Do we REALLY want children raised by people on drugs?
By dhunley • Jan 21st, 2008 • Category: ArticlesThis is the kind of idiotic position modern liberals find themselves! (yeah…yeah…I know….I’m a one trick pony and you guys are doing fine without me…lol…but still, I wanted to hear what you all think about this?)
I picked up a Lexington-Herald Leader this morning. On page B1 was the headline:
WELFARE PROPOSAL HAS FEW FANS
Would tie benefits to drug tests!
.
It seems legislation has been proposed to test welfare recipients for illegal drug use; those found positive would lose their benefits.
Of course, the modern liberals don’t like it. That would threaten their voting base, and they know it! The whole modern liberals political philosophy is to convince people they’re helpless, hopeless and must depend on THEM (i.e. government) for hand-outs or they’d…they’d…why, they’d just die, I reckon.
Mr. John Rosenberg, former head of the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund in Prestonsburg said:
“Welfare is for the children, and so if you’re doing such a thing you’re punishing the children!” (always “the children”, eh?…the final refuge of the scoundrel maybe? 
Oh REALLY Mr. Rosenberg? So you think it’s alright for a child to be raised in a home where illegal drug activity is taking place? That’s just fine with you Mr. Rosenberg?
Sane people (and people who actually cared about “the children”) might think it’d be a good idea to get these children out of such an unhealthy environment. But children don’t vote do they?
And before someone goes all “sop eyed” on me and starts trying to say “What are we supposed to do with the children?” That’s a cop-out and you know it. Have you looked at the requirements for adoption lately? MY GOODNESS…if our parents would have had to meet the same requirements, most of us would never have been born. They’re ridiculous and designed (once again) for political reasons and NOT what is best for “the children”.
The ACLU (of course) filed suit against the state of Michigan in 1999 to stop
Michigan from continuing with a similar plan. Said it was “unconstitutional”!
Oh REALLY Mr. ACLU? So you think it is perfectly alright for a man working to provide for his family to be tested for drugs…but someone who’s taking money from that working man should be allowed to continue doing so even if they’re breaking the law? THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL Mr ACLU?
That’s utterly ridiculous. Of course, I think State Rep. Melvin Henley, R-Murray identified the real problem. He said.
“It makes sense to a person who has to work for a living and has to undergo drug testing and who sees people on welfare who don’t have to abide by any rules.”
Of course it makes sense Mr. Henley…and that’s the problem—for modern liberals like Mr. Rosenberg, the ACLU, and the Lexington Herald. The LAST thing they want is something that makes sense and helps the working man; those people are in this business for power—and they’re not going to let a little thing like common sense get in the way of their vote buying.
The modern liberals and the so-called democrats in government always find themselves making these dumb arguments…I don’t think they fooling anyone, though.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
How about equal justice and equal enforcement, gotta be groups way beyond the average welfare reciepiant taking drugs so BEFORE it is imposed on the lowman onthe totem pole lets have all the badgemen, lawyers judges and politicians tested an wonder if their genetic info is being pirated to the insurance database as well. There are plenty of books and journalistic articals on the corruptions of government making drugs illegal has brought, I’d be for legalizing hemp and pot around here there would be the most benifit for agriculture but not the rediculously more dangerous alcahol, coke and heroine and such cause the mob makes too much mulah on those LOL?
January 21st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I say Drug Test all politicians and peace officers First too. And then test those doing the testing. Put simply, test those with the income to spend ~$30/day to snort a little pill up their noses… and –and only then– start testing those with an income that one can barely survive upon.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Oh, yeah! Just to set the record straight;
I am NOT a Modern Liberal.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
And while they are at it, let them write into that legislation a board of supervisors to be elected by the people, consisting of MDs who will supervise the tests given to those Testers, who in return will administer the tests to the people.
“The board of supervisors shall be assembled and present during the drug testing of those who will be assigned the duty of administering Drug Testing to Politicians, Peace Officers, and Welfare Recipients…”
We, after all, do want to be fair and constitutional about things don’t we?
January 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I found myself so tied up in reading the article, that I forgot what your question was;
I think you were asking if we REALLY want children raised by people on drugs.
NO! Not illegal drugs…
But that question is a generality.
Some folks are on prescription medications (aka Drugs), and others will take an asprin or motrin or tylenol, for a headache —- and heaven forbid that they have to take a pseudofed for sinuses —- as that could be mistaken for meth (I hear it’s the main ingredient btw…).
Better have the Doc take you off the pseudotussin tablet if you want to feed your children, by working or drawing your deserved disability.
I better quit, this is starting to sound like StarsAndStripesForever stuff, but I’m dealing with reality, not playing upon emotions.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
BTW; Hope your not still working outdoors in this cold stuff in the early mornings Dhunley. Night before last was so cold on me that the hair in nose kept frosting up.
And I CANT wear a ski-mask during my work hours. It’s hard enough to wear a hoodie without showing my papers to the man.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Oh yea, forgot to add Judges to that list for drug testing, but for all practical purposes I consider them politicians too. Even though some are appointed, it’s a political appointment made by a politician.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 am
I was of course not supporting drug testing for any group as even drug testing for those applying for a job cannont be trusted that somewhere in the consent form is a reference that the tissue used for testing is not property of the testing company and at some point they liklely will do a genetic fingerprint and that will determine your credit rating and how much you car insurance will be. THE BLanky@#%** facishists are all owl worshippers or the deciples of them elete that are all perverted many with child molesters and such DONT BE IGNORANT, crap, they that seek power do not deserve to have it and are likely to be really messed up after going thru the silly rituals to get there.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I really don’t believe that last comment was directed towards me, but if it was, simply go back and reread my string of comments above.
We can not tolerate two classes of people, within the several states united.
“We hold the truths to be self evident that all men are created equal…”
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
no not directed at you at all; we need to be more EXTREMIST about our privacy and information astronomically moreso than th e founders in this 4thReich techknocrassy , part of the reason I was pegged socially with the moniker “Techknomen”(my spelling pronounced Tec-know-man with a schwa upsidedown “e” LOL)
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
i for one would vote yes to drug testing for the welfare becouse if thay are doing drugs the kids are not getting it
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Oma,
I respect your thinking here, but if you re-read the article, you may come under the false impression that only welfare recipients abuse drugs.
I say if the legislature wants to pass such a law, then let it apply to them too… As well as peace officers, judges, the people who administer the tests, etc…
The working man can have children just the same as a welfare recipient… So shouldn’t the same law test him to make sure that he’s not neglecting his children by snorting his wages up his nose? or guzzling his wages down in the form of alcohol?
I know that a lot of us used to watch “All in the family”, and Archie Bunker was a funny guy… but we weren’t laughing with Archie, We were laughing AT him.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:04 am
Shouldn’t EVERYONE that receives a welfare check being drug tested on a regular basis? The working man is paying for the welfare person’s check. I still think, as a non-breeder, it is totally unfair that I pay school and library taxes. Here’s an example. Once when I was working in a private lab, a woman was sent to me by the courts to get a regular urine test screen for drugs every couple of weeks. She kept passing them and the lawyer on the other side couldn’t figure out how and since I ran the testing myself and then sent it to the main lab to verify, etc., THEN, the lawyer ask if a “chain of command” was being used in these testings. In other words, I would need to go into the restroom with her and literally watch her pee in the cup. I called and told them no as I was not told to do so. I just gave her the cup and she went two doors down and brought back the urine. Well, the next time she came in I was under orders to watch her in the bathroom. Well, guess what? DUH! POSITIVE for cocaine and hydrocodone! I called the lawyer and he was shocked. She lost her kids. Anyway, just a thought on the drug testing. I have never taken illegal drugs and when I was hired on at Our Lady of the Resurrection in Chicago, I had to go for a drug screening within 24 hours. I went immediately and had it done and was called the next day to hear that I tested positive for a drug! I freaked out. Come to find out the anti-anxiety pill I was taking showed up and I just needed a note from the doc as to why I was taking it and everything was ok. We had one lab tech test positive after eating a poppy seed bagel. So ya never know. I have no quams about submitting to a test at any given time. I know most thing it’s an invasion of privacy and I guess it is but why fear something if you have nothing to hide?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 am
Kat,
I’m sure that more people then me will be asking this question, so I’ll go ahead and ask it in the most polite way that I can think of;
Just when was the Constitution suspended and “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” changed to “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”?
Even if you are charged with a crime, the prosecution has the “burden of proof”.
The prosecutor HAS TO prove that you are guilty. You ARE NOT burdened with proving your innocence.
The law they are trying to pass violates Due Process Of Law or reinvents it.
If you read the MAIN article, this is supposedly about protecting the children, right?
Well, if this is about protecting the children, then shouldn’t the children of the working man, politicians, legislators, judges, peace officers, etc… deserve the same protections that are being proposed for welfare children?
Or should we let the child of a cop, judge, legislator, politician or other such person suffer abuse and neglect simply because of this legislation that simply ignores every single child that isn’t a welfare child?
I agree that something needs to be done about the drug problem, but testing people who (are on welfare and) can’t afford the drugs to begin with, isn’t going to help anything. It only promotes the 2nd class citizen attitude that too many people already have.
Let’s do something about the drug problem, but let’s do it right. Let us do it while promoting equality. Not by singling out the poor. The average welfare recipient can barely make ends meet. How on earth are they going to support a ~$30/day or more drug addiction.
In all honesty, the only thing that I see this legislation doing is creating more drug dealers.
The welfare recipient walks in, pees in a cup, receives a false positive, and reasons out that they are being accused of it anyway, why not just sell the crap.
I’d be willing to bet a billion that they’d make more dealing drugs then drawing welfare. Do you want to take me up on that bet?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 am
It’s no big deal for police to find $1,600 cash on a person arrested with a few pills in an improper container at the end of the month, and that’s a small amount.
Drug dealers have no need for welfare, it’s a headache for them. It would require them to enter a state office, and to talk to a state employee. It would tie up an hour or two every other month when they could be utilizing that time selling their poison.
That very hour could cost them $600 or more by preventing them from being in a place where they can make a transaction.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Sorry, but I disagree. I lived next to drug dealer’s that were all on welfare.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Of course the dealer’s make MUCH more than living on welfare. That’s not even up for debate. If they aren’t selling drugs and need more money, the answer is simple, have another kid.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Todays’ obituaries:
The American Dream of self-reliant free enterprise is DEAD; It died in the minds of those that go immediately to the (DRUG/BIGPHARMA CORPORTIST CORRUPTED)government for solutions to problems like drug use testing for welfare recipients and NOT insisting that all the other Welfare recipients (drawing government checks like: ) lawyers judged mayors councilmen etc. all lose their privacy of medical conditions they are taking pills for tooo.
Tis another emotional hot button issue that is on par withe the Canadian Gun Registration debacle, sounds nice but the 100 Million “loonie$”
originally allocated were ultimately lost after the program was abandoned when 2 or 3 yrs later the cost had ballooned to 10X or 1 Billion, and the job still was not half done so they “gave up”. A whole raft of these “security measures” for our modern society are cost heavy impractical and unamerican to paraphrase old $100Fed Franklin
Those that sacrifice a little liberty for safety get neither and deserve neither.
Liberty and Freedom passed away and was about 400years old by some accounts.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I have a friend that lives in St. John’s, Canada and they have tons of money and then I have another friend on the far western side of Canada that is quite poor. They BOTH receive the SAME exact quality of health care and it’s FREE! Why is that? and why is it not an option here? Because the USA drug makers are greedy? No?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
There are others who believe that people should not reproduce, and you are more then free to express your views the same these people do.
But I for one am not going to blaspheme, and I will continue to subscribe to the notion that we should “be fruitful and multiply”.
My children are children, children are people. Goats have kids, people have children.
Now that I’m done taking up for the children—who were just called goats, I will attempt to continue this discussion.
Children, as you may or may not realize, are expensive to raise, far more expensive then a little welfare check could ever provide. I guess you’d just have to raise a child to understand this though.
Let’s suppose that you try raising a child and just so happen to need public assistance for one reason or another.
On that one child, you would receive $186.00 in the form of a welfare check.
Now if your theory of “need more money have another…” holds true, then a family with 3 children would draw $186×3=$558.00
Sounds good doesn’t it?
But it doesn’t work that way.
Each additional child gets less and less benefits then the first.
The reality is the average welfare family with 3 children draw ~$262.00 so it looks to me like the amount for each child has decreased to ~$87.00 per child.
Now explain to me how having more children gives them more money.
From my humble observation, it looks like they receive less welfare per child and have to do more with it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Now if you want to do away with the welfare system which eats away at the paycheck of the working man, I’d be happy to help.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“That’s not even up for debate.”???
It is a most legitimate part of this discussion, if not one of the most legitimate points.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
One last thing before I forget;
Does anyone realize just how much more a Foster Parent draws in welfare benefits, when compared with the true parent who has to rely upon the welfare system.
Anyone care to throw some numbers on the board?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Dhunley,
I don’t believe that you support this legislation any more then I do.
Of course the welfare system is taxing the people —all of the people— way too much.
What we need is a plan to help people out of the welfare system. Perhaps redesign the system to give people a hand up, instead of the current system that keeps them trapped within the system.
We need to loosen the rules a tad and allow people to invest money without immediate loss of benefits, thus allowing the people to come up with a self sufficiency plan.
Give them a hand up and out, not just a handout that keeps them relying upon the welfare system.
That idea of drug testing actually sounds good, but it isn’t a solution, and in the long run it will eventually add to the already out of control drug problems that we face today.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
all i am saying is that the kids is the ones that is getting hurt and is all about the kids
it just hurt me to see a kid do whit out
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
all i am saying is that the kids is the ones that is getting hurt and is all about the kids
it just hurt me to see a kid do with out
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
And you are right Oma.
The children are the ones who are getting hurt when their parents are so childish to abuse alcohol and drugs in the first place.
Look at all the things those people could do for their children if they didn’t abuse drugs and alcohol.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not downing people who have an occasional drink or two, but I haven’t any respect for those parents who funnel the alcohol.
I don’t think the children should be raised in a home where Mommy and Daddy are more concerned with getting high, then they are with buying the child’s basic necessities… Food, Clothing, Soap, Shampoo, and even Toys.
If I were too broke to buy a toy after buying their basic necessities, I’d sit down and make them a toy.
Believe me, I know where your coming from. It hurts me to see children who have do without things too.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
This whole issue is off base because of the lack of understanding on the economics issues of the government debt shell game.
Quote from the Grace Commission:
“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”
Submitted to President Ronald Reagan on January 15, 1984
The DEBT of the united states is what is eating the paycheck of the working man. “conservative ” hero big spender Ronald Raygun commission report said all the “income” tax (stolen from workers), back before he got shot equaled the interest on the national debt.
…
Our government borrows money that was created out of thin air that Congress could print for free in order to operate, and the Citizens of the United States of America are forced to pay the interest on this unnecessary debt to privately-owned banks in the form of a federal income tax imposed on our wages. When asked what law exists that demands the citizen’s compliance with this system, those issuing this grievance are met with force rather than explanation in many cases. This scenario is more than simply troubling. This shakes America to its very foundation. The [Ed &Elaine] Brown situation illustrates in stark terms just how deep the talons of big private corporate interests are sunk into the American body. The lack of understanding by the general populace as to these issues illustrates just how limp and weak that body has become.
“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984
Visit here… Interest On The Debt! …and gulp!
http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/interest.html
Sit down when you view it. People have fainted when they see the size of the Debt Hole we’re now in!
http://garygraves.blogspot.com/
All this liberal “its for the children” sentiment is lost on me along time ago, what about the Great great grandchildren eh, with the system we have the “debt” can never be paid off and only continues to increase along with inflation, forever.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled”.
-President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA
“Our Income Tax system is a disgrace to the human race.”
-Jimmie Carter, said in 1976 by the then President-to-be
“An advanced society such as ours deserves better.”
-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, speaking of the Income Tax System in 2001
“In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that ‘If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will collapse’”.
-Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)
“… the key question is: can we define ‘income’ in a fair and reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing so”.
-Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993
“I don’t like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs’. That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him”.
-T.Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, May 25, 1956 in US. News & World Report
“Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint”. [haw haw]
-United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States
“Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance”. [haw haw haw]
-Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)
“The United States has a system of taxation by confession”.
-Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
“Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply…”.
-Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:aMKjbO4rMO8J:www.geocities.com/cmcofer/quotes.html+Regan+Grace+report+debt+income+interest&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=us&client=firefox-a
January 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Oh and Alcyhol is legal, does more damage and kills more people than alot of the illegal drugs, like “pot” for example,
BUT LEGAL drugs/perscription drugs and doctors kill injure and maim way more than terrorist could hope to, so for the children
LETS BAN DOCTORS !!!
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
this adds up to
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
* 12,000 — unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 — medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 — other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 — infections in hospitals
* 106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs
total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
2&1/4MILLION every 10years so since 9/11/01 that is
approximately 1.4million
and we whine about ~4-thousand on 9/11?
Or about some drughead’s children? Just some perspective eh?
How many trillions would be spent if the “terrorist” killed over 1million of us on 911 (and maimed millions more)
Big Pharma run healthcare needs overhauled eh? (not that Hillary has any answers)
January 24th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I suppose the discussion is sort of off base in the since that money is created out of thin air, but the more money created, the bigger excuse the government can invent to tax us over.
Not to step too far off topic, but dissolving the Federal Reserve and going back to the uS Treasury gold & silver backed money might get us all out of the perpetual debt.
It has been said that Kennedy tried to do just that, and then a few days later … BANG! (x5?)
Kennedy’s idea was, as I have heard, to move away form the not-FEDERAL RESERVE system and print United States Notes backed by the gold and silver reserves.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I feel the need to explain something here, before I comment any further;
It really burns me up when people call me a person, I’m not a person, I’m one of the people.
Now that said;
It really gets under my skin when children are called “kids” as if they were goats or sheep.
It brings to mind the word “sheople”, and if you only knew what a sheople is… Well let’s just say that you’d be offended too.
I have an Illustration that demonstrates the meaning of that word (sheople) that I could scan and upload, but I’m not for sure that Dave or Dhunley would appreciate me doing so.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
KIDS referring to children likely gained a lot of use because of the German use of Kindergarten - garden of/for Kinder or “Keindt” with a German accent, in aenglish would be child but in the American hodgepodge melting pot was contracted to kid and became a hominymn with the term for a baby goat. ehhhhh good theory anyway?/
January 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
JFK issued “United States Notes” backed by silver a throw back to the civil war is what the Black’s Law defintion says, but the debunkers claim that JFK just wanted to reduce the silver hoard of the government as silver was due to be demonetised and he knew of it. THe massive money creation of the space race and vietnam spending created too much inflation/devaluation that a silver dollar could no longer be issued as they would be way above the Federal Reserve not a Note value; even today a silver dollar cant be had for less than about 10FRNs for a beatup common 1922 issue.
IF it were not for the astronomical debt and interest, that could be paid off with the CAFR assets, & Leo Wanta Trillions squirelled away “off the books”/outside the budget; this idea that a working man’s paycheck would somehow benefit from even cutting out all welfare payments and social programs (including earned income tax credit) is where this issue is a destraction/irrelivant as are most issues until the wee sheople get there head outta their … sandbox and rein in this giant octopus of corportism that many call the government.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The silver dollar is inflation resistant when used as a mechanism of trade. As pointed out by Required Voluntary Compliance;
“[...]even today a silver dollar cant be had for less than about 10FRNs for a beatup common 1922 issue.[...]“.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Yep, that’s what I posted, the Liberty Dollar bunch found out that the alphabet soupers can take whatever they want to however, nothing is protection from that except a lead dollar/50cal round like the Waco whackos used AFTER the ATF killed the children’s dogs and PROVED they were as evil as Koresh cultist had washed their little brains to believe.
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/raid.htm
January 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Well there’s one thing to be said about that;
They can kill us, but our words will live on forever!
The pages may be wayback exempt, but they are being printed and archived by many.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
well thanks in part to hR1955 & S(B) 1959 ;
Portions of these sentiments may be in yur digital FBI/INTERPOL/.mil -itary industrial complex profile too? As the res-ident agent/s and AT&T -NSA splitter rooms filter/packet sniff you out to see where/who you is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r2Z8YTIeGU&eurl=http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/252.html
January 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
That’s OK,
This is a digital Press.
If someone wants to buy a copy, they simply print it out from home.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Almost fergot the Southern Poverty Law Center, they profile folks too, for their files and like to submit them to the FBI(and Mossad?) so some of these rantings may survive in those files too, just in case?
January 24th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
But what do they have to fear from us?
The naked truth perhaps?
January 25th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Speaking of JFK… Here is something that may be of interest to a few, and might should be of interest to us all.
As I stated earlier;
[...]They can kill us, but our words will live on forever![...]
Here are some recordings by William Cooper. Among these recordings is his radio program where he discusses the Kennedy assassination.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
E.Howard Hunt’s son came out with some recording his dad made, “death bed confession” on JFK type stuff last year, and the video/film of the Secret Service being told not to ride on the running boards as usual, when leaving the airport in Dallas is another factor pointing to the wider factors/conpir-acy that had to exist to bring all that to triangulation at Dealy plaza/temple of the sun…
January 25th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Ya Know on JFK the reason why he was shot at the top of th e back/base of neck with the 1st shot, it disabled him so he could not move/ right above where a bullet proof jacket/flack jacket would have been under his suit ! I never have seen anyone point this out, but that sure looks like the intent here, to send a message not to mess with shutting down the CIA/.mil industrial complex/federal mafia Eisenhauer had just warned us about in his farewell address.
Being paralised from the evidence of his arms raising like chicken wings, he was posed for the psycological operation of a open air public execution head shot, for the maximum effect on those toying withe such ideas for stopping the nonConstitutional piracy we are still living today. RON PAUL Inc. better watch out, unless he is another psyop waiting to take down the selfesteem of those holdouts resisting the 4thReich tecknocrassy tracking grid !?
January 25th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
That first {back of the neck} shot and the other things you speak of has been airing over KET1 lately… And I haven’t heard them consider that the first shot entered just above where a flack jacket would offer protection either.
Don’t get me wrong, they showed the angle of entry and exit, but they just didn’t connect it with the fact that he could have been wearing a bullet proof vest.
January 26th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Yep, there were a bunch of wacko gun-nut thugs at Waco alright. Sure would be nice to know how to embed a video on here wouldn’t it…
Here’s a video about that Waco standoff.
Maybe Dave or somebody will email me with instructions on how to embed video on here.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Wackos at Waco alright! In military choppers! Gun nuts with machine guns — gunning down civilians. Tanks destroying the peoples home and church while filling it with flammable gas! Then they throw in flash grenades and light it up burning innocent children alive.
You might get more information from this pair of videos, but I recommend watching the one linked up above too.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Some of the biggest blockbuster effective stories have come from anonomys sources;
How about a moderated thread for “whisleblowers”; does this software support resticted posting on seperate threads instead of just “comments are closed”
A place where anonmys posts on corruptions, local or not(but NOT GOSSIP) could be linked or “documents”/pictures put up.
Sorta in this theme:
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks
…developing an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis. Our primary interests are in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we expect to be of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact…(more)
Interested in how you can help out? Need to contact us as a media representative? Visit our collaborative portal for more information.
Of course someone would have to moderate it?
February 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Should we go from bad to werse? “Conspiracy of silence”
If that dont werk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggxiBWv4xYE
February 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Simply, Yes.
But the viewing is restricted right along with the posting.
But how to get the password into the right hands without basically having an open forum?
February 21st, 2008 at 7:16 am
ON the whisleblower thread idea:
my concept was for a ongoing thread/article that by itself had to be moderated, to avoid posts that would be just slanderous & not actually expose what needs exposing with some level of credibility.
I supose it could be done by annon email account set up by each whisleblower?
Or all the entrys are sent to a moderation cue & when actually openly viewable are COMPLETEly anon without even a identifiable moniker only something like this would be seen:
6/31/08 Anon says: Son of state rep buys county property for development see plat book 683 page 1239; Where did the money go? Price per acre below 1/2 open market.
7/1/08 Anon Post: Drug Dealer
Check out the
drug dealer on thursdays at the quicky mart off 32south;
shows up with her left earring only. Police watching for weeks no arrest made except for some of the teen customers shaken down and searched. usually 5-9pm drives a Green VW
Entrapment or making informants?
——
7/04/08 Anon post claim:
County road equip seen on private drive
^*seen here off Opossium ridge off Rt 949 grader and gravel for 4hours used on private drive Accross from Paul’s Mill church.
(((the moderator would have to file off site any isp or id info attached to the post IN CASE some law enforcement trace is forced upon the site ))
I dont know; just a idea alot of folks wants someone else to do their civic citizens duty for them for fear of reprisals or they are party to the system/mind your own business types.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
That might be doable but it would most certainly be beyond my abilities. Not that we can’t give it a try in the future.
This would require a thread of it’s own, moderated as you have already described, but the only way to keep the IP thing moot would be to create .html or .php pages (i suppose .txt would even work), and link to them from the thread like
Report for 01/01/01
Or just copy and repost the entire thread, but then everything comes back to the moderators IP.
Maybe Dhunley or Dave know of some ways of doing this that I don’t.
For example a subdomain like informant.rowanreview.com could be set up with a different set of permissions than this site has.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 am
norn gardenmaking gripgrass aberroscope nonfixation amyclaean latirostral orchis
Doonagore Farmhouse
http://www.fibics.com/
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
can anyone stop or delete these nuts from posting? This latest one from “Shayne Andrews” came from http://www.archongroup.com
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Actually that last one made it in via a comcast router.
Either dhunley or Dave would have mark it as spam, alter it, or just delete it.
Optionally, if they were to bestow editor privileges upon me, I wouldn’t abuse them, and could help moderate the spam out.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Atomoxetine….
Atomoxetine….