July 21, 2019

Maine Governor Advocates for Stricter Gun Control Laws

It appears that Maine Governor Paul LePage has come out with recommendations that the existing laws on the books that severely rip apart our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, be strictly enforced and even beefed up. This is a classic example of fake “conservatives” pretending that they know what the term means while advocating for the smothering of individual rights and a destruction of your Second Amendment right.

LePage says that those who commit gun violence, “always have a relationship to either drugs, domestic violence or mental illness.” That may be so, or maybe not. However, drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness affects many aspects of everyone’s lives. If it is so important that these conditions are responsible for gun violence, then what is it that this fascist government is doing about drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness? Our society is nearly 100% dependent on prescription and over-the-counter drugs, pushed heavily through the media to ensure the addictions continue. It is said that mental illness appears more prevalent in our society only because of better detection. Really? Is it really a proper thing that any GI who seeks counseling, perhaps because of war distress, should be considered a mental problem and barred from owning a gun? Who gets to decide what mental disorders are and why they disqualify any individual from owning a gun? I see many in positions to make such decisions loonier than the patients they are condemning.

As a society, we promote violence in our media – movies, and music and just about everything we do in life. And yet, instead of addressing that problem, we think we can cure the domestic violence issue by severely limiting a person’s right to keep and bear arms.

While fake “patriots” pretend that they would never consider infringing on anyone’s right to free speech or freedom of expression (art, music, movies, video games, etc.) they think, evidently as Paul LePage does, that destroying the rights of law-abiding citizens to self-protection is a responsible thing to do; that somehow this will cure the drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness problems.

Fake Second Amendment advocates are the first to claim that taking away rights of law-abiding citizens is wrong, and yet this opinion piece of Governor LePage’s is a clear example of how one right is treated differently than all others. If drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness “always have a relationship” to gun violence, and you advocate for the destruction of the Second Amendment while doing nothing to address the other issues, thinking it’s a cure, you are an ignorant hypocrite.

Each time good-intentioned rights destroyers approach the Second Amendment with advocation of limited rights, the enforcement of the existing laws, and even strengthening the limits on rights, they are promoting gun control and are strong allies with the radical gun control fascists.

For the same reason gun control has no effect on criminals, gun control does nothing to stop drug abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence.

Time to give it a rest and begin strengthening our Second Amendment rights instead of looking for ways to further destroy them.

“The federal government must do a better job to provide adequate resources for background checks on people purchasing firearms.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Pharma Death Clock

Find out how many men, women and children have been killed by Big Pharma drugs in the United States and around the world, since 2000. For instance, at the time I made this link, 16,000,000 Americans have died from chemotherapy since 2000.

Find out more at Pharma Death Clock.

Share

War on Health: The FDA’s Cult of Tyranny

Share

FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials 

FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials
Source: FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials – NaturalNews.com

Share

Bayer and Death

Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919 Pharmacology, Pathology, and Historic Evidence

Abstract

The high case-fatality rate—especially among young adults—during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic is incompletely understood. Although late deaths showed bacterial pneumonia, early deaths exhibited extremely “wet,” sometimes hemorrhagic lungs. The hypothesis presented herein is that aspirin contributed to the incidence and severity of viral pathology, bacterial infection, and death, because physicians of the day were unaware that the regimens (8.0–31.2 g per day) produce levels associated with hyperventilation and pulmonary edema in 33% and 3% of recipients, respectively. Recently, pulmonary edema was found at autopsy in 46% of 26 salicylate-intoxicated adults. Experimentally, salicylates increase lung fluid and protein levels and impair mucociliary clearance. In 1918, the US Surgeon General, the US Navy, and the Journal of the American Medical Association recommended use of aspirin just before the October death spike. If these recommendations were followed, and if pulmonary edema occurred in 3% of persons, a significant proportion of the deaths may be attributable to aspirin.

Bayer and Death: 1918 and Aspirin (Part I of V)

“The world has believed for almost a century that a new and virulent virus came out of nowhere worldwide and killed millions in 1918. Two reports, one published in 2008 and the second in 2009, lay that myth to rest for good.

The first report came as a press release on August 19, 2008, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Defending Big Pharma? Boy Receives “Experimental” Drug

*Note* – Below is a press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research. The attempt here is to preserve the “process” by which drugs are made available to people. There is however, no need for NCPPR to defend Big Pharma by expressing any fears that drug companies will go broke “giving away” their poisons. Their life-long process of convincing humans they can’t live without daily cocktails of chemicals has been quite successful. Pharmaceutical companies have raked in billions of dollars in profits, all in the name of “research” and the “process” to ensure that Americans get their drugs whether needed or not.

Statement of Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier in Response to Chimerix Decision to Make Experimental Drug Brincidofovir Available to Seven-Year-Old Boy

New York, NY / Washington DC – The following is the response of Jeff Stier, director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, to the decision of the drug company Chimerix to make an experimental drug, Brincidofovir, available to an ailing seven-year-old boy:

I’m happy Josh is getting these drugs, and I hope they work for him and he thrives. It is a heart-wrenching story, and we wish the best for him and his family.

But lost among all the coverage of this story are the critical public policy implications that affect drug development.

Should society expect companies to give away their drugs for compassionate use every time?

The answer isn’t so simple.

Ignored in this powerful emotion-evoking case are two critical components to the very system that bring us miracle lifesaving drugs.

1) We have lifesaving drugs because we have a system of profit-driven innovation. If there’s an expectation that companies should give away medicine simply because the patient, no matter how sympathetic, needs it, companies are going to have a difficult time raising the capital from investors. Those dollars, always risky investments, are a corner-stone of the innovating pharmaceutical industry and the basis for the benefits we enjoy as a result of new medicines.

2) In order to ensure the development of new safe and effective drugs, we all rely on a regulatory environment that allows for an orderly drug trial system. Certainly, the regulations should be more limited and flexible. But the system itself, like profit-driven innovation, is an essential element to the development of drugs we can trust, both today and in the future.

As important as it is that Josh is saved, it is also important to be cognizant of why Josh and his family now have hope. It is because of a system that allows for the innovation of the medicine he so badly needs. Expecting drug companies to give away medicines and always short-circuit the trial system may be satisfying in the short term, but the effects of eroding the system would be devastating. We should all want to preserve a system that works because when this boy grows up and has a seven-year-old boy of his own, that boy could need a cutting-edge drug as well. And if that happens, we want our drug system to be able to provide it for him.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier has testified at federal, state and local-level scientific and legislative meetings and hearings on health and risk issues.

Stier has addressed health policy on CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Home Invasion Attacker Not Responsible/Aquitted Because He Was High

A Bangor Daily News review of court records reveals a complicated, unusual case. Court documents say Klim attacked Lang shortly after smoking medical marijuana, and two medical experts who testified in court said the marijuana use may have exacerbated his psychiatric disorder and pushed him over the edge of reality.

Yet in his verdict, Justice Robert Murray did not mention Klim’s marijuana use. He said Klim suffered a psychotic episode at the time of the attack, and state prosecutors did not prove he had the culpable state of mind necessary to be found guilty.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Mentally Ill People Don’t Kill……But Don’t Go Look!

I know I have told this story many times before, so bear with me as there are some and new readers who haven’t heard it. True story. When my nephew was perhaps 3 or 4 years old, my brother was struggling to get him to eat his meals. On a day around noontime, I showed up at their house for a visit. My nephew didn’t want to eat his lunch and his father was being persistent that he did.

He gave the boy instructions about eating and the two of us retired to the living to discuss work. After about 5 minutes my nephew came into the living and excitedly announced, “Dad! I’m all done eating now! But don’t go look okay?”

In discussions about violent crimes with guns, guns are getting blamed – like they can kill someone all on their own. Not wanting to be included in any of these discussions are violent movies and video games and the data that shows that the common link between violent crimes and guns is drugs given to patients with mental problems.

For political and personal agenda reasons, Katherine Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, was reported to have said, “The vast majority of Americans with a mental health condition are not violent. In fact, just 3% to 5% of violent crimes are committed by individuals who suffer from a serious mental illness.”

There’s a problem here with her statement BUT I am going to go look!

She states first that, “the vast majority of Americans with ‘A’ mental health ‘condition’, are not violent.” Please consider exactly what that sentence is saying and that she does not qualify what determines “a mental health condition.”

Now let’s look at the second sentence. She states that only 3%-5% of violent crimes are committed by those, “who suffer from ‘a serious mental illness’.”

The information provided here is incomplete and therefore extremely misleading. The intent here, I believe, is to force anyone hearing or reading her statement to believe that mentally ill people are not a factor in the number of violent crimes committed. But when you examine what she said, she may not have lied, but she wasn’t very honest either. She qualifies the 3%-5% as being those with a serious mental illness.

For my money, there’s a vast difference between a person with a mental condition and someone with a serious mental illness.

Share

What’s Behind Random Violence and Mass Killings

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part IV

What transpired recently in Idaho is a prime example of the product of “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” Idaho, like many other states, cannot find funding enough to carry out their non fish and game, environmentalist-dictated programs. In a ruse to find “alternative” means of funding, the Department of Fish and Game cobbled together a symposium, of sorts, structured entirely from the knowledge gained from outcome based education. In other words, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) knew what they wanted to achieve from such a gathering and thus designed the meetings to achieve the desired outcome.

The brainwashed leaders believed and/or convinced themselves, while at the same time mounting a propaganda campaign to additionally alter public opinion, that filling the room with operatives trained in new-science science and new-education education, was a fair representation of stakeholders and the only thing they had been taught to do. (Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.)

A small group of not so easily influenced holdouts, who have enough of an understanding to see that this sort of thing is not right, did their best to stop the symposium or change it to something resembling sanity. The result was that the majority, which is a reflection of American Society, are victims of the sinister brainwashing that exists in our schools and throughout every aspect of our society. I believe those putting on the meetings, and the majority of those in attendance, actually believe they are doing the right thing.

The key here is to gain an understanding that this “changing” or mindset alterations is not some natural phenomenon. It is not merely explained away as a “progressive” lifestyle. It may appear that way but is this progression a voluntary one? It’s an orchestrated effort as we shall learn. Readers must open their eyes to this fact.

Who is responsible for the brainwashing? I choose to call it brainwashing because that’s really what it is. When anyone or any organization sets out to change the rational way of thinking in a mass of people, that’s brainwashing. When I write that those responsible for this action believe that, “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America”, the only way this can be done is through mind manipulation; to devise a way in which to completely alter the way that people think; to convince those masses that what was white is now black, that what was right is now wrong. This is brainwashing.

As I said, this program did not start yesterday. It has been implemented to varying degrees for a very long time and what some of us are seeing in our society is a product of that work.

In Part III, I shared a tiny bit of how the United Nations has implemented programs in education that have an influence on our everyday lives. What I didn’t write much about is who is responsible for the programs and what’s behind those plans to brainwash our people.

This conversion of thought, or the destruction of all thought, comes from seemingly countless entities but all with a common factor. To grow such a large sphere of influence is a monumental task that must begin with finding the right leaders of nations around the world and “training” them to take their new-found knowledge back to their homes and businesses with them to share with others and to train new “change agents”. In time, there becomes hundreds, then thousands and tens of thousands of change agents all freshly brainwashed carrying out the mission of the “enlightened” elites of the world “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

One of those training facilitators is known as the National Training Laboratories (NTL). I have personal knowledge and experience with this organization because NTL was founded in my hometown of Bethel, Maine. As a high school student I worked for this company and later as an adult actually attended some of their seminars and “T-Groups” (training groups), as well as visited the homes of some of the founders.

Bethel, Maine is a micro New England village where the population in the village proper is approximately 1,100 people. In a town that tiny, it’s difficult to not know what is going on; the same could be said for the activities of NTL.

Founded in Bethel, Maine in 1947 by Dr. Kurt Lewin, main offices were eventually set up in Washington, D.C. and during the summers, “training” took place at the NTL Center, as well as the facilities of Gould Academy and the Bethel Inn; all located in Bethel, Maine. In addition to Lewin, Ron Lippett, Lee Bradford and others helped found NTL and after Lewin’s early death, it was mostly Lippett and Bradford that continued on with NTL.

Lewin was a freak show really; a German native trained in psychology and kicked out of his native country because of the controversial work he did. In short, he discovered that through his work he believed he could make mentally ill people well. While that is a readily acceptable practice all across America, Lewin carried it to an antithetical extreme. He believed he could make mentally well people ill. His findings became the basis for sinister plans to extract information from people and brainwash masses to achieve desired public opinion. This was used initially for military tactics but later was found to be helpful in influencing the people, anywhere and in any numbers.

With Lewin’s evil notions grounding the foundation of NTL, he, Ron Lippett (an OSS, now CIA, operative) and Bradford set out “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

In the tiny town of Bethel, Maine, corporate and educational leaders from all over the world came for their special “training”. I was most exposed to some of their tactics when I worked as an audio/visual technician. In that capacity, I would have to make sure each classroom was set up with the desired tools, i.e. easels, markers, paper, tape recorders and sometimes movie cameras and projectors. There were times when I was requested to remain in the room and run tape recorders, movie projectors and cameras. Things that I saw at age 16, I knew somehow were really wrong at all levels but at 16 I had no idea exactly as to why. In addition, I was clueless as to what was actually going on and why and to what degree this “training” was and did have that greatly influenced this nation and the destruction of our society.

The use of mind-altering drugs, human mental abuse and sex where quite common, especially in what NTL called their “sensitivity training” sessions. It was often described as a means of “emotionally tearing somebody down in order to build them back up.” And build them back up as what, I might ask?

The National Training Laboratories‘ website gives us a mission statement and a list of values. I would like, for the purposes of the context of this multi-part series to point out one specific bulleted “value”. “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” It amazes me that anyone can believe they can “create” new knowledge and “create” practice of that knowledge. This again, should give readers a better understanding of “new-science scientists” and where they get their garbage faux “knowledge” that they bring with them into the field.

NTL has worked hand in hand for years with the National Education Association (NEA), which is the largest teachers union today. In addition, Lippett and Bradford founded and ran the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), where one of its objectives was the promotion of illicit drugs into our culture. SPRU trained what today are known as “New-Science Scientists”. The purpose of their training was to implement “Future Shocks”, a tactic where crises are created for the purpose of “shocking” the masses into submission. What easier way to control and train the masses than through fear. We see it everyday…..well, at least those who can see.

Try to imagine how many new NTL trainees have infiltrated our society in the past 65 years. Scary isn’t it and again, NTL is only one small part of the big picture in the planned decline of the United States. I contend that probably by now every university and perhaps every school district in this country, along with local, state and federal governments have NTL, United Nations and other operatives working diligently to complete the change. Hundreds of thousands of “change agents” and we wonder what has happened to our wildlife biologists. Maybe it’s time to look around and ask what has happened to our lives, our heritage and our culture.

Part V will look at what one agency here in America is probably responsible for making sure our schools, television, entertainment, music, politics, etc. are carrying out their brainwashing schemes.

Share