Australian Gun Law Update
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia (Feb 2009)

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down Under. It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now available:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;

Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of a firearm was legal.

(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)

While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their victims will be unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'

This story of well intentioned government intervention in the rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this to you.

But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Americans may want to take note before it's too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY. BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA HAPPEN IN THE U.S. !


Gun Control in Butte, Montana
Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders
 
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
 
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
 
Everwonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC,CNN, or ABC news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home and herself ...... against two murderous, illegal immigrants ...... and she wins, she is still alive. Now that is Gun Control!
 
Thought for the day: Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'.


They are already talking about gun control in United States of American even before the inauguration. Gun control is favored by Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reed.

A little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up an d exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more Than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still pos-sess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Aust ralian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are 'Citizens'.

Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!


Violent Shooters Often Have History with Psychiatric Drugs
Omaha Shooter Robert Hawkins Had Been "Treated" For ADHD, Depression
http://www.newstarget.com/022330.html

America seems shocked that, yet again, a young male would pick up an assault rifle and murder his fellow citizens, then take his own life. This is what happened last night in Omaha, Nebraska, where the 19-year-old Hawkins killed himself and eight other people with an assault rifle. Those lacking keen observation skills are quick to blame guns for this tragedy, but others who are familiar with the history of such violent acts by young males instantly recognize a more sinister connection: A history of treatment with psychiatric drugs for depression and ADHD.

It all started in Columbine, Colorado, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold massacred their way into the history books on April 20, 1999 by killing 12 and wounding 23 people. The mainstream media virtually glorified the event, yet utterly failed to report the connection between violence in young men and treatment with psychiatric drugs. (Both Harris and Klebold were taking antidepressant drugs.)

It's a little known fact that antidepressant drugs have never been tested on children nor approved by the FDA for use on children. It is well established in the scientific literature, however, that such drugs cause young men to think violent thoughts and commit violent acts. This is precisely why the U.K. has outright banned the prescribing of such drugs to children. Yet here in the United States -- the capitol of gun violence by kids on depression drugs -- the FDA and drug companies pretend that mind-altering drugs have no link whatsoever to behavior.

Enormous evidence linking mind-altering drugs with violent acts
In 2005, I reported on this site that Eli Lilly had full knowledge of a 1200% increase in suicide risk for takers of their Prozac drug, a popular anti-depressant SSRI medication. (See http://www.newstarget.com/003086.html )

In 2006, we reported the results of a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry showing that teens taking antidepressant drugs are more likely to commit suicide (and to be "successful" at completing the act). See http://www.newstarget.com/020643.html

On September 11, 2006, I reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and violent behavior yet again. (See http://www.newstarget.com/020394.html ) In that article, I explained, "If you're going to alter the brain chemistry of these children, you had better be prepared for the results. The result we're seeing now is mass killings. Elsewhere around the world, where children aren't doped up on all these drugs, we don't see this kind of behavior. This is what happens when you change children's brain chemistry; you get these results..."

The very next day, we published a report about the anti-depressant drug Paxil doubling the risk of violent behavior. (See http://www.newstarget.com/020406.html ) In that article, I stated, "This finding helps explain why school shootings are almost always conducted by children who are taking antidepressants. We also know that SSRIs cause children to disconnect from reality. When you combine that with a propensity for violence, you create a dangerous recipe for school shootings and other adolescent violence.

In April of this year, I also reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and the Virginia Tech shooting. See http://www.newstarget.com/021798.html

What I said in that article has urgent application right now, following the Omaha shooting:

A study published in the Public Library of Science Medicine (an open source medical journal) explored these same links in detail. (See Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law, by David Healy, Andrew Herxheimer, David B. Menkes)

The authors note that "Some regulators, such as the Canadian regulators, have also referred to risks of treatment-induced activation leading to both self-harm and harm to others" and the "United States labels for all antidepressants as of August 2004 note that 'anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric'".

In other words, the link between antidepressants and violence has been known for years by the very people manufacturing, marketing or prescribing the drugs. As the author of the study mentioned above concluded, "The new issues highlighted by these cases need urgent examination jointly by jurists and psychiatrists in all countries where antidepressants are widely used."

That was last year, well before this latest shooting. The warning signs were there, and they've been visible for a long time. Medical authorities can hardly say they are "shocked" by this violent behavior. After all, the same pattern of violence among antidepressant takers has been observed, documented and published in numerous previous cases.

Not surprised at what happened in Omaha
The people of Omaha may be surprised at what happened there yesterday, but I'm not. Why? Because the shooter, Robert Hawkins, had a history of being "treated" for both depression and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). (Source: Associated Press)

And what is the standard American psychiatric "treatment" for these conditions? Mind-altering drugs, of course.

ADHD, for example, is treated with a drug that used to be an illegal street drug called "speed." It's an amphetamine, and recent research published in the August, 2007 issue of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reveals that Ritalin and other ADHD drugs actually stunt the growth of children, causing their brains and bodies to be physically altered. (See http://www.newstarget.com/021944.html )

Depression, of course, is treated with SSRI drugs, none of which have ever been safety approved by the FDA for use on children or teens. In other words, the use of these drugs on teenagers is a grand, mind-altering medical experiment, and what we just witnessed in Omaha is one result of that experiment.

There will be more. I hate to be accurate about this grisly prediction, because I grieve for the families of those lost to pharmaceutically-induced violence, but the truth is that until we stop drugging our children with psychotropic drugs, the shootings are not going to stop.

Big Pharma is to blame for this one, not the manufacturer of the gun. That gun has a trigger, you see, and the trigger was pulled by a finger. The finger was connected via a series of nerves to a brain, and that brain was altered by psychotropic drugs. The brain wasn't functioning like a normal, healthy, well-nourished brain; it was functioning like a zoned out "zombie" brain permanently distorted by psychiatric drugs.

Sending a teenager out into the public doped up on mind-altering drugs that we KNOW are linked to violence -- and jacked up on junk foods (he worked at McDonald's) -- is a certain recipe for disaster. Big Pharma executives, drug reps and the irresponsible psychiatrists who dish these pills out to teenagers might as well have just walked right into the mall and set off a bomb themselves. These are the people ultimately responsible for the tragedy in Omaha. Hawkins may have pulled the trigger, but modern psychiatry drugged him with violence-inducing chemicals. The fact that such drugs promote violence isn't even disputed. It's printed right on the warning labels of those drugs!

And as sad as this tragedy is for all those affected by this medication-induced violence, the truly sad part is that America still hasn't learned this lesson. If you drug the children with chemicals that cause violence, you're going to see more shootings. It's as simple as that. And if you take away the guns, you'll see bombs, knives or machetes used in these attacks. When disturbed young boys are doped up on psychotropic drugs that promote violence -- and they're drugged by the hundreds of thousands -- it's like playing a national game of Russian roulette (with apologies to Russia). Sooner or later, another kid whose mind has been altered by Ritalin, Prozac or some other drug is going to walk into yet another school or mall and start killing people. This kind of behavior is a direct product of chemical-based psychiatric "treatment."

The criminals running modern psychiatry
In fact, I predict we'll see another such shooting in the next 30 days, if not sooner. And yet, even with the increasing frequency of these events, the unholy alliance between Big Pharma and the immensely evil psychiatric industry will continue. Yet more children will be put on mind-altering drugs that stunt their growth, alter their brain chemistry, and turn them into mind-numbed massacre drones who acquire dangerous weapons and open fire in public places.

The psychiatric industry, though, thinks that yet MORE children need "treatment" with drugs for ADHD and depression. In fact, an industry press release recently claimed that only one-third of those children "suffering" from ADHD are receiving appropriate "treatment" for the condition. Of course, those are just code words for "drugging the children with high-profit pharmaceuticals." When the psychiatric authorities say "treatment," what they mean is "more drugging."

Want to learn the horrifying, yet true, history of modern psychiatry? Check out www.CCHR.org - the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights. They have a documentary so downright shocking that I couldn't even finish watching the whole thing. It's called Psychiatry: An Industry of Death.

Also be sure to check out the shocking book by Kelly Patricia O'Meara called Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills That Kill. This book explains exactly why kids like Robert Hawkins who have been treated with psychiatric drugs end up shooting innocents.

What could have healed Robert Hawkins and saved lives
So what's the solution to all this? Robert Hawkins could have been healed with a radical change in diet that supports healthy brain chemistry. His parents or caretakers should have stopped the junk food, ended the medication and put him on raw, living foods and daily superfood smoothies, fresh vegetable juices, raw nuts and seeds and other wholesome, non-processed foods. Nutrition is the single most powerful factor determining healthy moods and behavior, and virtually all young men who commit violent acts (including the vast majority of those imprisoned in the U.S. today) suffer from wild nutritional deficiencies.

Robert Hawkins could have been a healthy, stable and normal kid with the help of some real food, real nutrition and real love from a supporting family. Instead, he lived on junk food, worked at McDonald's and took medication pills as directed by his psychiatric doctor. The results speak for themselves: This recipe of processed food and mind-altering drugs created a monster, and yesterday in Omaha, that monster exploded in a rage of violence.

If we don't learn from all this and stop drugging our nation's children, then those innocents in Omaha will have died in vain. And I ask the question: How many more innocent Americans must pay the price for medication-induced violence?

Ask yourself one question: Why does the FDA continue to allow these dangerous drugs to be prescribed to children and teens when 1) They have never been tested on children or teens, and 2) Other countries have already banned the prescribing of these drugs to children and teens?

Story Notes: The Associated Press originally reported Hawkins' age as 20 years old, but corrected it to 19 years old following a correction by local police. Hawkins was not reported to have been taking medications at the precise time of the shooting, but his caretaker, Debora Maruca-Kovac, said that "he had been treated in the past for depression and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder." We do not know exactly which drugs Hawkins had been treated with in the past, and we hope the names of those drugs will surface in future reports on this tragedy.

NewsTarget deeply regrets the loss of life witnessed in this event, and we commit to doing our part to end these medication-induced crimes that continue to be perpetrated by Big Pharma and modern psychiatry. You have permission to forward or reprint this article, with appropriate credit and a link back to this URL: http://www.newstarget.com/022330.html

Please protect our children from Big Pharma!

- Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Consumer health advocate

Editor, http://www.newstarget.com/

Not yet a subscriber? Sign up at: http://www.NewsTarget.com/ReaderRegistration.html

---

Prescription drugs are connected to school shootings and other violence, yet more drugs are touted as the solution
by Mike Adams

The United States is gaining a reputation around the world for raising children who go on school shooting rampages. Earlier this year, we had another one with 16-year-old Jeff Weiss, who went into his school on an Indian reservation and blew away 10 friends. And guess what? He was taking the antidepressant Prozac.

Once again we see the link between antidepressants and violent behavior. I was raising the alarm about this in 1999 following the Columbine schools shootings. At that time we knew that those students were on antidepressant drugs, but the rest of the world didn't take any notice of it. The rest of the world said, "These drugs are completely safe. They keep these kids happy and in a normal state so they don't feel depressed." What they actually do, though, is detach these kids from reality to the point they can go on shooting rampages and not even have a clue that they're affecting the lives of real people. It basically transforms the world into a video game that these kids play out.

It makes it very easy for them to cross that threshold and begin to display violent behavior. We've seen this in the studies and finally, after years and years of pounding this issue, some of it has started to come out in the popular press. We're seeing a lot of warnings now about antidepressant drugs and their ability to cause violent behavior. We're seeing some of these drugs pulled off the market. And slowly we're beginning to see the general public recognizing the link between antidepressant drugs in our youth and violent behavior, including school shootings.

Back in 1999, they blamed guns. So if the students had picked up knives and stabbed people to death, it would have been a knife problem? Give me a break; it's not a knife problem, or a gun problem… it's a medication problem. These schools are supposed to be drug-free zones, and yet half the kids are doped up on antidepressants and Ritalin. How is that drug-free?

If you're going to alter the brain chemistry of these children, you had better be prepared for the results. The result we're seeing now is mass killings. Elsewhere around the world, where children aren't doped up on all these drugs, we don't see this kind of behavior. This is what happens when you change children's brain chemistry; you get these results.

Now, you can talk about other factors that may be involved. We can talk about violent video games, for example, and how some of these first-person shooter games are potentially training simulators for violent and aggressive behavior. However, I think you can only push that argument so far. If a child can distinguish between a video game and reality, then he's not going to be running around shooting people in the real world just because he played a video game.

That doesn't mean these video games are healthy. I would certainly prefer that children played something a little less violent, but I don't think you can blame the video games for this behavior. You've got to go to the brain chemistry. It's when you alter the brain chemistry that bad things start to happen.

Boosting brain health with nutrition
Now, are there healthy ways to alter brain chemistry? Of course there are. Fundamentally, this is actually a nutritional problem. If a child is depressed, or if he or she is suffering from so-called ADHD -- which is a completely fictional disease, by the way -- you can resolve the vast majority of these issues by making changes in their diet.

As much as 80 percent of children diagnosed with ADHD can be completely free of the "disease" in a matter of weeks just by taking certain metabolic disrupters out of their diet -- most notably, refined sugars and refined grains, such as white flour and artificial food colors. Imagine how healthy children's nervous systems could be if we fed them good nutrition. What if they had some supergreens or just some basic vitamins, minerals and whole food concentrates? What could we do for the health of their brains?

They would have stable moods, they would have non-aggressive behavior, and they would be more creative and more willing to learn. We could raise a whole generation of healthy, intelligent children if we started with nutrition, because the brain and nervous system are physical organs. People forget that. The brain is a physical organ, and just like any physical organ in your body, if you don't give it the right nutrients, then it won't function properly.

Trying to raise a normal child without nutrition is akin to running a car without oil
It's sort of like trying to run your car without any oil in it. I know that's a crude metaphor, but some people get the point that way. You have to have good nutrition for the brain; that means B vitamins and lots of minerals -- magnesium, zinc, calcium and the trace minerals as well. You have to have the phytonutrients, the pigmentation in these foods -- the blues in the berries and the reds in the tomatoes and peppers, the orange in carrots and so on.

The colors of foods are actually potent phytochemicals, and these colors have highly protective effects on the nervous system. They also boost immune system function in the body and can help reduce arthritis and inflammation. They have a lot of beneficial effects in the body, yet children today are growing up on mostly processed foods and junk foods.

You probably remember what you ate as a teenager. It's an atrocious diet. I know mine was a terrible diet. I can't believe I made it to the age of 25 based on what I was eating then. But some kids aren't making it, and they're not making it because they lack the basic nutrition they need to have healthy functioning nervous systems.

So what does this organized medicine and psychiatry do to combat this problem? It doses teenagers up on prescription drugs as if drugs are the answer to every problem. Then they have another answer when these kids go out and shoot each other. The answer, then, is prison time. "We'll lock these kids away because they're dangerous to society."

Instead of spending a few dollars on nutrition to raise a healthy, balanced human being with a functioning nervous system, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, over the life of this person to keep them incarcerated. We build more prisons. We put them on more drugs, and we do nothing to create a productive member of society.

It only takes a few dollars worth of nutrition each month to support a healthy child. Of course, there's more to it than just nutrition; there are things like good parenting, a great living environment, a challenging learning environment and so on. But in terms of the nutritional aspect, it only takes a few dollars. Nutrition doesn't have to be expensive.

Investing in the health of our children is a bargain
To cover the nutrition basics only costs a few dollars a month, and that investment would pay off so much in our society. It would be returned many times over very quickly because every kid that we can save from the prison system and give a new opportunity, in terms of being able to learn and take on a skill and have real job opportunities out there, produces a windfall of returns for society. That child is going to grow up and be a productive member of society. He or she is going to pay taxes, possible raise a family and be part of a community. Instead, we put them in prison, dose them up on drugs and blame them for their actions when I believe they've actually been instigated by the prescription drugs and toxic chemicals in their foods.

The don't need to be punished as mush as they simply need to be nourished. I know this stands at odds with the current "incarcerate everybody" mentality that dominates the culture here in the United States, the land of prisons -- but it's the truth. Why are we the country with the greatest prison population in the world? It might be the same reason we are the nation with the worst health problems in the world. They are connected, you know. People who are unhealthy are unhappy, moody and can display aggressive, violent behavior. Change their diets and you can turn many criminals into normal people. Not all of them, of course, but a large number.

Modern society is addicted to drugs
Someday historians will look back on this era and wonder with great bewilderment how we could poison our children with such toxic chemicals, how we could poison an entire generation with prescription drugs and how we could keep all our senior citizens in a zombie state, dosed up on mind-altering drugs. They will wonder, "How could we do this as a society? Were we insane? Were we completely out of our minds? What was wrong with this society?"

At that time, society will have moved way beyond chemical-based medicine. We will be focused on disease prevention, and we'll have electro-medicine. We'll be using non-local medicine, for example, to help people stay healthy. We'll have outstanding nutrition available at a very reasonable cost in formats people can enjoy taking. Someday, nutrition will be recognized as the number one way to prevent disease and keep people healthy.

Belief in chemicals as a cure-all is just one more sign that we are living in the dark ages of medicine
Today, however, we're living in the Dark Ages of medicine. We're still living in the chemical-based medical society where everybody says that chemicals are the solutions to health problems.

"Does your head hurt? You need a chemical. Blood pressure too high? We have a chemical for that, too. Do you feel nervous speaking in front of groups? We have a chemical for that one. Having trouble with your relationships? Chemical. Got a little bit of joint pain? Yup, there's a chemical for that." Then they'll tell you, just in case, "We have chemicals for stuff that you haven't even experienced yet. We have chemicals that you can take to make sure that you never have pain or heart disease. You should take all these chemicals right now, just in case, and keep taking them for as long as you live."

How's that for a con? The con of pharmaceutical-based medicine is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the American people. That con has effects in our schools, and unfortunately, some of those side effects are fatal.

The silent holocaust of pharmaceutical deaths
Let's look at this in perspective: We're talking about 10 children being killed in this particular incident, and there are a lot of headlines about these 10 children being killed. Certainly, it is a tragedy. None of those children deserved to die, and it didn't have to happen if only we were able to actually take care of our children and feed them right in the first place. But let's compare those 10 deaths to how many Americans have been killed by prescription drugs this year alone. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association says in a peer-reviewed study that prescription drugs cause 100,000 deaths a year in this country.

Ten children die in this school shooting, and it gets a lot of attention. Why? It's violent; people pay attention to violence. Meanwhile, we have 100,000 Americans (and that's a conservative number) dying every year just from prescription drugs side effects, and it gets no attention. Why? It's not violent. These 100,000 people die separately, and they die quietly. They die in homes or in hospitals. There's no fiery crash, there's no late-night footage for the news, there's no big explosion and there's nothing to report to the tabloid papers. It's just 100,000 people dying silently.

Also, more than 16,500 deaths a year are caused by over-the-counter pain medications. Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) kill more than 16,500 people a year by gastrointestinal bleeding. Then the COX-2 inhibitors, which were supposed to be safer than the NSAIDs, came along, and according to studies by chief drug researcher Dr. David Graham at the FDA, they've caused more than 144,000 heart attacks, more than 40 percent of which have been fatal.

So what are we talking about here? We're talking about drugs killing more Americans than the entire Vietnam War. We're talking about it happening every year -- twice a year, in fact. You want to talk about a war; this is war on the people, and it's being waged by the pharmaceutical industry. They're willing to trade your life for their profits, in my view. They can get away with it because, again, there's no big event. People are dying separately and quietly, and many of the people who are dying were in their old age anyway, right? They figure no one will blame the drug.

We have a disturbingly drug-addicted society here, folks. We've got to get back to health and basic nutrition by raising children with healthy, functioning nervous systems. If we don't do that, no amount of chemistry is going to save us. In fact, these chemicals are already responsible for untold pain, suffering and death in our society.

The solution is not more chemicals. The solution is to change the paradigm and get back to nutrition, healthy foods and disease prevention while getting the poisonous ingredients out of our food supply. If we don't do that, we're going to continue to be a society of violent criminals and degenerates -- a society of people who don't have good cognitive function and who are chemically dependant on a system of medicine that is actually killing them at a rate that makes the Vietnam War look like a Boy Scout skirmish in the woods.

That's the truth about modern medicine today. It's a crime against our own children, and if we are to have any real hope of surviving as a nation for another generation, this practice must be stopped.

---

Antidepressant Paxil found to double the risk of violent behavior
by NewsTarget

New British research has found that users of GlaxoSmithKline's antidepressant drug Paxil were twice as likely to experience violent behavior compared to patients taking placebo.
Researchers from Cardiff University in Britain and the Cochrane Centre examined data on Paxil -- or its generic form, paroxetine -- from GlaxoSmithKline, legal cases and emails from nearly 1,400 patients who responded to a British TV program on antidepressants. The researchers found that 60 out of 9,219 people taking Paxil -- 0.65 percent -- experienced a "hostility event," compared to 20 out of 6,455 patients taking placebo, or 0.31 percent.

Paxil is in a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitirs -- or SSRIs -- that recently came under fire from doctors who claimed it increased the risk of suicide in teenage users. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded in 2004 that SSRIs caused teen and adult users to run higher risks of suicide, and ordered its strongest "black box" warning label on several SSRI drugs.

Researchers David Healthy, David Menkes and Andrew Herxheimer concluded in the online journal Public Library of Science-Medicine that although the risk of violence in Paxil takers was rare, it was a risk worthy of further study.

"The new issues highlighted by these cases [of violence] need urgent examination jointly by jurists and psychiatrists in all countries where antidepressants are used," they wrote.

"This finding helps explain why school shootings are almost always conducted by children who are taking antidepressants," explained Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and critic of the overmedication of children. "We also know that SSRIs cause children to disconnect from reality. When you combine that with a propensity for violence, you create a dangerous recipe for school shootings and other adolescent violence," he said.
---

Children and teens taking antidepressants might be more likely to attempt, complete suicide (http://www.newstarget.com/z020643.html)

Antidepressant medications may be associated with suicide attempts and death in severely depressed children and adolescents but not in adults, according to an article in the August issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently began requiring drug manufacturers to include a warning regarding the risk of suicidal behavior among children and teens treated with antidepressants after a large analysis of clinical trials revealed a potential link. It is uncertain whether there is an association between treatment with antidepressants and suicidal behavior in adults, according to background information in the article. Because relatively few completed suicides occur, suicidal behavior is used instead in studies assessing the risks associated with antidepressant medications and few studies have examined the risk of suicide attempts or deaths in patients treated with antidepressants.

Mark Olfson, M.D., M.P.H., College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and colleagues analyzed the medical records of 5,469 Medicaid patients who were hospitalized for depression at least once in 1999 or 2000. The researchers first selected all cases of completed suicides (eight children and adolescents and 86 adults) and suicide attempts (263 children and adolescents, 521 adults). They then matched each case with one to five controls based on demographic information, period following hospital discharge, presence or absence of a suicide attempt prior to hospital admission, state of residence, other medication use and presence or absence of a substance abuse disorder.

Severely depressed children and adolescents ages 6 to 18 years were 1.5 times as likely to attempt suicide and also significantly more likely to complete suicide if they were treated with an antidepressant medication than if they were not treated with an antidepressant. More specifically, children and adolescents who died from suicide (eight cases) were more likely to have been treated with an SSRI antidepressant than their matched controls (39 controls, 37.5 percent vs. 7.7 percent). Among adults age 19 to 64 years, however, treatment with antidepressants was not associated with either suicide attempts or suicide deaths.

The link between completed suicides and antidepressants in young patients was based on only eight cases, and it is possible that the sickest children were more likely to be treated with such medications, skewing the results, the authors write. "With these caveats in mind, the present findings are consistent with the recommendations for careful clinical monitoring during the treatment of depressed children and adolescents with antidepressant medications," they conclude. "In practice, physicians face the difficult challenge of balancing safety concerns against evidence that depression is a key risk factor for adult and adolescent suicide and that antidepressant agents are effective for adult and adolescent depression." (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:865-872. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org.)

Contact: Craig LeMoult 212-305-0820 JAMA and Archives Journals

---

Are antidepressant drugs an accomplice in the Virginia Tech shootings?
by Mike Adams

The Chicago Tribune reports that Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 fellow students in a shooting rampage, was taking antidepressant drugs. This is not the first time a school shooting rampage has been linked to antidepressants. The infamous Colombine High shootings took place almost exactly eight years ago, and the shooters in that rampage were also -- you guessed it -- taking antidepressant drugs.

What is it about antidepressant drugs that provokes young men to pick up pistols, rifles and shotguns, then violently assault their classmates? Clearly, there's something wrong with the mind of anyone who engages in such violent acts. Could the drugs be "imbalancing" their minds, priming them for violence?

The answer is a very sobering, "Yes, they could be." As we reported in a previous NewsTarget article on Paxil:

Researchers from Cardiff University in Britain and the Cochrane Centre examined data on Paxil -- or its generic form, paroxetine -- from GlaxoSmithKline, legal cases and emails from nearly 1,400 patients who responded to a British TV program on antidepressants. The researchers found that 60 out of 9,219 people taking Paxil -- 0.65 percent -- experienced a "hostility event," compared to 20 out of 6,455 patients taking placebo, or 0.31 percent.

In that same article, published in September, 2006, I stated, "This finding helps explain why school shootings are almost always conducted by children who are taking antidepressants. We also know that SSRIs cause children to disconnect from reality. When you combine that with a propensity for violence, you create a dangerous recipe for school shootings and other adolescent violence."

Sadly, that explanation rings true once again with the Virginia Tech shooting. Wherever we see school violence, antidepressant drugs seem to found at the scene of the crime. The correlation is not coincidence. There is a causal link between the two.

The links between antidepressants and violence are well documented
A study published in the Public Library of Science Medicine (an open source medical journal) explored these same links in detail. (See Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law, by David Healy, Andrew Herxheimer, David B. Menkes)

The authors note that "Some regulators, such as the Canadian regulators, have also referred to risks of treatment-induced activation leading to both self-harm and harm to others" and the "United States labels for all antidepressants as of August 2004 note that 'anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric'".

In other words, the link between antidepressants and violence has been known for years by the very people manufacturing, marketing or prescribing the drugs. As the author of the study mentioned above concluded, "The new issues highlighted by these cases need urgent examination jointly by jurists and psychiatrists in all countries where antidepressants are widely used."

That was last year, well before this latest shooting. The warning signs were there, and they've been visible for a long time. Medical authorities can hardly say they are "shocked" by this violent behavior. After all, the same pattern of violence among antidepressant takers has been observed, documented and published in numerous previous cases.

How to stop the violence
Following this recent episode of violence, some Americans are renewing calls for gun control. But I ask, isn't it time we looked at antidepressants control? Why do we continue to drug up young people in this country with psychotropic drugs that we know are closely associated with violent outbursts?

Giving young men antidepressant drugs is, in my opinion, just like building silent timebombs and waiting around for one to suddenly go off. Chemically assaulting these young, troubled brains with powerful drugs -- while denying them real mental health solutions based on nutrition -- is the bread and butter of modern psychiatry, an industry that in my opinion has sold its soul to drug companies and now serves primarily as a glorified system of legalized drug dealers that preys upon children and teenagers.

That doesn't mean the doctor or psychiatrist who prescribed the antidepressants is directly responsible for the violence committed by Cho Seung Hui, but they may have very well played a key role in destabilizing the mind of a young man who was on the verge of insanity. You don't give another shot of whisky to a drunk driver, and you shouldn't prescribe antidepressants to troubled young men.

How many more Americans will be killed by pharmaceuticals?
FDA-approved prescription drugs kill 100,000 Americans each year. Sadly, these 32 dead students at Virginia Tech now join the list of those killed by pharmaecutical side effects. And yet nobody in the mainstream media seems to be reporting about the drugs.

Don't you find it curious that when 100,000+ Americans are killed in their homes and beds each year, dying from heart attacks and strokes caused by pharmaceuticals, there's virtually no news coverage, but when mind-altering drugs cause a student to pick up guns and blow away 32 classmates, it's suddenly front-page news everywhere? The reason is because there's violence involved, and violence gets ratings for news organizations.

Another interesting point in all this is that a Korean diplomat contacted the Bush Administration to offer his condolences. Does this seem a bit strange to anyone else? The student was an American citizen, and he had lived in America for many years. In fact, he got put on antidepressant drugs in America, following the same fraudulent system of medicine that is uniquely American in the degree of harm it causes people. If anybody should be picking up the phone and apologizing, it's the U.S. diplomats who should be apologizing to the world for exporting death, disease and western medicine. Drug companies should be apologizing to the families of those who died, as well as to the family of the shooter. And the doctor or psychiatrist who prescribed these drugs to Cho Seung should be apologizing to everybody. Where is the apology from the drug companies who manufacture these chemicals that kill?

The question I'm asking is: Who's really at fault here? Sure, it's primarily the person who pulled the trigger. But it's also the companies and FDA regulators who allowed dangerous, violence-inducing chemicals to be prescribed to the person who pulled the trigger. "Chemically-induced violence," I call it. And antidepressant drugs make it so much easier for the shooter because they make people feel dissociated from reality. One of the Colombine shooters said it was all, "like a video game."

Or, as described in shocking detail in the PLoS Medicine study mentioned above, a 12 year old boy was being drugged with antidepressants when the following took place. As reported:

The independent forensic report on the case notes CP as saying that that night: "something told me to shoot them". He had initially reported this to be hallucinations and then said he thought it was his own thoughts. When asked to specifically describe what the experience was like, he said it was "like echoes in my head saying 'kill, kill', like someone shouting in a cave". According to the forensic report, "He reported this began happening after he went to bed…He reported he had never considered harming his grandparents before and this was unlike anything he had previously experienced. He reported that the voices were coming from inside his head and they bothered him so much that he got up. He reported that the voices continued until he killed his grandparents. He reported that he couldn't control himself and reported the echoes stopped after he shot his grandparents. He set fire to the house but could not explain these actions saying the thoughts just popped up". He then took a vehicle and began driving but reported that he had no idea where he was going and that it all felt like a dream. He recalled asking the police about his grandparents after he was picked up because he was not sure if it had really happened or not.

My heart goes out to those who died... ALL of them
Yes, I mourn the dead. Do not mistake my skeptical thinking with a lack of compassion for those individuals and families traumatized by this event. But unlike most tabloid reporters, I don't end my story with the 32 dead at Virginia Tech. I mourn the 100,000 Americans killed every year by FDA-approved prescription drugs, and the millions more killed all around the world by pharmaceuticals, regardless of whether they were killed in a headline-grabbing act of extreme violence. And unless we restrict the use of antidepressant drugs and find a way to help young men achieve genuine mental health through nutrition, sunlight, and avoidance of toxic chemicals, mark my words: We will see more antidepressant-induced violence in America.

The shootings will not stop until the pills are banned.

You can bank on it. The next attempted shooting is likely only days or weeks away.

If we want to end this violence, we must end the chemical warfare being waged against the minds of our young men and children by the drug companies.

Study summary:
Here's the summary of the study, mentioned above, published in PLoS Medicine:

Recent regulatory warnings about adverse behavioural effects of antidepressants in susceptible individuals have raised the profile of these issues with clinicians, patients, and the public. We review available clinical trial data on paroxetine and sertraline and pharmacovigilance studies of paroxetine and fluoxetine, and outline a series of medico-legal cases involving antidepressants and violence.

Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.

The association of antidepressant treatment with aggression and violence reported here calls for more clinical trial and epidemiological data to be made available and for good clinical descriptions of the adverse outcomes of treatment. Legal systems are likely to continue to be faced with cases of violence associated with the use of psychotropic drugs, and it may fall to the courts to demand access to currently unavailable data. The problem is international and calls for an international response.

---

CAUSE AND EFFECT - THE VIRGINIA TECH TRAGEDY
By Lynn Stuter
NewsWithViews.com

In 1996, Barry Loukaitis walked into Frontier Junior High in Moses Lake, Washington, armed with a .30-.30 rifle and handguns stolen from his grandfathers’ home; he killed a teacher and two students, wounding a third. Loukaitis is now serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Media immediately targeted his embattled family. The parents were getting a divorce; there were allegations of domestic violence. A copy of the book The Rage by Steven King under a pseudo name was found by Loukaitis’ bed when police searched the home.

This was the first instance in which mainstream media took notice of the rising incidence of violence on school campuses. This was not, however, the first incident. Since 1991, the incidence of violence on school campuses had been on the increase nationwide.

On April 16, 2007, Cho Seung Hui, a senior at Virginia Tech, embarked on the worst massacre to occur on an American campus to date, killing over 30 people (the count seems to vary depending on the source), injuring many, then killing himself. The public was exposed to endless re-runs of the bizarre scene. It was rather amazing, considering the obvious zeal to sensationalize, that footage of the body of the gunman didn’t join the looping litany of re-runs. As a substitute they aired materials sent by Cho to NBC before his shooting rampage and ultimate suicide.

Enter the talking heads: why did Cho do this? what was the impetus? what was the cause? what was going on in his mind? The questions and talking heads have been endless. NBC’s 60 Minutes ran a segment on Sunday, April 22, 2007, in which it was divulged that the Secret Service has teamed up with the U.S. Department of Education in an attempt to “profile” potential shooters. The product of the team effort, in the form of a DVD, is now being dispensed to schools and universities across the United States.

But in all these so-called “experts” talk about, there are a couple of things they do not talk about, and what they aren’t talking about and why they aren’t talking about it should grab the attention of the public en masse.

What these so-called “experts” aren’t talking about is the fact that one whole generation of children have now been exposed, through their entire educational experience, to transformational systems education, intended not to educate them for intelligence but rather to inculcate them with the wanted attitudes, values and beliefs.

When transformational systems education first surfaced, the populace was told that this system of education represented a paradigm shift. Paradigm is defined as world view, how one perceives the world and the purpose of it; in other words, one’s religion or religious beliefs. Since this was a paradigm shift, a shift in religious world view, we needed to ask what world view were we shifting from and to. A study of history and our founding documents shows our nation was founded on the Christian world view. This was the world view from which our society was being shifted. To what world view were we then to be shifted? It soon became apparent that the world view to which we were being shifted was humanism/New Age.

The religion of humanism is man-made and man-centered, stating emphatically that “no deity will save us, we must save ourselves” (Humanist Manifesto I, 1933). It is the epitome of the mantra of the paradigm shift: “Creating the Future” — a term heard over and over again in the realm of the transformational process.

Unfortunately, if we each create our own futures according to our own passions, opinions and prejudices, civil turmoil will soon ensue. Therefore, we must subjugate individual rights to that of the collective of society. Enter total quality management (TQM) in business; the church growth movement (CGM) in churches; performance based budgeting (PBB) in government, and transformational systems education (aka, OBE, PBE and the plethora of other pseudonyms) in the schools. Transformational systems education is intended, specifically, to inculcate in children the wanted transformational Marxist attitudes, values, and beliefs.

Transformational systems education, what is happening inside every government school in the United States under the infamous Goals 2000, is not a natural process. It is the outreach of humanist psychologists and psychiatrists, men like,

B.F. Skinner—how to train a dog to slobber in five lessons or less; operant conditioning for children;

Abraham Maslow—father of the human potential movement and Third Force Psychology, adding the existentialist (New Age) spiritual dimension;

Carl Rogers—father of the self-actualization methodology;

Sidney Simon—the values clarification methodology of how to change a child’s belief system; being some, but not all, of the more prominent of the group.
Others, building upon the work of these men, in the realm of education, include John Goodlad, Howard Gardner, William Glasser; before them, John Dewey, socialist, signer of Humanist Manifesto I, promoter of transformational systems education or behaviorally oriented education.

Before this generation of humanist psychologists and psychiatrists seeking to understand that which will never be understood by mortal man — how the human mind really works — there were such degenerates as Sigmund Freud who was more than a little bit off upstairs. But his work, his writings, became the background for much that followed. During World War II, many transformational Marxists crossed the Atlantic from Germany, finding refuge in America; men like Kurt Lewin. In the foreword to the book The Change Agents Guide, Second Edition (Havelock, Ronald G; Educational Technology Publications; 1995), Matthew B. Miles wrote,

“The truth is that not until the late 1940’s, when American behavioral scientists began exploring and developing the ideas of the émigré psychologist Kurt Lewin, did we really have anything like a systematic science and practical craft of planned change in the kinds of social systems that matter most—families, small groups, organizations, communities.” (page vii)

And, of course, as so many have written about before, the “science” of planned change in attitudes, values and beliefs is centered around the Hegelian Dialectic; Hegel being a mentor of the communist, Karl Marx.

Antithetical to the Christian belief that man has a sin nature, therefore the need for a Higher Authority—the Creator—God who created man and gave His only begotten Son that man might be saved from his sin nature, humanism believes that man evolved (from what has never been stated) and is essentially good. Before he died, Abraham Maslow stated that his work was based on the false premise that man is essentially good; before he died, Carl Rogers denounced his work as a failure. That, however, did not dissuade those, realizing the potential man-centered religion had for achieving power and position over others, from abandoning their evil pursuit of the same. And what better way to do that than to produce generation after generation of un-educated, dumbed-down children?

When Barry Loukaitis walked into Frontier Junior High in 1996, few knew that the Moses Lake School District, situated in central Washington, had been immersed since the early 90’s in transformational systems education via the Schools for the 21st Century Pilot Program for Goals 2000, implemented in Washington State in 1989. Other states also participated in this pilot program. Is it a coincidence that school violence coalesced the implementation of this program? At the time, I told my Washington Legislators that due to the fact that transformation systems education was not normal, was not conducive to producing a healthy mind, that Moses Lake was just the start of what was to come IF they did nothing to reverse the damage already done. However, the legislature, not only in Washington State, but legislatures nation-wide, bought into Goals 2000, transformational systems education, and the incidence of school shootings has been on the rise ever since, even since Columbine when it was decided that the mainstream media would no give such attention to school shootings.

Now an entire generation of children have been subjected to transformational systems education, have graduated secondary and entered higher education. It is not coincidence that the trend in violence, associated with the unnatural bending of young minds, would follow.

With the school shooting in Springfield, Oregon, in May 1998, a short year before the April 20, 1999, Columbine Massacre, another aspect of the school shooters became so apparent that it could not be ignored by anyone who truly cared: the fact that an increasing number of shooters had been on or were currently on prescription anti-depressants. It was not long before it was reported that Cho Seung Hui, the shooter at Virginia Tech, was also rumored to have been on a prescription anti-depressants.

But nothing, absolutely nothing has been or is being said about this increasing and obvious factor. Why? Enter The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health established by the executive order of President George W Bush in 2002, from which emanated, in 2004, a proposal for the comprehensive mental health screening of every man, woman and child in this country. Since the publishing of the report of the New Freedom Commission, we have seen newscast after newscast, program after program, advocate for the mental health screening of the American populace; some even advocating the screening of children under two.

The same report of The President’s New Freedom Commission cites Columbia Universities TeenScreen® computer questionnaire as a “valid and reliable instrument” in identifying suicidal tendencies and mental health issues in teens. According to TeenScreen® literature, those deemed to have suicidal tendencies or mental defects are referred to mental health professionals—psychologists and psychiatrists. Research, not by the government, but by American citizens, produced a study published in 2004 by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in which it is stated 84 of every 100 children screened by TeenScreen® are falsely identified as having suicidal tendencies or other mental problems. These children are then referred to professional clinicians where anti-depressants are prescribed, more times than not; the same anti-depressants that carry a FDA black-box warning that they can cause suicide ideation and violent tendencies!

First these children are subjected to a system of education which is unnatural and intended to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs; then they are subjected to a bogus mental health evaluation with an 84% chance of a false positive, referred to clinicians were they are, more times than not, put on anti-depressants that can cause suicide ideation and violent tendencies. And we wonder why these kids are killing themselves and others?

Why is this not being talked about? Because the whole of it, the education system and the push to put people on anti-depressants, is coming right out of the United States government, socialist/communist Democrat and fascist Republican alike. The pharmaceutical lobby on Capitol Hill is one of the most lucrative sources of campaign funds for politicians; and it is the pharmaceutical companies who are reaping the profits of the growing number of young people put on prescription anti-depressants.

And face it, the more people killed by school shooters, the more ammunition the government has to repeal the Second Amendment! If they can get our guns away from us, then they can number us all like the Nazi’s did and we can all work in exchange for enough food to keep us productive! Useless eaters—the old and the infirm—will be exterminated!

Does the government—state or federal—really care if this system is creating killers who prey on others? Only to the extent that the gun doesn’t get pointed at them. To that end, they live behind barricades, that they might be protected from the “unwashed masses” who might intend them harm.

The sooner the American people come to the realization that the out-of-control rogue United States Government cares not one whit for the health, well-being or general welfare of the average American, the more apt we are to save our nation.

---

Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?
By Larry Elder
Thursday, October 18, 2007

This time, Cleveland: a 14-year-old suspended high school student entered Cleveland's Success Tech Academy, a gun in each hand, and opened fire, wounding four. Later, we learn that the shooter's past included violent confrontations, mental problems and at least one previous suspension. A month earlier he told a friend that he intended to shoot up the school. But no one, apparently, took his behavior seriously enough to notify authorities.

Meanwhile, a high school teacher in Oregon, with a permit to carry a concealed weapon plus training, sought permission to carry her firearm to school. In fear of her ex-husband, against whom she filed and received two restraining orders, she wanted the ability to protect herself in the event he showed up. Furthermore, she argued that even without the fear of her ex-husband, the Second Amendment and Oregon state law allow her to carry her firearm to work. Her school district, however, prevents her from carrying a firearm to school.

This raises a question. Do shooters consider schools "gun-free zones"? Do they consider it unlikely that any authority figure -- whether teachers or, in some cases, security guards -- poses an armed threat? But in some school shooting cases, guns helped to end shooting sprees and minimize loss of life and injury.

Edinboro, Pennsylvania. A 14-year-old middle school student opened fire at a school graduation dance, being held at a local restaurant. The shooter killed one teacher and wounded two students and another teacher. The armed teenager was apprehended by the restaurant owner, who grabbed his own shotgun from his office and went after the shooter. Staring into the owner's shotgun, the teen dropped his gun and surrendered.

Pearl, Mississippi. A 16-year-old sophomore entered Pearl High with a hunting rifle under his overcoat. He opened fire, killing two students and wounding seven. The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, ran to his truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Running back, he spotted the shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal put his gun to the shooter's neck and held him until police arrived.

Grundy, Virginia: at Appalachian Law School, a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots fired, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Bridges' gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air. (My pro-Second Amendment documentary, "Michael and Me," goes into detail about this incident, as well as others.)

Professor and economist John Lott checked 280 separate news stories in the week after the Appalachian Law School shooting, and only found four that mentioned the students who stopped the shooter had guns. The Washington Post, for example, said the students "helped subdue" the killer. Newsday wrote the shooter was "restrained by students." The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, however, wrote that the shooter "was wrestled to the ground by fellow students, one of whom aimed his own revolver at [the killer]." Four months later, the Times-Dispatch detailed the students' actions, including the second student's use of a gun.

What do felons think about an armed citizenry? A survey of convicted felons by the National Institute of Justice found 74 percent of the felons agreed that, "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot during the crime." The survey also asked these felons whether they had abandoned at least one crime because they feared the intended victim might be armed. Thirty-nine percent said they abandoned at least one crime; 8 percent had abandoned such a crime "many" times; 34 percent admitted being "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; and nearly 70 percent knew a "colleague" who had abandoned a crime, been scared off, been shot at, wounded or captured by a victim packing heat.

A survey of 23,113 police chiefs and sheriffs across the country found that 62 percent of these top cops agreed that "a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime." About 80 percent of rank-and-file police officers, according to polls, support the right of trained citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Israel gets it. Since the 1970s, on school campuses in Israel, policy requires teachers and parent aides to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. The result? School shootings have plummeted to zero.

As for Cleveland, would allowing authority figures to arm themselves have resulted in reduced casualties, or perhaps even deterred the shooter in the first place? No one can say for sure. But no doubt at least some Cleveland parents now believe the benefits of armed campus adults outweigh the costs.

---

AT THE ROOT OF EDUCATION REFORM
By Lynn Stuter
November 6, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

In 1997, Craig Roberts wrote, in his book, The Medusa File, page 90:

"… certain segments of the population must be programmed to be robotic drones, incapable or unwilling to think on their own. In this scenario, the “individual” is the enemy of the state. Individual thinking and choice are not conducive to “peace and progress” and not permitted. Only by being part of “The Team,” can the individual (follower) accomplish objectives or “outcomes.” Of course, these “objectives and outcomes” are directed by the bureaucracy. This phase of population training is currently being accomplished by the public school system with such programs as “outcomes based education,” and the introduction of New Ageism into the classroom. One has to remember that Adolf Hitler pioneered a similar tactic with his Hilterjugend and state-sponsored school system. To quote the Fuhrer, “When an opponent declares: ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say ‘your child belongs to me already. Who are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.’”

How could we possibly think that the system of education, implemented in the United States under Goals 2000, is the same system of education that produced the mentality that became Germany under Hitler?

To understand fully, we must go back in time to Plato, and follow his philosophy as it transpired through his disciples: Kant, Hegel, and Marx, to the philosophy and mindset of the men who influenced the social scientists of pre-Hitler and Hitler Germany. This is covered, in great detail in Leonard Peikoff’s book, Ominous Parallels. Also covered, in great detail, is the fact that the United States, as established, was established on the philosophy and teachings of Aristotle — the antidote of Plato.

What most American people do not know is that following World War II, many of the Nazis social scientists who served under Hitler were brought to the United States by the CIA via Operation Paperclip. The fact that they were Nazis, had served under Hitler, had participated in war crimes (some of the most heinous nature), were avowed Nazis, was expunged by the CIA (while high-level government officials looked the other way) from their files to get them into this country.

Once in the United States, the knowledge and ideas of these social scientists was put to work, only this time in the United States; these men became professors in universities, worked in behavioral science laboratories, and became practitioners in the social science field (psychology, psychiatry). Their writings and theories influenced the direction of social science in the United States, social science being the backbone of education in the government schools and what teachers are taught in colleges and universities today.

At this point it would be ludicrous to claim that these men were wholly responsible for the direction social science has taken in the United States. The philosophy of Plato and Kant, those who built upon their critique of reason, has been influencing social science in the United States for as far back as Wundt and the Leipzig connection of the 1870’s. What is important is that this same philosophy set the stage for Hitler; it also set the stage for bringing these men to the United States from Nazi Germany.

The result has been the transformation of America via the Hegelian Dialectic; Hegel also being a disciple of Plato and Kant, their subjectivism and relativism.

In his book, Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff, protégé of Ayn Rand, spoke of the education system of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power and how that system produced violent children; how that system produced the men who went on to become Hitler’s feared Gestapo and SS, men capable of inflicting grossly inhumane and violent behavior on others. The men who produced that system of education then came to the United States under Operation Paperclip, bringing their philosophy, teachings, and ideas with them to influence what would be implemented here.

And we wonder why we have violent children without a conscience, who take guns to school and kill other children and teachers, who join gangs, who can kill without remorse? And we wonder why, with the implementation of education reform in the schools of the United States since the early 1990’s, we have seen a spike in juvenile violence?

Some of the Nazi’s who came to this country, under Operation Paperclip, went to work for the CIA in the field of mind control, involved in such as Operation Artichoke, Operation MK/SEARCH, Operation MK/ULTRA, Operation Monarch, and Operation Bluebird — all CIA mind control programs experimenting, among other atrocities, with the use of drugs in the re-programming of the human mind. One CIA scientist, Dr Frank Olsen, after being given LSD without his knowledge, died after falling from a hotel window. Whether he committed suicide or was murdered, his family was kept in the dark, under the cloak of “national security,” for years about what really happened to him.

Coupled with what children are being taught in the government schools (in the name of producing a child capable of demonstrating mastery of government ordained, behaviorally-oriented, exit outcomes, just as one would train an animal), many of the children who have turned into killers have been found to be have taken in the past, or were currently taking, anti-depressant drugs with mind-altering capabilities. The incidence of anti-depressants being prescribed for children is rampant; the same being augmented by programs like TeenScreen set up to screen children for mental disorders (as established by the American Psychiatric Association) such as suicide, social phobia and shyness with referrals to mental health professionals where anti-depressants are too often prescribed without justification.

In the Operation MK/SEARCH program, children were re-programmed to lie, steal, spy, sabotage, kill and even commit suicide. (Roberts; page 86) Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School) and Cho Seung-Hui (Virginia Tech) all committed suicide. Likewise, all had been on or were currently on anti-depressant drugs at the time they went on a shooting rampage. Many of the school shooters have been found to have been on prescription anti-depressants drugs, past or present, including Kip Kinkle who killed his parents before continuing his shooting rampage at school.

Yet as America follows the path of Hitler and Nazi Germany, the American people continue to believe the spike in violence among today’s youth is not coming right out of government schools; has nothing to do with prescription anti-depressants. But then most American’s also have no knowledge of Operation Paperclip or the mind control programs of the CIA that have root in the mind control programs of Nazi Germany.

But the American leaders would never do something like this to the American people. They wouldn’t? One only need to consider that the Franklin cover-up — involving child pedophilia, prostitution and pornography — led to people in the highest levels of government with connections to law enforcement, the FBI and the CIA, to realize that “yes, they would.” The philosophy that can justify this kind of behavior is the same philosophy invading our schools in the name of education reform.

God bless America? What do you suppose God sees when he looks down on this land of people who willfully look the other way while the most innocent, the weakest, the most defenseless among us — the children — are treated in this manner? What do you suppose God thinks when he sees Christians sending their children to the government schools to be subjected to this barbarism? What do you suppose God thinks when he sees teachers in the government schools who claim to be Christians?

The Bible, in at least three chapters, speaks to the fate of those who harm His children:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6, KJV)

“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42, KJV)

“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” (Luke 17:2, KJV)

God speaks not idly.

The American people would do well to seriously reconsider their support of this “new” system of education that has roots is something so demonic, so evil.

---

http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books25.htm
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PUBLIC MENACE:
How Public Schools Lie to Parents and Betray Our Children
By Joel Turtell

In "Public Schools, Public Menace," you will discover:

How public schools can waste 12 years of your child’s life.
How public schools can cripple your child's ability to read.
How public schools deceive parents into thinking their children are doing well in school when they are not.
How public schools indoctrinate children with anti-parent, anti-American, and anti-Judeo-Christian values.
How public schools expose innocent children to often shocking sexual material in so-called sex-education classes.
How public schools pressure parents to give their children potentially dangerous, mind-altering drugs.
Why low-income minority parents should not pin their hopes on vouchers, charter schools, or the No Child Left Behind law.

The good news is that your children can now get a quality education and success in school by homeschooling them, or by carefully selecting a low-cost private school. You now have real school choice. Your children don’t have to suffer through 12 years of a mind-numbing, third-rate public-school education. (Note: just because a private school is "Christian" or mentions another religion doesn't mean that they don't get substantial funding from -- and therefore are controlled by -- the state. Please see www.learn-usa.com and consider homeschooling.)

You can give your kids a quality education right now with low-cost, K-12th grade Internet private schools, and many other education options. Our book, "Public Schools, Public Menace" shows you how.

22 ways that busy, working parents can homeschool their kids.
All about low-cost Internet private schools --- a new education resource for busy, working parents who are disgusted with public schools.
A wealth of practical advice, strategies and resources for parents who decide to take their kids out of public school.

Public Schools, Public Menace: By Joel Turtel. Softcover. 375 pgs.  $17.95 plus $6.00 for S/H. For each additional book add $1.50 for S/H. To Order, Call: 541-955-0117 0r, toll-Free US 800-955-0116,  We Accept: Visa, M/C, AM/EX.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Blumenfeld/SamuelA.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuterA.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schoolsa.htm

http://www.learn-usa.com/
On April 17, 1997, the Clinton's held a White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning.  This Conference signaled the White House blessing on yet another attack on the family.  The managed economy of the systems philosophy is truly "womb to tomb." 

The links below take the reader through but some of the material on the "early childhood brain development/early childhood learning" war being waged on the American family.  In reading the material posted here, please remember the following quotes:

We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families.  We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them.  From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools.  There they will grow up to be real Communists. — Congress of Communist Party educators, 1918

Give me the children, I will give you a nation. — Hitler, 1939

When an opponent declares 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'Your child belongs to us already.  What are you?  You will pass on.  Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp.  In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.' — Hitler, 1939

A Recipe For Violence

It COULD happen anywhere!  Youthful violence, that is.

In reaction to the recent shooting spree in Littleton, CO, this is a warning from an engineer-turned-educator that such an incident could happen anywhere in the U.S., not because of the availability of guns but rather because of psychologically perverse public school policies and practices, emanating from the U.S. Department of Education or its various "laboratories," promulgated in varying degrees nationwide.  Examining them in combination, you will see that they comprise a "RECIPE FOR VIOLENCE!"

The problem is NOT GUNS, but deteriorating youth behaviors.  Trends of increased violence at younger ages are being deceptively touted as an excuse for "gun-grabbing" legislation; but the violence is surfacing in other ways.  And kids have always had access to guns, especially in the South and West.  I, and all my friends, carried pocket knives (no restrictions on blade size), and played games with them in the schoolyard.  With all the spats and squabbles, using one of those knives as a weapon was never an option.  In the next generation also, my son carried a pocket knife and recalls being beaten up by a bully in elementary school, and says today that it was not that using his knife defensively was consciously rejected, the THOUGHT NEVER EVEN OCCURRED!

The truth is that kids have changed — and a lot of it is ATTRIBUTABLE TO SCHOOL CURRICULUM!  In educators' frequent hand-wringing over rising violence, they like to blame all such on TV, society, etc., but avoid facing evidence that defective reading, language, and vocabulary programs have depressed communication skills thereby sabotaging skills needed to resolve conflicts.  If people who confront/conflict can't communicate, their interaction is more likely to turn physical.

Worse yet, studies at the U.S. Department of Justice in the 1980's by Michael Brunner, on educational factors affecting incarcerated juveniles, found direct linkages between illiteracy and violent behavior.  Sociological studies of background factors of violent felons showed the strongest statistical link to be FAILURE TO LEARN TO READ — stronger than poverty, drugs, broken homes, etc!  Said statistical link, in the light of Pavlov's experiments on animals and humans under sustained frustration, Brunner believes to be causal.  Brunner's work resulted in a book, Retarding America - The Imprisonment of Potential (Halcyon House, 1993).

In Suffolk County (NY), we have a "ticking time-bomb" example of the "recipe:"  Suffolk has:

the highest incarceration rate in NY state of 16 -20-year olds;
the highest (except for NYC) arrest rate of 10 - 16-year olds;
an overcrowded jail, where the majority of prisoners are illiterate;
large numbers of youth on probation and community service who can't read;
the highest (except for NYC) high school dropout rate;
colleges and professional schools where freshmen who can't read at college level have been near 40 percent for at least the last six years;
teacher-training colleges turning out teachers who can't teach reading, giving Masters' degrees in reading without even one phonics course;
high-tech businesses whose most frequent complaint is a lack of skilled workers (often meaning persons who can't follow written directions);
the highest rate of drug arrests, and youth in alcohol programs, despite the highly-touted DARE program which makes everyone feel good but cannot be proven to reduce drug usage.
Most of the above relate directly to the systemic literacy problem.  I have started a literacy program for youth on Probation or Community Service because we found virtually all to be either special-ed cases or identified low achievers.  We have 14 - 18 -year-olds with reading levels from ZERO to fifth grade, sometimes getting NO reading instruction in school.  We train volunteer tutors in Orton-Gillingham multisensory phonics, match them up with desperate kids – who DO progress in reading.  All this is not to denigrate the work of dedicated local teachers, but to point out the futility of their efforts in a flawed system in which they, themselves, are also victims.  The crucial issue is what is happening to the children.

Other ingredients of the "recipe" are psychologically tainted curriculum "strands," each of which gives children a nudge toward violent or irresponsible behaviors.

"Attitudes and Feelings" Focus vs Brain Development

Aside from moral and cultural questions of what attitudes should be taught, curriculum practices emphasizing feelings instead of logical thinking train the brain inappropriately:  Neurobiologist Dr. David Goodman states (Learning From Lobotomy, HUMAN BEHAVIOR, January, 1978) that rather than studying the brain in terms of left and right hemispheres, it is more enlightening to analyze it as being divided crosswise into fore- and aft-brain functional regions.

The aft-brain includes the regions of senses and feelings, whereas the fore-brain frontal lobes provide control functions:  long-term planning, logical reasoning, inhibiting of impulses, self-control, tolerance for delayed gratification, etc., the functions we associate with maturation.  So, as brain areas develop in rough proportion to their usage, students taught to pay more attention to their feelings than to rational thinking and self-control will have under-developed frontal lobes, making impulsive and violent behaviors more likely.

Values Clarification, Decision-Making, & "Critical" Thinking

The majority of these kinds of activity are based on the "non-directive" therapies of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, who admitted to problems with their use on children.  Children are encouraged to adopt "values" for themselves — even if different from those of their parents — and to try making their own decisions on matters of life and death — that there are no "right" or "wrong" decisions, just "different" ones — with inadequate knowledge of consequences.

Studies have shown that children undergoing the above types of courses under the rubric of drug- or sex-education tended to be MORE experimental than students who received no training at all.  Dr. William Coulson, a colleague of Maslow & Rogers, has been criss-crossing the nation apologizing to the American people for that period of psychological work, and explaining why it is harmful to children:

"Decision-Making":  Some of the procedures lead children to believe they can use a 5-step "decision-making" process to make their own decisions on matters of life and death, e.g., whether or not to "experiment."  (Or maybe whether or not to shoot at schoolmates, or abandon an unwanted fetus.)  Step 1 is, "State the problem."  Step two is,  Examine the alternatives."  "For the child who has been taught abstention," Dr. Coulson says, "the word 'alternatives' leaps off the page like a flaming sword!  What's the alternative to abstention?"

The Magic Circle:  When the chairs are placed in a circle and the teacher steps outside, students are encouraged to exchange innermost thoughts about sex, drugs, lying, cheating, masturbation, etc.  In such situations the extremes of peer personalities begin to interact:  At one end of the scale is the naive, dutiful, obedient child; at the other, the aggressive, assertive, experimental child.  Coulson rhetorically asks, "In such settings, which child is the more likely to influence the other?  The system is psychologically designed to bring down the dutiful, obedient child."

The Cheapening of Human Life

In the midst of exhortations to save whales, seals, snail-darters, etc. are death and suicide education (kids visit cemeteries, write their own epitaphs, discuss suicide), lifeboat problems (Who would you throw out?), environmental studies which paint humans as "the problem," books such as The Giver (about one who executes unwanted babies), and the euphemization of abortion as "choice" (Does the fetus have a choice?).  All of these cheapen the sanctity of human life.  Is it any wonder that teen-agers can shoot at other persons, or abandon a new-born and return to the prom, and later admit only that "Mistakes were made?"

The Self-Esteem Scam

Though we are told that raising kids' self-esteem enhances learning, experiments to prove it have been UNsuccessful.  In my own experience, I saw many improved behaviors and attitudes and self-confidence as a RESULT of successes in learning.  The psychotherapeutic value of a successful learning experience is grossly under-estimated by educators who should know better.  They have the cart before the horse.  Artificially inflating an non-achieving kid's ego, without giving him an inner means to nourish it, is more likely to produce arrogance and complacency than studiousness.  A little humility helps.

Cooperative or Group Learning

Aside from the fact that any teacher worth his/her salt can teach new concepts better and quicker than kids can teach each other, consider the effect on respect for teachers vs catering to peer pressure.  Remember the teachers YOU respected the most were the ones who TAUGHT you something.  Now replace that by kids getting 10 years of group learning by high school, and the respect has diverted away from teachers and toward the peer-group.  Could these spawn gangs?  Do teachers complain, "I don't get no respect?"  Re-examine group learning.

Social Promotions Deceive

When reading programs started to go non-phonetic (circa 70 years ago!) the increase in failures posed a problem.  The system "solved" the problem by promoting children who cannot read, touting the theory that "holding them back would damage their psyches!"  By graduating kids who can't read their diplomas, we condition them that performance does not matter.  By "protecting" them from failure, we have guaranteed it.  When the workplace rejects them, rosy illusions become anger and alienation.

A RECIPE for VIOLENCE

Combine a tad of TV titillation, plus defective communication skills, plus overstimulated feeling centers and under-developed regulatory lobes, plus ignorance, plus arrogance — the illusion of power to choose one's own values, un-fettered by worries of bad or wrong decisions — plus the perception that human life is expendable:  mix them all together with the frustration of drowning in a sea of print while unable to read it, and you have A RECIPE FOR VIOLENCE!

Revisiting the reading problem, high-tech companies complain of difficulty in finding technically-qualified employees.  That is consistent with the findings of the American Institute of Physics in their 1989 report, Who Takes Science? which showed clearly that the students who enroll in physics and chemistry are the good READERS!

The public probably believes that if children spent more time in school they would have less inclination to be violent.  But, in a 1980 PARADE article (copy available), a Florida sheriff blames the schools for most of the violence, and a Department of Justice official notes that incidents of violence go DOWN in the summer — and back up in September!  Also consider that all the shooting sprees have been in schools.  If kids just wanted to kill, they could go to a shopping center or a church!

To round out the perspective, consider also the Department of Justice data showing our prison population is at an all-time high of about 1.7 million inmates — MOSTLY ILLITERATE — and growing slightly faster than 7 percent per year.  At that rate, it will double about every ten years!  In 1995, it was 1 million; so by 2005 we'll have two million, by 2015 four million, etc.  Can we afford to build prisons fast enough to keep up?  Should we?  Is this any way to run a country?  Is this "a kinder, gentler, (smarter?) nation?"

Can we get some caring citizens interested in REAL violence prevention?

---

Twelve Rules for Raising Delinquent Children

The following has been attributed to the Houston Police Department, who supposedly put out a pamphlet with the above title, and listing the following rules of raising a delinquent child.  The rules were then picked up and published in the local Chamber of Commerce publication called Business:

1.      Begin with infancy to give the child everything he wants.  In this way he will grow up to believe the world owes him a living.

2.      When he picks up bad words, laugh at him.  This will make him think he's cute.  It will also encourage him to pick up "cuter phrases" that will blow off the top of your head later.

3.      Never give him any spiritual training.  Wait until he is 21, and then let him "decide for himself."

4.      Avoid the use of the word "wrong."  It may develop a guilt complex.  This will condition him to believe later, when he is arrested for stealing a car, that society is against him and he is being persecuted.

5.      Pick up everything he leaves lying around—books, shoes, clothes.  Do everything for him so that he will be experienced in throwing all responsibility on others.

6.      Let him read any printed matter he can get his hands on.  Be careful that the silverware and drinking glasses are sterilized, but don't worry about his mind feasting on garbage.

7.      Quarrel frequently in the presence of your children.  In this way they will not be too shocked when the home is broken up later.

8.      Give the child all the spending money he wants.  Never let him earn his.  Why should he have things as tough as you did?

9.      Satisfy his every craving for food, drink, and comfort.  See that every sensual desire is gratified.  Denial may lead to harmful frustration.

10.    Take his part against neighbors, teachers, policemen.  They are all prejudiced against your child.

11.    When he gets into real trouble, apologize to yourself by saying, "I never could do anything with him!"

12.    Prepare yourself for a life of grief.  You'll surely have it.

---


Second Amendment
http://www.learn-usa.com/

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. —  Richard Henry Lee, member of Continental Congress, initiator of Declaration of Independence, and Senator when Bill of Rights passed.

The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun. —  Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution

The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. —  James Madison; Federalist Paper No. 26

. . . Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. —  Samuel Adams

James Madison

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation ... — 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race.  Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them.  But what is the lesson? ... the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it ... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.

The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. — Federalist Paper No. 26

George Washington

It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible.  Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters.  Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. — Farewell Address; 1796


Gun Refresher Course

A.     An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a victim.

B.      A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

C.     Smith & Wesson:  The original point and click interface.

D.     Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

E.      If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

F.      If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

G.     Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

H.     If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

I.       Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

J.       The United States Constitution (c) 1791.  All Rights Reserved.

K.      What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

L.      The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

M.    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

N.     Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

O.     Know guns, know peace and safety.  No guns, no peace nor safety.

P.      You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

Q.     911 – government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

R.      Assault is a behavior, not a device.

S.     Criminals love gun control – it makes their occupation safer.

T.     If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.

U.     A government that's afraid of its citizens, tries to control them.

V.     You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

W.   Enforce the "gun control laws" in place, don't make more.

X.     If you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

Y.     The American Revolution wouldn't have happened with Gun Control.

Z.     "...a government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Please pass this on to other free citizens before we lose any more freedoms.

Guns and Gun Control Laws

When I turned 18 years old, I was living in Brooklyn, NY.  First thing I did was go out and get my license to own rifles/shotguns.  Second thing I did was run out and buy a nice new AK.  (This was about 1985).  Each gun I bought was registered with the NYC Firearms Control Section (think about those three words for a minute).  Over the next year, I also acquired a Mini-14, HK 93 and AR-15 … all duly registered.

Flash forward a couple years … I've gone to college and am living in the great state of Montana.  My brother, still living in NYC, forwards me some mail from the NYPD.  It says 'our records show you own these assault weapons … turn them in or get them out of the city.  Send us proof you no longer have them'.

I, being freshly filled with Montana-ness and not in the mood for any bureaucratic gestapo mandates, write them back a letter saying, "You want 'em?  Come and get 'em."

A few months go by…

My brother calls and says, "Hey, remember the guy we sold the house to?  Half a dozen cops showed up on the porch the other day looking for your guns."

Moral of the story:

Next time someone says, "registration does not lead to confiscation", you give 'em my email address and tell them to write me.

Jon


Facts on Gun Confiscation
From: Patricia Shephard
Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.  From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.  From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.  From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.  From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.  From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control — 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?"  With guns, we are citizens.  Without them, we are subjects.


New School Prayer

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise,
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

www.learn-usa.com


The KISS Principle

According to a news report, a certain private school in Washington was recently faced with a unique problem.  A number of 12-year-old girls were beginning to use lipstick and would make up their faces in the bathroom.

That was fine, but after they put on their lipstick they would press their lips against the mirror leaving dozens of little lip prints.

Every night, the maintenance man would remove them and the next day, the girls would do it again.  Finally the principal decided that something had to be done.

She called all the girls into the bathroom and met them there with the maintenance man.  She explained that all these lip prints were causing a major problem for the custodian who had to clean the mirrors every night.

To demonstrate how difficult it had been to clean the mirrors, she asked the maintenance man to show the girls how much effort was required.

He took out a long-handled squeegee, dipped it in one of the toilet bowls, and cleaned the mirror with it.

Since then, there have been no lip prints on the mirror.

There are teachers, and then there are educators...

Now, had this been a public school, with the public coffers at their disposal, they would have called in a consultant ... maybe even a facilitator ... maybe even an analyst ... who would have charged them big bucks to tell them that the girls doing this needed counseling, paid for, of course, by the taxpayers; said counseling to focus on making the girls feel good about themselves ... after all, it must be a self-esteem problem.

The moral of the story ... sometimes the solution is simple, it's only experts who make it complicated.

Lynn M Stuter (www.learn-usa.com)


Yesterday.....

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's or even the early 80's, probably shouldn't have survived.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint.  We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets.  (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.  Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.  We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.  Horrors!

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.  After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.  We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.  No one was able to reach us all day.  No cell phones.  Unthinkable!

We did not have PlayStations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, videotape movies, surround sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms.

We had friends!  We went outside and found them.  We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt.  We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.  They were accidents.  No one was to blame but us.  Remember accidents?

We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it.  We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.  Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.  Some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade.  Horrors!  Tests were not adjusted for any reason.

Our actions were our own.  Consequences were expected, no one to hide behind.  The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of.  They actually sided with the law.  Imagine that!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors, ever.

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.  We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

And you're one of them.  Congratulations!  Please pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before lawyers and government regulated our lives, for our own good.

www.learn-usa.com


Guns, the devil and God
Posted: May 16, 2007
By David Kupelian
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

"Why don't you pick up that gun and blow your brains out?"

"You could kill a whole lot of people with that gun."

"Why not shoot her right now? That would shut her up!"

These are the sorts of vile mental suggestions many people experience from within their own minds when they see a gun.

That's right. Dark thoughts and impulses, too horrible to dwell upon or even acknowledge, occur to many of us at the mere sight of a firearm or a naked blade. When we see the firearm, we sense the presence of evil – so naturally we assume the gun is its source, when actually the gun's close proximity caused our own buried, angry, violent tendencies to surface for a moment.

Thus, many people who "dislike" or "are afraid of" guns are actually afraid of what they might do if they had a loaded firearm in their hand. And I'm not talking about criminal types here. I'm talking about "nice" people – nice on the outside, and lots of buried and perhaps unrecognized rage inside. Again, the presence of the gun simply causes his or her own dark, angry propensities to "stir a little" deep down inside.

But the reality of all this is too heavy and "negative" for many of us to face, so we instantly and unconsciously project our own buried violence onto the gun – as though an inanimate hunk of metal could somehow be evil.

Obviously, a loaded handgun has great potential for destruction and havoc. At the mere squeeze of a trigger there can be murder, suicide, terrorism. Even without pulling the trigger, the gun represents the magic ticket to armed robbery, forcible rape and every other form of coercion. For a person with lots of anger, albeit buried, a gun represents the shortest distance between two points – between the suppressed violent nature within him or her and the maximum expression of that nature. Therefore, the mere sight of a gun excites that dark part of us, causing it to beckon wordlessly, "Use me!"

Let's examine this admittedly scary subject a little more closely.

Have you ever stood close to the edge of a cliff, or out on a balcony of a high building? Did you notice that some "force" almost seemed to want to pull you over the edge? Most of us have experienced something like this phenomenon – a momentary loss of balance, an unexplainable fear, some mysterious pull toward the edge. We have a moment of disorientation and fear, then we pull back to safety.

I've experienced it. Last year after driving five hours to Portland, Ore., to be a guest on Fox News I checked into my hotel room, unpacked, checked over the room, then stepped out onto the balcony. As I approached the railing and looked out at the cityscape and then gazed down several stories to the ground, I noticed a distinct pull, along with a slight disorientation, as though I was losing my balance. I recovered right away and realized I was so tired and frazzled from a long day that my mind was vulnerable to the "pull" of dark forces. So I took the hint and rested a bit, until I had recovered my strength and mental focus.

In this life, the malevolent intelligence we call "evil" is constantly scanning each of us for opportunities to tempt or even destroy us. As the Good Book puts it, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8 KJV). In critical moments of the sort I'm describing, evil seizes the opportunity to give us a mental "shove." Unfortunately, for some people that "shove" is strong enough – especially after a lifetime of giving in to anger, judgment and despair – to pull them over the edge.

We'll never know how many "suicides," in which people fell off a cliff or a balcony, occurred this way – not because of a premeditated suicide plan, but because they were vulnerable to the opportunistic impulse of evil.

Similarly, how many head-on auto accidents occur every year because someone inexplicably crosses the center line to crash at high speed into another car, having succumbed to a wordless, instantaneous mental suggestion from hell? All in a timeless fraction of a second the message impresses itself on your mind: "Crash your car into that one coming your way. Life sucks. Go out with a major bang! Everyone will be shocked! You have the power! Just do it! Do it now!"

Does this scare you? If so – if this description resonates with you even a little bit – it's only because you have the same problem to some degree. Don't fret. We're all in the same boat. We're all subject to the "dark side" of the force. It's called being "born in sin." But some of us honestly face it, and quietly call out to God for help, and His help comes. Others live in denial – until tragedy and death end it all. (This is the central theme of "Spiderman 3," by the way.)

In any event, this same phenomenon is at work with firearms, because of the potential guns provide for immediate and ultimate destruction. Guns literally bring to the surface of the mind the suppressed potential for violence that exists inside every angry person.

Again, there is more than one way this discomfort around guns can be experienced. A sincere person who is uncomfortable around guns will probably be able to deduce that the problem is within him and not with the inanimate firearm. He's already on the path to getting better.

Unfortunately, many people who hate/fear guns never allow themselves to come face-to-face with the real problem – themselves. No sooner does their own suppressed anger react to the sight or even the thought of a gun, than they turn that angry emotional response into something more "acceptable" – like fear. After all, on the "niceness" scale, fear is a lot nicer than hatred.

The problem is, after our buried anger is effortlessly transformed into "fear of guns," that fear easily turns into false righteousness: "I don't like guns and have no need for them. I'm a peaceful, non-violent person and wouldn't ever shoot anyone for any reason."

Some take this "righteousness" even further: "God protects me; I don't need guns. I have faith he'll never put me in a position where I need to shoot someone." Good thing none of the Bible's Old Testament heroes like David or Joshua thought like that. They were required by God to kill many people. Who can say what will be required of us in this journey called life – whether or not we may be called on to defend ourselves or our families from a dangerous enemy?

Of course, there are many angry people who love guns. The world seems to be full of pumped-up jihadists who crave weapons, the bigger and more lethal the better; drug lords who use guns to murder judges and mayors and anyone else who gets in their way; gangbangers who pack heat so they can kill members of rival gangs; and every variety of criminal who, of course, take pains to procure the tools of their illegal trade – guns.

Unlike those who hate/fear guns as a result of unconsciously projecting their own inner violence onto them, angry people who love guns are in love with their own hatred, which they see as righteousness! The Islamic jihadist thinks he's serving Allah by murdering innocents. And predators and psychopaths of every sort love their guns because that's where they get the means to overcome their intended victims.

The God side of guns

Obviously, guns allow evil to be expressed in a multitude of ways, just as any weapon does. Everybody understands this, so there's no need to say much more about it – except that these people need to be stopped.

But what does need to be said, and shouted from the rooftops, is that in the right hands firearms also enable real goodness and virtue to be manifested – right here, right now – by opposing evil and protecting the innocent.

I'm talking now about what I'll call true Americans – not those who criminally prey on others, but also not those whose cowardice or shallowness causes them to appease bullies and to blame inanimate objects for the evil in the world and within themselves.

Whether individually or in a war, the moral imperative to defend ourselves and others is the same. And just as we all share this fundamental and undeniable right to self-defense, it follows that we also share the right to the means of self-defense, or else that supposed right is just a bad joke.

Fortunately for us, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and adopted by strong, right-thinking people. And the Second Amendment spells out for all to see the right of Americans to "keep and bear arms," a fundamental right that "shall not be infringed."

Today, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are well over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S, including more than 65-70 million handguns. Approximately 45 percent of American households have firearms. That means we have 65-80 million American gun-owners, including 30-35 million owners of handguns.

This is a very, very good thing – we don't even realize how good it is. For just as it was true in our founders' day, it's true today that Americans need guns.

If you don't believe me, just consider the Virginia Tech disaster. Imagine Cho Seung-Hui walking into a classroom, threatening people with his guns, making them line up, preparing to shoot them. Now freeze-frame that scene and think for a moment: There isn't anyone or anything in this world that could have stopped Cho in his tracks at that point and averted the hellish slaughter that followed – except a single student or professor with a firearm, and trained to use it.

At the time of this nation's birth, people understood the importance of the armed citizen.

James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, said Americans had "the advantage of being armed," whereas in other nations "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said the "great object is that every man be armed. … Everyone who is able may have a gun." And Thomas Paine said, "Arms … discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

But today, many people would like to get rid of the Second Amendment – either by excising it from the Bill of Rights or, more likely, by judicially redefining its meaning as they have with the First Amendment (with the invention of the mythological "separation of church and state").

You see, in today's America the self-reliant, responsible, independent-minded man or woman who carries a gun – the kind of person who is aware, thinks for himself, is skeptical of government, the press and all of society's "experts" – the person not content to be a victim, but willing to take charge of a situation, "get involved," even fight back and stand up for what is right – in other words, a true American – is threatening to society's elitists, experts and politicians who are addicted to power.

As a general rule, it is liberals who tend to oppose private citizens carrying guns around with them. As I said, this is mostly because they're full of suppressed anger and therefore project their own – and others' – evil onto inanimate objects so as to maintain the denial in which they live. After all, you can't possibly believe the illogical and immoral things liberals and leftists espouse unless you're full of trauma and repressed hatred. It takes lots of inner rage to distort reality sufficiently to believe it's OK to kill beautiful little babies in their mothers' wombs or to believe a malevolent chameleon like Hillary Clinton should be elected president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in world history.

This same emotional confusion leads liberals to think guns are the problem, rather than being – in the right hands – the protection from tyranny and predation they truly are.

Do you know what happens when good people carry lethal weapons? Their mentality changes from passive to active, vulnerable to protective, powerless to empowered, dependent to independent. Very simply, they become more responsible – and more capable of doing good.

In fact, they make up the very fabric of a free America. This is the whole concept of the unregulated militia.

When neighbor stands with neighbor

There have always been two parts to the "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment – the regulated and the unregulated (or the organized and the unorganized) militia.

Various laws throughout U.S. history have defined the organized or regulated militia, for instance the Militia Act of 1792, which specified that males 18 through 44 years of age "shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia …"

However, much more important was the founders' and framers' concept of the unorganized or unregulated militia, which they regarded as the ultimate defense of the new nation. This larger and more organic militia consisted of all able-bodied citizens. As Richard Henry Lee, a key founder during the Revolutionary period, explained in 1788: "A militia when properly formed [is] in fact the people themselves ... and include[s] all men capable of bearing arms. ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." Or as George Mason famously and cryptically put it: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Although the practice of arming oneself is very wholesome – for responsible, mature people, that is – there is one nightmare scenario we need to guard against, because history shows it leads inexorably to tyranny.

That scenario would be for angry, "right-wing, fundamentalist Christians" (more accurately, pseudo-Christian hate groups) to commit acts of terrorism or murder – like the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City – in the name of freedom. That is exactly what today's would-be totalitarians would secretly relish most, as it would justify their crackdown on "Christian" and "patriot" groups and gun rights across the board.

Timothy McVeigh, who thought he was advancing a patriotic rebellion against oppressive government, achieved precisely the opposite: He discredited everything he thought he was fighting for and caused many people to regard "right-wing patriots" and "militia types" as domestic terrorists.

In fact, the biggest reason President Bill Clinton was asleep at the switch with regard to Islamic terrorism, allowing Osama bin Laden to slip through his fingers even when the terror kingpin was offered on a silver platter, is because it served Clinton's leftist agenda to obsess over "right-wing" extremist organizations rather than the threat of radical Islam. Thus, Clinton disastrously focused the FBI predominantly on "right-wing hate groups" rather than task it with chasing down the many credible leads we had on al-Qaida terror plots against the United States.

If angry, would-be "patriots" engage in violence against the U.S. government as occurred in Oklahoma City, this nation could quickly move toward the suppression of gun rights and much more, all in the guise of protecting the public safety.

It's a very real temptation. Think of it: As government corruption becomes more and more brazen, as judges outlaw the Ten Commandments, as "hate crimes" laws effectively criminalize the Bible, as kindergartners are brainwashed with radical "gay rights" propaganda and so on, pretty soon some group decides it can't take it any more. Its members become so enraged, they conclude it's time to start the next armed revolution. Seeing their nation being raped and envisioning no solution other than violence, they convince themselves they're the modern counterparts of America's revolutionary founders. Training with firearms and explosives and conspiring in secret – all the while quoting Jefferson to each other about "watering the tree of liberty" from time to time with "the blood of patriots and tyrants" – they murder some federal judges or blow up a government office building in an attempt to fight back. But all they succeed in doing is murdering and maiming a bunch of their fellow Americans (or, as McVeigh did in Oklahoma City, massacring a room full of toddlers in daycare – which he later coldly termed "collateral damage").

What would follow would be a massive official crackdown on "domestic terrorists" and a severe assault on freedom in America – not to mention a major distraction from the real war against Islamic jihad.

Amazing what hatred can accomplish, isn't it? Exactly the opposite of what you intended. The dark side of the force is very clever. As the blood-drenched, hate-based French Revolution proved, when "revolutionaries" are full of hate, they're no better than the hateful, corrupt government they try to replace – and maybe worse – ushering in their own "reign of terror."

This is why true, mature Americans – the kind that must be armed – must also be self-controlled, even-tempered, virtuous and noble, not motivated by hatred and revenge. They must also stand together.

In reality, the responsible armed citizen is the strength of America. But there will always be a tension between him and his government – especially today, when the armed citizen is the antithesis of everything our culture, experts, politicians and other "leaders" teach us. In their minds, we're supposed to be helpless victims or incompetent, irresponsible, out-of-control children. We're supposed to need them to provide for us and protect us. If they could have their way, nobody would have guns except the police. But then, that's what's known as a "police state."

What we need is a rebirth of the true American spirit. We need people to take up arms in the spirit of responsibly protecting their family and other innocents, just like in the old days when everyone carried a sword. Every man had to be willing to put his life on the line to protect his loved ones. But you can't do that without your sword – which in today's world is a firearm.

One quote from Jesus we almost never hear cited these days is what He said shortly before being taken into captivity by Roman soldiers to be crucified. It was a dangerous time, and as He spoke to His disciples, He told them to arm themselves.

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, – Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. (Luke 22:35-38 KJV)

The police cannot protect you. Very simply, they're never there when the crime against you and your loved ones is being committed.

Do you want God to protect you? Of course. Then don't tempt Him by saying, "The Lord will protect me, I don't need a gun." That's like the man who says, "A storm is coming, but I don't need an umbrella; God will protect me," all the while ignoring the real protection God has provided for him – the common sense to get an umbrella or come in out of the rain. In dangerous times such as those in which we live today, God clearly speaks to us – both in Scripture and through good old fashioned common sense – about being prepared to protect and defend ourselves, our families and our neighbors.

As Jesus Himself said: "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."


Why so many Americans today are 'mentally ill'
Posted: August 14, 2007
By David Kupelian
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

"When I was lying in my bed that night, I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them."

You're reading the words of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, struggling to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability in his turbulent life. He was angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them.

"I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger," he recalled. "Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it."

His lawyers would later argue the boy had been a victim of "involuntary intoxication," since Pittman's doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.

Paxil's known "adverse drug reactions" – according to the drug's 2001 FDA-approved label – include "mania," "insomnia," "anxiety," "agitation," "confusion," "amnesia," "depression," "paranoid reaction," "psychosis," "hostility," "delirium," "hallucinations," "abnormal thinking," "depersonalization" and "lack of emotion," among others.

Andrea Yates, in one of the most horrifying and heartbreaking crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her kids, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial, Yates' longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: "She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession." And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child:

"What she described was feeling a presence ... Satan ... telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah," Ringholz said, adding that Yates' delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.

Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added "homicidal ideation" to the drug's list of "rare adverse events." The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor's "homicidal ideation" risk wasn't well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.

And what exactly does "rare" mean in the phrase "rare adverse events"? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since, according to an Associated Press report, about 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S. alone in 2005, statistically that means thousands of Americans could experience "homicidal ideation" – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug.

Effexor is Wyeth's best-selling drug, by the way, bringing in $3.46 billion – with a "b" – in sales worldwide in 2005, almost one-fifth of the company's total revenues.

Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Paxil and Zoloft (and trendsetter Prozac), a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves.

Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that's 1 in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

The inescapable truth is, perpetrators of many of the nation's most horrendous murder rampages in recent years were taking, or just coming off of, prescribed psychiatric drugs.

Most recently, authorities investigating Cho Seung-Hui, who murdered 32 at Virginia Tech in April, reportedly found "prescription drugs" for the treatment of psychological problems among his possessions. While the coroner reported no drugs were found in Cho's bloodstream on the day of the crime, April 16, the killer's roommate Joseph Aust told the Richmond Times-Dispatch Cho's routine each morning had included taking prescription drugs.

So what kind of meds might Cho have been taking? Strangely, his medical records have yet to be released to the public – authorities claiming it's because an investigation is still ongoing, although critics suggest the purpose may be to protect the drug companies from liability claims.

Indeed, pharmaceutical manufacturers are nervous about lawsuits over the "rare adverse effects" of their mood-altering medications. To avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schnell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies' legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the list of killers who happened to be taking psychiatric medications is long and chilling. Remember these headline names?

Patrick Purdy's 1989 schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., was the catalyst for the legislative frenzy to ban "semiautomatic assault weapons" in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.

In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school's lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota's Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.

In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.

Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh's description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder sounded strikingly similar to that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who had shot his grandparents while on psychiatric meds. "I didn't realize I did it until after it was done," Danysh said. "This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun."
These are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others.

Substituting pills for couches

When the subject of violent crimes and linkage to psychiatric drugs comes up, two distinct views emerge.

The mental-health establishment's view is that these drugs have no "proven" role in enabling such horrific deeds, or at least that their benefits far outweigh whatever negative reactions may rarely occur. According to this view, of the millions of people taking these medications the vast majority are helped and the few who end up committing violent acts probably would have snapped anyway – with or without the drugs.

The other, contrarian view is that the drugs are dangerous and harmful, turning previously nonviolent people into homicidal maniacs. At a very minimum, critics contend, the meds push some individuals, already living on the edge of sanity, over the edge into violence. In addition to a growing corps of health professionals and a sizeable pile of peer-reviewed studies corroborating this view, the drug companies themselves – compelled by FDA labeling requirements – bolster it with their "black box" label warnings of increased "suicidal ideation" risk and other negative effects.

But let's pause, putting aside for a moment the dogma of all the "experts," and consider carefully and deeply what we're really looking at.

We are talking about human beings who have somehow developed a secret inner life dominated by exceedingly dark thoughts and compulsions. Wild mood swings. Horrible, consuming resentment teetering on the edge of violent frenzy. Paranoid delusions fueled by intense emotion. Satanic visitations and inner voices that torment people mercilessly, sometimes for years, commanding them to commit murder or suicide – or both.

Does this really sound to you like a physiological problem in need of drugs? Sound like a disease? A biochemical imbalance in the brain? Neurotransmitter activity that's too sluggish?

Or does it possibly sound like something much more mental-emotional, even spiritual, in origin?

The truth is, if we think we can solve problems like these with pills, we might be just as delusional as the people we're trying to help.

Before we go on, let's state the obvious: There are genuine, organic brain diseases that may benefit from drug therapy – but these are relatively rare. And there are also instances where an individual is so psychotic as to pose a direct danger to him/herself and others, where sedation might be appropriate. But what I'm writing about here is the overwhelming majority of cases where psychiatric drugs are unwisely relied on to fix Americans' mental-emotional-spiritual problems.

In search of a quick, painless fix for the problems we develop when we fail to deal with the stresses of life properly, we've become a nation of drug-takers. Millions of us "medicate" the pain of life away by taking illegal drugs. And millions more take prescription drugs to accomplish much the same thing. As Fortune magazine reported in November 2005:

Nearly 150 million U.S. prescriptions were dispensed in 2004 for SSRIs and similar antidepressants called SNRIs, according to IMS Health, a Fairfield, Conn., drug data and consulting company – more than for any other drug except codeine. Perhaps one out of 20 adult Americans are on them now, making brands like Zoloft, GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil, Forest Laboratories' Celexa, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals' Luvox household names. Though they don't work for everybody – many people have gone off the medicines because of side effects such as dampening of sexual response – they've done more than any other class of drugs to spur psychiatry's substitution of pills for couches.
In fact, we're popping so many SSRIs that their breakdown products in urine, gushing into waterways, have accumulated in fish tissues, raising concerns that aquatic animals may be getting toxic doses, according to recent research at Baylor University.

When we've gotten to the point of poisoning fish, you know we're talking about a lot of drugs. And that's counting only antidepressants. What about all the other types of psychiatric meds we consume, including the tens of millions of prescriptions for Ritalin and other controversial stimulants taken by children and adults diagnosed with ADD (or ADHD) – a condition that didn't even exist until the 1980s?

Not too long ago, the counseling arts recognized that people suffering from mental-emotional, developmental problems needed self-understanding first and foremost. This was a noble and vital goal. But today, as Fortune points out, psychiatry has substituted "pills for couches." Like mad scientists, our "experts" fool around with the intricacies of people's brains, monkeying with the levels of neurotransmitters like serotonin and norepinephrine to artificially "elevate mood."

Thus we have the spectacle of troubled people coming to mental-health experts with serious personal problems – emotional conflicts, fears, obsessions, compulsions and perhaps delusions rooted in early trauma, or in seriously flawed family relationships, or in buried resentments toward cruelty and injustice that were never resolved but just festered and grew. Yet, instead of being helped to understand where they've gone wrong, or where their negative programming, unhealthy relationships and destructive attitudes came from so they can correct them and find genuine healing, they're given clever drugs designed to chemically trick the body and mind into "feeling better."

And then, when they discontinue taking the drugs, they risk serious deterioration of their condition. But isn't that exactly what happens when we just mask symptoms and ignore root causes?

Moreover, why do even the smartest and most educated of our experts today tend reflexively to ignore root causes?

Because root causes have to do with God and our relationship, or lack thereof, with Him.

I guarantee that many people who read that last sentence either glazed over it or were somehow put off by it.

I'll say it again using different words: We need to wake up to the spiritual dimension of life or we will never be able to understand what goes wrong with us, or to genuinely resolve our problems.

Unfortunately, right now many of us are in love with the idea that there is no God. Books currently riding high atop national best-seller lists include "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris – all of them unapologetically rabid atheist manifestos.

For an atheist, the problem here is that although you can still be a good engineer or a skillful surgeon, if you're trying to help people who are full of rage and conflict and plagued by dark thoughts and malevolent inner voices urging them to kill people, you're worse than clueless. Worse because your lethal combination of prideful arrogance and utter lack of comprehension of what you're actually dealing with will inevitably lead you to "fix" such problems in ways that not only don't help people, but vastly multiply their woes – and those of their victims.

Don't worry, it's not your fault

Until the last 50 years or so, Western man believed the Creator put us here on this magnificent globe we call earth, and that we, alone among all creatures, were given the ability – and destiny – to choose between good and evil.

Today's cultural elite, including those in the healing arts, basically don't recognize the existence of God, morality, good and evil, righteousness and sin. In other words, they don't understand what life is all about – that each and every one of us on this earth is appealed to, from just beyond the visible world, by a dimension of good and a dimension of evil, which we call Heaven and Hell. And that by heeding the wrong impulses we get into serious trouble.

Instead, they look at man and see a soulless human animal whose behavior problems are mostly genetic or organic in origin and, in any event, manageable with drugs.

The truth is, most mental-health pill-dispensing practitioners don't really understand why people become "clinically depressed" or why some women experience "postpartum depression" and the like. Go search WebMD and five or 10 other websites on postpartum depression (or most any other psychiatric condition for that matter). You'll be stunned at the lack of real substance and insight with regard to what causes it. Instead, you'll read something like, "The causes haven't been pinpointed yet," along with reams of authoritative-sounding data on symptoms and predisposing factors and what drugs to take and how valuable it is to have a support group and what vitamins help in recovery and so on. But no one will tell you what on earth would make a woman want to kill herself after she gives birth to her child. They don't know.

Yet, can there be any doubt that somewhere there are real, understandable reasons for this and other syndromes – reasons a normal person with common sense could comprehend and act upon, and find real healing, if only the "expert" counseling them knew what they were talking about?

While understanding is in short supply today, the mental-health establishment is great at naming syndromes and conditions – probably to give the rest of us the impression they know more than they really do.

Are you a normal boy who doesn't really like shutting up and sitting at a desk for six hours a day listening to some boring teacher? You may have "attention deficit disorder." Are you an angry volcano inside? Then you suffer from "intermittent explosive disorder." Do you get drunk to deal with your problems? That used to be considered a moral failing, a character weakness, a failure to face your problems with courage and honesty. Now, of course, it's a disease called "alcoholism."

Today, everything is physiological and genetic and treated with drugs. Nothing is your fault. You're an innocent victim.

Furthermore, many of us like it that way. We like the idea that whatever is wrong with us is an organic disorder, that there's no sin, no weakness, no deficit of character on our part. Our egos love that, it comforts us.

In July 2005, actress Brooke Shields told the New York Times about her postpartum depression: "In a strange way, it was comforting to me when my obstetrician told me that my feelings of extreme despair and my suicidal thoughts were directly tied to a biochemical shift in my body. Once we admit that postpartum is a serious medical condition, then the treatment becomes more available and socially acceptable. With a doctor's care, I have since tapered off the medication, but without it, I wouldn't have become the loving parent I am today."

Brooke Shields is a lovely and principled lady, but I assure you that God did not design us to be depressed and suicidal after childbirth. We would do better to stop blaming all our psychological-spiritual problems on chemical imbalances.

Drugging our conscience

I began to suspect psychiatric meds were problematic three decades ago after a conversation with a friend who, to relieve her anxiety, had been taking the sedative Valium – then the nation's top-selling pharmaceutical. A spiritually perceptive lady, she summarized her experience this way: "David, do you know what the Valium did for me? It deactivated my conscience."

And just recently, another Christian lady anonymously wrote a highly thought-provoking essay – primarily for the benefit of other female members in her church – on the effect antidepressants had on her.

Stressed-out and depressed, she had sought her pastor's spiritual counsel – and he told her to go on antidepressants.

"Not a word was said about my sinful attitudes regarding my responsibilities, and there were no offers of practical help," she wrote. "Just go to the doctor. He proceeded to tell me about many other women in our church who had taken his advice and were doing great. In retrospect, this makes sense – ours was a 'happy church.' No one seemed to struggle with any serious life issues. Only smiling, happy greetings and small talk. Imagine the 'Stepford Wives' at church and you’ll get the picture."

Within weeks, she wrote, she was feeling better. "By two months into treatment I was doing swimmingly, smiling and small-talking with the best of them. … I was handling the stress better and sleeping well. Most of my physical complaints were gone, and I felt very capable. Life went on."

Five years later, unhappy with their "happy" church, she and her husband sought out and joined a more traditional and biblical church "where sin is called sin, and people are held accountable."

At the new church, she said, "I met people who grieve over their sin. … This was foreign to me. I have never cried over my sin. I have felt bad for my sin, but I have never truly grieved over it. … I began to think that perhaps that little pill that was meant to 'take the edge off' was preventing me from grieving over sin. One thing I had noticed since being on it was that I could not cry. Nothing could bring me to tears, and I mean nothing. I didn’t even cry when my dad died, not even as I watched him take his last breath, uncertain where he would spend eternity. No tears. … "

After much thought and prayer, she finally decided to get off her medication. As a result, she wrote:

Last week, after I sinned in anger at my son, I was grieved! I had asked for forgiveness from him and from the Lord, but I could not deny a deep sense of grief in my soul as I realized this had been a pattern of sinful anger for years. I had committed this same sin many times before, but felt justified, either by stressful circumstances in my life or by my son’s bad behavior. I had never before felt such grief over my own sin, and I knew I could not indulge one more outburst like this.
The antidepressants, she concluded, had "blurred the ends of the emotional spectrum, so that I experienced neither deep sadness nor great joy. I have now come to appreciate that both are vital to the Christian life. Oh, I was somewhat happy, and able to cope with life quite well, but the edge was off, not only from my sadness, but from my joy as well."

She added: "In the beginning, the drug was good, because it enabled me to think rationally and come out of my basement. If I had used that rational thinking to get a grip on the sin that was pulling me down into depression, I could have dealt with it biblically, and been off the drug in short order. But I did not. I became dependent on those pills and was gradually numbed to the seriousness of my sin. By God’s grace, I came to the recognition that this drug could be stunting my spiritual growth, and that turned out to be exactly the case."

The possibility that psychiatric drugs could impair our conscience should not come as a shock. We know people do bad things under the influence of alcohol, crack and meth that they wouldn't do otherwise. Is it so hard, then, to comprehend that some legal drugs can also obscure or eliminate our awareness of conscience? After all, what does "feeling better" often involve but the elimination of conflict? And what is conflict but the evidence inside us that we've done something wrong – something contrary to our conscience? Getting rid of conflict, then, often involves blotting out our conscience!

But the problem with that is, conscience is literally the presence of God in us, the friction between the way we are and the way He wants us to be. We experience this correcting and illuminating presence – which is actually our greatest friend (like Jiminy Cricket in Disney's "Pinocchio") – as a psychic pain when we deviate from its urgings. Thus, many of us foolishly come to regard conscience as a problem, even an enemy.

Healing through forgiveness

God is not far away or elusive, He's ever-present. But we block His help and His life in us when we escape from our conscience in various ways – especially when we lose sight of our own faults through being angry at those of others.

I wonder, is it just possible that the Lord's Prayer – the blueprint Jesus Christ gave us for how to relate to God – could provide insight on how to heal what we call "mental illness"? Let's take a fresh look:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:9-13 KJV)

Think about this for a minute. Jesus starts out by telling us to honor God and humble our will before His and seek His continued sustenance. (No problem, we think.)

Later He advises us to ask God's protection as we acknowledge His supremacy in all things. (Great, makes perfect sense, we think.)

But in between comes one line that delivers the essential, life-changing commandment – it's the nuclear core of His message, the fulcrum of change in our lives, the place where miraculous things happen to us – or don't, if we don't heed it:

"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

This is where we live or die spiritually, it's where we find true happiness and innocence, or conflict and separation from God.

In fact, immediately following the Lord's Prayer, Jesus re-emphasizes the forgiveness requirement in the starkest terms imaginable, to make sure nobody misses His most crucial point:

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14-15)

Wow. That gets my attention.

Forgiveness – that is, finding the grace to give up anger and resentment at injustice – is healing. The problem is, anger and rage (unforgiveness) feed our pride, a part of our makeup that cannot live without constant meals of impatience, resentment and emotional upset. So until we're ready to let the life of pride and sin inside us wither and die, we find it pretty much impossible to truly forgive. Anger is like a drug – even worse, like a nutrient – for our wrong self.

Ever wonder why we use the word "mad" to mean both angry and insane? Very simply, if someone does something wrong to you and you get angry, you've just become a little bit insane. Now multiply that single event by 1,000 or 10,000 and let the pile of angry reactions and upsets build and smolder for years, and you'll see that every conceivable manner of strange behavior, programming, compulsion and delusion can easily take root in us.

Example: In the Islamic world, millions of children are nourished on hatred from the day they're born – hatred of Jews, Christians, Americans, women, pigs, you name it – and they reliably grow up into crazy, death-loving jihadists. It's like an assembly line with good quality control; you can count on the outcome. Infect them with hatred from birth, and you're guaranteed a good recruit in the Mahdi army a few years later. Do you get it? It's the hatred that allows the conditioning – the insane, ungodly, alien programming – to take hold of their minds.

As a child, people bigger and meaner than you make you upset, and when you're upset you're suggestible or programmable – and that's when you pick up your conditioning. Then, no matter how crazy or illogical or self-destructive your programming, you'll defend it – because it feels like the real you.

So, nourished by this nutrient-base of suppressed rage and resentment, and reinforced each passing day by new angers and irritations, we grow up tangled and conflicted. We all suffer in varying degrees from this madness – covered up, of course, by smiles and self-deception. It's why we need salvation.

Who's talking in my head?

Some of us, unfortunately, become so lost in our inner, angry, delusional world, so identified with the dark thoughts and impulses that occur to us, that we allow an evil entity of some sort to take up residence within us.

Some years back, a 24-year-old Mexican male traumatized the small community in which I live by kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering two 11-year-old girls. (I was acquainted with one of the victim's families.) The perpetrator later confessed to authorities that he heard inner voices and gave himself over to their commands, acting out their demonic suggestions. Same with David Berkowitz, the notorious "Son of Sam" serial killer who terrorized New York City during the 1970s. Berkowitz claimed his neighbor's dog, Harvey, was possessed by an ancient demon and that it commanded Berkowitz to kill. Andrea Yates heard voices in her head for years. The examples are legion.

This "voices" phenomenon is very common – drugs or no drugs – and not just among crazies and criminals. In fact, it's more common than we'd like to think. Remember all those Bible passages in which Jesus exorcises "unclean spirits" or "devils"? Let's revisit one of them:

And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? What new doctrine is this? For with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mar 1:23-27 KJV)

Although Jesus "cast out" demons left and right, today most of us scoff at the very idea. Even if we cautiously acknowledge it – it is obviously biblical, after all – we're still uncomfortable with it. For us, demonic possession conjures up images of "The Exorcist" and child-actress Linda Blair's head spinning and spewing green projectile vomit.

Yet, a quarter century ago, the chief psychologist at a major California mental hospital conducted an extraordinary study of the inner voices patients heard. Wilson Van Dusen worked among the mentally ill for 17 years at the Mendocino State Hospital – originally Mendocino State Asylum for the Insane – established in 1889.

In his treatise, titled "The Presence of Spirits in Madness," Van Dusen provided a window into the inner experience of his patients' "hallucinations." Note that these were not criminally insane people who had perpetrated violent acts, but rather were simply "mentally ill" individuals who had been committed to the institution. So their condition was not as serious or dangerous as that of the criminal perpetrators referenced earlier.

"Out of my professional role as a clinical psychologist in a state mental hospital and my own personal interest, I set out to describe as faithfully as possible mental patients' experiences of hallucinations," he wrote:

The average layman's picture of the mentally ill as raving lunatics is far from reality. Most of these people have become entangled in inner processes and simply fail to manage their lives well.
After dealing with hundreds of such patients, I discovered about four years ago that it was possible to speak to their hallucinations. To do so I looked for patients who could distinguish between their own thoughts and the things they heard and saw in the world of hallucinations. The patient was told that I simply wanted to get as accurate a description of their experiences as possible. I held out no hope for recovery or special reward. It soon became apparent that many were embarrassed by what they saw and heard and hence they concealed it from others.

Also they knew their experiences were not shared by others, and some were even concerned that their reputations would suffer if they revealed the obscene nature of their voices. It took some care to make the patients comfortable enough to reveal their experience honestly. A further complication was that the voices were sometimes frightened of me and themselves needed reassurance. I struck up a relationship with both the patient and the persons he saw and heard. I would question these other persons directly, and instructed the patient to give a word-for-word account of what the voices answered or what was seen. In this way I could hold long dialogues with a patient's hallucinations and record both my questions and their answers.

One consistent finding was that patients felt they had contact with another world or order of beings. Most thought these other persons were living persons. All objected to the term hallucination. Each coined his own term such as The Other Order, the Eavesdroppers, etc.

For most individuals the hallucinations came on suddenly. One woman was working in a garden when an unseen man addressed her. Another man described sudden loud noises and voices he heard while riding in a bus. Most were frightened, and adjusted with difficulty to this new experience. All patients describe voices as having the quality of a real voice, sometimes louder, sometimes softer, than normal voices. The experience they describe is quite unlike thoughts or fantasies. When things are seen they appear fully real. … Most patients soon realize that they are having experiences that others do not share, and for this reason learn to keep quiet about them. Many suffer insults, threats and attacks for years from voices with no one around them aware of it. Women have reported hearing such vile things they felt it would reflect on them should they even be mentioned.

… Lower order voices are as though one is dealing with drunken bums at a bar who like to tease and torment just for the fun of it. They will suggest lewd acts and then scold the patient for considering them. They find a weak point of conscience and work on it interminably. For instance, one man heard voices teasing him for three years over a ten-cent debt he had already paid. They call the patient every conceivable name, suggest every lewd act, steal memories or ideas right out of consciousness, threaten death, and work on the patient's credibility in every way. For instance they will brag that they will produce some disaster on the morrow and then claim honor for one in the daily paper. They suggest foolish acts (such as: Raise your right hand in the air and stay that way) and tease if he does it and threaten him if he doesn't. The lower order can work for a long time to possess some part of the patient's body. Several worked on the ear and the patient seemed to grow deafer. One voice worked two years to capture a patient's eye which visibly went out of alignment. Many patients have heard loud and clear voices plotting their death for weeks on end, an apparently nerve-wracking experience. One patient saw a noose around his neck which tied to "I don't know what" while voices plotted his death by hanging. They threaten pain and can cause felt pain as a way of enforcing their power. The most devastating experience of all is to be shouted at constantly by dozens of voices. When this occurred the patient had to be sedated.

All of the lower order are irreligious or anti-religious. Some actively interfered with the patients' religious practices. Most considered them to be ordinary living people, though once they appeared as conventional devils and referred to themselves as demons. In a few instances they referred to themselves as from hell. Occasionally they would speak through the patient so that the patient's voice and speech would be directly those of the voices. Sometimes they acted through the patient.

In his treatise, Van Dusen revealed that he later discovered striking parallels between his own clinical observations of the "hallucinations" of "mentally ill" patients and the writings of 18th century Swedish scientist, Christian mystic and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg. As Van Dusen explained it:

Swedenborg describes all of life as a hierarchy of beings representing essentially different orders and yet acting in correspondence with each other. The Lord acts through celestial angels, who in turn correspond on a lower level to spiritual angels, who in turn correspond to a third lower heaven – all of which corresponds to and acts into man. On the opposite side there are three levels of hell acting out of direct contact into man. Man is the free space and meeting ground of these great hierarchies. In effect, good and its opposite evil rule through this hierarchy of beings down to man who stands in the free space between them. Out of his experiences and choices he identifies with either or both sides.
These influences coming from both sides are the very life of man. The man who takes pride in his own powers tends toward the evil side. The man who acknowledges that he is the receptacle of all that is good, even the power to think and to feel, tends toward the good side.

Scary stuff. But the obvious question is, how do we avoid falling into this nightmarish mental world that entraps so many whom we label "mentally ill"?

Advice from an angel

An excellent and insightful description of this "tug of war" between Heaven and Hell for the body, mind and soul of each of us is found in the ancient Christian book "The Shepherd of Hermas." Though not part of the canon of the Holy Bible, "Hermas" was widely revered by the early Christians, praised by church leaders like Tertullian, St. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and was frequently read publicly in early churches to edify the faithful.

A passage describing a conversation between Hermas, a shepherd, and an angel who has been instructing him on how to live a life pleasing to God, is titled "That every man has two angels and of the suggestions of both." The angel says to Hermas:

7 … There are two angels with man; one of righteousness, the other of iniquity.
8 And I said unto him, Sir, how shall I know that there are two such angels with man? Hear, says he, and understand.

9 The angel of righteousness, is mild and modest, and gentle, and quiet. When, therefore, he gets into thy heart, immediately he talks with thee of righteousness, of modesty, of chastity, of bountifulness, of forgiveness, of charity, and piety.

10 When all these things come into thy heart, know then that the angel of righteousness is with thee. Wherefore hearken to this angel and to his works.

11 Learn also the works of the angel of iniquity. He is first of all bitter, and angry, and foolish; and his works are pernicious, and overthrow the servants of God. When therefore these things come into thine heart; thou shalt know by his works, that this is the angel of iniquity.

12 And I said unto him, Sir, how shall I understand these things? Hear, says he, and understand; When anger overtakes thee, or bitterness, know that he is in thee:

13 As also, when the desire of many things, and of the best meats, and of drunkenness; when the love of what belongs to others, pride, and much speaking, and ambition; and the like things, come upon thee.

14 When therefore these things arise in thine heart, know that the angel of iniquity is with thee. Seeing therefore thou knowest his works, depart from them all, and give no credit to him: because his works are evil, and become not the servants of God.

15 Here therefore thou hast the works of both these angels. Understand now and believe the angel of righteousness, because his instruction is good.

16 For let a man be never so happy; yet if the thoughts of the other angel arise in his heart, that man or woman must needs sin.

17 But let man or woman be never so wicked, if the works of the angel of righteousness come into their hearts, that man or woman must needs do some good.

18 Thou seest therefore how it is good to follow the angel of righteousness. If therefore thou shall follow him, and submit to his works, thou shalt live unto God. And as many as shall submit to his work shall live also unto God.

Reading insight like this makes one wonder how many people who've been diagnosed with bipolar, depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and other serious conditions have mysteriously gotten better. Oh, we don't hear about such things in the news – but it happens. They simply get better. Somehow, privately, they discover how to listen to the right side, and to shrink from the wrong side. And they allow the light of God to come into them and shine on their conflicts and untangle their mess – mostly, I believe, by discovering forgiveness. Having truly given up their resentments and rage, no longer getting upset all the time, their "incurable" mental illnesses are healed.

We need to revisit the practice of drugging troubled souls. Psychiatry has totally bought into it and will consider me a Neanderthal or worse. Too bad. Because they're taking the crown of God's creation, the human mind, and acting like Dr. Frankenstein engaged in some mad, grandiose experiment, playing God, pulling people's mood-strings chemically. There's another way.

No doubt there are appropriate times and places to use these medications – rarely. But our increasing reliance on them is creating untold suffering of a kind and magnitude we can barely imagine. All because of a blindness that dominates our age – a blindness that obscures that which every child knows naturally:

We are born with a good side and we have a bad side. And we need to be careful which side we listen to. If we listen to the wrong side, terrible consequences follow.

Epilogue

Toward the end of my son's Boy Scout troop meeting not too long ago, the scoutmaster stood up and used his customary "Scoutmaster Minute" to retell the famous story an old Cherokee chief supposedly told his grandson. The chief said:

"A fight is going on inside me. It is a terrible battle – between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, pride, envy, lust, greed, arrogance, self-pity, resentment, lies and cruelty.

"The other wolf stands for honesty, kindness, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, friendship, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too," he added.

The grandson reflected on these words for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."


FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
~ Thomas Jefferson
(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

hillaryflag4

ACLU


Fourth Grader Settles Gun Control Debate
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, February 19, 2007

Despite a recent survey conducted by Dee Rowland, Chairwoman of the Gun Violence Prevention Center, I know that owning a gun is the best way to protect myself from criminal victimization. After all, Dee only surveyed one person – her nine year old grandson. I doubled her sample size by surveying two of my closest friends.

A friend I will call Steve – because that’s his real name – was recently a near-victim of road rage. Someone who perceived himself to have been cut off in traffic by Steve proceeded to follow him several miles to his home and then reach for the handle of the car door to yank him out. But the assault was interrupted when the fellow looked across the seat and saw a Glock 23, chambered in .40 caliber. He shouted “oh, that f***ing figures, can’t fight without a gun” as he ran back to his car, never to be seen again.

The guy went from zero to sixty in four point five seconds in a Subaru. The Guinness Book of World Records has been officially notified.

A friend I will call Barry – because that’s his real name – was recently a near-victim of a crack induced mugging. He had just withdrawn a large amount of money from an ATM and hopped back into his Mazda 626. A haggard looking crack addict – Barry assumed he was a drug addict because he was humming a tune by Whitney Houston, not by Merle Haggard – came running up to the door and tried to force his way into the car. Barry responded by letting him know his money was in a fanny pack, right next to his .45 Auto. After Barry looked down to secure his weapon, he looked up and saw the man running away.

The guy went 100 yards in about 8 seconds flat – give or take several seconds. The Guinness Book of World Records has been officially notified.

But, unfortunately, in the wake of the recent murderous rampage at Trolley Square, the folks at Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah are embarking on an anti-gun rampage that could soon be the envy of every Muslim who likes to kill innocent people at a shopping mall.

Steve Gunn, a member of the organization that relies heavily on the advice of nine-year-olds, says that whether you believe that “everyone” or “no one” should have a gun “depends on your perspective.” That’s exactly right, Steve. And since it appears that the angry Muslim’s crime spree was stopped by a man with a concealed weapons permit, it’s worth asking a couple of questions about “perspective.”

What do you suppose was the perspective of the Muslim murderer who went on that shooting spree in Utah? Does he favor concealed carry permits like the one that helped someone kill him?

And how about the people who died or had to rely on someone else to defend them from that gun-wielding member of the religion of peace and love, which is otherwise known as Islam? Do they favor concealed carry permits?

Since many of the potential members of our survey are dead, I guess we’ll have to give extra weight to the opinions of a nine year old – one who just happens to have a grandmother chairing the board of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. In fairness, we’ll ask him whether a ban on guns includes a ban on Steve Gunn. Since our survey will be a small one, son, please remember that a whole lot ‘depends on your perspective.’

But lest the reader believe that I disparage the opinions of every board member of the aforementioned Utah gun control organization, let me introduce a statement by Gary Sackett who says “I’m not comfortable arming our entire country for protection – that’s a paranoid notion.”

I actually agree with Gary. Those in the gun control lobby who think we are trying to arm “our entire country” – including felons, illegal aliens, and mental patients – are indeed paranoid. But they always manage to win the argument as long as they are arguing against something we aren’t saying.

I actually agree with “Gun-control Gary” on something else. He says that “You can’t protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade.” Aside from a) admitting that he only thinks you can get “a firearm or a hand grenade” out of the hands of sane man and, b) suggesting he will try to accomplish only this goal, there is one more problem. It’s the old Utopian notion that only perfect solutions, not trade-offs, are acceptable.

Imagine telling a rape victim – one who was previously denied a concealed carry permit – that she only had a twenty percent chance of stopping her attacker with a gun. Tell her you won’t settle for anything less than one hundred percent. But if you say this to five rape victims, make sure you don’t report the cumulative percentage. That might cause unnecessary emotional trauma – although I admit to being less than one hundred percent certain as of this writing.

“Gun-control Gary” Sackett also teaches us that homicide and suicide rates are lower in places like Japan where they have more restrictions on handguns. But he fails to tell us that less than forty percent of crimes are reported to the police agencies that are under no obligation to report crimes to the federal government, which does not include any federal crimes in its own reports. Are we to also conclude that there is no federal crime in America? Or should we just ask Martha Stewart instead? Never mind, I think she has a nine year old grandson.

Actually, we do learn something from studying our federal crime statistics; namely that they wildly underestimate the amount of crime in America. And we also learn that, despite their limitations, they are vastly superior to the statistics of virtually every other nation, including highly advanced societies like Zimbabwe and Castro Cuba.

That means we can’t make cross-cultural comparisons like the gun control lobby would lead us to believe. But, fortunately, we can compare our national statistics from one year to the next since they tend to have roughly the same level of error from one year to the next.

When we compare the 1950s to the early 21st Century we realize that the increase in per capita ownership of devices with transistors has been accompanied by an increase in property crime. And the correlation is probably a reflection of a causal relationship – this is because the prevalence of lighter and more portable valuables is more appealing to larcenists and burglars alike.

But there’s no need to fear that a group of people in the Gun Violence Prevention Center will form a sister group called the Transistor Crime Prevention Center. They don’t know that my choice to buy an item with a transistor is driving up the crime rate. In fact, the latest statistics show that Japan has both lower crime and more transistors per capita. If anything, they may start to lobby for concealed carry transistor permits in order to bring crime back down to 1950s levels.

When the public policy director for Gun Owners of Utah said that a concealed permit is something that every adult “needs to consider” he was right. We all need to consider (read: think seriously about) important issues in the 21st Century.

But Dee Rowland said that the assertion that we should “consider” – or think about the issue – is “absurd” adding that even her nine year old grandson asked rhetorically “how could that help?”

The next time you try to talk to a nine year old only to find he is opposed to serious thinking, just ask someone else. You could just survey a member of the gun control lobby or maybe even a Muslim in a shopping mall.

Just as long as someone else is doing your thinking - especially someone with a political agenda - everything will probably work out fine.

***
From a discussion about Ron Paul:

Ron Paul wants to abolish almost all government agencies..."  Since "almost all" is a good description of the quantity of government agencies which are unconstitutional, illegitimate, and illegal, any patriotic American should be in full agreement with that desire.

It was your last paragraph (that having armed passengers on aircraft), however, that changed me from a long time reader to a first time writer.  I cannot stand by and allow that level of extreme ignorance to go unchallenged.  I was not previously aware that Dr. Paul had made the statement regarding 9/11 and the second amendment, but I have been making similar statements ever since the attack.  What is "nuts" (to put it mildly) is how uninformed and non-thinking individuals such as yourself think that you are safer in schools, hospitals, and airports, when the only people with weapons are criminals.  There is just no logic to support your position.  If someone is willing to commit murder (which is illegal - try to follow me here), do you really think he is going to leave his weapons home because it would be illegal to carry them?  On the other hand, a teacher with a gun could have saved lives at Columbine.  One armed passenger on each 9/11 flight, and the planes would have landed at their proper destinations with a few dead terrorists on each (or worst case, they would have exploded far away from the terrorist's target).  It is only in the movies that planes go down from a few bullet holes.  You call the police when you are attacked some day.  Unless you are inside the station, and maybe even if you are, the police will be there to watch the M.E. carry away what is left of you.  Their job doesn't start until after you've been injured or killed.  My assailant will take two to the chest and one to the head, and that is why the second amendment is America's Original (and best) Homeland Defense.


Ban the Ban?
By Dave Kopel : 29 Nov 2007 
 
The Supreme Court recently announced it will hear the Washington, D.C. handgun ban case. Handgun bans exist in only half a dozen U.S. cities, because while gun control is sometimes popular, gun prohibition is not.

In 1976, the District of Columbia city council banned the possession of any handguns which were not already possessed and registered by residents, and the use of any gun for self-defense. That same year, the citizens of Massachusetts were asked by referendum whether to ban handguns. The left-leaning state had been the only one to vote for George McGovern in the previous presidential election.

The "People vs. Handguns" campaign was "supported by most of the state's press," according to Time Magazine. But 69 percent of the state's voters rejected it. Gun prohibitionists tried again in California in 1982, proposing a "handgun freeze," allowing current owners to keep their handguns, but banning any new acquisitions. The measure was crushed by a vote of 63-37. The freeze's opponents brought so many additional voters to the polls that they even carried Republican George Deukmejian to a narrow, one-percent victory over Tom Bradley in the Governor's race.

The gun prohibition movement successfully lobbied the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove to ban handguns in 1981. Chicago itself followed suit in 1983, and the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park, and Wilmette also enacted handgun bans. The Chicagoland bans got a lot of press, and the national backlash against them was powerful. State after state passed preemption laws, forbidding localities from banning handguns. Today, an astonishing 45 states have preemption laws, including California, whose law has stopped two efforts to impose handgun prohibition in San Francisco.

By the early 1990s, local handgun bans had been outlawed almost everywhere in the United States. One of the few states without a preemption law was Wisconsin, which bordered the one state where handgun bans existed. Yet even in left-leaning cities in the state, handgun prohibition was rejected: by 51 percent in Madison in 1993, then by 67 percent in Milwaukee and 73 percent in Kenosha in 1994.

The Wisconsin gun ban campaigns did have important consequences. The state legislature enacted a preemption law, and in 1998, 73 percent of voters approved the addition of a right to arms clause to the state constitution.

Since 1974, the leading gun ban group in the United States has been the National Council to Control Handguns, which after two name changes is now known as the Brady Campaign. One of Sarah Brady's predecessors, Nelson "Pete" Shields, explained the group's incrementalist strategy to The New Yorker in 1976: "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal."

Today, the Brady Campaign denies that it supports handgun prohibition, but the group still lobbies Congress and fights in the courts to preserve the D.C. handgun ban. That ban is aberrational not only by U.S. standards, but internationally. In Europe, almost all nations allow the possession of licensed handguns. Of the exceptions—Russia, Luxembourg, England, Scotland, and Ireland—all but Ireland have murder and violent crime rates much worse than that of their neighbors and other nearby countries which don't ban handguns.

Despite hysterical fundraising campaigns by anti-gun lobbyists, a Supreme Court decision against the D.C. handgun ban would not invalidate the vast number of laws regulating but not banning these weapons in the U.S. Indeed, overturning even the Chicago bans would require a definitive future ruling on whether the Second Amendment is enforceable against state and local governments, or only against the federal government and federal enclaves such as D.C.

Millions of Americans own firearms and use them responsibly, and that right is guaranteed under the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban is a very rare, extreme and unconstitutional prohibition. If the Supreme Court were to affirm the lower court's decision against the handgun ban, it would end the shame of our nation's capital city depriving its citizens of a right that legislatures and courts have protected almost everywhere else in the United States.


Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder And Suicide?
(A Review Of International And Some Domestic Evidence)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf 


Second Amendment Battle in DC by Ron Paul

As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
 
Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society.  Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people's access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law.  Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to.  Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.
 
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation's capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer.  In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place!  Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC's gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller.  This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured.  The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court's decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city.  It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
 
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia's gun laws are a "reasonable" infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
 
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.


Doctors vs Gunowners
Doctors don't quack a lot about these statistics!

Doctors
(A)   The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B)   Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C)   Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (17.1%)

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.  

Now think about this:

Guns
(A)   The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000 (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B)   The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C)   The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188 (.0188%)

Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

Fact: Not Everyone Has A Gun, But Almost Everyone Has At Least One Doctor

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!


 Liberal Ideology Will Not Make Your Campus Safer
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/03/08/liberal_ideology_will_not_make_your_campus_safer

Full Metal Yellow Jacket
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2010/12/28/full_metal_yellow_jacket

I'm Dreaming of A Second Amendment Christmas
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2010/11/23/im_dreaming_of_a_second_amendment_christmas

My Guns Are Pretty (And Safer Than Your Tattoos)
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2010/09/07/my_guns_are_pretty_and_safer_than_your_tattoos

The Defense of Self and Nations
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2010/04/13/the_defense_of_self_and_nations

Ideology to Die For
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2010/02/23/ideology_to_die_for
---

Did you know that in 27 states only criminals are allowed to carry firearms on a college campus?

  That’s right, in over half of the states in our country, law-abiding citizens are prevented from protecting themselves in institutions of “higher learning.”

  And we all know what that means.

  Criminals don’t follow rules, so the only people that law applies to are peaceful people like you and me.

  I call these gun free zones “Criminal Safezones”, since only criminals are armed, and therefore, safe from citizens who want to protect themselves.

  Amanda Collins was one of those people.

  Fox News has the horrible story of what happened to her.

  A concealed weapon permit holder, mother and student at UNR (University of Nevada, Reno), Amanda wasn’t allowed to carry a firearm on her college campus because it was a “gun free zone.”

  That meant she was unarmed on a night in October, 2007 when she was attacked while walking to one of her classes.

  You see, her attacker didn’t care about the “gun free” designation. He had his gun.

  And he held it to her temple while he raped her.

  She had left her firearm at home because that was the law.

  A law that left her completely vulnerable when she needed a way to defend herself the most.

  It makes me sick to even tell this story.

  But at most colleges and universities, they think people like Amanda should be completely defenseless.

  They think that only scumbags like her attacker should be armed.

  I don’t.

  And I know you’re smart enough to realize that, regardless of some ridiculous “gun free zone,” criminals will carry where they darn well please.

  That’s why I take the effort to repeal the ban of firearms on college campuses very seriously.

  I don’t like reading stories like Amanda’s.

  And yet, it hasn’t been enough to overturn the law in Nevada.

  In 2010, the National Association for Gun Rights worked with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and was successful in overturning such a ban on a majority of campuses in Colorado.

  This last week, Arizona became the 23rd state to do the same.

  In Florida, Idaho, Texas and even Amanda’s state of Nevada, the idea of lifting gun bans on college campuses is still being “debated.”

  To me, that’s just sad.

  Institutionalized politicians don’t care about people like Amanda until we make them care.

  I will continue to fight against these illogical laws that do nothing but harm law-abiding citizens, and also keep you updated on the progress of the National Association for Gun Rights’ progress in tackling these bans.

  I just wanted to share Amanda’s story with you, as I know how powerful of an example it was to me that it’s time to finally repeal nonsensical bans like “gun free zones.”

  Just remember her story next time someone tells you about “common sense” gun laws.

For Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

Opponents of Gun-Free Zones at Universities Find Unlikely Hero in Nevada Woman
By Claudia Cowan
Published April 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/08/opponents-gun-free-zones-universities-unlikely-hero-nevada-woman/

Across the country, lawmakers are debating whether universities should let students and faculty with permits carry their concealed weapon on campus. Those who want to put an end to such gun-free zones have found an unlikely hero in a petite, soft spoken, young woman who wonders why colleges protect most Constitutional rights, but not the one that matters most when staring into the face of a violent criminal.

Amanda Collins, 25, is a wife and new mom, and a concealed weapon permit holder for years. At her father's law office in Reno, she showed us the 9-mm Glock she carries for her safety.

"It's got a pretty standard magazine," she said, "and night sights so you can see in the dark when you're aiming."

However, Collins couldn't aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That's because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a "gun free" zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.

In October of 2007, while walking to her car after a night class, Collins was grabbed from behind in a university parking garage less than 300 yards from a campus police office. The school's "gun-free" designation meant nothing to James Biela, a serial rapist with a gun of his own, who saw Collins as an easy target. "He put a firearm to my temple," she recounted, "clocked off the safety, and told me not to say anything, before he raped me."

The university has since installed more emergency call boxes and lights in the parking structure, but Collins says that won't stop an attacker who knows the campus is a gun-free zone, a policy she believes invites crime, and may have even emboldened the man who raped her.

Just months later, Biela went on to murder 19-year old Brianna Dennison in a case that received widespread national attention. While Biela now sits on death row, Collins is convinced the outcome would have been different had she been armed.

"I know, having been the first victim, that Brianna Dennison would still be alive, had I been able to defend myself that night."

Collins is believed to be the first victim of an on-campus rape to come out and publicly share her horrific attack in an effort to change the law and keep people safe.

Last month, she testified before Nevada lawmakers in support of  , a bill that would allow concealed weapons at the state's public universities. It would abolish the requirement that permit holders get permission from the university president -- a request that is routinely denied. (Amanda was finally allowed to carry her weapon -- after she was attacked).

But others say campus gun-free zones are vital to maintain security and reduce chances of gun related accidents and violence. Reno police oppose the bill, as does an academic group called the Nevada Faculty Alliance. Dr. Gregory Brown, professor of history at UNLV and vice president of the UNLV Faculty Alliance, points to studies that argue more guns on campus translates into more violence at school.

Nevada State Senator Michael Schneider, D-Las Vegas, fears guns in the hands of students will be disastrous.

"They are not trained professionals," Schneider said. "By the time any student could get a gun, when they were attacked by someone else with a gun if they went for their gun, it would be a bad outcome."

But author John Lott, who writes in support of gun rights, argues that at the 70 schools that allow students and faculty with permits to carry guns, "not one has experienced the type of harm predicted by opponents. Not a single permit holder on these campuses has been involved in a firearm accident or crime."

For Collins, the ban defies logic.

"I don't understand why (the state) trusts good, responsible people to be able to have their firearm across the street, and as soon as they cross an arbitrary line, they somehow lose all reason and ability to be able to be competent with that responsibility. It makes no sense to me at all."

Her main argument comes from self protection. "Everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves," she says. "The criminals who are intent on committing a crime don't care about what the rules and regulations are. The only ones that do are the law abiding citizens, and those are the ones who are permitted to carry everywhere else."

Later this month, SB 231 heads to the Senate floor, where Schneider vows to block it.

A dozen other states, including Florida, Idaho, and Texas, are also debating whether to lift gun bans on college campuses. As traumatic as it to relive her attack, Collins says she'll testify wherever and whenever she can to help make that happen.


Kendra St. Clair: Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
By MARK GREENBLATT (@greenblattmark)
Oct. 20, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438

Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered.

"I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra told ABC News.

Petrified, she called her mom Debra.

"I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911."

The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee.

The 911 tapes tell the story as it unfolded.

Kendra: "I'm at my house. I'm in my closet. And I ran away from (inaudible) someone's trying to get into my house and I do not know who they are." Dispatcher: "Ok I have a deputy en route, I want you to stay on the phone with me. Ok?" Kendra: "Ok. Please. I think they are in the house."

(Picture and Video at link) Kendra St. Clare, 12-year-old Oklahoma girl, shoots an intruder during a home burglary.

Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home.

Kendra: "Please help me. Please." Dispatcher: "Alright, alright. I understand. Do you still have your mom's gun there?" Kendra: "Yes I do. I have it in my hand."

Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn.

At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun.

Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house.

They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary.

"When I had the gun, I didn't think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," the 6th grader recalled. "I think it's going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore."

Her mother Debra agrees.

"I think that she did something that most grown-ups wouldn't be able to do in a frightening situation. I think she handled herself amazingly."

Jones was treated at the hospital and released into the custody of authorities. Police said he has not yet entered a plea but that bond has been set for $250,000.


 

Survivor of 1991 Shooting Gives Impassioned Testimony Against Gun Control
http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/survivor-of-1991-shooting-gives-impassioned-testimony-against-gun-control/
Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen in 1991 when the Luby's massacre commenced. The gunman shot 50 people and killed 23, including Hupp's parents. Hupp later expressed regret about deciding to remove her gun from her purse and lock it in her car lest she risk possibly running afoul of the state's concealed weapons laws; during the shootings, she reached for her weapon but then remembered that it was "a hundred feet away in my car." Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush the gunman and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Actually however, her mother went to her mortally-wounded husband's aid and was then shot in the head.
This video is Hupp's classic testimony before Congress which is once again relevant to America's political debate in the light of the 2012 Connecticut shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=player_embedded
---

Leftists Exploit Pain for Political Gain

 "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." --Joseph Story

The nation is still reeling over the dreadful events in Newtown, Connecticut, one week ago. We mourn the tragic loss of life, and we weep and pray for the families who won't have a son or a daughter to open presents under the Christmas tree this year. We wish that we could, as one nation, just pause and reflect. The last thing we want is a political fight. But even so, we won't stand idly by while some use Newtown's pain to justify taking away our Liberty.

Evil exists in the world, and yet too many people seem shocked that an evil man would take the lives of 20 six- and seven-year-old children, six adults at the school and even the life of his own mother. That isn't to say that the horrific crime isn't shocking, but it is to say a sober view of reality is needed.

Instead, the Left is almost uniform in hiding the evil behind its implements. Evil often takes things -- sometimes very good things -- and twists and distorts them for its own ends. Rather than admit the existence of evil, the Left blames the thing itself. Hence the renewed efforts at "gun control" at the federal level. Our mission -- and it should be the mission of congressional Republicans -- is to stop those who would use evil acts as an excuse to take away our very means of defending against that evil; to stop Barack Obama and his ilk from stacking up the coffins of innocent little children as a platform for their vile disarmament agenda.

The Terms

We must begin by considering the terms of the debate, and refusing to cede the field to leftists. For example, we must not use the Left's lexicon when referring to crimes where assailants use guns. The sociopath who used a gun to kill kids in Newtown was not a "shooter" or a "gunman." Such words only put the emphasis on the tool, rather than the perpetrator. When we head to the range, we are shooters and gunmen. That sociopath was an "assailant" and "murderer."

Furthermore, those who don't have the first clue what they're talking about regarding guns shouldn't be the ones to craft legislation dealing with them. When Nancy Pelosi warns hysterically of "assault magazines," or when Carolyn McCarthy refers to a barrel shroud as "the shoulder thing that goes up," they have shown themselves to be incapable of good judgment on the issue.

When the Left frets about "high-capacity magazines" or "assault weapons," they know not of what they speak -- or worse, they deliberately misinform. Many guns, including handguns, have standard-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, which, inexplicably, seems to be their lucky number to solve "gun violence."

Rifles such as the AR-15 are not "assault weapons." The Defense Department says, "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons [i.e., machine guns] that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine-gun and rifle cartridges. Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters." The AR-15 is a civilian semi-automatic weapon that fires intermediate-powered rounds -- one for each distinct pull of the trigger. Such rifles aren't "high-powered," either. Indeed, they aren't legal for deer hunting in many states because their firepower isn't sufficient to reliably take down a deer.

The Bill

The primary purpose of the Second Amendment isn't to preserve hunting, or sport shooting, or even self-defense, though it does protect all those things. The Founders' intent when enshrining our natural right to "keep and bear arms" was to ensure that the people could defend against a tyrannical government -- that's precisely why tyrannical governments always begin by disarming the people. Anyone who doubts this truth should ponder the awful history and the appalling body count of 20th-century communism. Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi once said, "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown murders, Sen. Dianne Feinstein vowed to get "weapons of war off the streets" by reintroducing her 1994 "assault weapons" ban. Of course, that ban did little but prohibit guns with certain cosmetic features that, to the ignorant, look particularly scary. The Bushmaster .223 that the Newtown killer allegedly used was legally owned by his mother in Connecticut, which has an almost identical ban to the 1994 federal one. An especially troubling aspect of the new federal law is the proposed ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammo, merely because Beltway leftists and New York chardonnay sippers can't conceive of a legitimate use for 12, 15 or 30 rounds. (For a good summary of the other details of the bill, see here.)

The Obama White House announced that it will "actively support" the bill, as did Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Warner (D-VA), who all have good NRA ratings. Joe Biden is now in charge of a "task force" to reduce gun violence, in part through legislation. We are reminded that in 2008, Obama said, "If you are a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration." So much for that. Indeed, don't be surprised if Obama tries something through executive order should Congress fail to bow to his wishes.

Attorney General Eric Holder said, "[W]e have to ask ourselves some hard questions" and "talk about the freedoms that we have." Let's do. Let's start with some hard questions about why the Department of Justice was selling Mexican drug cartels the same types of weapons Obama now wants to ban. Another of those Fast and Furious weapons just turned up at a Mexican murder scene in November.

Meanwhile, Obama is using Newtown as an excuse not only for gun control, but, grotesquely, he said that it provides "some perspective" for getting his domestic agenda through Congress, particularly on the fiscal cliff. He's also using it for continued fundraising.

Obama asked Sunday night, "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" The president's political party has made killing children prior to birth, and even during birth and right after being born alive, a pillar of their platform -- 54 million children sacrificed on the altar of "choice" since 1973, currently a rate of 3,200 every day.

The Stats

Since Obama was elected in 2008, gun and ammunition sales have surged to historic highs. Perhaps if Obama is really concerned about the proliferation of firearms, he should resign.

Since the previous ban on certain semi-automatic rifles sunset in 2004, gun ownership has increased and crime has decreased.

According to the FBI, two-thirds of murders that involve guns were perpetrated with handguns. In fact, it's pretty embarrassing for Feinstein that her own summary statement says that her ill-defined, so-called "assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries" since the ban ended, because that's less than one-half of 1 percent of all gun deaths in that time period. Twice as many people are killed with an assailant's hands, fists or feet -- and almost five times as many with a knife -- than with a rifle. Furthermore, the gun-death statistics that leftists tend to trot out are invariably skewed by gang-on-gang violence.

Just this year in Chicago -- Obama's hometown and a city with the toughest gun restrictions in America -- 62 young people between the ages of six and 18 have been murdered with guns -- and nearly 500 people total. Not a word from Obama.

It must also be noted that the murders in Newtown, as well as those in Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine and other places, occurred in so-called "gun-free zones." The Useful Idiots of the Left are under the delusion that simply posting a sign will make people safe, when only the murderers actually are safe. Estimates are that the sociopathic killer in Newtown broke 20 existing gun laws, including entering a "gun-free zone" with a gun. Murder is also against the law no matter the weapon.

There are numerous stories every week like this, this and this of citizens using firearms to stop threats, often without even firing a shot. Ann Coulter recounts several attempted mass shootings thwarted by gun owners.

Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen

Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sergeant Drops Him (UPDATED)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

Casper Police: Nail salon customer packs heat, gunman leaves
http://trib.com/news/local/casper/casper-police-nail-salon-customer-packs-heat-gunman-leaves/article_e3236de2-6756-539a-92b0-ae3aaf64c900.html

We Know How to Stop School Shootings
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15975

Benjamin Franklin once proclaimed, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, indeed they deserve neither Liberty nor safety and, ultimately, will lose both.
---

We Know How to Stop School Shootings
By Ann Coulter
December 20, 2012
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15975/print

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
---

The Weekend Vigilante December 22, 2012
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/12/22/the-weekend-vigilante-december-22-2012.html

(excerpt) I always have to laugh at "Italians" who live in the US who are characterized by those on a show like Jersey Shore. In years of coming to Italy I have yet to see anyone with a tan and certainly no one with muscles like Pauly D. or "The Situation". I've always found this interesting... how people from one region go to another region and try to exude a completely different persona than in their own area. Your average Italian (and again, excuse me for generalizing) is skinny and unaggressive... and definitely not tanned orange. I once asked my Mexican wife this paradox about Mexicans who live in places like Los Angeles. Those muscular, tattoeed guys in California who call themselves Mexicans are not to be found in Mexico. Upon asking, my Mexican wife said there is a saying in Mexico, we send our garbage to California.

THE VIGILANTE TAKE ON SANDY HOOK

If you live in the USSA, you've been inundated by media on the shooting in an elementary school. While this obviously was a horrible event, I would like to interject some rationality into the discussion.

First, it has been so nice to be in Europe for most of this media frenzy as I have not been inundated with emotional reactions to a complex event. Let's get a few things out of the way right now. This event was not because guns exist. If there is any more proof for this, it was that on the same day, in China, 22 kids were stabbed via knife in a very similar event.

Second, isn't it funny how armored cars ALWAYS and banks OFTEN have a non-public/police armed guard to protect fiat currencies...but schools NEVER have a private armed guard to protect something much more important to people (their own kids). Maybe I'm just a bit too logical with my anarchism and non-collectivtist thinking, but I am amazed that all the sheep who are so afraid of guns and who would be appalled at the idea of free market armed guards protecting their children, are completely okay when they see an armed guard standing at the door of a bank or carrying bags of money into the bank. I shouldn't be so surprised at how warped their thinking is, especially at this point in my life, but it's hard not to be when these brainwashed people start yelling their nonsense after tragedies like this last one.

By the way, the lack of real protection is yet another reason to avoid putting your kids into child prison day camps (schools) where they can so easily become target practice for some deranged shooter hopped up on prescription pschoactive medication. These camps are very, very dangerous places...and that's besides all the propaganda, indoctrination and hazing they will receive there.

Third, allow me to point out that, thanks to the fact that the main dream media and the government in the US are in charge of almost all information that we really have no idea of what really happened there. We do know that many children were killed. That is about the extent that we can really know. There are definitely many questions, however. Just like with the Colorado Batman movie shooting there were plenty of reports of a second shooter.

Beyond that, much more dangerous than guns, are the pharmacheutical poisons being prescribed to tens of millions of US citizens. This list was put together by Takimag.com (see here):

An autopsy concluded that Columbine killer Eric Harris had the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of his death.

* Jeff Weise, who killed nine people and himself at a Minnesota high school in 2005, was taking increasingly high doses of Prozac at the time of his spree.

* Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people and himself at an Omaha mall in 2007, reportedly had been on antidepressants at the time of his shooting. He allegedly had taken antidepressants since he was six years old.

* Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 and wounded 23 at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been prescribed Prozac and had previously taken Paxil for a year, but he apparently had ceased taking his medication at the time of the shooting.

* Andrew Engeldinger killed five people and himself after being fired from his job in 2012 (just half a quarter mile away from where TDV editor Gary Gibson was writing at his house in Minneapolis). A police search of Engeldinger's house revealed he'd been prescribed the antidepressants Mirtazapine and Trazodone, as well as the insomnia medication Temazepam.

* Eduardo Sencion, who killed four people and himself with an assault rifle at a Utah IHOP in 2011, was a paranoid schizophrenic whose medications were changed during the summer prior to his attack.

* Robert Kenneth Stewart, who murdered eight people at a North Carolina nursing home in 2009, submitted to a blood test that revealed he had Lexapro, Ambien, Benadryl, and Xanax in his system at the time of his spree.

* Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people and himself on Valentine's Day in 2008, had allegedly been prescribed Xanax, Ambien, and Prozac, although according to his girlfriend he had stopped taking Prozac prior to the massacre.

* James Eagan Holmes, who shot up a Colorado movie theater in July, reportedly took 100MG of Vicodin before the shooting. He had also allegedly seen three school psychiatrists prior to his attack. Although his psychiatric records are privileged information, in his mug shot he appears to be medicated up to the eyeballs.

And Adam Lanza, slayer of over two dozen people on Friday, appears to have had a classic pair of Medication Eyes himself. He was also reportedly "troubled" and possibly "autistic." A neighbor of Lanza's claims he was taking medication.

Where is the outcry to ban pharmaceuticals? Imagine if all these killers had been smoking plants like marijuana or coca? The outcry in the media would be deafening.

Beyond that, though, is the question of relevance. Approximately 1,500 people are murdered every day. Many of them at the hands of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barrack O'Bomber. Do you cry every day for all of them? Or is it because you aren't told by your media programming not to that you don't?

We are now at a world guesstimated at 7 billion humans. Even 100 years ago, that amount was closer to 1 billion. As numbers increase and as the amount of global media increases, we will hear of horrendous stories almost every day... just as a matter of simple math.

As these numbers continue to increase horrific events will appear to be happening by the hour... and will further enable the media and the powers that be to sell the populace on how dangerous the world is becoming and how you need to be disarmed from self protection to survive. The truth is that we, as people, have probably never been more safe and secure. Statistics indicate that the total population of chimpanzees (humans - monkeys with pants) was 370 million in 1350. So numbers alone have increased 2,000 percent in the last few hundred years. Not to mention that you would never hear of a mass killing even 500 miles a way during that time.

Do not let the extrapolation in numbers fool you into thinking the world has become far worse. In contrast to 1350, the world has become infinitely better. Keep some semblance of reality and realize that and also look deeper into the real causes of any problems in the world we live in today.

UNTIL NEXT YEAR

We all (for the most part) have appearred to survive the Mayan apocalypse. What is much more important, realistic, and dangerous in our near futures is the dollar collapse and The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI). Stick with us here at TDV and we can all get through this much more important, and unreported danger, together. Thank you again for another great year. All of us at TDV will be taking a break beginning on Monday and will return on January 2nd. By that point I'll be somewhere in Africa and reporting in with true boots-on-the-ground info... not just picking items out of the local newspapers as some others do... and letting you know what is going on from my perspective, reporting to our subscribers with the best of info and having some fun while we do it. And, hey, I don't even use a fake name nor hide from the bright lights of reality. Imagine that!

Have a great holiday season, do not initiate violence against others, live well and try to be free... even when others in costumes try to impede you. All the best from my family, my friends and from the entire crew at TDV which now numbers in the dozens to you and yours!

Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind's two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world's freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media.
---

NRA's Wayne LaPierre: Others Exploited Shootings
Solution: Put Armed Guards at Every School
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/lapierre-nra-press-conference/2012/12/21/id/468710

The powerful U.S. gun rights lobby went on the offensive on Friday arguing that schools should have armed guards, on a day that Americans remembered the victims of the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre with a moment of silence.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, noting that banks and airports are patrolled by armed guards, while schools typically are not.

His remarks - in which he charged that the news media and violent video games shared blame for the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history - were twice interrupted by protesters who unfurled signs and shouted "stop the killing."

Speaking in Washington, LaPierre urged lawmakers to station armed police officers in all schools by the time students return from the Christmas break in January. LaPierre did not take questions from reporters.

LaPierre said that his group has remained "respectively silent" since last week's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. "out of respect for the families" of the victims.

"Out of respect for the families and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment," LaPierre said. "While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectively silent."

As LaPierre was speaking, a protester stood up with a banner saying "NRA Killing Our Kids." As the man is led from the room, he shouts that the NRA is "killing our children." LaPierre paused as the man is escorted out.

The next Adam Lanza [the killer in Newtown], he said, is already "planning his attack."

"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them?" he asked.

LaPierre noteed there is no "active national database of the mentally ill."

LaPierre also asked why the news media doesn't do more to call attention to an industry that "sells and sows violence against its own people" -- the manufacturers of "vicious, violent video games."

Earlier on Friday, church bells rang out in tree-lined suburban Newtown and up and down the East Coast at 9:30 a.m. EST in memory of the victims of the attack on Dec. 14 in which 28 people, including the gunman, were killed.

LaPierre's comments came at the end of a week when President Barack Obama commissioned a new White House task force to find a way to quell violence, a challenge in a nation with a strong culture of individual gun ownership.

"We have to have a comprehensive way in which to respond to the mass murder of our children that we saw in Connecticut," Vice President Joe Biden, who heads the task force, said on Thursday.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and hundreds of millions of weapons are in private hands.

About 11,100 Americans died in gun-related killings in 2011, not including suicides, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some U.S. lawmakers called for swift passage of an assault weapons ban.

Some Newtown residents have already launched an effort aimed at tightening rules on gun ownership.

"What I feel is a sense of guilt because I've been a strong advocate of gun control for years," said John Dewees, 61, who was in downtown Newtown, where a makeshift memorial rose several feet around two Christmas trees with teddy bears and flower bouquets. "I wish I'd been more vocal. You wonder, had we all been, could we have averted this?"

SHATTERED ILLUSION OF SAFETY

The attack, which killed 20 first graders ages 6 and 7, shattered the illusion of safety in this close-knit town of 27,000 people where many residents knew someone affected by the attacks.

"There's just so many connections," said Jay Petrusaitis, whose son was in the same high school class as the gunman.

Churches as far south as Florida and at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., rang their bells.

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy had called for residents of his state to observe the moment of silence to mark a week since a 20-year-old gunman killed his mother and then stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School. He killed a total of 28 people that day, including six school teachers and staff in a rampage that ended when he turned his gun on himself.

Governors in Maine, Illinois, Michigan and several other states also called for moments of silence.

The gunman, Adam Lanza, used a military-style assault rifle and police said he carried hundreds of bullets in high-capacity magazines, as well as two handguns. The weapons were legally purchased and registered to his mother, Nancy, his first victim.

© 2012 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
---

NRA calls for protecting schools with arms
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/nra-calls-for-protecting-schools-with-arms/
(See video at link)

After a week of silence in the wake of the Newtown shootings, the National Rifle Association finally spoke out Friday defending guns and decrying violence. NRA's Wayne LaPierre called for schools to be protected with armed guards, just as sports stadiums, the President of the United States and government buildings.

Remarks from the NRA press conference on Sandy Hook school shooting, delivered on Dec_ 21, 2012 (Transcript) - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html
(See video at link)

Here's a transcript of the remarks from the NRA press conference on the Sandy Hook school shooting. Statements are being updated as the remarks unfold.

More Coverage: NRA's Wayne LaPierre: Put "armed police officers in every school."

DAVID KEENE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Good morning. I'm Dave Keene, president of the National Rifle Association of America.

And I'd like to welcome you here this morning for the purposes of beginning our discussion of the topic that's been on the mind of American parents across this country, and that is, what do we do about the tragedies of the sort that struck in Newtown, Connecticut -- to avoid such events in the future?

Like most Americans, we were shocked by what happened. Like all Americans, we've been discussing all of the various options that are available to protect our children, and at this point we would like to share our thinking with you.

And for that purpose I'd like to introduce Wayne LaPierre, our executive vice president.

Thank you again for being with us.

And at the end of this conference we will not be taking questions, but next week we will be available to any of you who are interested in talking about these or other issues of interest to you, so contact us, please, at that point.

Thank you very much.

Wayne?

WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NRA: Good morning.

The National Rifle Association -- 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters -- join the nation in horror, outrage, grief, and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut, who have suffered such an incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

Out of respect for the families and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment.

While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectably silent. Now, we must speak for the safety of our nation's children.

LAPIERRE: Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one, nobody has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face the truth. Politicians pass laws for gun free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And, in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order. Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, court houses, even sports stadiums are all protected by armed security.

LAPIERRE: We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it.

That must change now. The truth is...

PROTESTER: (inaudible) stop killing our children. It's the NRA and -- the assault weapons that are killing our children, not (inaudible) teacher. We've got to end (inaudible). We've got to end the violence. We've got to stop the killers, stop the killing our children, stop killing our (inaudible) stop killing in our streets.

The NRA is killing our children. We've got to stop the violence, and violence begins with the NRA. Stating the true facts that they are the perpetrators of the violence that is taking place in our schools and on our streets.

LAPIERRE: The truth is, that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters. People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can every possibly comprehend them. They walk among us every single day, and does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school, he's already identified at this very moment?

LAPIERRE: How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave, while provoking others to try to make their mark.

A dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill? The fact is this: That wouldn't even begin to address the much larger, more lethal criminal class -- killers, robbers, rapists, gang members who have spread like cancer in every community across our nation.

Meanwhile, while that happens, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40 percent, to the lowest levels in a decade. So now, due to a declined willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years. Add another hurricane, terrorist attack, or some other natural of manmade disaster, and you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.

LAPIERRE: And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like "Bullet Storm," "Grand Theft Auto," "Mortal Combat," and "Splatterhouse."

And here's one, it's called "Kindergarten Killers." It's been online for 10 years. How come my research staff can find it, and all of yours couldn't? Or didn't want anyone to know you had found it? Add another hurricane, add another natural disaster. I mean we have blood-soaked films out there, like "American Psycho," "Natural Born Killers." They're aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every single day.

1,000 music videos, and you all know this, portray life as a joke and they play murder -- portray murder as a way of life. And then they all have the nerve to call it entertainment. But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior, and criminal cruelty right into our homes. Every minute, every day, every hour of every single year.

LAPIERRE: A child growing up in America today witnesses 16,000 murders, and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. And, throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.

Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize gun owners.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE) coming from the NRA.

The NRA has blood on its hands. The NRA has blood on its hands. Shame on the NRA.

Ban assault weapons now. Ban assault weapons now. NRA (inaudible) assault weapons now.

(CROSSTALK)

PROTESTER: Mr. LaPierre, what is reaction to this?

LAPIERRE: Rather than face -- rather than face their own moral failings the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws, and fill the national media with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action, and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

LAPIERRE: The media calls semi-automatic fire arms, machine guns. They claim these civilian semi-automatic fire arms are used by the military. They tell us that the .223 is one of the most powerful rifle calibers, when all of these claims are factually untrue, they don't know what they're talking about.

Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban or one more law imposed on peaceable, lawful people will protect us where 20,000 other laws have failed.

As brave and heroic and as self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms and as prompt and professional and well- trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable -- through no fault of their own, unable to stop it.

As parents we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It's now time for us to assume responsibility for our schools. The only way -- the only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or from a minute away?

LAPIERRE: Now, I can imagine the headlines, the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow. "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything." Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.

But since when did "gun" automatically become a bad word? A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting our president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States of America isn't a bad word. And when you hear your glass breaking at three a.m. and you call 9/11, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So, why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect the president of our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in our schools? They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them, it's our right to protect them.

LAPIERRE: You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if -- what if when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he'd been confronted by qualified armed security? Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 little kids, that 26 innocent lives might have been spared that day? Is it so important to you (inaudible) would rather continue to risk the alternative? Is the press and the political class here in Washington D.C. so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and American gun owners, that you're willing to accept the world, where real resistance to evil monsters is alone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life, her life, to shield those children in her care.

No one. No one, regardless of personal, political prejudice has the right to impose that sacrifice.

Ladies and gentlemen, there's no national one size fits all solution to protecting our children. But do know that this president zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget and scrapped Secure Our Schools policing grants in next year's budget.

With all the foreign aid the United States does, with all the money in the federal budget, can't we afford to put a police officer in every single school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business and no authority denying us the right, the ability, and the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.

LAPIERRE: Now, the National Rifle Association knows there are millions of qualified and active retired police, active, Reserve, and retired military, security professionals, certified firefighters, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school.

We could deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer, relying on the brave men and women in America's police forces. The budgets -- and you all know this, everyone in the country knows this -- of our local police departments are strained, and the resources are severely limited, but their dedication and courage is second to none. And, they can be deployed right now.

I call on Congress today, to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation. And, to do it now to make sure that blanket safety is in place when our kids return to school in January.

Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation, or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work and by that I mean armed security.

LAPIERRE: Right now today every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators, teachers, local authorities and draw upon every resource that's out there and available to erect a cordon of protection around our kids right now.

Every school is gonna have a different solution based on its own unique situation. Every school in America needs to immediately identify, dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put these security forces in place, though, right now.

And the National Rifle Association, as America's preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years -- we have 11,000 police training instructors in the NRA -- is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.

Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our schools and our children now.

We did it through (ph) our nation's defense industries and military installations during World War II. We did it for very young kids with our Eddie Eagle child safety program that is throughout the country in schools right now, and we'll do it again today.

LAPIERRE: The NRA is gonna bring all its knowledge, all its dedication and all its resources to develop a model national schools shield emergency response program for every single school in America that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control, to information technology, to student and teacher training, this multifaceted program will be developed by the very best experts in the field. Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead the effort as national director of the National Model School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as United States attorney, director of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts that are available in the United States of America to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible. And that security is only available with properly trained, armed good guys. Under Asa's leadership, our team of security experts will make this program available to the world for protecting our children in school. And we'll make the program available to every single school in America, free of charge. That's a plan of action that can, and will make a real positive, indisputable difference in the safety of our children, and it will start right now.

LAPIERRE: There's going to be a lot of time for talk, and debate later. This is a time this is a day for decisive action. We can't wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can't lose precious time debating legislation that won't work. We mustn't allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us. We must act now for the sake of every child in America.

I call on every parent. I call on every teacher. I call on every school administrator, every law enforcement officer in this country, to join with us and help create a national schools shield safety program to protect our children with the only positive line of defense that's tested and proven to work.

And now, to tell you more about the program, I'd like to introduce the head of the effort, former U.S. congressman, former U.S. attorney for the western district of Arkansas, and former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the Honorable Congressman Asa Hutchinson.

Asa?

FORMER REP. ASA HUTCHINSON, R-ARK.: Thank you, Wayne.

One of the first responsibilities I learned at Homeland Security was the importance of protecting our nation's critical infrastructure. And there's nothing more critical to our nation's well being than our children's safety. They are this country's future and our most precious resource.

HUTCHINSON: We all understand that our children should be safe in school. But it is also essential that the parents understand and have confidence in that safety. As a result of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, that confidence across this nation has been shattered. Assurance of school safety must be restored with a sense of urgency.

That is why I'm grateful that the National Rifle Association has asked me to lead a team of security experts to assist our schools, parents, and our communities.

I took this assignment on one condition, that my team of experts will be independent and will be guided solely by what are the best security solutions for the safety of our children while at school. Even though we are just starting this process, I envision this initiative will have two key elements.

First of all, it would be based on a model security plan, a comprehensive strategy for school security based upon the latest, most up-to-date technical information from the foremost experts in their fields. This model security plan will serve as a template, a set of best practices, principles, and guidelines that every school in America can tweak as needed and tailor to their own set of circumstances.

Every school and community is different, but this model security plan will allow every school to choose among its various components to develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique circumstance, whether its a large urban school or a small rural school such as we have in Arkansas or anything in between.

Armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be one element of that plan, but by no means, the only element. If a school decides, for whatever reason, that it doesn't want or need armed security personnel, that, of course, is a decision to be made by the parents and the local school board at the local level.

HUTCHINSON: The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that does not depend on massive funding from local authorities or the federal government. Instead, it will make use of local volunteers serving in their own communities.

In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called Watchdog Dads (ph) who volunteer their time at schools, who patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security. President Clinton initiated a program called Cops In School, but the federal response is not sufficient for today's task.

Whether they're retired police, retired military, or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so.

The National Rifle Association is the natural obvious choice to sponsor this program. Their gun safety, marksmanship, and hunter education programs have set the standard for well over a century. Over the past 25 years, their Eddy Eagle (ph) gun safe program has taught over 26 million kids that real guns aren't toys, and today child gun accidents are at the lowest levels ever recorded.

School safety is a complex issue with no simple, single, solution, but I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of difference as well as the last line of defense.

Again, I welcome the opportunity to serve this vital, potentially life-saving effort.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, very much.

LAPIERRE: (inaudible) thank you.

QUESTION: Do either of you feel like any talks with...

KEENE: As I indicated...

QUESTION: ... will stop gun...

KEENE: As I indicated at the outset, this is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking questions today, but Andrew Arulanandam, our public affairs officer, is here.

(CROSSTALK)

KEENE: We will be willing to talk to anybody beginning on Monday. A text of the speech by Wayne and Asa Hutchinson's remarks are available at nra.org.

I want to thank all of you for being with us. And I look forward to talking to you and answering any of your questions next week.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: One question. One question, Mr. Keene?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (inaudible) White House for any discussions (ph)? Mr. Keene, is the door completely closed (inaudible) White House for any discussion, sir?

END
© The Washington Post Company
---

ARM Teachers - PROTECT Children

It's Time to PROTECT School Children, Our Most Vulnerable Citizens -- Select HERE to DEMAND Congress REPEAL the "Gun-Free School Zones" Act!
https://secure.rightmarch.com/rm_protection/?a=7935

ALERT: Did you know that Israel -- a nation surrounded by madmen who seek to kill innocent Jewish children any way they can -- has rarely seen the kinds of pandemonium that we just saw in Newtown, CT?

HERE'S WHY:




The fact is, GUNS SAVE LIVES -- and they could have saved lives at Sandy Hook Elementary School, if the teachers had not been forbidden from even having the option of arming for self-protection... and protecting their school children...

All because LEFT-WING GUN-CONTROL ADVOCATES passed an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

In 1996, a bill was rammed through as an amendment to a giant last-minute "must-pass" appropriations bill. The bill, call the "Gun-Free School Zones Act," was originally passed in 1990, but had been struck down as unconstitutional -- so the radical anti-gun Senator Heb Kohl re-worded it a little, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

This legislation disarmed school staff and other adults -- leaving elementary and secondary school children defenseless to serial killers.

It also made it virtually impossible to drive your car down the street with your gun inside without violating the law, by creating a 1000-foot so-called "gun-free zone" around every public and private school in the country.

"Gun free," that is, EXCEPT for the CRIMINALS.

We've seen the unintended results of this misguided law over and over again... most recently, in the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut.

It's time to put an END to "Criminal Safe Zones", including in our nation's public schools -- it's time to protect citizens by finally repealing the unconstitutional "Gun-Free School Zones" Act!

What do the shootings in Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood all have in common?

SIMPLE: they all occurred in government facilities where the private possession of firearms was prohibited.

As the pro-Second Amendment group, Gun Owners of America, wrote last year:

 "No one - including politicians, the police, or the individual citizen - can predict where the next deranged serial killer will attack. And yet politicians continue to create 'criminal safe zones' such as schools, churches, parks, restaurants that serve alcohol, etc., where the law-abiding are disarmed.

 The net impact of turning schools, in particular, into defenseless targets for serial killers has been dramatic.

Gun-free zones and signs are actually an open invitation to criminals; in effect, they are telling to criminals that you won't fight back or defend yourself, and greatly increase the chances of being robbed, raped or killed. If you don't agree, try putting a sign on your door advertising to criminals that you are unarmed and won't fight back! Also, see what happened in Australia, elsewhere on this page when they banned guns, and see the results of Lott's studies on greatly increased crime in gun-free zones and against unarmed people -- and the criminals often used weapons other than guns from which the people could've been able to defend themselves if they had been armed and trained to defend themselves. Note that the person is often already robbed, raped or dead by the time the police arrive.

 When many people over the age of 40 were growing up, ROTC students would march up-and-down high school campuses with their semi-automatic M1's - and no one would think anything of it. Shooting clubs on school grounds were also not uncommon.

 But within a couple a years of the enactment of the Kohl amendment, two disaffected teenagers walked into Columbine High School secure in the knowledge that they would be the only ones in the school who were armed.

 And, of course, Columbine triggered a slew of copycat episodes - laying a mounting string of innocent casualties at the feet of Herb Kohl and his misbegotten legislation."

Now, more innocents have been slaughtered -- and their murders could have been prevented, if not for the "Gun-Free School Zones" Act.

Thankfully, legislation HAS been introduced to REPEAL this blatantly unconstitutional -- and obviously dangerous -- law: the "Citizens Protection Act" (H.R. 2613). If we can get this bill passed, we could take a giant leap towards preventing murderous madmen like Adam Lanza from killing dozens of unarmed Americans -- because now, some of them could be armed and could STOP the assassin dead in his tracks.

The "Citizens Protection Act" is STUCK IN COMMITTEE -- it's up to US to FORCE Congress to vote on it QUICKLY, before they go home and this Congressional Session is OVER!

More and more Americans across the spectrum are recognizing just how crazy it was to pass the "Gun-Free School Zones" Act, especially in the wake of Newtown and Columbine. John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, stated recently that Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, and that gun-free zones become "a magnet" for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.



Lott's landmark book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, is in its 3rd edition. He told Newsmax there is a "very good chance" the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns. It's no accident, he said, that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.

 "One of the things I've written about recently is the attack at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater. There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July.

 Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn't go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn't go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.

 The problem is, whether it is the Portland shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned. It's not just this year, it's all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect."

As Dr. Lott states, "When you ban guns, rather than making it safer for the victims, you unintentionally make it safer for the criminals, because they have less to worry about."

Adam Lanza had nothing to worry about when he busted into Sandy Hook Elementary School -- it was a "gun-free" zone... EXCEPT FOR HIS GUNS. And THAT is the kind of situation we need to make sure does NOT happen again!

Don't think that arming teachers and administrators wouldn't work to thwart crazed killers like Lanza -- IT ALREADY HAS. Rep. Dennis Richardson, a State Representative in Oregon who's also saying that gun bans on school property should be overturned, has pointed to a 1999 school shooting in Mississippi in which an assistant principal held a shooter at bay with a handgun while police arrived. The shooter killed two students and injured seven others before the principal retrieved his handgun from his truck.

Dr. Lott also pointed out a number of successful cases:

 "There was the university case in the Appalachian law school. You had the K through 12 in Mississippi and the one in Edinboro, Pa. You had New Life Church [in December 2007] -- you had 7,000 parishioners there when the person broke into the church with about a thousand rounds of ammunition.

 But there was a woman there, a former Chicago police officer who had gotten a concealed handgun permit because she was being stalked by her ex-husband. She had asked permission from the minister there to be able to carry a concealed handgun. She was worried if she couldn't carry it at the church there, that she would be vulnerable going to and from the church. She shot at him 10 times, wounding him, and he committed suicide... These types of cases occur all around us, and they usually don't get much attention, especially if they are stopped before people are injured or killed."

A report at WorldNet Daily also has a handful of examples:

See: http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/how-to-stop-the-slaughter-of-the-innocents/

 On Oct. 1, 1997, Luke Woodham, 16, part of a satanic cult, stabbed and bludgeoned his mother before driving her car to Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., where he shot dead two students and wounded seven others with a rifle he made no attempt to conceal. He then got back into his mother's car and planned to go to Pearl Junior High School to kill some more. But assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45-caliber pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham.
 On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria, went to the Appalachian School of Law campus in Virginia with a handgun and killed three and wounded three others. At the sound of gunfire, two other students - both police officers - retrieved guns from their cars. Meanwhile, another police officer and former Marine jumped Odighizuwa and disarmed him by the time the other officers got to the scene.
 On Aug. 23, 1995, a band of crack cocaine addicts entered a store in Muskegon, Mich., with a plan to kill everyone and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their habit. One member of the gang shot store owner Clare Cooper in the back four times. He still managed to grab his shotgun and fire on the gang as they fled. They were all apprehended...
 On July 24, 2012, Richard Gable Stevens rented a rifle at a shooting range in Santa Clara, Calif., and herded three employees out the door, saying he intended to kill them. One of the employees, however, was carrying a .45-caliber handgun and shot the assailant.
 On Dec. 17, 1991, two men armed with stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into a walk-in refrigerator and locked it so they could rob the establishment. However, one customer was armed with a .45-caliber handgun hidden under a table. He shot one of the gunmen dead. The other robber, who was holding the manager of the restaurant at gunpoint, began firing at the customer. But he was wounded critically by return fire, ending the incident.
 On July 13, 2009, an armed man entered the Golden Food Market in south Richmond, shooting and wounding a clerk while firing at store patrons. He was shot by another customer who had a concealed-carry permit, likely saving the lives of eight other people in the store.
 On July 29, 2012, Charles Conner shot and killed two people and their dogs at the Peach Tree RV park in Early, Texas. Vic Stacy got a call from one of the neighbors, got his .357 magnum and shot Conner as he fired upon the first police officer to arrive at the scene. Stacy was credited with saving the life of the officer.

So, we know what does work to reduce this kind of criminal madness -- law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, the rabidly anti-Second Amendment leftists have gone ballistic over the introduction of the Citizens Protection Act, calling it "a horrific piece of legislation that will present a direct threat to public safety" -- and outright LYING by stating, "'Gun-free zones,' despite the gun lobby's propaganda, are far and away the safest places in our country."

The fact is, "gun-free zones" are the most DANGEROUS places in our country -- for OUR CHILDREN! We MUST change that!

SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, DEMANDING THEY PROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS BY REPEALING THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT: SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!
https://secure.rightmarch.com/rm_protection/?a=7935

Statistics show that "gun-free zones" are magnets for the kinds of attacks we saw in Newtown, Connecticut. They make them more likely. These gun-free zones are really tiny areas within a state, and yet that's where these attacks occur time after time.

IT'S TIME TO REVERSE THAT TREND -- and with Congress about to end their session, time is short! If we can FLOOD the offices of every single Senator and Congressman, demanding that they PASS the "Citizens Protection Act," and REPEAL the unconstitutional and dangerous "Gun-Free School Zones" Act -- we CAN finally PROECT our most vulnerable members of society! But we need YOUR help -- send your Blast Faxes to every single Member of Congress NOW!

Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

P.S. Allowing teachers and administrators to lawfully carry firearms on school campuses is already being done, in defiance of federal law -- in Texas, of course. In 2008, the Harrold Independent School District implemented a district policy change, "so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements." Why? Well, as the Superintendent stated, "When you make schools gun-free zones, it's like inviting people to come in and take advantage." Oh, and in Utah, the law allows anyone with a permit to carry a gun in public schools and state institutions of higher education.

WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT CONGRESS GIVES OUR NATION'S SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS A FIGHTING CHANCE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN! You and I need to STAND UP and DEMAND that they pass H.R. 2613, to repeal the "Gun-Free School Zones" Act! TAKE ACTION NOW!

SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, DEMANDING THEY PROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS BY REPEALING THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT: SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!
https://secure.rightmarch.com/rm_protection/?a=7935

As always, you can also send a FREE message directly to your Representative and Senators by clicking here. Thank you.

The work of RightMarch.com is funded entirely by voluntary contributions.
Help us spread the word with a donation to RightMarch.com!

If you prefer to donate by check, please send to:
RightMarch.com
Dept Code 7935
PO Box 94463503 #33585
Washington DC 20090-4463503

Paid for by RightMarch.com

Tell Congress to REPEAL the "Gun-Free School Zones" Act!

 YES, I want to help PROTECT our most vulnerable citizens -- our CHILDREN in school -- by DEMANDING that Congress pass the "Citizens Protection Act" (H.R. 2613)!

NO MORE NEWTOWNS OR COLUMBINES! We need to mobilize folks to take action right away to REPEAL the blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous "Gun-Free School Zones" Act... So we've set up an easy way for you to make your voice heard LOUD AND CLEAR -- you can send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Representative and Senator AT ONCE, urging that they PASS H.R. 2613, the "Citizens Protection Act"!

Click Here to Preview the Fax
https://secure.rightmarch.com/rm_protection/fax_copy.htm

Fax Preview (email this to your senators and congressman/woman)
https://secure.rightmarch.com/rm_protection/fax_copy.htm

[Sen.] or [Rep.] [FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
Washington, DC

RE: PASS the Citizens Protection Act!

Dear [Sen.] or [Rep.] [LAST NAME]:

In the wake of yet another killing spree at a public school, I am writing to ask you to finally pass H.R. 2613, the "Citizens Protection Act," which would repeal the unconstitutional and dangerous "Gun-Free School Zones" Act.

The shootings in Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood all had one thing in common: they all occurred in government facilities where the private possession of firearms was prohibited. Experts are now saying that there is a very good chance the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns. It's no accident that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.

No one -- including politicians, the police, or the individual citizen -- can predict where the next deranged serial killer will attack. And yet politicians continue to create "criminal safe zones" where the law-abiding are disarmed. The net impact of turning schools, in particular, into defenseless targets for serial killers has been dramatic -- as we've just seen again. Please, do the RIGHT thing, and SUPPORT H.R. 2613, the "Citizens Protection Act," which would repeal the unconstitutional and dangerous "Gun-Free School Zones" Act. I will be watching your actions on this matter closely. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]
---

Weapons Ban on "Day One" of the Coming Congress

 ALERT: Senator Diane Feinstein will introduce legislation to dismantle the right to bear arms on "Day One" of the 113th Congress! Act Now and Fax Congress: tell them to Refuse any weapons ban in January!

Conservative American,

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is under attack.

Right now, Washington's anti-gun politicians are using last week's Sandy Hook tragedy as an impetus to "legally" disarm Americans and remove our God-given rights!

California's Diane Feinstein - author of the 1994 Assault Weapons - has long been an enemy of gun-owners and the right to self-defense, an American principle. Senator Feinstein, keeping in line with Rahm Emanuel's rule of thumb to "never waste a crisis," almost immediately began calling for increased gun control after the terrible event last week in Connecticut.

On Sunday, Feinstein expressly stated that she will introduce sweeping gun control legislation the first day the 113th Congress is assembled. She said,

"On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds."

She also added that she has already been "gathering support" for such legislation in both the House and the Senate.

What this means is that a weapons ban could be a cold, hard fact as soon as January - the new Congress begins in just over two weeks!

Remember, in 1994 it only took one day for Congress and President Clinton to "legally" remove guns from the hands and homes of law-abiding Americans!

Feinstein's resuscitation of her former assault weapons ban has wide support - from Democrats and even from a Republican! Also, Feinstein didn't scratch this bill up over the past few days; no, she has been working on it for over a year and waiting for the opportune time to ram it through!

Senator Frank Lautenberg, as we can expect, is "optimistic" about a Feinstein-led Assault Weapons Ban, saying, "I think we can get something done." Schumer, like Feinstein, wants to see weapons banned, clip-sizes limited, and more paperwork required to purchase guns.

 "The purpose of this bill is to get the weapons of war off the streets of our cities." - Senator Feinstein

Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York believes that the nation will support stronger gun-control, especially if Barack Obama "exploits" what happened in Sandy Hook just one week ago. The New York Rep. said on MSNBC that "These incidents, these horrible, horrible incidents ... are happening more frequently, and they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit - and that means the president - takes leadership and pushes Congress."

Taken "leadership," Obama already has.

Obama wasted no time in voicing his strong, "active" support for national legislation curbing gun-ownership. It is likely, now that Obama is approaching his final term that he will more vehemently assert gun-control. White House spokesperson Jay Carney has already suggested that the president will support gun-control efforts - in addition to Feinstein's - including laws to eliminate what he referred to as the 'gun show loophole' relating to paperwork and high-capacity magazine sales.

And there has been support even from the GOP! Anti-gun RINO Scott Brown supports federal legislation to ban assault weapons. Though Brown's term as a Senator is ending this Congress, his voice is proof that there are "cracks" in the GOP's defense of private firearms. How many more RINOs will surface to support Feinstein's up-and-coming bill?

We must make our voices heard and tell Congress to reject the coming Feinstein Weapons Ban, and any other piece of legislation that would destroy the Second Amendment in the coming Congress!

It is a sad and terrible fact that America today is divided over the right to self-defense.

Rather than call into question the environment in which the shooting took place - a gun-free zone, where self-defense is prohibited - so many mindlessly flock to liberal slogans like "less guns equals less violence."

A White House petition demanding "immediate" gun control was created and gathered over 80,000 signatures in less than a day, while the petition only needed 25,000 to be seriously considered. (The petition now holds over 194,000 names.)

More than this, some of the anti-gun rhetoric being asserted by some is violent - even outright threats. Facebook posts, blogs, and Twitter have been used to carry messages like "murder every NRA member" or "get every member of the NRA to stand in a circle, aim & shoot!" Some people have also called for the murder of the NRA's president, David Keene.

This is all to say the some of our fellow Americans would happily support more gun control - they already are organizing and, as we have seen, both active and vocal.

Folks like these are calling and writing their Senator asking for their neighbors to be disarmed through increased gun control. These individuals are pushing the Feinsteins, Bloombergs, and RINOs like Scott Brown, to support state and federal bans on assault weapons.

Now is the time for patriotic Americans to fight this liberal, anti-gun rhetoric and speak out! We must make sure that Senate and Representative Offices are getting twice or three times as many calls, letters, and faxes against gun control as they are for it.

The Second Amendment is a right, and "laws" that oppose it are unlawful and dangerous. There is no other way to say it.

Our founders were able to declare independence from the King England only because they were armed with modern weaponry.

Our Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land - included the Second Amendment provision to "keep and bear arms" to ensure that the new American government could not disarm the people.

The right to bear arms is an essential part of liberty and a free society. George Washington said that firearms "are the people's liberty's teeth;" and Jefferson stated, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Our forefathers knew the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against big government and tyranny. Further, they knew that individuals should always be free to protect themselves, their family, and their property. That's why they made it law.

Those who were armed were not considered offensive, violent, or malevolent in any way - in fact, early Americans considered defense to be a God-given right to secure households and keep evil at bay in society. Weapons were not held for aggression, but to resist aggression!

Right now there is a multitude of ideological aggressors seeking to destroy the Second Amendment by banning certain weapons, limiting access to ammunition, and increasing the bureaucratic "paperwork" required to purchase guns.

These aggressors are in the Congress and the Whitehouse, and they must be stopped.

One of the arguments for the reinstatement of an Assault Weapons Ban is that it only restricts "some" weapons, namely those of a military-grade, while leaving other weapons unaffected. Michael Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein claims they only are attack so-called "weapons of war."

Here is the problem... the Second Amendment protects such weapons, while anti-gunners want to see them "off the streets of our cities."

You see, anti-gun politicians don't understand (or care about) the purpose of the Second Amendment. Thomas Mullen of the Washington Times comments:

 "Having weapons of war on the streets is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment wasn't drafted to ensure that Americans could hunt. It wasn't drafted so that Americans could protect themselves, although the natural right to defend one's life was never as compromised as it is in the modern gun control era.

 They weren't out to confiscate hunting rifles, 'fer squirrels and sech,' either. They intended to confiscate a store of arms that would outfit the average colonist with weapons roughly equivalent to the average British infantryman.

 That's why the 2nd Amendment was written, to ensure that the government's army would never have superior firepower to the people."

Yes, the Second Amendment protects all weapons, even so-called "weapons of war." Again, this is not controversial - it is simply what the founders gave us to preserve our free society.

 "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment.

What has happened to America? Political Correctness - which is quite incorrect - is costing us our freedoms. Bad, utopian ideas that suggest society can abolish violence, aggression, and death by simply removing guns is an argument even child wouldn't believe - yet so many go along with this liberal nonsense and are willing to toss their and their neighbors' rights away!

It's time to fight the liberal, anti-gun propaganda and demand Congress to defend, not destroy, our right to bear arms!

Take Action and DEMAND CONGRESS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill! Blast Faxes Now!
https://secure.conservativeactionalerts.com/caa_gunban/?a=7933

For America,
Conservative Action Alerts
www.ConservativeActionAlerts.com

P.S. Please share this effort on social networks, like Facebook and Twitter. Also, don't forget to send your free letters to your lawmakers here and print it to share with others. The White House, pro-gun control received nearly 200,000 signatures - we must counteract those!

Conservative Action Alerts (CAA) is a media outlet protected by the first amendment and that support for our efforts is not tax-deductible. Diener Consultants, Inc., 10940 S Parker Rd Ste# 763, PARKER, CO 80134-7440
---

Tell Congress: Reject Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapons Ban!
http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/8831/tell-congress-reject-feinsteins-2013-assault-weapons-ban/

Our Constitution -- the Supreme Law of the Land -- included the Second Amendment provision to "keep and bear arms" to ensure that the new American government could not disarm the people.

The right to bear arms is an essential part of liberty and a free society. George Washington said that firearms "are the people's liberty's teeth;" and Jefferson stated, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Our forefathers knew the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against big government and tyranny. Further, they knew that individuals should always be free to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

Those who were armed were not considered offensive, violent, or malevolent in any way -- in fact, early Americans considered defense to be a God-given right to secure households and keep evil at bay in society. Weapons were not held for aggression, but to resist aggression!

Right now there is a multitude of aggressors wanting to destroy the Second Amendment by banning certain weapons, limiting access to ammunition, and increasing the bureaucratic "paperwork" required to purchase guns.

There are a number of ideological aggressors in Congress and in the Whitehouse, right now -- and they must be stopped.

Take Action and DEMAND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill!
https://secure.conservativeactionalerts.com/caa_gunban/?a=7933
---

Conservative Action Alerts Fax Preview
https://secure.conservativeactionalerts.com/caa_gunban/preview_fax.html

[Sen./Rep.] [FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
Washington, D.C.

Our Constitution -- the Supreme Law of the Land -- included the Second Amendment provision to "keep and bear arms" to ensure that the new American government could not disarm the people.

The right to bear arms is an essential part of liberty and a free society. George Washington said that firearms "are the people's liberty's teeth;" and Jefferson stated, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Our forefathers knew the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against big government and tyranny. Further, they knew that individuals should always be free to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

Why has this become so controversial today?

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I ask you to reject the reinstatement of an Assault Weapons Ban and its goal to restrict the purchase or transfer of military-grade weapons, for the Second Amendment protects such.

I want you to understand, care about, and protect the Second Amendment. Consider Thomas Mullen of the Washington Times' comment:

"Having weapons of war on the streets is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment wasn't drafted to ensure that Americans could hunt. It wasn't drafted so that Americans could protect themselves, although the natural right to defend one's life was never as compromised as it is in the modern gun control era.

They weren't out to confiscate hunting rifles, 'fer squirrels and sech,' either. They intended to confiscate a store of arms that would outfit the average colonist with weapons roughly equivalent to the average British infantryman.

That's why the 2nd Amendment was written, to ensure that the government's army would never have superior firepower to the people."

Yes, the Second Amendment protects all weapons, even so-called "weapons of war." Again, this is not controversial -- it is simply what the founders gave us to preserve our free society.

I will not permit bad, utopian ideas that suggest society can abolish violence, aggression, and death by simply removing guns. Such an argument even child wouldn't believe - and I hope you don't. I stand for my right to keep and bear arms defensively, and I stand for my neighbors' rights to do the same.

As your constituent, I demand that you refuse any and all attempts to disarm Americans through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill Obama or your colleagues may propose!

[YOUR NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]
---

Tell Congress: Reject Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapons Ban!
http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/8831/tell-congress-reject-feinsteins-2013-assault-weapons-ban/print

Our Constitution -- the Supreme Law of the Land -- included the Second Amendment provision to "keep and bear arms" to ensure that the new American government could not disarm the people.

The right to bear arms is an essential part of liberty and a free society. George Washington said that firearms "are the people's liberty's teeth;" and Jefferson stated, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Our forefathers knew the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against big government and tyranny. Further, they knew that individuals should always be free to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

Those who were armed were not considered offensive, violent, or malevolent in any way -- in fact, early Americans considered defense to be a God-given right to secure households and keep evil at bay in society. Weapons were not held for aggression, but to resist aggression!

Right now there is a multitude of aggressors wanting to destroy the Second Amendment by banning certain weapons, limiting access to ammunition, and increasing the bureaucratic "paperwork" required to purchase guns.

There are a number of ideological aggressors in Congress and in the Whitehouse, right now -- and they must be stopped.

Take Action and DEMAND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill!

Take Action Online:
http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/8831/tell-congress-reject-feinsteins-2013-assault-weapons-ban/
---

WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
http://www.uexpress.com/printable/print.html?uc_full_date=20121219&uc_comic=ac

NRA calls for protecting schools with arms
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/nra-calls-for-protecting-schools-with-arms/

Armed Citizen Saves Cop's Life
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8635/armed-citizen-saves-cops-life/

Another State Considers Arming School Staff
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8642/another-state-considers-arming-school-staff/

Chinese Join Democrats in Calling for Gun Confiscation
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8648/chinese-join-democrats-in-calling-for-gun-confiscation/

Newtown has Reputation as Satanist Hub
http://www.henrymakow.com/newtown-has-reputation-as-satanic-hub.html

Is this "Deceased" Emilie Parker With Obama?
http://www.henrymakow.com/is-this-deceased-emilie-parker.html
---

One simple question you need to ask yourself
Sovereign Man: Notes from the Field
http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/one-simple-question-you-need-to-ask-yourself-10269/

December 20, 2012
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

Everyone has a catalyst. A breaking point where we finally say, "enough is enough" and finally begin to take action.

Maybe it's watching your beautiful daughter be sexually assaulted by government agents for having committed the crime of flying to Disney World. Or having some government agency tell you what you can/cannot put in your body. Or having your son's lemonade stand shut down. Or being sentenced to jail for collecting rainwater.

Many of us, though, are indoctrinated from birth to believe that our country is the best, highest pinnacle of civilization. So we're programmed to hang on to the bitter end. Instead of taking action at the first sign of danger, we'll wait... and wait... and wait... until we finally reach our breaking points.

This is unusual for a living species. Animals in the wild have a honed sense of danger. They survive because they listen to their instincts and take immediate action.

We humans, on the other hand, have decades of propaganda clouding our judgment. It's been this way for most of history, in fact. In the past, we allowed ourselves to be enslaved to single individuals-- kings, emperors. Now we're enslaved by an idea.

This idea suggests that, simply because we happened to be born on a specific piece of dirt, that we can be saddled with obligations we never signed up for... to pay taxes, serve in the military, spend our entire working lives paying down the debts of previous generations, use a corrupt money system controlled by a tiny elite, etc.

The propaganda is so effective that people truly believe these are all the 'costs of living in a free society...' As if the society is actually free.

Yes, the West is replete with superficial conveniences-- Starbucks-a-plenty, big box retail shops, TGI Fridays, sit-coms, and cookie-cutter subdivisions. But this all seems a pithy yardstick to measure freedom or quality of life.

In addition, the propanda is so effective that people even ask for their freedoms to be taken away, all so that the ruling elite has more control.

"Please bathe us in radiation to protect us from men in caves..."

"Please conjure infinite money out of thin air to protect us from bank failure..."

And now it seems to be "Please disarm the population to protect us from crazed killers..."

Each time this happens, national dialogue comes to a screeching halt. There is no debate over policy, and any dissent is branded as unpatriotic and disloyal.

History is full of examples of this, starting as far back as the death sentence of Socrates for rejecting the state religion, criticizing Athenian political leaders, and questioning the validity of Democracy.

When a society loses its capacity for intelligent discourse focused on facts and minority-held views... when a people loses the will to question authority... it signals a hastened decline into tyranny.

This is prevalent everywhere in the west today. Topics such as climate change, September 11th, 'taxing the rich', gun control, etc. are so sacrosanct that the mere mention of a dissenting opinion is ridiculed.

I understand that a man went on television recently, for example, to argue for freedom and the right to bear arms. He was lambasted on live TV as an 'unbelievably stupid man' who doesn't 'give a damn about the murder rate'.

It seems quite obvious now. There can be no discussion. And at some point, a reasonable human being has to reflect on the society that has developed around him and wonder, "Do I have anything in common with these people anymore...? Do we share any core values? Or do we simply share the same passport cover?"

It's certainly a question worth asking... ideally before you reach your breaking point.

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com
---

Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren
http://lastresistance.com/830/armed-protection-for-democrats-but-not-for-schoolchildren/

Former Marine Standing Guard at School
http://lastresistance.com/833/former-marine-standing-guard-at-school/

Ted Nugent Schools Piers Morgan with Statistics on Gun Control
http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/ted-nugent-schools-piers-morgan-with-statistics-on-gun-control/

Hot Mic: Reporters Overheard Slamming NRA Presser, Praising Code Pink
http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/hot-mic-reporters-overheard-slamming-nra-presser-praising-code-pink/
Reporters waiting for the daily State Department press briefing were overheard slamming the NRA press conference for content as well as their inability to control the room. "They [The NRA] basically said it's [the CT shooting] everybody's fault but ours," said one reporter as he lamented that the chair did not mention assault weapons. A woman added that Medea Benjamin and the other code pink protesters "did a really good job." The female reporter praised the Code Pink protesters for having big enough signs to cover the NRA Chair's head to obstruct it from being viewed by the cameras. The group then laughed about the security at the NRA event claiming that the chair was "probably packing" and that surely no one would be "stupid enough" to pull a gun. They also said that the security of the event looked like WWF wrestlers and joked that they probably hit Medea Benjamin with a chair after they dragged her from the room.
Note: You will likely need to turn your volume up and turn the player volume up to hear the conversations clearly.

Growing Evidence an AR15 Wasn't Used in Sandy Hook Massacre
http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/growing-evidence-an-ar15-wasnt-used-in-sandy-hook-massacre/
Growing Evidence an AR15 Wasn't Used in Sandy Hook Massacre
Original reports were that 3 guns were found at the scene of the Sandy Hook elementary school mass shotting in Newtown, Connecticut.
2 HANDGUNS & 1 ASSAULT RIFLE
Latest reports are that 4 handguns were found inside the school.
Video shows authorities retrieving the assault rifle from the trunk of Lanza's car outside the school. (So after he was dead, he got up and went out and put it in his trunk, then went back inside the school, according to "authorities").
But at a press conference today the Medical Examiner said, "All the wounds I know of at this point were cause by the long weapon." A reporter then clairifed, "So the rifle was the primary weapon?" The Medical Examiner replying, "Yes."
So the assault rifle found outside the school in the trunk of Lanza's car was used to kill every single person?
And the 4 handguns found inside the school weren't used at all?
---

Texas Congressman on Guns: "Arm Public School Teachers"
Written by Gary North on December 21, 2012
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/12/21/texas-congressman-on-guns-arm-public-school-teachers/

I don't believe in federal gun control laws, pro or con. It's none of the federal government's business. The Second Amendment is just fine. We don't need more gun laws. We need the repeal of gun laws.

But one Congressman-elect thinks what we need is armed teachers. You know. Like El Al Airline's pilots.

The gun control crowd is apoplectic at this proposal. It's not the legislation they have in mind. The Newtown massacre is supposed to be the Great Opportunity. But it's not turning out that way. The public will soon forget. Meanwhile, the fiscal cliff debate is tying up Congress.

A New York Times writer laments: ". . . those who hope to change the gun laws will have to act quickly, before everyone drifts back to whatever position they held before Newtown." ("Never let a good crisis go to waste" -- Rahm Emmanuel and Saul Alinsky.)

In short, "Strike while the iron is hot! The voters are so forgetful." Yes, they are.

A majority of voters in Texas want to apply a bumper sticker motto in Texas: "Don't mess with Texas." That bumper sticker slogan has to do with littering. But it reflects an attitude in Texas. Texans don't like meddling from Washington when it comes to gun ownership.

Texans think this video is funny. If you think it is funny, you either live in Texas or ought to.
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/12/21/texas-congressman-on-guns-arm-public-school-teachers/
---

Mike Adams on how we are manipulated -- the modern day Matrix --
http://www.naturalnews.com/038421_Mayan_calendar_false_reality_mind_manipulation.html
(See links and video at above link)

Originally published December 21 2012
Mayan calendar, Sandy Hook, Peace Prize Obama: Your entire reality has been scripted by the manipulation masters
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) This is a message for those who are new to Natural News and who seek the truth in this time of great change. You may have already noticed the Mayan calendar prophecy was a hoax. The universe didn't end. We're all still here, and we must face our future rather than writing it off.

The Sandy Hook shooting outrage reaction is also a fear mongering hoax. You have been manipulated by Obama and the mainstream media into invoking an irrational, hyped-up response to an event that poses virtually no risk to the American people. How's that? For starters, 116,000% more Americans die each year in motor vehicle accidents than were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary. You are far more likely to be killed by a deer in the road than a psychopathic mass shooter. And you are WAY more likely to be killed by your doctor than by a gun: An astonishing 784,000 Americans are killed each year by their doctors.

Approximately one-quarter of all Americans have been emotionally manipulated into worshipping a false prophet: Barack Obama, one of the world's great mass murderers of children who is right now signing off on yet more unarmed drone bombings of innocent children in Libya, Afghanistan, and soon Syria and Iran. You don't see those children on television, and Obama sheds no tears for them. They are the "invisible" children of the world whose deaths don't matter to the U.S. media, which celebrates mass violence and deadly wars.

Almost everything you think is real is actually a fabrication. Virtually everything you believe about banking, politics, medicine, the media and even history has been falsified and engineered in order to enslave you in the modern-day version of The Matrix. You have been enslaved so deeply that you do not even realize you're a slave. You worship your slave masters and beg them to take away more of your money, your freedoms and your very future. You are the product of a centuries-long campaign of cultural manipulation, revisionist history and, more recently, chemical influence.

You are living out the dystopian sci-fi future right now, today, numbed by chemical fluoride acids and dumbed-down by injections of mercury, MSG and formaldehyde as ordered by the U.S. government.

I pray for you. I pray that you may be awakened from your slumber and find some way to clear away the cobwebs that have been placed in your mind by the sinister, almost demonic dark forces that manipulate human minds on our planet.

Although granted free will, you have been convinced to suppress it
The most sinister part of The Matrix in which you now live is that you have been cajoled and convinced to suppress your own free will and surrender to the manipulators who control not just your mind, but your entire reality.

As Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda, explained:

If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of...

In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Stealth manipulation and cognitive control
Every time you turn on the television, false ideas, mythologies and delusions are being subconsciously implanted into the belief system portion of your brain. This happens when you watch the news, when you enjoy a movie, or even when you pay your taxes. You've been hoodwinked into believing utter false things like, "America is a free country" or "the government cares about you" or "the drug companies are humanitarian organizations."

The most notable property of this propaganda and engineered influence is that people who are routinely and deeply manipulated by this propaganda have no clue that they are.

Nearly everyone, if you ask them, will insist they are not being manipulated by anyone. They make their own decisions, they insist. And yet they go to the store and buy all the toxic product brands that have been shown to them on television. They worship mass murderers who run for President (Bush, Obama, etc.) They enslave themselves in a system of financial work-cropping and taxation that benefits only the global monopolist bankers who run the debt cartels.

Your values, ethics, emotions and mythologies are entirely manipulated and contrived. Here's one way to challenge yourself on this right now: Do you celebrate Columbus Day? Christopher Columbus was a mass murderer.

Do you watch the fireworks on July 4th? Most people are mindless to the whole point of July 4th which is to celebrate Independence Day -- independence from British tyranny, gun control, illegal searches, secret prisons, and so on. And yet all these things have been brought back to America by Obama. The fireworks are supposed to be a reminder of the battles that our forefathers fought so that we might enjoy freedom. Instead, the fireworks mesmerize a barely-conscious population as they sleepwalk right into the jaws of tyranny and oppression, slobbering their way to their next chronic disease as they eat themselves to death with GMOs and aspartame.

You have been taught delusional mythologies about vaccines and flu shots: "Flu shots stop the flu!" is a delusional anti-fact that's catapulted into a global meme (mind virus) by the same industry which now claims injecting mercury is good for children. "Science" has become the tyrannical cry of those who absolutely despise science but who invoke the word to demand obedience to their own warped chemical doctrines.

You have been taught delusional financial mythologies such as the idea that the U.S. government needs to collect taxes to fund itself. In reality, the Fed can create all the money it needs instantly, just like it does to bail out banks. You are taxed not to raise revenue but to be oppressed and controlled.

You have been told who to worship -- singers, basketball players, big government -- and even more importantly who to hate: white people, gun owners, preppers, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and anyone who grows their own food.

And when the next false flag event occurs in America, you will be "shocked" and "outraged," and you will believe it was carried out by whomever the government and the media claims carried it out. You will also believe that your reaction is happening of your own free will and you will have no clue the entire thing has been scripted and injected directly into your head.

Open your eyes and look in the mirror, slave
You are a pawn in a grand mind game. You have been imprisoned in a mental construct that is so powerful and elusive that you actually defend the very system which has enslaved you.

You've been trained to think that anyone who questions the system is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "kook." Every strategy of mental influence has been used against you, over and over again: safety in the herd, neurolinguistic programming, fear reactions, prisoner training (TSA), false symbols of authority, false flags and so on.

Like most people, you were born into slavery and you will die a slave. You will not rise above it and declare your free will sovereignty because you have been trained to be a conformist coward. You will, at every opportunity, trade away your liberty for social approval, because you have been taught to believe that the worst thing in the world is to be "different" from the conformist masses.

In essence, you have wasted your entire life -- a life offering an incredible, sacred spiritual journey where you have been granted free will, a human body and the consciousness to be your own being -- yet you discard all these gifts in your race to be like everyone else, think like everyone else, talk like everyone else and "fit in" without daring to unleash your individuality.

Your soul cries spiritual tears at the wasted opportunity to do something with your life. Your Creator is utterly disappointed but not surprised, as most souls who come to this Earth follow the same comfortably-numb path of conformity and self-enslavement.

Awaken NOW
While your physical life still has time remaining, you have every opportunity to do something different with it. Break the chains of mental enslavement. Break free from the social approval bonds that have limited your beliefs, your speech and your ideas. Take that quantum leap from conformity to being a true explorer of reality -- a person who asks questions, observes events, connects the dots and seeks to be enlightened.

You will not break free from the Matrix if you watch mainstream news or get your values and information from the White House. You can only be free if you first free yourself from toxic information sources which only seek to manipulate and control you. Turn off NPR. Banish the New York Times from your web browser. Turn on Natural News, InfoWars, the courageous David Icke and other alternative websites that genuinely seek the truth and dare to report it, no matter how eccentric or bizarre it may sound to the uninitiated.

Expand your consciousness to take in the sacred enormity of the universe around you, or you shall remain forever bound and diminutive in this soul journey we call "life." Upon your death, your soul will review your life and declare, "Wow, you wasted the ultimate gift of life in a desperate bid to remain unremarkable."

But you do not have to continue on that path. You can change now by casting aside conformity and seeking reality.

My prayer for you
May you live a life that your spirit sees as worthy. May you awaken from your slumber and be blessed with understanding. And may you then use that wisdom to awaken others, spread freedom, defeat evil and enlighten our species so that it can finally pursue the abundant and joyful future we all deserve.
---

Newtown is the 9-11 of Gun Control
http://www.henrymakow.com/newtown-has-reputation-as-satanic-hub.html

Two Shooters Were Captured Alive!
Proof the US government and media are lying. They are complicit in the mass murder of US children. No mention of two men arrested in any of the coverage. Similarly news media collaborated in 9-11 false flag.
http://www.henrymakow.com/newsmediacollaborated.html

Obama brushes away a tear, reminding us that he is a criminal, traitor and a fraud who uses the massacre of children to advance his masters' totalitarian political agenda. It's either our children or our guns, he tells Newtown audience.
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.ca/2012/12/obama-implied-during-his-speech-in.html

Two Shooters Were Captured Alive!

Proof the US government and media are lying. They are complicit in the mass murder of US children. No mention of two men arrested in any of the coverage. Similarly news media collaborated in 9-11 false flag.
http://www.henrymakow.com/newsmediacollaborated.html

Latest - Clear Inconsistencies Regarding Guns Found and Rifle Wounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3lmAD5kXo&feature=player_embedded
--------- Is this Emilie Parker or her Sister?
http://www.henrymakow.com/is-this-deceased-emilie-parker.html
--------- I Believe Our Government Shot those Kids
http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/urgent-update-on-connecticut-shooting/
--------- Veteran's Today Deconstructs Official Story
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/20/sandy-hook-massacre-official-story-spins-out-of-control/

Two shooters caught.

One seen running from building, chased by police. Seen on this aerial video starting at 7.30 min (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_fI0hm1dqY) -- More Confirmation from news report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qEoYxqmyAM&feature=player_embedded#!
Here is a clearer film record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UgEl0G7dx4

Another apprehended outside school, "proned out." (Can be heard on Police radio, heard on above video)

More eyewitness evidence man in camouflage pants arrested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apwTd-B_MP8&feature=player_embedded
Here's more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6C2YmOLWnM
Early references to other shooters disappearing.
http://beforeitsnews.com/media/2012/12/newtown-school-shooting-story-already-being-changed-by-the-media-to-eliminate-eyewitness-reports-of-a-second-shooter-2450560.html
Newtown Just Got a New Police Chief in May
http://marplenewtown.patch.com/articles/newtown-police-chief-anderson-officially-resigns-lunn-appointed-as-acting-chief

--See UPDATE from George Freund immediately below article.

Who's Really to Blame for School Shooting? (Updated)

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

The aftermath of the Newtown school massacre is beginning to resemble the 9-11 false flag. Indeed, this is becoming the 9-11 of gun control (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/we-will-have-to-change-obama-says-at-vigil-in-connecticut-shooting-town/article6463321/), probably perpetrated by the same crowd. http://www.savethemales.ca/000889.html
It's their MO. How long are Americans going to tolerate these programs?

 The local police dispatch tape carries a report that a teacher saw two shooters running from the scene. (3.25)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9klblvRFzaI#!

According to George Freund, "First officers in the school report the patsy dead. He may very well have been killed by the two fleeing men who were probably the whack team.
http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/videos/videos/view/17440303-emergency-conspiracy-cafe-bunker-to-bunker-broadcast?profile_tab%5Bposter_id%5D=73371079&profile_tab%5Btab_count%5D=455

"Police also report finding a shotgun. How do you carry a rifle, a shotgun, two pistols, and all sorts of ammo with two hands and kill so many people. You are obviously NOT alone.

"There were two escaping persons. The police appear to confront them. There is someone taken into custody. The alleged shooter is found dead. The police supervisor says the 'DRILL' word corresponding to the princpal's tweet of a drill. "

The presence of other shooters may explain why the killer, Adam Lanza, 20, was wearing a mask, flack jacket and military fatigues. This is so he couldn't be distinguished from the other shooters. If he had intended to kill himself, he wouldn't have needed a disguise.

As with 9-11, when Osama Bin Laden was blamed immediately, the culprit this time was guns. A chorus of calls for gun control went up from Barack Obama and his Illuminati Jewish handlers like Mayor Bloomberg of NY (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/14/Bloomberg-politicizes-shooting) and Dianne Feinstein (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/dec/16/sen-dianne-feinstein-introduce-gun-control-legisla/). lluminati Jewish mouthpieces like Huffpost are going ballistic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/gun-control-reform_b_2302999.html

(left. Christmas present from Illuminati bankers)

Like 9-11, we can forget about discovering who really executed this attack.

The killer's brother Ryan Lanza, 24, said Adam was mentally disturbed. He had Asperger Syndrome. Neighbours called him "autistic." Why didn't the cry go out to know what medication Adam was taking?

Why isn't there a chorus of demands for a ban on psychological medications?
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/the-connecticut-school-shootings-operation-chaos/
For greater monitoring of people with Asperger?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-15/newtown-shooter-had-asperger-syndrome-and-some-us-gun-facts
Any doubt Adam played videogames? Do we hear calls for a ban on them?

Adam was the product of a broken family. His parents divorced in 2009. His father moved away and remarried. His older brother hadn't seen him for two years. Why not demands for support for marriage and family?

A friend described Adam as a "Goth" and Satanist (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250608/Adam-Lanzas-classmate-reveals-Sandy-Hook-gunman-online-devil-worshiping-page.html) who possibly would revel in such massacres. Why not demands for a ban on satanist music and behavior?

How about a media ban on over-reporting massacres, because of the copycat effect?

Do you think that if 27 soldiers were ambushed and killed in Helmand province yesterday, you would know about it?

(Since 2001 there have been 1,827 such flag draped caskets sent back from Afghanistan to the U.S. Wounded in action numbers total 15,460.)

From 1991 - 2009, there was a ban on photographing flag draped coffins.

Why? Because reports of military setbacks and photos of coffins are bad for morale.

School massacres are also bad for morale too. The national morale.

But that's just the point. The Illuminati want to degrade and demoralize. They want to render us defenceless. They want TSA-style checkstops everywhere and more federal control.
http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/12/11/tsas-grip-on-internal-travel-is-tightening.html

So they blame guns, instead of blaming the real shooters, the multi-billion dollar drug industry, Goth satanism or mass media feeding-frenzies.

If teachers were armed, they could have defended the children. In Israel everyone is armed and ready.

Since our leaders love Israel so much, why don' t they call for more guns, not less?

 Americans need protection - from their own Illuminati subverted government.

The cancer is called Cabalism (Freemasonry & organized Jewry) and it has invaded all of society's vital organs. Prognosis: Fatal.
-

UPDATE FROM GEORGE FREUND:

I posted another video on my site. The guy has the aerial footage. They caught [the shooters.] The rifle was found in the vehicle's trunk. The coroner said all were shot with a .223.
http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-names-of-victims-of-sandy-hook-massacre-released
Lanza only had two 9m/m pistols with him then. [Official story: "Lanza used two semi-automatic pistols, a Glock and Sig Sauer, and reportedly wiped out an entire classroom of young children, then shot several in a second class before taking his own life.")
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248197/Adam-Lanza-How-honor-student-goth-killer-massacring-20-children-Sandy-Hook-Elementary.html

His Dad's boss works for Obama. The media said he walked silently through the school. Now they're saying he was banging on a closet door shouting, "Let me in." What if the other shooters were turning on him? He would say let me in. As an armed murderer I wouldn't think he would say open the door. He could have fired through the door. It was only a closet. "Let me in," could imply a request for sanctuary. Then there's the shotgun. The police clearly state they recovered one on their radios.

http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/videos/videos/show/17442985-sandy-hook-elem-3-shooters-a-close-look-

False Flag Red Flag - Reports of Second Shooter Repressed
http://tomatobubble.com/2ndshooter.html

Many more possible discrepancies
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=62184

Some Victims are Not Listed as Teachers on School Website; One Victim Omitted
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.ca/2012/12/sandy-hook-research-teachers-listed-as.html
-

Archived version of this article.
http://www.henrymakow.com/whos-really-to-blame-for-school-shooting.html

Makow reply: Thanks for bringing this video to my attention. The police radio indicates a cop confronted a perpetrator. There was panic in his voice. The cops ran into the forest and then stood around a man in handcuffs. They stopped running because they apprehended someone running away. The man in police car was wearing camouflage pants.

You can always explain away facts. It makes sense that the officials would come up with cover stories. Shooters would be portrayed as parents. Ginger bread cookies? Why aren't these incidents mentioned in mainstream media?

Most police are Freemasons. The culprits would be arrested and protected. Then, how do we explain why there were no injured? Everyone was shot many times to prevent witnesses. Not the way Lanza would think.

Did you read Carolyn Hamlett on my site today? She says they planned these events years ago. Do you really think this rash of shootings is random? Do you really think the coordinated call for gun control from Zionist media and politicians is accidental? Have you forgotten 9-11 when the same traitor establishment murdered and hoodwinked Americans?
-

Kevin Barrett - - Who Really Killed CT Children?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/14/who-really-killed-the-connecticut-children/

Blame Big Pharma Not Guns
http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/10117/The-Link-Between-School-Shooting-and-Vet-Suicides-is-Big-Pharma-not-Guns.aspx

Jon Rappaport - Mass Hypnosis in Newtown CT
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/lanza-bloomberg-obama-guns-psychiatric-meds-and-mass-hypnosis-in-newtown-connecticut/

Juri Lina - Under the Shadow of Hermes -- Must See - So you understand just how evil these people are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcAPJ-kn8Vs
---

Newtown has Reputation as Satanist Hub
http://www.henrymakow.com/newtown-has-reputation-as-satanic-hub.html

Veteran's Today Deconstructs Official Story
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/20/sandy-hook-massacre-official-story-spins-out-of-control/

Newtown Satanist Explains His Schtick (See address at bottom)
http://www.satanservice.org/theory/coscm.txt

Related- Adam Lanza Involved in Satanism?
http://christiannews.net/2012/12/19/report-newtown-mass-shooter-adam-lanza-may-have-been-involved-in-satanism/

"I Believe Our Government Shot Those Kids"
http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/urgent-update-on-connecticut-shooting/

What nobody dares say about Newtown Shootings -The US government kills children everyday & threatens citizens' freedom-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZn-Pq38B_Y&feature=player_embedded
Last week 27 Americans were murdered in a shooting spree, 20 of those killed were children. An enormous amount of attention is being focused on this event, even to the point of having the president make emotional speeches about it and visiting the families, and the story has been the top story on the news not just in the United States, but all over the world. Obviously this is an enormous tragedy for the families involved, however there is something very important that's not being said here.
The obvious attack on the 2nd amendment may be the main topic on your mind, but the problem goes much deeper than gun control or any of these other surface issues.
Visit our website: http://StormCloudsGathering.com
Get weekly email updates: http://tinyurl.com/naturalrightsnewsletter
If you support our work please consider making a donation: http://StormCloudsGathering.com/donate
---

Is this "Deceased" Emilie Parker With Obama?
http://www.henrymakow.com/is-this-deceased-emilie-parker.html

URGENT UPDATE on Connecticut Shooting
http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/urgent-update-on-connecticut-shooting/

What nobody dares say about Newtown Shootings -The US government kills children everyday & threatens citizens' freedom-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZn-Pq38B_Y&feature=player_embedded
Last week 27 Americans were murdered in a shooting spree, 20 of those killed were children. An enormous amount of attention is being focused on this event, even to the point of having the president make emotional speeches about it and visiting the families, and the story has been the top story on the news not just in the United States, but all over the world. Obviously this is an enormous tragedy for the families involved, however there is something very important that's not being said here.
The obvious attack on the 2nd amendment may be the main topic on your mind, but the problem goes much deeper than gun control or any of these other surface issues.
Visit our website: http://StormCloudsGathering.com
Get weekly email updates: http://tinyurl.com/naturalrightsnewsletter
If you support our work please consider making a donation: http://StormCloudsGathering.com/donate

Hollywood campaign for gun control proves actors are Illuminati dupes & agents - Guns needed against subverted Gov't
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2251842/Beyonc--Jennifer-Aniston-Gwyneth-Paltrow-demand-plan-lawmakers-gun-violence-PSA.html

Jim Stone (and his readers' take) on Newtown massacre
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/

Lanza rifle found in trunk - Coroner says all wounds caused by rifle -- Only 4 guns found in school -- what gives? --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3lmAD5kXo&feature=player_embedded
---

Adam Lanza was a Satanist - But will our politician Satanists go after their own? -- No, they will disarm the innocent -http://t.co/HMjqTtXI
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250608/Adam-Lanzas-classmate-reveals-Sandy-Hook-gunman-online-devil-worshiping-page.html

What the Prozac stock market refuses to consider: Potential chaos tomorrow--
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-20/todays-fiscal-cliff-timeline

Adam Lanza had no motive - His mother was not a teacher - Here is a different scenario --
http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news677_lanza.html
---

Gun control advocates deliberately facilitated the murders at Sandy Hook
https://usjf.net/2012/12/gun-control-advocates-deliberately-facilitated-the-murders-at-sandy-hook/
Advocates of overturning the right to keep and bear arms have spent years deliberately turning innocents into victims of slaughter for the purpose of disarming the American people. "Do as I say, not as I do," they say. Gun-control zealots are predictably out in force after the Sandy Hook killings. For in the perverted [...]

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards
http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/school-obamas-daughters-attend-has-11-armed-guards-2/
---

NDAA - Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law By Obama
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/indefinite-military-detention-of-us-citizens-to-be-signed-into-law-by-obama/

Outrage: NY Paper Prints Addresses, Map of Gun Owners
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/newspaper-gun-owners-map/2012/12/26/id/469039?s=al&promo_code=114AC-1

Senate To Go For Handguns & Gun Owners' Fingerprints!
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/senate-to-go-for-handguns-gun-owners-fingerprints/

Obama: One Main Incentive For Re-Election Was To Have 'Men With Guns Around At All Times'
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/obama-one-main-incentive-for-re-election-was-to-have-men-with-guns-around-at-all-times/
---

Senate Goes After Handguns
http://visiontoamerica.com/13435/senate-goes-after-handguns/

After all the Democrats' emphasis the dangers of so-called "assault weapons," the details of Senator Dianne Feinstein's pending assault weapons ban show that her real goal is to ban handguns.

That's right, after all the criticism of the AR-15 and the holier-than-thou speeches about how no one needs a military-style rifle with a 30-round magazine the details of the ban betray a gun grab that includes semi-automatic pistols that use "a detachable magazine" and have "one military characteristic."

This can only mean that the most popular handguns in the world for both civilian and military use are being targeted. These would include Glocks, Sig Sauers, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, H&K, and Colt, yet would by no means be limited to these handguns alone.

Ironically, I was just talking to a friend this morning about how the "assault weapons" ban is just way for the Democrats to get their foot in the door and ban handguns. And now, before the legislation is even introduced, they've gone ahead and shown their hand...

Article continues at:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/27/Sen-Feinstein-s-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Is-Really-A-Handgun-Ban
---

Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Covers Rifles, Pistols and Shotguns
The New Year is just around the corner and although the Senate still hasn't made a fiscal cliff deal, Senator Diane Feinstein already has parts of new gun control legislation ready to go. Two Sunday's ago on NBC's Meet the...
http://cowboybyte.com/16820/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-covers-rifles-pistols-and-shotguns/

Poll: Majority of Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of the NRA
http://visiontoamerica.com/13437/poll-majority-of-americans-have-a-favorable-opinion-of-the-nra/

Facebook Becomes Big Brother, Closes Pro-Gun Accounts
http://visiontoamerica.com/13443/facebook-becomes-big-brother-closes-pro-gun-accounts/

Facebook Purging
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
First hour guest, Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews.com, reported on a recent Facebook account purging, as well as freedom issues. He said his Facebook account was suspended after he posted a quote from Gandhi, and then later he learned this was part of a massive political purge by the social network, with such people as the Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth, writers for Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/facebook-purges-pro-gun-accounts/), and whistleblower Amber Lyon all having their accounts deactivated or suspended from Facebook. We're also seeing assaults on the environment with contaminants and pharmaceuticals in the water supply, as well as on the 2nd Amendment with efforts to curtail gun rights, he added.
See Mike Adam's article about Facebook and the USSA government taking away our freedoms -- just like Nazi Germany and China

Facebook bans Gandhi quote and closes Mike Adam's and other alternative media accounts as part of revisionist history purge (changing history as part of mass brainwashing)
http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html

Facebook Purges Pro-Gun Accounts
Massive act of censorship sees alternative media pages disappeared
http://www.infowars.com/facebook-purges-pro-gun-accounts/print/

Political dissident Brandon J. Raub had his accounts deleted and was snatched by police and forcibly imprisoned in a psychiatric ward earlier this year for posting political content on Facebook. Forcible drugging (the "thorazine shuffle" is just one example of permanent damage caused by drugs), lobotomies, and burning out portions of the brain ("Electric Shock Treatment") are commonly used on forcibly committed people, often causing permanent damage to them.
http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-facebook-post-by-brandon-raub/
---

Tyranny red alert: Traitorous Senator Feinstein seeking to criminalize nearly all firearms, require nationwide registration and fingerprinting of all gun owners
http://www.naturalnews.com/038483_Senator_Feinstein_gun_control_registration.html

(NaturalNews) Friends, patriots and all who believe in freedom: Tyranny has run amok in the U.S. Senate, and a new effort is being led by the traitorous anti-American Senator Dianne Feinstein to criminalize nearly all gun owners in America.

Details of a Hitler-style plan for gun registration and the criminalization of nearly all firearms has emerged from Feinstein's office. It is posted on her website at:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

The proposed new law by Feinstein would:

* Outlaw all AR-15s and anything resembling an "assault rifle," including .22LR varmint rifles.

* Outlaw ALL semi-automatic rifles, period.

* Outlaws nearly all handguns.

* Allow you to own "permanently disabled weapons." That's your new Second Amendment right under the tyranny of the federal government of the new USSA.

* Massive funding expansion of the ATF to conduct raids on gun owners, during which the plan is to have the government murder and / or arrest and imprison all gun owners.

* Outlawing the domestic manufacture of nearly all firearms, further gutting the U.S. economy and costing hundreds of thousands of jobs lost while our freedoms are gutted.

* Outlawing all magazines over 10 rounds, instantly turning tens of millions of Americans into felony criminals.

* Require nationwide registration of all guns and gun owners, complete with fingerprinting (to build a federal database of all gun owners) and a certification from your local police chief who must vouch for you being "allowed" to own a weapon.

This law follows in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler who first required gun registration, then gun confiscation, and then unleashed genocide.

The traitorous, demonic U.S. Senator Feinstein -- one of the most evil, wretched women to have ever disgraced the floor of the U.S. Senate -- has patterned her gun confiscation and criminalization law after Adolf Hitler's laws. This is not surprising, as her desired outcome is exactly the same: the destruction of freedom, the enslavement of the population and the rise of government tyranny in America.

Nationwide registration and fingerprinting
If Sen. Feinstein's outrageous, unconstitutional and freedom-crushing proposal becomes law, it would require all gun owners to register the serial numbers of all their guns with the federal government. They would have to supply fingerprints, undergo a new round of background checks, and somehow get the "permission" of a local police chief or Sheriff who will vouch for them.

This is Feinstein's wicked way of essentially criminalizing ALL gun ownership by American citizens. And those who comply with these requirements, thinking the government will then leave them alone, will soon find that they have just given the government the "confiscation list" it needs to go door to door, demanding all the registered firearms.

Gun registration ALWAYS leads to gun confiscation. The reason the government announces gun registration first is because they want to build a list of who to raid and arrest. By announcing "registration" first, they can hoodwink the population into ratting themselves out while the government compiles a "hit list" of all gun owners.

This is a red alert for American freedom. Traitors like Sen. Feinstein know that if they don't disarm and arrest gun owners across America, they themselves face arrest and imprisonment as traitors to America.

This is the closest thing to a declaration of war against the People as you will ever see. Sen. Feinstein has declared she is an enemy of America, and enemy of liberty, a criminal tyrant and a follower of Adolf Hitler.

Be ready, patriots, to fight this in the House. Natural News calls on all Americans to begin making preparations for a massive phone assault on members of Congress to outright reject the anti-human, anti-liberty proposals of Feinstein.

Read your blogs, websites and social networking outreach campaigns. Get your email lists, phone lists and friends lists ready for action. When this bill gets to the floor of the U.S. Senate, we must absolutely barrage the Senate floor with metaphorical mortar fire from the lawful, legal and upstanding gun owners of America.

Natural News will cover this in detail. Although our focus is traditionally health freedom, food freedom and farm freedom, we fully realize that without the freedom to own firearms, no other freedoms exists at all. A government that disarms the American people will soon follow with forced vaccinations, criminalizing home gardening, outlawing heirloom seeds and more. Don't believe it? California has already criminalized fresh milk from the farm and has actually sent one man, James Stewart, to prison for distributing fresh milk. California is insane, and Feinstein is the reptilian-like leader of the entire insane asylum known as the California government.

Keep reading Natural News for daily updates on this effort to enslave, criminalize and destroy liberty-loving Americans. Everything is at stake here. The America we know today is about to be abolished by the U.S. Senate.

Get informed: Read the most important article I've ever posted: "The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable."

Also read www.InfoWars.com www.LewRockwell.com www.SteveQuayle.com www.Rumormillnews.com www.NaturalSociety.com

Watch this video documentary: "Gun Control is Genocide"
http://www.naturalnews.com/038483_Senator_Feinstein_gun_control_registration.html
---

Feinstein's 'Assault Weapons' Bill Aims At Handguns
http://lastresistance.com/874/feinsteins-assault-weapons-bill-aims-at-handguns/
---

Publication of Gun Owners' Names, Addresses Gives Conservatives Ammunition
One of the odd things about the rag Journal News' "interactive map" releasing the names and addresses of thousands of gun owners in New York is that the reporter who wrote the article is not listed on this "interactive map." In fine print on the article/map there is the following little blip: "Editor's note: Journal [...]
https://usjf.net/2012/12/publication-of-gun-owners-names-addresses-gives-conservatives-ammunition/
---

Setting the Record Straight: Adam Lanza Did use the Bushmaster AR-15
Posted on December 28, 2012 by Conservative Byte
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/12/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

The media did a horrible job getting its facts and figures straight during and after the tragedy in Connecticut. Gun control advocates have seized on a lot of information and ignored a lot of information in an effort to push their agenda.

But I'm seeing gun rights supporters do the same. Most troubling, over the past week on radio filling in for Neal Boortz I've heard from dozens of callers, tweeters, Facebook friends, and email correspondents assuring me that Adam Lanza never used the AR-15 in his possession. Most people linked to a video purportedly showing the police retrieving the AR-15 from Adam Lanza's car after the incident.

I don't blame these people for getting the facts wrong. The media caused a lot of the misinformation in their rush to cover the story. But as the nation begins to set policy (or not) based on this random act of violence, we should all have our facts straight.

Full article:
http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/
---

In Bloomberg's Fairy Tale GUN Free Communist World
http://zionica.com/?p=23029


TODAY'S SCRIPTURE:

"Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide the land for an inheritance, which I swore unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong, and of a most valiant courage, that thou mayest observe and do according to all the Law which Moses my servant hath commanded thee: thou shalt not turn away from it to the right hand, nor to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. Let not this book of the Law depart out of thy mouth, but meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe and do according to all that is written therein: for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and then shalt thou have good success." (Joshua 1:6-8, 1599 Geneva Bible)
http://christianreader.com/1599-geneva-bible-hardback/
---

Say Goodbye To Glocks, Sig Sauers & Shotguns Under Feinstein "Assault Weapons Ban"
http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/say-goodbye-to-glocks-sig-sauers-shotguns-under-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban/

Legislators: Taxing Ammo into Oblivion Might Be Easier Than Ridding the Country of Guns
http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/say-goodbye-to-glocks-sig-sauers-shotguns-under-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban/

California Crime Drops As Gun Sales Surge
http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/california-crime-drops-as-gun-sales-surge/

A MINORITY VIEW
2nd Amendment no longer needed?
Walter E. Williams: Founders made it clear why Americans should be armed
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-no-longer-needed/

Sheriffs called out to fight the law
Local officers predicted to be key to preventing gun confiscation
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sheriffs-called-out-to-fight-the-law/
---

Ban Public Schools, Not Guns
Reality Check by Gary North
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/12/31/ban-public-schools-not-guns/
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10492.cfm
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10492print.cfm

Columbine. Virginia Tech. Newtown. What do they have in common? They are shorthand for "tax-funded schools where mass murderers plied their trade." The murderers all were students in, or graduates of the tax-funded, state-run educational system in the United States.

The murderers were enrolled students at Columbine and Virginia Tech.

The killers at Columbine and Virginia Tech were on personality-altering drugs. They had become drug users as students. These drugs are legal when prescribed by physicians who have been certified by the state as reliable. These drugs cause side effects. What is a side effect? It is an effect that is widely considered as bad.

School administrators let these mind-altered students into their schools. You can read about this here:

http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/medications-school-shootings.html

Public schools are shelters for drugged students. Sometimes the drugs are legal: "by prescription only." Sometimes the drugs are illegal: "for currency only." Public schools are the nation's largest and most cost-effective retail drug emporiums. They bring drug buyers and drug sellers together every school day. Transportation costs are borne by the school districts. If the various civil governments -- federal, state, and local -- really wanted to win the war on drugs, they would close the public schools. I wrote on this over a decade ago: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north31.html.

Critics of mass murder need to pay attention to underlying cause and effect. The liberal critics of mass murder argue that guns cause mass murder. I argue that mass murderers do. Critics of mass murder say that we need to ban guns in order to protect defenseless children. I argue that we should not send defenseless children into harm's way.

If public schools really are where mass murders occur most often, and if you want to reduce the number of mass murders, then eliminate the cause. The problem is not gun ownership. The problem is an educational system which produces mass murderers and then provides them with victims.

When was the last time you read about a mass murderer invading a Christian day school to shoot students? I can think of only one -- where the teachers were unarmed by religious requirement.

When was the last time you saw an evening news report on a mass murderer shooting students at a homeschool field trip?

The media liberals and a few liberal politicians call for bans against guns as a way to stop school shootings. The better way is to pass laws banning tax-funded education. Just stop the funding.

Skeptics will say this. "The government needs tax-funded education. The government needs public schools to educate children in good citizenship." What is good citizenship? Good citizenship involves the acceptance of a system which taxes your money by force in order to place your children on a yellow bus which takes them to a drug emporium where they are taught that they are descendents of wild animals, and where drug-dependent psychotics can walk into a classroom and shoot them.

If you don't approve of such a system, you are publicly designated as an imbecilic Christian fundamentalist or a dangerous anarchist or both. Important people say things like this:

"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Still, I do not want to appear utopian. Nobody wants to be out of touch. Forcing minority ideological citizens to pay taxes in order to teach their children ideas that they don't approve of, which are taught in schools that are staffed by state-certified bureaucrats, is as beloved an idea as mom and apple pie.

Some experts think that heroin addicts should go cold turkey. Others say that methadone is the answer -- tax-funded methadone. So, to all you ideological heroin addicts, I offer a methadone solution: online public schooling.

ONLINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

All across the United States, school districts are quietly substituting online classes for classroom classes. This is becoming widespread in rural districts. A generation ago, high school students were taught in tiny local schools which played six-man football. Then school districts consolidated. This was recommended by state-salaried educational bureaucrats. They said consolidation would be more efficient. It was sold to rural Texans with this promise: "Your sons can play 12-man football."

So, students ride 90 minutes each way to attend high school. It is expensive to operate the bus system. So, rural districts are switching to online courses. There are lots of articles online about this.

It turns out that one teacher can easily teach 100 or 1,000 students, as long as the exams are graded by software programs. A program can decide the programmed answer in true/false exams and multiple-choice exams. Since the SAT and ACT exams are graded this way, there is no reason for high schools not to adopt this kind of educational tool. SAT and ACT exams screen high school graduates for college. Then there are CLEP exams: Collage Level Examination Program. There are AP exams: Advanced Placement. These exams let students get full college credit. They are graded by computers. So, why not screen all high school students this way? If it's good enough for college, it's good enough for high school.

This means that a high school needs exactly one teacher for each course. It does not need half a dozen algebra teachers to teach algebra. It hires just one math teacher to teach in front of a $90 Kodak Playtouch pocket camcorder, which is placed on a $20 tripod and focused on a whiteboard, plus a $20 Audio Technica ATR 3350 microphone. Edit the videos with $50 Sony Movie Studio editing software. The videos will be posted on YouTube.

Can this work? It is working for the Khan Academy, which has over 3,000 free videos. This site will teach all academic high school courses within a few years, plus many college-level courses.

It is working for Harvard, MIT, and the University of Texas. It is working for 33 major universities that are part of the Coursera online program.

This approach would be fabulously cost-effective. Here is why.

High schools can fire all but one teacher per academic field.

They can fire the coaches.

They can sell the campuses.

They can fire the maintenance staff.

They can sell the school buses.

They can fire 90% of the administrators.

This assumes that they want to pay any teachers. They could simply create an online campus based on free videos produced by Khan and other educational entrepreneurs.

Within one academic year -- two at the most -- local school districts could implement this system.

But would my reform work academically? Of course. It is already working for rural school districts. But the teachers union does not want publicity for this. Neither do school administrators.

SHOP CLASSES

Students need hands-on training here. Fine. The district pays local businesses to take on apprentices. The students learn from successful businessmen how to ply their trade.

Alternatively, the district uses the money made by selling the high school campuses to build well-stocked shops. The district then offers retired professionals free rent and free apprentices: charter schools. They keep any money made through making repairs or building things. If necessary, the district pays them a fee per student, such as $1,000 for a 9-month year.

Students work four hours a day, either morning or afternoon. They take online video classes for their academic work.

There is no good reason to hire a shop instructor who could not run a business and who got a teaching certificate instead. Use the money saved by firing all of them to subsidize charter school programs run by successful practitioners with high school diplomas.

Shop classes are expensive to run. Students who have few intellectual aspirations are the most expensive to educate. That is reality. Each district should face up to it. It should let voters know how much it costs to keep these students in school.

CONCLUSION

Want to improve education? Close the campuses. Want to cut costs by 95%? Close the campuses. Want to eliminate mass murders on campus? Close the campuses.

Sadly, this reform will be resisted by voters. Why not? No more football. No more pom-pom girls. No more boola-boola.

Public high schools are free day care centers for parents of teenagers. Parents like the subsidy during their children's "difficult years." This benefit is summarized in this phrase: "Here. You take 'em."

If you are teenager, public high schools are all about sex, drugs, and sports. It's hard to compete against this trifecta of tax-funded education.
---

How To Win the War on Drugs (and stop the mass shootings)
by Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north31.html

Conservatives are unwilling to give up the war on drugs. They are convinced that there is a war of drug lords on innocent victims, beginning with teenage children, and they are uninterested in arguments for de-criminalization.

Conservatives want the State to spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on prisons to house convicted drug pushers -- after the fact. Liberals want the State to spend at least an equal amount on treatment and rehabilitation -- after the fact.

I'm interested in shutting down the market for illegal drugs. I say that it takes two to tango -- buyers and sellers -- and I'm for shutting down the tango floor.

We know where it is. There's one in your town. There are probably more than one. These are dark places of the soul. The users come, desperate to buy a new high or maybe only a way to keep from getting the shakes. The sellers come, greedy for income from the sale of their destructive wares, despite the misery they sow.

And then there are the innocents -- children who have money in their pockets and time on their hands. They come in droves, looking for new thrills in a boring, meaningless environment.

What we need is a clean sweep. We need to send local police, DEA officers, and the news media into these hell-holes and shut them down once and for all.

I'm talking about the public schools.

Every day, your local government sends out dozens or hundreds of yellow buses to round up the next generation of addicts. These psychologically weakened, carefully targeted victims are brought to the drug cartel's central emporium, where sellers can make their initial, price-competitive offer -- "The first one's free!" -- and their subversive incantation, "Try it; you'll like it!" Only the Vice Principal stands between the users and the retail source of their addiction.

Sellers go where the money is, and the people with the money are concentrated for seven hours a day in one convenient, rent-free location.

Users and prospective users are herded into rooms where they must sit for hours in hard, wooden seats, to be lectured at by indoctrinators, whose job, by federal law, is to persuade these children that life can be meaningful and full of hope without the following: (1) the idea that God has any place in the classroom, the voting booth, or the public square; (2) the idea that there will be a final judgment (except for Adolph Hitler) that produces eternal consequences; (3) the idea that mankind is the work of God rather than purposeless, random forces of impersonal nature; (4) the idea that man was placed on earth by God to exercise dominion over the creation, rather than being merely a primate species with the unique competitive edge of opposable thumbs; (5) the idea that individuals are legally and morally responsible for their actions, including their obligation to save for their retirement years and to pay for their medical care; (6) the idea that there are final answers to divisive moral questions (except regarding Hitler); and (7) the idea that a relevant, foundational education for all of life can be successfully imparted in an institution that doesn't employ full-time coaches. (Technically, point #7 is not mandated by federal law; rather, it is mandated by local voters who will pressure the school board to fire the principal if the football team goes 2-9 again this season.)

Educators know that life cannot be lived strictly in terms of negatives. There are also positive issues dealt with inside the public school classroom, including: (1) the right to get free abortion counseling from school-approved professionals without consulting with parents; (2) the right of every sexual lifestyle to gets its position -- intellectual, I mean -- discussed in the classroom as one legitimate choice among many; (3) the right of every known minority group (except Nazis) to get at least one positive paragraph in the social studies textbook; (4) the right of every student to gain a sense of self-esteem, except on sports teams; and (5) the right of students to inform any teacher regarding their parents' attitudes on matters of social or psychological relevance to the school district.

Then, in between classes, students meet to discuss the implications of all this for their lives. "The first one's free. Try it; you'll like it."

When was the last time you saw a local TV news report on a drug bust at a local private high school?

When was the last time you read a newspaper article on a student who overdosed on heroin at a local private high school?

Moving slightly afield, when was the last time the police had to be sent in to break up a gang riot at a local private high school? (I can imagine the newspaper report. "The fight broke out when a group of Catholics allegedly began chanting, 'infused grace, infused grace,' during the compulsory morning chapel period. Baptists allegedly retaliated with cries of 'imputed grace, imputed grace.' 'It kept getting louder and louder,' said Mr. Brubaker, who teaches calculus and is also the school's headmaster. 'We finally had to call the police when the Methodists began shouting, 'prevenient grace.' It was just terrible. But I can assure the public that we are taking steps to deal with these issues.'")

Conclusion

What we need is an all-out drug war that targets the primary recruiting centers used by drug-pushers, the retail outlets of choice for the Colombian drug cartel: America's tax-supported high schools.

If I ever hear of members of Congress calling for this kind of bipartisan war on drugs, I'll take them much more seriously. When I hear one of them stand up on the floor of either house of Congress and say the following, I'll be impressed. "As part of the war on drugs, I am today introducing legislation to stop all federal funding of education." Then his colleague from across the aisle stands up and says, "I am ready to support this bill if the distinguished gentleman from Texas is ready to support my bill to remove all educational institutions from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board."

When the demand for illegal drugs is at long last analyzed in terms of the categories that the demand for prescription-only painkillers is analyzed -- the chemical relief of pain -- then we shall begin to come to grips with America's continuing drug problem. The war on drugs should begin with a systematic program to eliminate the tax-supported sources of the initial users' pain, institutions that are also the primary marketplaces for the sale of the painkillers of choice. Until this is done, I don't think the war on drugs has much of a chance at reducing the level of addiction.

Until then, every time you see a yellow public school bus on the highway, think to yourself, "Free transportation to cocaine central." On the back of every school bus in America, these words should be plainly visible: "Medellin-Approved."

Gary North is the author of an eleven-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible. The latest volume is Cooperation and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Romans. The series can be downloaded free of charge at www.freebooks.com.

© 2001 LewRockwell.com

Note: see my Public Schools and Colleges web pages for more information about how our kids are being indoctrinated at www.distance-healer.com
---

Are the New Generation of Anti-Depressant Medications Contributing to School Shootings?
http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/medications-school-shootings.html

SSRI's May Be Exacerbating Violent Tendencies
Before you make up your mind, watch these 3 videos:

(See videos at link)

For more information, see this, this, this, this, this and this.

Reprinted from Washington's Blog.
---

How To Get The Country Back: Rush Limbaugh Fingers The Real Problem -- And The Real Solution

When Democrats Lose...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/12/when_democrats_lose

After the Nov. 6th election, while Republican pundits and strategists wrung their hands, blamed one another for defeat and suggested ways to abandon their core principles, Rush Limbaugh offered a welcome reality check.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Some questions, ladies and gentlemen. When Democrats lose elections -- and they do lose elections. We all agree? When Democrats lose elections, do they ever discuss the possibility they may have to become pro-life?

Okay. When Democrats lose elections, do they ever say, "You know what? We may have to give up this gay marriage position of ours and sort of abandon that. We may need to stand up for traditional marriage." Do the Democrats ever say that when they lose elections? No. After the Democrats lose elections, do they ever say, "You know, I think we've got to abandon this effort to shut down Second Amendment.

"We're gonna have to understand it. We're really out of touch. We're alienating our voters who love guns. We're gonna have to become big advocates of the Second Amendment"? Do Democrats ever say that when they lose elections? Do the Democrats, after they lose elections, all run to the media and start agonizing over where they're going wrong? Do Democrats, when they are losing elections, ever blame their media?

Do they ever say that their media is alienating people? Do they ever say their media is too mean-spirited? Do they ever say their media is too dishonest? Do they ever blame their media when they lose elections? They don't do that, do they? When Democrats lose elections, do they tell themselves, "You know, we better tone down our rhetoric a little bit. We better dial it back. We are offending people that go to church and we're offending people who have a traditional, historical view of America.

"We'd better tone it down. We're gonna be in real trouble here"? Do they ever say that when they lose? When the Democrats lose elections, are their comedians blamed as being too harsh and too cruel and filled with hate speech? No, it doesn't happen. But we do all of that. The Republicans are in the process of doing all of that. Do the Democrats ever, when they lose elections, openly discuss abandoning their core principles?

No, they don't.

What do they do?

They blame the stupidity of voters, and they double down on all of it. And they say they really didn't lose anyway. They come up with excuses to explain the loss that does not have anything to do with them.

RUSH: Do the Democrats, after losing elections, ever say, "You know what? We're gonna have to cut taxes if we are ever going to get back in touch with the American people. We're going to have change our tax increase policy, and we're gonna have to stop bashing the rich. We're gonna have to stop calling the rich felons and accusing them of essentially letting women die. We're gonna have to stop doing that"?

Do they ever say that? They don't. In fact, they don't even ever blame themselves. They blame events, tricks, or what have you. They circle the wagons. They say, "Well, we just didn't get our message out," when they lose. But they never -- they never -- turn the firing squad on each other. Even Dan Rather, after that bogus report on George W. Bush and the National Guard, what did they do?

In order to protect the institution of the news media that they run, they gave Dan Rather a series of journalism lifetime-achievement awards. Brokaw and Jennings arranged it. Whenever a major Democrat flop or failure or embarrassment occurs, they rally around and they elevate that person so that what they stand for doesn't take a hit. They will not allow renegade individuals (and they have plenty of 'em) to do any damage to their agenda and what they believe.

We, on the other hand, are the exact opposite.

We lose elections, and we start making tracks to abandon our principles and loyalists as fast as we can. All to please them.

America in the Gutter
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/13/america_in_the_gutter

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is Keith in Palm Beach, Florida, as we start to the phones. Great to have you, sir, hello.

CALLER: Thanks for taking my call, Rush. This is just outrageous. I mean, every Sunday I watched George Stephanopoulos at 11:45 to see the names, to read the names and acknowledge our fallen troops every week. We're up over 4,000 dead over there. We should demand they come home. The leader over there, General Petraeus, is playing footsie with his autobiographer. (sic)

He goes to the CIA and is still playing footsie with her and giving bad intelligence on Benghazi and stuff. The next general is playing footsie with this socialite, this teenybopper, 40-year-old teenyboppers. Afghanistan didn't even come in the top ten issues of the election. What is going on with our country? It's like living in a perpetual nightmare and our troops are the ones that are suffering.

RUSH: Well, depends on how you define it. We are in a never-ending loop of Entertainment Tonight.

CALLER: Uhh...

RUSH: The country has become E! Entertainment Television, or TMZ. I mean, you're exactly right. Stephanopoulos, in Iraq, used to read the names of the dead as a campaign aid for the Democrats. Now we've got the commanding general in Afghanistan "playing footsie," as you say, with a socialite. We have Petraeus doing what he was doing with his biographer. All this is coming out. People are very titillated by it. I mean, I've even myself had some of what I happen to think are pretty great lines about this.

But what do you expect?

The president has announced the deadline for defeat in Afghanistan, Keith. When he says "We're getting out of there in 2014," he's telling the Taliban, "Just hang on. This is when you win." We've got rules of engagement that prevent our guys from actively engaging the enemy over there. General Adams was on 60 Minutes a month ago expressing his frustration with the limits that he's got. I know what you mean.

It seems like every rock-solid institution that we used to be able to count on has now been corrupted and is as politicized and unreliable -- and we don't know the truth about what happens there, nor can we depend on it -- as anything else that the Democrats have gotten hold of. Education, morality, you name it. We're headed down to the gutter. We've been on that trajectory for a long time, and they're taking every valued institution with them.

CALLER: Four more years.

*** What You Can Do ***

RUSH: You say, "What's happening to the country?" What's happening...? If we want to get this country back, I'll tell you what we're gonna have to do. We're gonna have to have the long view, Keith. We are going to have to wrest control of the education system from the Democrats. Public education, we're gonna have to get that back. Because they sowed the seeds for this 50 years ago. They've been patient just like the Soviets were. The Soviets didn't do things in four-year blocks. They had the long view. However long it took, you stay on course.

CALLER: You're right on education. I've been advocating it. It sounds like 1984, but I believe there should be cameras in every one of them classrooms watching what these teachers are teaching these kids, instead of having cameras in the courtroom watching 'em go to jail.

RUSH: I'll tell you something else. I'll tell you something right along the same lines. In fact, I want to read to you from our old buddy J. Christian Adams who left the Justice Department because Holder refused to prosecute the guilty New Black Panther Party for vote for fraud in 2008 in Philadelphia. J. Christian Adams left because he realized that black defendants were not gonna be charged nor prosecuted, pursued by this Justice Department. He writes the following about immigration:

"There is only one way to obtain the support of Hispanics and other minorities eventually. Conservatives must first confront and destroy the credibility of the racial interest groups that serve as the gatekeepers to these communities. Once-relevant and noble groups like the NAACP, and others less noble such as LULAC and MALDEF, must be exposed as the frauds that they have become in 2012. Their finances and racialist agenda must be revealed and lampooned.

"Their racial extortion of corporate America must be confronted. The entire political operation of these groups must be vivisected by some of the brightest investigative and journalistic conservative minds. Otherwise, the skilled and experienced racial-antagonism operation of these racial organizations will keep the herd together, voting in solid blocks no matter how much 'outreach' the GOP conducts after agreeing to amnesty."

Now, this is a daunting agenda, and it's become daunting because nobody gave it a shot over all these years. The NAACP must be exposed as the corrupt bunch that they've become. These racial minority groups vote as blocs not because they're informed voters, at least not informed on the issues of the day. They follow the leaders of their special interest groups. What do we do, by the way? We send our candidates to the NAACP convention every year.

We pander.

We pander! It doesn't do any good. Education? I don't know what you do when you have public education the way it is. The things that are taught about this country today! The things that are taught about profit. The things taught about business. The things taught about how evil, white Europeans are the reason this country's unjust and unfair. There's a reason people believe the nonsense they believe!

The nonsense, Keith, is you look out there and you see what they believe and you can't understand it. How can anybody vote a second term for this disaster? They did, and the Republicans don't seem to care to find out what the real reason is. The Republicans are convinced it's because they're not pandering enough -- Hispandering enough. Now, the Republicans call it "outreach," but they're whistling Dixie if they think the Democrats are gonna surrender any of their voters.

I find this the most comical thing that I've seen in a long time.

We have all these Republicans, all these Republican consultants, all the intelligentsia and the conservative media saying, "Yeah, okay, we gotta take immigration off, we gotta reach out to Hispanics, we gotta show 'em, and how we gonna do it? We're let 'em know we're in favor of a pathway to citizenship, and we're in favor of amnesty. We're no longer gonna say things that might offend them," and so forth. And of course the Democrats are saying, "You Republicans, you don't have a prayer unless you reach out to these people." Right. The Democrats are gonna let us have these voters? Who in the world thinks that this is going to happen? I went through all this yesterday. But, I mean, these are the obstacles that we face.

We have nothing countering public education, and we have nothing countering Entertainment Tonight or TMZ or whatever the pop culture, we don't have anything that counters it. All we have is, "Gee, I hope that they listen to us or see us and realize what they're being told is a bunch of lies." I hope they could see that Newt is really not a nerd or a square. I wish they could see that Paul Ryan really is hip. He really is a great American. And now look. Their comedians can be the most raucous, filthy, insensitive, insulting they can be, and they are given accolades. We can't even joke about them without being called racists, sexists, bigots insensitive or what have you. We can't even laugh at them. We have to sit by and allow ourselves to be the subjects of derision, mockery, insult, and lies.

You don't think those negative ads against Romney worked? I am here to tell you that I believe that they did. I fully believe that a bunch of people were made to believe that Mitt Romney actually enjoyed watching a guy's wife die. I'm here to tell you that I actually believe now that there are a number of people who think that Mitt Romney is a full-fledged criminal who has sheltered all of his money in the Cayman Islands and wants to get hold of this country so that he and his buddies can do more of the same. That's what the people that believe that have been taught since they first started going to school. Hell, even before school. Day care.

I've told you the stories I have learned of what goes on in schools here in south Florida. History class, high school teacher, routinely, every day, did nothing but trash and lie about George W. Bush and conservatives and me, and policy. Built up Barack Obama or whatever Democrat it was. When it came time, she gave the students the mythical answers to a test that she had never presented any subject on. They got the answers to the test, they all passed. The teacher looked like she was a great teacher to her administrators. She didn't even have teaching history. She was nothing but an apparatchik, an activist. The parents all knew. They were afraid what the school would do to their kids if they called attention to it.

So the recourse was to try to counter the pollution occurring in the classroom when the kids got home. 'Cause they were scared of what would happen to the kids' grades. Every parent wants their kid to go to college. To get into college, you gotta have a decent GPA. If the high school shafts your kid, you don't get 'em into college and you don't get a scholarship. So while the teachers are literally corrupting and polluting your child's mind right in front of your face, you don't do anything about it because you're afraid doing so will harm your kid.

Well, now, until stuff like this stops, we're gonna keep getting electoral outcomes like we're getting. And we're gonna continue to have Republican and so-called conservative leaders that haven't the slightest idea what's going on, blaming themselves for this, or blaming their media, like me, or blaming stupid candidates or whatever, rather than realizing who the real opponents here are.
---

Senator Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Is DOA
California's Senator Feinstein puts the jerk into knee-jerk liberal. She introduced a comprehensive gun control bill three days after the December 14 shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. If you think she wrote that bill personally, you're wrong. If you think it was written from scratch in three days, you're wrong. If you think the bill will... READ MORE
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/12/28/senator-feinsteins-gun-control-bill-is-doa/

The Gun Grab Cometh
http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/31/the-gun-grab-cometh/
Whether the gun grabbers orchestrated the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre or just saw it as the perfect opportunity to rip the heart out of yet another Constitutional amendment, the actions of the 1 percent indicate that 2013 is going to be a tumultuous year for gun owners -- and liberty.

The Gun Control Debate Continues
http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/31/the-gun-control-debate-continues/
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced recently that she will introduce legislation early in 2013 that will essentially criminalize millions of law-abiding American gun owners.
---

Russia's Pravda: 'Americans, Never Give Up Your Guns!'
http://visiontoamerica.com/13458/russias-pravda-americans-never-give-up-your-guns/

These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the CMTYA (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor...
http://joemiller.us/2012/12/russias-pravda-americans-never-give-up-your-guns/
---

When a Loan Isn't a Loan
Government, the New Debtors' Prison
by Douglas French
http://lfb.org/today/

Dear Laissez Faire Today Reader,

An old banking buddy of mine has been out of work for a full year. I met up with him yesterday, and he told me the good news that he has finally found work. It's not enjoyable. But it pays better than sitting at home.

His time of unemployment had been doubly tough because his son was also out of work at the same time. The proud father seemed happier that his son had also found a job.

"And since he works for a nonprofit, they will pay his student loan," he said.

"What?" I said, not sure that I was hearing right.

"If you go to work for the government or a nonprofit, they will pay your student loan."

I told my friend that I'm thrilled for him and his son, but that I'm stunned that these sorts of incentives are in place to drive debt-laden college graduates to government and nonprofit jobs.

After all, this means taxpayers are footing the bill for these loans, on top of paying for government salaries that are, of course, a dead weight on private enterprise.

Well, it didn't take much digging to find the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) that was passed by Congress in 2007. According to Forbes, "The program promises to absolve remaining balances on the federal student loans of qualifying borrowers who make 120 monthly loan payments under eligible plans."

To be eligible, you must make these payments while working for the government or a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The way to maximize the government forgiveness is to sign up for the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan or the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan.

So say a theoretical student graduates from law school (to use an example provided by Forbes) with $120,000 in debt and takes a job as a public defender making $45,000 a year with a 3% annual raise.

According to Isaac Bowers, senior program manager for educational debt relief and outreach at Equal Justice Works, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, that person would be eligible for roughly $151,000 in forgiveness if the young lawyer enrolled in the government's Income-Based Repayment Plan and repaid about $48,570 in 120 payments.

There is a complete alphabet soup of debt forgiveness programs for those working on the government payroll. Various states have their own programs, as do cities, universities, and so on. Of course, these programs are all subject to funding, so hooking up with a federal government job offering a debt forgiveness program is the safest way to go.

Mark Kantrowitz tells Forbes that loan forgiveness options at the federal level are the most reliable. "Even if they get canceled, existing borrowers are likely to get grandfathered in," he said. "And they're not in danger of being canceled. There would be too much of an uproar if they were."

Meanwhile, MBA graduates gainfully employed in the private sector whipping up lattes and the like are struggling to make payments. This past quarter, 11% of student loans were 90-plus days delinquent, which "for the first time exceeds the 'serious delinquency' rate for credit card debt," William Bennett writes for CNN.com.

Students are graduating with mountains of debt and moving back in with their parents when they can't find a job, or at least one that provides enough to pay rent and student loan payments. This isn't some isolated circumstance. One in five families is shouldering student loans debt, according to Pew Research Center. But for households headed by someone younger than 35, the percentage is a whopping 40%. Back in 1989, that number was less than 20%.

Over a quarter of households headed by someone aged 35-44 has student debt, more than double the 11% for this age group in 1989. The average amount of student debt per household has nearly tripled (in adjusted dollars) in the same time frame, rising from $9,634 in 1989 to $26,682 in 2010. The result?

Mr. Bennett makes the very salient point that student loans are risky, and the government, which makes 93% of student loans, is an irrational lender. Someone pursuing a degree in anthropology can borrow just as much and at the same rate as a student earning a marketable degree like say, nursing.

But the government keeps on shoveling out the money. After all, Obama once told Congress,

  "Tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma."

To that end, the Department of Education handed out $133 billion in 2010 and another $157 billion in 2011. And still students are borrowing like never before. But for what? The Associated Press reported earlier this year,

  "About 1.5 million, or 53.6%, of bachelor's degree holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41%, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields."

My friend went on to tell me that his daughter is nearly done with graduate school. I asked if he had been shouldering the burden of her education costs.

"No. Student loans."

I asked if she had racked up a six-figure loan balance.

"Yeah, probably."

I let out a groan. He quickly added, "but she'll probably work for the government."

The mortgage debt crisis has been replaced in the public view by the student loan debt crisis. Total student debt outstanding is approaching $1 trillion. And while students are graduating with fancy degrees, jobs that pay enough to service the debt are few and far between.

The taxpayer just can't escape funding the higher education racket. Your state taxes provide direct support. Your federal taxes are funding direct aid and student loans. And now graduates have a compelling reason to find a place on the government payroll with you footing the bill. After all, student loan balances can't be discharged through bankruptcy, but they can be through government employment.

Sincerely,
Douglas French

P.S. The higher education racket is just one area of common knowledge I take on in my new book, The Failure of Common Knowledge, which will be available to Club members for free in a couple weeks. If you haven't joined the Laissez Faire Club, now is the time. Give yourself the gift of freedom, literature and ideas this holiday season.
---

Will the Police Protect You?
http://lfb.org/today/

Dear Laissez Faire Today Reader,

The most striking change in the culture of the state in my lifetime is the transformation of the police. When I was a kid, we never feared them unless we were up to no good. Now they are to be feared no matter what. To be sure, there are plenty of police who are not beating and abusing people and taking away their rights. Most, in fact, continue to try to serve the public in the traditional manner. But the institution itself has changed. It has become militarized, paranoid, and scary.

Things began to change after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma in 1995. After Sept. 11, the change embedded itself deeply into the structures of the police, and the funding spigots opened. Police at all levels became part of what often seems like a nationalized police force. They are ready to arrest, use Tasers, and beat at the slightest sign of resistance. They have shifted from once being part of the civilian order to being a direct arm of the state.

On the other hand, this has prompted a gigantic shift in the way the people think of the police. When I was in college, nearly everyone sympathetic to the cause of liberty made an exception for the police, who were considered the essential protectors and part of the thin blue line that separated civilization from barbarism. Now they are widely seen as the source of barbarism in society. Not always, but too often.

Wendy captures this shift in today's provocative article. She ends with the real takeaway for the rest of us. I discuss more about that in the P.S.

Will the Police Protect You?
By Wendy McElroy

For years, I have declared a preference for taking my chances with criminals rather than with the police. Criminals usually want my property, not to control my life or to cage me like an animal. With criminals, I can pull a gun in self-defense. Until lately, however, the average person has scowled my way whenever I voiced that preference.

The situation is changing. A tipping point in the public attitude toward law enforcement is under way... finally! A significant number of people have realized that America is either currently a police state or it is teetering on the crumbling edge to one.

Part of the sea change comes from the deliberate militarization of police departments, where tanks, drones, and SWAT teams have become standard. A military-style training, in which civilians are viewed as combatants, has deepened the antagonism of the police toward the public so that violent incidents are commonplace. Many police officers no longer bother to disguise their savagery. Police at the University of California, Davis who pepper-sprayed peaceful, seated Occupy protesters a year ago come to mind. Why should they be subtle? Their anti-terrorism mandate has erased the restraints of civil liberties.

Meanwhile, there is no oversight. The police define their own rules of conduct, police departments investigate their own misdeeds behind closed doors, and district attorneys and police unions aggressively shield the criminal acts of cops. Victims who complain are often charged with elastic crimes, such as "obstructing law enforcement," which are later dropped in exchange for their silence.

Part of the sea change also comes from the increased use of law enforcement against children in public schools. Last May, New Mexico police officer Chris Webb was visiting a school for career day when he asked a group of young boys to wash his police car. A 10-year-old refused. According to an ensuing lawsuit against Webb and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, the officer told the youngster, "Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police." Webb then used a Taser on him, sending 50,000 volts of electricity into the 100-pound boy's chest. He lost consciousness. Instead of seeking medical care, however, Webb merely carried him into the principal's office. The officer claims it was all an accident and points to his punishment -- a three-day suspension -- as proof the police department believes him.

The incident is not isolated. Last month, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against a Mississippi school district that arrests students, handcuffs them, and ships them off to youth court for minor infractions like breaking the dress code. Among the defendants are judges of the county's youth court and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services. They are accused of violating the children's constitutional rights through such practices as incarcerating them for days without a probable cause hearing.

The backlash goes on and on. The raw money grabs being made by police in the name of civil forfeiture have also sparked fury. Under civil forfeiture, property that was involved in a crime can be confiscated and sold by police departments. It doesn't matter if the victims of the forfeiture have committed no crime or have never been charged with one.

On Nov. 5, for example, a pivotal civil forfeiture case commenced in Boston. Over a 20-year period, a handful of drug crimes were committed in a motel owned by Russ Caswell and his wife; the "crime scenes" represented about 0.05% of their total rentals. Nevertheless, the federal government and the local police department are attempting to take the Caswells' $1 million motel and split the proceeds. Ironically, the money grab arose because the Caswells themselves reported suspicious activity.

These and other factors, including the rise of YouTube videos that capture police brutality, contribute to the discomfort with which average people are beginning to view the police.

The importance of this change cannot be overstated.

Years ago, I interviewed several dozen sex workers and surveyed about 200 more for the purpose of writing a book about the realities of the "profession." The women expressed one political attitude over and over: They did not trust the police, the courts, or any aspect of law enforcement. They recognized the legal system for what it is -- an enemy. From visceral experience, the women knew law enforcement as a corrupt system that brutalizes harmless people and criminalizes peaceful acts.

Their attitude was refreshing. The single greatest obstacle over which I used to stumble in arguing for fundamental legal change was the inculcated belief that the police were there "to serve and protect."

I argued in vain that the police have no duty whatsoever to protect people from criminals; that's not their job description. The courts have been clear on this point for over a century. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no responsibility to protect anyone. Their duty was to enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals held that "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Later court decisions concur.

Police vehicles often sport slogans like "Proud to serve!" If they aren't there to protect you, the question becomes who are they serving? The courts have answered: Police departments exist to enforce the law. The police serve the government, not the people. They uphold the law with total disregard for whether their actions create or prevent violence. If government decides that certain forms of consent between adults must not be tolerated, then the police will draw their guns and barge into otherwise peaceful situations. To uphold an unjust law, they will create violence and victims.

To understand the reality that the police are not there for you is an extremely valuable piece of information. If you are depending on them to protect you, to guard you against real crime, to stop intruders or muggers and to prosecute after the fact, you have been sorely misled.

Every citizen who wants to be free must prepare for his or her own defense against violence. The market is there to assist with security services, alarm systems, property monitoring devices, ever more sophisticated locks, and, of course, guns of all sorts. In the end, we are responsible for our own security. The state will not come to your rescue. On the contrary, it is the market that provides the means by which we are rescued from the state.

Sincerely,

Wendy McElroy
The Laissez Faire Club

P.S. [Editor's Note: Have you noticed that the cause of gun control made no traction in the latest election? The "liberals" have stopped talking about it. This is good.

Gun control means the police have all the weapons and the people have none. Today, weapons laws are being liberalized more and more as people recognize that they must take the cause of defense into their own hands. I'm not a gun fan personally, but I appreciate that many people are. Guns rights are an essential part of freedom, especially in times like ours.]
---

Was Sandy Hook a “false flag” operation by the Obama regime?
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/was-sandy-hook-a-false-flag-operation-by-the-obama-regime/

Sandy Hook dad goes from laughing to grieving in blink of an eye
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/sandy-hook-dad-goes-from-laughing-to-grieving-in-blink-of-an-eye/

Order to kill Adam Lanza heard on Police radio
http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/21562440-kill-order-captured-on-police-audio

United Nations: An Arm Of The New World Order
http://www.intmensorg.info/un.htm

The Matrix
http://www.intmensorg.info/matrix.htm

Gun Control: How An Unarmed Population Are Oppressed
http://www.intmensorg.info/guncontrol.htm
---

America: The Most Violent Nation?
http://haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/america-most-violent-nation-0

Is America the most violent nation on earth? Those who blame this country for most of the ills of the world would have us believe so. They frequently refer to high rates of homicide and suicide, though they rarely cite actual data. But before fear impels us to shred the Bill of Rights, we should determine whether our fear has a factual basis.

The accompanying table below gives suicide and homicide rates for all 86 nations for which data are available. Rates are per 100,000 population and come from the United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook published in 1998.(1) Note that the latest U.S. suicide rate (for 1997) is 11.4, slightly below the 11.9 listed, while the 1997 U.S. homicide rate is 7.3, far below the 9.4 listed here. Figures exceeding published U.S. figures are starred, while those exceeding only the most recent (1997) U.S. figures are doubly starred. For a more contemporaneous comparison, the singly starred figures should be stressed.

 * Figures exceeding U.S. figures at time of publication.
 ** Figures exceeding more recent (1997) U.S. figures shown in parentheses.
 Source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook, New York, United Nations, 1998.

Accuracy of the figures varies. Suicide may not be reported to spare the family. Thus Egypt claims a suicide rate of zero. On the other hand, Japan lists murder-suicides as suicides; if a man kills his family and himself, all are listed as suicides. The thousands of patients "euthanized" by doctors each year in the Netherlands are listed as dying from disease. There are 185 UN members, so over half of all nations, including the former Soviet Union and many African and Asian nations, reported no data at all.

Regarding suicide, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack, with 35 of the 86 nations having higher rates (38 using the most recent U.S. figure). Compared to the U.S. rate of 11.9, Russia has a rate of 41.2, Hungary 32.9, Denmark 22.3, Switzerland 21.4, France 20.8, and Japan 16.7. In general, Northern and Eastern European and Asian nations tend to have high suicide rates, while countries in Southern Europe and Latin America tend to have low rates.

Is there a relation between suicide and strictness of gun-control laws? Northern European and Asian nations tend to have high rates and strict laws, while Latin American nations tend to have low rates and more lax laws. Hence one could make a spurious claim that strict gun laws "cause" suicides. Such a claim would ignore many relevant facts. For example, Latin countries are mainly Catholic, with severe social pressures against suicide. Still, it makes as much (or as little) sense to say that gun laws "cause" suicides as that they "prevent" homicides.

The U.S. suicide rate has fluctuated between 10 and 17 for a century, with peaks in 1908 and 1932, and shows no relation to gun laws or gun availability. The current rate is below the midpoint and falling slightly. Recently suicides in the young increased. Advocates of gun laws blame the availability of guns. But suicides in older Americans decreased. The advocates ignore this fact. If something bad happens, they blame guns; if something good happens, they ignore it. And this is called "research."

Is there a correlation between suicide and homicide rates? Statistical analysis(2) shows none (r = 0.08). Nations with low suicide rates may have low (Greece) or high (Mexico) homicide rates. Nations with high suicide rates may have low (Switzerland) or high (Russia) homicide rates. Since suicide and homicide rates are not correlated, it is difficult to see how a single factor, such as gun laws, could cause major reductions in both of them.

Moving to the homicide data, we recall that America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?

Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.

There may be a lesson here. Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D.C. with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought.

The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are uncertain which factors to credit. The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the most crime-prone group, fell by 5 percent, so this can account for only a fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicide. In any case, the fall began in 1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the assault-weapons ban went into effect in 1994. Clearly, these laws cannot be credited for a fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier. Violence is often like an Rorschach test --- what we read into it depends more on us than on it. This subjectivity must be avoided.

Will extremely harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws be more effective than conventional laws? Figures for East and West Germany, the last before the Wall came down, reveal a unique "experiment." In 1945 a uniform population was split in two. After four decades of dictatorial rule, the homicide rate in the Communist East was 0.7, hardly lower than that in the free West, 1.0. But the suicide rate in the East was 25.8, much higher than 15.8 in the West. That is, even the harshest regime prevented few homicides, but at the cost of many suicides --- hardly a fair exchange. Overly severe laws may be counterproductive as well as oppressive.

Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key factor in homicide. Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide rates, but is this cause and effect? The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom holds for both gun and non-gun homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for a low rate of fatal beatings. Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen.

In telling Americans, especially young ones, that they live in the most violent nation on earth, we are slandering our country. In addition, we may be inadvertently increasing the violence. Studies reveal that children whose teachers believe they will do well actually do better in school. Children may sense their teachers' expectations and live up to them. It seems likely that children raised to believe that they come from the most violent people on earth will act accordingly. The violence-prone minority will be more violent, believing that they must strike before others attack them, while the nonviolent majority will lapse into hopeless passivity. This is not helpful to a free country.

It really comes down to what we prefer as a basis for our opinions --- facts or myths. Myths may be comforting, but they rarely lead to effective action. Myths tell us that nations with strict anti-gun laws have low rates of suicide and homicide, so the answer is easy --- pass more laws. And if the laws don't work, pass still more. Facts, on the other hand, may be disturbing. They rarely provide easy answers for complex problems.

Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality. Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social programs, changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new gun-control laws, the homicide rate doubled since the 1960s. Conservatives must face the fact that despite continuing family breakup, fatherless boys, decaying schools, and loss of respect for human life, the homicide rate fell by one-third in the 1990s. Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall in homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued. Opponents of violent films and video games must face the fact that as these increased, homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly publicized shootings. Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall in homicide was associated with three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty, while conservatives must admit that the fall in homicide was associated with low unemployment and a strong economy.

In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but we are more violent than we used to be --- and than we should be.

References

1. 1996 Demographic Yearbook. New York, United Nations, 1998.
2. Stolinsky SA, Stolinsky DC. Suicide and homicide rates do not covary. J Trauma 2000; 48:1168-1169.

Dr. Stolinsky is a retired medical oncologist and co-author of Firearms: A Handbook for Health Professionals, published by The Claremont Institute. His e-mail is stolinsky@prodigy.net.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2000;5(6):199-201. Copyright ©2000 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
---

Boundary Violations --- Gun Politics in the Doctor's Office
http://www.haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/boundary-violations-gun-politics-doctors-office

Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6) That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18) Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19) Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)

As to how one can protect oneself from assailants when the police, as more often than not, are not around, National Victims Data suggests that "while victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit, victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who put up no defense."(11) Of particular interest to women and self-defense, "among those victims using handguns in self-defense, 66 percent of them were successful in warding off the attack and keeping their property. Among those victims using non-gun weapons, only 40 percent were successful.(11) The gun is the great equalizer for women when they are accosted in the street or when they, particularly single mothers, are defending themselves and their children at home.

Malevolent Scholarship

But let us return to public health and gun research. Why this faulty research and concealment of this valuable, potentially life-saving information by the medical establishment? In a comprehensive and widely discussed Tennessee Law Review article, constitutional scholar and criminologist Don B. Kates and associates declare: "Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective [of public health] has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms and eventual elimination of all firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries."(3)

In the chapter "Bad Medicine --- Doctors and Guns," Kates and associates describe a particularly egregious example of editorial bias and censorship by The New England Journal of Medicine.(6) In 1989, two studies were independently submitted for publication to NEJM. Both authors were affiliated with the University of Washington School of Public Health. One study by Dr. John H. Sloan was a selective two-city comparison of homicide rates in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle, Washington.(21) The other paper was a comprehensive comparison study between the U.S. and Canada by Dr. Brandon Centerwall. Predictably, the editors of the NEJM chose to publish Sloan et al's article with inferior but orthodox data claiming erroneously that severe gun control policies had reduced Canadian homicides and rejected Centerwall's superior study showing that such policies had not affected the rate of homicides in Canada. In fact, the homicide rates were lower in Vancouver before the restrictive gun control laws had been passed in Canada and in fact, rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian law. Sloan and associates glossed over the disparet ethnic compositions of Seattle and Vancouver. When the rates of homicides for whites are compared in both of the cities it turns out that the rate of homicide in Seattle is actually lower than in Vancouver while blacks and hispanics have higher rates of homicides in Seattle was not mentioned by these investigators.

Dr. Centerwall's paper on the comparitive rates of homicides in the U.S. and Canada was finally published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, but his valuable research was not really made widely available to the public.(22) In contradistinction to his valuable gun research data, Centerwall's other research pointing to the effects of TV violence affecting homicide rates have been made widely available, but his data exculpating gun availability and homicide rates has not.(23-25)

Another example of faulty research was displayed by the AMA's Council of Scientific Affairs when it endorsed, on the basis of "scientific research," the ban on assault weapons. Obviously, the Council had a public relations axe to grind rather than expert knowledge of the sciences of criminology and ballistics. Instead of doing its own scholarly work or at least relying on the expert work of Dr. Martin Fackler, the foremost wound ballistic expert in the United States, it unfortunately relied, for political purposes, on unscientific data and even sensationalized newspaper articles, one of which claimed that watermelons fired upon and blasted with "assault weapons" are appropriate human tissue simulants to demonstrate wound ballistics! It has been pointed out, correctly, I may add, that if that were the case, an 18" drop of a watermelon would also be appropriate for the study of head injuries.(26)

As a physician and medical historian, I have always been a staunch supporter of public health in its traditional role of fighting pestilential diseases and promoting health by educating the public as to hygiene, sanitation, and preventable diseases, as alluded to in my books, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine(27); but I deeply resent the workings of those in public health with the proclivity toward the promulgation of preordained research such as the gun and violence research conducted by many investigators with a gun control agenda and disseminated in the medical journals over the past two decades. Much of this information, unfortunately, is tainted, result-oriented and based on what can only be characterized as poor science.(1-3,5-7,12,26,28)

Mass Shootings --- Differential Media Coverage

In his celebrated book, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, David Kopel makes the point that such disparate countries as Japan and Switzerland have low crime rates regardless of gun control laws, because of close ties engendered in the traditional family in which parents spend time with their children, children who are then imbued with a sense of civility as well as civic duty.(29) And yes, in my opinion, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns and be candidates for "shall issue" concealed carry permits.

Felons (and mentally unstable people) forfeit this right by virtue of the fact they are a threat (or a potential threat) to their fellow citizens. And anyway, not everyone would want to carry a firearm, for regardless of what you have been led to believe, criminologists have pointed out that criminals do make quick risk versus benefit assessments. Empirical evidence and criminologic studies consistently reveal that just the knowledge that one in 5 or 6 citizens in a public place could very well be armed can deter crimes and could very well avert massacres, as has been the case in Israel (repeatedly), Switzerland, and the U.S. In Switzerland, for example, where guns are notoriously liberalized, there was not a single report of armed robbery in Geneva in 1993!(30)

Another problem with public health and gun control is the way the subject of guns and violence is reported by the media --- with bias and sensationalism. Let us, for example, take a look at how the media reports mass shootings in America. Three illustrative cases will help us draw inferences as to the nature of these incidents and their reporting by the media.

In Pearl, Mississippi, in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham used a hunting rifle to kill his ex-girlfriend and her close friend and wound 7 other students. It was Assistant Principal Joel Myrick who retrieved his handgun from his automobile and halted Woodham's shooting spree. Myrick held the young delinquent at bay until the police arrived. Later it was discovered that Woodham had also used a knife to stab his mother to death earlier that morning. While the shooting was widely reported, the fact that Mr. Myrick, an armed citizen, prevented a larger massacre with his gun was ignored by the media.

In Edinboro, Pennsylvania, in 1998, a deadly scenario took place when 14-year-old Andrew Wurst killed one teacher and wounded another as well as two other classmates. The shooting rampage here was halted by merchant James Strand who used his shotgun to force the young criminal to halt his firing, drop his gun, and surrender to police.

But yet, in another unreported incident in Santa Clara, California, Richard Gable Stevens, rented a rifle for target practice at the National Shooting Club on July 5, 1999 and then began a shooting rampage, herding three store employees into a nearby alley, and stating he intended to kill them. When Stevens became momentarily distracted, a shooting club employee, who had a .45-caliber handgun concealed under his shirt, drew his weapon and fired. Stevens was hit in the chest and critically wounded. He was then held at bay until the police arrived. A massacre in the making was prevented. The unknown employee was an unsung hero ignored by the major media. Why are these and other similar incidents, where the tables are turned and citizens use guns to protect themselves and others, not reported by the mainstream media?

By in large, to read about acts of citizens using guns for self or family protection, one has to read Robert A. Waters' excellent book, The Best Defense,(31) for rarely do these acts get publicized in the mass media, nor do these cases get compiled, studied and published in the medical journals, as public health investigators do with their "gun and violence" research. Moreover, rarely, if ever, are constitutional or historical issues covering the Second Amendment aired in the most widely utilized medium --- television. Mass murders and street violence on the other hand, get the lion's share of coverage --- particularly, when committed with firearms. And as anyone who takes even a cursory look and flips the pages of medical journals knows, these criminal shootings are studied and reported extensively in the medical journals, such as the NEJM, JAMA, Western Journal of Medicine, and even the state medical journals.*

Let me tell you about one more atrocious incident where innocent victims were killed or injured, and yet, this episode was not given the attention others are given simply because it was not committed with firearms. In May 1999, a deranged individual wreaked deadly havoc at a Costa Mesa, California daycare center playground, killing two toddlers and injuring 5 people. Steven Abrams, the 39-year-old assailant told police, "I was going to execute these children because they were innocent." After this barbaric act, Abrams calmly and unhurt sat and waited for police. Needless to say, there was a big difference in how this incident was reported as compared to the saturation coverage of the Pearl, Mississippi; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; or the Littleton, Colorado shooting, which had occurred only a few days earlier. The difference: In this 1999 incident, the assailant used an automobile, a Cadillac to be exact, not a firearm.(32)

Firearms and Constitutional Issues

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to limit the power of leviathan government, and individual rights were enumerated in this document, so that they would provide extra protection from the monopolistic tendency of government to wrest power away from and usurp the liberties of the individual citizen. John Locke (1632-1704), admired by our Founding Fathers, once wrote, "I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty would not when he had me in his Power take away everything else." And for his part, Thomas Jefferson added, "the national progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground." The solution to this dilemma --- namely, government as a necessary evil, according to Joseph Story (1779-1845), foremost American jurist and intellectual alter ego of Chief Justice John Marshall --- was found in the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Story thus wrote (1833): "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."(33) These are strong words but better said by our forefathers in explaining the reason for the Second Amendment than to be left unsaid to a posterity that may have forgotten why the right was written into the Constitution.

In more recent times, Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research and 37 other Second Amendment supporters including legal scholars, correctly pointed out in the June 1995 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia that Supreme Court decisions have been thoroughly reviewed in the legal literature.(34) Since 1980, of 39 law review articles, 35 note the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the individual right to keep and bear arms(35) and only four claim the right is only a collective right of the states (three of these four were authored or co-authored by employees of the gun control lobby).(36)

And so in the last decade, constitutional scholars "from across the political spectrum" have concluded that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, a view that is referred to as the "Standard Model" by University of Tennessee Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds. The nation's leading legal and constitutional scholars --- including Laurence Tribe of Harvard, Akil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke University, Sanford Levinson of University of Texas Law School, Don B. Kates of the Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, attorney David Kopel of the Independence Institute, and noted Fairfax, Virginia, attorneys Jeffrey Snyder and Stephen P. Halbrook --- all subscribe to this "Standard Model" or individual right view.(35, 37)

Though the gun control debate has focused on the Second Amendment, legal scholarship also finds support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ninth Amendment "unenumerated" rights, Fourteenth Amendment "due process" and "equal protection" rights, and natural rights theory. Also, in the absence of explicit delegated powers, the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the powers are reserved to the States and the people.(34) This latter fact was spelled out in two major Supreme Court cases. In U.S. v. Lopez (1995), in striking down the Gun Free Schools Zones Act, U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the law was unconstitutional because it would otherwise convert the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to a general police power it does not possess. And in Printz et al v. U.S. (1997), the Court went a step further and, to the chagrin of the gun control lobby, struck down a major section of the federal Brady Law. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia quoted a passage from James Madison (The Federalist No. 51): "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Attorney Elizabeth Swasey, Director of NRA/ILA Crime Strike, noted this was the same passage Chief Justice Rehnquist cited in the Lopez case.(38)

It was also in 1999 that we had the momentous court ruling of the Northern District of Texas, U.S. v. Emerson, in which U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings overturned a federal gun law on Second Amendment grounds stating, "The right of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights." [Emphasis added.] (39)

Children and Guns

Recall Prof. John Lott's finding that children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.(13)

A child's death from any cause is a tragedy. In 1991, for example, a typical year, 145 children between the ages of 1 and 14 years died of accidental gunshot wounds, 310 children died from suffocation (choking), 1,075 children died from burns, 1,104 died of drowning, and 3,271 died in motor vehicle accidents.(40,41) These are all tragedies, but do we want to ban food, matches, swimming pools, and automobiles? The fact is that the firearm accident rates in the United States (including those for children) have been declining steadily since the turn of the century, particularly after 1975,(42) because of the emphasis that has been placed on gun safety education courses, including the NRA's Eddie Eagle program which has now touched providentially in excess of 9 million youngsters in the U.S.(43)

As far as teenage violence is concerned, more than 20,000 laws are already on the books, including a sizable number pertaining to the proscription of handgun possession by minors and banning guns on school grounds.(41) These laws need to be enforced. Despite all the media hype regarding guns and violence, the naked truth is that this year's latest available FBI statistics show that, like the not-so-well known drop in gun accident rates, there has also been a steady decline in homicide rates for every segment of American society. In fact, murder and violent crimes have reached 30 and 25-year low rates, respectively.(44)

And, mass shootings, despite what you have been led to believe and contrary, sensationalized reporting, notwithstanding, are not more frequent today, only more publicized. For example, Northeastern University Criminal Justice Professor James Fox reports that the highest casualty rate for mass murders in the past three decades occurred in 1977! In that year, 38 criminals killed 141 victims. Compare this to 1994, which had the lowest number of mass murders --- 31 criminals murdered 74 people.(45) Again, despite perception, violence in school is down. Of the more than 2000 unfortunate children who die in acts of violence each year, only 34 died in school-related violence during the 1997-1998 school year, according to the Department of Education's Annual Report on School Safety. The difference between perception and reality is more reporting, saturation coverage, more gun control hype and sensationalism, which may, in fact, result in more copy cat killings by deranged predators craving media attention. Sensationalized violence and the debate regarding the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, may have been, in fact, behind the school shootings of 1997-1999 which culminated with the Littleton, Colorado, Columbine High School shooting of April 20, 1999.

Israeli anti-terrorist expert and now editor of the European magazine Visier, David Th. Schiller, commenting on the U.S. school shootings, wrote: "Schools/kindergartens make for very attractive targets for the deranged gunman as well as for the profit-oriented hostage gangsters or terrorist group[I]f you crave media attention, as for instance the PLO did [in Israel] in the '70s, nothing will catch the headlines better than an attack on a school full of kids." Mr. Schiller concludes: "We in the terrorism research field have argued for decades that it was exactly the media coverage that spurred more and each time more violent and extreme terrorist incidents. Could we stop the media from advertising the terrorist message? Certainly not."(46) Given what we know now about the psychology of these shootings(23,24) and Hollywood's excesses with movie violence, perhaps, the question should be rephrased: Is it time to regulate Hollywood and the media? Obviously, the answer now requires more excogitation.

Moral Declivity

And yes, the death of any child by any cause is a tragedy. Yet, we must be honest and lay the blame where it belongs: A culture that for three decades has been mired in permissiveness --- increasingly devoid of intellectual guidance for our youth and lacking a moral compass for our children. Consider some of its characteristics:

1. Moral relativism. Schools no longer teach traditional morality, the discernment between right and wrong and moral absolutes, leading to situational ethics and a value free society. Building the self-esteem of children is placed ahead of personal morality and doing what is right.

2. Lack of discipline. Consider the fact parents and teachers in today's environment are afraid of reprimanding the young for fear of being charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Often, parents are not at home (both working, one of them to pay taxes to Uncle Sam) so children, lacking parental guidance and discipline, do as they please.

3. Lack of accountability. There is a persistent crisis of conscience in our society. There is a trend to absolve the individual of personal responsibility and a penchant for blaming inanimate objects such as guns for the level of violence in our society. This lack of personal responsibility and accountability trickles down to young impressionable minds, which then fail to take responsibility for their actions as they grow up.

4. More gun control (i.e., law-abiding citizen disarmament, whereas criminals, who by definition do not obey the laws, keep their guns) rather than crime control. Data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that states with permissive gun laws have lower homicide rates than states with restrictive gun control laws.(19) Draconian gun control surely is not the answer. As stated previously, there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books including illegal possession of firearms by minors. These laws should be applied and enforced. And when inner city teenagers or juvenile delinquents from suburbia act as criminals, they should be tried as adults.

In a study that was not given the attention it deserved, the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention tracked 4,000 juveniles aged 6-15 in Denver (CO), Pittsburgh (PA), and Rochester (NY) from 1993-1995, and contrary to what was expected by conventional wisdom, the investigators reached these unexpected conclusions:

Children who get firearms from their parents are less likely to commit acts of violence and street crimes (14 percent) than children who have no guns in their homes (24 percent), whereas children who obtain guns illegally do so at the whopping rate of 74 percent.

The study also found that "boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."(47)

This study also provides more evidence that in close nuclear families, where children learn from their parents, youngsters can be taught to use guns responsibly. These youngsters, in fact, become more responsible in their conduct and more civil in their behavior.

Children should be taught moral absolutes and universal truths so that, as they journey through life, they will exercise their free will to distinguish right from wrong and choose the former, as to fulfill their destinies in a spirit of goodness.

We can be compassionate and still be honest, but we must have the moral courage to pursue the truth and find viable solutions through the use of sound, scholarly research. We have an obligation to reach our conclusions based on objective data and scientific information rather than on ideology, emotionalism, political expediency, or budgetary consideration.

Public health should not be subverted and medical science should not be perverted. The lessons of history sagaciously reveal that whenever and wherever science and medicine have been subordinated to the state and individual will has been crushed by tyranny, the results have been as perverse as they have been disastrous, as the examples of Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union so aptly testify in the 20th Century. We must preserve the free flow and exchange of information that is essential for academic freedom and the preservation of a free society. The individual should never, ever, be subordinated to the collective.

Footnote

* Regarding the possible ethical violations of physicians preaching gun control to vulnerable patients within the patient-doctor relationship, see "Boundary Violation: Gun Politics in the Doctor's Office" in the Medical Sentinel 1999;4(2):60-61.

References

1. Faria MA Jr. The perversion of science and medicine (Part I): On the Nature of Science and (Part II): Soviet science and gun control. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):46-48 and 49-53.
2. Faria MA Jr. The perversion of science and medicine (Part III): Public Health and Gun Control Research and (Part IV): The Battle Continues. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(3):81-82 and 83-86.
3. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Guns and public health: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Tennessee Law Review 1995;62:513-596.
4. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.
5. Suter E. Guns in the medical literature --- a failure of peer review. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(3):137-148.
6. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Bad Medicine: Doctors and Guns in Guns --- Who Should Have Them? (Ed., Kopel DB), New York, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 233-308.
7. Waters WC, IV, Faria MA, Jr., Wheeler TW, Kates DB. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. March 6, 1996. Hearing Volume, Part 7:935-970.
8. Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1557-1560.
9. Kleck G. Targeting Guns - Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1997.
10. JAMA 1996 Gun-Owners Survey quoted in the Medical Sentinel 1999;3(2):40.
11. Kleck G. Point Blank --- Guns and Violence in America. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991.
12. Suter E, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America - effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):253-264.
13. Lott JR, Jr. More Guns, Less Crime --- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998.
14. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relationship to gun ownership. N Engl J Med 1992;327:467-72.
15. Sloan JH, et al. Firearm regulations and rates of suicide: A comparison of two metropolitan areas. N Engl J Med 1990:322:369.
16. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics, 1989, Geneva, Switzerland.
17. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Guns and crime. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. April 1994; NCJ-147003.
18. Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform crime reports: crime in the United States 1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office 1993.
19. Uniform Crime Reports. "Crimes in the United States, 1991." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, p. 12.
20. 20th Century U.S. Homicide and Suicide Rates per 100,000 population adopted from Grove RD, Hetzel AM. Vital Statistics Rates in the United States 1900-1960. Washington DC.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1968, and Vital Statistics of the United States. Hyattsville MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Individual volumes for 1961 through 1991.
21. Sloan JH, et al. Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicides: A tale of two cities. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1256-1262.
22. Centerwall BS. Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980. American Journal of Epidemiology 1991;134:1245-1260.
23. Centerwall BS. "Exposure to television as a risk factor for violence." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1989; 129: 643-52.
24. Centerwall BS "Young adult suicide and exposure to television." Soc. Psy. and Psychiatric Epid. 1990; 25:121.
25. Faria MA, Jr. TV violence increases homicides. NewsMax.com, August 17, 2000.
26. Suter EA. Assault weapons revisited - an analysis of the AMA report. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83:281-289.
27. Faria MA, Jr. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine: Historic Perspectives on the Battle Over Health Care Reform. Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995, pp. 239-240 and Faria, MA, Jr. Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine, 1997, pp. 122-131.
28. Bennett JT, DiLorenzo TJ. From Pathology to Politics: Public Health in America. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 2000.
29. Kopel DB. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 1992.
30. Halbrook SP. Armed to the teeth and free. Wall Street Journal, Europe edition, June 4, 1999.
31. Waters RA. The Best Defense. Nashville, Tennessee, Cumberland House, 1998.
32. Gun Owners of America newsletter, June 15, 1999.
33. Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1830) quoted in The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. Birmingham, Alabama, Palladium Press, 1996.
34. Suter, Violence in America, op. cit., pp. 257-258.
35. Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. The second amendment and the personal right to arms. Duke Law Journal. 1994; 43(6): 1236-55.; Amar AR. The bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Scarry E. War and the social contract: the right to bear arms. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams DL. Civic republicanism and the citizen militia: the terrifying second amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. The second amendment: toward an Afro-Americanist reconsideration. The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. The bill of rights as a constitution Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100 (5): 1131-1210.; Levinson S. The embarrassing second amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. The second amendment: a dialogue. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL. Essay review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.; Fussner FS. Essay review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.; Shalhope RE. The armed citizen in the early republic. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. What the framers intended: a linguistic interpretation of the second amendment. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the second amendment. Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. The right to bear arms in the first state Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. The right of the people or the power of the state: bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment. Valparaiso Law Review. 1991; 26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. Gun control and racism. George Mason Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.; Reynolds GH. The right to keep and bear arms under the Tennessee Constitution. Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. The right to possess arms: the intent of the Framers of the second amendment. U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure T. Who is the militia - the Virginia ratifying convention and the right to bear arms. Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. The second amendment, political liberty and the right to self-preservation. Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.; Morgan E. Assault rifle legislation: unwise and unconstitutional. American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.; Dowlut, R. Federal and state constitutional guarantees to arms. Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. Encroachments of the crown on the liberty of the subject: pre-revolutionary origins of the second amendment. Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.; Hardy DT. The second amendment and the historiography of the Bill of Rights. Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy DT. Armed citizens, citizen armies: toward a jurisprudence of the second amendment. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.; Dowlut R. The current relevancy of keeping and bearing arms. Univ. Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. The right of the people to keep and bear arms: The Common Law Tradition. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.; Dowlut R. The right to arms: does the Constitution or the predilection of judges reign? Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms: a recent judicial trend. Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.; Halbrook SP. To keep and bear 'their private arms' Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. Gun ownership: a constitutional right. Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. To preserve liberty - a look at the right to keep and bear arms. Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.; Kluin KF. Note. Gun control: is it a legal and effective means of controlling firearms in the United States? Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. The jurisprudence of the second and fourteenth amendments. George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. Comment: gun control legislation and the intent of the second amendment: to what extent is there an individual right to keep and bear arms? Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459.The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL. To keep and bear arms: the origins of an Anglo-American right. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.; Cottrol R. Gun control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City: Garland. 1993.; Cramer CE. For the defense of themselves and the state: the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Cottrol R and Diamond R. Public safety and the right to bear arms. in Bodenhamer D and Ely J. After 200 years; the Bill of Rights in modern America. Indiana U. Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment); Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's companion to American history. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns and Gun Control"); Kates D. "Minimalist interpretation of the second amendment" in E. Hickok, editor. The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991.; Halbrook S. The original understanding of the second amendment. in E. Hickok, editor. The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991.; Young DE. The origin of the second amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A right to bear arms: state and federal Bills of Rights and constitutional guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original intent and the Framers' constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and development of the second amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment); Halbrook S. That every man be armed: the evolution of a constitutional right. Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. Weapons, technology and legitimacy: The second amendment in global perspective. and Halbrook S. The second amendment as a phenomenon of classical political philosophy. - both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms: report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL. On misreading John Bingham and the fourteenth amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.
36. The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D. The second amendment in the 20th century: have you seen your militia lately? Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15:5-58.; Henigan DA. Arms, anarchy and the second amendment. Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.; Fields S. Guns, crime and the negligent gun owner. Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162.; and Spannaus W. State firearms regulation and the second amendment. Hamline Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408.
37. Mauro T. Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals. USA Today, August 27, 1999.
38. Swasey, Elizabeth J. Mission creep in the war on crime. American Guardian, September 1998, p. 10.
39. Willing, Richard. USA Today, August 27, 1999.
40. National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1991. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1992.
41. Kopel DB. Children and Guns in Guns Who Should Have Them, op. cit., pp. 309-406.
42. National Safety Council. Accident facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993.
43. Eddie Eagle is not Joe Camel. Medical Sentinel 1998;3(3):76 and Guns and Safety, Medical Sentinel 1998;3(1):7.
44. Gearan, Anne. Violent crime hits 25-year low. Associated Press, December 28, 1998. Sniffen, Michael J. Murder rate reaches 30-year low. Associated Press, November 23, 1998. Serious crimes drops in early 1998. Associated Press, December 14, 1998. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: FBI website, December 14, 1998.
45. Fox J. Multiple murder: Patterns of serial and mass murder. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998, quoted by Metaska T. in Vicious media feeding frenzy, World Net Daily, August 19, 1999.
46. Schiller DTh. Israel's answer to eliminating school terrorism. P.O. Box 1363D-56373, Nassau, Germany.
47. Juvenile Delinquency --- Children and Guns. Medical Sentinel 1999;4(5):160. Chapter 2, page 18 of the 1999 DOJ National Report entitled "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse, a publication of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention."

Dr. Faria is Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), http://www.haciendapub.com.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2001;6(1):14-18. Copyright ©2001 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Related Reading:

Faria, MA, Jr. Doctors to Spy on Patients' Gun Ownership. March 26, 2001, NewsMax.com.

Burns, Jim. Doctors Group Accused of Playing Politics with Patients, Gun Control. April 2, 2001, CNSNews.com.

Vernon, Wes. Medical Evidence: Gun Control Won't Solve Crime. April 7, 2001, NewsMax.com.

Milloy, Steven. Gun Control Science Misfires. April 12, 2001, FoxNews.com.
---

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review (Part I: The Benefits of Firearms)
http://haciendapublishing.com/articles/public-health-and-gun-control-review-part-i-benefits-firearms

I have related previously (Medical Sentinel, Spring and Summer 1997) how the 1991 American Medical Associations (AMA) campaign against domestic violence launched for public relation consumption went hand in hand with the public health establishments 1979 stated objective of eradication of handguns in America, beginning with a 25 percent reduction by the year 2000.(1-2) Toward that objective, in the 1980s, hundreds of articles describing politicized, biased, result-oriented research funded at taxpayers' expense were published in the medical journals.(3) One of the principle investigators was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, who now heads the Emory University School of Public Health.
"A Gun in the Home"

A significant portion of the gun control agenda, not only of the public health but the entire health advocacy establishment, in fact, comes from Dr. Kellermann's landmark articles, particularly "Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1993.(4) And yet, much of the methodology, not to mention conclusions in the article, have been questioned by numerous investigators.(5-7)

Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who dont. In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or ones family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."(8)

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."(5) Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected --- not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."(5)

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.(4) Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."(5) It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims household using guns presumably not kept in that home.(6)

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 studys conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."(6)

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."(6)

The Problem with Scientific Surveys

Professor Gary Kleck has written extensively that false denial of gun ownership is a major problem in these survey studies, and yet Kellermann and associates do not admit or mention this fact.(9) And this is critical. It would take only 35 of the 388 controls falsely denying gun ownership to make the control gun ownership percentage equal that of the homicide case households. As Kates and associates write, "If indeed, the controls actually had gun ownership equal to that of the homicide case households (45.4 percent), then a false denial rate of only 20.1 percent among the gun owning controls would produce the thirty-five false denials and thereby equalize ownership."(6)

Consider the fact that Kellermann and associates pilot study had a higher percent false denial rate than the 20.1 percent required to invalidate their own study, and yet, he and his associates concluded that there was no "underreporting of gun ownership by their control respondents," and their estimates, they claim were, therefore, considered not biased.(4)

In the Medical Sentinel, we have considered this type of bias** in response to a JAMA 1996 gun ownership survey. We reported on question #20 of that survey: "If asked by a pollster whether I owned firearms, I would be truthful? 29.6 percent disagreed/strongly disagreed."(10) So according to this survey, 29.6 percent would falsely deny owning a firearm. We know that nearly one-third of respondents intentionally conceal their gun ownership because they fear further confiscation by the police as has happened in cities such as Washington, D.C., Detroit, and New York.

One must conclude on the basis of these errors that the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study are invalidated, just as those of 1986 are tainted. Nevertheless, these errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, the electronic media, and particularly, the public health literature and the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again and perpetuated. And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from "reliable" sources and objective medical researchers, its given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists and law enforcement These errors need to be corrected to regain the loss of credibility of public health in this area of gun and violence research.

Are There Benefits of Firearms?

What we do know, thanks to the meticulous scholarship of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), is that the benefits of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens have been greatly underestimated. In Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991),(11) myriads of scientific publications, and his latest book, Targeting Guns (1997),(9) Prof. Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.(5)***

Incidentally, the health care costs incurred by gun shootings have been greatly exaggerated. DIPR, in an article published in the June 1995 issue of the JMAG, estimated that the actual U.S. health care costs of treating gunshot wounds is approximately $1.5 billion which amounts to 0.2 percent of annual health care expenditures. The $20-$40 billion figure, so frequently cited by the mass media, and even medical journals, is an exaggerated estimate of lifetime productivity lost where criminals are given inflated, unrealistic life productivity estimates, as if their careers were suddenly expected to blossom into that of pillars of the community(12) with projected salaries equaling those of managed care CEOs. Yet, despite these major detractions, the health advocacy establishment clings to the erroneous figures and extrapolations of Dr. Kellermann and other public health researchers, and use these erroneous figures in propounding health and gun control policies, to the detriment of public policy.

To catch up with the lost ground on the gun and violence research that has been accumulating in the criminologic and sociologic body of literature in the last couple of years, we have to look not only to the data collected by Prof. Gary Kleck and Dr. Edgar Suter, but also other prominent investigators. Recent data by Prof. John R. Lott, Jr., formerly with the University of Chicago and now at Yale University, in his book More Guns, Less Crime - Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998)(13) has also been suppressed from dissemination in the medical journals and public health literature, except for the Medical Sentinel.(1-2) In his book, Prof. Lott studied the FBIs massive yearly crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use, and he comes to some startling conclusions:

While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Springfield, Oregon, in 1998; the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999; or the 1993 shooting on the Long Island subway) --- by a whopping 69 percent.

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime --- without any apparent increase in accidental death. If states without right to carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided annually.

Children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.

Prof. Lott found that when concealed carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.

For each additional year concealed carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by over 2 percent, and rape by 1 percent.(13)

Suicide and "Crimes of Passion"

Let me now say a word about suicide and gun availability. Both Drs. Arthur Kellermann and John H. Sloan have written about suicides and have attempted to link these fatalities to the availability of guns in articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine.(14-15) In reality, the overwhelming available evidence compiled from the psychiatric literature is that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind the high rates of suicide. The evidence is authoritative on this point as classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association and any standard psychiatric text. From the social science of criminology, in fact, we solve the seeming paradox that countries such as Japan, Hungary, and in Scandinavia which boast draconian gun control laws and low rates of firearm availability have much higher rates of suicide (2 or 3 times higher) than the U.S. In these countries where guns are not readily available, citizens simply substitute for guns other cultural or universally available methods for killing oneself, such as Hara-kiri in Japan, drowning in the Blue Danube as in Hungary, suffocation (with poisonous gases such as carbon monoxide from automobile exhausts), or simply hanging like in Denmark and Germany, or even drinking agricultural pesticides as is commonly done in Sri Lanka. And in these countries, citizens commit suicide quite effectively by these methods at higher rates than in the U.S.11,16 I believe the health advocacy establishment must consider the fact that guns and bullets are inanimate objects that do not follow Kochs Postulates of Pathogenicity (which prove definitely and scientifically a micro-organism is responsible for a particular disease), and recognize the fact that behind every shooting there is a person pulling the trigger Ð and who should be held accountable. The problem is more complex than just easy availability of firearms and guns and bullets as animated, virulent pathogens, needing to be stamped out by limiting gun availability, and ultimately, eradicating guns from law-abiding citizens.

And, within the context of gun availability, much has been said about the "crimes of passion" that supposedly take place impulsively, in the heat of the night or the furor of a domestic squabble. Criminologists have pointed out that homicides in this setting are the culmination of a long simmering cycle of violence. In one study of the police records in Detroit and Kansas City it was revealed, for example, that in "90 percent of domestic homicides, the police had responded at least once before during the prior two years to a disturbance," and in over 50 percent of the cases, the police had been called five or more times to that dysfunctional domicile. Surely, these are not crimes of passion consummated impulsively in the heat of the night by ordinary citizens, but the result of violence in highly dysfunctional families in the setting of repeated alcohol or illicit drug use; it is also the setting of abusive husbands who after a long history of spousal abuse finally commit murder, and increasingly, wives defending themselves against those abusive husbands, representing acts of genuine self-defense.(6)

All references cited in this text are found at the conclusion of Part II of this essay.

Footnotes:

* Personal communication via e-mail, 09/21/99.

** Because of the reluctance of some investigators even those funded by taxpayers to share scientific data with other researchers, the Medical Sentinel, the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), established the open data policy for public review of research impacting on the formulation of public policy.

*** This has been substantiated by a Department of Justice study in 1997 under the Clinton administration which found that up to 1.5 million citizens use firearms to protect themselves and their property yearly.

Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., is editor in chief of Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997). He is currently working on a book on Cuba.

The Second Amendment Rulings and the UN ATT 2012
Submitted by Dr. Miguel A. Faria on August 5, 2012 - 9:40am.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment

On June 26, 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, which had forbid American citizens from owning and possessing firearms in the District of Columbia. The Court ruled that US citizens have a personal right to keep and bear arms in the federal districts of the nation, a pre-existing natural right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Likewise, on June 28, 2010 in the McDonald v. Chicago case, the Supreme Court of the United States in another 5-4 decision struck down Chicago's handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of all citizens in all states of the Union to possess firearms in their homes for self-defense. In the McDonald case, the Court incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right of citizenship applicable to all the states and municipalities of the nation via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Under longstanding Supreme Court case law, a constitutional right is protected under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, if it is a "fundamental" right, an inherent natural right, and "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."

Nevertheless, many politicians bent on prohibiting gun ownership have tried to apply the treaty power of the U.S. constitution to use the United Nations as a way to circumvent the same document and disarm Americans.

Although the UN Small Arms Treaty has failed to materialize because of the inability of negotiators to reach a consensus this time around, according to GOA, "it would be a mistake to believe that it spells the end of the effort to regulate small arms worldwide."

Indeed, the UN has been for years trying to circumvent the Second Amendment with the intention of formalizing a global U.N. civilian disarmament treaty and restricting the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners. (Excerpts from an upcoming article.) MAF
---

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues)
http://haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/public-health-and-gun-control-review-part-ii-gun-violence-and-constitutional-issues

Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6) That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18) Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19) Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)

As to how one can protect oneself from assailants when the police, as more often than not, are not around, National Victims Data suggests that "while victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit, victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who put up no defense."(11) Of particular interest to women and self-defense, "among those victims using handguns in self-defense, 66 percent of them were successful in warding off the attack and keeping their property. Among those victims using non-gun weapons, only 40 percent were successful.(11) The gun is the great equalizer for women when they are accosted in the street or when they, particularly single mothers, are defending themselves and their children at home.

Malevolent Scholarship

But let us return to public health and gun research. Why this faulty research and concealment of this valuable, potentially life-saving information by the medical establishment? In a comprehensive and widely discussed Tennessee Law Review article, constitutional scholar and criminologist Don B. Kates and associates declare: "Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective [of public health] has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms and eventual elimination of all firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries."(3)

In the chapter "Bad Medicine --- Doctors and Guns," Kates and associates describe a particularly egregious example of editorial bias and censorship by The New England Journal of Medicine.(6) In 1989, two studies were independently submitted for publication to NEJM. Both authors were affiliated with the University of Washington School of Public Health. One study by Dr. John H. Sloan was a selective two-city comparison of homicide rates in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle, Washington.(21) The other paper was a comprehensive comparison study between the U.S. and Canada by Dr. Brandon Centerwall. Predictably, the editors of the NEJM chose to publish Sloan et al's article with inferior but orthodox data claiming erroneously that severe gun control policies had reduced Canadian homicides and rejected Centerwall's superior study showing that such policies had not affected the rate of homicides in Canada. In fact, the homicide rates were lower in Vancouver before the restrictive gun control laws had been passed in Canada and in fact, rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian law. Sloan and associates glossed over the disparet ethnic compositions of Seattle and Vancouver. When the rates of homicides for whites are compared in both of the cities it turns out that the rate of homicide in Seattle is actually lower than in Vancouver while blacks and hispanics have higher rates of homicides in Seattle was not mentioned by these investigators.

Dr. Centerwall's paper on the comparitive rates of homicides in the U.S. and Canada was finally published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, but his valuable research was not really made widely available to the public.(22) In contradistinction to his valuable gun research data, Centerwall's other research pointing to the effects of TV violence affecting homicide rates have been made widely available, but his data exculpating gun availability and homicide rates has not.(23-25)

Another example of faulty research was displayed by the AMA's Council of Scientific Affairs when it endorsed, on the basis of "scientific research," the ban on assault weapons. Obviously, the Council had a public relations axe to grind rather than expert knowledge of the sciences of criminology and ballistics. Instead of doing its own scholarly work or at least relying on the expert work of Dr. Martin Fackler, the foremost wound ballistic expert in the United States, it unfortunately relied, for political purposes, on unscientific data and even sensationalized newspaper articles, one of which claimed that watermelons fired upon and blasted with "assault weapons" are appropriate human tissue simulants to demonstrate wound ballistics! It has been pointed out, correctly, I may add, that if that were the case, an 18" drop of a watermelon would also be appropriate for the study of head injuries.(26)

As a physician and medical historian, I have always been a staunch supporter of public health in its traditional role of fighting pestilential diseases and promoting health by educating the public as to hygiene, sanitation, and preventable diseases, as alluded to in my books, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine(27); but I deeply resent the workings of those in public health with the proclivity toward the promulgation of preordained research such as the gun and violence research conducted by many investigators with a gun control agenda and disseminated in the medical journals over the past two decades. Much of this information, unfortunately, is tainted, result-oriented and based on what can only be characterized as poor science.(1-3,5-7,12,26,28)

Mass Shootings --- Differential Media Coverage

In his celebrated book, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, David Kopel makes the point that such disparate countries as Japan and Switzerland have low crime rates regardless of gun control laws, because of close ties engendered in the traditional family in which parents spend time with their children, children who are then imbued with a sense of civility as well as civic duty.(29) And yes, in my opinion, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns and be candidates for "shall issue" concealed carry permits.

Felons (and mentally unstable people) forfeit this right by virtue of the fact they are a threat (or a potential threat) to their fellow citizens. And anyway, not everyone would want to carry a firearm, for regardless of what you have been led to believe, criminologists have pointed out that criminals do make quick risk versus benefit assessments. Empirical evidence and criminologic studies consistently reveal that just the knowledge that one in 5 or 6 citizens in a public place could very well be armed can deter crimes and could very well avert massacres, as has been the case in Israel (repeatedly), Switzerland, and the U.S. In Switzerland, for example, where guns are notoriously liberalized, there was not a single report of armed robbery in Geneva in 1993!(30)

Another problem with public health and gun control is the way the subject of guns and violence is reported by the media --- with bias and sensationalism. Let us, for example, take a look at how the media reports mass shootings in America. Three illustrative cases will help us draw inferences as to the nature of these incidents and their reporting by the media.

In Pearl, Mississippi, in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham used a hunting rifle to kill his ex-girlfriend and her close friend and wound 7 other students. It was Assistant Principal Joel Myrick who retrieved his handgun from his automobile and halted Woodham's shooting spree. Myrick held the young delinquent at bay until the police arrived. Later it was discovered that Woodham had also used a knife to stab his mother to death earlier that morning. While the shooting was widely reported, the fact that Mr. Myrick, an armed citizen, prevented a larger massacre with his gun was ignored by the media.

In Edinboro, Pennsylvania, in 1998, a deadly scenario took place when 14-year-old Andrew Wurst killed one teacher and wounded another as well as two other classmates. The shooting rampage here was halted by merchant James Strand who used his shotgun to force the young criminal to halt his firing, drop his gun, and surrender to police.

But yet, in another unreported incident in Santa Clara, California, Richard Gable Stevens, rented a rifle for target practice at the National Shooting Club on July 5, 1999 and then began a shooting rampage, herding three store employees into a nearby alley, and stating he intended to kill them. When Stevens became momentarily distracted, a shooting club employee, who had a .45-caliber handgun concealed under his shirt, drew his weapon and fired. Stevens was hit in the chest and critically wounded. He was then held at bay until the police arrived. A massacre in the making was prevented. The unknown employee was an unsung hero ignored by the major media. Why are these and other similar incidents, where the tables are turned and citizens use guns to protect themselves and others, not reported by the mainstream media?

By in large, to read about acts of citizens using guns for self or family protection, one has to read Robert A. Waters' excellent book, The Best Defense,(31) for rarely do these acts get publicized in the mass media, nor do these cases get compiled, studied and published in the medical journals, as public health investigators do with their "gun and violence" research. Moreover, rarely, if ever, are constitutional or historical issues covering the Second Amendment aired in the most widely utilized medium --- television. Mass murders and street violence on the other hand, get the lion's share of coverage --- particularly, when committed with firearms. And as anyone who takes even a cursory look and flips the pages of medical journals knows, these criminal shootings are studied and reported extensively in the medical journals, such as the NEJM, JAMA, Western Journal of Medicine, and even the state medical journals.*

Let me tell you about one more atrocious incident where innocent victims were killed or injured, and yet, this episode was not given the attention others are given simply because it was not committed with firearms. In May 1999, a deranged individual wreaked deadly havoc at a Costa Mesa, California daycare center playground, killing two toddlers and injuring 5 people. Steven Abrams, the 39-year-old assailant told police, "I was going to execute these children because they were innocent." After this barbaric act, Abrams calmly and unhurt sat and waited for police. Needless to say, there was a big difference in how this incident was reported as compared to the saturation coverage of the Pearl, Mississippi; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; or the Littleton, Colorado shooting, which had occurred only a few days earlier. The difference: In this 1999 incident, the assailant used an automobile, a Cadillac to be exact, not a firearm.(32)

Firearms and Constitutional Issues

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to limit the power of leviathan government, and individual rights were enumerated in this document, so that they would provide extra protection from the monopolistic tendency of government to wrest power away from and usurp the liberties of the individual citizen. John Locke (1632-1704), admired by our Founding Fathers, once wrote, "I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty would not when he had me in his Power take away everything else." And for his part, Thomas Jefferson added, "the national progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground." The solution to this dilemma --- namely, government as a necessary evil, according to Joseph Story (1779-1845), foremost American jurist and intellectual alter ego of Chief Justice John Marshall --- was found in the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Story thus wrote (1833): "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."(33) These are strong words but better said by our forefathers in explaining the reason for the Second Amendment than to be left unsaid to a posterity that may have forgotten why the right was written into the Constitution.

In more recent times, Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research and 37 other Second Amendment supporters including legal scholars, correctly pointed out in the June 1995 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia that Supreme Court decisions have been thoroughly reviewed in the legal literature.(34) Since 1980, of 39 law review articles, 35 note the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the individual right to keep and bear arms(35) and only four claim the right is only a collective right of the states (three of these four were authored or co-authored by employees of the gun control lobby).(36)

And so in the last decade, constitutional scholars "from across the political spectrum" have concluded that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, a view that is referred to as the "Standard Model" by University of Tennessee Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds. The nation's leading legal and constitutional scholars --- including Laurence Tribe of Harvard, Akil Reed Amar of Yale, William Van Alstyne of Duke University, Sanford Levinson of University of Texas Law School, Don B. Kates of the Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, attorney David Kopel of the Independence Institute, and noted Fairfax, Virginia, attorneys Jeffrey Snyder and Stephen P. Halbrook --- all subscribe to this "Standard Model" or individual right view.(35, 37)

Though the gun control debate has focused on the Second Amendment, legal scholarship also finds support for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Ninth Amendment "unenumerated" rights, Fourteenth Amendment "due process" and "equal protection" rights, and natural rights theory. Also, in the absence of explicit delegated powers, the Tenth Amendment guarantees that the powers are reserved to the States and the people.(34) This latter fact was spelled out in two major Supreme Court cases. In U.S. v. Lopez (1995), in striking down the Gun Free Schools Zones Act, U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the law was unconstitutional because it would otherwise convert the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to a general police power it does not possess. And in Printz et al v. U.S. (1997), the Court went a step further and, to the chagrin of the gun control lobby, struck down a major section of the federal Brady Law. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia quoted a passage from James Madison (The Federalist No. 51): "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Attorney Elizabeth Swasey, Director of NRA/ILA Crime Strike, noted this was the same passage Chief Justice Rehnquist cited in the Lopez case.(38)

It was also in 1999 that we had the momentous court ruling of the Northern District of Texas, U.S. v. Emerson, in which U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings overturned a federal gun law on Second Amendment grounds stating, "The right of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights." [Emphasis added.] (39)

Children and Guns

Recall Prof. John Lott's finding that children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.(13)

A child's death from any cause is a tragedy. In 1991, for example, a typical year, 145 children between the ages of 1 and 14 years died of accidental gunshot wounds, 310 children died from suffocation (choking), 1,075 children died from burns, 1,104 died of drowning, and 3,271 died in motor vehicle accidents.(40,41) These are all tragedies, but do we want to ban food, matches, swimming pools, and automobiles? The fact is that the firearm accident rates in the United States (including those for children) have been declining steadily since the turn of the century, particularly after 1975,(42) because of the emphasis that has been placed on gun safety education courses, including the NRA's Eddie Eagle program which has now touched providentially in excess of 9 million youngsters in the U.S.(43)

As far as teenage violence is concerned, more than 20,000 laws are already on the books, including a sizable number pertaining to the proscription of handgun possession by minors and banning guns on school grounds.(41) These laws need to be enforced. Despite all the media hype regarding guns and violence, the naked truth is that this year's latest available FBI statistics show that, like the not-so-well known drop in gun accident rates, there has also been a steady decline in homicide rates for every segment of American society. In fact, murder and violent crimes have reached 30 and 25-year low rates, respectively.(44)

And, mass shootings, despite what you have been led to believe and contrary, sensationalized reporting, notwithstanding, are not more frequent today, only more publicized. For example, Northeastern University Criminal Justice Professor James Fox reports that the highest casualty rate for mass murders in the past three decades occurred in 1977! In that year, 38 criminals killed 141 victims. Compare this to 1994, which had the lowest number of mass murders --- 31 criminals murdered 74 people.(45) Again, despite perception, violence in school is down. Of the more than 2000 unfortunate children who die in acts of violence each year, only 34 died in school-related violence during the 1997-1998 school year, according to the Department of Education's Annual Report on School Safety. The difference between perception and reality is more reporting, saturation coverage, more gun control hype and sensationalism, which may, in fact, result in more copy cat killings by deranged predators craving media attention. Sensationalized violence and the debate regarding the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, may have been, in fact, behind the school shootings of 1997-1999 which culminated with the Littleton, Colorado, Columbine High School shooting of April 20, 1999.

Israeli anti-terrorist expert and now editor of the European magazine Visier, David Th. Schiller, commenting on the U.S. school shootings, wrote: "Schools/kindergartens make for very attractive targets for the deranged gunman as well as for the profit-oriented hostage gangsters or terrorist group[I]f you crave media attention, as for instance the PLO did [in Israel] in the '70s, nothing will catch the headlines better than an attack on a school full of kids." Mr. Schiller concludes: "We in the terrorism research field have argued for decades that it was exactly the media coverage that spurred more and each time more violent and extreme terrorist incidents. Could we stop the media from advertising the terrorist message? Certainly not."(46) Given what we know now about the psychology of these shootings(23,24) and Hollywood's excesses with movie violence, perhaps, the question should be rephrased: Is it time to regulate Hollywood and the media? Obviously, the answer now requires more excogitation.

Moral Declivity

And yes, the death of any child by any cause is a tragedy. Yet, we must be honest and lay the blame where it belongs: A culture that for three decades has been mired in permissiveness --- increasingly devoid of intellectual guidance for our youth and lacking a moral compass for our children. Consider some of its characteristics:

1. Moral relativism. Schools no longer teach traditional morality, the discernment between right and wrong and moral absolutes, leading to situational ethics and a value free society. Building the self-esteem of children is placed ahead of personal morality and doing what is right.

2. Lack of discipline. Consider the fact parents and teachers in today's environment are afraid of reprimanding the young for fear of being charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Often, parents are not at home (both working, one of them to pay taxes to Uncle Sam) so children, lacking parental guidance and discipline, do as they please.

3. Lack of accountability. There is a persistent crisis of conscience in our society. There is a trend to absolve the individual of personal responsibility and a penchant for blaming inanimate objects such as guns for the level of violence in our society. This lack of personal responsibility and accountability trickles down to young impressionable minds, which then fail to take responsibility for their actions as they grow up.

4. More gun control (i.e., law-abiding citizen disarmament, whereas criminals, who by definition do not obey the laws, keep their guns) rather than crime control. Data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that states with permissive gun laws have lower homicide rates than states with restrictive gun control laws.(19) Draconian gun control surely is not the answer. As stated previously, there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books including illegal possession of firearms by minors. These laws should be applied and enforced. And when inner city teenagers or juvenile delinquents from suburbia act as criminals, they should be tried as adults.

In a study that was not given the attention it deserved, the U.S. Dept. of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention tracked 4,000 juveniles aged 6-15 in Denver (CO), Pittsburgh (PA), and Rochester (NY) from 1993-1995, and contrary to what was expected by conventional wisdom, the investigators reached these unexpected conclusions:

Children who get firearms from their parents are less likely to commit acts of violence and street crimes (14 percent) than children who have no guns in their homes (24 percent), whereas children who obtain guns illegally do so at the whopping rate of 74 percent.

The study also found that "boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."(47)

This study also provides more evidence that in close nuclear families, where children learn from their parents, youngsters can be taught to use guns responsibly. These youngsters, in fact, become more responsible in their conduct and more civil in their behavior.

Children should be taught moral absolutes and universal truths so that, as they journey through life, they will exercise their free will to distinguish right from wrong and choose the former, as to fulfill their destinies in a spirit of goodness.

We can be compassionate and still be honest, but we must have the moral courage to pursue the truth and find viable solutions through the use of sound, scholarly research. We have an obligation to reach our conclusions based on objective data and scientific information rather than on ideology, emotionalism, political expediency, or budgetary consideration.

Public health should not be subverted and medical science should not be perverted. The lessons of history sagaciously reveal that whenever and wherever science and medicine have been subordinated to the state and individual will has been crushed by tyranny, the results have been as perverse as they have been disastrous, as the examples of Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union so aptly testify in the 20th Century. We must preserve the free flow and exchange of information that is essential for academic freedom and the preservation of a free society. The individual should never, ever, be subordinated to the collective.

Footnote

* Regarding the possible ethical violations of physicians preaching gun control to vulnerable patients within the patient-doctor relationship, see "Boundary Violation: Gun Politics in the Doctor's Office" in the Medical Sentinel 1999;4(2):60-61.

References

1. Faria MA Jr. The perversion of science and medicine (Part I): On the Nature of Science and (Part II): Soviet science and gun control. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):46-48 and 49-53.
2. Faria MA Jr. The perversion of science and medicine (Part III): Public Health and Gun Control Research and (Part IV): The Battle Continues. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(3):81-82 and 83-86.
3. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Guns and public health: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Tennessee Law Review 1995;62:513-596.
4. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.
5. Suter E. Guns in the medical literature --- a failure of peer review. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(3):137-148.
6. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Bad Medicine: Doctors and Guns in Guns --- Who Should Have Them? (Ed., Kopel DB), New York, NY, Prometheus Books, 1995, pp. 233-308.
7. Waters WC, IV, Faria MA, Jr., Wheeler TW, Kates DB. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. March 6, 1996. Hearing Volume, Part 7:935-970.
8. Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1557-1560.
9. Kleck G. Targeting Guns - Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1997.
10. JAMA 1996 Gun-Owners Survey quoted in the Medical Sentinel 1999;3(2):40.
11. Kleck G. Point Blank --- Guns and Violence in America. New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991.
12. Suter E, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America - effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):253-264.
13. Lott JR, Jr. More Guns, Less Crime --- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998.
14. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relationship to gun ownership. N Engl J Med 1992;327:467-72.
15. Sloan JH, et al. Firearm regulations and rates of suicide: A comparison of two metropolitan areas. N Engl J Med 1990:322:369.
16. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics, 1989, Geneva, Switzerland.
17. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Guns and crime. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. April 1994; NCJ-147003.
18. Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform crime reports: crime in the United States 1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office 1993.
19. Uniform Crime Reports. "Crimes in the United States, 1991." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, p. 12.
20. 20th Century U.S. Homicide and Suicide Rates per 100,000 population adopted from Grove RD, Hetzel AM. Vital Statistics Rates in the United States 1900-1960. Washington DC.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1968, and Vital Statistics of the United States. Hyattsville MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Individual volumes for 1961 through 1991.
21. Sloan JH, et al. Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicides: A tale of two cities. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1256-1262.
22. Centerwall BS. Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980. American Journal of Epidemiology 1991;134:1245-1260.
23. Centerwall BS. "Exposure to television as a risk factor for violence." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1989; 129: 643-52.
24. Centerwall BS "Young adult suicide and exposure to television." Soc. Psy. and Psychiatric Epid. 1990; 25:121.
25. Faria MA, Jr. TV violence increases homicides. NewsMax.com, August 17, 2000.
26. Suter EA. Assault weapons revisited - an analysis of the AMA report. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83:281-289.
27. Faria MA, Jr. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine: Historic Perspectives on the Battle Over Health Care Reform. Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995, pp. 239-240 and Faria, MA, Jr. Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine, 1997, pp. 122-131.
28. Bennett JT, DiLorenzo TJ. From Pathology to Politics: Public Health in America. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 2000.
29. Kopel DB. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 1992.
30. Halbrook SP. Armed to the teeth and free. Wall Street Journal, Europe edition, June 4, 1999.
31. Waters RA. The Best Defense. Nashville, Tennessee, Cumberland House, 1998.
32. Gun Owners of America newsletter, June 15, 1999.
33. Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1830) quoted in The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. Birmingham, Alabama, Palladium Press, 1996.
34. Suter, Violence in America, op. cit., pp. 257-258.
35. Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. The second amendment and the personal right to arms. Duke Law Journal. 1994; 43(6): 1236-55.; Amar AR. The bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Scarry E. War and the social contract: the right to bear arms. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams DL. Civic republicanism and the citizen militia: the terrifying second amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. The second amendment: toward an Afro-Americanist reconsideration. The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. The bill of rights as a constitution Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100 (5): 1131-1210.; Levinson S. The embarrassing second amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. The second amendment: a dialogue. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL. Essay review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.; Fussner FS. Essay review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.; Shalhope RE. The armed citizen in the early republic. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. What the framers intended: a linguistic interpretation of the second amendment. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. Handgun prohibition and the original meaning of the second amendment. Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. The right to bear arms in the first state Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. The right of the people or the power of the state: bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment. Valparaiso Law Review. 1991; 26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. Gun control and racism. George Mason Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.; Reynolds GH. The right to keep and bear arms under the Tennessee Constitution. Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. The right to possess arms: the intent of the Framers of the second amendment. U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure T. Who is the militia - the Virginia ratifying convention and the right to bear arms. Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. The second amendment, political liberty and the right to self-preservation. Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.; Morgan E. Assault rifle legislation: unwise and unconstitutional. American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.; Dowlut, R. Federal and state constitutional guarantees to arms. Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. Encroachments of the crown on the liberty of the subject: pre-revolutionary origins of the second amendment. Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.; Hardy DT. The second amendment and the historiography of the Bill of Rights. Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy DT. Armed citizens, citizen armies: toward a jurisprudence of the second amendment. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.; Dowlut R. The current relevancy of keeping and bearing arms. Univ. Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. The right of the people to keep and bear arms: The Common Law Tradition. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.; Dowlut R. The right to arms: does the Constitution or the predilection of judges reign? Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms: a recent judicial trend. Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.; Halbrook SP. To keep and bear 'their private arms' Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. Gun ownership: a constitutional right. Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. To preserve liberty - a look at the right to keep and bear arms. Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.; Kluin KF. Note. Gun control: is it a legal and effective means of controlling firearms in the United States? Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. The jurisprudence of the second and fourteenth amendments. George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. Comment: gun control legislation and the intent of the second amendment: to what extent is there an individual right to keep and bear arms? Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459.The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL. To keep and bear arms: the origins of an Anglo-American right. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.; Cottrol R. Gun control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City: Garland. 1993.; Cramer CE. For the defense of themselves and the state: the original intent and judicial interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Cottrol R and Diamond R. Public safety and the right to bear arms. in Bodenhamer D and Ely J. After 200 years; the Bill of Rights in modern America. Indiana U. Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment); Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's companion to American history. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns and Gun Control"); Kates D. "Minimalist interpretation of the second amendment" in E. Hickok, editor. The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991.; Halbrook S. The original understanding of the second amendment. in E. Hickok, editor. The Bill of Rights: original meaning and current understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991.; Young DE. The origin of the second amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A right to bear arms: state and federal Bills of Rights and constitutional guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original intent and the Framers' constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and development of the second amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment); Halbrook S. That every man be armed: the evolution of a constitutional right. Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. Weapons, technology and legitimacy: The second amendment in global perspective. and Halbrook S. The second amendment as a phenomenon of classical political philosophy. - both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms: report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL. On misreading John Bingham and the fourteenth amendment. Yale Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.
36. The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D. The second amendment in the 20th century: have you seen your militia lately? Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15:5-58.; Henigan DA. Arms, anarchy and the second amendment. Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.; Fields S. Guns, crime and the negligent gun owner. Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162.; and Spannaus W. State firearms regulation and the second amendment. Hamline Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408.
37. Mauro T. Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals. USA Today, August 27, 1999.
38. Swasey, Elizabeth J. Mission creep in the war on crime. American Guardian, September 1998, p. 10.
39. Willing, Richard. USA Today, August 27, 1999.
40. National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1991. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1992.
41. Kopel DB. Children and Guns in Guns Who Should Have Them, op. cit., pp. 309-406.
42. National Safety Council. Accident facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993.
43. Eddie Eagle is not Joe Camel. Medical Sentinel 1998;3(3):76 and Guns and Safety, Medical Sentinel 1998;3(1):7.
44. Gearan, Anne. Violent crime hits 25-year low. Associated Press, December 28, 1998. Sniffen, Michael J. Murder rate reaches 30-year low. Associated Press, November 23, 1998. Serious crimes drops in early 1998. Associated Press, December 14, 1998. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: FBI website, December 14, 1998.
45. Fox J. Multiple murder: Patterns of serial and mass murder. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998, quoted by Metaska T. in Vicious media feeding frenzy, World Net Daily, August 19, 1999.
46. Schiller DTh. Israel's answer to eliminating school terrorism. P.O. Box 1363D-56373, Nassau, Germany.
47. Juvenile Delinquency --- Children and Guns. Medical Sentinel 1999;4(5):160. Chapter 2, page 18 of the 1999 DOJ National Report entitled "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse, a publication of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention."

Dr. Faria is Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), http://www.haciendapub.com.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2001;6(1):14-18. Copyright ©2001 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Related Reading:

Faria, MA, Jr. Doctors to Spy on Patients' Gun Ownership. March 26, 2001, NewsMax.com.

Burns, Jim. Doctors Group Accused of Playing Politics with Patients, Gun Control. April 2, 2001, CNSNews.com.

Vernon, Wes. Medical Evidence: Gun Control Won't Solve Crime. April 7, 2001, NewsMax.com.

Milloy, Steven. Gun Control Science Misfires. April 12, 2001, FoxNews.com.
---

The Perversion of Science and Medicine: Gun Control and Public Health
http://haciendapublishing.com/articles/perversion-science-and-medicine-gun-control-and-public-health
http://www.haciendapublishing.com/articles/perversion-science-and-medicine-gun-control-and-public-health

Thank you for your kind introduction. It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to address this distinguished audience of physician colleagues and fellow scientists in Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP). I want to talk about the issue of scientific integrity in public health and firearm research. This is a topic like many others in which you have only heard one side of the story.

The AMA/CDC/NCIPC Propaganda Axis

In 1991, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a major campaign against domestic violence, which continues to this day. As a concerned physician, neurosurgeon, and then an active member of organized medicine, I joined in what I considered a worthwhile cause, and it was then, while researching the seemingly interrelated topics of domestic violence and street crime, and attempting to find workable solutions (as supported by the available scientific literature), that I came to the inescapable conclusion and appalling reality that honesty and that the integrity of science and medicine had been violated, and the public interest was not being served by the entrenched medical/public health establishment. When it came to the portrayal of firearms and violence, and the gun control "research" promulgated by public health officials - to my consternation and great disappointment - it was obvious that the medical literature was biased, riddled with serious errors in facts, logic and methodology, and thus utterly unreliable. Moreover, it had failed to objectively address both sides of this momentous issue, on which very important public policy was being debated and formulated. And this was taking place despite the purported safeguards of peer-review in the medical journals and the alleged claims to objectivity by their editors and claims of impartiality by government-funded gun researchers in public health, particularly at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What I actually found, over the subsequent 5 years, particularly as editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, which I recount in my latest book, Medical Warrior (1997) [Slide 1], was, frankly, that when it came to the issue of violence, medical journals had skirted sound scholarship and taken the easy way out of the mêlée, presenting only one side of the story, and suppressing the other. Those with dissenting views or with research concluding with a contrarian or dissenting view to those of the medical and public health establishment were censored. With the issue of firearms and violence, the establishment was bent on presenting the view of guns as a social ill and promoting draconian gun control at any price. This can be seen in the sensationalized graphics of the covers of various medical journals [Slides 2, 3, 4, 5]. Incidentally, Jean Paul Marat who was assassinated during the French Revolution was stabbed to death in his bathtub - not shot. I suppose the bloody artistic depiction used here, as cover for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is journalistic license at work.

And the most prestigious medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which claims openness to contrary views, is not immune to bias in the area of guns and violence. In fact, it is one of the most anti-gun, health advocacy publications in medical journalism [Slide 6]. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) routinely practices hermetically tight censorship, excluding articles dissenting with its well-known, strident and inflexible position of gun control advocacy.

In "Bad Medicine - Doctors and Guns," for example, Kates and associates describe a particularly egregious example of censorship and editorial policy bias by The New England Journal of Medicine: In 1989, two studies were independently submitted for publication to NEJM. Both authors were affiliated with the University of Washington School of Public Health. One study by Dr. John H. Sloan was a selective two-city comparison of homicide rates between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle, Washington. The other paper was a comprehensive comparison study between the U.S. and Canada by Dr. Brandon Centerwall. Predictably, the editors of the NEJM chose to publish Sloan et al's article with inferior but favorable data claiming erroneously that severe gun control policies had reduced Canadian homicides and rejected Centerwall's superior study showing that such policies had not affected the rate of homicides in Canada. The homicide rates were lower in Vancouver before the restrictive gun control laws had been passed in Canada and, in fact, rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the implementation of the 1977 Canadian law. [Slide 7] Moreover, Sloan and associates glossed over the disparate ethnic compositions of Seattle and Vancouver. When the rates of homicides for whites are compared, in both of these cities, it turns out that the rate of homicide in Seattle is actually lower than in Vancouver [Slide 8]. The important fact, that blacks and Hispanics, who constitute higher proportions of the population in Seattle, have higher rates of homicides in that city was not mentioned by these investigators.

Dr. Centerwall's paper on the comparative rates of homicides in the U.S. and Canada was finally published in the Journal of Epidemiology, but his valuable research, unlike that of Sloan and his group, was not made widely available to the public.

In contradistinction to his valuable gun research data, Centerwall's other research pointing to the effects of TV violence on homicide rates has been made widely available; his data exculpating gun availability from high homicide rates in this country remains a closely guarded secret.

The side of this debate that is being censored in the medical and public health literature, despite the accumulating body of knowledge and the preponderance of scientific evidence, is the side dealing with the beneficial aspects of firearms and the benefits of citizen self-protection. Instead of providing a balanced and fair approach based on truth and objectivity, the medical literature safely echoes the politically correct emotionalism of the popular media and parrots the rhetoric of gun control advocates. Sadly, my profession - which had been one of the torch bearers of scientific and technologic discoveries in the 19th and 20th century - today thwarts free inquiry in public health in the area of guns and violence research. Needless to say, censorship and biased research in this area impairs the necessary free flow and exchange of information that is essential for academic freedom and scientific progress in a free society.

As I will reveal, the entrenched medical/public health establishment, acting as a willing accomplice of the gun control lobby, conducted politicized, results-oriented gun (control) research based on what can only be characterized as junk science.

Why? Because gun control is the pasture where a segment of the public health's milk cow, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), was grazing. In other words, that was where the money allocated by the present administration was headed; after all, Midnight Basketball, the federalization of the police force, erosion of civil liberties, and gun control have been the centerpieces of President Clinton's domestic crime control policy.

But how was an agency like the CDC/NCIPC able to get in the gun control business? Simply, by propounding the erroneous notion that gun violence is a public health issue and that crime is a disease, an epidemic - rather than a major facet of criminology. The public so deluded and the bureaucrats so empowered, public health and CDC officials arrogated to themselves this new area of non-developed expertise and now espouse the preposterous but politically-lucrative concept of guns and bullets as animated, virulent pathogens, needing to be stamped out by limiting gun availability, and ultimately, eradicating guns from law-abiding citizens. Hard to believe! Let me cite the following statement by CDC official, Dr. Patrick O'Carroll as quoted in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA; February 3,1989):

"Bringing about gun control, which itself covers a variety of activities from registration to confiscation was not the specific reason for the section's creation. However, the facts themselves tend to make some form of regulation seem desirable. The way we're going to do this is to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes death." Although, in a letter to the editor, Dr. O'Carroll later claimed he was misquoted, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), an association of physicians and scientists from academia and the private sector, which monitors federally-funded research to prevent flawed information from impacting adversely on public policy, points out that Dr. O'Carroll does not claim to be misquoted when in the same article, he blurted, "We are doing the most we can do, given the political realities."

Public health officials and researchers conveniently neglect the fact that guns and bullets are inanimate objects which do not follow Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity (time-proven, simple but logical, series of scientific steps carried out by medical investigators to definitively prove a microorganism is pathogenic and directly responsible for causing a particular disease); and they fail to recognize the importance of individual responsibility and moral conduct - viz, that behind every shooting there is a person pulling the trigger, and who should be held accountable. The portrayal of guns in the medical literature by the public health establishment parallels the sensationalized violence reporting and so-called "human interest" stories in the mainstream media and exploits citizens' understandable concern for domestic violence and rampant street crime, but does not reflect accurate, unbiased, and objective information that is needed for the formulation of sound public policy.

Despite a surfeit of scientific and epidemiologic studies in the sociologic, legal, and criminologic literature that discuss the benefits of firearm possession by law-abiding citizens - physicians, scientists, and the general public have not been informed about this information by the CDC's NCIPC and its outlets - the medical journals, especially the AMA publications and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). In most instances, the public health and medical establishment have become, in fact, mouth pieces of the administration's gun control policies.

As former editor of a state medical journal, I felt then, and as Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), [Slide 9] I feel now, a deep sense of moral duty and professional obligation to inform the concerned and vigilant citizens of our great Republic, about this Orwellian iniquity and Newspeak, which preaches tolerance but practices intolerance, and effectively censors one side of the debate - namely, the accumulating body of research pointing out the beneficial aspects of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. This body of evidence has been sequestered by the concerted action of organized medicine (led by the AMA), the medical journals, public health officials, and the new schools of public health sprouting out of the various academic centers and funded by the new public-private partnerships of government and some of the largest, non-profit, private foundations (e.g., Joyce, MacArthur, and Robert Wood Johnson foundations).

Faulty and Biased Research

Let me cite one egregious example of the AMA sponsoring faulty and bias research in 1993 impacting detrimentally on public policy. An otherwise usually responsible AMA's Council of Scientific Affairs displayed sloppy scholarship, when it endorsed, on the basis of "scientific research," the ban on so-called assault weapons. [Slide 10] Obviously, the Council had a public relations ax to grind rather than expert knowledge of the sciences of criminology and ballistics. Instead of doing its own scholarly work or at least relying on the work of experts such as Dr. Martin Fackler, the foremost wound ballistic expert in the United States, it unfortunately relied, for political purposes, on unscientific data and even sensationalized newspaper articles, one of which claimed that watermelons fired upon with "assault weapons" are appropriate human tissue simulants to demonstrate wound ballistics! It has been pointed out, correctly, I may add, that if that were the case, an 18" drop of a watermelon, perhaps, would also be appropriate for the study of head injuries!

But let us return to public health scholarship and gun research, and in this regard, let me point out that public funding of the NCIPC's gun control research has been misused and squandered. As one example, I will cite the work of one prominent gun control researcher, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University School of Public Health. Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work has been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don't. Despite the "peer reviewed" imprimatur of his published research, his studies, fraught with errors of facts, logic, and methodology, are published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) with great fanfare (i.e. advanced notices and press releases are sent, followed by arranged interviews and press conferences - all compliments of JAMA and the AMA and thanks to the war against domestic violence) and to the delight of the like-minded, cheerleading, monolithic pro-gun control mainstream media.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one's family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This erroneous assertion is what has been accurately termed Kellermann's "43 times fallacy" for gun ownership by Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of DIPR.

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), [Slide 11] Dr. Suter not only found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitor logic, but also "overt mendacity," including the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors." Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and "deceptively understated" the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected - not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% - 0.2% of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants [Slide 12]. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitor logic. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state-counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53% of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31% had a household history of illicit drug use, 32% had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17% had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. There is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study, erroneous as they may be, to the general population.

Needless to say, all of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide." It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, unscientific conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

And, most importantly, Dr. Kellermann and his associates again failed to consider the protective benefits of firearms, and in this 1993 study, arrived at the "2.7 times fallacy." In other words, this time they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed, medical publications. Interestingly, the media and gun control groups still cling to the "43 times fallacy" and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."

Although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates showed in David Kopel's book, Guns - Who Should Have Them? [Slide 13] 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn't live in the victims' household using guns presumably not kept in that home.

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study's conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. [Slide 14]

Be that as it may, as Kates and his associates assert: "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derived from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends in the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."

Professor Gary Kleck has written extensively that false denial of gun ownership is a major problem in these studies, and yet Kellermann and associates do not admit or mention this fact. And this is critical. It would take only 35 of the 388 controls falsely denying gun ownership to make the control gun ownership percentage equal that of the homicide case households. As Kates and associates write, "If indeed, the controls actually had gun ownership equal to that of the homicide case households (45.4 percent), then a false denial rate of only 20.1 percent among the gun owning controls would produce the thirty-five false denials and thereby equalize ownership."

Consider the fact that Kellermann and associates' pilot study had a higher percent false denial rate than the 20.1 percent required to invalidate their own study, and yet, he and his associates concluded that there was no "underreporting of gun ownership by their control respondents," and their estimates, they claim were, therefore, considered not biased.

In the Medical Sentinel, we have considered this type of bias* in response to a JAMA 1996 gun ownership survey. We reported on question #20 of that survey: "If asked by a pollster whether I owned firearms, I would be truthful? 29.6 percent disagreed/strongly disagreed." So according to this survey, 29.6 percent would falsely deny owning a firearm. Prof. Kleck has noted that one major flaw in survey-based estimates of the gun stock is that some respondents intentionally conceal their gun ownership.

These premeditated errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, these errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from "reliable" sources and objective medical researchers, it's given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law enforcement, and particularly gun-banning politicians.

What we do know, thanks to the meticulous and sound scholarship of Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIIPR), is that the benefits of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens have been greatly underestimated. In his monumental work, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991), myriads of publications, and his latest book, Targeting Guns (1997) [Slide 15], Professor Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. [Slide 16] Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.

Incidentally, the health care costs incurred by gun shootings have been greatly exaggerated. DIPR, in an article published while I was editor in the June 1995 issue of the JMAG [Slide 17], estimated that the actual U.S. health care costs of treating gunshot wounds is approximately $1.5 billion which amounts to 0.2% of annual health care expenditures. The $20-$40 billion figure, so frequently cited by the mass media, and even medical journals, is an exaggerated estimate of lifetime productivity lost where criminal predators are given inflated life productivity estimates, as if their careers were suddenly expected to blossom into that of pillars of the community with projected salaries equaling those of managed care CEOs. Yet, despite these major detractions, the health advocacy establishment clings to the erroneous figures and extrapolations of Dr. Kellermann and other public health researchers, and use these erroneous figures and invalid claims in propounding health and gun control policies, to the detriment of the public and the sufferance of the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Recent data by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. at the University of Chicago in his book More Guns, Less Crime - Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998) [Slide 18] has also been suppressed from dissemination in the medical journals and public health literature, unless you are, of course, a reader of the Medical Sentinel. In his book, Prof. Lott studied the FBI's massive yearly crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use, and comes to some startling conclusions: [Slide 19]

1. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Springfield, Oregon, in 1998, the recent Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, or the 1993 shooting on the Long Island Subway) - by a whopping 69 percent.

2. Allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime - without any apparent increase in accidental death. If states without right to carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided annually.

3. Children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents. [Slide 20]

4. Professor Lott found that when concealed carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8%, rapes by 5%, and aggravated assaults by 7%.

5. For each additional year concealed carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by over 2 percent, and rape by 1 percent.

Let me say a word about suicide and gun availability. [Slide 21] Both Drs. Kellermann and Sloan have written about suicides and have attempted to link these fatalities to the availability of guns in articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine and other medical publications.

In reality, the overwhelming available evidence compiled from the discipline of psychiatry is that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind the high rates of suicide. From the social science of criminology we solve the seeming paradox that countries such as Japan, Hungary, and Scandinavia which boast draconian gun control laws have much higher rates of suicide (2 or 3 times higher) than the U.S. In these countries where guns are not readily available, citizens simply substitute [Slide 22] for guns other cultural or universally available methods for killing oneself such as Hara-kiri in Japan, drowning in the Blue Danube, suffocation (with poisonous gases such as carbon monoxide), or simply hanging. And in these countries, citizens commit suicide by these methods at higher rates than in the U.S.

Within the context of gun availability, much has been said about the "crimes of passion" [Slide 23] that supposedly take place impulsively, in the heat of the night or the furor of a domestic squabble. Criminologists have pointed out that homicides in this setting are the culmination of a long simmering cycle of violence. In one study of the police records in Detroit and Kansas City it was revealed, for example, that in "90 percent of domestic homicides, the police had responded at least once before during the prior two years to a disturbance," and in over 50 percent of the cases, the police had been called five or more times to that dysfunctional domicile. Surely, these are not crimes of passion consummated impulsively in the heat of the night, but the result of violence in highly dysfunctional families in the setting of repeated alcohol or illicit drug use; it is also the setting of abusive husbands who after a long history of spousal abuse finally commit murder, and increasingly, wives defending themselves against those abusive husbands, representing acts of genuine self-defense.

Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg. He wrote: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves - ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers." That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. [Slide 24] The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder. [Slide 25] The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders. Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed law-abiding citizens.

[Slide 26] Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade and hardened criminals. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low. [Slide 27] Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. The graph shows a modest increase, not a decrease, in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

[Slide 28] National Victims Data suggests that "while victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit, victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who put up no defense." [Slide 29] Of particular interest to women and self-defense, "among those victims using handguns in self-defense, 66 percent of them were successful in warding off the attack and keeping their property. Among those victims using non-gun weapons, only 40 percent were successful. The gun is the great equalizer for women when they are accosted in the street or when they, particularly single mothers, are defending themselves and their children at home.

A Sinister Objective

But let us return to public health and gun research. Why this faulty research and concealment of this valuable, potentially life-saving information? In a comprehensive and widely discussed Tennessee Law Review article and a major chapter in Guns - Who Should Have Them (1995) edited by criminologist David Kopel [Slide 30], legal scholar Don B. Kates and associates declare: "Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective [of public health] has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms and eventual elimination of all firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries."

As a physician and medical historian, I have always been a staunch supporter of public health in its traditional role of fighting pestilential diseases and promoting health by educating the public as to hygiene, sanitation, and preventable diseases, as alluded to in my book, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine; [Slide 31] but I deeply resent the workings of that unrecognizable part of public health, incarnated in the NCIPC with its politicized agenda and proclivity towards censorship, preordained research, that is tainted, result-oriented and based on junk science.

More Smoking Guns

For example, at the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (acronym HELP) held in Chicago, Illinois in 1993 (and again in 1995), NCIPC researchers and staff were faculty for this "strategy conference" in which "like-minded individuals who represent organizations...[the goal of which is to] use a public health model to work toward changing society's attitude so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have guns." Dr. Katherine Christoffel, one of the founders of this conference is well known for her anti-firearms activism and her profoundly revealing statements. For example, she has reached prominence and notoriety for her sensationalistic media sound bytes:

"...Guns are a virus that must be eradicated. We need to immunize ourselves against them." And "...Get rid of the cigarettes, get rid of the secondhand smoke, and you get rid of lung disease. It's the same with guns. Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths."

When the University of Iowa sponsored a conference in 1992 on firearms violence, that confab was also funded in part with CDC/NCIPC funds which had previously been allocated to the study of rural injuries and farm occupational hazards [Slide 32]; moreover, the only non-academic faculty member invited was Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The conference, subsequently entitled "National Violence Prevention Conference - Bridging Science and Program" reconvened in 1995, using again, the same type of funding. In his invocation to the conference, Dr. Mark L. Rosenberg, Director of the NCIPC who served as Chairman of the Executive Planning Committee vaunted, "Violence in America has reached epidemic proportions and presents our nation with a public health challenge as great as we have faced in the past...We believe that violence in our homes and communities is a great public health challenge that our nation can face and overcome as we enter the next millennium."

In a "Dear Colleague" letter sent to all members of the House, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), who sponsored the Dickey Amendment, revealed what the NCIPC director said about the political agenda of his own agency: 'What we have to do is find a socially acceptable form of gun control.' " And, in a letter to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), several senators who supported an effort to curtail NCIPC's anti-gun activities also noted that NCIPC Director Dr. Mark Rosenberg had stated that he "envisions a long-term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace."

In the case of Dr. Kellermann, it was reported that during his formal presentation at the (October 17, 1993) HELP conference, in an emotional moment admitted his personal anti-gun bias (a bias that, as we have seen, is evident in the pattern of his research). [Slide 33] Although in a letter to the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, Kellermann denied making such a statement at that specific meeting, he did not actually repudiate his general anti-gun bias. Dr. Kellermann's elitism (and true appreciation of the value of a gun for self-protection), nevertheless, is well encapsulated in the following retort directed at a question by a reporter and quoted in the San Francisco Examiner (April 3, 1994): "If that were my wife [being attacked], would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? 'Yeah,' says Dr. Kellermann."

On March 6, 1996, three physicians (Drs. William Waters, Timothy Wheeler, and myself; representing two physician organizations and clearly indicating that the AMA/CDC/NCIPC axis does not represent the views of all physicians, together with noted criminologist and legal scholar Don B. Kates, were given the opportunity to testify before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. [Slide 34]

We testified about the misrepresentation of data, skewed study populations (as to selection and extrapolations), inappropriate research models for the subject under study, and arrival to preordained conclusions (i.e., results-oriented research) - all evident in the immensely shoddy "gun (control) research" conducted by the CDC/NCIPC. The panel was also informed about how the NCIPC researchers breach accepted scientific practice by refusing to release and make available to other researchers their publicly funded, original data for further critical analysis.

We recommended that the committee eliminate all funding for the NCIPC for the fiscal year of 1997, and thereby realize a savings to taxpayers of nearly $50 million annually - and most importantly, effecting a major step forward, towards liberating science from the oppressing claws of politics.

Conclusion

Although we were not able to close the doors of the NCIPC, our efforts culminated in a significant defeat for the gun-prohibitionists in public health by the House of Representatives that July of 1996. The House voted to shift $2.6 million away from the NCIPC and earmarked the funds for other health research projects. The redirected funding was the amount formerly allocated by the NCIPC to their discredited "gun (control) research." Dr. Kellermann's gun research was defunded by the CDC, and he is now conducting research on the benefits and need for motorcycle helmets.

The successfully passed Dickey Amendment, which de-funded the NCIPC's anti-gun initiative, hopefully will effect a major step toward restoring integrity to public health and perhaps, returning it to its former traditional role of stamping out infectious diseases and epidemics. Although, the re-direction of $2.6 million away from NCIPC seems a modest attempt to restore the integrity of public health research, it also sends the greater symbolic message: [Slide 35] that citizens, including many scientists and physicians, are not going to sit idly by and allow the perversion of science and medical research for political ends.

Nevertheless, the jury is still out. Whether this victory is fleeting and evanescent or definitive and long lasting is yet to be seen. I urge every one of you to remain informed and vigilant on this issue. As Thomas Jefferson once said: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Thank you.

Dr. Faria is Editor emeritus of the Medical Sentinel and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997), and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).

Copyright©1999-2011 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
---

Kendra St. Clair: Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
By MARK GREENBLATT (@greenblattmark)
Oct. 20, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438

Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered.

"I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra told ABC News.

Petrified, she called her mom Debra.

"I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911."

The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee.

The 911 tapes tell the story as it unfolded.

Kendra: "I'm at my house. I'm in my closet. And I ran away from (inaudible) someone's trying to get into my house and I do not know who they are." Dispatcher: "Ok I have a deputy en route, I want you to stay on the phone with me. Ok?" Kendra: "Ok. Please. I think they are in the house."

(Picture and Video at link) Kendra St. Clare, 12-year-old Oklahoma girl, shoots an intruder during a home burglary.

Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home.

Kendra: "Please help me. Please." Dispatcher: "Alright, alright. I understand. Do you still have your mom's gun there?" Kendra: "Yes I do. I have it in my hand."

Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn.

At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun.

Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house.

They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary.

"When I had the gun, I didn't think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," the 6th grader recalled. "I think it's going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore."

Her mother Debra agrees.

"I think that she did something that most grown-ups wouldn't be able to do in a frightening situation. I think she handled herself amazingly."

Jones was treated at the hospital and released into the custody of authorities. Police said he has not yet entered a plea but that bond has been set for $250,000.
---

The Perversion of Science and Medicine (Part I): On the Nature of Science
http://www.haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/perversion-science-and-medicine-part-i-nature-science

Science is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge and the pursuit of certainty, elusive as these noble goals may be, in contradistinction to bolstering ignorance, superstition, or willful misunderstanding. After all, science is charged with the attainment of general truths and the solving of the riddle of the mechanics and operations of the general laws of the universe.

None of this should be surprising for the etymology of science derives from the Latin scientia, "having knowledge." The "how-to" or operation of the natural laws are examined and tested through the scientific method which calls for the identification and stating of a problem, the gathering of facts through observations and experimentation, and the testing and re-testing of ideas (that we call hypotheses) that need to be proven right or wrong within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

When in the 18th Century --- Edward Jenner inoculated and developed a protocol for immunizing his patients with a vaccine against smallpox; Louis Pasteur identified and characterized the gram positive bacillus that causes Anthrax, and himself developed an immunization method against rabies; Robert Koch developed his famous postulates to prove or disprove that a particular microorganism causes a specific disease; and Joseph Lister developed sterilization techniques to fight nearly invisible, microscopic and seemingly invincible pathogenic invaders --- they all, not only laid momentous and precious building blocks of medical knowledge leading to the construction of the edifice of the germ theory of disease, but they also used, wholly or in part, the scientific method to advance science and medicine. These medical advances directed toward the comfort and benefit of humanity were not only rooted in science but also in moral principles, derived from our Graeco-Roman legacy of medical humanitarianism and philanthropy, and our cherished Judeo-Christian moral inheritance of altruism and charity.

But how does science work? One way is by formulating a methodology whereby a researcher defines and tests a hypothesis by devising an experiment, collecting data, and then reaching a conclusion as to the validity --- that is, the truthfulness or wrongness --- of the tested hypothesis. Yet, before this conclusion is formed, the data must be collected and verified, and accurate observations must be made. Science and the scientific method also require diligence in avoiding selection bias and in ascertaining that the samples to be analyzed are adequate in size and that the control groups are properly matched. The researcher not only must be assured that the experiment is properly carried out and the data properly obtained, but also that he [himself] is unbiased and an honest observer, not deceived by preconceived notions about the subject under study. Failed these, the conclusions drawn from the observations or experiments are null and void.

An example of what can happen when scientific research is riddled with illogical reasoning and errors in methodology and design, or tainted by dishonesty or biased information was given recently by Dr. Jane Orient in a series of scholarly articles, "Practice Guidelines and Outcomes Research," published in the Medical Sentinel.(1,2) Dr. Orient showed with pinpoint accuracy that managed care's outcome research is not only riddled with procedural errors but is also, in fact, unscientific because it deals, not with objective patient treatment results and evaluations of specific scientific medical advances, but on subjective evaluations and health systems measurements leading to the preconceived goals of cost containment and rationing of medical care. Plainly speaking, the pseudo-research she criticized did not search for the elusive fountain of youth or the alleviation of suffering for our patients, but to satisfy the fashionable cliché, "for the proper allocation of scarce resources" and the realization of the bottom line for the managed care networks working under monopolistic government protection.*

Another example of faulty research was displayed by the AMA's Council of Scientific Affairs when it endorsed, on the basis of "scientific research," the ban on assault weapons.(6) Obviously, the Council had a public relations ax to grind rather than expert knowledge of the sciences of criminology and ballistics. Instead of doing its own scholarly work or at least relying on the expert work of Dr. Martin Fackler, the foremost wound ballistic expert in the United States, it unfortunately relied, for political purposes, on unscientific data and even sensationalized newspaper articles, one of which claimed that watermelons fired upon and blasted with "assault weapons" are appropriate human tissue simulants to demonstrate wound ballistics! It has been pointed out, correctly, I may add, that if that were the case, an 18" drop of a watermelon would also be appropriate for the study of head injuries.(7)

Before proceeding further, allow me to clarify some general terms. A theory is a general principle that is proposed as to explain observed facts. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an assumption that must be defined in advance and then tested before it can subsequently be used as a theory to explain observed facts or natural phenomena. If after a hypothesis is properly tested, it's not supported by objective, scientific observations, it must be rejected. That is why Albert Einstein himself announced, "no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." On the other hand, if experimental data or observations support the hypothesis, the latter should be accepted, at least until the time when another given observation properly rejects it.

In science, a posteriori reasoning (whereby the attainment of knowledge occurs from observations and experience) is preferred over a priori reasoning, which relies on the deduction of knowledge from self-evident propositions, independent of observations or experience.

Above all, scrupulous researchers must avoid post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning, "after it, therefore because of it"; they must make sure their conclusions truly follow from their observations and experiments, rather than assume that a conclusion follows simply because a certain independent event preceded it. Take, for instance, the often heard proposition, repeated time and again, without dissent, in the medical literature on the subject of "guns and violence" --- namely, that guns in the U.S. are responsible for high rates of suicide. When in reality, the overwhelming available evidence compiled from the discipline of psychiatry is that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind high rates of suicide. Moreover, from the social science of criminology, we solve the seeming paradox that countries such as Japan, Hungary, and Scandinavia which boast draconian gun control laws have much higher rates of suicide (2 or 3 times higher) than the U.S. And that is, that in these countries where guns are not available, citizens simply substitute for guns other cultural or universally available methods such as Hara-kiri, drowning in the Blue Danube, suffocation (with poisonous gases such as carbon monoxide), or hanging, and they commit suicide by these methods at higher rates than in the U.S.(8)

Today, sadly, many government researchers who depend on government funds (naturally, extracted from the taxpayers) are frequently placed in a conflict-of-interest situation or position themselves in dubious circumstances in which their credibility (and professional reputations) can be called into question. (I would also say honor, but the term is considered anachronistic and antiquated in many quarters.) Given the nature of research impacting directly on public policy, many of these researchers are veritably pressed to reach preordained conclusions about scientific projects in which government officials and political leaders have a vested political interest or an ideological ax to grind.

In these circumstances, particularly when politics and ideology are at stake, we end up not with objective research and the attainment of scientific truth, but with what Dr. Edgar Suter of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), myself, and others have called politicized, results-oriented research.(9,10,11) This kind of pseudo-science, masquerading as scientific research has adverse and detrimental effects on public policy generally, and science and medicine, in particularly.

This "results-oriented research" has reached a pinnacle of sophistication and preordination with the work carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which has, until very recently, enjoyed a high degree of respect and credibility with both the scientific community and the public, because of its historic record and continuing work in fighting truly epidemiologic and contagious diseases afflicting humanity. The problem today stems from the gun control propaganda coming out of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) branch of the CDC and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

A number of us who have studied this problem --- namely, gun control research promulgated by the CDC/NCIPC and published in the mainstream medical journals including AMA-sponsored journals, have found that conclusions are preordained-that is, data are collected and observations made as to reach desired, foregone, politically-oriented conclusions.

How this travesty of unscientific, preordained "research" has been carried out, published and disseminated in the mainstream medical journals, and how this preordained "research" and unscientific information could have (and is having) adverse and detrimental effects on public policy are the subjects of Part II of this essay, "The Perversion of Science and Medicine --- Soviet Science and Gun Research."

Footnote

* Managed care networks and HMOs are favored by government policy --- i.e., the Revised Health Manpower Act of 1971(3,4) and the McCarran-Ferguson Law(5) --- not only with government protection, but with tax benefits and antitrust exemptions that place independent medical practitioners and other allied health providers (e.g., independent pharmacists, small insurers, etc.) on an uneven playing field in the medical marketplace.

References

1. Orient JM. Practice guidelines and outcomes research, part I: insights from the Clinton health care task force. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(1):9-10.
2. Orient JM. Practice guidelines and outcomes research, part II: scientific pitfalls. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(3):10-13.
3. Hilsabeck JR. Medical practice today: how did we get here, part I. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(2):18-21.
4. Hilsabeck JR. Medical practice today: how did we get here, part II. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(3):14-17.
5. Boyles JH, Jr. Health care reform: the solution is obvious. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(1):27.
6. Council on Scientific Affairs, AMA assault weapons as a public health hazard in the United States. JAMA 1992;267(22):3067-3070.
7. Suter E. Assault weapons revisited --- an analysis of the AMA report. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(5):281-289.
8. Suter E. Guns in the medical literature - a failure of peer review. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(3):137-140.
9. Ibid., pp. 133-148.
10. Suter E, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America - effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):253-264.
11. Faria MA, Jr. On public health and gun control. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):251-252.

Dr. Faria is a consultant neurosurgeon, Adjunct Professor of Medical History (1993-1996) at Mercer University School of Medicine, and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1997). He serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). This Editor's Corner is based on his speech given at the 53rd Annual AAPS meeting held in La Jolla, California, October 10-12, 1996.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):46-48. Copyright ©1997 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
---

The Perversion of Science and Medicine (Part II): Soviet Science and Gun Control
http://www.haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/perversion-science-and-medicine-part-ii-soviet-science-and-gun-control

The lessons of history clearly demonstrate to those of us who care to look that whenever science and medicine have come to be under the heavy hand of government, political pressures, or subordinated to the state, the results have been as perverse as they have been disastrous. Towards this end, I would like to share with you an egregious chapter on the perversion of science in the name of politics and ideology that has come down to us from the recent historic record. Although, I will now be referring to the role of science in the former Soviet Union, particularly during the period of the 1930s through the 1950s; as you will see later in this article in reference to the research being carried out by the public health establishment and published in the medical journals, this role could very well become applicable to the U.S. in the not-too-distant future.

Soviet Science, Genetics, and Agriculture

As I wrote in my book, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine, subversion of the biologic sciences by the Marxist-Leninist Soviet state began soon after the triumph of the October Revolution under Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) and intensified under the brutal rule of the Red Czar, Joseph V. Stalin (1879-1953). The Russian scientists who did not believe in the new collectivist Soviet science, particularly, Marxist genetics, or who opposed domination by the totalitarian regime, or opposed the teachings of the "new science" were purged, either expelled from their teaching posts and research positions, consigned to the depths of the gulags or unceremoniously killed in labor camps, exterminated as "enemies of the people" and the Soviet Motherland.

During this time (1930s through the 1950s), at the helm of Soviet science was Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976), a Soviet agronomist who, as President of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Science (1938-1956) and Director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, became the supreme leader in Soviet science, genetics, and agriculture.(1)

Lysenko heralded a sorrowful chapter in the perversion of science, then placed at the political whims of the Soviet totalitarian state. Lysenko vehemently rejected what he called capitalist "bourgeois" science and repudiated the fundamental laws of genetics that had been proposed by the celebrated Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), which had been accepted and used by the West in the theoretic as well as applied biologic sciences. Lysenko proscribed "bourgeois genetics" and during the immediate post World War II period, assisted by plant breeder I.V. Michurin, began a series of preposterous plant-crossbreeding experiments based on the theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, a theory first promulgated in 1801 by the French biologist and naturalist, Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). The Lamarckian theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, although a forerunner of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, held that new acquired traits in organisms developed as an immediate need to adapt to the environment and was inherited by the offsprings. This hypothesis had already been rejected in the West by systematic, scientific observations and the sound, rigorous experimentation normally expected and conducted by Western scientists.

One of the experiments debunking the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics consisted simply of studying consecutive generations of rats having their tails amputated and checking their successive offsprings for any evidence of shortening. Systematic observations revealed no evidence of shortening in successive generations of rats. This simple experiment, in a free society, would have been enough to reject the Lamarckian hypothesis. But, it did not happen behind the Iron Curtain where Soviet science was subjugated to state politics and totalitarian, socialist ideology. After all, as you would remember, Soviet politics and science were committed to forging the novus homo, "the new (Socialist) man." And spearheading this effort was none other than trusted party comrade Lysenko, who committed himself earnestly to the new science and to harvesting a "new Soviet crop." Lysenko's experiments promised the Soviet Nomenklatura to make Siberia a huge granary at the disposal of the Soviet Union, a vehicle to export Lenin's world revolution. But it was not to be.

Although for this new, preordained purpose, Lysenko did create new hybrid plants through his extensive crossbreeding experiments, his grand experiment turned out a grand failure. He envisioned creating new plants --- with lush foliage, juicy stems, palatable leaves resembling lettuce or cabbage and, perhaps, having fruit-like tomatoes. Comrade Lysenko also expected these new hybrids to have tuberous underground roots, with plump, nutritious, potato-like vegetables. In short, the entire plant was to be edible --- and a monument to Soviet genetics and agriculture. What he, in fact, created were a variety of new plant hybrids, certainly new species, but instead of the perfect crop he had envisioned, the new plants had withered stems and leaves, no fruit above ground, and rudimentary and inedible roots below ground. Comrade Lysenko's new plants that were to feed the masses of the Soviet people were troublesome weeds that had no nutritional value and were not fit for human consumption.

Vast fields planted with these hybrid plants allocated by Lysenko and the central planners and cultivated by the unfortunate prisoners of the gulags were lost. The promising Soviet science controlled by the state and headed by the great Lysenko proved a disastrous debacle. Lysenko, Michurin, and his willing and collaborating colleagues were finally dethroned and consigned to the dustbin of bogus scientific socialist theories --- but not before their perversion, collaboration, and exposition of Marxist biology as deliberate quackery employed as a tool of the Soviet state, had been shown to the world.

Lysenko's legacy should not be readily forgotten, for it denotes a particularly sad chapter in the history of science. It reveals science's dark descent into the chasm of ignorance, intolerance, and totalitarian control by the most powerful and barbaric of former "cradle-to-grave" socialist Utopias. Lysenko's madness, Soviet agriculture, was a grand failure that resulted in starvation on a grand scale and unimaginable human suffering for millions of Russians. Soviet science, subjugated to Soviet socialist policy, did not support Lamarckian theory any more than the possibility of creating a new man; yet, the madness went on for decades with science perverted, lives wasted, generations lost --- all thrashed in the infamous cesspool of collectivism.

Millions of Soviet citizens died during this period under Stalin as a result of bogus science, the failure of central planning and collectivization policies, and most savagely, by the deliberate creation of state planned famines to break the spirit of the individualist kulaks, Georgians, Ukrainians, and ordinary Russians who opposed collectivization and were made scapegoats for Soviet failures.

And I need not remind you that while Lysenko perverted science in the Soviet Union, a German physician, his counterpart in the Third Reich, climbed the ladder of academia and did whatever was necessary to reach the top and serve the Wehrmacht. His name was Dr. Joseph Mengele.

Soviet Psychiatry and Rehabilitation

And throughout its 70 years of barbaric existence, up to the time of its collapse in November 1989, the evil Soviet empire also bore witness to the perversion of psychiatry --- another sad chapter which also plainly supports my contention that science and medicine must remain divorced of (and above) politics, and never allowed to become pliable tools of government oppression.

In the former Soviet Union, psychiatry, like genetics and other sciences, was used as a tool of the state. And we have numerous examples, including the case of dissident Bladimir Bukobsky, who spent 10 years in Soviet hospitals being "rehabilitated" on psychiatric wards. Despite the indoctrination and brainwashing sessions during his intensive "rehabilitation," Bukobsky, who, like Alexandr Solzhenitsyn had spent years in the gulags in the 1960s and 1970s, survived and lived to see the day in 1992 when he was able to return to Russia, from his exile in England, to testify in Russia's Constitutional Court. Bukobsky's testimony corroborated Soviet psychiatry existed at the disposal of state security and had been used as a political tool by the Soviet Union until well into the late 1980s and the rule of Mikhail Gorbachev.

In passing, and in this context of psychiatry and rehabilitation, it is worth pointing out and remem-bering that while in constitutional republics, citizens have civil liberties and constitutional protections, they also have duties to obey the laws. Yet, they are free to choose --- either to obey and conform to the laws and be left undisturbed, or to break the laws and face punishment. Transgressors are punished, usually by imprisonment as prescribed by laws, and thus, effectively isolated to protect society. (Rarely, they are executed.)

Authoritarian states, on the other hand, allow no such choice. There, prisoners are "rehabilitated" or eliminated. Social(ist) democracies today want to follow the authoritarian path to "rehabilitation," deplore building more prisons, and refuse to hold individuals accountable. Social democrats, modern liberals, social planners, and other "progressives" do not want transgressors to be punished and made responsible for their criminal conduct; they opt instead for therapeutics and "rehabilitation," absolving the individual and blaming society and, all the while, accumulating more power to themselves in the bureaucracies of the increasingly socialist penal system.

Politicized "Scientific" Research

How does this historic information relate to the gun control research I alluded to earlier, right here in the U.S. today, and to our legacy of freedom? Let us say today in our own country, government agencies, e.g., the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) of the CDC funded by American taxpayers, are systematically producing flawed gun control research using a priori logic and junk science to arrive at predetermined conclusions. Yes, hypotheses are being tested but not rejected; selected facts are being collected; valid information is being omitted; and statistics are being concocted based on skewed biased population samples --- all of this to reach the predetermined conclusion that guns and not criminals are responsible for violent crime in our society and that firearms, even for home and family protection, have no place in modern civilian society and that said firearms for self-protection should be banned and unavailable to ordinary citizens.

The promotion of gun control using politicized science as a vehicle with the concurrent curtailment of civil liberties by a dangerous and fearful master, an ever-increasing government authority seeking a monopoly of force upon the very citizens it purports to serve, is only one of many examples of present day perversion of science and medicine by government. Anyone also vaguely familiar with the politically protected disease AIDS can furnish another overt example of politicized science and medicine. With AIDS, the government, via its agencies, particularly the CDC and other subsidiary public health departments throughout the nation, have tortured statistics until they have falsely confessed, and have promoted media hype and sensationalism as to force the viewpoint that heterosexuals in the U.S. are as much at risk as homosexuals and illicit drug users for contracting the dreaded HIV virus, and that "we are all at risk of AIDS." "Why?" you ask. Because government agencies want to be able to obtain more and more funding from a frightened and more empathetic taxpayer and perpetuate and replicate their bureaucracies faster, not to mention also the desire to change the cultural perspective of this tragic (but social) disease in American society.

All this, mind you, despite the fact research and development monies were (and are) being spent on AIDS more so than with any other disease including breast cancer which AIDS funding surpasses by a margin of nearly 3:1, although breast cancer in the last decade has killed almost three times as many people. Another example is global warming whereby the politicized research of a minority of scientists, fueled by radical environmentalists and bolstered by a sympathetic media, promotes a radical, pseudo-environmentalist, anti-technologic agenda, duplicitously leading to further government intervention, statism, and aimed at fostering a favorable climate towards world socialism and, eventually, global taxation (beginning with a carbon dioxide emission tax).

On Public Health and Gun Control

I have already alluded to public health and gun control and the motives behind it. Allow me now to elaborate from personal experience and disclose to you about the story behind this issue.

In 1991, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a major campaign against domestic violence which goes on to this day. I, as an active member of organized medicine, joined in what I deeply considered a worthwhile cause. It was thus while researching the topic of domestic violence and street crime and attempting to find workable solutions, I came to the inescapable conclusion and appalling reality, the medical literature on firearms and violence had failed to objectively discuss both sides of this issue. And this, despite the purported safeguards of peer-review and the alleged claims to balance and objectivity by government-funded researchers in public health scientific investigations --- and the medical journal editors who published their research.

What I found, over the subsequent 5 years, particularly as editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (between 1993 to 1995) was, frankly, when it came to the issue of guns and violence, medical journals had taken the easy way out of the mêlée, presenting only one side, and censoring the other. The side that was being censored, despite the accumulating amount of data supporting it, was that side dealing with the beneficial aspects of firearms and the benefits of self-protection by law-abiding citizens. Instead of providing a balanced and fair approach based on truth and objectivity, the medical literature echoed the emotionalism and rhetoric of the mass media, and thwarted free inquiry in scientific research. In most cases, it provided politicized, result-oriented research based on what can only be called junk science, to bolster the agenda of the gun control lobby.

"Why?" you ask. Because that is the pasture where the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)'s milk cow was (and continues to be) grazing. That is where government money extracted from unwitting taxpayers was (and is being) allocated by the Clinton administration.

How? By propounding the erroneous notion that gun control is a public health issue and that crime is a disease, an epidemic --- rather than a major facet of criminology. So public health officials, AMA leaders, and willing political accomplices espouse the preposterous but politically-expedient concept of guns and bullets as animated, virulent pathogens, needing to be stamped out by limiting gun availability, and ultimately, eradicating guns from law-abiding citizens.

They, of course, choose to neglect the fact that guns and bullets are inanimate objects that do not follow Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity (which, as you know, prove definitively and scientifically a microorganism is responsible for a particular disease); and they fail to recognize behind every shooting there is a person pulling the trigger --- and who should be held accountable. The portrayal of guns in the medical literature by the public health/AMA/CDC/NCIPC establishment reflects the sensationalized violence portrayed in the mainstream media and exploits our understandable concern for violence and rampant street crime, but it does not reflect accurate, unbiased, scientific, and objective information needed for optimum public policy.

Despite a surfeit of scientific and epidemiologic studies in the sociologic, legal, and criminologic literature that discuss the benefits of firearm possession by law-abiding citizens --- physicians and the general public are not being informed about this vital information by the CDC's NCIPC and its outlets, the medical journals. As former editor of a state medical journal, I felt then, and as Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel of the AAPS, I feel now, a deep sense of moral duty and professional obligation to inform you about this issue, and air the other side of the debate which is seldom promulgated and continues to be censored in the public health/AMA/CDC/NCIPC establishment. This is crucial, for I deeply believe in a free society citizens and their elected representatives have a right to know and be presented with all sides of an issue for proper deliberation and, eventually, sound public policy formulation.

Faulty and Biased Research

As it regards public funding of the NCIPC's gun control research, it's my professional opinion the taxpayers' hard-earned monies are being misused and squandered. As one example, I will cite the work of one prominent gun control researcher, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University School of Public Health. Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work was heavily funded by the CDC, have published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don't. Despite the "peer reviewed" imprimatur of his published research, his studies, fraught with errors of facts, logic, and methodology, are published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) with great fanfare (i.e., advanced notices and press releases are followed by arranged interviews and press conferences, compliments of JAMA and the AMA, and thanks, of course, to the war against domestic violence) and to the delight of the like-minded, cheerleading, mainstream (liberal) journalists.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one's family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."(2) This erroneous assertion is what has been accurately termed Kellermann's "43 times fallacy" for gun ownership by Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of DIPR.

In a critical review article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Suter not only found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially-truncated data and non-sequitor logic used in their pro-gun control arguments, but also "overt mendacity," including the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."(3) Moreover, these gun control researchers failed to consider and "deceptively understated" the protective benefits of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected - not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1%-0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."(3)

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (and the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann again attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.(4) Despite valid criticisms of his previous works (including the 1986 study) by reputable scholars, Dr. Kellermann ignored their criticisms and again used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitor logic. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psycho-social dysfunctions from three selected state-counties, unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53% of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31% had a household history of illicit drug use, 32% had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17% had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

Needless to say, all of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide." It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample nullifies the authors' generalizations, and voids their preordained, unscientific conclusions which can not be extrapolated to the general population.

And, most importantly, Dr. Kellermann and his associates again failed to consider the protective benefits of firearms, and this time, arrived at the "2.7 times fallacy."(4) In other words, this time they falsely claimed that a family member is 2.7 times more likely to kill other family members than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed, medical publications, claiming scientific objectivity.

These premeditated errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, these errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, reverberate in the electronic media, and remain uncorrected in the medical journals, where they are repeated time and again as gospel. And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from "reliable" sources and objective medical researchers, it's given a lot of weight and credibility by physicians, social workers, professional organizations, law enforcement, and policymakers.

What we do know, thanks to the meticulous and sound scholarship of Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University; criminologists Don B. Kates and David Kopel; DIPR and other conscientious scholars, is that the benefits of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens have been greatly underestimated. In his monumental work, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991) and subsequent publications, Professor Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.(3)

Incidentally, the actual U.S. health care costs of treating gunshot wounds is approximately $1.5 billion, which is less than 0.2% of the annual health care expenditures.(5) The $20-$40 billion figure so frequently cited in the medical literature is a deliberately exaggerated estimate of lifetime productivity lost, where criminal predators are given productivity estimates as if their careers were suddenly expected to blossom into that of pillars of the community with projected salaries equal to those of managed care CEOs. Yet, despite these major detractions, the AMA/CDC/NCIPC establishment clings to the erroneous figures and extrapolations of Dr. Kellermann and other NCIPC researchers, and use these erroneous figures and invalid claims in formulating health and gun control policies, to the detriment of the public and the sufferance of the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Because of the complex nature of violence in our society, violence and crime prevention efforts should be addressed by our education and criminal justice systems, not to mention our churches and synagogues. Violence is not a disease and therefore it's not amenable for study or treatable with the traditional public health model measures.

On March 6, 1996, I and three members of DIPR testified before the House Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, and Human Services. I am happy to report that this past summer the House slashed $2.6 million, the amount specifically allocated to the NCIPC for "gun related" research,* and for the first time in a decade, Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the primary gun control investigator for the NCIPC, was not funded for his research by that agency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, individuals involved in this perversion of science, public health, and medicine and who masquerade as unbiased objective researchers have at best a non-existent utopia in mind that has never existed, a world without conflict, ordinary citizens unarmed and in blissful conformity with the state, violence eradicated, homicides extinguished, false security attained. At worst, they militate for Big Brother unopposed, social engineering without limits, conformity by force (if necessary), opposition crushed, and the state reigning supreme.

If their Utopian socialist vision were to become reality, we would then herald a brave new world where individual citizens would, for their own good, be placed at the mercy of the state central planners.

The goal of gun control research promulgated by the AMA/CDC/NCIPC axis is designed to promote conformity, that is, the idea that guns (even for self and family protection) are socially unacceptable; and to promote uniformity, that is, in citizen disarmament.

The lessons of history sagaciously reveal that whenever and wherever science and medicine have been subordinated to the state and individual will has been crushed by tyranny, the results have been as perverse as they have been disastrous, as the examples of Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union so aptly testify.

Beyond the abolition of freedom and dignity, the perversion of science and medicine becomes the vehicle for the imposition of slavery and totalitarianism.

But, the fact that AAPS [which has aptly been called "The Delta Force of American Medicine"] is resurgent; the fact that today AAPS has a new journal, the Medical Sentinel, "a beacon of hope in medical journalism," committed to publishing scholarly articles in defense of liberty and the practice of private medicine; the fact that the AAPS stands for the tenets and principles set forth in the Oath of Hippocrates; and the fact that AAPS continues to fight for individually-based medical ethics and the sanctity of the patient-doctor relationship --- are all incontrovertible evidence that the fight for intellectual freedom is far from over, and that you, as an AAPS member, would not idly sit by while the powers-that-be seek to effect the perversion of science and medicine for their own political purposes.

Footnote

* Just recently, the AMA set a new policy to direct their lobbyists to "strongly advocate" for the restoration of funding for the CDC/NCIPC.(6)

References

1. Faria MA, Jr. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine: Historic Perspectives on the Battle Over Health Care Reform. Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995.
2. Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1557-1560.
3. Suter E. Guns in the medical literature - a failure of peer review. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(3):137-148.
4. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.
5. Suter E, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America - effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):255.
6. Kent C. AMA wants CDC gun research funds back. AMNews, January 6, 1997, p.8.

Dr. Faria is a consultant neurosurgeon, Adjunct Professor of Medical History (1993-1996) at Mercer University School of Medicine, and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1997). He serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). This article is based on his speech at the 53rd Annual AAPS meeting held in La Jolla, California, October 10-12, 1996.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):49-53. Copyright ©1997 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
---

The Perversion of Science and Medicine (Part III): Public Health and Gun Control Research
http://www.haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/perversion-science-and-medicine-part-iii-public-health-and-gun-control-research

The 1991 American Medical Association (AMA) campaign against domestic violence (and towards gun control) launched for public relations and media consumption went hand in hand with a previously articulated (1979) U.S. Public Health Service objective of complete eradication of handguns in America, beginning with a 25% reduction in the national inventory by the year 2000!(1)

Despite the purported safeguards of peer-review and the imprimatur of the prestigious, mainstream medical journals, and the alleged claims to objectivity and impartiality by government-funded researchers in public health, particularly at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the truth remains that gun (control) research and portrayal in the medical literature is biased and unreliable because sound scholarship has been abandoned for the allure of government money (grants), political expediency, and the ideology of public health researchers.(2-4)

Science or Ideology

Hard to believe that scientific and medical research has been perverted for political ideology! Let me cite the following statement by CDC official, Dr. Patrick O'Carroll as quoted in the Journal of the American Medical Association: " 'Bringing about gun control, which itself covers a variety of activities from registration to confiscation was not the specific reason for the section's creation,' O'Carroll says. 'However, the facts themselves tend to make some form of regulation seem desirable,' he says. 'The way we're going to do this is to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes death.' "(5) Although, in a letter to the editor, O'Carroll later claimed he was misquoted, Dr. William C. Waters IV, Eastern Director of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), points out that Dr. O'Carroll does not claim to be misquoted when in the same article, he blurted, "We are doing the most we can do, given the political realities."(6)

Prejudice against gun ownership by ordinary citizens is pervasive in the public health community, even when they profess objectivity and integrity in their scientific research. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health in a moment of lucidity encapsulated in words (in a recent book) the typical attitude of her professional colleagues: "My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns --- and can not imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."(7)

And Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention (NCIPC) in 1994 told The Washington Post: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."(7)

A few public health officials like Dr. C. J. Peters, head of the CDC's Special Pathogens Branch, have expressed concerns about the direction public health has taken and reported to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last year, in the midst of the controversy over taxpayer-funded gun (control) research, "The CDC has got to be careful that we don't get into social issues." And he added, "If we're going to do that, we ought to start a center for social change. We should stay with medical issues."(7)

Public health officials and CDC researchers conveniently neglect the fact that guns and bullets are inanimate objects which do not follow Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity* (time-proven, simple but logical, series of scientific steps carried out by medical investigators to definitively prove a microorganism is pathogenic and directly responsible for causing a particular disease), and they fail to recognize the importance of individual responsibility and moral conduct --- viz, that behind every shooting there is a person pulling the trigger, and who should be held accountable. The portrayal of guns in the medical literature by the AMA/CDC/NCIPC establishment parallels the sensationalized violence in the mainstream media and exploits citizens' understandable concern for domestic violence and rampant street crime, but does not reflect accurate, unbiased, and objective information that is needed for the formulation of optimum public policy.

Why would the AMA become involved in this politically-expedient but potentially explosive issue of gun control as a public health issue? The 1991 effort by the AMA to increase membership, although expensive, was highly unproductive. The AMA attempted to reverse the trend of dwindling membership and achieve at least a majority membership of American physicians, but it was utterly unsuccessful, barely keeping pace with its attrition rate and holding today to only a 38% barebones membership of American physicians, down from the 75% supermajority three decades earlier.

For this and other reasons, it has been said that the AMA today is an ineffective organization that no longer represents American physicians in the trenches of medical care, but tries to be all thing to all people --- and invariably ends up pleasing no one. This tactic of launching a thinly-veiled gun control effort entwined with a highly visible campaign against domestic violence was (and remains) essentially a public relations ploy judged to be one sure way to get endless, politically-correct and praiseworthy publicity, attract membership, and thus score public relations points while ingratiating itself to the liberal media. It was (and remains) in the form of domestic violence a campaign launched for public relation consumption. The truth, sound scholarship, free inquiry, and the free flow and exchange of information be damned! And so, the doctors, following the lead of the AMA/CDC/NCIPC, also jumped onto and rode securely in the gun control bandwagon giving it an aura of respectability, but losing along the way their own respect and credibility, as the politically-correct bandwagon traveled down the slippery slope of censorship (of dissenting views), and the perversion of science and medicine.

A Sinister Objective

Since 1985, the CDC has conducted and published in the mainstream medical journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and AMA journals, dozens of articles all supporting stricter gun control policies. This biased and faulty research funded at taxpayers expense accelerated after the inception of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). Why this faulty research and dissemination of this biased, unscientific information? In a comprehensive and widely discussed Tennessee Law Review article, "Guns and Public Health" (1995), criminologist and civil rights attorney, Don B. Kates and associates wrote: "Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms and eventual elimination of all firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries."(8)

So what is becoming clearly evident is that the AMA/CDC/NCIPC axis has a plan, albeit a flawed one, to accomplish a formidable task. Kates and associates write: "In this connection, the term 'gun control' needs some clarification. That term could mean no more than noncontroversial measures to prohibit gun misuse or gun possession by high risk groups. In the literature we are analyzing, however, 'guns are not...inanimate objects, but in fact are a social ill,' and controlling them implies wholesale confiscation from the general public so as to radically reduce gun availability to ordinary people."(8)

As a neurosurgeon who has spent incalculable hours in the middle of the night treating neurological victims of gunshot wounds, I deplore the high level of violence, particularly the rampant crime in our inner cities --- but we must have the moral courage to pursue the truth and find viable solutions through the use of unbiased, sound, scholarly research. Public health researchers have an obligation to write their conclusions based on objective data and scientific information rather than on ideology, emotionalism, political expediency, or budgetary considerations. These interrelated issues of ideology and budgetary considerations are reflected in the insatiable lust for ever-increasing funding extracted from the taxpayers by the government, and then given to these biased researchers by a willing, gun prohibitionist, statist administration, that ultimately believes a vigilant and armed populace is a threat to the supremacy of the state, and thus, seeks to disarm it. Frankly, I believe in Thomas Jefferson's admonition: "When government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

In Part IV of this article, I will cite specific examples of the public health agenda for draconian gun control measures utilizing pseudo-science as the vehicle and culminating with the perversion of science and medicine.

Footnote

* Koch's Postulates: First, the germ must be found growing abundantly in every patient and every diseased tissue. Second, the germ must be isolated and grown in the laboratory. Third, the purified germ must cause the disease again in another host.

References

1. Polsby DD. From the hip. National Review, March 24, 1997, p.34.
2. Suter E. Guns in the medical literature-a failure of peer review. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(3):137-148.
3. Faria MA, Jr. The Perversion of science and medicine (Part I): on the nature of science and (Part II): Soviet science and gun control. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):46-53.
4. Faria MA, Jr. Docs, guns, and the CDC. The New American, September 30, 1996, pp.35-38.
5. O'Carroll PW. Quoted in JAMA, February 3, 1989.
6. O'Carroll PW. Correspondence: CDC's approach to firearms injuries, JAMA 1989; 262:348-349.
7. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Waters WC, IV. How the CDC succumbed to the gun epidemic. Reason, April 1997, pp.25-29.
8. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Guns and public health: epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Tennessee Law Review 1995;62:513-596.

Dr. Faria is a consultant neurosurgeon, Adjunct Professor of Medical History (1993-1996) at Mercer University School of Medicine, and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1997). He serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). This Editor's Corner is based on his speech given at the 53rd Annual AAPS meeting held in La Jolla, California, October 10-12, 1996.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1997;2(3):81-82. Copyright ©1997Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

CDC prohibition
Submitted by Dr. Miguel A. Faria on July 18, 2012 - 5:31pm.
For the record-- update (2012):

"AR-13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities in DHS--CDC: Funding Opportunity Announcements-- Additional Requirements

"The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

"Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation.

"This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

"In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms."

http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/additional_req.shtm#ar13
---

The Perversion of Science and Medicine (Part IV): The Battle Continues
http://www.haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/perversion-science-and-medicine-part-iv-battle-continues

As a physician, I have always been a staunch supporter of public health in its traditional role of fighting pestilential diseases and promoting health by educating the public as to hygiene, sanitation, and preventable diseases, as alluded to in my book, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine; but I deeply resent the workings of that unrecognizable part of public health incarnated in the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) with its politicized agenda and proclivity towards result-oriented research based on junk science.

It is crystal clear that the NCIPC has from its inception pursued, despite valid criticism from many quarters, a grossly politicized agenda --- abjectly losing sight of its mission and becoming a powerful arm of the gun control lobby --- to the detriment of traditional public health. This contention is well expressed in the words of Dr. William C. Waters, IV, Eastern Director of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), who in a letter to Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education of the Senate Appropriations Committee complained:

"We believe that the NCIPC fails to do its job because of unscientific bias...First is the overt political activism of the NCIPC staff and their federally-funded researchers. Second...is that there seems to be a tacit assumption --- perhaps even foundational concept --- among many public health researchers that firearm prohibition/control provides a ready solution to many of society's ills. We believe that this view is expressed in the NCIPC's approach to the problem of violence, since the research performed is fantastically narrow in scope, excludes most of what is known about violence in human societies...and is often performed using abysmally poor methodology...There seems to be a tendency on the part of those defending the NCIPC to simply reiterate figures depicting the problem of firearms violence/injury as justification for the agency's existence."

A Smoking Gun

Concerned about this issue and possible violations of the public trust, several DIPR members communicated with key members of Congress and last winter visited the offices of 8 Senators at the U.S. Capitol, thoroughly briefing their staffs as to this momentous issue. Other concerned DIPR members and physicians, in an effort to inform the public, appeared on local and syndicated radio and television shows, including the Washington, D.C.-based, National Empowerment Television (NET).

Despite considerable barriers, the monolithic wall of censorship of the mainstream media was pierced when Dr. Timothy Wheeler, President of the California-based Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, appeared on CBS's "This Morning" vis-à-vis Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a fierce gun control advocate and Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). It was a brief exchange, but it was devastating for Dr. Kassirer who has essentially established that when it comes to "assault" weapons, he supports the "no-data-are-needed policy" of the NEJM, and has asserted that if a little gun control does not work, then, certainly, more gun control is needed: "if we still found them wanting [draconian gun control laws] we would be justified in supporting even more stringent restrictions."(1)

Dr. Kassirer had defended the CDC/NCIPC in a previous, one-sided NEJM editorial; this time, in a one-on-one debate, he was thoroughly unsuccessful, for he was debating publicly a worthy opponent who wielded the invincible weapon of unadulterated truth. It was a decisive victory for honesty in science. Dr. Wheeler showed on camera a major piece of evidence, the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter entitled, "Women, Guns and Domestic Violence," supported in part by a grant from the CDC, and featuring a cover of a menacing handgun firing a bullet that blasts away at the defenseless female symbol.

Within this newsletter, a section entitled "What Advocates Can Do," among other things, exhort purported researchers and CDC public health staffers to: "Put gun control on the agenda of your civic or professional organization. Release a statement to the media or explain in your organization's newsletter why gun control is a woman's (or nurses' or pediatricians'...) issue.

"Ask TV and print media to name the gun manufacturer in every story it runs involving gun violence.

"Make your support for federal, state, and local gun laws known to your representative. This may include: Opposing repeal of the assault weapons ban; maintaining support for the Brady Law; restricting ammunition availability by caliber and quantity; increasing enforcement of federal firearm laws; maintaining restrictions on issuance of concealed weapons permits...[Also]

"Organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites, perhaps with posters showing pictures of victims of gun violence. (Modeled after the Madres de los Desaparecidos in Argentina and Chile; this can evoke a very powerful moral image.)

"Work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby's political clout.

"Boycott publications that accept advertising from the gun lobby or manufacturers...Launch a program aimed at getting pediatricians [involved]...Get media attention for your events. Encourage your local police department to adopt a policy prohibiting officers from recommending that citizens buy guns for protection, etc., etc."

Remember, these are not just private citizens using their own money and exercising their constitutional rights and civic duties to free speech, but supposedly objective, unbiased researchers using the taxpayers' research money (grants) for their own economic, ideologic, and political purposes --- in this case, promoting the present administration's policy of draconian gun control, aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens using the cover of junk science as the vehicle.

Faced with this ominous threat --- namely, the perversion of science by a government agency run amok --- DIPR worked harder than ever to expose the danger. In our medical school library I found more smoking guns --- e.g., other public health newsletters involved in deeply partisan and political activities. One, Nation's Health, a newsletter by the American Public Health Association (March 1995), defended the partisan activities of the CDC/NCIPC and even listed a "1-800 number" with a special Western Union Hotline that automatically sends a message to Congress in support of "threatened public health programs." The fact is that we found the tentacles of public health using taxpayer's monies not only used for political advocacy, but also flagrantly using the influence bestowed upon them by society, as supposedly honest, unbiased researchers, to legitimize fraudulent research conducted for political reasons.

One of the most helpful law-makers who assisted in the quest for truth was freshman Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA). Expressing his concern for public-funded research, he wrote to fellow Congressman Christopher Shays, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight:

"I write to bring to your attention a matter that goes beyond impropriety, and in my judgment crosses the line to potential illegality. I have written David Satcher, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta asking him to investigate whether certain taxpayer funded grant money is being used to advocate opposition or endorsement of federal legislation, and, among other things urges picketing activities.

"I consider these activities, involving federal taxpayer dollars, to be not only questionable but very likely illegal. I find it highly offensive that federally appropriated monies are being used for lobbying and urging civil disobedience and possible illegal activity...I would officially request that your committee investigate this matter."

Congressman Barr also gave an impassioned and intellectually-charged speech against the politicized, result-oriented research conducted by the CDC/NCIPC and in support of the Dickey Amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives last summer.

More Smoke

Our efforts finally bore fruition on March 6, 1996. Three physicians (Drs. Waters, Wheeler, and myself; representing two physician organizations and clearly indicating that the AMA/CDC/NCIPC axis does not represent the views of all physicians, together with noted criminologist Don B. Kates, were given the opportunity to testify before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education [in which, incidentally, Congressman Jim Istook Jr. (R-OK) also serves. Representative Istook has taken leadership in this effort and has co-authored the Simpson-Istook Amendment intended to curtail funding to publicly-funded, lobbying organizations].(2)

I will not recapitulate our entire testimony. Suffice to say, we testified about the misrepresentation of data, skewed study populations (selection and extrapolations), inappropriate research models for the subject under study, and arrival to preordained conclusions (result-oriented research) --- all evident in the immensely shoddy "gun control" research conducted by the CDC/NCIPC. The panel was also informed about how the NCIPC researchers breach accepted scientific practice by refusing to release and make available to other researchers their publicly funded, original data for further critical analysis.

We pointed out and brought into evidence the inappropriate (and probably illegal) diversion of taxpayers' monies allocated to research being used for dissemination of partisan newsletters. We also disclosed the occurrence of politicized meetings and organizations in which NCIPC staff and funded researchers were (and are) active participants. For example, at the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP) held in Chicago, Illinois in 1993 (and again in 1995), NCIPC researchers and staff were faculty for this "strategy conference" in which "like-minded individuals who represent organizations...[the goal of which is to] use a public health model to work toward changing society's attitude so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have guns." Dr. Katherine Christoffel, one of the founders of this conference is well known for her anti-firearms activism and her profoundly revealing statements. For example, she has reached prominence with statements such as:

"...Guns are a virus that must be eradicated. We need to immunize ourselves against them." [And] "...Get rid of the cigarettes, get rid of the secondhand smoke, and you get rid of lung disease. It's the same with guns. Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths."(3)

In the case of Dr. Kellermann, it was reported that during his formal presentation at the (October 17, 1993) HELP conference, in an emotional moment admitted his personal anti-gun bias (a bias that, as we have seen, is evident in the pattern of his research). Although in a letter to the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, Kellermann denied making such a statement at that specific meeting, he did not actually repudiate his general anti-gun bias.(4) Dr. Kellermann's elitism (and true appreciation of the value of a gun for self-protection) nevertheless is well encapsulated in the following retort directed at a question by a reporter and quoted in the San Francisco Examiner: "If that were my wife [being attacked], would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? 'Yeah,' says Dr. Kellermann."(5)

When the University of Iowa sponsored a conference in 1992 on firearms violence, that confab was also funded in part with CDC/NCIPC funds which had previously been allocated to the study of rural injuries and farm occupational hazards; moreover, the only non-academic faculty member invited was Ms. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The conference, subsequently entitled "National Violence Prevention Conference --- Bridging Science and Program" reconvened in 1995, using again, the same type of funding and hosted by the CDC/NCIPC and the University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research Center. In his invocation to the conference, Dr. Mark L. Rosenberg, Director of the NCIPC who served as Chairman of the Executive Planning Committee vaunted, "Violence in America has reached epidemic proportions and presents our nation with a public health challenge as great as we have faced in the past...We believe that violence in our homes and communities is a great public health challenge that our nation can face and overcome as we enter the next millennium."

From the foregoing, it becomes plainly evident how --- oblivious to the lessons of history, the unchanging nature of humanity, the fallibility of man (and his imperfectability), not to mention the accumulating body of legitimate scientific evidence in the sociologic, legal, and criminologic literature --- public health officials like statist bureaucrats, truly but erroneously, believe in the Utopian-socialist notion of the perfectibility of man (novus homo) and the omnipotence of the state (der staat über alles) to accomplish their social objectives --- and demonstrates how pervasive is the arrogance of power in this arm of academia.

Finally, in our testimony we shed much-needed light onto the fact that much of the injury prevention research performed by the CDC/NCIPC (except, ironically, for its politicized, flawed gun [control] research we have discussed is superfluous, already being performed by a myriad of other agencies within the maze of government bureaucracy; this includes the Departments of Transportation (which studies automobile-related injuries), Labor (where Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] carries out studies on workplace injuries (while terrorizing employers and employees alike), Justice (which studies domestic violence), Education (supervises violence prevention within school systems), Health and Human Services (oversees the National Institutes of Health which conducts research on violence prevention, mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.), not to mention additional divisions, too many to list here within or outside the purview of these labyrinthine departments.

We concluded our testimony with the virtually unanimous opinion that given the complex nature of violence in our society, violence and crime prevention efforts should be addressed by a fortified educational and criminal justice system --- not to mention our churches and synagogues. Violence is not a disease and not treatable or amenable to study with the traditional public health model. Moreover, based on the serious violations in the conduct of [un]scientific research, the numerous transgressions in the pursuit of political agendas (that seek ultimately citizen disarmament), and the overly redundant functions of the NCIPC --- we recommended that the committee eliminate all funding for the NCIPC for the fiscal year of 1997, and thereby realize a savings to taxpayers of nearly $50 million annually --- and most importantly, effecting a major step forward, towards liberating science from the claws of politics.

Conclusion

In short, a protracted war has been waged by concerned citizens over the perversion of science in gun (control) research conducted by the AMA/CDC/NCIPC establishment and promulgated by the medical journals. This battle, whose clarion call was made by the NRA years ago, reached high intensity through the Spring and Summer of 1996. Although we were not able to close the doors of the NCIPC, and that remains our goal, our fight culminated in a significant defeat for the gun-prohibitionists in the House of Representatives. This past July, the House voted to shift $2.6 million away from the NCIPC and earmarked the funds for other health research projects. The redirected funding was the amount formerly allocated by the NCIPC to their discredited "gun (control) research."

In a "Dear Colleague" letter sent to all members of the House, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), who sponsored the Amendment, revealed what the NCIPC director said about their political agenda: "What we have to do is find a socially acceptable form of gun control." And, in a letter to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), several senators who support the effort to curtail NCIPC's anti-gun activities also noted that NCIPC Director Dr. Mark Rosenberg has stated that he "envisions a long-term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace."(6)

Although, the re-direction of $2.6 million away from the NCIPC's gun control research is a modest and overdue effort to deprive the anti-gun lobby of a taxpayer-subsidized propaganda organ and a first step towards attempting to restore the integrity of public health research, it also sends the greater symbolic message: that citizens, including many scientists and physicians, are not going to sit idly by and allow the perversion of science and medical research for political ends. For the reasons enumerated and discussed here, the appropriate and obvious long term course of action should be to eliminate all funding for the NCIPC, prohibit the CDC from conducting "research" in this area, and save the taxpayers nearly $50 million annually --- and most importantly, effecting a major step towards restoring credibility and integrity to public health, returning it to its former traditional role of stamping out infectious diseases and epidemics, and de-politicizing medical research.

Whether this victory is fleeting and evanescent or definitive and long-lasting is yet to be seen. Already this year the AMA has directed its lobbyists to "strongly advocate" that funding for gun (control) research be restored to the CDC/NCIPC.(7)

I urge everyone to remain informed and vigilant on this issue. As Andrew Jackson once said, "The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country, than the coward who deserts her in the hour of danger."

References

1. Kassirer JP. Guns in the household. NEJM 1993;329(15):1117-1118.
2. Waters WC, IV, Faria MA, Jr., Wheeler TW, Kates DB. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. March 6, 1996. Hearing Volume, Part 7:935-970.
3. Christoffel KK. Quoted in Somerville J. Gun control as immunization. AMNews, January 3, 1994, p.9.
4. Kellermann A. Letter to the editor. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(5):254-255.
5. Kellermann A. Quoted in the San Francisco Examiner, April 3, 1994.
6. Rosenberg M. Quoted originally in The Rolling Stone 1993. Cited by Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Waters WC, IV, How the CDC succumbed to the gun epidemic. Reason, April 1997, pp.25-29.
7. Kent C. AMA wants CDC gun research funds back. AMNews 1997;40(1):8.

Dr. Faria is a consultant neurosurgeon, Adjunct Professor of Medical History (1993-1996) at Mercer University School of Medicine, and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995) and Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (Macon, Georgia, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1997). He serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). This article is based on his speech given at the 53rd Annual AAPS meeting held in La Jolla, California, October 10-12, 1996.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1997;2(3):83-86. Copyright ©1997Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
---

ObamaCare: Another Step Toward Corporate Socialized Medicine in the US
Miguel A Faria
Clinical Professor of Neurosurgery (ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.), Mercer University School of Medicine; President, www.haciendapub.com, Macon, Georgia, USA
Date of Submission 07-Feb-2012
Date of Acceptance 17-Feb-2012
Date of Web Publication 29-Jun-2012
Correspondence Address:
Miguel A Faria
Clinical Professor of Neurosurgery (ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.), Mercer University School of Medicine; President, www.haciendapub.com, Macon, Georgia
USA
http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806;year=2012;volume=3;issue=1;spage=71;epage=71;aulast=Faria
http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/temp/SurgNeurolInt3171-7060591_193645.pdf

© 2012 Faria; This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.97729

How to cite this article:
Faria MA. ObamaCare: Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the US. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:71

How to cite this URL:
Faria MA. ObamaCare: Another step toward corporate socialized medicine in the US. Surg Neurol Int [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Aug 10];3:71. Available from: http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/text.asp?2012/3/1/71/97729

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010), more commonly referred to as ObamaCare, has become one of the most controversial pieces of legislation passed by the Democrat-controlled, 111 th U.S. Congress during President Obama's administration.

Despite significant political opposition and poll-after-poll evincing the American people's strong dissatisfaction with a health care plan that was correctly seen as further socializing American medicine, ObamaCare [Figure 1] was passed by the two houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the president on March 23, 2010. Figure 1: U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House, flanked by activist physicians, expounding on ObamaCare (expansion of corporate socialized medicine in the U.S.)

One stated goal of the plan is ostensibly to "expand access to insurance for nearly 30 million Americans." And to accomplish this "reform," the Obama administration has introduced the elements of compulsion - and more ominously, unconstitutional powers.

To increase access to insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans, ObamaCare forces insurance companies and managed care plans to extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; in effect, converting conventional rules of indemnity coverage (i.e., coverage for unforeseen medical illnesses and injuries) into prepayment for chronic medical care.

But perhaps the most egregious section of ObamaCare is to force uninsured Americans to purchase medical insurance. Noncompliance with this "reform" will trigger heavy fines imposed by the federal government as a penalty. This is referred to as the health insurance mandate, and it is quite different from National Health Insurance as in Canada, [2],[3],[11] National Health Service as in Great Britain, [6] or socialized medicine in France, Germany, and Japan. [12],[16] Thus, I make a relative distinction between the Obama administration's plan for health care as corporate socialized medicine (i.e., public-private, corporativist partnerships) and the fully socialized medicine as in most European countries. [7],[8],[9],[10]

The price of socialized medicine in every country in which it has been implemented is the usurpation of liberty, the erosion of individual autonomy, the gradual loss of the freedom to choose - working in parallel with the rationing of medical services and technology because the raison d'être of socialism is to control the population by depriving the people of freedom and keeping them subservient and dependent on the State.

The free enterprise system in the United States has traditionally relied on free choice in a free market place, whether we are talking about buying a home, an automobile, computers - or medical care. Government compulsion and social engineering are not well received by free marketeers and individualists in our society.

Small steps, incremental "reforms," have taken place in American medicine via increased rules and regulations regarding utilization and rationing of services, coverage, payments to physicians, etc. But further large-scale attempts to socialize American medicine have been repeatedly defeated since 1965, when Medicare (i.e., health care for the elderly) and Medicaid (i.e., health care for the indigent) were instituted. [4],[5],[9] A good example of this rejection of socialized medicine was the failed attempt by President Bill Clinton to revamp the U.S. health care system in 1993-1994. The Health Security Act of 1993 was a grandiose effort to further socialized American medicine in a corporativist direction, [8],[9],[10] and was dubbed "HillaryCare" because the effort was led by former First Lady Hillary Clinton [Figure 2], who serves today as President Barack Obama's Secretary of State. Figure 2: Hillary Rodham Clinton during the health care debate of 1993

If There was so Much Opposition to Obamacare, How did it Get Through Congress?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in the U.S. Congress in September 2009 when the Democrat Party still had majorities in both houses of the American Congress. Despite those majorities, the Republican Party [Grand Old Party (GOP)] was able to introduce several amendments and mount significant opposition to the legislation.

ObamaCare passed in the House of Representatives on October 8, 2009. The Senate then took up consideration of the bill and passed it "with amendment" on December 24, 2009.

According to the U.S. Constitution, when a bill that has already been passed by one house of Congress is altered or has amendments added to it by the other house, then the bill must return to the originating house to be re-voted on and passed again with those changes or amendments. Because the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill passed "with amendment," the bill had to go back to the House of Representatives to be reconsidered and re-voted on.

Likewise, if the House made any further changes or added any new amendments, the bill would then bounce back to the Senate for a re-vote. This process may seem unnecessarily cumbersome to foreigners, but the American Founding Fathers in their wisdom devised this method so that thoughtful consideration could be given to the making and passage of laws, and thus, hopefully preserve our constitutional republic.

However, the legislative shenanigans used by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and her counterpart in the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), to get the amended ObamaCare legislation finally through Congress turned that process upside down. Even the Washington Post, not usually considered a "conservative" publication, astoundingly reported that Speaker Pelosi was willing to do anything to ram the bill through Congress in 2010. [13]

Time was of the essence because 2010 was also a mid-term election year in the United States. Given the growing voter dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, the slow economic recovery, and the mounting opposition to this bill [Figure 3], the makeup of one or both houses of Congress could potentially change in early 2011. This political consideration added great urgency to the need to get ObamaCare passed once and for all and signed into law before any of the newly elected congressional members were sworn in. Figure 3: ObamaCare protestors in Washington, D.C.

So, Here is What Transpired

In 1974, Congress created a special methodology for balancing the budget, whereby the U.S. Senate could reduce the escalating budget deficit with a simple majority vote (i.e., 51 votes), rather than requiring the usual 60 votes that are needed to stop a filibuster. Under this Senate rule, the expediting process was called "reconciliation," but it was only to be used for balancing the budget.

First, President Obama and his Democrat congressional leaders, Pelosi and Reid, attempted to change the rules to effect passage of this legislation at any price. They used budget "reconciliation" rules to bypass the planned GOP Senate filibuster that would normally have allowed the Republicans to defeat the legislation with 41 Senate votes. (The 41-vote possibility became a potential reality when Massachusetts elected a Republican, Scott Brown, to the U.S. Senate on January 19, 2010.)

Second, the Democrat congressional leaders invoked a convoluted concept of "procedural rules" to make sure one way or the other President Obama could get this cherished piece of legislation through Congress [Figure 4]. Figure 4: ObamaCare legislation as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives

The Washington Post article expounded the convoluted methodology as follows:
"Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House 'deems' the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes."
"The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill." [13]

And that convoluted way of thinking did not even include Speaker Pelosi's "most revealing" comment expressed during an interview on Fox News on March 9, 2010: "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it." [15]

So, to make the story brief, the socialist members in the U.S. Congress were willing to do anything to pass and have signed into law what Vladimir Lenin deemed "the keystone in the arch of socialism" - government control of medical care!

The ObamaCare legislation again passed in U.S. House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a tight vote of 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill! President Obama signed it into law 2 days later [Figure 5]. Figure 5: U.S. President Barack Obama signing The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010

The fact that the legislation was quickly repealed in a largely symbolic gesture by the newly elected House in a 245-189 vote that January 2011 tells how unpopular the law was and remains. President Obama was happy to take credit for ObamaCare when he thought the American people would approve of it with time; but in the intervening years, that has not happened. Therefore, many of President Obama's followers are now distancing themselves from the law they helped create!

Violating The U.S. Constitution to Justify Obamacare

The U.S. Constitution, unlike the constitutions in other countries or other forms of government, limits the power of the federal government to specifically enumerated powers. Powers that are not specifically granted by the constitution are not authorized. Additionally, the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enshrined as the Bill of Rights, even forbid the Congress from passing laws restricting individual freedom. For example, the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Second Amendment forbids the government from disarming law-abiding citizens, etc.

It has been stated that the "Welfare Clause" in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Congress to distribute entitlements and to redistribute wealth in the form of socialism. But in discussing this clause, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations [of their specific constitutional powers] useless, and to make their power unlimited."

And James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution," in a letter to fellow patriot Edmund Pendleton dated January 21, 1792, wrote: "[If] Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." In other words, there is no authorization in the U.S. Constitution for the implementation of socialism in America.

Likewise, our constitution does not authorize the federal government to take over the U.S. health care system. To legally justify the implementation of ObamaCare, particularly the section that forces American citizens to buy health care coverage, congressional democrats and the president have used the (interstate) commerce clause of the constitution (that empowers Congress to regulate the interstate commerce among the individual states of the nation).

Again, this "broad construction" (interpretation) of the constitution is tantamount to a usurpation of power that would erase the limits of authority set for the federal government by the framers of our constitution. Nor have specific contravening amendments been passed to legally alter those constitutional limits.

The limits have been exceeded only by the judicial activism of court rulings, based on the two aforementioned broad interpretations of the "General Welfare" and "Commerce" clauses. The intention of the Founders was never for Congress or a complicit activist Supreme Court to use commerce and trade between the states to wantonly approve unconstitutional federal legislation.

As a result, a majority of the states acting individually, as well as numerous civic and professional organizations, have filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. [1] The U.S. Supreme Court [Figure 6] has agreed to review the lawsuits in March 2012 "as part of the three days of public oral arguments scheduled for March 26-28. There, lawyers for the Obama administration and a coalition of 26 states and private groups will separately plead their case on the health care law's legal limits." [14] Figure 6: U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., where nine Supreme Court Justices will hear debate over the constitutionality of ObamaCare

Let us hope reason and constitutionality prevail, and that at least part, if not all, of the most egregious sections of ObamaCare are declared unconstitutional and repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
---

Book Review of Cuba in Revolution -- Escape From a Lost Paradise. Reviewed by Russell L. Blaylock, MD
http://haciendapublishing.com/articles/book-review-cuba-revolution-%E2%80%94-escape-lost-paradise-reviewed-russell-l-blaylock-md
---

An Irresistible Force?
http://haciendapublishing.com/medicalsentinel/irresistible-force

 I picked up the front page of the USA Today in the doctor's lounge, an article caught my eye. The headlines read: "Health-Plan Cost to Soar This Year." Even though I was late to start my myelogram, I sat down to read this incredible headline. It reported that large health benefit plans' costs will go up 7 percent on average this year, almost twice the rate increase of last year. But, of even more interest, it is drastically higher than the 1.5 percent inflation rate. You may recall that the leftist demagogues of days past used this as a justification for the total eradication of the free practice of medicine.

But, it gets worse, a survey by Towers Perrin, a human resources consulting firm, of 213 companies found that a faster pace of increases looms ahead like a specter on the land. Some are predicting that these managed care increases will soon become double digit. Translated, it means that all of those companies, especially corporate entities, that were so anxious to destroy the existing medical care system will see their cost go up dramatically. It is reminiscent of the Jacobins who were also anxious to see all of the traditions, mores, and previously existing order of the Monarchy destroyed in order to usher in their brilliant new system based on the "god of reason," only to die at the hands of those they brought to power. Much like the Frankenstein story, and perhaps more apropos here, as expressed by Danton alluding to Graeco-Roman mythology on the way to the guillotine, "Like Saturn, the revolution always devours its children."

The reason given for the sad turn of events is twofold: First, that mounting costs are being driven by consolidation of HMOs, which dampens competition. Well, isn't that even more justification for having tens of thousands of physician groups all competing against one another in a system of medical savings accounts (MSAs)? And, shouldn't this process of HMO consolidation stifling competition be justification for an anti-trust suit? After all, isn't that what the laws were enacted for? Their second reason for this catastrophe is that the managed care socialists offered their product far below market price in order to attract business. Again, an anti-trust violation (unfair competition).

I can recall telling the deluded physicians in High Point, North Carolina that HMO savings would be a one time savings and that prices would be held artificially low to steal patients from real doctors. I also explained that once the honeymoon was over, the price increases for HMOs would exceed that of fee-for-service practice. Ta-dah! But, before that, I gave a talk to all of High Point business leaders assembled at the Chamber of Commerce. It was an illustrious crowd consisting of furniture factory CEOs, the owner of the largest school bus manufacturing plant in America, hosiery mill CEOs, all of the local captains of industry. I gave the same speech I would give to the doctors.(1,2) They sat politely and listened and then told me that all they were interested in was saving money. They were convinced they would show me the virtues of HMOs. With the HMO they would save tons of money and crush the greedy physicians in the process.

Now, they have not only succeeded in destroying the free practice of medicine but the system they used to do it is now more expensive than the one they replaced it with and of much lower quality.

While most of us reflexively want to shout with joy, actually, we should find this grim news sobering. I am convinced that this will be the start of part two of the plan to totally socialize medicine. The leftist intellectuals' and their government minions' response to this news will be that it only means that the free market cannot provide medical care because there are two many competing entities, too little centralized control, and too much opportunity for greed (i.e., the same old Marxist-Leninist argument). That, the collectivists on the left will say, can only be done by government. They will use the enormous salaries of the HMO and managed care CEOs as examples of this greed, and this will have great propaganda appeal. A coalition will be formed between government bureaucrats and the existing managed care structures as the takeover begins. In the beginning, it will have all the trappings of a reasonable association, another seemingly innocuous public-private partnership. But, with time, the bureaucrats will do what they do so well: They will slowly eat away at the controlling organizations of the managed care system by regulatory fiat and the use of other government bureaus until they are in virtual total control. Doctors, initially hailing the association as a refreshing change, will only see the deception far too late. Some never. As it is said, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain."

This is a time that MSA proponents should go on the assault, since the only justification the managed care industry has, cost cutting, is now dead.

References

1. Blaylock RL. Managed care as an industrial product. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(1):19-22.
2. Blaylock RL. Running for cover --- the herd instinct among physicians. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(2):14-17.

Dr. Blaylock is a neurosurgeon in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the editorial board of the Medical Sentinel.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1999;4(4):140. Copyright ©1999 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
---

How You Can Directly Oppose NWO Genocide/Eugenics/Population Control Efforts By Awakening Friends,Family, Neighbors
by John Hammell, IAHF (excerpt)

2. "Attorney General" Eric Holder has stated on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0) that he wants to "brainwash" us all against firearm ownership. Politicians prefer unarmed peasants- just ask Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot, all of whom committed heinous acts of genocide against unarmed people.

Meanwhile, Holder obstructs justice over the "Fast and Furious" probe via which he allowed thousands of weapons to be given to the Mexican drug cartels, one of which was used to kill a US border guard. Fast and Furious (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTlme9nHAs) was an obvious "Justice Department"/ BATF instigated scam intended to manufacture consent for the destruction of the second amendment. A new Assault Weapons ban intended to attack legal gun owners resulted from the Fast and Furious scam, part of a massive UN instigated push to disarm americans so we can't defend ourselves against NWO genocide.

In the Trevon Martin case, Obama and company are attempting to demonize George Zimmerman, even though an eyewitness (http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-administration-exploits-trayvon-shooting-to-push-anti-gun-race-baiting-rhetoric.html) observed him clearly act in self defense when he shot his assailant, Trevon Martin. The reality is that Gun Owners of America has documented that firearms are used in self defense 2.5 million times a year in the USA. This is another example of an attempt to demonize gun owners, its part of a full on assault on gun ownership. Its also part of an effort by Obama to set the stage for future class warfare intended to trigger martial law which the government is clearly preparing for as I discussed in my last alert (http://ymlp204.net/z30BEW)...
---

Harry Reid Prepares to Annihilate Second Amendment
Gun Owners of America

"Our Founders intended the Senate to be a body where legislation was slowed down and subject to improvement through extended debate and amendment. [Harry] Reid's proposed 'reforms' would remove two of the most fundamental rights traditionally reserved to all Senators -- to freely debate and amend legislation. I shall not stand for that." -- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

On Election Day last November, several Democrat Senators were campaigning for reelection in pro-gun states. And in order to get their constituents' votes, they promised fealty to the Second Amendment.

Charles, on November 6, Democrat Senators Joe Manchin (WV), Bob Casey (PA) and Jon Tester (MT) all won their respective elections. These seats, among others, were crucial to helping Harry Reid return to the top post in the Senate.

But only a month after the election returns were tallied, the Senate -- under Majority Leader Harry Reid's control -- is now crusading to implement:

* Gun bans on semiautomatic firearms and magazines;

* An effective ban on gun shows;

* A ban on private gun sales, without going through a gun dealer; and,

* Changes in the Senate rules which would allow them to ban guns with a mere 50 Senate votes.

This last proposal is particularly insidious. Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control. But, with the help of fake "pro-gun" Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50.

So the question of whether Senate Democrats will need 50 votes or 60 votes will determine whether gun control --- and much of Obama's agenda --- will be slammed through and passed into law.

This brings us to the "nuclear option."

This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control.

Your senator's vote on the "nuclear option" may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress. It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.

Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the Senate is just following its precedents.

But that's a bald-faced lie. As Democrats made clear during the Bush administration when the Republicans were contemplating the "nuclear option," the nuclear option has been threatened, but the trigger has never been pulled.

Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the "nuclear option" can only be invoked on the first day.

That's a lie. Senate Rule 5, Paragraph 2, provides that the Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next, unless changed by 67 votes (needed to break a filibuster of rules changes). If the Senate can use brute force to obliterate Rule 5 by 50 votes, it can use brute force to obliterate any rule at any time by 50 votes.

This is a major vote that will have huge ramifications for our republic. Our gun rights are just one of the many freedoms that are on the chopping block right now. And if Harry Reid can squelch his opposition by nuking the filibuster, it will be the first step towards completely obliterating our Constitution.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and tell them that the vote on the "nuclear option" will be the most important gun control vote of the 113th Congress. Urge them to vote AGAINST changing the Senate rules. Tell them to vote AGAINST the "nuclear option."
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62313366

 You may also phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
---

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: ‘Mr. & Mrs. America, Turn ‘Em All In’
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/sen-dianne-feinstein-mr-mrs-america-turn-em-all-in/

Hypocrisy: Newspaper Hires Armed Guards After Publishing Gun Owners Addresses
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/hypocrisy-newspaper-hires-armed-guards-after-publishing-gun-owners-addresses/

Pulling Back The Left’s Demonizing Of The Modern Musket: Real Numbers Of Violent Crime In The US
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/pulling-back-the-lefts-demonizing-of-the-modern-musket-real-numbers-of-violent-crime-in-the-us/


 


 

 
 
  Site Map