Murder Charge in Zimmerman/Martin Case

Once again our justice system shows what a failure it is to render justice. Whether or not you personally believe that George Zimmerman is criminally responsible for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, it has become clear now that our government is a complete failure when it comes to bringing justice to the people in a Constitutional manner as prescribed by the Founding Fathers of this nation. We also see the wickedness of corporate news and mainstream social media when it comes to fabrication of lies and inflaming a genuine tragedy.

A charge of Murder in the Second Degree has been brought against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The charge has been filed at the sole discretion of special prosecutor Angela Corey, rather than trough the findings of a grand-jury indictment. Such a maneuver is allowed under Florida law, but it certainly does not instill one with any faith in the objectivity of the prosecutor despite her claim that they "...do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition."

Quite obviously she is, well, mistaken we'll call it. If it were not for public pressure or petition, she would not have even been assigned to this case to begin with. The police investigation failed to uncover enough evidence to support even a charge of manslaughter, much less the much more serious charge of murder. The police had originally recommended to the local prosecutor that the neighborhood-watch captain be charged with manslaughter, despite the fact that the physical evidence and witness statements corroborated his claim of self-defense. So what new evidence has this special prosecutor uncovered that the police and local district attorney did not? Obviously she is not saying now, but instead stated, "That's why we try cases in court." Frankly, that much I do agree with too. It's a travesty that this case has been tried in the media already from the start. Given the amount of lies spun about this case and pressure to lynch the shooter at this point, it is hard to imagine that there is even much hope for a fair trial at all at this point. Which of course goes right back to why this matter is being handled by a special prosecutor in the first place.

She claims that she has enough evidence to not only prove that Zimmerman should have known better than to shoot Martin, but that he was in fact cognizant that doing so would be a crime. That he did not just act in a negligent manner which caused the teen's death, but that he willfully and intentionally killed the boy knowing unambiguously that what he was doing was wrong. That he flat out lied about defending himself and killed the teen in cold blood, on a whim, without any planning or forethought. If such evidence is to be believed, then we must also accept that the local police and prosecutor are woefully inept at their jobs at the very least, or that they intentionally dismissed the facts of the case in a corrupt, even criminal manner. Can we expect this special prosecutor to follow up this investigation to hold these public officials accountable? Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I doubt it.

So that is where we wind up at this point. Either the local officials are incompetent to a point bordering on criminality, or this prosecution is indeed the product of a witch-hunt rooted in political pressure, media lies, public-mob frenzy, and racism.

Also check out:

Arbitrary Arrests and the Rule of Law

As a footnote here, I would also like to point out how the media is still intentionally slanting this story in a manner so as to portray Zimmerman as the villain. An article by the Associated Press reads in part...

"A video taken about 40 minutes after the shooting as Zimmerman arrived at the Sanford police station showed him walking unassisted without difficulty. There were no plainly visible bandages or blood on his clothing, but Zimmerman may have had a small wound on the back of his head."

Okay, so he was walking unassisted. What difference does that make? He never claimed to have broken legs. Without difficulty? How is the media able to determine what Zimmerman's level of pain or pain management might have been, from a few seconds of police station surveillance video? No plainly visible blood or bandages on his clothing, okay, that doesn't prove anything either. Just because the camera didn't capture it, doesn't mean it wasn't there, or that he wasn't attacked. Is one obligated to be bleeding profusely with broken bones before they may invoke their right to defend themselves against a violent attacker? Not in my book, and certainly not under Florida law. But finally, when this article tells us that Zimmerman "may" have had an injury to the back of his head, we can plainly see the disingenuous nature of the article. The original, unaltered video CLEARLY shows an injury to the back of his head consistent with his claim that his head was being beaten into the sidewalk. This AP article also leaves out, conveniently enough, the fact that Zimmerman also had a broken nose, and that all of his injuries were documented by both police and doctors, and that those injuries were consistent with his statement.

By pointing out the obvious media slant here, it is not my intention at all to lead you, the reader, to conclude that Zimmerman is in fact innocent of any crime. He might very well be guilty of killing that boy in a criminal manner. Indeed I do have my own suspicions, but they are not based on spin. My intent here though is to show how you are being lied to by the corporate press, and that so far, there is no real evidence which has come to light that would substantiate any criminal charges against the shooter. It sets a very dangerous precedent to give propaganda and rhetoric a priority over facts and the presumption of innocence through due-process. The tragedy of that boy's death will never be mitigated through an erroneous placement of blame or an emotional appeal to vengeance.

For more on how the media has butchered this tragedy, check out this article:

Trayvon Martin Shooting Death Propaganda Machine

Trayvon Martin Shooting Death Propaganda Machine

This piece was originally presented at Hudson Valley Forums and is used by permission of the author.

I happen to be the sort who is always up for a good debate on just about any subject. I consider myself to be a pretty logical person and adept at cutting through the proverbial BS, especially when it comes to the garbage the mainstream media cranks out. So it's no surprise to those that know me, that I might jump into a conversation or two regarding the case and media story of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

What I find most shocking though, downright alarming even, is that I have now lost SIX friends over this story. For my simply daring to question the media version, and suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, the EVIDENCE in the case should be considered before jumping on the lynch-mob bandwagon for vigilante justice against the shooter.

The perverse hold that the propaganda machine has over America is apparent, more and more each day as we see stories like this sow division between friends. Now keep in mind here, that I have nothing to gain personally from discussing the case, and to my knowledge none of my friends have any direct relation to the case either. So basically, I have lost 6 friends simply because they were deluded by a media frenzy.

In a more logical world, friends are able to debate any issue, even with great zeal and passion, but still remain friends no matter what the outcome of the debate. After all, how boring would friendships be if we were all drones who knew all of the same things, and agreed on everything. Examining different points of view is how each of us learns new things, to broaden our horizons, but to tell a friend that you will or will not be friends with them based upon their opinion of a shooting that happened on the other side of the country is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it's worse than that. It is symptomatic of the death grip that the media and the-powers-that-be have over the thought processes of society at large, and how easily manipulated the people truly are in order to sell out their friendships for media propaganda and falsehoods. If they will sell out their friends to be "politically correct" they will have no problem selling out our rights either. And that, I believe, is what really rests at the center of this case, just like the Casey/Caylee Anthony case, just like the debate surrounding drug testing of welfare recipients. These issues are in the news and spread across social media in order to soften up society, and leave the masses DEMANDING that the government take away our rights.

So what really is my opinion about this case anyway? Perhaps you are reading this, wondering if my friends might have been justified to turn their back on me. Maybe I am ignorant, or a bigot, unfit to share their company or a spot on their Facebook wall. Well, I'll go ahead and add this supplemental here to articulate what my thoughts on the matter really are.


TRAYVON MARTIN SHOOTING STORY, SORTING FACT FROM FICTION

One of the first thoughts that crossed my mind when I first heard of the Trayvon Martin shooting, was to question why this particular case was suddenly garnering national attention. Skimming the backwaters of niche-blogs and alternative news sources I see horrendous injustices committed each and every day, but society is generally content to rabble along blissfully unaware of how bad things have really gotten in this country. Whether it be issues of poverty, violence, corruption, the systematic dismantling of the last vestiges of our precious Constitution, society at large is too busy watching American Idol to be bothered. So why now, why this case, and not cases like the BART shooting where the officer got off with a slap on the wrist?

Why not any of these cases...

Injustice Everywhere

...or the untold number of cases that are routinely swept under the rug every single day in this country? There is an agenda being carried out here, that has little to do with the death of a young black man on a street in Florida. Whatever the agenda actually is, we may not see yet for some time, or until after it is too late judging by how easily manipulated people have been by this story.

So let's look at the case itself now. A sanctioned neighborhood watchman (George Zimmerman) reports what he believes to be a suspicious person (Treyvon Martin) to police. The watchman has been credited by the homeowner association with catching a thief on one occasion, in this same gated community where police get roughly 400 calls per year, a substantial portion of those reports coming from watchman Zimmerman. In the year before this incident, the neighborhood had seen eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting.

This is the audio recording of the conversation between Zimmerman and police, which details his observations...

Zimmerman call to police

It is important to note here, that Martin had every right to be in the neighborhood visiting his father. He also had every right to walk slowly in the rain if he so chose to, and to peer at other houses in the neighborhood as he is said to have been doing, returning from the local store with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced-tea. Equally important to recognize though, is Zimmerman's right, and even his responsibility as neighborhood watch captain, to report anything out of the ordinary and to observe the activities of suspicious persons. At that point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing that Martin had a legitimate reason to be in the neighborhood, which is of course why he called police to investigate further.

Keep in mind here too, that suspicion has nothing to do with guilt. Which is why we don't allow lynch-mob justice in America in the first place. Anything out of the ordinary can be cause for further inquiry, but that does not necessarily mean that there is in fact any sort of criminal activity happening. Hundreds of thousands of times each day on the streets of America, police stop random people demanding I.D., demanding to know where the citizen is going or coming from, and so forth. This instance is hardly any different, except for the fact that in a private community such a stop would be even more justified legally. Whereas Americans enjoy the right to walk down any street they so choose to, that right does not extend to within the gates of private communities or other private property. On such property a person can be stopped and questioned at any time to verify that they have not trespassed, and have legitimate business within the secured area.

If police had arrived before the confrontation occurred, they would have verified that Martin was in the neighborhood as a legitimate resident, or by the invitation of a resident, and that would have been the end of the story. Sadly of course, that was not the end of the story though, this time. Zimmerman is "accused" of following Martin, thereby "provoking" the confrontation and being left with the blame. This "following" seems to be the major sticking point in discussions on the matter, so let's take the time to look very closely at it.

As watch captain Zimmerman had every right and indeed a duty to observe suspicious persons. He also has every right, as a citizen and resident of the private community, to move about freely on those streets as he so chooses. The same right that Martin had to walk in the rain wearing a hoodie and eating Skittles. There are some who contend that somehow Zimmerman no longer had the right to perform his duty, or to move about freely in his own neighborhood, simply because the police told him not to. The truth is though, that the police did not make any such order, and he would not have been obligated to obey such an unlawful order if they had.

Nonetheless, we can also discern from the Zimmerman cellphone call to police, that this "following" of Martin was not so clear cut as some, even the media, might lead us to believe. To begin with, we hear that it was actually Martin who first approached Zimmermann, making what could be construed as a threatening gesture, reaching into his waistband. (For the layman reading this, such a gesture is a sign that the person is armed and considering shooting someone.) He also did not appear afraid, as he chose to talk on his phone with his girlfriend, rather than call police to report that someone was following him, according to her statement.

When Martin took off running, Zimmerman did pursue him momentarily, until police told him, "We don't need you to do that," at which point he broke off his pursuit and told the dispatcher that he had lost sight of Martin. So even though police could not legally order him to stop, he did in fact obey the suggestion before the phone call comes to an end. What happened after that is questionable, but there is some evidence nonetheless.

In the Wikipedia article there are multiple audio recordings of 911 calls. On one of those recordings we can clearly hear a struggle, someone screaming for help, and a single gunshot at which point the hollering ceases. It is not immediately discernible who was actually screaming for help, though I expect that a forensic sound investigation might be able to rule out Zimmerman if it was not him, as he has claimed it is. We also have an eyewitness who supports that claim, and also states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman overpowering him and pummeling him.

Other witness statements have been made as well, but could be considered unreliable. One teen eyewitness who supported Zimmerman's account, his mother has since claimed that police coerced her son to give certain details. Other witnesses only heard the events. And still other witnesses made statements that are dis-proven by the audio recordings, but which are still broadcast in the media as truthful.

Quote:Witness Mary Cutcher and her roommate appeared on AC 360 and stated that she believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting...

Clearly, that is disproved by listening to the struggle ensue on the recordings, along with other witness statements. With the exception of the one eyewitness, the rest of the statements are a wash for the most part, and don't really tell us much about what actually happened. There is some physical evidence too though. The injuries that Zimmerman suffered, as documented by doctors, were consistent with his account and that of the only reliable witness.

So all in all, we see that there is some practical evidence here to support Zimmerman's contention that he is the one who was actually attacked, and that ultimately he shot Martin in self-defense for fear of his own life. The evidence certainly does not prove that of course, but it doesn't have to either. Let's not forget that it is not up to someone to prove their innocence, it is up to the police and "the people" to prove a person guilty of a crime. Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of liberty and our entire justice system. We see here, that while we have some evidence to support Zimmerman's account that he acted in self-defense, we have no reliable evidence at all to refute his claim or to support a criminal charge in relation to the homicide. No one is disputing who killed Martin, but there is no substantial evidence to show that he was killed in a criminal manner. Homicide does not always equal murder, or even manslaughter.

There are those in the media and among the rabble who cry foul when it comes to the investigation itself, claiming that there isn't enough evidence because it was not properly investigated, but there is really no evidence of that either. They claim that Zimmerman was never arrested and essentially that the death was not investigated. The facts do not support those claims though. Zimmerman was in fact arrested on the night of the shooting, and interrogated. Without sufficient evidence to hold him or charge him, police were forced to release him. The police went to the state attorney seeking a warrant to re-arrest and charge Zimmerman, but the state attorney found insufficient evidence to support the recommended charge.

Did George Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin in cold-blood or through criminal negligence? We may never know, but one thing we do know is that in a free country, where citizens enjoy rights and due-process, a person has to be proved guilty of a crime, no matter what the tide of public opinion and a vigilante mob may be. After all, anything less would actually justify Zimmerman himself acting as a vigilante as his detractors contend.

Which now brings us to the insanity of the Trayvon Martin supporters. Here they are seeking vigilante justice, looking to literally murder Zimmerman in many instances, for allegedly doing precisely what they clearly state they fully intend to do to him now. We also have the media, other organizations, and even celebrities fanning the flames of racism and literally putting the lives of innocent people at risk in a quest for misplaced vengeance. There are numerous examples of media bias, from the photos of Zimmerman and Martin, to this excerpt is taken from the Wikipedia article on the matter:

Quote:NBC was accused of selectively editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist. NBC played a recording of Zimmerman saying, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." However, in the original 911 tape, Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about." Then the 911 operator asked, "Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?" Then Zimmerman answered, "He looks black." Sean Hannity said of this editing, "They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?" Brent Bozell said, "This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News."

Quite obviously a deliberate attempt to smear Zimmerman as a racist.

Then we see things like this:



Trayvon Martin's family is said to hold the trademark to that design as well as several other designs and slogans of support for "justice" in the case. I wonder how well it would go over if someone trademarked a shirt that said "FA*GOT @SS N*GGER" with a picture of, I dunno, OJ Simpson maybe?

The race-baiting is sickening, and really I didn't even want to talk about it, but sadly it has become a serious element of this story now, despite the fact that Zimmerman is Latino. Somehow the white community as a whole is being blamed for the death of a young man who might very well have been killed for attacking another man, in a situation that had nothing to do with racism from the start, until the vigilante movement got behind this story. Any teenager in a hoodie, wandering around in the rain and acting oddly might be considered suspicious no matter what their race. In fact, Zimmermann wasn't even entirely sure that Martin was black when he first called police, as we heard in the recording.




Now we have the New Black Panther party putting out a bounty on Zimmerman's head for a million dollars. Frankly, I don't even understand how this statement isn't considered criminal in and of itself. What do they plan to do with him if they were to "capture" him? If the KKK came out on national news declaring a million-dollar reward for the capture of someone, they would be shut down as a terrorist organization bent on circumventing the government, sanctioning kidnapping, and inciting murder, or something along those lines, and rightly so. At the very least, even single person who donates money to the Panthers at this point should be considered to be facilitating a criminal terrorist enterprise. Check it out:




The spokesman there seems to conveniently forget that more than 90% of blacks murdered, are killed by other blacks. This is the sort of ignorance that seems to be fueling the outrage over this shooting. So if anyone really wants to go there about what race is more violent, there ya go. Now don't get me wrong, I don't really believe that race has anything to do with it, but I am not the one claiming that race has anything to do with what happened out there that night either.

Outside of blatant racism by Trayvon Martin supporters and the media inciting racial tensions, we also have the dangerous ignorance of would-be vigilante's such as black filmmaker Spike Lee to contend with. Lee Tweeted an address he believed to be Zimmerman's, but turned out to actually be that of an elderly couple with a son who has a similar name but is of no relation to the shooter. The couple were forced to flee their home after being inundated with threats, hate mail, and unwanted visits to their home. Lee subsequently apologized, signing off a new tweet with "justice in court" but clearly this was not what he had in mind when he first put that address out there to millions of fans. This sort of thing could have easily gotten innocent people hurt or killed given the volatility of the issue now.

So all in all, we can see that much of what the public believes about this case, is rooted in ignorance and lies. The end result? Another resounding success for the-powers-that-be to sow division and hatred among the people, so that we are powerless to stand against the real corruption in this country. Ignorance is perpetuated and public consciousness molded like the mind of a child, as we suffer a mass Stockholm Syndrome. We are now likely to see more oppressive knee-jerk reactionary legislation enacted with which to strip away our rights no matter what our skin tone is, as a result of the all of this, while society shuffles along blissfully unaware of how they have just been duped again and left wondering why this country is so screwed up.

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?

Rights.

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:




.

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.

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:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023418/Jackie-O-tapes-reveal-JFKs-affairs-believed-death.html

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:

http://www.reformation.org/president-lyndon-johnson.html

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:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1929769365635576415

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.

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5422594626052366128

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:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm

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:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

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

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