Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
HBO mini-series, “John Adams.”
A crucial scene from the HBO mini-series, “John Adams.” This film should be watched by all Americans.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The War Against Muslim Extremists is Wholly Unnecessary for Our National Security
VIA: Washington’s Blog
In response to my essays documenting that war is harmful to the American economy and produces a huge carbon footprint, some commentators have argued that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are necessary to combat Muslim extremists.
Even putting aside the fact that Saddam was an atheist who hated Muslims, the argument holds no credibility.
A leading advisor to the U.S. military, the Rand Corporation, released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida".
The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security (see this, this and this).
As a press release about the study states:
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
And key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.
In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.
As reported in a new article in Asia Times:
Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.
Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states...
***
General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].
***
When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."
***
The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Where does Israel come in?
Well, the Asia Times article continues:
Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.
Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
***
After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.
A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".
Even Newsweek has now admitted that the war on terror is wholly unnecessary.
Indeed, a former U.S. National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".
See also this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares", showing that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype).
If you still believe that the war on terror is necessary, this may be why.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Hal Turner Paid by FBI to Make Racist, Threatening Comments
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Report: FBI paid controversial NJ blogger for help
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- A New Jersey blogger about to stand trial on charges he made death threats against federal judges apparently was paid by the FBI in its battle against domestic terrorism, according to a published report.
The Record of Bergen County reported Sunday that Hal Turner received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups and was sent undercover to Brazil.
Turner also claims the FBI coached him to make racist, anti-Semitic and other threatening statements on his radio show, but the newspaper also found many federal officials were concerned that his audience might follow up on his violence rhetoric.
The newspaper reviewed numerous government documents, e-mails, court records and almost 20 hours of jailhouse interviews with Turner.
He goes on trial Tuesday in New York, accused of making death threats against three Chicago-based federal appeals judges after saying in Internet postings in June the judges "deserve to be killed" because they had refused to overturn handgun bans in Chicago and suburban Oak Park.
The postings included the photos and work addresses of the judges -- Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and William Bauer -- along with a picture of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in downtown Chicago and notations indicating the placement of "anti-truck bomb barriers."
Turner's FBI connections began in 2003 with the Newark-based Joint Terrorism Task Force and continued on and off until this year, according to the newspaper. He claims his postings and other inflammatory statements were part of an undercover operation to ferret out violent left-wing radicals.
His lawyer, Michael Orozco, has subpoenaed Chris Christie, the former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey and the state's governor-elect, to testify on Turner's behalf.
In an affidavit filed with the subpoena, Orozco says Christie knew of Turner's activities between 2002 and 2008 while Christie held his federal post. Orozco says Christie issued a letter saying he would not prosecute Turner for his statements.
It was not known whether Christie would be called to testify.
He said last week that he had not yet seen the subpoena, but said "any advice I gave as U.S. attorney regarding prosecutions is something I am not going to talk about publicly."
Federal prosecutors and FBI officials declined comment on Turner's claims.
"We do not comment on matters before the courts, and will not address Mr. Turner's allegations in the press," said Weysan Dun, who runs the FBI's Newark field office.
Turner said he feels double-crossed by the bureau after his June arrest.
But other documents show federal agents growing more anxious about his extremist views while valuing his ties to right-wing hate groups, the newspaper said. It noted one memo that stated Turner "has proven highly reliable and is in a unique position to provide vital information on multiple subversive domestic organizations."
In a separate case, Turner was charged with "inciting injury to persons" for urging blog readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers who proposed legislation to give Roman Catholic lay members more control over parish finances.
Information from: The Record of Bergen County.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Climategate Mashup
Mainstream media is whitewashing this story — so it is up to us to get this info out! Link to this video, Digg it, make your own responses, tweet, and do everything you can to expose this international conspiracy.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate
By DAVID STRINGER (Associated Press)
LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.
More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.
Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.
The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.
In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.
One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.
The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.
"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.
Jones did not indicate who "Keith" was in his e-mail.
Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.
The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."
"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.
Associated Press Writer Meera Selva in London contributed to this report
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.
More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.
Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.
The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.
In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.
One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.
The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.
"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.
Jones did not indicate who "Keith" was in his e-mail.
Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.
The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."
"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.
Associated Press Writer Meera Selva in London contributed to this report
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre
BY: Chuck Baldwin
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.
So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.
Question 2: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?
Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?
I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”
As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)
To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?
If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.
Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.
According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.
Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me. None.
Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The “one shooter with two handguns” explanation makes no sense.
I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking–a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building–tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.
Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven’t believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism.
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.
So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.
Question 2: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?
Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, “included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution”; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?
I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists–and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be “understood.”
As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.” No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)
To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted “Jesus is greatest!” instead of what he really said, “Allah is greatest!” right before opening fire?
If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government–including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws–could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights–and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives–are actually doing anything to make us safer? You’ve got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.
Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.
According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America’s finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30–and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I’ve got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.
Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been subdued–and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me. None.
Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from various vantage points–especially if they had rifles–it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The “one shooter with two handguns” explanation makes no sense.
I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking–a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building–tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.
Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven’t believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Surprise! Disarming victims ends badly
VIA Chicago Suntimes
When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. The Associated Press reported that "he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun."
Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan's assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. Last week's shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of "gun-free zones," which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.
Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith's desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."
Note how the reference to "a heavily fortified Army base" obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke's assurance that "more guns" are not "the solution to gun violence." In this case, they assuredly were.
The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.
If someone else at the processing center had had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured. Furthermore, the knowledge that some of his victims would be armed might have led him to choose a different, softer target in order to maximize the impact of his attack.
There would have been plenty of targets to choose from: any of the locations in Texas, including schools and shopping malls, that advertise their prohibition of gun possession. The problem is that crazed killers tend not to follow such rules.
That problem was vividly illustrated by the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which occurred in Killeen, Texas, a stone's throw from Fort Hood. In 1991, George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck through the window of a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, jumped out and began firing two pistols at the defenseless customers and employees inside, killing 23 of them.
One customer, Suzanna Hupp, saw Hennard gun down her parents.
Hupp later testified that she had brought a handgun with her that day but, to her bitter regret, left it in her car, as required by state law. The massacre led the Texas legislature to approve a "shall issue" law that allows any resident who meets certain objective criteria to obtain a concealed carry permit.
But people with such permits are still barred from bringing their weapons into areas designated as gun-free zones. And when a killer fires on people he knows will be unarmed, it matters little whether he has 20-round or 10-round magazines, a detail emphasized in press coverage of the Fort Hood massacre. The second or two it takes to switch magazines is a minor nuisance when the people you are shooting at cannot shoot back.
Even less relevant is the allegation that Hasan used illegal armor-piercing ammunition. The Brady campaign bizarrely chose to highlight that claim even though there was no indication that any of Hasan's victims were wearing bulletproof vests, let alone that his bullets penetrated them.
Perhaps the group hoped that such puzzling illogic would distract people from the plain fact that having a gun is better than not having one when you are confronted by a homicidal maniac.
When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. The Associated Press reported that "he lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun."
Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan's assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. Last week's shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of "gun-free zones," which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.
Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith's desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."
Note how the reference to "a heavily fortified Army base" obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke's assurance that "more guns" are not "the solution to gun violence." In this case, they assuredly were.
The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.
If someone else at the processing center had had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured. Furthermore, the knowledge that some of his victims would be armed might have led him to choose a different, softer target in order to maximize the impact of his attack.
There would have been plenty of targets to choose from: any of the locations in Texas, including schools and shopping malls, that advertise their prohibition of gun possession. The problem is that crazed killers tend not to follow such rules.
That problem was vividly illustrated by the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which occurred in Killeen, Texas, a stone's throw from Fort Hood. In 1991, George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck through the window of a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, jumped out and began firing two pistols at the defenseless customers and employees inside, killing 23 of them.
One customer, Suzanna Hupp, saw Hennard gun down her parents.
Hupp later testified that she had brought a handgun with her that day but, to her bitter regret, left it in her car, as required by state law. The massacre led the Texas legislature to approve a "shall issue" law that allows any resident who meets certain objective criteria to obtain a concealed carry permit.
But people with such permits are still barred from bringing their weapons into areas designated as gun-free zones. And when a killer fires on people he knows will be unarmed, it matters little whether he has 20-round or 10-round magazines, a detail emphasized in press coverage of the Fort Hood massacre. The second or two it takes to switch magazines is a minor nuisance when the people you are shooting at cannot shoot back.
Even less relevant is the allegation that Hasan used illegal armor-piercing ammunition. The Brady campaign bizarrely chose to highlight that claim even though there was no indication that any of Hasan's victims were wearing bulletproof vests, let alone that his bullets penetrated them.
Perhaps the group hoped that such puzzling illogic would distract people from the plain fact that having a gun is better than not having one when you are confronted by a homicidal maniac.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
ITS THE SOLDIER!
It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given us
Freedom of the Press.
It's the soldier, not the poet, who has given us
Freedom of Speech.
It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the
Freedom to Demonstrate.
It's the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the
Right to a Fair Trial.
It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and
whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who gives the protestor the right to burn the flag.
~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
Executive Orders
In the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, protecting our freedoms by eliminating our freedoms has turned our so-called democracy into a virtual dictatorship.
A Presidential Executive Order becomes law simply by being published in the Federal Registry. Congress is not involved in the process.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created during the Nixon Administration. FEMA has been given responsibility for disasters, including weather-related incidents, forest fires, nuclear or toxic incidents, urban riots, home heating emergencies, refugee problems, etc.
FEMA, under Executive Order 12148, is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies. The bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic, and to build FEMA facilities (detention camps) to house dissenters.
Over time, every President since Nixon has issued Executive Orders, bypassing Congress, that have centralized more power to control the citizens of the USA.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 -- allows the government to take over control of all highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 -- allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 -- allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 -- allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 -- allows the government to take over all modes of transportation, private or public, including your car.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 -- allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 -- allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 -- designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 -- allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 -- allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 -- allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 -- specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 -- grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 -- assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 -- allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 -- appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.
These are just a few of the Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen
Several times in the past, FEMA stood ready for action.
For example, in April of 1984 President Reagan signed a directive that became a secret national "exercise" called REX 84. It was to test FEMA's readiness in the event of a state of domestic emergency concurrent with a direct U.S. military operation in Central America. The plan called for U.S. military and National Guard units to be deputized and used for domestic law enforcement purposes. These units were to conduct domestic sweeps and round up an estimated 400,000 undocumented Central American immigrants in the USA. The immigrants were to be interned at 10 FEMA detention centers set up around the country.
In the 1990s, FEMA put mechanisms in place to override state and local jurisdictions during the Desert Storm operation in Iraq and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
We are no longer a democracy with checks and balances. We are a virtual dictatorship at the whim of the President. And when an "emergency" hits the fan, we will be treated like sheep, the more vocal of whom being confined to one of the FEMA concentration camps.
The current Obama administration is attempting to centralize health care into the hands of the federal government, they are attempting to dictate salary levels in the private sector, they are attempting to gain control of the contents of the Internet, they are attempting to silence media voices of dissent, they are attempting to remove guns from private citizens, they are attempting to control the climate, and so forth. They have thrust this country into so much national debt that every citizen will be obligated to indemnify their reckless spending with the fruits of their labor for decades to come. And it won't be a huge surprise if somewhere down the line they will attempt to implant a computer chip into all of their subjects in order to properly monitor and control them.
Isn't it curious how so many things seem to be a crisis or an emergency these days. And isn't it curious how so many of these events appear to be caused by those who are now attempting to correct them.
We are being enslaved one step at a time.
Wake up.
A Presidential Executive Order becomes law simply by being published in the Federal Registry. Congress is not involved in the process.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created during the Nixon Administration. FEMA has been given responsibility for disasters, including weather-related incidents, forest fires, nuclear or toxic incidents, urban riots, home heating emergencies, refugee problems, etc.
FEMA, under Executive Order 12148, is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies. The bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic, and to build FEMA facilities (detention camps) to house dissenters.
Over time, every President since Nixon has issued Executive Orders, bypassing Congress, that have centralized more power to control the citizens of the USA.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 -- allows the government to take over control of all highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 -- allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 -- allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 -- allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 -- allows the government to take over all modes of transportation, private or public, including your car.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 -- allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 -- allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 -- designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 -- allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 -- allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 -- allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 -- specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 -- grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 -- assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 -- allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 -- appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.
These are just a few of the Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen
Several times in the past, FEMA stood ready for action.
For example, in April of 1984 President Reagan signed a directive that became a secret national "exercise" called REX 84. It was to test FEMA's readiness in the event of a state of domestic emergency concurrent with a direct U.S. military operation in Central America. The plan called for U.S. military and National Guard units to be deputized and used for domestic law enforcement purposes. These units were to conduct domestic sweeps and round up an estimated 400,000 undocumented Central American immigrants in the USA. The immigrants were to be interned at 10 FEMA detention centers set up around the country.
In the 1990s, FEMA put mechanisms in place to override state and local jurisdictions during the Desert Storm operation in Iraq and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
We are no longer a democracy with checks and balances. We are a virtual dictatorship at the whim of the President. And when an "emergency" hits the fan, we will be treated like sheep, the more vocal of whom being confined to one of the FEMA concentration camps.
The current Obama administration is attempting to centralize health care into the hands of the federal government, they are attempting to dictate salary levels in the private sector, they are attempting to gain control of the contents of the Internet, they are attempting to silence media voices of dissent, they are attempting to remove guns from private citizens, they are attempting to control the climate, and so forth. They have thrust this country into so much national debt that every citizen will be obligated to indemnify their reckless spending with the fruits of their labor for decades to come. And it won't be a huge surprise if somewhere down the line they will attempt to implant a computer chip into all of their subjects in order to properly monitor and control them.
Isn't it curious how so many things seem to be a crisis or an emergency these days. And isn't it curious how so many of these events appear to be caused by those who are now attempting to correct them.
We are being enslaved one step at a time.
Wake up.
Ten questions about flu vaccines that doctors and health authorities refuse to answer
Here are ten questions vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities absolutely refuse to answer:
#1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?
Answer: There aren't any. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html)
#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?
Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn't any. And the cohort studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there isn't a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.
#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?
Answer: It isn't safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.
#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?
Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry routinely dismisses all such accounts -- no matter how many are reported -- as "coincidence."
#5) Why don't doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_Vitamin_D_immune_system_vaccines.html)
Answer: Because vitamin D can't be patented and sold as "medicine." You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don't even need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them out of business.
#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth's history?
Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D). (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_Vitamin_D_immune_system_vaccines.html)
#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?
Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines and don't build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them. (And even building antibodies doesn't equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)
#8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html)
#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?
They can’t. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50 healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can’t then scientifically claim that “candy bars make people healthy.” That’s essentially the same logic behind the “50% reduction in mortality” claim of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html).
#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?
Answer: Although they claim such studies would be “unethical,” what’s far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of people every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren’t backed by a shred of honest evidence.
#1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?
Answer: There aren't any. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html)
#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?
Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn't any. And the cohort studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there isn't a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.
#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?
Answer: It isn't safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.
#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?
Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry routinely dismisses all such accounts -- no matter how many are reported -- as "coincidence."
#5) Why don't doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_Vitamin_D_immune_system_vaccines.html)
Answer: Because vitamin D can't be patented and sold as "medicine." You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don't even need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them out of business.
#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth's history?
Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D). (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_Vitamin_D_immune_system_vaccines.html)
#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?
Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines and don't build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them. (And even building antibodies doesn't equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)
#8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html)
#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?
They can’t. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50 healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can’t then scientifically claim that “candy bars make people healthy.” That’s essentially the same logic behind the “50% reduction in mortality” claim of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccines_flu_vaccine_.html).
#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?
Answer: Although they claim such studies would be “unethical,” what’s far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of people every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren’t backed by a shred of honest evidence.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
76 Reasons To Have a Gun
76 Reasons To Have a Gun by Terence Gillespie
1. The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish.
2. A right exercised is a right retained.
3. It's the best single tool for protecting your life and the lives of your loved ones.
4. You detest American gun laws based on 1938 Nazi weapons laws.
5. Armed societies are polite societies. (Switzerland).
6. Switzerland is armed to the teeth with virtually no crime (Stephen Holbrook).
7. Because of the patience and discipline you acquire while learning about the tool.
8. So you can de-bunk Hollywood gun myths for your kids.
9. So you’ll know that not using toy guns when playing is an important step in teaching kids to respect and handle the real thing safely and appropriately.
10. It removes force from the equation of human interaction.
11. Home Invasion Robberies. And your gun tool should be easy to get to (Since it will be in the holster you’re wearing).
12. "Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other method of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." according to Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, Gary Kleck, in Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.
13. We call the police because they have guns, not pens to document what already happened to us.
14. Cougars in the backyard – Happens all the time where we live.
15. Coyotes on the streets – My wife has seen five, this year. Only a danger if they’re in packs or for small children and dogs, alone.
16. Rattlesnakes in the hills – Signs all over the trails around here. Put snake shot in the first two chambers of your trail gun.
17. Police Budget Cuts – Sacramento County in CA will reduce the number of squad cars from 39 to 8 due to budget cuts (Channel 3, Sacramento, air date 6/30/2009).
18. Early Release of Violent criminals from overstuffed jails – Happens more than you think. Check your local news. There’s no more room left at the Inn.
19. Economic Meltdown. Was Argentina more or less safe when their currency collapsed? And don’t forget the other 30 countries whose currency has collapsed in the last 100 years. Happens all the time to those other countries we tend to ignore. It could never happen in the US, right?
20. Hurricane Katrina and the next natural disaster.
21. Better than a knife past 2 yards.
22. The only sure victim-prevention lies with the victim-to-be.
23. Police only document crimes after they happen. They might investigate. But, they have no legal responsibility to prevent crime.
24. Saying, "Police are not your bodyguard," is quite an understatement.
25. According to the Dalai Lama, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001).
26. When seconds count, the police arrive in minutes (Or hours).
27. How many police does it take to give one speeding ticket to a dangerous soccer mom? Five! No punch line, here. It’s just how many I saw it take, last week. That’s five police not available for a real crime happening somewhere else.
28. The L. A. riots – For which the shotgun I had in the back seat on the way home from work was the right tool. We counted 22 plumes of smoke on each side of the freeway on the way home, that day. And the US troops on the streets for the next 3 days must have thought the M-16’s they were carrying were the right tool for the job, too. Now why would myself and those troops think it was useful to have a gun if neither of us actually fired? Because having a gun is its own best use. Guns are in full use even when they’re not being fired.
29. NYC Blackouts. I predict more blackouts as more cities and counties go bankrupt and don’t have the money to maintain their electricity grids.
30. The official role of police is to investigate, not prevent crime.
31. Self-defense is an inherent human right. It is given to you by God, not the government.
32. Since Criminals will always have guns, there’s no reasonable expectation of self-defense if law-abiding citizens don’t have them, too.
33. Meat on the table – Or do you only eat meat that other people kill for you?
34. 1 in 4 chance of being on the receiving end of a violent crime (and that was before the economic meltdown).
35. Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor. If you were impressed with Clinton’s torture of the word "IS" wait ’til you see what this bunch will do to the 27 words of the 2nd amendment. By the time they’re done they’ll have us believing the amendment has something to do with toaster ovens. Don’t laugh: I should have made each one of these people their own separate reason.
36. If history is any guide we should now expect increased "gun-control" (Victim Disarmament) laws passed under the guise of "protecting us." With the Government takeover of all banks, GM and Chrysler the US has now crossed over into the dictionary definition of fascism. Possession of firearms by private citizens threatens fascist governments that have always sought coercion and control.
37. Gun control laws increase violent crime as only law abiding citizens abide by the law. That makes "Gun Control" into effective "Victim Disarmament."
38. Last line of defense for family while traveling.
39. Clean-cut young men like Ted Bundy.
40. As a hobby to improve self-discipline and the understanding of physics.
41. To bring your physical preparation for resisting non-initiated force in line with your spiritual and intellectual efforts to avoid it.
42. The Virginia Tech Massacre – Cho killed 32 people and wounded another 17. Gun-Control (Read Victim Disarmament) has turned our schools into killing zones. Don’t those darn psychos know that guns are not allowed on campus? Actually, people like Cho do know and that’s why they choose school campuses for their shooting rampages.
43. School officials called the police when they heard Cho gunning people down at Virginia Tech. They called the police because they had guns that could stop Cho. Were guns the problem or the solution that day? The answer is that Cho was the problem and guns were the solution. If law abiding students were allowed to carry then their guns would have been the solution delivered long before so many innocent students were killed waiting for the police to arrive and "cordon off the area."
44. Camping among dangerous 4-legged creatures.
45. Camping among dangerous 2-legged creatures.
46. To equalize physical strengths in a confrontation.
47. Carrying a gun is a lighter burden than regret.
48. The Zodiac Killer. They never caught him. He claims 37 victims and is probably between 60 to 70 years old now, if alive. There’s an active website where you can submit tips.
49. If violent crime is not a factor then why do we still need police? (Boston T. Party)
50. You’re several more times likely, in your lifetime, to need a handgun to deal with a lethal threat than you are to need fire insurance on your home . . . yet more people carry fire insurance than carry a gun. (Boston T. Party)
51. Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day. You don’t hear about them because they never happened, silly.
52. Violent offenders shy away from houses and people who are likely to be armed.
53. Your security is not your neighbors' responsibility.
54. Your security is not legally the police’s responsibility.
55. To increase criminal expectations that you may have a gun.
56. To bear your share of the responsibility and burden of the proven gun deterrence of crime.
57. Because criminals fear entering your House because of my gun. Get your own and spread the non-violence.
58. Because there are evil people in the world that can’t be talked or reeducated out of trying to kill you.
59. To convert force into persuasion.
60. To remove fear from human interaction.
61. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. (Marko Kloos).
62. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. (Marko Kloos)
63. To promote equality.
64. Every living creature has the natural right of self-defense.
65. There are people in this world to whom you’re not a human being. You are merely an obstacle to obtaining your possessions.
66. After you hand over the money, they’ll still kill you for being a witness.
67. YouTube videos of people being killed after they give up the money or open the safe.
68. As a communication device for someone who’d kill you to get the latest playstation or XBox or iphone.
69. Because every citizen in Switzerland has an automatic weapon in their basement and they have almost zero violent crime.
70. To appeal to the better nature of a man who doesn’t have one.
71. So that you can protect yourself against criminals who use guns as a deadly extension of their inability to deal with people.
72. Because there are people out there who would use a gun against you just to avoid the "hassles" of persuasion or the "inconvenience" of fair trade.
73. "According to the FBI, states with 'shall-issue' right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns."
74. "The Bureau of Justice’s national average states that I have a 1-in-4 chance of being a victim of violent crime in my lifetime. The risk conferred by living in a major population center . . . . – where index felonies (rape, robbery, homicide, aggravated assault, etc.) number 200 a day – increases my chances of being a predator’s lunch stack to 1-in-9 annually." Mark F. Twight, "Eat or Be Eaten" S.W.A.T., March 2000 (p. 60)
75. Genocide frequently follows government disarmament of private citizens. The JFPO calls this type of government disarmament Death by Gun Control.
76. "Liberty or death," the meaning of which is clear and absolute, is but a trivial phrase if you do not carry a gun (Living with Glocks by Robert H. Boatman).
1. The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish.
2. A right exercised is a right retained.
3. It's the best single tool for protecting your life and the lives of your loved ones.
4. You detest American gun laws based on 1938 Nazi weapons laws.
5. Armed societies are polite societies. (Switzerland).
6. Switzerland is armed to the teeth with virtually no crime (Stephen Holbrook).
7. Because of the patience and discipline you acquire while learning about the tool.
8. So you can de-bunk Hollywood gun myths for your kids.
9. So you’ll know that not using toy guns when playing is an important step in teaching kids to respect and handle the real thing safely and appropriately.
10. It removes force from the equation of human interaction.
11. Home Invasion Robberies. And your gun tool should be easy to get to (Since it will be in the holster you’re wearing).
12. "Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other method of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." according to Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, Gary Kleck, in Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.
13. We call the police because they have guns, not pens to document what already happened to us.
14. Cougars in the backyard – Happens all the time where we live.
15. Coyotes on the streets – My wife has seen five, this year. Only a danger if they’re in packs or for small children and dogs, alone.
16. Rattlesnakes in the hills – Signs all over the trails around here. Put snake shot in the first two chambers of your trail gun.
17. Police Budget Cuts – Sacramento County in CA will reduce the number of squad cars from 39 to 8 due to budget cuts (Channel 3, Sacramento, air date 6/30/2009).
18. Early Release of Violent criminals from overstuffed jails – Happens more than you think. Check your local news. There’s no more room left at the Inn.
19. Economic Meltdown. Was Argentina more or less safe when their currency collapsed? And don’t forget the other 30 countries whose currency has collapsed in the last 100 years. Happens all the time to those other countries we tend to ignore. It could never happen in the US, right?
20. Hurricane Katrina and the next natural disaster.
21. Better than a knife past 2 yards.
22. The only sure victim-prevention lies with the victim-to-be.
23. Police only document crimes after they happen. They might investigate. But, they have no legal responsibility to prevent crime.
24. Saying, "Police are not your bodyguard," is quite an understatement.
25. According to the Dalai Lama, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001).
26. When seconds count, the police arrive in minutes (Or hours).
27. How many police does it take to give one speeding ticket to a dangerous soccer mom? Five! No punch line, here. It’s just how many I saw it take, last week. That’s five police not available for a real crime happening somewhere else.
28. The L. A. riots – For which the shotgun I had in the back seat on the way home from work was the right tool. We counted 22 plumes of smoke on each side of the freeway on the way home, that day. And the US troops on the streets for the next 3 days must have thought the M-16’s they were carrying were the right tool for the job, too. Now why would myself and those troops think it was useful to have a gun if neither of us actually fired? Because having a gun is its own best use. Guns are in full use even when they’re not being fired.
29. NYC Blackouts. I predict more blackouts as more cities and counties go bankrupt and don’t have the money to maintain their electricity grids.
30. The official role of police is to investigate, not prevent crime.
31. Self-defense is an inherent human right. It is given to you by God, not the government.
32. Since Criminals will always have guns, there’s no reasonable expectation of self-defense if law-abiding citizens don’t have them, too.
33. Meat on the table – Or do you only eat meat that other people kill for you?
34. 1 in 4 chance of being on the receiving end of a violent crime (and that was before the economic meltdown).
35. Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor. If you were impressed with Clinton’s torture of the word "IS" wait ’til you see what this bunch will do to the 27 words of the 2nd amendment. By the time they’re done they’ll have us believing the amendment has something to do with toaster ovens. Don’t laugh: I should have made each one of these people their own separate reason.
36. If history is any guide we should now expect increased "gun-control" (Victim Disarmament) laws passed under the guise of "protecting us." With the Government takeover of all banks, GM and Chrysler the US has now crossed over into the dictionary definition of fascism. Possession of firearms by private citizens threatens fascist governments that have always sought coercion and control.
37. Gun control laws increase violent crime as only law abiding citizens abide by the law. That makes "Gun Control" into effective "Victim Disarmament."
38. Last line of defense for family while traveling.
39. Clean-cut young men like Ted Bundy.
40. As a hobby to improve self-discipline and the understanding of physics.
41. To bring your physical preparation for resisting non-initiated force in line with your spiritual and intellectual efforts to avoid it.
42. The Virginia Tech Massacre – Cho killed 32 people and wounded another 17. Gun-Control (Read Victim Disarmament) has turned our schools into killing zones. Don’t those darn psychos know that guns are not allowed on campus? Actually, people like Cho do know and that’s why they choose school campuses for their shooting rampages.
43. School officials called the police when they heard Cho gunning people down at Virginia Tech. They called the police because they had guns that could stop Cho. Were guns the problem or the solution that day? The answer is that Cho was the problem and guns were the solution. If law abiding students were allowed to carry then their guns would have been the solution delivered long before so many innocent students were killed waiting for the police to arrive and "cordon off the area."
44. Camping among dangerous 4-legged creatures.
45. Camping among dangerous 2-legged creatures.
46. To equalize physical strengths in a confrontation.
47. Carrying a gun is a lighter burden than regret.
48. The Zodiac Killer. They never caught him. He claims 37 victims and is probably between 60 to 70 years old now, if alive. There’s an active website where you can submit tips.
49. If violent crime is not a factor then why do we still need police? (Boston T. Party)
50. You’re several more times likely, in your lifetime, to need a handgun to deal with a lethal threat than you are to need fire insurance on your home . . . yet more people carry fire insurance than carry a gun. (Boston T. Party)
51. Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day. You don’t hear about them because they never happened, silly.
52. Violent offenders shy away from houses and people who are likely to be armed.
53. Your security is not your neighbors' responsibility.
54. Your security is not legally the police’s responsibility.
55. To increase criminal expectations that you may have a gun.
56. To bear your share of the responsibility and burden of the proven gun deterrence of crime.
57. Because criminals fear entering your House because of my gun. Get your own and spread the non-violence.
58. Because there are evil people in the world that can’t be talked or reeducated out of trying to kill you.
59. To convert force into persuasion.
60. To remove fear from human interaction.
61. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. (Marko Kloos).
62. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. (Marko Kloos)
63. To promote equality.
64. Every living creature has the natural right of self-defense.
65. There are people in this world to whom you’re not a human being. You are merely an obstacle to obtaining your possessions.
66. After you hand over the money, they’ll still kill you for being a witness.
67. YouTube videos of people being killed after they give up the money or open the safe.
68. As a communication device for someone who’d kill you to get the latest playstation or XBox or iphone.
69. Because every citizen in Switzerland has an automatic weapon in their basement and they have almost zero violent crime.
70. To appeal to the better nature of a man who doesn’t have one.
71. So that you can protect yourself against criminals who use guns as a deadly extension of their inability to deal with people.
72. Because there are people out there who would use a gun against you just to avoid the "hassles" of persuasion or the "inconvenience" of fair trade.
73. "According to the FBI, states with 'shall-issue' right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns."
74. "The Bureau of Justice’s national average states that I have a 1-in-4 chance of being a victim of violent crime in my lifetime. The risk conferred by living in a major population center . . . . – where index felonies (rape, robbery, homicide, aggravated assault, etc.) number 200 a day – increases my chances of being a predator’s lunch stack to 1-in-9 annually." Mark F. Twight, "Eat or Be Eaten" S.W.A.T., March 2000 (p. 60)
75. Genocide frequently follows government disarmament of private citizens. The JFPO calls this type of government disarmament Death by Gun Control.
76. "Liberty or death," the meaning of which is clear and absolute, is but a trivial phrase if you do not carry a gun (Living with Glocks by Robert H. Boatman).
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
!*ACTION ALERT*!
The following action alert was received from the Illinois State Rifle Association. p.s. If you are not an ISRA member aand NRA Member please join, as it will take all of us together to protect our Second Amendment Rights.
The Alert follows:
ISRA Alert: County County Phone Poll For Gun Control Ordinance Is Still Active; Larry Suffredin and his cohorts on the Cook County Board are up to their old tricks again.
In order to justify passage of gun control ordinances designed to close all gun shops and ban and confiscate most guns owned by citizens of the county, the Cook County Board is conducting a telephone poll where callers can vote for or against the gun control ordinances.
Like everything else in Cook County, this poll is probably rigged. So, it's very important that you do the following:
1. Call 1-312 -603-6400 and select Option #1 when prompted. At the next prompt, select Option #1 again. Then, when prompted to vote on the gun control ordinance, press #2.
2. You should also forward this alert on to all your gun owning friends and have them vote too.
3. You should also post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you belong.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF COOK COUNTY TO VOTE!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What is a "Three Percenter"?
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.
Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.
The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.
We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.
The Doctrine of the Three Percent:
We will not disarm.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we'll shoot back.
And we are not going away.
Your move.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)