Why The Tyrants Want Your Guns 6th Issue Infowars Magazine

DHS: GUN OWNERS ARE TERRORISTS

Following Obama’s choreographed attack on the Second Amendment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it will join the administration, the Justice Department and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms.

Kurt Nimmo

GUN CONFISCATION BILL INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS IRS credit to citizens who allow government to confiscate their firearms

Kurt Nimmo

KING OBAMA’S 23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS By issuing 23 executive orders to restrict firearms ownership,

10 11

Obama has made his contempt for the people, the Congress and the Bill of Rights & Constitution blatantly obvious.

Aaron Dykes

OBAMA TEAMS UP WITH FOREIGN MEDIA AND GOVERNMENTS TO DESTROY SECOND AMENDMENT

Russian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack Second Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson

WHAT IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?

12

14 20

Setting the record straight

Barking Window

The 1%

19

Mass killings account for less than 1 percent of homicides, many do not involve guns.

Steve Watson

OBAMA SIGNS BILL GIVING HIM ARMED PROTECTION FOR LIFE

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people

Paul Joseph Watson

21

STATS PROVE: MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME Paul Joseph Watson

ALEX JONES VS PIERS MORGAN Alex Jones upsets the media’s trance over America about guns

Aaron Dykes

22

26

POLICe STATE

Tasers for Torture; 2 Girls, 1 Glove; TSA Discrimination

35

Steve Watson; Adan Salazar; Paul Joseph Watson

DIAGNOSIS: GUN CONTROL

Disarmament plan: first label everyone with a mental disorder; then use that to take their guns

40

52 49

Jon Rappoport

ARTIST PROFILE

Mike Adams’ Counter Think featuring Dan Berger

MASS MURDER PILLS

Americans consume more psychotropic drugs than any other country in the world

45

Melissa Melton

IT’S ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY NOT CONTROL

As the debate over stricter gun control laws escalates, we seem to be focusing too intently on the word “gun.”

The word we really need to zero in on is “control.”

54

Donna Anderson

DEMOCIDE

How many people will government kill this year?

Melissa Melton

2nd AMENDMENT POSTER

30

CROSSWORD PUZZLE Dave Mivshek

58

On the cover of the sixth installment of Infowars Magazine, we reiterate the warning we gave December 2012, when we said “this man wants your guns.” Only two months later, we find ourselves in the midst of a full-out attack on our Second Amendment rights, the final frontier between freedom and enslavement. The future of the Second Amendment will greatly determine the future of America as a republic of sovereign individuals. We must fight for this right, just as our American forefathers did in 1775! Paul Revere alerted the patriots that the British were coming to take their guns. Spread the warning, stand up against tyranny: They’re coming for your guns!

8

www.infowars.com

DHS: guN owners are terrorists

written by kurt nimmo

Following Obama’s choreographed attack on the Second Amendment earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it will join the administration, the Justice Department and the FBI in a renewed attack on firearms

U

nder the guise of preventing what is largely unpreventable short of disarming the entire country – eliminating “active shooter” situations – DHS boss Janet Napolitano announced on Wednesday she will work to “identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings,” in other words, disarming law-abiding gun owners.

The Department of Homeland Security is basically an interior ministry ostensibly created in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Although its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism, it has, since its creation in October of 2001, pursued its real and unstated objective – acting as an internal political police force tasked with undermining and attacking enemies of the ruling elite.

DHS: Global Elite’s Secret Political Police The DHS is not dedicated to preventing “future mass casualty shootings,” as Napolitano recently stated, but is assigned the critical task of attacking political enemies considered a threat to the globalist status quo. From lurid fictional claims about “rightwing extremists” to shepherding a national effort to undermine and destroy an idealistic Occupy movement, the DHS has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a political secret police.

The “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” document leaked to the alternative media in 2009 set the stage for demonizing gun owners and Second Amendment advocates in addition to a panoply of other political groups derisively tagged as “rightwing extremist” by the government.

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) also produced a document in 2009 warning about the danger of a purported “Modern Militia Movement,” including the likes of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. MIAC and fusion centers around the country coordinated with the DHS to “collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence” on the supposed threat of libertarians and constitutionalists, including Second Amendment advocates. Between 2004 and 2007, the DHS provided $254 million to fusion centers engaged in surveilling Americans considered a terrorist threat by the government.

Earlier this year, the DHS released a report, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008,” that employed the phrase “ex10

www.infowars.com

treme right-wing, ethno-nationalist/separatist” to describe individuals and groups it claims pose a domestic terrorist threat.

Conflating liberty issues with racism is a deliberate attempt to further demonize Americans opposed to the policies of the federal government. Designating opposition as racist is a well-tread path taken by the corporate media and Democrats, particularly since the election of Obama.

According to the latest DHS report, “the new ‘terrorists’ in this country are the Americans who love liberty, hate unconstitutional government edicts and fear the bureaucrats running Washington, D.C.,” writes Pat Shannan. “Second Amendment advocates are at the top of this ‘terrorist’ list, but a mere ‘pro-life’ bumper sticker might be enough to make one suspect in the eyes of a dumbed-down cop who forgot his oath.”

Pentagon Joins Effort to Target ProSecond Amendment Movement More recently, the government enlisted a West Point think tank to produce propaganda detailing the socalled “far right” and warn about white supremacists teaming up with the “anti-federalist movement” to attack political enemies, the government and most notably the police.

The West Point report specifically targets the patriot movement and constitutionalists opposed to a federal government controlled by an international financial oligarchy. These violence-prone terrorists, the report states, espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.

Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement. (Emphasis added.)

The last sentence in the above underscores the purpose of the report generated by the United

States Military academy – demonizing libertarians, constitutionalists, and specifically advocates of the Second Amendment as violent terrorists who pose a direct threat to law enforcement. The effort is designed to radicalize the elite’s front line – police and first responders – and set them against the “far right.”

Establishment Media’s Orchestrated Propaganda Campaign The establishment media’s concerted campaign against the Second Amendment has delivered a relentless barrage of polarizing and divisive propaganda in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in December.

CBS Chief Washington Correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, demonstrated the absurd lengths the establishment will go to trash the Constitution and sow fear and dissension of firearm ownership.

Following Obama’s speech earlier this week, Schieffer said dismantling the Second Amendment may present a formidable task, but one less daunting than passing civil rights legislation or defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. Producing a relentless wave of skewed surveys and op-eds in favor of “gun control” and “gun safety” (the latest misleading euphemism) reveals the urgency of the effort to disarm America and render it helpless.

Conclusion: Law-abiding Gun Owners Are the Target, Not Al-Qaeda Terrorists It is now obvious what is going on in the wake of Sandy Hook – the establishment is finally pulling out the last remaining stops in its long envisioned disarmament of the American people in accord with its ultimate plan to usher in a one-world government and financial system. A well-armed and educated populace prevents the global elite from realizing this objective.

In order to realize this required disarmament, supporters and defenders of not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution at large must be branded as renegade terrorists who threaten police. The cynical propaganda effort to pose law enforcement against a growing liberty movement is key to the elite’s effort to impose an authoritarian police state on America, a plan that will not be successful if the American people are allowed to possess firearms more potent than 22 caliber bolt-action rifles.

Gun confiscation bill introduced in congress written by kurt nimmo

IRS credit to citizens who allow government to confiscate their firearms

O

n Jan. 13, 2013, H.R. 226 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro. The bill will amend the 1986 IRS code and allow a credit if taxpayers “surrender” their guns to the government.

Cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act,” the proposed legislation represents another effort to convince citizens that they must voluntarily turn in their guns as a civic duty and to do their part to reduce “gun violence” and protect children, as Obama said yesterday.

The bill is yet more evidence that federal and state governments are now pulling out all stops short of door-todoor confiscation in their coordinated effort to disarm the American people.

Strikingly honest language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government’s “program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons,” in short, a program to disarm the American people.

The bill contains an exhaustive list of so-called “assault weapons” that will garner a $2,000 tax credit, including the much demonized Bushmaster AR-15 allegedly used in the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 14, 2013.

The inclusion of the IRS in the government’s attempt to grab guns is especially foreboding considering its effort to act as a Obamacare compliance enforcer. In July, we reported on a revelation made by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady that the tax agency planned to hire up to 16,500 new agents.

American taxpayers must reject such cynical enticements and stand together and support the Second Amendment against all attacks by Obama and Congress.

The latest foray against the Second Amendment and the founding principles of the republic commenced soon after the Sandy Hook incident on December 15 when California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein exploited the tragedy to call for an attack on America’s “gun culture.”

“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said. “I will do another assault weapons ban.”

New York governor Andrew Cuomo jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon a few days later, on December 21, and proposed gun confiscation in

the state. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option,” Cuomo said.

He was egged on by notorious gun-grabber advocate and New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who also demanded Obama use unconstitutional executive actions against the Second Amendment.

On December 30, Feinstein said America needs to “bite the bullet” and restrict the gun rights of Americans following comments by president Obama that he would support draconian legislation aimed at the Second Amendment.

Over the next two weeks, the establishment media launched an intense anti-Second Amendment campaign and produced corporate polls in favor of “common sense” gun bans. Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan Show and a flurry of pro and con pundits and

commentators debated the finer points of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms.

On December 16, Obama and Joe Biden went on national television accompanied by a gaggle of children and pushed the federal government’s anti-Second Amendment agenda. Obama brazenly signed a number of unconstitutional executive actions during the performance instructing the government to roll back the Second Amendment.

Kurt Nimmo is the editor at Infowars.com and the author of “Another Day in the Empire: Life in Neoconservative America.”

JOIN US IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST TYRANNY & HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH

100K PRINT & DIRECT MAIL - 1500 AUSTIN LOCATIONS - 164K EMAIL LIST - LOCAL & NATIONAL AUDIENCE

SEPT

oct

nov

DEC

jan

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN SERVICES AVAILABLE

FRANCHISING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE SOON ADVERTISING SPOTS TO ACCOMMODATE ANY BUDGET

CONTACT INFOADS @INFOWARS.COM FOR MORE INFORMATION

ADVERTISING SPACE IS LIMITED SECURE YOUR SPOT NOW www.prisonplanet.com

11

Obama Teams Up With Foreign Media and Governments to Destroy Second Amendment written by Paul Joseph Watson

Russian, Chinese, British, Australian talking heads attack Second Amendment

I

n the weeks since the Sandy Hook school shooting, Americans have been browbeaten by a plethora of foreigners in the media keen to lecture them on how their constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be eviscerated.

It started with British CNN host Piers Morgan, who seized upon the tragedy within hours to push his fanatical anti-Second Amendment agenda, calling for a British-style total gun ban. This eventually led to a White House petition calling for Morgan to be deported which went viral and attracted over 100,000 signatures.

As USA Today highlights, the Morgan controversy served to enflame a global gun control debate with foreign media personalities around the world lecturing Americans on what rights they should be able to exercise.

“In news outlets around the world, editorials, news stories and columns demand American gun control.

Our political debates have gone global and American conservatives are outnumbered in a way few even realize. Factor in the impact of worldwide social media and the Internet has given our home-grown liberals an incredible advantage and distorted what should be a uniquely American debate,” wrote Dan Gainor, noting that quasi-state owned media outlets like the BBC and Qatar’s Al-Jazeera were also demanding Americans be stripped of their inherent Second Amendment rights.

It was then the turn of the Communist Chinese government to jump on board the anti-gun bandwagon.

An editorial in the official state-run media front, Xinhua, called on Barack Obama to declare “war” on the Second Amendment and disarm U.S. citizens as soon as possible.

Mao’s policies were responsible for the deaths of 4070 million people; the vast majority of whom had no means of defending themselves against the genocide overseen by Mao and his henchmen during the Cultural Revolution.

Not to be outdone, the Kremlin-funded Russia Today 12

www.infowars.com

television network also lined up to attack gun rights.

During an interview with former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, an RT anchor repeatedly interrupted Roberts when he refused to agree that the Sandy Hook massacre should lead to draconian gun control laws in America.

“I was surprised to see that RT Moscow’s interest was to spread the official U.S. story of the shootings and to ask me if I thought ‘assault weapons’ would be banned as a consequence,” said Roberts, noting that RT refused to acknowledge Roberts’ attempt to cite media reports that confirmed Adam Lanza’s assault rifle was left in his car and was not even used during the massacre.

In a separate discussion about the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Russia Today host and an RT editor tried to savage Alex Jones’ impartiality by accusing Infowars of being money driven.

Russia Today accusing another media organization of allowing their accuracy and bias to be dictated by finance is somewhat rich given that RT is funded to the tune of billions of dollars by three term dictator Vladimir Putin’s government and was conceived by Putin’s press spokesperson Aleksei Gromo.

Dan Gainor notes that RT is “the voice for the Putin regime,” and that it seized upon the Sandy Hook shooting to launch an exercise in “America-bashing” which portrayed the United States as being “filled with meth labs, murders and anti-government opponents.”

Federally-funded NPR also showcased how Australians were calling on Americans to be disarmed, despite the fact that as the Wall Street Journal documented, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

It makes a serious statement when virtually every major global media outfit in the world is on board with the Obama administration’s aggressive campaign to eviscerate the Second Amendment, and serves as a reminder that Americans are under ideological assault from political enemies both foreign and domestic.

www.prisonplanet.com

13

BY ISSUING 23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO RESTRICT FIREARMS OWNERSHIP, OBAMA HAS MADE HIS CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE, THE CONGRESS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS & CONSTITUTION BLATANTLY OBVIOUS written by Aaron Dykes 14

www.infowars.com

arack Obama’s bold use of executive orders to ‘take action without Congress’ amounts to an outrageous unconstitutional overreach of powers, and is impeachable action on its face. And Obama isn’t even done; he has vowed to push Congress on a new assault weapons ban along with other legislative restrictions on the guaranteed Second Amendment, which “shall not be infringed.”

But worse, the 23 executive orders issued by Obama make clear that the vast medical bureaucracy centralized under ObamaCare will be used to profile and harass Americans in order to disqualify them for gun ownership based on “mental health” history.

At least seven of the 23 executive orders relate to mental health reporting that includes “clarifying” the role of doctors and health care providers in “asking their patients about guns in the home,” reporting “threats of violence” to authorities, and screening for “mental health” will create the backbone for a “no buy” list that disbars Constitutional rights from f lagged individuals without due process. At least 8 executive orders relate to new rules on background checks and weapons sales & ownership restrictions.

The numbers on the list relate to the summaries of the executive orders reported by the Washington Times.

The titles used are shorthand language by this author.

MENTAL HEALTH/ MEDICAL SPIES

These executive orders effectively “deputize doctors” to spy on patients, while priming and populating a database to take firearms rights under the pretense of “mental health” issues. This type of legislation has already been pursued by the likes of Senaotr Chuck Schumer and others.

Address legal restrictions related to states sharing data under Health Insurance Portability Act Contributes towards centralized health care database that will be used to authorize gun purchases.

Directs the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “research causes and prevention of gun violence.” Undoubtedly, the report will f lag PTSD and other related “mental health” sy mptoms that will negate gun ownership. Undoubt-

edly, it will not properly address the role of SSR I and other psychotropic prescription medications that an over whelming number of mass shooters have reportedly been on.

Under Obamacare, doctors can ask patients about “guns in their homes,” and are clearly encouraged to flag gun owners that may show so-called signs of “mental illness.” Under the newly revised DSM5 manual that psychiatrists use for diagnosis, a wide-array of behavior is categorized as mental illness. While it may be desirable that unhealthy people find treatment, it is clear that such sweeping labels will serve to prevent otherwise law-abiding citizens from purchasing guns.

Orders a letter to health care providers reminding them to “report threats of violence” to law enforcement. Clearly, this would also be a database flag used to disqualify potential buyers. The order leaves room for this policy to be abused.

Clarify mental health coverage under Medicaid Emphasizes mental health as an issue of focus.

Clarify “health benefits and parity requirements” under Obamacare Once again, ObamaCare is tied to a collectivist society and to an effort to control guns.

“Mental-health parity regulations” Mental health is clearly emerging as a watch word for reigning in firearms ownership rights. While truly unstable individuals should be helped, the opportunity for abuse is clearly widespread and troublesome. A nation of sheep have been encouraged to ask their doctors for pills if they feel unhappy or depressed. Will a history of SSRI medication be used to take away an individuals right to bear arms, for instance?

Gun Owners of America sounded the alarm back in June 2012 that ObamaCare would be used to flag would-be buyers and disqualify individuals from purchasing weapons: “Centralizing these medical records will allow the FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny them their gun rights, in the same way that the Veterans Administration has already denied more than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.”

A summary review of these executive orders makes

clear that this kind of profiling and issuing of “no buy” lists is indeed a major concern that undermines Second Amendment rights. Good intentions to promote “mental health” are distorted and used to “out” supposedly unqualified individuals who will have no due process, no trial and no chance to even make a case concerning their rights.

While ObamaCare and other health care practices will increasingly flag patients and enter them into a database, the Obama cabinet will be engaged in selling the American public, taking away the rights of individuals on the basis of “mental health.”

BRAINWASHING AMERICANS ON MENTAL HEALTH & GUN OWNERSHIP Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to “brainwash” people on guns, attempting to change the perception of gun ownership the way that attitudes towards cigarette smoking was changed. Clearly, the president’s new campaign would continue this effort, demonizing and undermining the clear constitutional and self-defense rationale for bearing arms.

‘National dialogue’ on “mental health” w/ Health & human services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan Meanwhile, the heads of two of the most dangerous and distorted agencies will tour the nation to lecture on reforming the nations’ “mental health” practices. Again, this has all been issued in the context of gun control. The Obama Administration is wantonly infringing upon the Second Amendment again by trying to distort the lines of jurisdiction

“I’m against having a king, I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.”

-RAND PAUL

www.prisonplanet.com

15

and give the Dept. of Health and Human Services (administering ObamaCare) and the Dept. of Education authority on labeling or dealing with people deemed unfit for ownership

“NO BUY” LIST SEIZED GUNS/ PRIVATE SALES: ATF, FBI, LAW ENFORCEMENT The data amassed through the health care system will be matched with the criminal background checks that are already in place. Felons are already barred from purchasing firearms. Now, law enforcement is instructed to run additional background checks before “returning seized guns” while federally licensed firearms dealers are saddled with additional ATF regulations, and will, apparently be facilitating background checks for “private sales,” which are targeted for further restrictions under this initial executive action.

Again, the stage is clearly set for background check authorization denial on the basis of “mental health” flags, on top of already instituted criminal history flags.

Strengthens data sharing under federal background check system Further centralized integration of data.

Provides incentives for states to provide background check In addition to infringement on the Second Amendment, much of this executive action furthers the trend of federal overreach, guarded in theory by the Tenth Amendment. This order calls for “incentives” (i.e. federal dollars) for cooperation by states which have a constitutional right to non-compliance with federal policies.

Attorney General to “review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun” Again, we see the formation of a “no buy” list similar to terrorism watch lists and “no fly” lists maintained by Homeland Security where due process is non-existent and individuals are flagged and disbarred based on suspicion or ‘signs’ of mental illness or related behavior. The potential for abuse and lack of legal recourse is clear.

Law enforcement shall “run full background check” before “returning seized guns” The question here is what is a “seized gun” and under what circum-

16

www.infowars.com

stances is it seized? Will unregistered firearms, otherwise legally owned by a law abiding individual, be seized? This policy potentially violates legal gun owners stopped in traffic, at checkpoints, at registration (as proposed under Feinstein’s bill) or even at home visits. While background checks can be done almost instantaneously, a “full” background check could disarm legal owners for days or weeks until individuals are cleared and, essentially permitted, to resume ownership.

ATF to send letter to gun dealers on “how to run background checks for private sales” This is a big area. We have already witnessed the ATF attempting to halt legal private gun sales in the state of Texas. Now, as a half-measure to banning private sales outright, prospective buyers will be forced to go register and pass background checks at dealer locations, effectively outlawing purely private sales. Meanwhile, licensed firearms dealers, already burdened with paperwork and red tape, will apparently be forced to facilitate private sale transactions, after receiving ATF policy mandates on ‘how to run background checks.’

Require federal law enforcement “to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations” This executive order reeks of the hypocrisy exercised by the Obama Administration during Operation Fast & Furious, which has now thoroughly unfolded into a scandal that has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for lying about what he knew and when, while casting doubt on the honest intentions of the ATF and Department of Justice. The Obama Administration admittedly “walked” thousands of semi-automatic weapons (now conveniently targeted by gun banners) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that they could subsequently be “traced” and blamed for crimes.

Dept. of Justice to analyze “lost and stolen guns” data, make available Further centralizing data to trace guns, this order has the potential for abuse by criminalizing otherwise law-abiding owners who’ve not cooperated in registration efforts and may possess “lost or stolen guns” through legal means.

New BATFE director appointed This relates to a purging of officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who were either indicated in the Fast and Furious scandal, or who may hold further information on other officials involved, particularly those higher up in the chain. Whistleblowers at the ATF helped uncover some of the details about Fast and Furious that were ultimately linked to Obama cabinet officials.

SAFETY DRILLS TO PUSH CRISISCULTURE, PARANOIA TRAINING AND FEDERAL MONEY/ JURISDICTION Finally, in fitting with the federalization of background checks, data sharing, and a mandate over gun safety and “mental health”, the executive branch is sticking its hands into safety protocol at schools, churches, public centers and more.

It further hypes of the paranoia of terrorism and lone wolf domestic extremists identified by Homeland Security and other departments to institute mandatory training drills, crisis scenarios and the like that have the potential for abuse by wasting tax payer dollars on statistically unlikely scenarios while federalizing the chain of command and jurisdiction for police and other first responders.

Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes.

First responders, schools active shooter training Homeland Security and FEMA have already been conducting training and drills based on mall shooters, returning veterans gone wild, homeland terrorist and other related scenarios. The Infowars crew covered one such drill that took place in Denver, not far from the Aurora Batman massacre, that was dubbed “Operation Mountain Guardian” and run by a federal chain of command headed by Homeland Security. Now, organizations like CrisisActors.org are institutionalizing this training by hiring FEMA-certified actors who play various roles in these terror and shooter scenarios.

Obama’s executive order expands and further mandates this practice for incidents which are statistically very rare, but widely hyped in the media as imminent.

While certain aspects of this kind of training may be prudent, in many respects it conditions the public and first responder force to accept greater government control as an automatic response to any mass casualty incident, when the jurisdiction would normally fall on local or state authorities.

Efforts to “prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime” Obama voted for laws to ‘throw the book’ at illegal gun owners who defended their homes from invaders in the state of Illinois, the home of the murder capital of the world, Chicago. Private gun sales

and unregistered firearms will clearly be prosecuted, while Castle laws and ‘Stand Your Ground’ legislation will be undermined or challenged (recall the Trayvon Martin case).

Attorney General report on “gun-safety technologies” Again, the same Attorney General who wanted to brainwash Americans on guns and who was complicit in the Fast & Furious scandal wants to implement new technologies and promote gun safety. Where is Holder’s credibility to do so?

Incentives to schools to “hire school-resource officers” Federalized money will be thrown around for politically-correct “school-resource officers” who will likely provide counseling and monitor student behavior.

Model emergency response plans for schools / worship / college campuses The Sikh temple shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre and the Batman movie premiere massacre have all brought the fear of violence to our private lives, and invited in the federal government to mediate those spheres.

Once again, it is generally abusive for a president to rule by executive fiat, and the authority to do so demands questions. It is all the more unconstitutional for a president to take on a constitutionally-guaranteed right and attempt to reign it in through countless regulations, all without formally consulting Congress.

While further gun control legislation has been recommended by the Obama Administration, and will be pushed via the kind of bills being introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer, the people should demand that the overreach of executive power be checked by calls for impeachment, as Infowars.com and others have recommended.

Aaron Dykes is a researcher, reporter, producer and writer for the Infowars Nightly News and Infowars.com.

He attended the University of Texas and has worked with Alex Jones since 2006.

www.prisonplanet.com

17

18

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.com

19

The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim MASS KILLINGS ACCOUNT FOR LESS THAN 1% disarmament OF HOMICIDES, MANY DO NOT INVOLVE GUNS yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.

W

hile the mainstream media obsesses over the possibility of gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a new study puts such incidents, and the idea of anti-Second Amendment legislation, into stark context.

Research published in USA Today, stemming from FBI data, reveals that over a five year period ranging from 2006 to 2010, mass killings accounted for only a tiny fraction of homicides, less than 1 percent to be precise.

The research found that during that time, there were 156 incidents in which four or more people were killed – the classification of a mass killing.

The Numbers Don’t Lie.

The study notes that guns were not even involved in a third of those incidents, and that lone gunmen were to blame less than half of the time.

The data also reveals that where guns were involved in mass killings, handguns were the far more likely weapon of choice.

Means of death in many of the incidents ranged from fire, to knives or blunt objects. In many incidents, the victims were known to the killers and were targeted, rather than being strangers in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In total, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children. These numbers are still tragic, and while any deaths, particularly homicides, and particularly mass homicides, are abhorrent – the figures clearly do not represent an epidemic of violent killing using firearms.

To put the figures into context, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention records show that more people died from migraines, falling out of chairs and sunstroke than were murdered

20

www.infowars.com

written by Steve Watson

by mass killers during this time.

Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and an expert in mass murders told USA Today that such incidents have also become less common since the mid-1990s.

Clearly, such simple and cursory research provides a reminder in the face of media promulgated panic, that the majority of the time, America is a perfectly safe country to live in. Factor in the notion that of the mass shootings that do take place, many lives may have been spared had the shooter encountered responsible armed Americans.

W hen it comes to schools, there are hundreds across the countr y that have taken measures to responsibly endure the safet y of children by extensively training teachers to carr y concealed weapons and react to crisis situations. Such programs are subject to strict oversight, and the individuals authorized to carr y firearms are subject to thorough and rigorous background checks.

W hile Barak Obama is set to address gun control measures, that will affect EV ERY A merican citizen, for the first time in a decade at The State Of The Union address next month, consider the fact that virtually ever y mass shooter in recent histor y has been on some form of SSR I drug. The link simply cannot be denied, and it is clear that there is a much simpler way of going about preventing such incidents.

Those who refuse to acknowledge these facts and continue to blindly push for stripping away at the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are either woefully myopic or completely politically driven individuals pursuing a ver y specific A nti-Second A mendment agenda.

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in international relations from the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham in England.

written by Paul Joseph Watson

OBAMA SIGNS BILL GIVING HIM ARMED PROTECTION FOR LIFE Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.

The irony of Obama seveking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life, while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree, represents the height of hypocrisy.

But it’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people.

During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26, recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his reelection was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.

In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded.

The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.

Despite in the same year calling for “Mr. and Mrs. America” to “turn in” their guns, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also authored a draconian bill that treats gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group.

Other prominent gun control advocates, such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.

Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New York’s JFK airport back in 2005.

A White House petition created at the end of 2012 called for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. “If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees,” states the petition, which in mid-January reached the 25,000 signature threshold necessary for an official White House response.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. He is the author of “Order Out Of Chaos.” Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

T

he legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.

www.prisonplanet.com

21

espite the onslaught of media propaganda in support of the Obama administration’s anti-second amendment agenda in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the statistics clearly illustrate that gun control does not reduce violent crime and in fact has the opposite effect.

As graph A (below) highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an on-

going national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

The graph Crime vs. Guns (B) from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.

In addition, despite the media drumbeat that murders involving guns represent the number one safety threat to American citizens, the reality is completely the opposite.

Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States (see 22

www.infowars.com

graph C), homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list, according to figures from the CDC and the FBI. Almost 20 times more people die in the United States from medical errors than they do from firearm homicides, but there is no outcry to slap draconian regulations on the medical industry.

In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs in the United States routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Should U.S. lawmakers introduce urgent legislation to outlaw hammers and baseball bats?

The figures clearly illustrate that rising gun ownership does not cause a rise in violent crime.

Look at Chicago (see graph D), which in 1982 passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted.

Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40 percent higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.

In comparison, let’s take a look at Britain, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world. Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the U.K. is higher per capita than the U.S. and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990s.

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns

clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the U.K. than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the U.K. more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were un-

fazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.

Another country where violent crime and rapes are soaring is India, recently in the news because of the tragic death of a woman who was gang raped and savagely beaten in New Delhi.

India has a gun control policy just as draconian as the United Kingdom, and despite Indian women begging the police to allow them to own firearms for personal protection, the vast majority of license applications have been rejected, leaving women defenseless against rapists and murderers.

Now let’s take a look at a country which is geographically-speaking a stone’s throw away from the United Kingdom – Switzerland.

With a population of just six million, Switzerland has 2 million publicly-owned firearms. Despite the fact that guns are everywhere in Switzerland and are a deeply-ingrained part of Swiss culture, the gun crime rate “is so low that statistics are not even kept,” reports the BBC. Indeed, with its population of law-abiding armed citizens, Switzerland is one of the safest countries to live in the entire world, with homicide rates at just 2.2 people per 100,000.

So the U.K. is one of the most dangerous places to live in the developed world, while Switzerland is one of the safest, and yet Switzerland is a nation of gun owners. How then can we possibly conclude that gun control reduces violent crime when in virtually every instance it has proven to have the opposite effect?

The figures clearly show that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and in fact only emboldens criminals to use guns illegally – safe in the knowledge that their victims have been disarmed courtesy of government legislation.

Recent cases involving law abiding citizens in America, largely ignored by the mass media, who have exercised their second amendment right to prevent a crime and save lives, emphasize this reality, including an incident just two days after the Connecticut massacre during which a gunman entered a theater in San Antonio after killing his ex-girlfriend but was shot dead by an off duty policewoman.

In addition, last month’s mall shooting in Oregon was brought to an end when 22-year-old Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, pulled a gun on the killer, prompting masked shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts to use his final bullet on himself.

In both cases, the media virtually ignored the fact that potential massacres were stopped by responsible Americans using firearms. Similar cases emerge on a weekly basis, including another incident on Friday where a woman in Atlanta defended herself and her young children against an intruder by using a legally owned firearm.

The National Safety Council notes that guns are used some 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, meaning that firearms are utilized to protect innocent lives in 80 times more cases than they are used to end lives.

These figures, not just from America but from other countries around the world, send a clear and consistent message - gun control actually increases violent crime, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime, and only by allowing responsible, law-abiding people to be armed and not by disarming the victims can we hope to prevent or lessen the scale of future tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. www.prisonplanet.com

23

24

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.com

25

Alex Jones

UPSETS THE MEDIA’S TRANCE OVER AMERICA ABOUT GUNS written by AARON DYKES

“F

antastic appearance tonight. Thought you did exactly what you were there to do. Masterful and hypnosis breaking.”

The text message came the day after Alex Jones appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight program from a friend well established in the media world, not just to be encouraging, but to acknowledge a defining moment that had happened on live television.

It was Hypnosis breaking. It had upset the balance of steady meme emitting from over the television. The moment disruptive to the whole tone of broadcast, stirring as if from a sleep.

Here’s a short excerpt of the interview that spread virally all across the world’s media sphere: ALEX JONES: The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs. Take the women in India. Your piece earlier on CNN I was watching during Anderson Cooper’s show. Didn’t tell you that the women of India have signed giant petitions to get firearms because the police can’t and won’t protect them. The answer is -(CROSSTALK) ALEX JONES: Wait a minute. I have FBI crime statistics that come out a year late, 2011, 20plus percent crime drop in the last nine years.

Real violent crime because more guns means less crime. Britain took the guns 15, 16 years ago. Tripling of your overall violent crime. True we have a higher gun violence level, but overall, muggings, stabbings, deaths, you -- those men raped that woman in India to death with an iron rod four feet long.

ALEX JONES: You can’t ban the iron rods. The guns -- the iron rods, Piers, didn’t do it, the tyrants did it. Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns. Fidel Castro took the guns.

PIERS MORGAN: OK. How many -26

www.infowars.com

ALEX JONES: Hugo Chavez took the guns, and I’m here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms. It doesn’t matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street begging for them to have their guns taken.

We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?

ALEX JONES: That why you’re going to fail and the establishment knows no matter how much propaganda, the republic will rise again when you attempt to take our guns.

CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight: Jan. 7, 2013 It was a routing. An upset to an entire nest of usurpers who were trying to control the debate over guns.

Alex Jones went into the CNN studios and metaphor-

“NO MY POINT IS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS SACROSANCT...AND YOU’RE NOT GETTING IT.” ically turned over the tables in the temple of American thought, where counterfeiters were exploiting honest seekers of news, and injecting instead deceptive lies that distort the issues.

Alex had completely broken through the trance and changed the debate that was focused on the trauma of the horrible deaths of children, and demanding Americans give up their birthright, and turn in their arms as a sacrament as tribute to the 20 slain kids at Sandy Hook.

Afterwards, the entire media cycle on television, on radio, and in social media, was saturated with reaction to Alex’s battle with Piers Morgan.

It quickly flashed to the #1 Twitter trend (excluding

paid promotions), with people everywhere weighing in on the confrontation. CNN programs played clips of the heated debate over and again, desperately trying to spin the incident to demonize gun owners. Radio shock jock Howard Stern mused over the appearance, with his co-host Robin Quivers commenting that she was “with the guy arguing with Piers.”

Even the White House responded, officially denying a petition to deport Piers Morgan started by Alex Jones during the CNN broadcast that garnered more than 103,000 signatures.

Peter Grier, for the Christian Science Monitor, wrote “The wild faceoff between CNN host Piers Morgan and gun activist Alex Jones has, suddenly, made Jones the new face of the pro-gun movement, just as the White House pushes for gun control.”

The establishment clearly resented the firestorm that resulted from Alex Jones’ defiant declaration in defense of firearms.

The corporate media would love to keep the debate focused on the tame talking heads in suits from gun lobbies like the NRA, or on semi-automatic “assault weapons,” and on the minutia surrounding arguments about the number of bullets in a magazine, or on specific scary looking guns like the AR-15.

ALEX JONES: They know your script. OK? You’re not going to get our guns. By the way, you guys always say we just want to take the semiautos.

OK? And all this other stuff. The semiautos aren’t even -- rifles aren’t even used but in a fraction of the crimes. You can pull those numbers up, OK? PIERS MORGAN: You’ve had a lot to say, just answer this question.

ALEX JONES: No, my point is that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct… And you’re not getting it.

PIERS MORGAN: Do you know which weapon was used in the Oregon shopping mall mass

shooting recently?

ALEX JONES: I understand that people who were mentally ill on all the … [selective serotonin reuptake] inhibiters who play the shoot them up games … want to go out and do this.

PIERS MORGAN: Alex.

ALEX JONES: Because there’s criminals, I don’t lose my rights, Piers.

Piers Morgan had been shut down by a fiery defense of an essential right — the kind Benjamin Franklin warned never to trade for the appearance of safety, because it would destroy both. But Piers is just a mouthpiece for a coordinated effort to strip away gun rights, deeply embedded in the founding of the United States and established as a right that ‘shall not be infringed.’

PIERS MORGAN: “I’m in favor of a nationwide ban on military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”

A cadre of authoritarians that have constructed a system of rule, a shadow government, outside of the system of government prescribed by the Constitution — and, importantly, restrained by the Bill of Rights.

After launching an empire, infiltrating the sphere of Washington politics, monopolizing the industries, and constructing an occupational mechanism in the Department of Homeland Security (and other institution for “emergency” rule), the autocrats are constraining the right to bear arms in effort for final control. It’s ranking members funded and sponsored Obama’s presidential campaigns. They have green lighted an all out race for gun control legislation.

Alex Jones’ rant on the virtues of firearms ownership was blasted by blogs and television pundits as too charged, overly excited, crazy, dangerous and more.

JONES: America was born on guns and whiskey.

MORGAN: Right. But -JONES: It’s true we’re a violent society.

MORGAN: Right. The fact that America has the most guns -JONES: But statistically knives kill three times more.

MORGAN: And the most gun murders.

JONES: Have you seen the FBI numbers? Knives, bats, rocks.

MORGAN: Let’s talk guns -JONES: Kill many, many times more.

MORGAN: Let’s talk--Alex, let’s talk about the guns.

JONES: It’s not the -- it’s not the rock, it’s not the knife... When a mother chops her kids up with a cleaver -MORGAN: Alex. Alex. Alex. Tell me why I’m wrong about the AR-15 -JONES: Why don’t you want to get rid of drugs? … Because they’re half your sponsors?

MORGAN: Stick to the topic.

JONES: America’s number one cause of unnatural deaths now is suicide... Not automobile accidents… Not cancer. Listen.

MORGAN: You accuse me of attacking the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

JONES: I want to get people off pills that the insert says will make you commit suicide … and kill people.

MORGAN: Alex. Alex. Let’s get about the Second Amendment.

JONES: I want to blame the real culprit… Suicide pills… Mass murder pills.

Predictably, the most common reaction to Alex Jones’ appearance was to attack the messenger, instead of addressing the facts.

After the break, the CNN staff scrambled to get Alex out of the building. They cut the program short, eliminating the third segment they had planned with Jones debating Alan Dershowitz. Instead, Dershowitz, a legal expert who has defended torture and war crimes, went into damage control, declaring Alex Jones to be a dangerous man better left disarmed.

PIERS MORGAN: I want to bring Alan Dershowitz who’s agreed to defend me from deportation.

A great guy.

PIERS MORGAN: You defended John Lennon, no less. You’ve seen the encounter there with Alex Jones. He’s the guy behind this petition to have me deported. He’s really one of the reasons why I’m so concerned about the lack of gun control in America. He’s a man that owns 50 weapons. He has sort of a pathological view about it. He seems unhinged to me.

PIERS MORGAN: And the irony of these gun rights guys saying to me that I’m rude to them won’t be lost on my regular viewers, I’m sure. I try to stay calm, and really there’s no other way dealing with him because he’s just sort of this ranting guy who doesn’t want anybody to grab his guns, but no sense of awareness about the wider issue of a particular type of weapon being used to commit these mass outrages.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well, we lawyers refer to people like that not as witnesses but as exhibits.

He was an exhibit, like a piece of evidence. You just see him speaking and you say to yourself, I don’t want that man to have a gun. I wouldn’t feel comfortable having an argument with him in his home where he had access to his 50 weapons, and if he got really mad at something I said or if I disputed his contentions or I told him he was lying about the FBI statistics, and that he was lying about the claim more guns equal less crime, I would be worried he would grab for his semiautomatic to try to resolve it.

PIERS MORGAN: I agree. What really would concern me about somebody like him is the amount of influence he has, a growing influence, as he boasted. He’s got millions of people listening to him. And some of his YouTube rants have got tens of millions of people watching them.

Piers Morgan and his guests, and his compatriots in the corporate-owned propaganda-driven media, continued to assassinate Jones’ character and decry his burgeoning influence on the public debate.

The following night on Piers Morgan demonstrated the fervent desire to discredit Alex Jones, while the gun grabbers discredited themselves by exhibiting their vicious tendencies and approval of violence to win a debate.

Shoot the Messenger Piers Morgan dragged on family members of victim’s from the Batman movie massacre to counter Alex Jones loud positioning the night before. Behind the rhetoric, was an eerie illusion to violence done to Jones’ children.

DAVE HOOVER: What I would hope and pray for this man is that he never gets a phone call from his loved one at 3:00 in the morning, screaming that his daughter has been killed in a theater.

I hope and pray, because this man is so far off the target on this issue, that he would not be able to deal with that kind of tragedy in his life.

Then later on that January 8 episode, a sports

writer from The Daily Beast, Buzz Bissinger, actually called for Piers Morgan to “pop” Alex Jones with a semi-automatic rifle. The daughter of Ambassador and former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Abby Huntsman, laughed at the suggestion, and stated she’d like to see it.

BUZZ BISSINGER: I mean, I agree with you. I think the purchase of guns went up after Sandy Hook. Look, it is pathetic. It is ridiculous that you are allowed -- I don’t care what the justification is -- that you are allowed in this country to own a semi-automatic weapon, much less a handgun. But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally, and pop him.

ABBY HUNTSMAN: I would love to see that, in uniform.

PIERS MORGAN: I’ll borrow my brother’s uniform.

They openly celebrated their fantasy about shooting Alex Jones because they disagreed with his gun position, dubbing him a ‘bully.’

Similar outrageous and hypocritical threats were circulated on Twitter and other social media platforms after Sandy Hook, with numerous people calling for the death of the president of the NRA, as well as their supporters.

CNN and the other cable news networks are transparent mirrors for the establishment line. They are corporately owned by a tiny group of wealthy hands, and readily, obediently spouting state propaganda messages — official positions on how to think, framed language to deceive the masses about news events and program the people to accept greater government control over our lives for nearly every problem in society.

Morgan, in tandem with CNN, the Brady Center, the White House and other gun control advocates, willingly playing upon heartstrings as a psychological trigger to accept their argument.

It was part of a response to an entire media campaign to convince the American people to give up their rights as a supposed solution to a school shooting crisis. The White House and the talking heads had been steadily lecturing, steadily imposing guilt . The theme was consistent. “..And just really brainwash people about guns.”

The suggestion comes from a 1995 press conference with now-Attorney General Eric Holder.

He literally advocated a campaign to alter the public’s opinion on guns through repeated messaging. And now they are officially doing it, under executive order. Authorized, not by Congress, but by the President, the executive brain, ordered specifically NOT infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, ordering a propaganda campaign to brainwash the public into accepting gun control, and institute Soviet-style, politically-defined classifications under “mental health” pretenses to determine whether or not Americans are eligible to possess arms.

Former White House Chief of Staff, one of Obama’s real running mates in the debates of his day, Rahm Emanuel had famously quipped, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” He clarified the statement, continuing, “And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

It sets the tone for the whole crowd, and their readiness to advance their agenda on the back of tragedy.

The Obama crowd had always said they’d sneak in gun control “under the radar.” In the wake of tragedy, they have seemed giddy, exploitative of the tragedy.

Almost glad it happened. Obama shed fake tears and www.prisonplanet.com

27

later released a emotional photo supposedly taken at the time he was given news of the Sandy Hook massacre to score political points from the deaths at the hand of a madman.

Piers Morgan, an avid fueler of flame wars on forums like Twitter, mocked his attackers, bitterly stating: “I’m being accused of ‘standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children’ – if that’s what it takes to get action, so be it. #GunControlNow,” tweeted Morgan.

Piers Morgan had also responded to a tweet accusing him of being gleeful: Tim Jones wrote, from @coelkhntr, “@piersmorgan don’t think youre jumping on the bandwagon I think you are somewhat gleeful that a tragedy happened to help you push your cause.”

Morgan replied to the tweet, sarcastically quipping: “Of course I am, you moron “ Piers Morgan’s upper hand is his prowess for tabloid journalism. At the Daily Mirror and papers he’s editing, Morgan specialized in seizing upon controversy, scandalizing celebrity lives and sensationalizing politics.

Allegations mounted in the phone hacking scandal that implicated Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World and the Daily Mirror.

JONES: Why don’t you tell folks -- yes, you fled here. Why don’t you go back and face the charges with the hacking scandal?

MORGAN: Answer this question. How many guns -JONES: Why did you get fired from “The Daily Mirror” for putting out fake stories?

MORGAN: How -JONES: You’re a hatchet man of the new world order. You’re a hatchet man. And I want to say this right here, you think you’re a tough guy?

Have me back with a boxing ring in here, and I’ll wear red, white, and blue, and you can wear your jolly roger.

28

www.infowars.com

Piers Morgan can treat the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms as a tabloid subject, and has repeatedly done so, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to accept it.. He has smeared guests defending gun ownership, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden announced their gun control measures, enacted outside of law through 23 executive orders without going through Congress, by exhibiting children on stage who’d written him letters asking him to do something about the guns. As Obama sucker-punched the 2nd Amendment, he high-fived the naïve children, who obviously didn’t fully understand what they were part of.

Clinton had done the same in support of his push for an assault weapons ban. He took his disarmament campaign to MTV, the channel dedicated to bombarding impressionable teens and immature adults with edgy images, and told them that Americans had too many rights and couldn’t be trusted.

“When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly .... When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it,” Bill Clinton, Interview on MTV’s “Enough is Enough” Forum.

April 19, 1994 The date, April 19, was not insignificant. It is the day that a band of militiamen just outside of the city of Boston, stood up to an attempt by British soldiers to disarm them on that date in 1775 and started a revolution to declare themselves free Americans, entitled to self-rule, rather than subject British colonialists, not worthy of representation in their own rule.

April 19 was also that the date that, one year after

Clinton’s MTV appearance, a false flag attack known as the Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated against a federal building in order to demonize constitutionalists, gun advocates and much of heartland America as analogous with domestic terrorists and child murderers. A deliberate portrait was painted of Timothy McVeigh as a lone bomber, who worked in tandem with accomplice Terry Nichols, ignoring a mountain of evidence of second suspects on the scene with McVeigh, dozens of witnesses to others involved and a clear pattern of complicity with the ATF and other official agencies.

April 19 had also been, in 1993, the year before Clinton’s MTV speech about American’s “radical” freedoms, the date that the FBI, ATF, et al. broke their siege with the Branch Davidian “compound” and murdered women and children and men living inside.

MORGAN: You’ve got to try and answer some of the questions, right? Here is my issue for you.

Why do people need -- civilians need an AR- 15 type assault weapon? Why -[…]

JONES: They need them to protect us from the number one killer in history. Government of the 20th century university study out of Hawaii killed -- two million people. It’s called democide.

Google it, folks.

MORGAN: Do you believe everyone in America -- should everyone in America -JONES: Yes. Yes. MORGAN: -- therefore have an AR-15 if they want one?

JONES: Statistically, where there’s more guns, there’s lower crime.

32

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.com

33

34

www.infowars.com

LICE STATE POLICE STATE PO

T

he expanding police state, in all its various sickening forms, may be the most telling sign of our dire times. Has our ailing society become so afflicted by apathy that no one seems to notice or care that every law-abiding citizen is being treated as a potential criminal, and is, more often than not, guilty until proven innocent?

In the name of public safety, institutions like the TSA and several state and local police infect our lives with not-so-subtle “obedience training,” coercing the general public to obey orders at all costs, or be met with brute force. Like a malicious virus overcoming its host victim, this infectious plague of compelling obedience through force is running its course through the veins of America, pumping the malady of unquestionable submission through to the rest of the world.

The old adage “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” perhaps has neverbeenbetterpersonifiedthanbysomeoftoday’sstate andlocalpolice forces, the very same oath-sworn men and women who patrol our cities and neighborhoods, and our good friends the TSA, who leave no American traveler’s body untouched.

TASERS FOR TORTURE

C

written by STEVE WATSON

ops and attorneys have argued in an ongoing lawsuit that the use of a taser at point blank range on a handcuffed woman does not constitute assault with dangerous weapon and “that the use of a taser is not unconstitutional when used to compel obedience by inmates.”

The arguments were made as part of a motion to dismiss charges against an Oklahoma police officer in a civil suit brought by Nakina Williams following an incident in June.

Officer Sterling Taylor-Santino was filmed tasering Williams in the chest at point blank range while she was already under custody with her hands cuffed behind her back at the Pittsburg County Jail.

Following the incident, Williams was charged with felony assault and battery on a police officer, and expectorating on a police officer, as well as public intoxication. She was given a 10-year suspended sentence.

In October, officer Taylor was charged with felony assault and battery against Williams who filed suit, seeking over $2 million in damages.

The court records, obtained by the McAlester News Capital, show that Williams’ attorneys contend that the officer violated her civil and constitutional rights.

“The force used by Taylor, in shooting Williams with a taser while she was handcuffed, constitutes

an unreasonable and excessive use of force in violation of (her) constitutional rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Amendments,” the suit alleges.

Officer Taylor’s attorney contends that he “used the taser in the manner in which (it) was intended to be used” and that the information in Williams’ case does not prove that a taser is a dangerous weapon.

Taylor’s motion also makes the claim that the use of the weapon in such a fashion does not violate constitutional rights because he was trained as a police officer that it was within the law to use the weapon to control a dangerous or violent subject.

Because Williams spat at Taylor, he was within his rights to use the taser, as he was attempting to “control her behavior,” rather than purposefully injure her, argues the attorney.

“While it can certainly be argued that (Taylor) was in error as to whether this was an appropriate circumstance to deploy the taser, the motion states, “There is no evidence that he acted with an intent to injure any person.”

Williams’ lawsuit also states that when officer Taylor stopped tasing her, he yanked out the barbs, which were embedded in her left breast, leaving scarring. Normally officers are required to take the suspect to a hospital to remove the barbs.

The lawsuit also claims that Taylor lied on his report of the incident.

“In his ‘use of force report,’ (Mr Taylor-Santino) sought to cover up and/or conceal his actions… by omitting that (Ms. Williams) was handcuffed when she was shot with the taser,” the suit alleges.

“As a result, he was found to have acted ‘within policy’ by police department officials.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Taylor has a “violent work history,” and that a “disproportionate number” of “allegations of excessive force” have been filed against him.

According to the McAlester police department, officer Taylor has been put on desk duty until the court proceedings are over.

As we have highlighted many times, tasers are designed to be used in emergency situations only, as a last resort before lethal force.

Despite Taser International’s claims to the contrary, numerous studies over recent years have proven that taser stun guns can cause heart problems and even induce sudden and lethal cardiac arrest.

Recently, two police officers in Texas tasered a man who was having a seizure, causing the 50-year-old to suffer a heart attack and permanent brain damage. The cops were so ill equipped to

deal with the situation, that they broke out tasers and shocked a man who was already convulsing on the ground.

It took paramedics 11 minutes to revive the man and bring back his pulse. It is a miracle he is still alive, though he will now have to live with severe disabilities for the rest of his life.

In November it was revealed that a Los Angeles woman who was stopped by police had a heart attack and almost died after the officers tasered her when she refused to allow them to search through her personal belongings.

It is endless amounts of these kind of incidents that show cops are not being trained to use tasers only in situations when they are threatened. They are using the weapons on anyone who does not immediately respond to orders, and now even contending that it is constitutional to force obedience with a taser.

2 GIRLS, 1 GLOVE written by ADAN SALAZAR

T

wo Texas women have filed a federal suit against two state troopers and their department head after being forced to undergo a humiliating “roadside body cavity search” during a routine traffic stop in July 2012.

According to NBC DFW, “The lawsuit further alleges that [trooper Kelley] Helleson performed searches on both women, touching the anus and vagina of both, without changing the latex gloves between searches.”

Footage of the incident was caught by one of the trooper’s dash-cams and shows in horrific detail how the two women, Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece, Ashley Dobbs, 24, were made to submit to invasive grope-downs in full view of passing motorists.

The stop begins, innocently enough, with trooper David Farrell pulling the two ladies over for allegedly throwing cigarette butts out of their windows, which they denied.

Afterwards, the state trooper, is heard radioing a female officer requesting her assistance with a search he intended to perform.

The officer returns to their car and, out of nowhere, asks the two women, “How much marijuana is in that car? And don’t lie to me,” to which a woman replies, “I don’t smoke marijuana.” The initial exchange was transcribed by NBC: Farrell: How much marijuana is in that car?

And don’t lie to me.

Angel Dobbs: I don’t smoke marijuana.

Farrell: OK, how much marijuana is in that car?

That’s my question.

Dobbs: I swear to God, I don’t smoke marijuana.

Farrell: I’m not asking you if you smoke it.

Dobbs: I don’t think there is any marijuana in that car.

Farrell: OK, when was the last time somebody 36

www.infowars.com

smoked marijuana in that car?

Dobbs: I honestly don’t know. It’s my boyfriend’s car. So, I just borrowed it.

Farrell: There’s an odor of marijuana coming from the car and that’s why I’ve got to talk to you further about it. Um, and the more upfront you are the better it’s going to go for you. So, you’re telling me there’s no marijuana in that car?

Dobbs: To the best of my knowledge, no there is not.

Farrell: Is there anything hidden on your person?

Dobbs: On my person?

Farrell: On your person, in your shoes, in your underwear?

Dobbs: No. I feel like I’m being treated like a criminal right now. What’s going on?

Farrell: I’ve got a female Trooper up the road, she’s going to come down here and we’re just going to check a little bit more.

When the female officer arrives, Farrell relays that the women “are both acting real weird” and singles out the driver, Angel, as needing the search, saying, “There may be a dimesack in there or something, but I’m still gonna search it.”

Next, the female trooper, Kelley Helleson, is seen putting the all-too-familiar blue gloves on before descending down the pants of the two accused drug smugglers, while Farrell searches their car.

The illegal searches failed to produce any marijuana, but that didn’t stop Farrell from performing a field sobriety test, which Dobbs passed.

The searches subsequently left a painful reminder of the incident. “Angel Dobbs said Helleson irritated an anal cyst she suffers from during the search, causing her ‘severe and continuing pain and discomfort,’” reported the Daily Mail.

According to the Dallas Morning News, the lawsuit al-

leges “Angel Dobbs was overwhelmed with emotion and a feeling of helplessness and reacted stating that Helleson had just violated her in a most horrific manner.”

“The suit also says Helleson failed to properly explain the extent of the search, telling Angel Dobbs, 38, ‘not to worry about’ why she was putting on blue latex gloves,” according to Austin’s KVUE News.

The lawsuit apparently also stops just short of accusing Farrell of being a thief: “The lawsuit goes on to say that a bottle of prescribed Hydrocodone was missing from Dobbs’ car and purse after the search.

The women returned to the scene of the traffic stop the next day to search for the medication, but it was nowhere to be found.”

Steven McCraw, the director of the Department of Public Safety, is also named in the lawsuit for failing to address a “long standing pattern of police misconduct involving unlawful strip searches, cavity searches and the like…”

One of the women’s attorneys, Charles Soechting, Jr., says the troopers “failed the citizens of Texas,” and that a Class C Misdemeanor “does not justify any type of pat down, let alone an invasive search of cavities of women.”

The Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, in addition to a grand jury hearing in January, has also forwarded the case to their public integrity division, which investigates public servants who commit crimes under the “characterization” of their job.

Texas DPS did not immediately respond to Infowars’ media request at the time of publishing.

Adan Salazar is currently the associate editor at Infowars.com, writes often for Infowars Magazine and is an avid civil rights and due process advocate.

TSA DISCRIMINATION

R

written by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

S' E N O J MARY PRI CERNS CON ARDING REG THE OVAL REM OF ES SHO WAS THE T FAC T THA HE GHT CAU LETES ATH T FOO

adio talk show host and ardent Homeland Security critic Alex Jones was detained by the TSA at Austin-Bergstrom airport and threatened with arrest for refusing to take off his shoes at a security checkpoint.

Traveling to New York to appear on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Jones had already showed his ID as he approached the metal detector. He and colleague Rob Dew noticed that a large number of people across all age ranges were not removing their shoes before walking through the metal detector. The x-ray body scanners were not in use.

As soon as he approached security, Jones was addressed by a TSA screener who said, “Hello Mr. Jones,” indicating that she knew who he was, and immediately ordered him to remove his shoes.

When Jones refused, citing the fact that many others had not removed their shoes, the TSA screener claimed that only people under 12 and over 75 were not mandated to remove footwear under TSA policy.

When Jones contested the point, arguing that numerous travelers in their 40’s had not removed their shoes, other TSA agents ordered him to take off his shoes, before Jones was approached by a police officer who immediately got in his face and started threatening him with arrest.

Despite Jones’ protests that he was clearly being discriminated against because he was a known critic of the TSA (the rest of the TSA screeners also knew him by name), the officer growled, “Take your damn shoes off or I am gonna arrest you.”

Not even giving Jones the option to leave the airport, the cop continued to threaten him with arrest and prevent him from flying as the radio host threatened to file a lawsuit for civil rights violations.

One of Jones’ primary concerns regarding the removal of shoes was the fact that he had caught athletes foot from that very process in another airport before and he now carries a spare pair of socks to change into when he

ALEX JONES DETAINED BY THE TSA AT AUSTIN-BERGSTROM AIRPORT AND THREATENED ALEX JONESWITH WASARREST DETAINED THE TSATOATTAKE AUSTIN-BERGSTROM THREATENED FOR BY REFUSING OFF HIS SHOES AT AAIRPORT SECURITYAND CHECKPOINT. WITH ARREST FOR REFUSING TO TAKE OFF HIS SHOES AT A SECURITY CHECKPOINT.

www.prisonplanet.com

37

boards an aircraft. Jones emphasized that he was not a “clean freak” but that he had never encountered such issues before having to take his shoes off at TSA security.

Eventually agreeing to remove his shoes, Jones then walked towards the metal detector as the cop leaned over to talk to the TSA agents. After Jones had already passed through the metal detector, a “beep” sounded and TSA agents began laughing. Jones later said it was obvious that TSA screeners had set the metal detector off themselves, possibly by order of the officer, so that they could harass Jones further. Other travelers have reported that TSA agents routinely set off the metal detector themselves in order to manufacture a justification for further harassment.

The officer continued to detain Jones as he talked to other cops. Despite his seemingly wanting to take further action, TSA management, presumably aware of the potential scandal that could ensue, said they were happy to let Jones go on his way.

Jones is now considering a civil rights lawsuit against the TSA for discrimination. As we have previously documented, journalists critical of the TSA are routinely targeted for harassment.

CNN reporter Drew Griffin was put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008. Conservative radio host and Breitbart Editor Dana Loesch is also habitually groped

by TSA screeners whenever she travels.

Following the national opt out day protest in 2010, the TSA was forced to admit that it had kept records on Alex Jones and Matt Drudge, another prominent TSA critic, but refused to release details even after a FOIA request by former Congressman Bob Barr.

Political figures who have been critical of the TSA such as Rand Paul and Ron Paul have also been singled out for harassment and interrogation by the federal agency.

“TAKE YOUR DAMN SHOES OFF, OR I AM GONNA ARREST YOU.”

40

www.infowars.com

DISARMAMENT PLAN: FIRST LABEL EVERYONE WITH A MENTAL DISORDER; THEN USE THAT TO TAKE THEIR GUNS

W

hen everybody is diagnosed with a mental disorder, gun permits will be a thing of the past. Take that seriously.

At a presidential debate, Obama was asked about achieving gun control. He said, “Enforce the laws we’ve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals...[and] those who are mentally ill.” http://psychcentral.com In case you’ve been sleeping in a cave for the past few years, the U.S. government is doing everything it can to create more categories of crimes, and the psychiatrists are expanding the list of (fictional but enforceable) mental disorders, as they also relentlessly promote “more diagnosis and treatment.”

Some estimates state 20-25 percent of the U.S. population is suffering from a mental disorder. These are absurd and cooked figures, for several reasons, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that huge numbers of people can be arbitrarily labeled as such.

So legally owning or not owning a gun may soon hinge on a broader definition of “mentally ill,” changed to “having been diagnosed with a mental disorder,” because that is one back-door way to execute a massive gun ban.

Simply put: diagnose everybody and his brother with a mental disorder, and then assert that any such diagnosis bars a person from obtaining a gun permit.

Psychiatry, in addition to destroying lives through toxic drugs, becomes a political instrument for gun control.

In the July editions of both Psychology Today and The Psychiatric Times, the same editorial, written by

Dr. Allen Frances, America’s most influential psychiatrist, spelled out a clear position: “Guns do kill people and the number of people depends on the number of guns and the number of rounds they can fire in a given period of time.”

Of course, no mention is made of the psychiatric drugs that induce violence and murder.

Dr. Frances sums up his unequivocal position: “We really have only two choices...accept mass murder as part of the American way of life, or...get in line with rest of the civilized world and adopt sane gun control policies.”

I thought I would explore the issue of mental illness from a slightly different perspective, however: WHY ARE FANATICAL GUN GRABBERS PSYCHOTIC?

What is the nature of THEIR mental disorder?

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the gun-control forces are on the march. Ban this, ban that, go after the Doomsday preppers and bitter clingers.

The gun grabbers don’t respond to the obvious charge that, when honest people have weapons for self-defense, they can, in fact, defend themselves and stave off crime, harm, and death. This point doesn’t make a dent.

Neither does arguing Second Amendment. Neither does painting a picture of a society in which the only people who have guns are the government and crim-

inals. The gun grabbers seem to like that picture. At least theoretically.

Here are a few truths you can take to the bank: First Point:

If the media in this country (which are notoriously anti-gun) made a big deal out of every case in which an armed citizen successfully defended his home against a violent intruder, and made every such person a hero, we would have a different mood in America. Everybody would see the sense in gun ownership.

Example:

In the case of the Newtown killings, the media would be saying, “Now here is a tragic case in which no one in the school was carrying a weapon.” And everybody would see the sense and the truth of that.

So really, it’s matter of what the media cover and how they cover it, and what they ignore. That’s all it is.

It isn’t anything else. In other words, they’re running a psyop.

Second Point:

The government doesn’t want private citizens to own and carry guns because that would diminish the role of government.

written by JON RAPPOPORT

www.prisonplanet.com

41

WHEN EVERYBODY IS DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL DISORDER, GUN

The people in charge hate it when private citizens take over a self-appointed government function. It’s insulting. It’s people saying to the government, “We don’t need you.” It’s proof that government acts in many, many ways that are intrusive and preemptive.

Example 1:

“No need to worry, officer, I caught the thief as he was leaving the liquor store. I pulled my weapon and put him down on the ground and cuffed him. He’s in the back of my car.”

No, no, no. no. The government must be in charge of everything that pertains to showing or using a gun. No outsiders allowed.

“Yes, Mrs. Smith, I’m sorry we’re late, and I’m sorry you husband was beaten to a pulp by that intruder, but we have other crimes to process. We have to man speed-traps. It’s better that your husband didn’t have a gun, let me assure you. Why? It just is. Now, let me call an ambulance. I hope they get him to the hospital in time.”

Example 2:

Imagine what the response would be if you asked an IRS executive what he thought about a flat consumer tax on bought goods that would replace the whole IRS code.

We’re talking about government jobs here. Jobs and money and pensions. Private citizens must not do what the government does.

Example 3:

In case you hadn’t noticed, this spills over into the health field. The FDA certifies, as safe and effective, every (poisonous) medical drug before it can be prescribed for public use. The FDA therefore controls drug treatment.

If somebody comes along and cooks up, in his kitchen, an herbal brew that knocks out the flu like a ridicu-

lous little sissy in two hours, that’s a threat. Suddenly, a private citizen is miles ahead of the FDA (and the drug companies). No, no, no.

Example 4:

If home schoolers educate their kids better than government-run schools do, that’s another sore point.

That’s bad. It exposes the government factories that manufacture illiterate children.

Third point:

If enough citizens were well-armed, it would take a full-scale federal invasion to overcome them in case of, oh, secession from the federalized United States.

The feds, of course, would win in the long run, if they killed enough people, but the publicity would be devastating to the government. Think Waco multiplied by a thousand or a million.

And in the process, word would get out about these well-armed private citizens’ grievances against the central government. The grievances would make sense to a lot of people watching the carnage unfold. Can’t have that. No, no, no.

Fourth point:

A lot of people in this country grow up thinking they have to take care of other people. That’s really all they know how to do. This goes far beyond any understandable humane impulse.

This is meddling. It’s moving in on other people’s private business. The meddlers turn out to be vicious little scum. Well, where else are they going to be able to exercise these cheap impulses, other than in government jobs?

The corollary to this is: “I’m the hero.

I protect you. I...you what? You protect-

“ELITES WANTTO CONTINUE TO OWN AMERICA. THEYWANTTO HAVE SWAY OVER THE LAND AND RESOURCES AND PEOPLE AND MONEY. THEIR MINIONS AND AGENTS ARE THE OFFICIAL PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS. THAT’S THE WAY ITWORKS. IT HAS TO BE A ONE-SIDED GAME. IF MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS OWNED GUNS AND KNEW HOW TO USE THEM, THE TIN GODS WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT.”

42

www.infowars.com

PERMITS WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST. TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.

ed yourself? No, you’re not allowed to do that, because then I can’t be a hero.

You’re supposed to be the helpless citizen on my watch. If I can leap tall buildings, you have to be grounded. Otherwise, my life is in vain.”

Fifth point:

Elites want to continue to own America. They want to have sway over the land and resources and people and money. Their minions and agents are the official people with weapons. That’s the way it works. It has to be a one-sided game. If millions and millions and millions of private citizens owned guns and knew how to use them, the tin gods wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.

Sixth point:

So-called liberals hate people who own guns. For them, guns are symbols of everything else they hate.

Religion, land ownership, property rights, fences, and boundaries. Unless, of course, those fences define the liberals’ land.

Corollary: Many conservatives hate people who own guns, too, when they perceive those people are ready to decentralize power away from an overarching corporate-government control- nexus.

These are all elements of a true psychosis. It needs to be treated.

Short of mandatory sedatives, or a sudden attack on a lonely street at night by armed thugs, I recommend mandatory gun ownership for every non-felon adult in the U.S. This would solve the problem expeditiously.

I especially want to see all members of Congress

packing heat in their chambers. If, once in a while, there is a shooting, well, we can catch it on C-Span. It won’t be lost to history.

I also want to see Chris Matthews in his MSNBC studio with a .45 strapped to his leg, the one that tingles.

There is one caveat to my proposal. In order to create a fully armed population, that population must be responsible, which is to say they must understand inviolable private property rights. They don’t have to own property, but they have to know that such a thing as private property exists. Why? Because property is one of the things an armed citizen has a right to defend.

Unfortunately, we’re losing the concept of private property like water leaking out of a battered rowboat.

It’s part of government’s plan, because government wants to own everything that isn’t already nailed down by its partner mega-corporations.

And government’s thinking goes this way: “Since we own everything, our cops defend it with guns; there is no reason for private armed citizens to defend it; it isn’t theirs.”

Meanwhile, I have to get going. I just got a message that three armed women teachers shot a guy named Adam Lanza in a classroom. I’m heading over to check it out.

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a U.S. Congressional seat in the 29th District of California; has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize; worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing on politics, medicine and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern and other newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and Europe; and has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com.

www.prisonplanet.com

43

www.prisonplanet.com

45

F

ollowing his debate with CNN’s Piers Morgan this week, Alex Jones became the number one trend on Twitter. The quote above was seized upon and retweeted by many insinuating that Alex is “crazy” for referring to prescription antidepressants and other psychotropic medications as “suicide pills” and “mass murder pills.”

But can Alex’s comment be so easily dismissed?

Americans consume more psychotropic drugs than any other country in the world.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prescriptions for antidepressants have risen in this country by 400 percent since 1988.

New research was based on old research which showed that 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 take antidepressants, otherwise known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Antidepressants were ranked the number one most common prescription for all adults age 18-44, and 60 percent of Americans who take SSRIs stay on them for more than two years. At the start of the decade, the fasting growing class of antidepressant users was preschoolers.

Antidepressants and other psychotropics are prescribed “on-label” — or uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — for psychiatric issues such as depression, anxiety and personality disorders (“off-label” use for issues like hyperactivity and sexual disorders is obviously not regulated). Side effects of these drugs can include confusion, hallucinations, anxiety, agitation, mood swings, impulse-control disorder, paranoia, psychosis and hostility.

A Canadian judge even ruled that SSRIs can cause children to commit murder when he found that Prozac was largely responsible for a 15-year-old stabbing one of his closest friends.

This has become such a well-known fact that in 2007 the FDA voted to update the required “black box warning” on all prescription antidepressants “to include warnings about increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24 during initial treatment.”

According to the FDA drug-labeling revisions: “Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18 - 24) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.”

46

www.infowars.com

Americans consume more psychotropic drugs than any other country in the world.

A black box warning is the most serious warning the FDA can place on a prescription medication.

The FDA has also admitted that adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals kill over 100,000 Americans each year, and in 2009, the LA Times reported drug deaths — primarily due to overdoses on prescription pain and anxiety medications — even outnumbered traffic accidents in the U.S. Scientific studies abound. The number one cause of death by injury in America is suicide according to one, just as Alex told Piers Morgan. Military use of psychiatric drugs skyrocketed to one in six according to another. Suicide is now officially the number one cause of U.S. active-duty soldier death, with three times as many soldiers dying from suicide since 2001 than have died in the Afghanistan war. This fact prompted veteran and clinical psychologist Bart Billings to ask Congress for long-term studies into a possible connection between the spike in military SSRI prescriptions, and troops committing suicide in record numbers.

It should also be noted that Associated Press conducted a five-month investigation and found the drinking water of at least 46 million Americans in 24 major metropolitan areas was already tainted with pharmaceuticals. The report advises, “The federal government does not regulate prescription drugs in the water.” A 2010 study showed that shrimp living in antidepressant-tainted coastal waters were exhibiting suicidal tendencies.

There is no way to even speculate the full psychological effect of these drugs’ widespread ingestion in unknown amounts and strengths, by an unknow population and in addition to the prescription drugs many people are already taking.

So is there a link between mass shootings and psychotropic medications?

The website SSRIStories.com has compiled a horrifically long list of violent episodes including school shootings, murders and suicides, and linked each event to what anti-psychotic medication(s) the perpetrator was on or withdrawing from.

According to a data set of U.S. mass shootings from 1982 to 2012 prepared by news website Mother

Jones, of 62 mass shootings carried out by 64 shooters, the majority of the shooters (41) were noted to have signs of possible mental illness — the precise kinds of mental illnesses that psychotropic medications are prescribed for. Seven more were listed as “unclear” on mental illness status, but many in this group reportedly family members or neighbors who worried about mental health issues.

Infowars reported yesterday that, not only was suspected Aurora mass shooter James Holmes under psychiatric care, but police seized four prescription medication bottles from his home after the shooting.

The odds at least one of these drugs was an antidepressant cannot be overlooked.

As David Kupelian reported for WND, there’s a “giant, gaping hole” in the media’s reporting of the Sandy Hook shooting: discussion of mass killers on psychotropics.

“It is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications,” Kupelian wrote.

Newtown school shooting suspect Adam Lanza has also been described as having a “personality disorder” and a “mental illness,” phrases Mike Adams of Natural News points out are typically used to describe people who are prescribed psychotropic drugs.

So it should not surprise anyone that reports surfaced shortly following the Newtown school shooting that Lanza had been taking Fanapt, an anti-psychotic medication that the FDA did not approve at first because among other reasons, rather than inhibit psychotic behavior, the drug was actually found to induce it. (The reference to Fanapt was later withdrawn altogether by the news outlet that first reported it, citing the man who claimed to be Lanza’s uncle and supplied the tip might be an imposter.)

Natural News also reported on the untimely death of prominent gun manufacturer John Noveske on Jan. 4, 2013. Just days before he died in a car wreck, Noveske posted a lengthy list on his Facebook page of over 40 incidents where primarily young people committed mass murder and/or suicide; almost all of them were on psychiatric medications.

Many of the killers Noveske listed were under the age of 24; recall, young people fall in the category of increased risk of antidepressant-induced suicidal tendencies which prompted the FDA to require the updat-

ed black box warning.

Pharmaceutical commercials dominate the airwaves, imploring us that if we are “feeling down” we might have depression and there are a wide array of prescription medications we could all take to help us feel better.

The announcers in these commercials urge us to, “Ask your doctor today” if these drugs can help us.

Of the top ten prescription drugs linked to violence toward others, a 2010 study based on FDA adverse reaction data show that five were antidepressants and two were for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Perhaps we should be asking our pharmaceutical manufacturers and FDA why no long-term independent studies have been done on whether or not these psychiatric medications can influence violent behavior, homicidal tendencies and ultimately, mass murder.

Why is the mainstream media so quick to attack and demonize the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners at full-force in the wake of the Newtown school shooting without even discussing the potential role pharmaceuticals play in the investigation and understanding of these kinds of horrific events?

Noveske’s last Facebook post: Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold age 18 Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/ day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his

mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsi-

John Noveske died in a car wreck on January 4, 2013

www.prisonplanet.com

47

ble for a school shooting in Pennsylvania Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t

48

www.infowars.com

take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed

five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium.

According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….

What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az? What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado? What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or what drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct? Roberts is the only one that I haven’t heard about being on drugs of some kind.”

Melissa Melton is a reporter for the Infowars Nightly News and a frequent contributing writer on Infowars. com. She holds a master’s degree in criminology, and she is a passionate advocate for liberty and bringing the New World Order to justice.

How many people will government killwritten thisbyyear?

MELISSA MELTON

I

n the 20th century, the greatest unnatural killer of human beings was not plague, cancer, or accidents. It was democide: death by government.

Governments murdered more people in the last 100-plus years than any other killer in existence on record. Statistics vary between 250 million and 300 million dead depending on the source, but these counts typically only include civilian casualties and are underestimated. With military-related deaths added, the numbers soar much, much higher.

The death toll is so large, the horrifying devastation is hard to fathom. The list of serial killing governments goes on and on. For more statistics on governments murdering their citizenry, visit the University of Hawaii’s democide web page.

What did many of these slain people have in common? They were disarmed. In many cases, bans on firearm possession left the majority of guns in the hands of the state, who then proceeded to turn the weapons against its own people.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao all banned private gun ownership. As the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) points out, “When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad [...] thousands and millions of innocents die.� JPFO has made two videos underscoring the gun control agenda targeting vulnerable groups, then enslaving and murdering them following disarmament available on their web page. www.prisonplanet.com

49

As illustrated in Alex Jones’ “New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen” here are just a few countries that have slaughtered millions in the past century:

Mao’s China (PRC)

U.S.S.R.

WESTERN COLONIALISM

1949 – 1987

1917 - 1987

COMBINED

76,702,000 people killed

61,911,000 people killed

50,000,000 people killed

NAzi GERMANY

JAPAN

POL POT’S CAMBODIA

1933 - 1945

1936 - 1945

1975 - 1979

20,946,000 people killed

5,964,000 people killed

2,035,000 people killed

includes their own population

How many of those people probably thought to themselves it would never happen there or to them and their families? But it did.

For a rundown of how gun control—or the idea that government controls all the guns while the people are disarmed and helpless against it—visit the JPFO website.

The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The phrase “shall not be infringed” is as straight forward as it gets. The reason this Amendment was written had nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting ourselves from a tyrannical, out of control government and its standing army.

In the wake of the tragic Connecticut school massacre, we have witnessed an all out war on our Second Amendment rights, culminating in Senator Dianne Feinstein calling for draconian anti-gun legislation which Obama says he will put his “full weight” behind.

These laws would not have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre, considering the guns were stolen, used in

50

www.infowars.com

Pol Pot was funded by U.S. government

what was supposed to be a gun-free zone which was first broken into, and Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban in place.

Yet, this tragedy is being used as a pretext to confiscate our guns and subvert our Second Amendment.

History has shown that disarming citizens is tantamount to democide.

History is repeating itself.

Recently, a video called “Demand a Plan” featured celebrities hypocritically calling for the state to disarm the American people. This piece of anti-gun propaganda was produced by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As Infowars has reported, gun-grabber Bloomberg exploited the Aurora theater shooting to fit his disarmament agenda, and he has now openly demanded Obama sidestep Congress and the Constitution to dilute our Second Amendment rights because of the Sandy Hook shooting.

A listener posted a response video pointing out the hypocrisy of these same stars getting paid big money to play movie roles where they blow people away with guns all the time.

We at Infowars decided to make our own video— “Demand a Real Plan”: To keep the Second Amendment demonization campaign going, the White House has even posted a web page for people to “Share Your Thoughts on Reducing Gun Violence” following the Connecticut shooting.

Why not share with them what history shows always seems to happen when citizens are disarmed by their governments?

We have to act to protect our rights now. Contact your local Congresspeople today and tell them to uphold the Constitution and protect our Second Amendment right to bear arms!

Contacting the Congress.org database U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 So remember, when Bloomberg trots out a bunch of hypocritical celebrities in a trendy public service announcement to tell you to give up your guns, first ask yourself this: How many people will government kill this century? This year?

Do you want to let the monster under your bed render you helpless before it eats you?

www.prisonplanet.com

51

ARTIST PROFILE COUNTER THINK: Many times the ideas from CounterThink come to me in a flash, usually when hiking with my goats and my dog. Other times, I actually have to work with a number of ideas and spend time playing around with different ideas that I think might be funny, or powerful, or both.

Most of the ideas I come up with are scrapped. I probably only use 1 out of 5 ideas I dream up, because the other 4 just aren’t clever enough to get published.

Our first cartoon was published in 2006. The very first cartoon was the Big Pharma puppet master cartoon showing the FDA’s strings being pulled by pharma. Since then, we’ve published cartoons as issues arose that needed to be tackled. When Bush was really focused on talking about “terrorism,” I wanted to show how our food supply has already been contaminated with chemicals of mass destruction, so I came up with this cartoon that I call “The Food Terrorists.”

CounterThink is not officially part of Natural News, but it’s tightly integrated with it. I do CounterThink not for fun, but to have an impact. It’s all about impact. My hobbies all involve things Offline. For me, being Online is work, being offline is leisure.

MIKE ADAMS’ MIND, DAN BERGER’S ARTISTIC TALENT: A friend of mine knew Dan Berger and knew he was a great illustrator who worked on TMNT graphic novels.

I contacted him and he liked the idea, we then started working together. Dan is the only artist I currently work with. In the past, I’ve tried a few other artists, but nobody “gets it” as much as Dan Berger. He’s the master of taking text descriptions and turning them into powerful visuals.

When conveying a vision to Dan, It’s not that difficult to describe what I have in mind. The hardest part is coming up with a concept that punches through all the mythologies we’re taught, the goal is to get people to think clearly about the issue.

I give Dan a lot of creative freedom, but I review it during the development process and will often ask him to change elements, or draw something differently. Usually I get a rough sketch, and then I ok that.

The next step I get is a pencil illustration, and then I ok that. Finally, I get the inked version which is the final.

If we still need to make changes at that point, we use a graphics editor on the computer for minor changes. We also use the computer to add color.

Dan has been incredibly easy to work with. He’s smart, talented and fast, too. I’ve wanted to hire him to illustrate an entire graphic novel, but we just can’t afford him for that large of a project yet!

52

www.infowars.com

MIKE ADAMS’ COUNTER THINK FEATURING DAN BERGER

IT’S ALL ABOUT OPENING PEOPLE’S EYES, WAKING PEOPLE UP, GETTING PEOPLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

WHY CARTOONS? It all started with the idea that some people just don’t want to read long articles, so I wanted a way to reach them in a few seconds with a powerful message.

Cartoons are the best way to do that. They’re even faster than shooting a video.

Over the years, by the way, I’ve had lots of people send me ideas for cartoons. 99% of the ideas suck. Of course, so do most of my ideas, too, but by and large, people vastly underestimate what it takes to create a cartoon that’s clever, impactful and instantly communicates a powerful message. That’s an art all by itself, of course, and I’m just fumbling around with that art right now, hoping to get better with practice.

One final thought is that I’ve noticed the most impactful cartoons are ones that do NOT contain dialog. Dialog slows down a cartoon, unless it’s just a few words. But if you have characters talking back and forth like Dilbert, that’s just not gonna fly with a political cartoon. The best cartoons are pure visuals, and I always strive to communicate the message with visuals only. Dialog is actually a failing of being able to communicate it with imagery.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: WWW.COUNTERTHINK.COM

THAT’S THE ENTIRE GOAL.

I WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYBODY QUESTIONS THINGS WITH A SENSE OF INTELLIGENCE AND WITH THE BENEFIT OF KNOWING HISTORY. PEOPLE ARE SO GULLIBLE THESE DAYS, THEY FALL FOR OBAMA’S CHARMS AND THE MEDIA’S FALSE MYTHOLOGIES. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO LEARN HOW TO QUESTION THE MATRIX, SO TO SPEAK, AND REALIZE THAT REALITY IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY’RE BEING TOLD.

www.prisonplanet.com

53

written by DONNA ANDERSON

IT’S ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY NOT CONTROL

I

t’s been more than a month since the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Conn., and the American people are understandably enraged.

But we’re also divided. On one side we have Americans who believe guns are the source of all crimes and homicides. On the other side we have Americans who want to feel safe when they walk the streets and secure knowing they can fight against a tyrannical government U.S. overhaul.

Standing somewhere in the middle are those who think it’s okay to own a gun, but only if it’s a “safe” gun.

As the debate over stricter gun control laws escalates, we seem to be focusing too intently on the word “gun.”

The word we really need to zero in on is “control.”

Guns are inanimate objects incapable of independent thought or action, therefore they require no need for “control.” What gun control advocates are really pushing for is control over who has the right to own a gun and what type of gun they have the right to own.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT On Sept. 17, 1787, the final draft of the Constitution of the United States was submitted for signing. Today we applaud this document and the men who signed it, but at the time, not all of the delegates were happy.

George Mason, the Virginia delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to protect the inalienable, basic human rights of American citizens.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, protects our natural right to defend ourselves and our property:

“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

54

www.infowars.com

TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” —THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Our founders and other American revolutionaries were concerned that their newly created government might turn out to be, or later become, just as tyrannical as the government they’d left back in England. They, therefore, made sure the Constitution of the United States would explicitly state that its citizens would have the right and the responsibility to “throw off” any government which exceeds the authority given to it, only paragraphs before in that very same document. To that end, the Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms to ensure the longevity of our great nation.

The Consitution explains that we live in a country ruled by laws, not government administration. It explains that our nation is a Republic. A government administration’s purpose, rather, is to ensure the law - the Constitution and Bill of Rights - is administered and enforced properly. To that extent, the Second Amendment wasn’t drafted by the government, but by the People to eternally guard and justify our right to refuse a government of tyranny and despotism would not be tolerated.

FROM MUSKETS TO ASSAULT GUNS It might be argued that, at the time, Americans had little to worry about. The most sophisticated weapon on the market was a musket that fired one little lead ball at a time. It took seconds to reload, the guns frequently jammed and when they did fire, they were extremely inaccurate. Today’s guns can fire off a hundred or more rounds in the same amount of time that it takes to reload that musket, and a sniper can pick out a target from a mile away.

The Second Amendment does not limit the number of “arms” a citizen may own, nor does it limit us to specific arms. If it did, there would have been no point in including it in the Bill of Rights. Without limitations, such as those, the Second Amendment remains relevant against time. If American citizens were limited to less powerful weapons than the government had in its possession, they wouldn’t have been able to protect themselves against government tyranny.

The Second Amendment acknowledges that simply owning a gun, or multiple guns, is not a crime and does not violate the rights of any other person.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE BAN GUNS? We should take a lesson from the Prohibitionists of the early 1900s. When alcohol was criminalized, people still managed to get their liquor. It was more expensive, its market was controlled by organized crime, bloody turf wars erupted and it corrupted the criminal justice system. Prohibition wasn’t repealed because activists changed their opinion about alcohol. Prohibition was repealed to put an end to crime.

This understanding could similarly be applied to the War on Drugs, which causes us to face many of the same problems as Prohibition, regardless of how well-intentioned the reasoning behind the legislation’s creation.

Organized crime syndicates and drug cartels control the sale of illegal substances, resulting in bloody turf wars and corrupt government officials. Because it’s difficult to buy illegal drugs the prices are sky high, which causes the addicted and those seeking drugs to resort to crime, often to either stealing the drugs or stealing the money needed to buy them. It’s another vicious circle that could be eliminated if the War on Drugs was viewed with this knowledge.

What if we banned guns, or what if we banned only assault guns and certain types of ammunition? It would

“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

cause many of the same consequences.

They would become extremely expensive and organized crime would have another opportunity to make profit ruling with newly-created weapons black market. And where organized crime leads, bloody street fighting and turf wars follow.

Those contested types of guns and ammunition are already in the hands of millions of Americans, and it would be foolish to think that everyone will turn them in if ordered to do so. “I don’t think the American people will [turn in their guns],” said Ron Paul, describing such a scenario as the “line in the sand.”

In the end, criminals will never give up their guns, but law abiding citizens will be expected to. And then, how will they defend themselves against the criminals?

THE RIGHT TO DEFEND Local law enforcement agencies simply do not have the resources to be everywhere, all the time. They typically don’t prevent violent crimes, they show up after the fact and conduct an investigation to resolve the incident. Armed citizens can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime.

A 1991 National Crime Victimization survey revealed that “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 methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”

A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice found that as many as 40 percent of felons decided not to commit a particular crime for fear their potential victim was armed.

At least 38 states have laws allowing the concealed carrying of firearms and in all cases the numbers of murders, rapes and violent assaults dropped by at least 7 to 10 percent - in Texas the murder rate dropped by an astonishing 34 percent - because crim-

inals are more likely to avoid situations where their potential victim may be carrying a gun.

IS GUN REGISTRATION THE ANSWER? Currently, there is no formal registration for non-automatic firearms, and unrecorded transfers between private citizens are permitted, including sales made at gun shows. Guns used for hunting or sport are also not required to be registered.

Current federal law does require that semi-automatic guns be registered. Most people picture machine guns when semi-automatics are discussed, but that is a result of years of propaganda by anti-gun activists. A semi-automatic, invented by a German in 1885, is any gun that fires one shot, automatically ejects the shell casing and then loads another shell. You have to pull the trigger to fire again. There are hundreds of varieties available on the open market and millions of them in homes across America, including the popular Remington 1100 and .22 caliber hunting rifles.

It’s interesting to note that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 classified all semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons, a clear misrepresentation designed to instill panic and get semi-automatic weapons off the market. The Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and attempts to renew the ban have failed.

Of course, all of this is changing. Obama delivered a series of executive orders in mid-january and called on “Congress to pass some very specific proposals right away.” To that end, bills are already being introduced in Congress, including H.R. 226 that will reward citizens for turning in their firearms.

The constitutionality of gun registration has been tested time and time again on the grounds that it violates our right to privacy. Recently, The Journal News in New York published the names and addresses of hundreds of registered gun owners in Westchester and Rockland

www.prisonplanet.com

55

counties. When the owners expressed their anger, the paper said the information was available through public records.

But even more alarming than the idea that anyone can pull your name and address out of a publicly accessible data base is the possibility of that personal information falling into the hands of someone with ill intent.

On March 18, 1938, Adolf Hitler enacted the Nazi Weapons Law, requiring all citizens to register their firearms and placing ammunition purchases under the control of government bureaucrats.

November 8 of that same year, Hitler then used that registration list when he marched into Berlin and disarmed all the Jews. It was easy. He had all their names and addresses, all he had to do was break down the door and confiscate their guns.

Two nights later, Kristallnacht occurred, the night the Nazis smashed and burned all of the Jewish shops and temples and led thousands of unarmed German Jews away to the death camps.

Our guns are all registered now, too. And history has been known to repeat itself. All they’d have to do is pull up that list, break down your door and confiscate your gun.

WHAT ABOUT FELONS AND PSYCHOTIC INDIVIDUALS? It’s important to understand that not one single person in America is fighting to protect their right to own a gun in order to commit a crime or a murder. The outraged voices you hear are coming from Americans you have no need to fear. They simply want to protect their lives and ensure their freedom.

The violence at Newtown has brought to the forefront the issue of tighter controls for psychotics and people with mental illnesses. Under current laws, felons, fugitives from justice, drug users and people with mental defects or illnesses are prohibited from owning a gun, which simply means they can’t legally purchase a gun, whether it needs to be registered or not.

They can, however, illegally acquire any type of gun they want, which is often exactly the case in the few, but pulicized instances, such as the shootings in Columbine and Newtown. And they would still be able to do so even if gun ownership were

56

www.infowars.com

completely outlawed, as would any other criminal, felon or anyone determined to obtain one. It would be naïve to assume that gun registration laws are keeping guns out of the hands of all felons and psychotic individuals. It’s equally naive to assume that banning all guns or putting limitations on ownership will ever keep guns out of the hands of people who really want to commit a violent crime. The only people who will give up their guns are the law-abiding citizens, and then they’ll be at the mercy of criminals.

THE SOLUTION IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Our Founding Fathers believed that government was created by the people to protect our rights, and that all human beings have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Constitution tells us that if the government interferes in these rights we have the responsibility to overthrow that government.

Unfortunately, the definition of “happiness” varies from person to person. A criminal might feel happy to break into your home, assault you and your family and steal your property. You, on the other hand, have the right to protect your life and your property.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens shouldn’t have to ask permission to buy a gun, and peaceful, responsible gun ownership should not be subject to legal restrictions. The simple act of owning a gun does no harm to anyone, which means you can’t morally justify criminal penalties for gun ownership, no matter type of gun.

Instead, our government should focus more on encouraging responsible ownership.

They should be promoting organizations like the NRA which offer programs to teach people safe use and care of their guns.

More importantly, the government needs to stop making the average, responsible American feel ashamed or afraid of self-protection. We should be able to pull that gun out anytime it’s necessary to defend our lives, the lives of our loved ones, our personal property and our freedom.

Donna Anderson is a contributing writer for Infowars.com. She believes Americans need to start paying more attention to the things that are going on around them—before it’s too late. This is her second article in Infowars Magazine.

ACROSS 1. U.S. natural-born citizen, supposedly 5. He wrote: After the Cold War: Europe’s New Political Architecture 9. With 49-Down 14. Eisenhower said: “The spirit of man is more important than...”

15. Where soldiers keep gear 16. Full of hate 17. ___ Against the Machine 18. No pain, no ___ 19. Lake in California and Nevada 20. Iran scans plans and...

23. Tribe with Coloradan roots 24. Hitchens wrote: “Now is as good a time...”

28. International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor: abbr.

31. Asian résumé containing a physical profile 32. Clip 33. Roosevelt said: “(T)he only thing we have to fear is fear...”

36. Bodily area TSA is known to tap 37. Barack blocks Glocks and...

40. American Economic Association: abbr.

41. God archetype 42. Quill and calligraphy link 43. Pots warming Kashmiri bodies 45. Don’t ___ with Texas 46. Define Cabinet members 47. First Japanese emperor to drink tea 50. The Fed spreads Reds and...

56. “Spy vs. Spy” comedy series 59. Lake powering Canada and U.S. 60. Turkish coin 61. What a Constitution devotee will say about being free 62. What surfers do on the tide 63. Jones’ type of quarrel 64. What Monsanto breeds 65. Receptive mental state 66. Inept act Obama did during Sandy Hook shooting speech

DOWN 1. Gore’s censorship cmte.

2. ___ deal 3. And so 4. Saw an Alex Jones documentary scene 5. Comes after a teen?

6. Her creed is based on visions of “Virgin Sophia” 7. Bonnie and Clyde, Kante and Kenneth Kimes, etc.

8. Optional words which follow “yes” 9. Eugene does this to Poppo’s face 10. Defaced electronic evidence 11. Opposite of “bah!”

12. European Theater of Operations: abbr.

13. Pre you?

21. Europe: abbr.

22. Another ___ the coffin 25. Last True Roman 26. Internet duties?

27. KRS-One’s yap?

58

www.infowars.com

created by David mivshek 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

28

29

21

22

23

24

30 33

40 43

34

35 39

41

42

44

13

25

26

27

54

55

45 47

50

48

49

51

52

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

57

12

36

38

46

56

11

31

32 37

10

58

28. Where a submarine flees 29. Clash of the ___ 30. Economic Policy Institute: abbr.

31. King of Sodom 33. KRS-One’s “crazy” 34. Bundy and Kaczynski 35. Single Supervisory Mechanism: abbr.

38. Lives and lets live 39. Sly political tactic 40. 25-Down, e.g.

44. Mentally lifted 45. ___ Tai 47. TSA’s demand to unzip!

48. All kidding ___ 49. See 9-Across 51. Opposite of zero 52. Show by Rudolph or cloned dog Tegon 53. Opposite of fire 54. Force an enemy into one area on a map 55. Zombie’s assault fault?

56. Opposite of pas 57. New Dark or Digital 58. Voting mach.

53

JANUARY ANSWERS P A S T A

C A M P U S A

S T E W A R T

E S C A P E R

E L E A T I C

D I R T

A S K N W R I C A I T I M E A B I G

N O S M T H E R V E D A M A A L T G E E R S N O S E S S

A Y S

F O H O Y A T U P R T A R D I G L O N I T P B S

A N G E R O R B

L A P I I G L O D R A W I C E T E Y E B O A B O U M E A G E R S L E F I P E C T O A L I S R U S T S E T S

S O N T E X T

W O R M S