggressively as his Republican predecessor, who's policies he has done nothing to reverse despite his posturing and promises before the last election. Anti-Muslim sentiment has been restored to its zenith, and is more deep-rooted now than ever before. Meanwhile, through the tactical application of propaganda, Conservatives have been made utter fools of, exposing their bigotry to anyone who is bothering to look at the situation with reason rather than emotion, having completely undermined the most revered tenets of Conservative philosophy for which they have always stood. How easily undone the traditional defenders of Constitutional liberty.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

~Former Republican Presidential candidate, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul

Ron Paul's complete statement

By whom indeed. There is no political gain here for either Democrat or Republican. They both lose, as do the American people. So who really is behind all of this?

The Cordoba Initiative is the non-profit group leading the project to build the cultural center since it was founded in 2004 by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Several media outlets have tried to make the weakest of links between Rauf and any number of extremist organizations, and even Iran. What you don't see being played on a loop over your television set is that Imam Rauf has worked for the FBI as a counter-terrorism consultant. And what you don't see blazoned across the headlines of your newspaper is the fact that he also worked as a spokesperson for Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Karen Hughes, during the Bush administration, as she headed up propaganda efforts in the Muslim world. Bush's favorite Imam traveled side-by-side with Hughes, attended the 2006 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, and went to Morocco in 2007. So while some have tried to paint it that he has been traveling to the middle-east to collect funding from terrorists for the building project, it appears that he has actually been on diplomatic missions for the United States.

GZ Imam Helped FBI
Karen Hughes Opposes Cordoba House

Imam Rauf is not the only character in this story though. Another quite interesting person comes into play, far away from the media glare, offering up nearly a hundred-thousand dollars in seed money for the project between 2006-2008. The money reported to be their entire operating budget at that time came by way of the Deak Family Foundation, headed by one R. Leslie Deak, 52, a native of Scarsdale NY, who has served on the board of advisors for the Cordoba Initiative since its inception. His resume reports that he has “in-depth personal and business experiences in the Middle East.” He was born a Christian, converted to become an Orthodox Jew when he married, but then later divorced and again converted his religion, this time to Islam, when he married Moshira Soliman, with whom he shares a home in Rye NY. At least part of the year anyway, as he spends six months of the year in Egypt.

Resume on Linked In

Looking into Deak's background we see that he graduated from college with a bachelor's degree in international economics, but apparently didn't need to go much further in his education after going to work for his father, Nicholas Deak. The elder Deak had been an intelligence commander for the OSS, the predecessor of CIA, during WWII. He went on to found Deak & Co.which, along with subsidiaries, became one of the top gold and currency dealers in the world, controlling 20% of all retail gold sales in the U.S. and was the leading seller of the South African Krugerrand. Leslie Deak became Executive Vice-President of the the company. In 1978 the firm was convicted in Federal court and fined, for failing to report millions of dollars in large currency transactions with two Philippine businessmen. Then, in October 1984 the firm came under fire in a report by the President's Commission on Organized Crime alleging that their firm had been involved in a money laundering operation with Colombian drug cartels who had reportedly been bringing bags of cash, amounting to millions of dollars, right into the firm's NY offices. By December the firm had filed for chapter 11 reorganization in bankruptcy court. In November the following year, a deranged homeless woman walked into their offices, shot and killed the receptionist, and then murdered the company's founder, Leslie Deak's father Nicholas.

After the bankruptcy, the Deak empire was broken up and sold in pieces but continued to operate. One company that traces it's roots back to the original corporation is Goldline International Inc. Goldline sponsors Conservative talking-head Glenn Beck among others. The company is now under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee as well as local authorities in California, and is the target of a class-action lawsuit for trying to dump debased product onto gullible customers. The 300-employee company is projected to have revenues in excess of $1 billion for 2010/11. Glenn Beck is aired on FOX News, which is a subsidiary of News Corp., who's second largest shareholder is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who also happens to be funding Imam Rauf's projects. As comically pointed out by humor-newsman Jon Stewart, the right-wing media company railing against the Cordoba Initiative, are actually the ones “funding terrorism” as they like to put it. The right wing media is railing against an initiative that they themselves are funding by proxy.

HUFFPO article with Jon Stewart video included
Wikipedia - Goldline International
Goldline.com

Now let's take a look at another item on Mr. Deak's resume, to see if we can see any other interesting coincidences. In the same time period that he gave nearly a hundred-grand to the Cordoba Initiative, he gave about as much to the National Defense University Foundation. The NDU is a network of research centers and strategy/war colleges, including the National War College, all under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Deak's own resume makes it clear that he is a much more active part of operational national security than simply a donor to defense education. His resume describes his affiliation with the NDU under this entry:

Director
National Defense University Foundation
(Non-Profit; Fund-Raising industry)
2003 — Present (7 years )
Raising funds to support unfunded initiatives at National Defense University, the preeminent strategic educational facility of the United States.

Selected by Secretary of Defense to Joint Civilian Orientation Conference. Participate in briefings with base commanders and Joint Chiefs on issues, operations and strategic objectives.

Deak sits on the board of directors chaired by one Mark Treanor. Mr. Treanor was Senior Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Wachovia Corporation between 1998 through the collapse in 2008, and a major consolidator of campaign donations for the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. Coincidentally enough, Wachovia also had their hands in some serious drug-money laundering, like the Deak family had been accused of years earlier. Now owned by Wells Fargo, Wachovia recently paid a $160 million settlement to end a criminal probe of money laundering for drug cartels through Mexican exchange houses admitting “serious and systemic” violations of the Bank Secrecy Act failing to monitor $420 Billion in transactions. At face value, we might suspect that there might be some common bond of profiteering through illigal drugs, but it may be even more complex than that. It is well known by many that CIA has long been involved in the trug trade. So perhaps these businessmen have been operating fronts for that ubiquitous spy agency.

But is there any clue that Leslie Deak has any contact with anyone in the CIA? Even if he were in any way involved in business dealing with someone from the CIA, surely it wouldn't be a matter of public knowledge. Right? Well as a matter of fact, Deak's own resume once again gives us a clue. He lists himself as a business development consultant for Patriot Defense Group, LLC.

Who we are and what we do...

Patriot Defense Group, LLC. provides defense, security, and logistical services in support of corporate and government clients. We provide professional services, training, and logistics to those who defend America, her allies, and Fortune 100 companies in the defense, energy, financial, and media sectors. Our company is organized into two functional divisions to provide these specialized services.

Our defense and government services division focuses exclusively on the needs of the U.S. military and law enforcement communities as well as the requirements of friendly foreign governments. We focus our capabilities and resources to provide specialized training, curriculum development and logistics.
Our corporate services division, PDG Risk Management, provides business intelligence and specialized security services to corporate clients and high net-worth family enterprises. These services rely upon a unique composite team of operations officers drawn from the ranks of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement communities. Our specialized security services are proactive and focus on protecting our clients' resources.

Management Team

Patriot Defense Group, LLC is a company with a wealth of experience. Our principal officers and contract cadre have served in contingency and other operational roles in every major conflict since the Vietnam War. You will not find a more qualified group of dedicated professionals to meet your organization’s needs.

PDG’s CEO and founder was an infantry platoon leader in Desert Storm; had two separate commands of a U.S Army, Special Forces Operational Detachment – Alpha (A-team); and served for nine years as a foreign service officer with the U.S. Department of State in the Middle East supporting American foreign policy and economic initiatives.

The managing director of PDG's defense and government services was a CIA Operations Officer with extensive experience ranging from hostile environments in Asia and Southwest Asia to counterterrorism operations throughout the Middle East.

PDG Risk Management is led by a 23-year veteran of the U.S. Secret Service who worked on the personal security details of former Presidents Bush and Clinton. He went on to serve as the Director of Security for Shaw Engineering in Iraq from 2003 to 2004.

http://www.patriotdefensegroup.com/index.php

Note that they do not name their managers. They do however name their strategic advisors. Alexander Cappello, finance and banking guru. The military man, General Doug Brown (U.S. Army, Ret.), who commanded the the entirety of US special operations forces, leading the War on Terror, until his retirement in 2007. The spook, James L. Pavitt, former Deputy Director for Operations at CIA, who controlled half of CIA's budget and a third of their deployed personnel. And then there is Leslie Deak, the “business development consultant” who will match this outfit with clients and financing.

Seems that Mr. Deak must have quite a few very powerful friends, throughout the world, in both private industry, as well as in military, government, and intelligence circles to do a job like that well. If one had a project they wanted to carry out, that might very well have global implications, is seems that he just might be the man who talk to, who could put together the financing, as well as bring together all the people that would need to meet in order to carry out an operation to a successful conclusion.

So just to re-cap now. While the media shine the spotlight on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, trying to paint him as a terrorist, he has actually done extensive work for our government in counter-terrorism and pro-American propaganda in the middle-east. Meanwhile, a key partner in the development of the “Ground Zero Mosque” has gone completely un-noticed. R. Leslie Deak, key investor and board-member of the Cordoba Initiative was born the son of a man who held a command position in the OSS, predecessor of the CIA. Leslie Deak got a basic education in international finance and helped his father command a large portion of the world's gold and currency supply, until his father was murdered and the company broken up, amid well-founded allegations of money laundering for Columbian drug lords. One portion of the company, which still publicly claims its roots back to the heyday of the Deak empire, funds the Conservative propaganda machine and is now under investigation for scamming their customers selling fake gold. Deak himself goes on to sit on the board of directors for a foundation which funds the premiere research and educational facilities that determine national defense strategy and who write the book on fighting the War on Terror. Chairman of the Board for that foundation was a key officer and top lawyer for Wachovia, while they were laundering billions of dollars for international drug cartels. Deak is also recruited to develop the business of a private group of clandestine operatives for hire to both corporate clients and foreign states.

Are we really to believe that Leslie Deak's invlovement in the Cordoba Initiative is purely philanthropic? Or that he wanted to get in on the ground floor of an investment opportunity in some rinky-tink little Muslim cultural center that no one would have paid any attention to at all had it not been for it's proximity to the site of the nation's worst tragedy since Pearl Harbor? (Not to mention the biggest conspiracy since the assassination of JFK.) Perhaps instead we should at least consider some other possibilities here. That perhaps this has been planned for quite some time to be a political trump card of sorts in the upcoming national election that will determine the control of the Congress of the United States. An ace in the hole for the Republicans perhaps? Or maybe, just maybe, something even bigger than that. A CIA psychological operation that will accomplish a number of objectives.

First, it will guarantee continued support for American imperialism in the middle-east. Second, it will thoroughly undermine the the power of our national political leadership to do anything more than act as administrators of the status-quo, as babysitters of the citizenry, while more secretive and nefarious groups carry out their agendas. And third, it will bring in a wealth of data as they gauge public reaction.

How easy would it be to mount an all-out assault on what little remains of the Constitution? How malleable are the minds of the people in the face of a perceived threat? How willing are the people to condemn an entire section of society? Like Hitler did to Jews as a people, to Slavs. To political, religious and racial groups, all based on propaganda. These are the things that they have learned from the mosque-project. They see better now who the extremists are right here at home. Those that are willing to do violence in support of their agenda, and those who are paying enough attention to see through it and who will hinder their progress. You see, articles like this, this is the threat to the enemies of freedom. Places like the MSMReview, and people who speak of like mind will be identified as sources of information that cannot be propagandized or brainwashed, who cannot be dealt a blow of amnesia to history through shock and awe. The enemies of freedom are not bearded religious man living in caves and mud huts. Oppression and tyranny are much closer to home. The words of liberty and truth, that is the threat to their power, this is what will hinder their goals, and hopefully one day be their undoing.

Whether or not the Cordoba Initiative ultimately succeeds in its publicly stated goal is irrelevant. The fight is all that ever mattered. Will reason triumph over emotion one day, for the masses, or is it destined to remain the exclusive purview of elitists and despots?

Protecting State Secrets: Obama Builds on Bush Doctrine

2010-09-13T01:41:00.002-04:00

While the average Joe Six-Pack is preoccupied with political cannon-fodder broadcast over and over again through our televisions, the real damage being done by the Obama administration is being largely ignored. The news is little more than media distraction over the falsehood that Obama is a Muslim from Africa, while the pundits babble on and on about his support of a construction project blocks away from Ground Zero in Manhattan, but no one seems to be at all concerned about the Obama administration's hypocritical support of government abuses begun under the Bush administration. Abuses that Obama himself appeared to have grave concerns about in his run for Presidential office. The sham of the two-party system persists, as does the myth that we have any choice at the voting booth any more. That much is clear to those who dig a little deeper than fifteen-second soundbites while Obama carries on the work of his predecessor to completely invalidate the basic tenets of Constitutional governance.

In the first weeks that Obama began to get settled in, his Justice Department sought to dismiss a lawsuit by the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, in which it was alleged that the charity's lawyers and board members rights to due-process and freedom of speech were violated by officials at the White House, the National Security Agency, the Treasury Department and the FBI. No evidence was put forth to substantiate the government's claim that the Oregon-based charity might be funding terrorism. Nevertheless, an eavesdropping operation against the philanthropic organization had been carried out without a warrant or the approval of any judge. In Obama's campaign to “change Washington” he had criticized the Bush administration of too-often invoking the privilege of state-secrets to resist lawsuits and to ignore public disclosure rules. In this case, the Justice Department did just that, once again invoking the privilege of state-secrets, claiming that the lawsuit could not be allowed to go forward on the grounds that the disclosure of information would be a threat to national security. When U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker resisted the claim by the Justice Department, they ratcheted up the pressure, and threatened to seize documents in the court's custody. Hardly a shining example of the open-government voters had demanded. Perhaps this was an isolated example though? After all, to be sure, there are some legitimate state-secrets that must be protected from time to time, and maybe this charity was not so squeaky clean themselves. We will probably never know.

What we do know though, is that this is not an isolated example at all actually. We can look to the dismissal of Jewel vs. NSA in January of this year, 2010. This case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was filed on behalf of AT&T customers opposed to the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of America's phone calls and emails. In this case, the fact that this practice was not at all isolated was the very basis of the dismissal! A page from the EFF website tells us...

...U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker held that the privacy harm to millions of Americans from the illegal spying dragnet was not a "particularized injury" but instead a "generalized grievance" because almost everyone in the United States has a phone and Internet service.

"The alarming upshot of the court's decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/21

Of all the values espoused in the founding documents of this nation, perhaps none could be said to be more central to our national identity than the system of check-and-balances which keeps any one branch of government, among the three, from usurping unjust power, and toppling our nation into a despotic totalitarian order. It is indeed a value which rests at the very core of our entire structure of government from which all other Constitutional liberty is prescribed and ensured. No one branch of government has the right to operate autonomously without the oversight from another. Alarmingly, under the Bush administration, and now reinforced by the Obama administration, that entire system from which all others are based, has been thoroughly undermined in the interest of secrecy and unfounded claims of national security implications. Not only are judges being left out of their role in issuing warrants, even secret warrants on the basis of some evidence, to allow the government to spy on it's citizens, but now the courts are washing their hands of any involvement when it comes to litigation over clear, aggressive, well-documented violations of Constitutional liberty as a result. These rulings have essentially rendered our court system impotent, and relegated judges to nothing more than glorified traffic-wardens collecting revenue for the state. A rubber-stamp court system suddenly all-too reminiscent of Nazi Germany's People's Court. A paper-shuffling administration, subordinate to that of the Executive, rather than a genuine order of justice honorably maintaining our most precious values as a nation of free and self-determined people.

Louis Fisher, a Constitutional law expert from the Library of Congress wrote in an email to the Washington Post:

"1. The administration defends the state secrets privilege on the ground that it would jeopardize national security if classified documents were made available to the public. No one argues for public disclosure of sensitive materials. The issue is whether federal judges should have access to those documents to be read in their chambers.

"2. If an administration is at liberty to invoke the state secrets privilege to prevent litigation from moving forward, thus eliminating independent judicial review, could not the administration use the privilege to conceal violations of statutes, treaties, and the Constitution? What check would exist for illegal actions by the executive branch?"

What's a little illegal spying though? This is war right? A classic excuse used by tyrannical dictators the world over. Tell the people that it is in their own interest, in the name of their own safety, to have their own government spying on them, until the people one day wake up and realize from among the ruin, that it was their own government all along that was the enemy. Quite simply put, there is no excuse now, nor will there ever be any excuse, to crush Constitutional liberty. Those rights are our inalienable rights as human beings, they are not an arbitrary set of guidelines to apply and cancel whimsically on the tides of politics. These are things that an American President should know and know well, without being told. Especially one who just happens to be a Constitutional scholar. And anyone with common sense, scholar or no, should know that such abuses will not stop with violating our privacy. In fact, it has already turned to false and indefinite imprisonment, without any charges whatsoever, without any hearing or oversight by any courts. It has turned to torture of those innocents, at the hands of our own soldiers and agents, as well as our treacherous moves to hand over our prisoners to be tortured by foreigners in other countries.

In May of this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that three prisoners being held at Bagram airforce base in Afghanistan had no right to habeas corpus hearings, handing the Obama administration a resounding victory in being able to hold prisoners indefinitely without any judicial oversight. Two Yemenis and a Tunisian claimed that they were being held without cause, were not terrorists, and had in fact been captured outside of the U.S. War-zone in Afghanistan. One is reported to have been captured in the far side of Asia, in Thailand, the second in Pakistan. Details on where the third detainee was captured are not clear. Tina Foster, a lawyer for the prisoners was quoted in a New York Times article as saying that the ruling gave a free hand to the Executive to “kidnap people from other parts of the world and lock them away for the rest of their lives.” The decision means that there is no judicial oversight, no burden of proof whatsoever to substantiate claims that a person might be a terrorist. She then went on to say...

“The thing that is most disappointing for those of us who have been in the fight for this long is all of the people who used to be opposed to the idea of unlimited executive power during the Bush administration but now seem to have embraced it during this administration. We have to remember that Obama is not the last president of the United States.”

Just a few days before the tumultuous national remembrance day of 9/11 this year, a Federal appeals court ruled that former prisoners of the Central Intelligence Agency could not sue over alleged torture in overseas prisons, even if they had since been released and had done nothing wrong, because such lawsuits might expose state-secrets. Like the pages right out of some bizarre Communist, One World Order pulp novel, state-secrets are now more important than revealing the facts of false-imprisonment and years of systematic physical and mental torture. A dark hour for liberty indeed. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., by a 6-to-5 vote. Filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of five former prisoners, the suit alleged that the company had arranged CIA flights to transport prisoners to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. This was not even a lawsuit against the government itself, or CIA, but a private company that was complicit in the allegations. So it can hardly be said that they were “just following orders” or that they should be afforded the same immunities afforded to the government. Where does that line of reasoning end? With Boeing dumping toxic waste in public schoolyard, immune from any legality or regulation because they contract with the government and the dumping is a matter of national security? As if the kidnapping, torture, and possibly even murder of people in some cases, weren't enough reason for concern.

The plaintiffs each make various claims regarding the details of their imprisonment and torture in places like a CIA “black-site” in Afghanistan, or after they were handed off in places like Egypt and Morocco. Lead plaintiff Binyan Mohamed is a citizen of Ethiopia and a legal resident of Britain. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 where he was then reportedly turned over to CIA and flown to Morocco where he was tortured by their security services over the course of 18-months there. The torture is said to have included techniques such as using a scalpel to wound his genitals and then pouring caustic liquid on the wounds. From there he was transferred back to CIA custody and delivered to a prison in Afghanistan where he was sparsely fed, and kept in perpetual darkness with a constant blaring recording of women and children screaming 24 hours a day. He was moved again later to Guantanamo Bay Prison where he was held for another five years, before finally being freed in Britain last year, 2009.

In other testimony at various times, murder has indeed been alleged, and it is hardly a stretch to discern that murder is indeed a strong possibility under these conditions. Who would ever really know? While some allegations have indeed leaked out, they are difficult to substantiate, and it is difficult to gauge how many prisoners, guilty of nothing, may have been murdered since 9/11. We do know however, that President Obama himself has endorsed state-sponsored killing of American citizens without any judicial oversight. Not enemy combatants mind you, but in fact has arbitrarily ordered the assassination of New Mexico native Anwar al-Awlaki. No arrest order, no trial, no judicial approval or oversight, no fact-finding mission by an impartial party, just an order to kill this American citizen on sight, wherever he is found. On the battlefield or off, sleeping at home with his children, or shopping at your local supermarket. Though the Bush administration reserved the right to order such a killing, it is not believed that they ever did actually order such an action, particularly against an American citizen.

Through his family, the target has vehemently denied that allegations of the Obama administration that he is guilty of terrorism or in any way connected to al-Qaeda. He is reported to have exchanged emails with the Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, in which he spoke negatively of his views on soldiers at the base who take up arms against Islam. But when did it become a capital offense to be against the war, or to speak your mind on politics or religion? Are such views really to be considered so radical that they do not fall under the purview of freedom of speech, much less subject to summary execution on the orders of the President of the United States? There is not even an allegation that this man has actually participated in any specific terrorist acts, nor that he provided material or financial support to any acts of terrorism. While Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) calls al-Awlaki “terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us,” the only allegation that is really being made against him is that he is a recruiter for al-Qaeda. Unsubstantiated claims that this man is a recruiter for an imaginary organization that was originally nothing more than a legal fiction created by American courts to be able to prosecute any Muslim accused of being a terrorist under the RICO act. Such prosecutions are apparently no longer even necessary with people being locked away tortured and murdered without so much as a lawyer or a judge to review the facts.

Now some folks who read this will no doubt have trouble putting aside certain xenophobic tendencies and judge the matter objectively. Certain powers that be rely on that fervor and anti-Muslim sentiment to achieve their ends in undermining the Constitution and installing their totalitarian order. It has always been the same throughout the ages. Vilify some group of people or another in order to seize upon all that is righteous and impose their despotic order. What will you do when you suddenly find that you are now the enemy of the state? Their work is nearly done now. The camps are built, the rail cars are sitting idly by waiting, certainly figuratively, even if not literally as some claim. Seeing the utter lack of change in policy from one President to the next, who appeared to be so fully opposed to the policies of one another a few years ago, coming from opposing political parties, it has never been clearer that the Master of the White House is only there to serve an insidious agenda that is contrary to the ideals put forth by the founding fathers of this nation. Obama swept into office on the promise of change, yet there is no substantive change whatsoever. What will it take so that we hold our leaders accountable for imperial invasions and false wars, for peeling away the fundamental rights of the citizenry, for torture and murder? For allowing themselves to be undermined, allowing this Republic to be usurped by some hidden cabal of internationalists? State secrets do not protect the people, they protect those who seek to enslave and kill the people, make no mistake about it. These are the darkest hours of American liberty.

“We recognized that it was not enough to overthrow the old state, but that the new state must previously have been built up and ready to one's hand....In 1933 it was no longer a question of overthrowing a state by an act of violence; meanwhile the new state had been built up and all that remained to do was destroy the last remnants of the old state – and that took but a few hours.” ~Adolf Hitler

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” ~Thomas Paine

If you have the time, MSMReview highly recommends the following video, Taxi to the Darkside. In yet another example of the relation corporate media has to more nefarious agendas, this movie had an extremely difficult time reaching the public eye, despite critical acclaim when it was first viewed. The clearest example is when the Discovery Channel bought the rights to the movie, only to announce that they would never air the film, due to the controversial nature of the piece. The following presentation found on Google Video is about 80 minutes long.

“Taxi to the Darkside” Wikipedia Entry

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

Al-Awlaki's father says son is 'not Osama bin Laden'

EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case

Jewel v. NSA

Handling Of 'State Secrets' At Issue

Expert Consensus: Obama Mimics Bush On State Secrets

Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas

Detainees Barred From Access to U.S. Courts

Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.

Obama wins the right to invoke "State Secrets" to protect Bush crimes

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

At the close of a day of refelction, a word from past Presidents

2010-09-11T23:59:00.028-04:00

There is such a wealth of information available for research that stands in stark contrast to the commonly accepted story surrounding the events of 9/11, that we here at the MSMReview elected to not try to publish one all-encompassing article to point out the wealth of inconsistencies in main-stream media coverage of the day's events nine years ago, or the subsequent failures of our government to adequately explain the truth. There is no new news today which brings us closer to the truth. Since the disastrous tragedy, much information has come to light which leaves the official explanation a clear and blatant falsehood, but rather than trying to assemble one massive review of all that information that is out there now, we chose to remain silent on this day. This is not the day for controversy or to stir up hatred, capitalizing on emotion to try to make a point. It is a somber day of remembrance. But as this day draws to a close, perhaps we can reflect on the words of past U.S. Presidents...

Economic Bill of Rights

2010-09-04T17:22:00.002-04:00

The following is an excerpt taken from a speech by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Congress, January 1944:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Money as Debt

2010-08-30T21:23:00.006-04:00

Worried about the economy? Dollars not going as far as they used to? Well, you're certainly not alone in your sentiments. Yet everyone seems to have an explanation, or a reason why it is like this, often blaming their neighbors for the economic woes of the world, rather than the folks who operate a terminally flawed economic system. Don't expect things to get better anytime soon. Under our current economic structure, collapse is a mathematical certainty. When exactly it will happen, and how the collapse will be managed are anyone's guess. But who will benefit? The very few who implemented this system, and no one else. Even if you are still comfortable, and not really feeling the economic pinch yet, have no fear, the check is in the mail. You are not immune from the woes that others are feeling now through little fault of their own.

If you think you understand how the economy works, think again. Very few people actually do, so don't be ashamed, and don't be blinded by arrogance thinking that you are special and that you actually do know better than most people. We all think that. Sure, you may have taken a few economics classes in school, but you were never taught the bare-bones truth of how our economy works. So please, take the next 47 minutes to watch the following video. It affects each and every last one of us. You might very well agree that this is hands down the single most important and eye-opening educational video of our time.

The MSMReview is proud to present, Money as Debt....

If you were impressed by this video, and would like to purchase your own copy to own, or to send to a friend, please visit the Money as Debt website where the DVD can be purchased as a set including the sequel, Money as Debt II: Promises Unleashed.

http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

Prison Labor Re-Education Camps For Welfare Recipients?

2010-08-22T22:52:00.001-04:00

Absolutely if this guy gets his way. Republican candidate for N.Y. governor Carl Paladino has said that he would like to send welfare recipients to go live in vacant prison cells and do work for the state. While he says the program would be voluntary, the public support for re-education labor camps, especially among Tea-Party activists is nothing short of disturbing. Has history taught us nothing?

"Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes," Paladino said.

Re-education camps for the victims of failed leadership and economic policy. People are not poor because they don't know how to brush their teeth or fill out a job application. If we are really that bad off then perhaps he should invest instead in the public school system rather than this hare-brained idea.

The truth of the matter is that most folks on welfare are your average everyday working class Americans who do not fit the stereotype that seems to be filling the heads of an ignorant and privileged section of society. According to the state, food-stamp eligibility has doubled since the recession began. This means that a huge section of working-class Americans just suddenly drowned in poverty. And this guy's solution is to send them to re-education camps? These are not lazy people, these are not people unwilling to work, these are not people without education and skills. These are people who were working and suddenly found themselves no longer able to get by after being laid off, forced into a lower paying job, or simply no longer able to afford food on the pay they were earning all along as the purchasing power of the dollar is falling through the floor. Saying that he wants to “teach people how to earn their check” is nothing short of an insult to the intelligence of every registered voter. These people don't need to be taught how to work, they need jobs so that they can work. They need jobs that pay enough to keep up with the high cost of living in NY. Even if some folks might actually benefit from new job skills, it hardly does anyone any good if there is no job at which to apply those new skills.

Where does Paladino get off assuming that someone who is poor comes from a dysfunctional home? Or that a dysfunctional home creates poverty for that matter. There are plenty of dysfunctional homes in America these days that are getting by just fine financially, but maybe if there were jobs available that paid enough to keep food on the dinner table and the lights turned on, other families wouldn't be so dysfunctional. Not to mention the fact that there are many complete families, with values and morals, who have been shoved into poverty through no fault of their own and who need public assistance for the basic necessities of life. But what is this man's answer to their plight? To break up the family and send people to the far corners of the state to go live in a prison cell.

Here are a few videos on poverty, and what causes poverty:

Poverty USA

Money as Debt

Paladino then goes on to describe how beautiful prisons are saying, "These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities."

Wow, now that is impressive. Toilets and basketball courts. Don't find many of those in a city. Should be enough to lure any young person away from their friends and family. There were pretty flowers along the fence line at Auschwitz too. Yes, that was sarcasm friends. What he is really setting out to do here is remove the most energetic and resourceful segment of a rightfully pissed off down-trodden inner-city society, and ship them off to secure facilities in the countryside where they will be exploited as a menial labor force for the state. Or, more alarmingly, “for military service” as he stated, along with park service and public works service. If he was really interested in helping under-privileged inner-city youth he could invest in programs that are already established, like Job Corps, instead of putting them in the hands of prison guards who will be trained to double as “counselors.” Most prison guards don't even have a college education, yet he expects to qualify them as sociologists? One could hardly imagine the two lines of work being at all compatible, or that a prison guard would even have the aptitude for sociology. Kind of like telling an combat infantryman to run a daycare center.

Clearly this is not about what is in the interests of the people who need the most help. It is clear that Paladino wants a slave labor force for the state. Not really slavery you say? Because they are being paid with welfare benefits for food, and are given a prison cell painted over as a “dorm?” Well this may come as a surprise to some folks, but even slave owners in the old South actually fed, clothed, and housed their slaves as well. Okay, aside from that though, maybe calling it slavery is a bit of an exaggeration. What we can call it though, is a textbook example of Communism. A 6x9 concrete room with a steel bunk and some generic chemically-fortified food-like substances provided by the state, in exchange for daily menial labor and/or military service to the state. A stripped-down bare-bones version of Communism at that.

com·mu·nism
a system of social organization in which economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a self-perpetuating political party.

Of course we have not one, but the appearance of two dominant political parties here in the U.S. Democrats and Republicans. But when you see things like a supposedly liberal President implement a far-right corporatist-fascist mandatory health-plan, and this so-called conservative candidate for NY governor aggressively endorsing Communism, it should make you stop and think for a second, rather than listening to the garbage the media hands us. Stop and wonder for a moment why we don't have any independent or alternative party politicians, and why a Libertarian like Ron Paul was blackballed by the media in his bid for the Presidency. Because it is a self-perpetuating system that transcends any one political party or another. The media is on it, the banks are driving it, and the corporations are funding it. The two-party system is a sham, and millionaire candidate Carl Paladino is just another cog in the wheel of this agenda to undermine the working class. It is in his interest as a wealthy man, to protect that wealth, and to further the agenda of elitists that would have us all in concentration camps doing forced labor for table scraps. How else could one explain a Tea Party conservative taking people away from their families to taxpayer-funded facilities for re-education like a page out Red Dawn?

Speaking of funding, he didn't say where the money would come from, but suggested that prisons could be consolidated to make room for welfare recipients. For years politicians have been telling us that the prisons are far too overcrowded. That we need to build more prisons. That violent predators are loosed on society before they have served their full terms because there is no space to hold them in prison. The United States already has more if its own people living in prison than any other country in the world, including Communist China. And they have about four times the general population that we have. The US has a full 25% of the world's total prison population. So where exactly are all these empty prison cells Mr. Paladino?

Uh-oh. Maybe the conspiracy-theorists weren't so crazy after all when they were talking about mysterious vacant prison camps springing up all over the country. About 800 of them by some accounts. Here are a few random links from a quick Google search on the topic:

PrisonPlanet - New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.

American Concentration Camps

FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders

Google Video: Fema Camp

PDF File - Army Regulation 210–35 (Installations) Civilian Inmate Labor Program

The powers that be don't like to move to fast or make things too obvious though. So they creep along, reaching small goals incrementally, in true boiled-frog-syndrome fashion. Similar to the way the Nazis did it. They didn't come right out and say “hey, we're gonna round up all the Jews and exterminate them in death camps.” First the Jews were squeezed into smaller and smaller urban ghettos, until finally the time was ripe to put them on trains and ship them to labor camps out in the countryside. And from there, many went on to actual extermination camps. There aren't any death squads about to start marching after the next election, and it is doubtful that Paladino's idea would really get very far very fast even he were elected governor, but what is truly scary at this point is the public reaction to his idea. That so many people in a country like America would actually support something like this. Today, the powers that be are using Paladino to sort of test the waters if you will, to measure the political viability of labor camps, and to gauge public reaction. But you can bet your bottom dollar that we are being nudged in that direction. In a matter of years this sort of thing will be implemented, as the poor are more aggressively vilified by folks who are too scared to admit that they too could wind up losing everything. You better just hope that you haven't taken the tumble and wound up on the welfare rolls by then, as the purchasing power of the dollar continues to plummet, as more and more jobs dry up, as more and more people lose their homes, as more and more motels are converted to homeless shelters. Despite what some media sources try to tell us, there is no economic recovery in the horizon. This is it folks, get used to it.

Here are a few links to articles that reported on Paladino's plan to implement re-education forced labor camps:

Poughkeepsie Journal

Yahoo News

ThinkProgress

When they came for...

2010-08-22T16:42:00.001-04:00

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the sick, the so-called incurables,
I did not speak out;
because I was not mentally ill.

When they came for the Catholics,
I did not speak out;
because I was a Protestant.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

- attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

2010-08-16T21:38:00.004-04:00

There is far too much to cover in one article regarding the modern feminist movement as it pertains to social engineering, the degeneration of the family unit, and many of the ills we see today in modern society. Suffice to say though, that the movement as a whole has been a great disservice to humanity, and even to women in particular. Fatherless children is only one aspect of a much, much larger agenda, and in this piece we will be narrowing the view even further to focus specifically on women who deliberately become pregnant by anonymous sperm donors. But just to be clear, when we speak here on “modern feminism” we are not speaking about all women, or against any women, but against the socio-political agenda of the feminist movement that has actually done a great disservice to women and society as a whole.

Today, political correctness dictates that we are supposed to accept fatherless children as a sort of “new normal,” in direct contradiction to the laws of nature. We fancy ourselves gods, who can re-write the laws of nature on a whim, whenever we feel like it, and then act as if there will be no consequences for turning the natural order of things upside down. Children are meant to have a mother and a father. One can argue that point all day long in the interests of their modernist socio-political agenda, but the fact remains that our species, like so many others, reproduces sexually with both a male and female contribution of chromosomes. Balanced children will grow from the guidance and nurturing of both a man and a woman. Of course, there is tragedy in the world. One parent or another may be lost in some tragic accident, a war perhaps. But how do we suddenly make the jump to accept as normal, even preferable, what was once only the result of tragedy? The answer is simple. Narcissism. Unbalanced narcissism. The “I want what I want, and you can’t tell me no” mentality of our modern society, which is just as much a product of modern feminism as women wearing blue jeans. (Not that women in blue jeans is a bad thing of course.) Putting aside now the high rate of children raised by divorced parents, or born of unwed and unprotected sexual liaisons, we will maintain our focus here on the microcosm of clinical sperm donation. Of course, what we see here can be applied to the larger social arena as well, but unclouded by the arguments that often derail debate on the genuine core issues as the “blame” is tossed back and forth ad nauseum. When a woman chooses to impregnate herself clinically with anonymously donated sperm, then clearly there is no ambiguity when it comes to the responsibility of the pregnancy.

Now, there are a number of reasons why a woman might want to employ the services of a fertilization clinic. This article is not meant to be taken as some sort of assault on science, only to call into question the moral basis, or lack thereof, for certain applications. As with any knowledge, just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should. So we will not question here in this piece when a clinic might assist a happy and stable heterosexual couple in joining their natural egg and seed. We will also put aside the debate as it pertains to deceased partners. The focus here is on when a woman solicits an anonymous sperm donor. In some cases, it might be that her mate is sterile, that the man in the couple does not have sufficient viable sperm to initiate a pregnancy. In other cases, the woman’s mate may be another woman, and therefore obviously, her sexual partner cannot provide the necessary component to initiate a pregnancy. In other cases still, the woman may be alone, for one reason or another, perhaps coming toward the end of her own natural viability as a mother and anxious to partake of the gift of life.

At first glance, these reasons seem, well, reasonable. It’s natural for women to want to be mothers after all. But wanting something does not necessarily mean it’s the right thing to do. One might really want to go out and buy a particular house, but it might not be such a good idea if you can’t actually afford it, or if the house happens to be in a very bad part of town. So let us look a little more closely at what is really at stake here. To see if the “wants” or perceived needs really outweigh the potential for negative consequences.

With a single woman who has not been able to secure a stable relationship with a man, we can chalk it up to a bad luck of the draw, perhaps. Random odds that sometimes go against emotional fulfillment. For one reason or another, every male suitor turned out to be not so suited. But we could also look at the woman herself. Perhaps the men she met were not so much the problem. It is just as likely that she herself was the problem. The product of this modern feminist agenda. It is little surprise that a woman who goes through life with an “I don’t need no man, I can do it all myself” sort of attitude, will in fact wind up by herself, without a man. A cold desert for a woman to be lost in no doubt. Caught between hating men for not meeting the undefined ideal of a perverted feminist agenda, and not fulfilling her own natural identity as a woman. Of course, some women don’t just wind up in that spot, but choose to, usually because of a career. But in either case, is such a woman really the ideal candidate for motherhood? A woman too busy with other obligations that she has no time to make a secure emotional investment in a man, yet somehow expects to have enough time to fill the role of both parents, with all the love, nurturing, and guidance that a child should receive? Or a woman so emotionally unstable, lacking in dedication, or of such abrasive personality that she has been unable to maintain a caring relationship with a man? This is not meant presume to dictate a woman’s choices or personality of course, only to examine whether or not they are really ideal candidates for voluntary and deliberate single-motherhood. It seems there is a high probability that a child is more of an object or a prize to fill a void created by their own selfishness and lack of fortitude. Just because a woman can bear a child, does not mean that she will make a good mother. A woman who, for whatever her reasons, cannot maintain an enduring stable relationship with a grown man is hardly an ideal candidate to maintain a balanced and stable home for a child over the course of eighteen years, much less a lifetime of devotion that a good parent will often commit to.

We also see lesbian couples who often seek out sperm donors so that they may become same-sex parents. This obviously flies in the face of any natural sense of parenthood, social constructs aside. Once again, this is not to denigrate a woman’s personal choices in any way, and we will leave the common debates regarding the morality of homosexuality at the door. Instead, we might conclude that homosexuality does indeed play into the natural order of things, just not natural parenthood. That homosexuality is a natural mechanism to prevent the overpopulation of our species. That folks like homosexuals and others who are unable to maintain a heterosexual relationship are the gatekeepers who are destined to cease the perpetuation of inherited natural traits that nature sees fit to extinguish as we evolve. If homosexuality is a choice by nature, and not the choice of the individual, then clearly it is also nature’s choice that a homosexual not bear children. If it were otherwise, we would all be androgynous beings reproducing asexually. So clearly here we have a natural inhibitor preventing lesbians from becoming mothers. (No inference should be made here that homosexuality itself is necessarily an inherited trait, nor that it is destined to become, or should be, eliminated through natural selection.) There are also strong social complications that will distress a child as it grows up in a household with same-sex parents. First, confusion no doubt as to the natural order of things on a biological level, and a need for explicit sexual education from a very young age. There is also the outside social influences that will complicate matters, right or wrong. Even if one sees homosexual parenthood as morally acceptable, a good parent would never bring a child into the world to be used a pawn to enforce their socio-political views and willingly subject a child to undue hardship. So in that respect, we again see the “I want what I want” attitude rear its head, at the expense of the child, regardless of what either nature or society have to say about it. As politically incorrect as it may sound, homosexual couples are not ideal candidates for parenthood any more than a one-armed man is an ideal candidate for the NY Yankees.

A third reason for a woman to seek out a clinical sperm donation is in a case where a woman’s male mate might not be able to produce his own viable seed. Again, it seems fairly reasonable at first glance. Of course, we have the natural selection argument here again though. That there are natural population inhibitors that we may be violating to allow this sort of procedure to go forward. But at least we see a greater potential for a stable home and upbringing in the traditional sense. Yet digging in a little deeper, we find not only the potential for serious problems, but the sort of problems that have actually occurred. A case outlined in a recent Associated Press article that you will find linked below, told of how a young woman of 20 years old suddenly found out that the father who had raised her had been infertile, and that her biological father was an anonymous sperm donor. The truth of the matter was revealed by her mother just as she was divorcing the man who raised the young woman as his own. So here we really get to see the ugly side of modern feminism, and surely this is happening more often than we will find in a news article. Here this woman used this man to be the father to a child that was not biologically his, and all of the financial support that went along with that no doubt. When she was done with the man, just as the child was grown, she divorced him and then she went ahead and severed the bond between him and the daughter whom he had raised. An act so narcissistic that her own need to be cruel toward the man she was now leaving outweighed the well-being of the daughter she had seen fit to lie to for 20 years. Was it really worth it?

Not according to Lindsay Greenawalt, the product of a donor conception, who wrote in her blog, “If I had to choose between being conceived with half of my identity and half of my kinship deliberately denied from me for eternity — or never being born — I'd choose never being born. We were created to carry a loss. A loss that no human being should have to endure.” Barked at by egotistical sorts, these children are often told to be grateful that they are alive, as if this heartache that their mothers cursed upon them was really some gift to be cherished. More twisted sense of reality brought to us by modern feminism and the notion that women can do whatever they want without consequences, and that the world should be grateful for their mere presence. Recent studies have shown that children conceived in such a manner are more troubled and depressed than their peers as they become young adults. But rather than questioning the practice, news articles and study groups instead point to the anonymity of the donors as the source of the problem, not the fact that these women chose this themselves!

The media is doing a bang-up job of ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room too, by deflecting, spinning, and emotionalizing the topic to suit the feminist agenda. We see articles like the one from the AP mentioned earlier, titled, “Sperm-donors’ kids seek more rights and respect.” Respect? Is there some sense of entitlement here, that they are somehow due more respect than any other child? That now society must make special allowances for the choices of a mother who also was filled with some self-centered sense of entitlement? Rights? What rights? This was the conscious and deliberate choice of their mothers. The child has no rights, or say in the matter, any more then if the mother was a Preying Mantis who slew the father post-copulation. And what of the rights of a donor who never had any intention of being anything more than an anonymous donor of chromosomes? Well, we have Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker to spin that angle saying, “The adult voices of donor offspring are a welcome counterbalance to an array of cultural forces aimed at further marginalizing fathers.” So somehow we are supposed to believe that reneging on or undermining anonymity contracts is not actually marginalizing the rights of these men? How about giving some rights to men paying hundreds, even thousands of dollars a month to kids they are never allowed to see? This society is so twisted and turned upside down that men who want to be fathers aren’t allowed to be, but those who don’t want to be, will be forced to, as if it were a favor to them, and that they should be grateful.

Here is a link to the AP article as it appeared in Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100815/ap_on_re_us/us_sperm_donor_dads?mwp_success=NONJS_POST_SUCCESS#mwpphu-post-form

Now clearly we see that the real problem here rests with the practice of actually becoming pregnant through this method, not the fact that the donors wish to remain anonymous. To say any different would be to apply the sort of logic where you might blame the electric company for the fact that you stuck a fork in the socket and got burned. So why then the assault on the rights of the men, the donors, rather than on the practice by women of using those services? Well, the “it’s for the children” excuse will pull at the heartstrings of many Liberals, so now we need something to offend the Conservatives. How about brother and sister accidentally marrying each other because anonymity prevented them from researching their background? Well there were a few cases like that in the news in the past few years.

Here’s a case reported by the BBC where twins who were adopted separately wound up finding any marrying each other after they were grown, not knowing that they were actually siblings, and then were forced to have their marriage annulled:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182817.stm

Now of course, the odds of such cases happening aren’t all that great, but that sort of thing is indeed possible, and even more possible when it comes to half-siblings or cousins as well. But even more pressing might be the need for medical information. The “right” of a child, or a child since grown to adulthood to have medical information of their biological paternal lineage. In fact, in some cases it could be seen as necessary to save a life, or to treat a debilitating disease.

These are all risks that the mother should consider before going ahead with this sort of pregnancy. There are so many risks, so many negative points to how it will affect the child, why would any reasonable woman actually go ahead with this sort of thing? The answer, a reasonable woman wouldn’t. Not generally speaking anyhow. There may be some exceptions of course, there always are, and many of these woman cannot be seen as downright bad mothers. But we are talking about the ideal here. What is really in the best interest of these children, and of society. Bringing a child into the world knowing full well that you are doing so deliberately putting them ad a disadvantage right from the start is not the sign of good responsible parent. That is the sign of a lonely, self-centered woman who puts her own needs before anyone else’s, including their own child. But rather than acknowledging that clear and simple premise, we have this convoluted campaign to shift responsibility back onto men and onto society for the deliberate choices made by these women.

Women who, by the way, are told that their choices are perfectly normal, so it’s not that we can really blame them either. Women are raised to believe that their actions have no consequences, that they can do as they please, while men and society pick up the tab and try to make the world a more comfortable place for them. This is where we see that the modern feminist movement is actually doing a great disservice to women, in the same way that a parent might spoil a child and let them run wild. One day, the child, or the women in this case, will have to pay the piper so to speak. For some women it may be the heartache of realizing just how much suffering they have actually condemned their child too by bringing them into the world without a father. For others, it will be an open assault against an inflated ego, when their child is not grateful at all to have been brought into this world. It’s no wonder women are more bitter and unhappy than ever before. They are trapped in a web of deceit. The modern feminist movement is no friend to them, it is an agenda put upon society, using women as pawns, for the shadowy figures who engineer the face of society to their own nefarious ends.

End like profiteering from misery. Think of all the dollars that could be had by stripping away donor anonymity. The lawyers could wind up having a field day with donors who might not have disclosed a family history of some affliction, or who hid certain facts about themselves which they refused to disclose. And now we have our “ah-ha!” moment. We start to get a glimmer of the real reasons why there is suddenly an assault on the anonymity of sperm donors. The lawyers are salivating at the chance to muck around in this sort of misery. The women and the offspring will be used as pawns as always, the face of irrational emotional appeal, but nevertheless quick to jump on that bandwagon when they are told that it is their “right” to demand compensation from the man. And the state? Will the state step in to stop such injustice? Absolutely not. They stand to profit from taxation, court fees, child-support processing, and will even be able to squeeze profits out of these matters that are found to be “criminal.” Already there have been cases in the news in the past few years where men were forced to pay support for children that were the product of in-vitro fertilization, for example.

Here’s an article from over three years ago that outlines some rather unjust rulings against sperm donors:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2883/can-a-sperm-donor-be-forced-to-pay-child-support

After having read this piece, perhaps some have been inspired to exercise more critical thinking rather than simply going along with what is easiest, or politically correct. Truth is the enemy of these spin-pages in the mainstream news and the agendas which they are well paid to support. Perhaps you found yourself offended at some points reading this piece. Good, that means you actually stopped to think rather then just listening to the drone of propaganda and everyone patting each other on the back while society is torn asunder. If we were to take the AP article mentioned up above at face value, me might have concluded that donor anonymity is a social scourge, and that men should be appreciative to have their rights undermined. The suffering of the children is very real, but that emotional appeal is misplaced in calling for an end to donor anonymity, rather than an end to the practice of donor pregnancies right from the start. This is all just setting the stage for precedents that will be set in the coming years, as nationalized healthcare and the legal system ramp-up the genetic mapping of society through DNA identification. Privacy is of no concern to the powers that be, and there is in fact a concerted effort to do away with the last few vestiges of it that we have.

For further reading on those concerns you may enjoy reading other articles posted here at the MSMReview:

Electronic Surveillance of Your Fat

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

Technology and Police Hypocrisy

MISSING PERSON! (Has been found and is safe)

2010-08-13T20:38:00.004-04:00

Please, if you have any information on the whereabouts of Amber Mangus-Markowitz, contact us here at the MSMReview, or email amberismissing@gmail.com.

Aside from a few cryptic texts from her cellphone to her husband, Amber has not been in contact with friends or family, and has been missing for nearly a week now as of this posting. This disappearance is completely out of character, and she has missed several important appointments. She was last seen with a female known only as "Angel." Amber is from the area of San Diego, California, where her husband is stationed with the U.S. Navy. Her last known location was Vista, California.

UPDATE: Amber has been found. Thank you to each and every person who helped to spread the word. She has been located and is in safe hands.