Was Cop Wrong to Hit 8 -Year Old In Face?

There has been outrage over a YouTube video which surfaced recently, which appears to show a Eugene, Oregon police officer striking an 8-year old boy in the face.

While there is a wealth of videos out there showing very serious misconduct and unwarranted violence by these shielded government agents, this video does not seem to warrant the outrage being shown by the public. While it certainly does run contrary to our moral senses that a grown man, an armed man and a stranger should hit a child in the face, we should try to understand that the police do have a job to do that is often a difficult one. A job where sometimes what is necessary is not always what we would like to see, or admit that we might have to do the same if we were in their shoes.

In this instance, the officer claims the boy bit him. The video was filmed with a lagging digital camera in a cellphone, so it is difficult to catch the few moments in question, whether he did bite the officer, or to get a sense of how hard the officer actually hit him. Or even if he really did hit him for that matter, though it does appear so. What the video does show however is that the officer was being calm and professional, not in any rage of any sort, and even waved at the camera before the apparent bite and strike. This would seem to run in accordance with his claim. If the boy did bite him, then the officer was justified to respond.

The only other issue at hand might be whether the officer was justified in taking the boy in the first place. This is, of course, another very serious concern when we as a society have seen so many terrible examples of a child being taken away for very little cause and winding up abused, or even murdered while in state custody or in a foster home. So while the officer may have been justified to strike the child after being bitten, it would be far less justified if the officer was there acting on what amounts to a kidnapping order by a local CPS office. This does not appear to be the case either though.

Reports indicate that the boy was illiterate, did not attend school, and was living in a bus. Furthermore, he had been living with a woman for years despite a court order awarding custody to his father. So this was not so much the state taking custody, as enforcing the rights of the father, which is all too rare it seems these days.

All in all, it appears that this is actually an example of how public outcry against the police is not always justified. (Even as public outcry seems to be severely lacking in other instances where it should appear.)

Finally now, here is the video to judge for yourself:






Tweet

Illegal to Let Your Kids Play Outside

Tammy Cooper of LaPorte, Texas was arrested on child endangerment charges after the mother let her two children, 6 and 9 ride scooters in the cul-de-sac where they live. A neighbor called police and said the children were not supervised. Cooper says she was sitting in a lawn chair in the front yard with an eye on her children the entire time.

Police arrived to the home after the children were already done playing for the day and getting ready for bed. After contacting the local District Attorney's office, Cooper was arrested in front of her children, and hauled off to jail where she was held for the next 18 hours.

The charges against here were eventually dropped, but a $7,000 bill for legal expenses remains, not to mention the emotional and psychological damage that comes from being wrongfully arrested as well as the damage done to her children's well-being by seeing their mother hauled off to jail.

In the video below much of the blame is laid on the neighbor who called police. Having a nosy
neighbor like that would certainly annoy me, but I think the blame here lays squarely with the police and the DA's office. Are the police so woefully incompetent that they cannot discern between an actual crime and the complaint of a busy-body neighbor? It's either that, or they are intentionally using any excuse, no matter how weak, to threaten, harass, intimidate, imprison, and financially shake down citizens who are not guilty of any crimes whatsoever.

Now let's imagine for a moment that the mother wasn't actually in the front yard the entire time? So what? When I was a boy I used to ride my bicycle around my entire apartment complex all day long. I also had to walk a mile to school, through a crime-ridden and violent part of town because students who lived within a one-mile radius were not allowed to ride a school bus. It is hardly uncommon for youngsters to ride their bicycles and skateboards and scooters up and down the streets and sidewalks of their own neighborhoods, and more often than not they are not under the constant visual surveillance of a parent. Not only do children actually need to be independent, within reason, but parents cannot possibly be expected to never take their eyes off their children. It is simply impractical.

Again, when I was boy, I was told where my boundaries were. At first, I was not allowed to leave sight of my building. My mother didn't sit staring at me the entire afternoon as I played on the swings or rode my Big-Wheel, but I was still within earshot if I screamed, and she could casually glance out the window from time to time to make sure everything was okay. The next year I was a little older, and knew little better how to get help if I needed it and how to avoid danger, I was confined to the apartment complex. When visiting other neighborhoods with friends, their parents would tell us we were not allowed to go further than the local corner store, or beyond a certain street, or to ride on a dangerous roadway. The boundaries were expanded as we got older and our parents recognized our gorwing need for independence as well as our ability to be responsible.

Perhaps there are those who think this is child abuse though. That children who are being taught to be independent are actually being put in harm's way, and that if anything were to happen to them the parent must be blamed for the natural fact that the world is and always will be a dangerous place. Perhaps these folks believe that children should be placed in front of the television and not allowed to leave their seats. Of course those children will wind up with diabetes and will suffer a heart attack by the time they are 30. But at least they won't get skin cancer from sunlight or lung cancer from unfiltered fresh air, right? When the kid gets their driver's license, they won't be able to find their own way ten blocks to a new job and will wind up lost in some hellish ghetto in a soccer-Mom van, but at least they won't get kidnapped or hit by a car before they turn 17. Right?

It is absolutely ludicrous that we see something like this even happens at all in a so-called "free country" but Ms. Cooper should be awarded an enormous settlement to make damn sure that something like this never happens again. Sadly though, that is not the trend in America today, as we continually slip into this fascist police-state of tyranny and oppression, for our own good they say.

Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com
Read more at: FOX 4







Tweet

Your Kids Are Not Yours, Says MSNBC Host

It is frightening notions like this which lead to all sorts of abuses by government, particularly in family courts and through child-protective services. In the long-run too, it leads to a complete denial of personal liberty, and rather places the individual as having little more value than a drone. A page right out of the Communist manifesto. -JMV
 

In the video below, college professor and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry says your children are not yours – they are owned by the community. She says public education has failed because we have not allowed the state to confiscate more of our money.

Raed more at PrisonPlanet.com

Deaf 3-year old forbidden to say name at school

Little difference between public school and prison

Homeless woman faces 20 years for enrolling her kid in wrong school

Does kidnapping make schools safer?



Tweet

Domestic Violence, Feminism, and Setting the Record Straight

FACT: Women are as violent, or more violent than men in domestic relationships.

With the disastrous and completely misguided bill known as the Violence Against Woman Act about to go before Congress for renewal/re-introduction, we felt it appropriate to point out some conveniently overlooked and politically incorrect facts about domestic violence. 

In a quick Google search of why VAWA is bad, this brief popped up:

These are the 5 reasons why VAWA is profoundly flawed: 

1. VAWA does not recognize the fact that men are as likely to victimized by domestic violence as women. 

2. Because VAWA regulations specifically prohibit the provision of services to battered men, VAWA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

3. VAWA gives rise to false allegations. Some attorneys now recommend that women seeking child custody file a domestic violence complaint, even if it has no basis in fact. 

4. VAWA makes it harder for fathers to get joint custody. Once a charge of domestic violence is on the books, the legal system views the father as a menace to his children. And some versions of VAWA have proposed that child custody be awarded to the "primary caretaker," a code word for "mother." 

5. VAWA promotes the radical Marxist-feminist belief that men as a class use violence as a tool to dominate and oppress women. This simplistic analysis does a profound disservice to male-female relationships. As a result, VAWA ends up pitting men against women. 

VAWA relentlessly scapegoats men as abusers and batterers. VAWA teaches women to play the victim. And VAWA is responsible for the removal of children from their loving father. VAWA is bad for fathers, women, and children. (And families as a whole.) We don't need a gender war in this country. Oppose VAWA.

Source: Shattered Men

But no matter what men have to say, no matter how pertinent it may be, political-feminists don't care to hear about it and will even violently oppose the resistance to their agenda.

Nevermind that a number of women's groups and female individuals themselves actually oppose VAWA as well.

Women Against VAWA Excess 

Concerned Women For America

Phyllis Schlafly

Freedom Works


Wow, that an awesome chick. (Pretty darn cute too.)

But let's go back now to what we said at the top of the page. That women are as likely, if not more likely to be violent in a domestic relationship. Keep in mind that this does not include the disproportionate rate of women who hire/manipulate other males to harm/kill their boyfriend/husband. These studies show that directly, woman are at least, if not more violent than men in domestic relationships.

Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

“We’re seeing women in relationships acting differently nowadays than we have in the past,” said Angela Gover, a UF criminologist who led the research. “The nature of criminality has been changing for females, and this change is reflected in intimate relationships as well.” 

In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men. The students took selected liberal arts and sciences courses. Forty percent were men and 60 percent were women, reflecting the gender composition of these classes. 

Full article at: phys.org

The single largest and most comprehensive study on the subject, compiled over the course of many years through the exhaustive efforts of the contributors,  confirms this. Here is a brief:

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

Despite the facts displayed there, we still have this notion in society that men are more violent than women, and even that a woman's violence should be excused while male violence should be regarded as loathsome. 
 

Perhaps it is hard-wired into us to think that way. After all, for tens of thousands of years males have been called upon to perform the violent tasks and heaviest physical labors, required of both their family and society as a whole. In the meantime, women cultivated a more psychological, coercive lifestyle in order to achieve goals and to protect their young. Brute force is certainly not always the defining factor of victory, and nature seems to have seen fit to diversify the strengths of the family unit in order to strengthen our species survival as a whole. This certainly doesn't mean that women are smarter or men more violent, it only goes to show how we may be smart, and violent, in different ways. 

But how does this all play out in modern society? Particularly in the last century or so, where tens of thousands of years of hereditary natural selection mechanisms have been overturned by industry, politics, and so forth? 

This woman makes some very profound observations on the subject, which she has shared with the public on YouTube with the piece "Feminism and the Disposable Male."



Wow, it still impresses me every time I watch that video. What a wonderful, intelligent woman. But with everything she has said there, it is almost as if there is some agenda. 

Is all this confusion simply the result of a new stage in evolution for mankind? The natural result of industrialization, technology, a global village? Or is someone pulling the strings?


While some folks might reject such conspiratorial talk as pure lunacy, we simply cannot ignore the very real damage being done to our society, to our families. Conspiracy or not, there are very bad things happening, and these things are being done deliberately for profit and power.

Miss Carol Rhodes speaks to a gathering back in 2010, in this video. She reveals "secret rules" used by Child Protection Services, which of course has huge influence when it comes to domestic violence cases where children are involved, custody disputes and so forth, and the dynamics of gender relations.


Even without all of these facts, statistics and insights, the VAWA is clearly gender-biased and discriminatory. When we do actually take into consideration what has been presented here, it's no wonder that society is disintegrating right before our eyes. Everything that is being done contradicts all common sense based on the scientific data, as well as the philosophical, and is counterproductive to the problems we are actually hoping to solve as a society.

We will leave off here now with one final video, in closure, to show some uncomfortable facts about domestic violence that are not usually considered by either society as a whole or legislators who pretend to know and dictate what is in our interests.




SUPPLEMENTAL:

False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Why You Should be Concerned

6 Things Everyone Knows About Women (That Aren't True)



Tweet



 

Oxford Professor Calls Genetic Alteration 'Responsible Parenting'

Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just “responsible parenting”, claims an eminent Oxford academic, The Telegraph reports.

Professor Julian Savulescu, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”, this based on a few genetic links to ‘personality disorders’.

He said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to “harm themselves and others”.

 Read the rest of this article at Waking Times


Tweet



 

Free Apartment Instead of Prison for Violent Offenders

Roberto Silva came to NY from Mexico with the promise of work to be found, and with a young daughter in tow. What he found was high living expenses, very little work, and was forced into a life of crime with no way out. Deeply depressed, Roberto tried to harm himself and his little girl. 

He was arrested on assault charges, sent to prison and later institutionalized. His daughter has been living with foster parents for the last five years. But today, Roberto has a new lease on life and a free apartment in Brooklyn where his teen daughter has come to live with him.

"It's a place we can call home, a place we feel safe. It's a place where we can get to know each other again," he tells us.

You see, Roberto is part of a new program that lets single fathers live in a private apartment with their children, rather than behind bars, while they serve out their court mandates. To be eligible, men must be homeless, have minor children, and be a convicted felon. For the most part, the participants are independent except for some curfew and sign-in requirements. The children are given free medical care and go to school, while the felon attends job-training classes, parenting classes, and therapy sessions. 

Sound crazy? Well this is indeed an actual program in NY State that is now looking for new funding, and also looking to spread the model nationwide. The only difference between that satire piece and the real program, is that it is for women, not men. The reason for the satirical twist, is to point out the hypocrisy of gender issues in this country. Particularly when it comes to cases of domestic violence, men are constantly vilified, while women are given a "pass" even when they try to harm their own children.

Drew House, as it is called, was named in honor of Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes's mother, who is reported to be a victim of domestic violence. Yet one of their most important clients is a woman who deliberately harmed her child in what appears to be a murder-suicide attempt, though that detail is left out of the biased news report by the AP.

Just how biased the report actually is, can be extrapolated from this paragraph, describing the case of another woman who now lives at Drew House rather than carrying out her prison sentence:

The 24-year-old was arrested on a weapons charge when officers investigating her relative learned his loaded gun was hidden in her room. She was living with her mother and boyfriend at the time, and her youngest was barely a week old.

If this were true, then why was she even sent to prison in the first place? Obviously, police and even the DA's office saw fit to charge her with a felony weapon's charge and to send her off to prison to begin with. If it wasn't really her gun, then the case should have been dismissed, rather than making her a felon and then giving her a free apartment as some sort of twisted consolation prize.

To be clear, this piece is not meant to bash rehabilitation programs in general. Things like housing assistance, job training, and so forth are not only important in reducing recidivism, but even preventing crime in the first place. If more at-risk folks were given the help when they needed it, such as a place to stay, crime rates would plummet.

But why should only women be granted this assistance? More alarmingly, why are women now given this get out of jail free card by the state, rather than serving their sentences? And most ludicrous of all, why are women who commit felonies rewarded with free apartments and all their needs taken care of, rather than doing their time? Not only is the one woman a violent felon, but the state has seen fit to put the victim back in the same household!



You can read the original article on the story by the Associated Press at this link:

Arrested NY Moms Stay With Kids Instead of Jail

Rosalia Silva came to New York from Mexico with the promise of a good job, her small child in tow. Instead, she was forced into prostitution, trapped in a life of abuse and misery, and she saw no way out. Deeply depressed, she tried to hurt herself and her little boy.
Silva was arrested on assault charges and jailed, and later institutionalized while her son, Francisco, lived with foster parents for nearly five years. But then Silva was accepted into Drew House, a program for mothers that allows them to live with their children in a private apartment instead of prison while they serve out court mandates.
"Here we have our own place, said Silva, 36. "It's a place we can call home, a place we feel safe. It's a place where we can get to know each other again."
It's apparently the only program like it in the country — and has been lauded as a successful, more supportive and cheaper alternative to prison. But space is running out at the house, and prosecutors and program leaders say the effort needs funding in order to grow.
Silva and four other mothers live in the unmarked apartment building in Brooklyn, all sent there for felony offenses. Some involve drugs, others weapons, and still others more violent crime. Eligible women are flagged by Brooklyn prosecutors and defense attorneys. In order to live there, women must be homeless, have minor children, and have pleaded guilty to a felony. The charges are dropped if they complete the court-ordered requirements, but if they break the law or don't follow through, they get the maximum sentence.
"They want us to succeed," Silva said of the program leaders. "They help us to stay on the path."
The women are largely independent except for a curfew and sign-in requirements. Mothers attend parenting classes, job training and therapy. Their children go to school and receive medical care and tutoring — and are given a sense of stability and safety.
The four-story maroon building was bustling on a recent school day. A handful of small children in yellow and blue uniforms tumbled into the ground floor office, plopped down backpacks and said hello to the house manager.
The kids raced to the backyard to play on the swing set near a garden of herbs and vegetables, tossing a basketball, and trying to be gentle with a small tabby cat that's taken up residence. Some of the moms joked nearby.
Rita Zimmer, the founder of Housing Plus Solutions, the nonprofit that runs the program, said it costs $34,000 annually to house a woman and her children at Drew House. It costs nearly four times as much to incarcerate a woman and put her children in foster care.
Some prisons allow women to keep their infants with them, and some drug treatment programs allow children, but no other program allows women arrested on other felonies to live with their children instead of prison.
The idea came from prosecutors working with Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes and took nearly a decade to get off the ground, until Zimmer came on board. The house opened in 2008, and was named for Hynes' mother, a victim of domestic violence.
"There's just a lot more to public safety than locking people up," Hynes said.
A study completed by Columbia University in 2011 after a year of observation found residents were thriving. All but one of the seven initial residents completed court mandates, have not been re-arrested, and found stable homes. Their children remained in school. But women who are incarcerated are more often homeless and have higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse than women who get alternative punishment outside prison, according to the study. Their children are more likely to fail academically, suffer mental health problems and wind up in the criminal justice system themselves.
Researchers were impressed, said Mary Byrne, who led the study. Their first recommendation was to replicate the model nationwide, and find more buildings in New York City to serve more families, but that's been impossible so far.
Part of the problem is that with an average stay of about a year, space rarely opens up. And women can't be forced to leave their apartments when their mandate ends under the terms of the grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, though most do leave for other housing.

But now, of the five women there, two are done and a third, Olgita Blackwood, is about to finish, and they haven't left. One has stayed more than a year late because of immigration issues. Blackwood said she can't afford her own place.
The 24-year-old was arrested on a weapons charge when officers investigating her relative learned his loaded gun was hidden in her room. She was living with her mother and boyfriend at the time, and her youngest was barely a week old.
"When I got arrested I was crying every night," she said. "I was so worried about my kids, they depend on me, they asked for me every day. I can't be apart from them."
She lives in a small two-bedroom on the first floor with her three kids, now 8, 7 and almost 2. Blackwood is studying for her GED and hopes to go to college.
"It makes me feel independent. Like I can make decisions on my own, raise my kids," she said. "I can't imagine it any other way now."
Ideally, program founders say, there would also be funding for some type of transitional help for these women, in addition to more buildings to house more families. Zimmer met this week with district attorney's office staff to hunt for extra cash, but no solutions have been found.
Silva, too, said she would never be able to afford the apartment alone.
Her second-floor apartment is tidy and bright, and she has added small flourishes to make it her own. A vase of roses on the table. A bowl of seashells from a nearby beach. A giant stuffed bear sits on the couch, a gift from her now-15-year-old son, who has been living with her since February. A portrait of him on his first communion hangs in her bedroom. A welcome home sign hangs in his.
"He just wants to move forward, to live now," she said of Francisco. "He is a little big man. I think my son is amazing. He is so mature."

Tweet

Deputy AG, Wife Charged in PA Child Abuse Case

Cases like this are always hard to stomach, but the hypocrisy here just takes it to a whole new level. Keep in mind that these charges are being brought against one of the state's highest public officials, and his wife. The office of the attorney-general is not only the senior legal adviser to the government, but also responsible for leading criminal prosecutions. In essence, you might say that the one of the state's "top cops" is being charged with these terrible crimes.

There will be those who give the old "bad apple" excuse, and say that such a case is not indicative of a real problem. Well my friends, I would have to disagree and say that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Sure people are people, cops and prosecutors are only people too. And that is exactly why we, as a society, should not allow these officials to wield inordinate power over the citizenry.

I wonder how many cases this man prosecuted in the same mindset that he showed to his own children, or worse. One of "tough love" or a sense of "justice" so rigid and unforgiving that it is a crime in it's own right. This is the sort of man who was put in charge of charging other people with crimes, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania...

Pa. deputy attorney general, wife charged with abuse of children

A state deputy attorney general and his wife have been charged with child endangerment and assault against two children they adopted from Ethiopia earlier this year.

Douglas B. Barbour, 33, and Kristen B. Barbour, 30, of Franklin Park, were charged Thursday with two counts of child endangerment against their 6-year-old son and 18-month-old daughter. Each also received an aggravated assault charge against the daughter. Mr. Barbour was charged with simple assault against his son.

"The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is in the process of reviewing the criminal complaint and will closely monitor the charges as they progress through the criminal justice system," said a statement from state Attorney General Linda Kelly released Thursday night.

"Mr. Barbour faces a felony offense. Under OAG policy, he will be suspended without pay pending the resolution of the charges. At this time, our thoughts are with the children and the Office of Attorney General will cooperate fully with this investigation," the statement reads.

Allegheny County police are leading the investigation.

The Barbours' daughter is the victim of physical child abuse, including abusive head trauma, according to Rachel Berger of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, whose examinations of the children was referenced in the criminal complaint.

Ms. Barbour told hospital personnel last month that their daughter has a history of banging her head, but the extent of her injuries and the fact that she had no underlying medical problem does not support that, Dr. Berger said in the complaint.

The Barbours' 6-year-old son is "the victim of significant neglect and possible emotional abuse over a prolonged period of time," Dr. Berger said in the complaint.

Doctors who evaluated the boy determined his skin lesions were likely the result of ongoing contact with urine. He was experiencing weight loss at home but ate voraciously and gained weight -- without medical treatment -- when fed at the hospital, according to hospital personnel cited in the complaint.

The boy told a doctor that when he soiled his pants, his parents would make him stand or eat dinner in the bathroom, according to the criminal complaint. Authorities noted his room contained no furnishings, decorations or window treatments: only a mattress on the floor with sheets.

Dr. Berger recommended the children be removed from the home and cease contact with their parents. She told authorities the Barbours' daughter is likely to be reinjured or killed if she returns.

"I have been part of the Children Protection Team for almost 14 years and cannot remember the last time I recommended no contact," she said in the complaint.

A little more research into this case shows that the girl may have suffered a stroke as a result of her injuries, and may now be permanently blind.

It appears that Barbour is mainly listed as representing the state in cases against prisoners. 

When Douglas Barbour was told his son’s body temperature was 93.6 degrees, he reportedly asked: “Would that be from being in the bathroom, cold, wet and naked for an hour?”


Tweet

Drug Testing Welfare, One Good Reason Please

This piece is brought to us by my friend J Speaks. He's a great writer who has contributed some material anonymously in the past. This time he is pissed off it seems and a little more out in the open about his opinion on an issue that I have a serious beef with too. Well, without further ado, let the man speak...

This seems to be a real-hot button issue lately, that myself and a few friends have taken up as sort of our "pet" issue. Pet-peeve might be more like it, seeing how people are actually swallowing this fascist crap. Sadly, other friends of mine who I have a lot of respect for in other ways, have fallen prey to the rhetoric, and actually believe that this drug-testing thing is actually a good idea.

On July 1st of last year, Florida put it into effect for a number of months before the courts stepped in and said it was un-Constitutional. Despite the total failure of that program both fiscally and legally, Georgia is now slated to implement their own drug testing program exactly one year later to the day, on this July 1st.

Well, I have decided to throw down the gauntlet. I challenge anyone to give me one good, logically sound reason to believe that this is a good idea. Because up to this point all I see is fascism and bigotry as the lowest common denominator in this sort of legislation.

To get things rolling, I have put together this piece, challenging some of the more common reasons people give for supporting drug-testing of welfare applicants and recipients.

To accept his challenge, please visit his original thread at Hudson Valley Forums.



It will save the taxpayers money.

FALSE. In Michigan and Florida it has already proved to cost taxpayers a lot more than it saved. These programs were an expansion of social services, not "smaller government" and not an effective cost-cutting measure at all. Other states that considered passing similar laws, rejected the idea when their own studies found that it would cost far more than it would ever save to implement a drug-testing program of this nature.

In Florida, taxpayers are now left on the hook to reimburse payment for the 97.4% of applicants who passed the drug screening. All of that money is going directly into the pockets of the private drug-testing companies. Companies like Solantic, which was founded by welfare drug-testing champion Florida Governor Rick Scott, and then handed over to his wife for safe keeping amid the fervor of an obvious conflict of interest.

The NY Times tells us:

...2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state... Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test... the testing cost the government an extra $45,780.

No one has even tried to crunch the numbers to find out the actual final cost to taxpayer either. The test is only one component of a now hugely expanded welfare bureaucracy which must digest the test results, process the information, manage appeals, and battle the Constitutionality of the program in courts. What will this cost the taxpayer in man-hours for social workers and other state employees? What will the cost to taxpayers be for something as simple as the new forms which must be filled out? It doesn't seem unreasonable at all to guess the cost of the program might actually be 3 or 4 times the cost of the actual test itself.

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

Florida's welfare drug testing costs more than it saves

Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows 



Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare.

FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”

This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the subject reject that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the 2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the program provided no significant deterrent.


At least I won't be supporting an addict, even if it costs more.

FALSE. Once again.

Most drugs process out of a person's system within 24-72 hours, which is plenty of time to prepare for a welfare drug test, whether applying for the first time or re-certifying. So you will still be supporting the most hardcore drug abusers out there regardless of costly drug testing and bigger government. The same thing goes for alcohol, which is not even illegal of course, yet which is the most dangerous and frequently abused drug out there. You will still be supporting them too. Consider as well, the explosion of prescription drugs in society. Even when taken according to doctor's instructions, many people are dieing or becoming addicted.

So really we must consider the moral dilemma of not helping people in a battle with addiction in the first place. How do we differentiate between the addict who got their start on a school yard, and the addict who was assigned their first fix by a doctor? Who is more in need of assistance than a end-stage drug addict who is simply not capable of meeting their most basic life needs? Someone with diabetes perhaps, or cancer? Those diseases are often brought on by poor choices or bad habits too. Smoking, tanning, over-eating, poor diet. Do we reject all of those people from welfare too? There are many people who would shake their head yes, but those are the same people who reject welfare in its entirety, and are simply using the drug-testing issue as a cover for their bigotry toward poor folk. That is their right of course, but bigotry should never be a basis of law. So let's not follow the red-herring here and get back to the real issue.

Whether or not one thinks they should be supporting an addict, this law is not going to do anything to change it, and you will still be laying out money for a program that does not achieve your objective. There will still be people doing drugs and collecting public assistance funds, regardless of a costly drug-testing program.

And the few that do get caught? Pot-heads mostly. According to the state agency the majority of rejected applicants tested positive for marijuana. Hardly the die-hard smack fiend that might fit the common stereotype. Can weed be addictive? To a degree, sure, but not so much as harder drugs, or even nicotine or alcohol. And as we have already established, true addiction is a disease anyway, which should be treated as such, not discriminated against. Since marijuana is the only thing that is really turning up in these drug tests, what are people really saying, when they support a law for drug testing of the poor?


I don't want people on welfare spending my money on drugs, testing will put a stop to that.

FALSE. You guessed it.

It only means that the tiny fraction of the people on welfare who do use drugs, will turn to harder more dangerous drugs which are not so easily detected, or simply become drunks instead of pot-heads. Which would you rather see wandering the streets looking for a job, a mellowed-out stoner, or a vicious unstable drunk?

Granted, people should not be spending public assistance funds on any sort of vice, but then again, we are talking about human beings here too, who actually require some form of recreation to keep from going insane, literally. Not everyone has a fitness center or a social hall in their neighborhood, and we all have our vices. One could just as easily say that people on welfare don't deserve to watch television, don't deserve to eat anything but gruel, should never wear anything but tattered rags, should sit in a tiny room staring at the walls all night after walking the streets for 12 hours a day looking for a job that isn't there. Is it really so offensive that someone like a homeless veteran smoked a joint in a park once or twice this past month with some hippy who walks her dog there? Is that such a high crime that we will deny him food and shelter for the next year, perhaps to die in the streets in the meantime?

The truth is that we all need some way to unwind and enjoy ourselves for a bit. That need is probably even more acute for those living in poverty, not less. Depression, loneliness, lack of resources, lack of recreation, these are things that often lead to drug abuse in the first place. Relaxing with a doob or socializing with a few friends around a case of beer may be the very last things that a person living in poverty has to hold on to in order to retain their humanity, even any attachment to society. Maybe smoking a doob with the neighbor will get someone into a construction job. Maybe having a beer at the pub will lead to a job at the grill. Who are we to really judge?

Especially when you consider that, for the most part, people are not actually spending welfare money on any drugs at all. Welfare does not provide enough to live on in the first place, much less to support a drug habit. Which sadly enough, is often another big reason why poor folk turn to drugs in the first place. The allure of quick cash in the black market to make up the short-ends when it comes to putting food on the table and keeping the lights turned on. So then it is not welfare money that is paying for drugs, but black market dollars instead. The welfare money is still going to the basic necessities of life, not drugs. Now one might argue that the drug money should be going to keeping the lights on instead of the welfare money, but then you would be making the case for legalizing drugs so that it could be declared and taxed as income. So if you argue to legalize drugs while demanding drug-testing, doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?

Finally, to wrap up this section, it must be admitted that some people will wind up spending public funds on drugs (or alcohol, or tobacco, or chocolate, or caffeine) but drug testing is not going to stop that. It's also not even something we should be so concerned about that we are willing to shred up the Constitution and shoot ourselves in the foot with the costs. Will people use welfare money for drugs? Sure. No system is perfect. But what percentage of people on welfare are actually spending public cash on drugs? Not the occasional pot-smoker, not the pot dealer who gets high on his own supply. So out of the 2.6% of people on welfare who are doing drugs, there is still only a tiny fraction of that number, who are probably so far gone into their drug habit that they will be dead within a few years anyway. Better off to just let them have the damn few hundred bucks rather than dealing with them breaking into your house.

If you are really concerned about where your tax dollars are going, you would be much better off to demand answers about where these $2.3 TRILLION in tax dollars vanished to, or why a cop who sniffs coke off the dashboard of his squad car still gets his pension, or why you are funding all of these crimes, or why you are supporting a failed war on drugs.





It's for the children! Drug testing will protect them.

FALSE. No it won't. No more than cops protect kids by shooting the family dog in front of a 7-year old. Whenever fascists come calling, they tell you for it's for your protection, whenever they really want to shove something down your throat they tell you it's for the children.

Drug testing of welfare recipients will put children directly in harm's way. Specifically, when the parent is denied assistance, the children will have to go without food, shelter, and basic immediate needs. There is no child advocate standing there to take custody of a child the moment a welfare applicant tests positive for drugs. Which means that the child will indeed be forced to endure starvation and neglect as a direct result of this policy, while they disappear onto the streets. Now some may argue that it is the result of the parent's irresponsible drug use, not the policy, but that argument is logically flawed. First, because of the high risk of false-positives, it is quite possible that the parent did not in fact use drugs, but still turned up positive on a test. Secondly, it is the policy which is denying direct aid that would be allotted for this child, not the parent. The child's hunger will not be fixed by placing blame on the parent. Blaming the parent in this case is like blaming the waiter for burning your food. Sure, maybe they should have seen that it was burnt when they brought it out, but they were not the one who burned it.

Some might argue that a child should be taken away immediately if a parent tests positive for drugs, but that is a very dangerous precedent to set. First, as we already pointed out with false-positives, the state would be taking away children from parents who were not in fact drug users, but who had perhaps used some nasal spray before the test, or drank a Mountain Dew. Secondly, it would set a precedent that would not be limited to just folks on welfare. This would mean that any parent who ever tested positive for drugs, perhaps as part of a job interview, would be subject to the state stepping in and taking their children. Any arrest for simple possession, a DUI, those too would be grounds for a children's removal from the home, even if it turned out the parent was not even proved guilty in a court of law. A tool for the state to come in and take children away based on a simple accusation against parents who have in fact done nothing wrong.

Even if it turns out a parent actually is one of those dreaded pot-smokers, would a child really be better off tossed into a state facility or a foster home, where children are often beaten, raped and murdered? Except under the most dire circumstances, a child is better off with a parent, and the courts agree. In a controversial case, the State of NY overturned a ruling which barred a level-3 sex offender from seeing his children, and even opened the door so that he could sue social services for barring him access to start with. (His conviction had nothing to do with any crime against his children.) 

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

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

So we see here that it is the drug-testing law which creates the neglect, by denying essential emergency services to benefit the child, based on no actual violation of the law. Having a pot-smoking mother may not be the ideal situation for a child, but it certainly is not proof of any imminent danger. Remember, it is illegal to have drugs on you, illegal to distribute them, but there is nothing specifically illegal about having drugs in your system. Even if it were illegal, then the welfare applicant must be tried and convicted in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before they could be seen as responsible for anything having to do with drugs in their system. In the meantime, it would still be the state themselves which were creating the neglectful condition, not the parent. There are plenty of parents out there who can smoke a joint on the weekend when the kids are away, without endangering or neglecting the children in any way. Just as there are parents who are responsible drinkers, without impeding on the safety of their children. It is the government's refusal to assist those in poverty which impedes on the safety of the children, no matter what the government's excuse might be.

Would a hospital refuse to treat a child for injuries or some other emergency health condition, simply because the parent refused or failed a drug test? Certainly not. Hospitals can't even refuse treatment based on someone's ability to pay for the services. Would an ambulance driver refuse to take a child to the hospital after a car wreck, when it looked like the parent was driving drunk? Would an ambulance even refuse to render aid to the drunk parent themselves? Certainly not, because if they did it would be a dereliction of their duty to render emergency aid. And emergency aid is exactly what welfare is. Granted, it may seem like some of these emergencies go on forever, but don't blame the victims of a terminally flawed economic system for that. Which of course bring us to...

If we make them get drug tests, it will force them to get off their ass and get a job.

FALSE. For one simple reason. There are no jobs.

For every job opening in America, there are 4 people actively trying to fill that position. Those numbers don't include people who can only find part-time minimum-wage work, and must therefore turn to public assistance funds to feed their family. Those numbers don't include those who have run the length of their Unemployment Insurance benefit without ever managing to find a job. Those numbers don't include those who finally gave up, virtually hopeless, exasperated beyond the point that the working stiff would ever care to imagine. You might be pissed off about your job, how hard you work, all the taxes you have to pay. Try not having a job for a while. You will envy those who have an April 15th deadline. But in the meantime, we are going to take away from you the Constitution, your liberty, and oh, by the way, your last shred of dignity as well....

Yup, that's right, that schmuck asshole has a job, and you don't. Your journey to the darkside is now complete. You are now a slave, in every sense of the word, and it's all your fault.

2 Judges Guilty of Selling Children to Prisons

CPS Insider Reveals 'Secret Rules'

The video is a bit annoying because of poor quality, but the points raised are very important to hear in case you don't know...

CPS takes 8-year old away from Botox Mom

When I first saw this story, I thought the mother was half insane, but really I was not at all surprised. The narcissism in our society, particularly among women, is everywhere. This is just another example of it. Now clearly the woman should not be administering Botox to her 8-year old, but the news today is that CPS has stepped in and taken the poor kid away from her mother. Was that really necessary? I think not. An interview with the family, some monitoring perhaps would be in order, give the mother some proper parenting lessons, but taking the kid away is overkill and just about as stupid as the mother giving her kid the friggin Botox in the first place. And is it just me, or is it really creepy how this reporter keeps stressing that the child is okay? I think things just went from bad to worse for that poor kid.



Here's an original report...

Police force children to take drugs at gunpoint

(NaturalNews) In a new video posted today (link below), I argue that using police officers to enforce a Big Pharma medication agenda is not merely a violation of civil rights, but a crime against human rights. It is a grave misuse of state power and a waste of law enforcement resources that are already stretched thin across the country.


The video concerns the case of Maryanne Godboldo, the Detroit mom who was raided at gunpoint after refusing to allow Child Protective Services to kidnap her daughter. What was Maryanne's supposed "failure" at parenting? She refused to give her daughter a psychiatric medication prescribed by her doctor -- a medication that even the state now admits the daughter didn't need.


After she refused, CPS called the police who brought guns onto the scene. Maryanne, in an effort to protect her daughter, warned the police to go away. When they broke in through her front door, she allegedly fired a warning shot to let them know she would protect her daughter against armed intruders. This resulted in the SWAT team being called in, and a 12-hour standoff ensued.


Maryanne is now facing multiple felony charges, including "obstruction of a law enforcement officer."

Full article at link:

http://www.naturalnews.com/032160_cops_gunpoint_medicine.html

Here is a link to the video talked about in this entry:

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=97774F5C3850CF921CBD4919305AE67C