Remember 9/11, remember Building 7



I do a lot of work on this site just about every day, and as you can see it is not a paid subscription service. I have no intentions of making it a paid service either, I enjoy what I do. However, donations would be greatly appreciated. I have added a Pay-Pal DONATION button to the toolbar on the left.

If you like an editorial I have written, please consider making a small contribution to say thanks. If you hate an editorial I have written and think I'm a jack-hole, but still like the site in general and want to help it keep moving, please consider a donation to the effort. If you are comfortably well-off and would like to help a bankrupt guy down on his luck and trying to put his car back on the road, you might consider a slightly larger donation.

Any donation over $50 will qualify you for my own personal autograph on genuine loose-leaf paper. Send email for details.

And a genuine thanks folks, for visiting Station.6.Underground.


NYPD thugs: 'We're in charge here'

Well, at least they are being culturally diverse about it. Please forgive me as I stereotype here a little. In this video, you will see a vanload of NYPD police officers stop and interrogate a white dude who went to Princeton for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk. In the background, you will hear a black man, make a joke to the white man on the bicycle about being stopped for riding his bicycle on an empty sidewalk.

They exchange friendly jests for a moment, when suddenly a Jay-Z lookin' cop motherfucker steps out of the van with a Sista and a Polanski. The lead officer proceeds to demand I.D. from the pedestrian who, by law, is under no obligation to furnish any such I.D.

As more cops swarm in to affect an arrest, you will see a chubby Carlos Mencia looking dude come up behind the "suspect" as the more Hebrew-looking officer announces, "We're in charge here" and snaps the cuffs on.

Meanwhile, in true NY fashion, a twisted out crack-head comes stumbling down the block with a "Ey, wass goin' on here?" limp-legged approach. And of course, cops don't do anything about the hard narcotics user, but finish their arrest of a man who did absolutely nothing wrong.

This is a TRUE image of life in NY folks:

Meanwhile, Florida is all set to start starving people to death for using drugs...



Good cop, bad cop? Police shooting caught on tape, but there's more...

From the video I can't say for sure if the shooting was justified or not. It would appear so, given that the man who was shot dead by police was wanted, and allegedly struck an officer using his car as a deadly weapon as he slammed his way through traffic in true GTA fashion. (Perhaps time will tell if it was in fact a justified shooting though, considering that being an alleged criminal does not necessarily justify a death sentence.) What is more apparently disturbing about this case though right off the bat, is that the police were ready to shoot an innocent bystander who happened to capture that fatal shooting on his cellphone camera. Which of course leaves one wondering, if the police themselves were actually convinced that their fatal shooting was justified.

Another angle from youtube, shot be another person above the scene:

An eyewitness to a fatal police shooting in Miami Beach last week claims police officers attempted to confiscate the video he filmed of the incident, and even crushed his phone underfoot in an attempt to destroy the recording.

Narces Benoit says he just happened to be in the area driving with his girlfriend when police fatally shot an erratic driver early Memorial Day morning.

He said after the disturbance started, he pulled over his truck, and started recording with his cell phone camera capturing the shooting.

"When he noticed me recording, one of the officers jumped in the truck, put a pistol to my head," he said. "My phone was smashed - he stepped on it, handcuffed me."

Story continues at link:


Taking down terrorists

A friend of mine just send me this graphic from Business Insider. thought it was pretty cool, so I decided to share...

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:

Drug Testing, Give Me One Good Reason

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.


Seattle police officer pleads not guilty to assault charge

James J. Lee, the Seattle police officer charged with fourth-degree assault after repeatedly kicking a teenage suspect inside a convenience store, pleaded not guilty Monday morning during his arraignment in Seattle Municipal Court.

The City Attorney's Office asked Municipal Court Judge Michael Hurtado to forbid Lee from possessing personal firearms when off-duty. Hurtado denied the motion and only ordered Lee to follow Police Department policies regarding personal weapons collections.

Several Police Department homicide detectives attended Monday's hearing to support Lee, whose next scheduled court hearing will be in August.

The assault charge stems from an Oct. 18 incident in Joe's Mart in downtown Seattle, which was captured on surveillance video. In the video, Lee is seen kicking an African-American teen suspected of trying to rob an undercover narcotics officer. The teen, Dvontaveous Hoston, was later exonerated when he was acquitted of first-degree attempted robbery.

The City Attorney's Office filed the charge against Lee in April after reviewing an independent investigation by the State Patrol, which was brought into the case at the request of Seattle Police Chief John Diaz. The charge is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.

Lee's attorney, Peter Offenbecher, of Seattle, has said his client is innocent. Sgt. Rich O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers' Guild, has also defended Lee, saying he was following accepted training practices.

Story continues at link:


If kicking an unarmed man with his hands up in the nuts, and then stomping him on the ground are "accepted training practices" then I think I have found the problem why so many innocent people are injured and killed by police. As a matter of fact, the suspect who the officer approached and assaulted was exonerated at his own trial charged with robbing the undercover narcotics officer who seen beating him in the video above. Regardless, even if the suspect had been guilty of a crime, that is still no justification whatsoever to beat him. It is not the job of the police to mete out arbitrary justice. Their job is to bring a suspect into custody to be tried for the alleged crime. But watching the video, you can see that clearly the man who was beaten and alleged to have robbed the officer, was in the store at the time of the alleged robbery, and you can see police chasing a group of suspects past the store. The victim of the assault made the tragic mistake of stepping outside to see what was going on.

Once again, looking into the mindset of the police, we can turn to PoliceOne to see what other law-enforcement professionals have to say about this incident...

"Taking a robbery suspect down with a couple of kicks? Oh, the brutality. When will it stop? This poor prick criminal may never walk again.

I went straight to the video, watched it twice and had no clue what I was looking for. Other than a typical arrest. The only thing excessive is sticking an assault charge on a cop for arresting a robbery suspect. This looks like a joke."

"I hope that he is a member of the PBA, Damn video'

Laughing is contagious, bet you cant help yourself (vid)

Try Not To Laugh Challenge - Watch more Funny Videos


DNA proof that Hitler was an African Jew?

Adolf Hitler is likely to have been descended from both Jews and Africans, according to DNA tests.

Samples taken from relatives of the Nazi leader show that he is biologically linked to the 'sub-human' races he sought to exterminate.

Journalist Jean-Paul Mulders and historian Marc Vermeeren used DNA to track down 39 of the Fuhrer's relatives earlier this year.

Story continues at link:


If this news is true, then perhaps we should consider the claims of various authors that Hitler was a front-man for the notorious Rothschild family...

Secrets of Zion

Meet the real Adolf Hitler

Hidden History

Was Hitler a Rothschild?

DNA proof of aliens?

Recent DNA tests on the "Starchild Skull" have revealed that the specimen is not simply a mutation and is in fact far from being human at all. The information is certainly intriguing, but I believe that it will take more anthropology in combination with this genetic evidence to conclusively determine an alien origin. Is this an alien? Quite possibly, but not necessarily. Very interesting nonetheless...

In 2011 the geneticist working on the Starchild Skull discovered that its mtDNA (the part of DNA passed only through the maternal line) was radically different from human DNA.

The maximum number of mtDNA differences between all humans is 120. The Starchild Skull has between 800-1,000. This is a partial result, but it is enough to be definitive: the Skull’s mtDNA is not human.

The complete brief is here at the following link:


Or you can view the full report on the DNA findings here at this link:


Homeowner forecloses on Bank of America reversing the trend

Win for the average Joe (and JoAnne)!

You can read the article here:


70% of illegal immigrants on welfare

New York tied for second place along with Texas and California, behind Arizona, for states paying out the most welfare to illegal immigrant families. So it appears that the illegals are not here so much to work as they are here to gobble up the tax dollars and get a free lunch. To say nothing of the other burdens illegals have imposed on infrastructure like medical and and public schools, it appears that the myth of the illegal being here to do jobs that Americans won't is BUSTED!

Here's an article on the findings by the Center for Immigration Studies, repoted by the Houston Chronicle:


For further reading on the perils of illegal immigration, check out this article from the Mainstream Media Review:

Border War: Blind Eye of America

Welfare line start here.

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog