October 18, 2011

Rights vs. Privilege, What's the Difference?

Rights and privileges. The two words are not synonymous, yet it seems that most Americans today would be hard-pressed to explain the difference between the two. It's little wonder then that things are so bad in this country, when it's own people no longer understand the most basic and fundamental concepts which define us as a people in the first place. What is it that we shed blood to protect? What is it which protects us from having our blood shed on the swords of tyrants?


So what exactly is a right? The legal dictionary at Law.com defines the word as follows:

1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.

Okay, so who entitles us to our rights then? The word "entitlement" gives us the impression that rights are handed down from some sovereign, or perhaps divine authority.

In medieval Europe, only the King could own property. In turn, he could then share that property with whom he chose. It was therefore this human being, who ultimately defined the rights of all those who resided in his lands. It's no wonder why, through the ages, Kings have been revered as gods upon the earth. The righteous and the tyrants alike held this power over the people in their realm.

All of that suddenly changed, when a group of men rebelled against the concept of one man ruling over other men. Industrious men of the New World rebelled against their sovereign King, and declared their independence from him and his government.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~Declaration of Independnce

These men founded a new nation, where rights would be shared equally among all men. Rights entitled by no one man but rather by nature and the divine, defined by a Constitution, and empowered by the consent of the governed. They formed a new government, where all men would be their own king, owing their destiny to no man. Each man a sovereign, free to choose his own destiny.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
~Preamble, United States Constitution

So now we see that while rights may actually have variable definitions throughout the world and throughout history, the definition has been made more exact in the United States of America, by the Founding Fathers of hte nation. Here, rights are ordained by nature and God, not by the men who have documented what those rights are. It is not even the government formed by We the People, which entitles us to the rights defined by the Constitution.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

A right is not something that can be changed, or taken away. A right is that which defines our very being, as an American, as a human beings. So let us compare that now, to the definition of privilege. What exactly is a privilege, and how dies it differ from a right as we explored above? Black's Law Dictionary defines the word privilege as follows:

privilege - 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty

So we see that the word privilege first requires a legal right, rather than a natural or divine right which was defined as "unalienable" and "self-evident" by the Founding Fathers when they declared Americans sovereigns and penned the Constitution. A legal right is a construct of men and government, not by nature and not by God. It is neither self-evident nor unalienable.

unalienable - incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

The Constitution secures your rights, it does not grant them or create them. It defines the framework in which law and government must confine itself within. The Constitution is not law itself, but the document which defines us as a people. It spells out the values which constitute America.

Statutes and laws on the other hand are privileges. They can be written, repealed, altered, transferred, applied selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily based upon whatever criteria an authority self-validates. Rights cannot be affected in any such way. They are set in stone so to speak. Privileges can be extended to you or revoked from you, by authorities such as the government, police, your boss, your parents, your landlord, and so forth. Rights on the other hand, are a constant, that cannot be altered.

A privilege is created to give favor to a person or class of persons separate from all others. Of course, this then flies in the face of equality, to give some people certain privileges that other people do not enjoy. But it also means that such favor can be taken from you by that authority which granted it to you in the first place.

Let us take a police officer for example, since so often citizens tend to resent the privileges afforded them. A sworn police officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to perform certain duties of justice in accordance with those values. In exchange, he is afforded special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy.

Chief among them, an exemption against prosecution for detaining a citizen. You, as a citizen, may arrest another citizen for a crime, but you must be certain that you are not committing a crime yourself by doing so. If it turns out that the person you detained was not in fact guilty of the crime you alleged, you would have actually then committed a slew of crimes yourself by defaming them and infringing upon their liberty. You can be charged with any number of crimes and face civil liability for denying the persons freedom of movement, kidnapping, making false and defamatory accusations, false arrest, and so forth.

A police officer on the other hand, can detain someone for the purposes of investigation for anywhere from 24 to 72 hours depending on what state you live in. After such time, the police then have to charge a person with an actual crime, or release their detainee. But even if it turns out that the person did not in fact commit any crime, and/or if they are exonerated at trial, the police officer still cannot be charged with any crime or civil penalty so long as the charge was based upon what the officer saw as reasonable evidence. Prosecuting attorneys are also afforded similar privilege as officers of the court.

The police officer can have that privilege revoked at any time a superior or judge deems appropriate, even after an arrest had been made. So let us make another example there, to see how having privileges rather than rights, can become a serious liability. A police officer makes an arrest and files a charge on a citizen, for what the officers states is reasonable suspicion and evidence. If, however, his superior views the arrest to not be reasonable, and does not believe that the officer truly believed the arrest was reasonable, his privilege can be revoked retro-actively and the officer can then be prosecuted for making a false arrest, dereliction of duty, civil rights violations, and so forth. On the one hand, this protects citizens to some degree, from police officers who may be inclined to make false arrests for any number of political, personal, or otherwise criminal reasons. But on the other hand, we also see how the arbitrary nature of the privilege might be misused, to coerce or blackmail police officers into cooperating with agendas of cronyism and even criminal enterprise within the system.

At this point, you the reader should see clearly that there is indeed a difference between rights and privileges. They are nearly complete opposites. Given a preference, I for one would much prefer rights over privileges too. I like to know where I stand, and not leave my fate in the hands of someone else or some other group of people who may or may not be looking out for my best interests, and regardless of their own intentions which may or may not be well-meaning.

There are so many examples that could be made of the differences between rights and privileges. Yet time and time again, we see lawmakers today blurring the two concepts, to the detriment of liberty. Society, being too busy working for their slave-wage or otherwise preoccupied with the many distractions put out there to dumb-down the population, are content with this blurring of the distinct meanings. Indeed in this day and age it takes little to sway the masses to not only accept the erosion of liberty, but to demand it with potent support of knee-jerk reactionary legislation of all sorts. But now dear reader, you are informed. You know the answer to the question put forth here to today. What is the difference between rights and privileges?

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
~Thomas Jefferson

For further insight, please enjoy any or all of the following material:

Arbitrary Arrests and the Rule of Law

Recap of Caylee's Law Controversey

Freedom a Threat to Police

Season of Treason (video)

And finally, here is part one of five for Michael Badnarik's lecture on Rights vs. Privileges:


September 16, 2011

Casey Anthony Ordered to Pay $97k Investigation Costs

Casey Anthony has been ordered to pay nearly a hundred-thousand dollars to police for the cost of the missing person investigation to locate her daughter Caylee, who was later found dead. Caylee was acquitted of murder at the close of a controversial trial, though the jury found her guilty on several misdemeanor counts of lying to authorities. The plaintiffs had sought nearly a half-million dollars in compensation, but the judge found that she was not liable for the costs of the murder investigation which ensued after the 2 year-old's body was discovered, only for the missing-person investigation.

You can read more here about the controversial acquittal and subsequent calls for "Catlee's Law" at this link...

Recap of Caylee's Law Controversy

Today though, the debate centers on civil liability, not whether Caylee's Law is a good idea, or whether Casey may have in fact murdered her daughter, regardless of the jury's decision. The question today is more simple. Should a citizen ever be held financially liable for the costs of any public service?

I say absolutely not. The police and prosecutors are the government, not private citizens, for one thing. They are public servants performing a duty, not a private venture performing a service. If they want to accuse Casey of wasting public resources, then perhaps we should start scrutinizing all police spending a little more closely, not to mention the despicable tactics by which they come by funding apart from our tax dollars.

But let us suppose for a moment that a public police force should be treated the same way as a private company. Did Casey solicit the services of the police? Did she ask them to perform an investigation? No, she did not. It was not even her who made the telephone call reporting Caylee missing. So what this really amounts to is extortion. The government is forcing her to pay for services that she neither requested nor approved of. Which actually brings up another flaw in the proposed Caylee's Law too. In essence, that law would now make it a felony to not solicit the services of the police if your child has gone missing. What sort of free country is this where an individual can be forced to pay for services or goods that they did not want? Or, more accurately, double-billed for those services. After all, Casey is a taxpayer too. When she pays that hundred-grand to the police, are the taxpayers going to get a rebate check in the mail? Are the police going to give back the money they they took away from drug dealers? My guess would be, um, probably not.

The minute we allow police departments to be treated like a business rather than a public agency, we open the door to another huge problem now too. It means that from now on, police will be driven by profits, not truth or justice. This actually gives an incentive for police to not perform their duties properly, to lead investigations to false conclusions, to pin crimes on innocent people and so forth, in order to maximize profits.

If little Caylee had been found alive, I doubt we would be having this discussion. But the public is hardly about to rally to defend Casey against this extortion scheme, because the public views her as the villain, despite the fact, and even more so because of the fact, that she was acquitted in the death of the child. The public want their vengeance in one way or another, regardless of what the true facts may be. Blinded by their anger over the aquittal, the public will fail to see that they are allowing a precedent to be set that will be used against them, against all of us in the years to come.

Where will this end? Will murderers be forced to fund police departments? Will anyone convicted of any crime be forced to pay for their own prosecution and the investigation that was made against them? Will you be forced to not only pay a fine, and a court fee for a traffic ticket, but also for the police officer's hourly pay while he wrote the ticket and sat in court, for his gasoline used, for the cost of the actual ticket from the ticket book, to have his uniform cleaned because he got splashed by a mud puddle when he got out of his cruiser to hand you the ticket?

Sounds good on the surface maybe. Have the criminals pay for the police. But if that is really the precedent, do you really believe that we won't have to pay taxes any longer to fund the police and the courts? Somehow, I doubt it. And again, we see a clear motivation for the police and courts to wrongfully convict innocent people.

Let's keep in mind here too, that Casey was not convicted in the death of her child. Whether or not you think she actually did it, the fact is, in the eyes of the law she is only guilty of a misdemeanor offense. Which means now that the precedent has been set for the state to go after you too, to recover costs, for even a minor offense. If you are found to be at fault in an auto accident for example, will you have to pay for the entire cost of the response of emergency services? Even for a minor accident, one that you could actually drive away from, if someone else calls 911, you could be on the hook for many thousands of dollars for the police and fire department response, even if they don't actually have to render any aid. That is the precedent being set here with this ruling.

This whole case has been a string of bad precedents right from the start, and this is yet another miscarriage of justice being done in the name of a dead little girl.

August 11, 2011

JFK Assassination, Down the Rabbit Hole

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 is the subject of what is probably the single most talked about conspiracy-theory in American history. The official story still stands that he was murdered by lone-gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, but today even folks who will roll their eyes at most discussion of conspiracy-theory topics would probably admit that even they do not buy that story entirely. Although there are actually many varying and interlacing theories surrounding the death of the popular American President, one theory seems to have gained some real traction in the past decade or so, culminating now with this bombshell revelation...
Explosive Jackie O tapes 'reveal how she believed Lyndon B Johnson killed JFK and had affair with movie star'
  • She will allegedly reveal affair with actor William Holden
  • Believed Vice-President Johnson was behind husband's assassination
Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.

The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.

Texas-born Mr Johnson, who served as the state’s governor and senator, completed Mr Kennedy’s term and went on to be elected president in his own right.

The tapes were recorded with leading historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr within months of the assassination on November 22, 1963, and had been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

Get the full article at this link:


This is a general description of the theory that JFK's vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the assassination, taken from a Wikipedia article on the subject:
In 2003, researcher Barr McClellan published the book, Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K..[100] McClellan claims that Lyndon Johnson, motivated by the fear of being dropped from the Kennedy ticket in 1964 and the need to cover up various scandals, masterminded Kennedy's assassination with the help of his friend attorney Edwardo Clark. The book suggests that a smudged partial fingerprint from the sniper's nest likely belonged to Johnson's associate Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, and that Mac Wallace was therefore the assassin. The book further claims that the killing of Kennedy was paid for by oil magnates including Clint Murchison and H. L. Hunt. McClellan's book subsequently became the subject of an episode of Nigel Turner's ongoing documentary television series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. The episode, entitled "The Guilty Men", drew widespread condemnation from both the Johnson family and President Johnson's former aides following its airing on The History Channel, which subsequently agreed not to air the episode in the future.[101]

Madeleine D. Brown, who was an alleged mistress of Johnson, has also implicated him in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. In 1997, Brown alleged that Johnson, along with H. L. Hunt, had begun planning Kennedy's demise as early as 1960. Brown claimed that by its fruition in 1963 the conspiracy involved dozens of persons including the leadership of the FBI and the Mafia as well as well-known politicians and journalists.[102] In the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Brown and a former employee of Clint Murchison both placed J. Edgar Hoover and Johnson at a dinner at Murchison's mansion shortly before the assassination. Brown claimed in the documentary that Johnson told her after the party that the Kennedys "will never embarrass me again".[citation needed] Similar suspicions are voiced by a number of LBJ associates, including Brown, in their own words in the 2006 documentary Evidence of Revision.[citation needed]

Johnson was also accused of complicity in the assassination by former CIA agent and Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt.[103]

Another, more in-depth but incomplete article can be found at this link:


Below here are a few videos with descriptions related to the theory that LBJ was behind the assassination:
The night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again. It's a jaw-dropping deposition and it's the biggest JFK smoking gun there is - despite the fact that it has received little media attention.

You can see her full 82-minute interview here at this link:


E. Howard Hunt, infamous "Watergate Plumber," provides his "deathbed confession" of his participation in the CIA and "Group 40" conspiracy, and names names!

More video of Mr. Hunt are also available there at YouTube.
Referring to Nixon`s escalation of the bombing campaign in the Vietnam War. Relates anecdote of George E Christian LBJ`s Press Secretary remark about LBJ`s involvement in the JFK assassination. Taken from the famous David Frost interview.

These revelations are certainly stunning, and chilling enough in their own right, but I don't think most of what is talked about above really goes far enough to explain the true depth of the conspiracy or the motivations behind it. There have always been men in government, covetous of power and fame, yet we are not plagued with assassinations of our political leaders here in the U.S. Certainly not so literally and brazenly anyhow. Nonetheless, what we have seen in most of the material above might lead us to conclude that an American President was murdered simply because he had a disgruntled troll for a vice-President.

This is really not much more than a dressed up "lone gunman" theory again though. Even though others did assist and conspire in the operation, it was all ultimately to serve the appetite of one power-hungry politician. There is too though, attached to the LBJ-theory, the possibility that he acted in cahoots with a cabal of Texas oil men who were pissed off that JFK planned to raise their taxes.

That would certainly make for a thicker plot, a more mutually beneficial conspiracy of dark forces. Yet my gut tells me this still really doesn't go far enough. Now granted, money can be a motivating factor for men of business, but again we don't see Presidents being assassinated regularly because of tax policy. Even if not just for the benefit of one usurper, it still seems unlikely that a small group of businessmen would conspire to launch a coup d'etat of the the United States government as a tax-evasion plot. Such an act has much more far-reaching implications than saving on your tax bill for a few years until another President gets into office.

This is not to say that they too, like Johnson were not also perhaps involved to some extent and acting in their own interests, but what could actually be so big and so powerful to be the driving force behind a plot to kill a sitting American President? Maybe JFK himself can give us some insight. Several versions of this video are available on YouTube, but this is a shorter version to cut right to the chase here...

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." ~Patrick Henry

These secret societies that Kennedy spoke of are far more powerful, with plots far more sinister than tax evasion. These are the people who manage, or mismanage the destiny of nations from behind the scenes. These are the men who have the means and the will to assassinate an American President if he acts contrary to their designs.

"No matter who they vote for, they always vote for us." ~Illuminati Proverb

So we should then ask ourselves, okay, what secret society are we talking about here then? The CIA or an element within the CIA? Perhaps. The CIA certainly has blood on their hands from many plots and hold many secrets, and there are many who believe that elements within the Agency saw JFK as an actual threat to America through his hesitancy to act decisively against Castro. There was certainly a divergence of opinion between the Administration and the Agency on how to handle Cuba, but CIA are not quite a secret society either. They are a government agency, an instrument of policy, not the writers of it. Some see them as a government unto themselves, but that could be debated. It is more likely that if the CIA were involved in the assassination, as many believe, then it was probably a sort of "rogue" element within the agency, that may have fed on a general feeling of dissent in the agency toward a President who was weak on Communism. But could this rogue element have been operating all along on behalf of a more genuine secret society to whom they owed their true allegiance? Certainly possible even if we don't see it as probable at first glance.

So again, we are back to asking ourselves, what secret society? A remnant faction of Nazis left over from WWII perhaps? The popular dumbed-down version of history accepted by many folks today is the vastly oversimplified notion that the Nazis were vanquished and ceased to exist as an entity with the fall of Berlin. Of course, over the years there have been some Nazi war criminals hunted down in order to face justice for their atrocities against humanity during the war, but that is a far cry from any true enduring society and network of Nazi ideology. Scratch the surface a little deeper though, and you will learn that the only Nazis who were hunted down, were ones of little value or who failed to cultivate a relationship with either the Americans or the Soviets. So called "former" Nazis, even if still fascists in heart and mind, were quickly assimilated as valuable assets to American technological programs such as rocketry in the quest to reach outer-space, as well as intelligence operations to fight the Communists, ostensibly.
The most extreme theory traces the assassination to a group in the Defense Department that emerged around Werner von Braun and the Nazi rocket scientists the US military imported into the country illegally and against specific orders, and installed at Huntsville, Alabama at the end of WWII-the famous Operation Paperclip.

During the same period, the US government also absorbed a network of Nazi spies headed by Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen. "The Gehlen Org" (as it came to be called) worked within the US government to promote Nazi aims and to protect and resettle Nazis from Europe. In fact, the CIA was built around the Gehlen Org.

This theory postulates an incredible degree of fascist corruption within the US intelligence services. But one person who lends it plausibility is Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman District Attorney Jim Garrison tried for conspiracy in 1968 (and failed to convict). An exit poll of the Shaw jury indicated that Garrison lost his case because he was unable to prove that Shaw was connected to the CIA.

But the year Shaw died ( 1974), a book by a highly placed CIA defector, Victor Marchetti, revealed that the CIA helped Shaw in his legal struggle with Garrison. This may explain why the governors of three states refused to honor Garrison's subpoenas.

Shaw's New Orleans-based International Trade Mart was connected to the shadowy European firm, Permindex, which was kicked out of France in 1962 on suspicion of involvement in the attempted assassination of French president Charles de Gaulle. Permindex's board of directors included von Braun and many well-known European fascists. Some experts say Permindex was a front for the postwar international Nazi underground known as the Odessa.


Our sensibilities may reject the notion that the Nazis were still operating as a coherent entity and actually had anything at all to do with the JFK assassination, yet we do see their presence in our nation's most sensitive, most intimate operations. There is no reason to think that people bent on world domination and the destruction of America at one time, might not continue such an agenda with a plot to kill an American President. In the decades since then, an observant and objective student of American history might also discern the trend toward fascism in this country as well. Particularly in the last decade showing naked imperialistic aggression abroad, while locking down the "homeland" in a totalitarian police-state, making a mockery of the Constitution, the document which defines the true spirit of America.Without true respect for the principles of that document, we are the United States of America in name only.

“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 inevitably ruined... The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

Today we also see what may be the death-throes of a terminally flawed economic system. We are certainly suffering a great deal under it's yolk, more and more each year. There is much that Americans should, but do not know about the Federal Reserve System and our debt-based economy. In truth, it is a vampiric method by which to extract the wealth of the nation and to consolidate it within the hands of a few select elite families such as the Rothschilds, while enslaving the former owners of any natural wealth to shackles of perpetual debt. This is a matter of simple arithmetic actually, and the implementation of the method is a matter of documented history. This is not conspiracy-theory, this is fact, and it makes no difference if the government is controlled by Republicans or Democrats. The Federal Reserve is a private company whom we as a nation borrow our very own money from, at interest, since 1913. It's a plan that would piss off Jesus Christ himself, and did in fact, causing him to have his only documented violent outburst when he upset the tables of the money-changers at the Temple for the sin of usury.

How does this tie in with the assassination of JFK you ask? Actually, this is the basis of yet another established conspiracy theory behind why he was killed.  Five months before his fateful ride in Dallas, the President issued Executive Order 11110.
"...to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption..."

This was a direct assault on the monopoly of the private Federal Reserve Bank over the issuance of United States currency and their ability to maintain control over the nation through control of our debt. JFK planned to issue zero-interest currency of value, backed in a tangible commodity, rather than based on a system of debt and interest. The silver certificates virtually ensured that there would be no national debt and the bank would be cut out of enormous financial profits. The millions that the Texas oilmen stood to lose was a mere pittance compared to what the international banking cartel stood to lose not only monetarily, but also in form of raw political and military power as well. Through what is essentially blackmail, the banking cartel uses control of our debt in order to influence politics and to even use our military to do their bidding, whether it be to enforce their position in other countries where they already control central banks, or simply to expand their monetary empire with brute force. This was done in Iraq, and is being done now in Libya.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Is there any proof that the Federal Reserve Bank had anything to do with the assassination? Of course not, and there probably never will be. Especially now that the public is being sold on the idea that it was LBJ and pretty much LBJ alone who plotted to kill JFK. He may be the man most directly responsible for putting the plot in motion, but there is little doubt that he, like every President since Kennedy, was beholden to the hidden elites. Take note too of LBJ's timely demise, as pointed out in one of the articles linked above. A man who knew too much. Also note too, that no President since the assassination has dared to move in any way to undermine the Fed and indeed today seem more bent than ever on driving our economy right into the ground.While the Johnson may have had the most to gain from Kennedy's death, it was certainly the Federal Reserve Bank stood to lose the most if that administration were not stopped dead in it's tracks.

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men´s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” ~Woodrow Wilson

While we still may not have all the pieces to the puzzle, a clear picture begins now to emerge. We have an international banking cartel dominated by the Rothschild family, a dynasty begun in Germany of the mid-1700's. Within a few decades the Illuminati secret society, who some believe is the the most secretive and powerful secret society in the world, was also founded in Germany. Others maintain that the Illuminati was already extinguished by the time another now famous, yet highly secretive and mysterious secret society was founded at Yale University in the 1830's, amid a fervor of anti-Masonic/secret-society sentiment in the United States.

The The Order of Scull and Bones was established when one co-founder returned from studying in Germany. It was reputed to be a chapter of a corps in a German University when first established. This is supported by information gleaned after a break-in to the sinister "tomb," the society's meeting hall, in 1876. Today, the Skull and Bones counts many of the most powerful leaders in politics, finance, media and industry as having been initiated into their order. Again we see a Germanic influence in the affairs of the power-elite, but like we speculated about the Nazis above, Skull and Bones is also said to have a powerful influence over the U.S. intelligence community, particularly CIA. It is also interesting to note that Boneseman McGeorge Bundy served as national security adviser to both JFK and LBJ. According to the Wikipedia entry linked there, "He is known primarily for his role in escalating the involvement of the United States in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations." Which is of course was the big money, military-industrialist complex agenda that another former President tried to warn us about.

Perhaps it is coincidence too that elite secret society shares the same skull and bones symbology as that of pirate ships in days of old who flew the Jolly Roger, yet it would appear that in some ways they fancy themselves as pirates of sorts through their practice of  "crooking," or looting from graves the skulls of people such as Geronimo, Pancho Villa, and Martin Van Buren. Could they also be point-men in the plundering of the nation's wealth by the supremely powerful banking cartel? Another famous representation of the skull and bones symbology was that of Death's Head, having a tradition going back again to Prussia of the 1700's, then on up to become the prominent symbol of the dreaded Nazi SS, particularly the SS-Totenkopfverbände who were responsible for administrating the concentration camps of the Third Reich and "The Final Solution."

There is yet another curious piece to this puzzle, again one of Germanic influence. This time, bringing us back again to the Nazis. While Obama is incessantly questioned about where he was born, it appears that there was another President who may not have been born in the United States, but instead was born in Germany and then subsequently adopted into a prestigious American family just before the outbreak of WWII. A family convicted of wrongdoing under the Trading With the Enemy Act during the war. There is a photo allegedly of this President as a boy, taken in the company of Martin Bormann, Josef Mengele and Otto Skorzeny who's names are now ubiquitous with Germany's Nazi regime. Also in the picture, Reinhard Gehlen who we mentioned above for his ties to post-war intelligence agency establishment. The claim that an American President was actually what amounts to a Nazi sleeper agent, born in Germany with a different surname, comes from the deathbed confessions of Otto Skorzeny and is supported by the photograph. We will show you that photo in a moment, but first, let's tie it all up together here now in one nice, neat, little package.

This same alleged German who became President of the United States also went to college at Yale, is a Bonesman, worked for the CIA becoming director, and although he can't seem to remember where he was on the day JFK was assassinated, we have this picture to remind him...

This is a snippet of a document that shows Bush was in the employ of the CIA at the time of the assassination. He denies this, claiming that he only ever worked for the CIA when appointed director:

The full memo is included in an article on the subject found at this link:


This memo proves that Bush was in Texas the day Kennedy was killed:

That memo can be found included in another article on the matter at this link:


And, as promised, here is the picture of what is believed to be George H.W. Bush as a boy, the year before Hitler invaded Poland launching WWII, and when the future American President was still known as George H. Scherff:

Deathbed confessions, photos support claims that George H. Scherf(f), Jr., was the 41st U.S. president

The Revelations of Otto Skorzeny, Part 1

The Revelations of Otto Skorzeny, Part 2

We also know that the Bush family, whether they were actually his blood kin or not, were involved with the the financial architects of the Nazi Party, and that they continued to do business with them even after Pearl Harbor.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor

Considering that the family played a key role in the financial architecture of one country, Nazi Germany, it is no stretch of the imagination to guess that they may also play a key role in the financial architecture of this country, which we have already shown to be little more than a plundering of the nation's wealth by a few powerful elite.

While we are at it, we might as well go ahead and point out too, that there are some serious coincidences that many believe show Bush was behind the attempted assassination of yet another President, this time while he himself was vice-President. Was he a conspirator in the JFK assassination, who then went on to try to do what LBJ had done, perhaps at the behest of the very same secret overlords? Was the attempt on his life enough to stop Reagan from making a challenge to the power of those hidden elites in some way?

"Bush Son Had Dinner Plans With Hinckley Brother Before Shooting" -Associated Press (March 31, 1981)

We know that Bush went on to become President anyway, followed then by Bush family friend Bill Clinton, and then later by Bush's son George W., who ushered in a new era of Nazi-esqe policy. Starting with the 9/11 attacks that have drawn comparisons to Hitler's staged Reichstag fire, to the trampling of liberty and freedom at home while practicing military imperialism abroad, to the use of terms like "homeland" and propagandized patriotism, the rapid and unprecedented expansion of domestic spying and national police agencies. Many of these programs continue to be expanded now too under President Obama, while the people are placated by rhetoric.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

Has America become fascist? The 14 defining characteristics of fascism

Is this the true legacy of the JFK assassination? Was this the actual agenda envisioned by the highest-level conspirators when they set a selfish and power-hungry vice-President on his task? Was the assassination indeed a coup d'etat which opened the door for all this to happen, letting in the wolves of fascism. the looting of our nation's wealth? Was all of this what Kennedy intended to prevent, with his undermining of the Fed? Was this what he warned about in his enigmatic speech about secret societies? And if they got away with this, for all this time, what chance do we have now of ever changing the consequences of that fateful day in Dealy Plaza?

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future." ~Adolf Hitler

July 9, 2011

An open debate on Caylee's Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And check out some of our previous coverage on the subject:

Caylee's Law - Do we need one?

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

Is Casey the poster-child of modern feminism?

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

Caylee's Law - Do we need one?

In the wake of the acquittal of Casey Anthony on the charge that she had murdered her daughter Caylee, there has been much public outrage and a call for new laws that might have been applicable in this case, in the hopes of "preventing" something like this from happening in the future. Online petitions and Facebook groups supporting a "Caylee's Law" are abuzz with activity, but the proposals are vague and seem more to be aimed at assuaging the public's anger over the trial's outcome rather than enacting a practical code of justice.

Let us begin by looking at the fact that Casey did not get off entirely. There are already laws on the books that were and may have been applied. She served three years in jail for the four misdemeanors she was convicted of, for lying to police. A rather lengthy sentence in fact for non-felonious offenses. Child abandonment, obstruction, and perhaps even criminal facilitation might also have been charges which convictions against her might have been secured. Under Federal law she may have been charged with misprision.

§ 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Now another three years may not be enough to satisfy the bloodlust of an outraged public, but frankly, no law really will change that. The public feel "cheated" out of a murder conviction, despite the fact that the prosecution failed to make their case. Much reasonable doubt exists that Casey was actually the person who took her daughter's life. It seems pretty clear that she knew her daughter had been killed, took steps to cover up the crime even, but there is no proof at all that she was the actual killer. For all we know it could have been a boyfriend or acquaintance, a babysitter, another family member even, we really don't know. It is easy to assume things, but convictions are not won on assumptions and guesswork, nor should they be, lest we all find ourselves behind bars on mere accusations of wrongdoing.

Now let's go ahead and look at what exactly is being proposed. The petition letter from Change.org reads as follows:

Create Caylee's Law, Not Reporting Child's Disappearance Should Be a Felony


On July 5, 2011, at 1:15 pm CST, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first degree murder in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. The only charges she now faces are four counts of falsifying police reports, each of which only carries a 1 year prison term. Since she has been in jail since August 2008, she will be out of jail ENTIRELY too soon.

I'm writing to propose that a new law be put into effect making it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours, so proper steps can be taken to find that child before it's too late.

This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts, and no more innocent children will have to go without justice.

The case of Caylee Anthony was tragic, and there is no reason for another case like this one to hit the courts. Let's do what is necessary to prevent another case like this from happening.

[Your name]

As is so often the case with these boutique laws, they seem to make sense at first glance. It seems pretty reasonable to expect a parent to report that their child has gone missing. But why, exactly, should not doing so be a felony? Why should I be of the opinion that Casey Anthony is getting out of prison  "ENTIRELY too soon?" It seems to me that the phrase was authored on the basis of emotional appeal rather than sound logic. It was written in anger, not written as a practical observation.

Keep in mind here too that low-level felonies only carry sentences of a few years themselves. Even if such a law were enacted, Casey Anthony may still be getting out of prison after serving only a few years, sentenced to time-served while awaiting trial. Especially considering the fact that misdemeanor offenses rarely are met with a sentence of incarceration at all much less 3 years in prison.

So what level of felony is actually being proposed here? Is the author suggesting that failure to report a child missing be tantamount to murder? That a parent found guilty under this proposed law face a sentence on the order of 25-to-life perhaps? The knee-jerk response that I can hear already by some readers of this article is "absolutely! Casey Anthony should do life in prison for not reporting her child missing!"

But this proposed law is not about Casey Anthony. She will never be charged under such a law. That opportunity is passed. So we are left with contemplating how such a law will be applied in the future. Now let us imagine for a moment that you are a single-mother, working two jobs, and your teenage child often goes to stay at friends houses. You come home from work to find the apartment empty, as is often the case, and after a meal and some sleep you head back out to work early the next morning. That night you come home to be greeted by police with the most terrible news a parent could ever imagine. That your child has been found dead. Oh, and by the way, the time of death has been placed at 30 hours ago, and you are now under arrest facing life in prison for failing to report that your child was missing.

We could also suppose that perhaps the child bounces back and forth between the homes of a divorced mother and father regularly. Maybe both parents live in the same area and the child goes back and forth using their bicycle or public transportation, or just takes whichever school bus they feel like taking at the end of a school day. For a short period of time, 24 even 48 hours perhaps, both working parents assume the child is with the other parent, only to find that their child has been found dead somewhere. In a case like that, who gets charged? Both parents?

And what about cases where the parent claims to have left the child with a babysitter, as Casey Anthony claimed in this case? What if it cannot be proven who was actually in charge of the child at the time of the disappearance and thereby subject to the new proposed law requiring that a missing child be reported? Are both the parent and the babysitter charged then in such a case?

Now these are just a few examples that immediately come to mind. In time, we would see many more unforeseen examples arise of how such a law would actually be a miscarriage of justice. After all, the law is the law, and does not differentiate between people who break the law with good reason or not. It will be applied to all parents, not just in cases like this one.

Then of course too, we should also consider cases of missing persons and unreported deaths other than children. In a sense, this proposed law does not even go far enough. Why should only children be protected by such a law, with a parent/guardian be held accountable for this perceived negligent indifference? Shouldn't a husband who fails to report his wife missing and/or dead also be held accountable? Or even a roommate perhaps? And then of course where does one actually draw the line? Could not then an employer be held accountable for failing to tell police when an employee doesn't call or show up to work for days?

So this proposed law actually falls short of the reaching the moral high-ground the petitioners think they are taking, while displaying a lack of logic and blatant emotional appeal.

This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts, and no more innocent children will have to go without justice.

No law ever prevented a crime, and this proposed law will not stop children from being killed. Even if this law were on the books now, and Casey Anthony could be charged under such a statute, it still would not be justice for Caylee for one big, glaring, obvious reason. Her killer is still at large. To say otherwise is to assume that Casey is indeed the killer and this law is simply an end-run around justice in order to imprison her anyway even though she was exonerated of the murder charge. Laws are not there as a box of tricks in order to lock up anyone we feel like. It is not the job of the People's prosecutor to sit there and say, "Well, if we don't get the person for this crime, we have a few more crimes we can get them on instead and make sure they wind up in prison no matter what."

If we are going to go down that road, why not just throw out the Constitution entirely and throw everyone in prison who doesn't look right, or who we think "deserve" to be in prison.

Which of course now brings us to the Constitutionality of such a proposed law. The Fifth Amendment protects us from self-incrimination, and not for the reasons you may think. This right is not to protect the guilty, it is there to protect the innocent. Specifically, to protect us from threats and coercion to gain a confession to, or evidence of a crime. You throw away the protections against self-incrimination, you open the door to false confessions and torture.

SELF-INCRIMINATION: Acts or declarations either as testimony at trial or prior to trial by which one implicates himself in a crime. The Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. as well as provisions in many state constitutions and laws, prohibit the government from requiring a person to be a witness against himself involuntarily or to furnish evidence against himself.

SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself which will subject him or her to an incrimination. This right under the Fifth Amendment (often called simply PLEADING THE FIFTH) is now applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 378 U.S. 1,8, and is applicable in any situation, civil or criminal where the state attempts to compel incriminating testimony.

~Black's Law Dictionary

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.

So now we see, that what appeared to be reasonable proposal, a good idea, actually is not. So many people have said, "I can't believe this isn't already a law." Well, folks, now we know why it isn't. Because emotional appeal, knee-jerk reactions, and flawed logic should never be the basis of law. The passage of such a law would actually be contrary to liberty as prescribed by our Constitution, and another stride deeper into the fascist trend of this nation's recent history.

"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."  -Adolf Hitler

EDITOR'S NOTE: A poll for this topic has been attached to the bottom of this site. Feel free to leave comments as well, of course. 

Join the "Say No to Caylee's Law"  page on Facebook

June 23, 2011

Social programming on cigarette packs not what you think

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

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

New Labels on Cigarette Packs to Prevent Smoking

Graphic new warnings coming to cigarette packs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 21, 2011

SCOTUS overturns conviction of woman who caused chemical burns



No. 09–1227. Argued February 22, 2011—Decided June 16, 2011

When petitioner Bond discovered that her close friend was pregnant by Bond’s husband, she began harassing the woman. The woman suffered a minor burn after Bond put caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch. Bond was indicted for violating 18 U. S. C. §229, which forbids knowing possession or use, for non-peaceful purposes, of a chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans,” §§229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8), and which is part of a federal Act implementing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States. The District Court denied Bond’s motion to dismiss the §229 charges on the ground that the statute exceeded Congress’ constitutional authority to enact. She entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the ruling on the statute’s validity. She did just that, renewing her Tenth Amendment claim. The Third Circuit, however, accepted the Government’s position that she lacked standing. The Government has since changed its view on Bond’s standing.
Held: Bond has standing to challenge the federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States.

The full pdf format decision is available at link:


While at first glance this may seem like a win for criminals, it actually upholds the Constitution, contrary to current trend where our liberty has been chipped away and reduced to the point that our rights are barely worth the paper they were printed on.

  • Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This case is hardly the sort of case one might expect to make it to the Supreme Court of the Unites States. Then again, it hardly seems like the sort of case police would make a Federal case in the first place and I am sure her attorney was no Public Defender either.

What we are left with is a case that highlights the way police and prosecutors like to do business. There is a law for everything. If you attract the ire of the system they will come down on you like a ton of bricks with a bunch of shit you never heard of.

Now as we read, this is a case of a wife seeking against her former friend and husband's lover, by leaving caustic chemicals strategically placed where her victim was likely to come in contact and be burned. Now on the one hand, we might say good for the wife. No one likes a home-wrecker anyway. On the other hand of course, the wife might have been a bitch in the first place, and either way, we as a society certainly can't tolerate people running around and inflicting chemical burns on other people no matter what their reason.

Nevertheless, this ruling has overturned her conviction and sets the precedent that no other Americans will be able to be convicted on 18 U. S. C. §229 either, at least not under any similar circumstances anyway. Does that mean it is legal now to run around giving people chemical burns? I doubt it. I am sure there are plenty of other laws on the books that they could pull out in order to throw a person in prison for doing just what she did. So then of course, that begs the question, why did the original prosecutor choose to charge her under a law that was created in order to make the United States compliant with an international treaty to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons?

18 U.S.C. § 229 : US Code - Section 229: Prohibited activities

(a) Unlawful Conduct. - Except as provided in subsection (b), it
shall be unlawful for any person knowingly -
(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly
or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use,
or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or
(2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate
paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph

Why did he make a Federal case out of something that would otherwise be considered run-of-the-mill crime? Were the prosecutors really at that much of a loss to find a law they could prosecute her under? Maybe stretching, looking for a stiffer penalty because the laws they had to work with didn't satisfy their own bloodlust? Perhaps. I did not follow the case from the start and don't know many of the details, but it seems to me there might have been something a little deeper.

Was this a test-case of sorts, to test the viability of charging citizens with what amounts to terrorism for generic criminal acts? Were they trying to make it an act of international terrorism to use common household chemicals for anything other than their "intended" purpose? Were they trying to establish a precedent that would make a potential terrorist of every American who keeps a bottle of bleach and ammonia under the kitchen sink? Sounds a little far-fetched maybe, a bit of a stretch? Maybe about as much as charging this woman under Federal an international chemical weapons laws in the first place.

And let is keep in mind here too, the country we live in today. A country where our Constitutional liberty is undermined at every turn. A country where average Americans are treated like criminals and little children strip-searched when they travel. Where dangerous chemicals are being deliberately pumped into our food, our water, our neighborhoods, our bodies.  Where the President can assassinate Americans without any oversight whatsoever, no warrant, no trial. Where any American labeled a terrorist can be held indefinitely, without trial, without counsel, and without any evidence under the supra-constitutional Patriot Act.

Of course, this ruling is a small victory for liberty, butI am suspicious. Why "they" did not choose to make a stand here too? Guess it just wasn't part of the agenda for the time-being. It seems that for the time being the war on the Constitution may be more limited to a few other Amendments. "Choose your battles" sort of logic I suppose. Or better yet, maybe this ruling was in the interests of more powerful factions than one pissed off housewife.

June 7, 2011

Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

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

Cost effectiveness

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

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

Cronyism, Politics for Profit

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ineffectiveness of drug testing, and substance bias

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

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

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

Stigmatizing the poor

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

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

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



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

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

Forcing the hand is illogical

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

"To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not." ~Thomas Paine

"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

Join the new Facebook page at this LINK.


The numbers are in. 2% of Floridians applying for emergency assistance tested positive for drugs. Another 2% refused to take the test. So how does that pan out in dollars? What is the taxpayer "saving" with this program?

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year...

...The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings.

Full article at: Tampa Bay Online

"First they came..."

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

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

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

When they locked up the uncurables,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not sick.

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.

Popular Posts

I may be contacted at my email address marselus.vanwagner@gmail.com