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

Harry Potter vs. Star Wars

Black Knight Satellite Mystery (aka Dark Knight)

Has a radio signal emitting satellite been circling Earth for 13,000 years?

1899  – Famed scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla monitors a repeating radio signal from space.

1927-28 – Norwegian scientists, led by Carl Stoermer (Professor of Mathematics, University Oslo) record Long Delay Echoes (LDE) from radio broadcasts, measuring minutes to hours apart. To this day the phenomenon cannot be explained.

1953 – Famed astronomer and discoverer of Pluto, Clyde Tombaugh, begins work on a project for the Army Office of Ordnance Research alongside Dr. Lincoln La Paz, a fellow astronomer and meteor expert who had secretly worked for the military previously investigating the Green Fireballs UFO phenomenon. According to the Army, the project was meant to locate natural, near-Earth satellites which could be used as a space-station. However, according to Donald Keyhoe, who wold go on to become director of NICAP, the true purpose of the project was to identify two objects which had suddenly appeared on long-range radar. In 1954 Aviation Week breaks a story, which is picked up by major newspapers the following day, that the project has led to the discovery of two near-Earth satellites, at a range of 400 and 600 miles. Despite alleged confirmations by inside sources for publications such as the New York Times, La Paz denies ever working for such a project, and Tombough refuses to comment in an interview with Popular Mechanics in late 1955. The Army has never released the results of the study.

1954  – St. Louis Post Dispatch and the San Francisco Examiner report that the United States Air Force has confirmed two satellites circling Earth, 3 years before the first man-made satellite is launched into orbit by the Soviet Union.

1957 – An object is tracked shadowing Sputnik I, the first man-made satellite to be launched into Earth's orbit.  Two months later, Dr Luis Corralos of the Communications Ministry in Venezuela photographs an object while taking shots of Sputnik II passing over Caracas.

1960, February – North American Air Defense System (NORAD predecessor) detects object with a mass of 15 metric tons in polar orbit, using their newly operational "Dark Fence" detection system. Check out today's Space Fence program.) It is several times larger than anything the US or Soviets are capable of launching into orbit at that time. The object, dubbed “Black Knight” by the military, is tracked for three weeks and abruptly disappears. Ham radio operators once again report LDE phenomenon during this period. One radio operator claims to detect a coded message translated to be a map of the star-system Epsilon Boštes.

1960 – “Bracewell Probe” theory first proposed in an article published in Nature magazine by Professor Ronald Bracewell of Stanford University.

1960, September 3 - Unidentified satellite photographed by a tracking camera at the Bethpage plant of Grumman Aircraft Factory on Long Island, at 8:51 PM, seven months after it first appeared on radar. It could sometimes be seen from the ground as a red glowing object moving in an east-west orbit at a time when most satellites moved West-east.

1963 - On the last pass of his 22-orbit mission, American Astronaut Gordon Cooper reports to the Muchea tracking station in Australia, that he sees a glowing green object ahead of him in space which appeared to be closing in on his capsule. The station picks up a radar return of the object and confirms that it is traveling in an East-West orbit. Later, officials claimed he was hallucinating as a result of an electrical malfunction and carbon dioxide poisoning. He will not be the last Astronaut to see an unidentified object.

1967, August 3 – Three ton object slams into Sudan desert. It is of unknown origin, and presumably larger than anything that could be put into orbit until the Saturn V rocket went operational on 9 November of that year. Object is cube shaped and made up of many two inch by one inch rectangular pieces of aluminum-like soft metal packed together tightly under a woven shroud. There are no markings. Was this a crash landing of the Black Knight Satellite? Was there, or is there perhaps more than one such inexplicable object in the space near Earth?

1970’s - Scottish astronomer Duncan Lunan interprets the 1927 LDE’s as a star map of Epsilon Boštes, as it would have appeared from Earth 13,000 years ago. It is published by British Interplanetary Society, Journal of the Society of Electronic and Radio Technicians, and Analog, among others.

Since then, a number of other objects have been speculated about as being the Black Knight, or perhaps a similar object. Other sources have come up with tales from supposed insiders, of NASA secrets and covert missions to recover a monolith in 1972.

STS-88 image capture

1998  – Shuttle Endeavor mission STS-88 records numerous photographs of the object, but those images are quickly scrubbed from the young internet, only to reappear on conspiracy websites.

2004 – Some speculate that a bizarre radio signal picked up in 2004 on the Cassini mission near Saturn, may have been the mysterious Black Knight once again.

Here is what interpreter and former Airforce Sgt. Clifford Stone had to say about it...

C: Well, I’ll tell you this, I think that by 2016 that something better have happened. Because at 2016 I think that we’re going to have to announce to the world that there’s a probe that comes very close to the Earth every 15 or 20 years. And we’ve been calling it an asteroid. It’s not an asteroid. But it actually in reality is an artificial probe. In other words, somebody else put it here. They have found us long time ago. The technology will probably be pretty much on a par to, say, Voyager. It’ll be old antiquated technology by all their standards.

K: So what are you saying? Is this probe… do you know what race?

C: I’m saying we have already found it. Our paradigm says that it can’t be an artificial craft of any sort, therefore we refuse to accept that and we call it an asteroid. I’m talking about BG1991. Roughly 30 meters in diameter, highly polished surface. Asteroids don’t have a highly polished surface. It took corrective course changes to avoid collision with another asteroid. That don’t happen. This one it did.

K: So where... what race is this from, from what planet? Do you know?

C: I don’t know.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10278/ET_Interpreter__Sgt__Clifford_Stone/

Crackpot? Perhaps. Some testimony is stronger than others, and some data is better and more thorough than other evidence. But is certainly seems clear, that there have indeed been unexplainable objects in our skies. That is not to say little green men from Mars either. That is often the supposition, if in many of the sources I have linked here, but not necessarily the truth. Perhaps even, these objects are remnants of some long lost, ancient civilization right here on Earth, that reached a pinnacle of technology before collapsing under it's own weight, like the fabled Atlantis.

Here is what I dug up on YouTube about the Black Knight. Not really too much there. Not a very popular conspiracy theory for the most part, but one that is quite interesting to most of us who stumble across it.

How about some theme music...

Intro to the unexplained

Often times people ask me what first got me into conspiracy theory sort of stuff, the unexplained. I guess I have actually always been into it in some way or another, thanks in part to family members who have been less than mainstream in their spare time and in their associations. With high-ranking Freemasons, to occultists, to dedicated UFO researchers, as well as artists and musicians and so forth, family conversation has never been dull. But I also have a passion for history, again influenced in part by my own family. I dug into the history of my own bloodline and found some pretty cool ancestors, which qualify me for membership in the Sons of the Revolution, and a claim to the throne of France, if they weren't a Democracy now of course.I have had a keen interest of ancient history too since middle-school.

So you run those two things together, and you wind up with what some call the study of alternate history. No, I am not talking about fan-fiction of the pulp variety, but an actual belief that the history of the world as we know and understand it today may actually be quite different from what we learn in textbooks and other commonly accepted sources. So why would anyone have any reason to doubt the accepted version of the history of the world? Well, there are artifacts, real tangible evidence which cannot be explained by science, if you take the standardized history of the world at face value.

Not surprisingly, when I stumbled across information on the so called out-of-place-artifacts, or OOPARTS as they are called by some, I was totally intrigued. Actual tangible items which defy scientific explanation, especially if viewed through the lens of our own commonly accepted version of history.

Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. Just a bunch of hoaxes and stuff that science doesn't really have to explain right? Well let's have a look at this article from Cracked magazine. If you know them, you know that with their dry wit and humorous sarcasm, they would usually be the ones saying, "yeah right, what a bunch of crap that is." So let's see what they have to say...

6 Insane Discoveries That Science Can't Explain

We like to feel superior to the people who lived centuries ago, what with their shitty mud huts and curing colds by drilling a hole in their skulls. But we have to give them credit: They left behind some artifacts that have left the smartest of modern scientists scratching their heads.

For instance, you have the following enigmas that we believe were created for no other purpose than to fuck with future generations.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_16871_6-insane-discoveries-that-science-cant-explain.html#ixzz1S3Y7wQFK

Pretty bizarre stuff right? Now as you can see there, most of the stuff has been dug up by archaeologists. So let me give you some more links dealing wacky stuff dug up from the Earth and so forth...

Ancient-Wisdom

The Morien Institute

s8int

ooparts.us

As pointed out in the Cracked article however, not all of the unexplained is limited to artifacts of ancient history. There is also unexplainable scientific data for more contemporary events. So where they went to the bottom of the sea to close their article, let us look toward the skies. And I am not talking about shaky videos from a bored housewife catching blurry images of flares over military training grounds. This link will examine the government documentation and scientific data of what might be considered, the OOPARTS of the sky...


Black Knight Satellite Mystery




.

For fans of Boba Fett ( Fett's 'Vette )

What would it cost America if illegal aliens vacated?

What If 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?

By Tina Griego

7-12-11

I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament". I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, and buy clothes. What happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?" Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?

So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below. It's a good question it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secure borders and that we stop illegal migration. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!

Get the full story with numbers and stats at the following link:

http://rense.com/general94/whatif20.htm

Police Misconduct Reporting Tools

Police Misconduct Daily Feed - Formerly the home page of Injustice Everywhere

CopBlock.org - The premier blog of keeping stories tabs on cops

PoliceAbuse.com - A police misconduct reporting service

Police Misconduct Report - A generic report you can download to document an event

Pixiq - Photography is not a crime, by Carlos Miller

Police-State - Our own category covering encroachment of liberty by law-enforcement

The goal here is to provide a comprehensive collection of resources related to questionable behavior of police officers. If you have any utilities, tools, or important resources pertaining to police misconduct, please contact us in order to have the item listed here.

Redirect warning

My Firefox browser is giving me a redirect-page warning on occasion when I come here to Station 6 Underground. Not to be alarmed folks. The redirect is simply to gather anonymous user data such as how many people visit the site or how many people are viewing a page here at one time. No spam, no viruses. If you have any questions, feel fre to contact me and I can show you the details of the utility I am using.

Thanks

-The Captain

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

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

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

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

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

Skinheads Hunt Native American Family: Guess Who Gets Arrested? 

And be sure to check out our own recent article on the lack of integrity in corporate media, with additional links to more supporting information...

Newspaper threatens to sue blog

Good cop/bad cop NYPD

Let's go ahead and see the video first, and I will give you my own observations below...





So what we saw is one officer trying to affect an arrest. We don't know what the cause is for the arrest, or even if the arrest is valid, but that it actually irrelevant at that point, for the most part. It is an extremely narrow window to slip through in order to resist an unlawful arrest. Also keep in mind, a lawful arrest does not necessarily even mean you are guilty of any crime. Police can detain you without charges for up to 72 hours in some states, so long as they have established probable cause to do so. 

So assuming the arrest was lawful, then what we see is a police officer trying to physically move the suspect from the sidewalk to the police-cruiser with the suspect passively resisting the arrest using his own bodyweight, while screaming and creating a public disturbance.

Surprisingly, the second officer at the scene intervenes and actually becomes combative with the arresting officer, in an unprecedented display one officer publicly and professionally challenging another. From that we can glean that the second officer believed excessive force was being used to affect the arrest. Perhaps we are missing some crucial details in what transpired before the filming. Perhaps that officer simply hoped to de-escalate the situation by allowing for a little time for the suspect to calm down before being placed in the cruiser. A commendable action, and a common-sense move too often overlooked by most officers, who would rather get into a brawl than let someone calm down for 30-seconds. Patience certainly is no virtue among the police in this day and age.

So it appears that perhaps we have a good cop vs. bad cop scenario there. Then again, maybe the arresting officer is not really a "bad" cop so much as he is just not really a good cop. But then again, maybe we could say that about the second officer who heroically stepped in to defend the suspect. Look at what he does at the end of the tape. He goes after the cameraman! There is nothing illegal about filming an arrest and the officer had no duty or right to interfere with the filming of those events.

I found this video over at CopBlock.org

Smart Meters - Electronic Surveillance of Your Home

Power companies across America are now trying to convince people to install new "smart meters" to measure power consumption, using the classic dubious promise that usually hooks all good Capitalists. "It will save you money," they say. However, findings show that some energy bills of customers have doubled, even tripled after the installation of these new meters. Also, these devices put off radiation, and pose certain health risks. But wait, it gets better. Watch the brief video below to learn how, and what smart-meters are really about...





For more details, you can check out this longer presentation by an electrical engineer...

Rodney King arrested for DUI...again

The beating of Rodney King by LAPD officers in 1991, led to widespread riots when the officers were acquitted, though King did win a civil suit and was compensated with nearly $4 million for the attack and  permanent brain injury he suffered.

King has had a history of substance abuse problems, appearing on celebrity reality-television shows where he did battle with the bottle. According to TMZ, King was also arrested in 2003 for DUI after speeding through an intersection at over 100mph and crashing into a utility pole.

Was outcome of Anthony trial predicted?

According to a 2009 report by Your World Report, famed seer and astrologer Nostradamus made a prediction that Casey Anthony would be exonerated, and that later a "monster" would confess to the murder of the 2-year old Caylee.

The predictive poetry which Nostradamus used is translated in this quatrain to read:

“The mother’s name is blackened by a silver mask,

"The people cry for vengeance, but truth prevails.

"Two thousand and ten finds Antone free,

"The monster confesses and loses his soul in months of 8 and 10."

Be sure to check out the full article, published long before the case was decided, at this link:

http://www.yourworldreport.com/casey/nostradamus_predicted.htm

Is Casey Anthony a Witch?

Women are as violent as men

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: May 2011

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Newspaper threatens to sue blog

It has long been the standard of free speech in America, and indeed the very purpose of the freedom of press to begin with, that news articles could be cited and referenced in ongoing discussions and other works. It appears that day is ended now, as free speech is no longer free.

In the early hours of this morning a contributing author shared with us an editorial piece they had written about the deadly boat-wreck in the Hudson. In that piece, they quoted a small paragraph from an article published by the Poughkeepsie Journal, and properly attributed the quotation. As a supplemental to the piece, also included was a video from the same news source, embedded with the code and embedding tool willingly offered by the Poughkeepsie Journal for the very purpose of sharing.

Nevertheless, today we have received a letter from the Poughkeepsie Journal alleging that we improperly and illegally hosted this material, and threatening legal action if the content was not removed within 24 hours. Sadly, we do not have the legal resources with which to engage in a battle with the publication, so we chose to comply with their fascist demand of censorship.

I for one, will be canceling my delivery subscription at this point.

For more on internet censorship, read...

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

And perhaps visit this blog by...

The National Coalition Against Censorship

EDIT to add: It appears that the Poughkeepsie Journal has a history of and affinity for censorship...

Devious Censorship at Esteemed Newspaper

Planet X spotted in 1983

I actually remember this as a child. Thought it was an awesome discovery of a lifetime. And then it disappeared from all media sources and scientific journals. So what gives huh? Media blackout? Or is it just scientists not being able to interpret the data correctly?


Washington Post 1983 – Planet X Discovered

FBI stonewalls order to turn over tapes of OKC bombing

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The FBI has not found videotapes from the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that are being sought by a Utah lawyer and do not believe another records search is reasonable or will uncover the information, the agency has told a federal judge.


FBI officials are "unaware of the existence or likely location of additional tapes" that would fulfill the Freedom of Information Act request filed by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue, agency attorneys said in court papers filed last week.


Trentadue sued the FBI and the CIA in 2008 to get the videos and contended the FBI's efforts to locate the information have been inadequate. He is looking for surveillance tapes taken the morning of the bombing from exterior cameras on the Murrah building and dashboard camera video from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol's arrest of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was convicted of and executed for the bombing.


Trentadue asserts that the videos exist and will expose that others were involved in the domestic terrorist attack that killed 168 people.


But attorneys for the agency said the electronic databases have not turned up the records, nor have manual searches of FBI crime labs, evidence centers or a warehouse in Oklahoma City. A further search of a records cache totaling an estimated 450,000 documents — from just the first 14 days of the investigation — in the warehouse would be "unreasonably burdensome" and could take a single staff person more than 18 months to conduct, court papers said.

Read the full story at link:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxEyPS2_YRLJLlvu-41vYE3ap-GA?docId=b3e1fa4081734266a54aa3d97880a3cb

Incompetence...?

...Or justice denied?

Undaunted heroism in wake of horrific boat-wreck on Hudson that left 4 dead

This article has been deleted as the result of Poughkeepsie Journal's threat of a lawsuit, claiming copyright violation. This page quoted one paragraph of text from their multiple-page article as a part of our larger editorial piece, which is allowable under the provisions of the Fair Use Act. and hosted a video which is distributed freely by them for sharing by their offering of an embedding code among the options for free distribution.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

This article violated no laws in quoting a small patch of text to be included in our larger article, however, the editors here have concluded that it simply is not worthwhile to engage the Poughkeepsie Journal in debate of the matter as they have now proven themselves to be an unworthy news source.

10 signs that America is run by Nazis

When you hear the word "Nazi" don't think jack-booted thugs, mass murder of civilians and Jewish extermination camps, think breakdown of the rule of law, destruction of individual rights, and silent obedience to authority because they came before the final endgame...

Story continues at link:

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/06/10-signs-that-nazis-run-america.html

Here is the list, but be sure to visit the link above for full descriptions.

1. Use of False Flag Terrorism


2. Use of Preemptive War


3. Indoctrination of Children


4. Creation of Goon Squads And Secret Police


5. Use of Propaganda, And Terms Like "Homeland Security"


6. Spying and Surveillance


7. Use of The Big Lie


8. State Repression and Intimidation of Activists and Patriots


9. Demonization of Innocent People - Jews, Muslims, Christians (Right-Wing Extremists), Freedom Fighters


10. Destruction of The Rule of Law And Civil Liberties

'There oughtta be a law' logic gets spanked by Penn

What's in your milk?

It's not all white: The cocktail of up to 20 chemicals in a glass of milk

Other media sources question Caylee's Law

Just some more food for thought here folks. I'm not just come crackpot conspiracy theorist. There are very important, very real issues to be considered here...

Caylee's Law?

Why 'Caylee's Law' Is A Bad Idea

When tragedy and anger fuel legislation, the results are rarely what we hope for

Caylee's Law Will Send Law Enforcement on Many Wild Goose Chases


Be sure to check out our previous coverage as well:

Caylee's Law - Do we need one?

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

Facebook blocks 'Caylee's Law' page from making comments

Is Casey the poster-child of modern feminism?


Be proactive:

Sign the petition to block Caylee's Law

Say No to Caylee's Law on Facebook

Sign the petition to block Caylee's Law!

This is taken from the Change.org petition Page:

For those who are sending the originator of this petition hate mail...please post your comments publicly, if you really feel these are not valid reasons to block this proposed bill.

Caylee's law is not only cruel to grieving parents who have done nothing wrong, it is also a violation of the fifth amendment. The following is an analysis of Caylee's Law, as proposed:

"making it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the death of their child, accidental or otherwise, within 1 hour of said death being discovered."

As written, this would require any parent to notify law enforcement when their child dies...even if it was due to an illness or disease (such as cancer). This is cruel to grieving parents...they just lost their child, and now they're being forced to notify law enforcement within an hour of their child dying, or face criminal charges. This section of the proposed law is unconstitutional.A parent forced to report child's death could be considered a violation of the fifth amendment, in that if the parent was responsible for that death, they are effectively testifying against him/herself by providing the time of death.

"make it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours, so proper steps can be taken to find that child before it's too late."

Once again, this is unconstitutional. If the parent/etc is the one responsible for the child's disappearance, and forced to report the child's disappearance, this is a violation of the fifth amendment.

In the end, this proposed law which is currently being petitioned online should not be brought before congress or enacted.

Other points against Caylee's Law:

* Unless you're a doctor, you can't pronounce someone dead. How can you comply with the law if you aren't able to pronounce a person dead?

* If a guilty parent would report a child's death in accordance with the law, the fact that the law requires the parent to violate the 5th amendment, there's a very strong possibility the case would be thrown out completely.

* If a parent finds a child they believe is unconcious, and do not realize the child is dead, they would not report the child as dead to law enforcement. Because you failed to report that the child was actually dead, you still broke the law, even if you did not know the child was dead.

* This law does not prevent anything! A parent who is going to kill their own child will not report it.

* Ultimately, this law will only put innocent parents in jail, while doing nothing to deter guilty ones from breaking the law.

Greetings,


I just signed the following petition addressed to: United States Senate.


----------------
Do Not Enact Caylee's Law


Caylee's law is not only cruel to grieving parents who have done nothing wrong, it is also a violation of the fifth amendment.


The following is an analysis of Caylee's Law, as proposed:


"making it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the death of their child, accidental or otherwise, within 1 hour of said death being discovered."


As written, this would require any parent to notify law enforcement when their child dies...even if it was due to an illness or disease (such as cancer). This is cruel to grieving parents...they just lost their child, and now they're being forced to notify law enforcement within an hour of their child dying, or face criminal charges.


This section of the proposed law is unconstitutional. A parent forced to report child's death could be considered a violation of the fifth amendment, in that if the parent was responsible for that death, they are effectively testifying against him/herself by providing the time of death.


"make it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours, so proper steps can be taken to find that child before it's too late."


Once again, this is unconstitutional. If the parent/etc is the one responsible for the child's disappearance, and forced to report the child's disappearance, this is a violation of the fifth amendment.


In the end, this proposed law which is currently being petitioned online should not be brought before congress or enacted.


Other points against Caylee's Law:


* Unless you're a doctor, you can't pronounce someone dead. How can you comply with the law if you aren't able to pronounce a person dead?


* If a guilty parent would report a child's death in accordance with the law, the fact that the law requires the parent to violate the 5th amendment, there's a very strong possibility the case would be thrown out completely.


* If a parent finds a child they believe is unconcious, and do not realize the child is dead, they would not report the child as dead to law enforcement. Because you failed to report that the child was actually dead, you still broke the law, even if you did not know the child was dead.


* This law does not prevent anything! A parent who is going to kill their own child will not report it.


* Ultimately, this law will only put innocent parents in jail, while doing nothing to deter guilty ones from breaking the law.
----------------


Sincerely,


[Your name]

http://www.change.org/petitions/do-not-enact-caylees-law

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

Be sure to check out our previous coverage as well:

Caylee's Law - Do we need one?

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

Facebook blocks 'Caylee's Law' page from making comments

Is Casey the poster-child of modern feminism?

Is Casey the poster-child of modern feminism?

I know I am going to get flamed for this, but please hear me out.

When I first heard the verdict in the Casey Anthony murder trial, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to say "pffft, of course she got off, she's a pretty white girl." I immediately thought of another infamous case, where a man was convicted and sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence. That was Scott Petersen of course. Some key similarities in the cases, and I had a strong sense of hypocrisy in the divergence of the two outcomes. And frankly, I am pretty surprised by the overwhelming lust for Casey Anthony's blood in the wake of her acquittal. I thought for sure that the fem-nazi camp would be out in full force to support Casey, and other might-be-killers like her, with all the usual rhetoric about how they were the victims of abuse and rape and all the evils of a "male dominated society."

Since then I have come out to reject outright the cries for a new Caylee's Law but not because I think she was guilty or innocent, but because the law itself is a bad idea. A very bad idea, but no matter what logical reasons I put forth I am venomously opposed by the overwhelming majority. So much so that I have begun to look at reasons why folks are so willing to be irrational in support of the proposed law. Is it because we feel some guilt as a society for what happened? Is there some evil gnawing away at the subconscious of the masses which makes us compelled to enact this band-aid on a bullet-hole solution?

If Casey Anthony really was guilty, as she might very well have been, is she not the product of the narcissistic mindset spawned by modern feminism?

And please understand, when I use the word feminism, I am not talking about the true power of the feminine, but the modern socio-political movement itself that has lived well beyond its mandate of women's suffrage. Now with that in mind, please read over these following articles, and then share with us your conclusion.

Is Casey Anthony the social product of feminism gone awry?

Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Is this case not a prime example of the destabilization of our society across the board?





Also, read our previous article about the Casey Anthony case...

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

Facebook blocks 'Caylee's Law' page from making comments

Facebook has blocked page administrators of the "Say No to Caylee's Law" page from making comments on Facebook. Page admins received no warning, nor were they told what the offense was that led to the account being blocked. The is also no word as to when, or if the block will be lifted. This quote is taken from their wall.

Facebook is bow blocking me from making any comments other than wall posts. I will be unable to follow-up in ongoing discussions on this page or other pages. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank Facebook for the blatant fascist censorship. Seems that when you are right, you stir up powerful enemies.

This is a stunning development, and a blatant act of censorship which only verfies the premise of our earlier article...

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

So what really happened in Hyde Park?

It appears that this page was not the only information source to be somewhat suckered into the intense rumors of an arrest in the Filiberti case. Is this more evidence of a police coverup? Don't ask the Hyde Park police, they have no comment.

The phone began ringing around 8

p.m. Monday the 27th. They began with

a simple but breathless inquiry. “Did you

hear they just arrested two cops in the

Filiberti case?” By 9 p.m., the rumors

were really fl ying.

We immediately began working the

phones to determine if there was anything

to the rumors. There wasn’t and we told

people as much.

By midnight, it was clear nobody

seemed inclined to let the facts get in the

way of a good rumor.

Hudson Valley News was, at the same

time, slightly confl icted as the rumors

spread. We were sitting on information that

two Hyde Park Police offi cers had been

asked to provide DNA to investigators.

However, being a weekly publication,

we were obliged to wait on that story until

we published on Wednesday, which we did.

It was legitimate news and we did not

publish the offi cers’ names, although we

could have.

We also could have put it up on our

website, but decided not to pour gasoline

on a fi re that needed no assistance from us.

By 7 a.m. on Tuesday, the phones were

smoking once again.

Otherwise-rational people

were frantic for information already believed the rumors.

Many of those calling

had the offi cers’ names and

had no trouble presuming guilty. Some people were aghast few skeptical.

http://www.thehudsonvalleynews.com/HVNews/HVNews_files/0706HN00A001.pdf

Worst Drunk Ever: A drunken Dyssey

Poor fuckin guy. I almost been there... but not quite. I have some integrity, lol.

Pirate Style *Acid 1988* - The Beat Pirate

Sometimes its so terrible, it's good...

RIP, Officer Timothy Warren

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A Memphis officer who was fatally shot in a hotel last week had posted a YouTube video in March that captured his thoughts on the occasional conflict between his religious faith and the demands of police work.


Timothy Warren bypassed roll call Sunday night and rushed to respond to a "shots fired" call at a Memphis hotel, where a gunman shot him in the head in a stairwell.


In the video, images of police, nature, and religion flash across the screen, and Warren narrates, questioning when to give lawbreakers second chances and when to focus on enforcement.


"I pray both paths can merge without yielding," he says.


Warren, who studied philosophy, was analytical, professional, and outspoken about his beliefs, his friends and family told the Commercial Appeal.


"He loved his job," said his best friend, Jerome Gray. "He told me: 'I'd give my life for my fellow officers.' And that's what he did."


http://www.policeone.com/police/community/articles/3951538-Video-Slain-officer-speaks-of-faith-vs-police-work/

Call it, Friend-O

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Pavlovian Conditioning

Diocletian's Problem-Reaction-Solution

The Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

Problem Reaction Solution Explanation (on Youtube)


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

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

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

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





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

But Captain Six, how will Caylee's Law violate the Fifth Amendment, you ask? Well, let me go ahead and pull a quote here from my previous article on the matter.

If Casey Anthony were guilty of any crime whatsoever involving the death of her daughter, requiring her to report her daughter missing to police would be a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights which protect her against self-incrimination. That doesn't mean a self-incrimination of murder either. It could have been something as simple as a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully dealing with human remains, or being high on marijuana at the time of the Caylee's disappearance or death even if she was not present.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

"The duty we owe our constituents obliges us to be as attentive to the safety of the innocent as we are desirous of punishing the guilty; and we apprehend that a doubtful construction and various execution of criminal law does greatly endanger the safety of innocent men." ~JOUR. HOUSE OF BURGESSES (1773-1776), p. 22.

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

EDITOR'S NOTE: Please vote in the poll below if you think the trial-by-jury system should be abolished, in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial. Feel free to leave comments here on this page why you believe it should or should not be abolished.