Mainstream Doctors Say Supporting the 2nd Amendment is a Mental Disorder

Occupy Corporatism

Susanne Posnell

The medical industry in conjunction with Big Pharma want to classify the right to keep and bear arms as a mental disorder in another power grab to circumvent and eventually destroy our Constitutional 2nd Amendment.

More and more doctors are forcing the idea that we need a national healthcare approach to the problem that the recent shootings provide. While tobacco and alcohol is regulated, why not include the right to bear arms?

Dr. Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine at the Prevention Research Program speaking about the installing of public guardrails, said : “People used to spear themselves and we blamed the drivers for that.”

The staged shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin are being used by some scientists to declare gun violence be treated like any other mental disease – and perhaps by popping a pill, American citizens would forget to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten of the Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin claims : “What I’m struggling with is: Is this the new social norm? This is what we’re going to have to live with if we have more personal access to firearms. We have a public health issue to discuss. Do we wait for the next outbreak or is there something we can do to prevent it.”

Hargarten supports the limiting of access to all firearms in his advocacy with the Firearms Injury Center at the Medical College in Wisconsin which is funded by a US government grant to lobby taxpayers into believing that removing the 2nd Amendment will stop gun violence.

An estimated 260 to 300 million firearms are owned by American civilians which equals 1/3 of US households. While gun-related deaths are not raising according to police records, the fear-mongering continues as a supposed trend with no justification.

Propaganda studies into gun ownership claim that alcohol abuse causes the likelihood of gun-related violence to rise, according to Wintemute. Banning assault weapons would control the amount of rounds a person could shoot, while the police officers would still be allowed to tout automatic pistols. By restricting gun sales to include minor misdemeanors as well as convicted felons, 40% of gun sales would be curbed. And with the classification of gun support as a mental disorder, more control could be placed on who ultimately can own a gun.

By devising tactics to reduce shootings, experts are trying to legitimize profiling so that they can identify who would be most likely to commit such a crime. Combining the psychiatric industry with pre-crime seems to be a relationship conceived by the global Elite.

More mainstream support for mixing gun control with pharmaceuticals come from Paul Barrett who has authored a book that coincidentally claims that current gun laws are ineffective and need to be stricter to prevent more deaths. Barrett says: “Criminologists have studied it, and the consensus is that those laws simply did not have a statistically meaningful effect on crime rates.” He also feels that the mainstream media focus on the shootings themselves ignore the actual problem which is actually a “social problem” which is subverted by “the overall gun homicide rate.”

Daniel Webster, co-director of the anti-firearm John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, asserts that “gun ownership—a precursor to gun violence—can spread ‘much like an infectious disease” and wants healthcare professionals to have influence over whether or not American citizens are legally allowed to possess firearms. Webster would like to see Obamacare have ultimate control of the classification of mental states with regard to purchasing and obtaining FBI clearance for a gun.

As Obama has done in the past, an executive order could be signed to force the issue through compliance with Obamacare restrictions on those deemed mentally defective and unable to own firearms. As with the mandate through EO on religious institutions to provide birth control, Obama’s executive power can again be abused to ensure his bidding is done – like any good Fascist Dictator would do.

The blurring of the line between Liberal Democrats and covert Socialists is confusing the perception of the 2nd Amendment in the social meme being purveyed by the mainstream media. By aligning Constitutional authority with the convoluted power grabs of the Obama administration, our Republic for the people and by the people is quickly descending into a control grid of which there is no escape.

The link between gun control and health care is a coercive way to equate fear brought on my recent shootings and removal of Constitutional rights that stand in the way of the US government’s tyrannical declarations.

Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, It’s About Tyranny

InfoWars Via 12160
Kurt Nimmo

Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal governmentif need be.

AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.

Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.

Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.

Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?

Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.

Supreme Court upholds Obama health care law

USAToday
David Jackson

The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that appears to give President Obama a major victory.

Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush -- provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

The announcement will have a major impact on the nation's health care system, the actions of both federal and state governments, and the course of the November presidential and congressional elections.

A key question for the high court: The law's individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, or pay a penalty.

Critics call the requirement an unconstitutional overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is necessary to finance the health care plan, and well within the government's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

While the individual mandate remained 18 months away from implementation, many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as free wellness exams for seniors and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Some of those provisions are likely to be retained by some insurance companies.

History Repeating Itself: U.S. Hawks Hover Over Iran

Global Research
William Echols

U.S. Government Already at War with Iran?

-Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.

History seems to be repeating itself as the hawks who called for the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein are now rattling their sabers for war against Iran. But why are those who once called for a new American Century hopelessly stuck in a bygone era?

In a bellicose diatribe published in the latest edition of the Weekly Standard, senior editor William Kristol accuses Iran of having the blood of American soldiers on its hands. Claiming that “force” is the only language the regime understands, he proceeds to call on the US Congress to “consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”

In an October 17 Foreign Policy initiative (FPI) Bulletin, executive director Jamie Fly toes the same line, proclaiming:

“Until now, the president has chosen to be the hapless victim of Iran’s machinations. It is time for President Obama to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and stand up to tyrants who kill Americans and threaten our interests.

"It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.”

Speaking to Fox News on Monday, former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said it was “unfortunate” that Iran did not fear a possible military response in light of recent allegations of an Iranian assassination plot on US soil. Somewhat ironically, Bolton also described President Barack Obama’s recent decision to send 100 troops to stem off a humanitarian crisis in Central Africa as “damaging to our efforts to preserve our military budget.”

It is little wonder that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserts the latest accusations that Iran sought to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US was eerily reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction claims which provided the casus belli for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"In the past the US administration claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They said it so strongly, they offered and presented documentation and everyone said 'yes, we believe in you, we buy it'," Ahmadinejad said in a live interview on Al Jazeera television.

Ahmadinejad’s cause for alarm might seem justified under the circumstances. Ever since George W. Bush’s January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address, wherein Iran (along with Iraq and North Korea) were labeled as the “Axis of Evil”, neo-conservative policy wonks and senior-level government officials have had the country in their sights. And much like Iraq, the case for war is as mercurial and adaptive as the public opinion it caters to.

Kristol for his part was one of the key proponents for regime change in Iraq, outlining the case in a 2003 book he co-authored entitled The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission. But his desire to effect regime change in the Middle East has earlier roots.

In a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, William Kristol, challenging what he believed was “a tepid consensus that accepts decline of US power in the world as inevitable,” called for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy which would pursue “benevolent hegemony” and “wield its authority unabashedly.”

By June 1997, William Kristol, along with several other prominent neo-conservatives who would have high-level administrative positions in the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Elliot Abrams), not to mention his brother Jeb Bush, signed off on a statement of principles intended to usher in this halcyon era of American military strength and moral clarity. This statement of principles would come to define the Project for a New American Century.

The four key principles called for increased defense spending and force modernization, the strengthening of ties with democratic allies and the willingness to confront regimes hostile to American interests, the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad, and the “need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”

U.S. Soldiers Liberate Fingers in Afghanistan

Brave U.S. Troops Continue to Set an
Example for the Rest of the World

Common Dreams

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Washington - An investigator told how he found dismembered fingers near the quarters of an alleged rogue US army unit accused of killing Afghans for sport and taking trophies from the bodies.



The gruesome testimony came as a third US soldier faced a pre-trial hearing over the alleged killings -- after which the rogue soldiers allegedly posed for photos with their victims -- in southern Afghanistan earlier this year.
If proved in a full court martial, the crimes would be among the worst committed by US forces in Afghanistan, and could deal a blow to efforts to win over the support of ordinary Afghans in the war-torn country.
Private Andrew Holmes, one of five soldiers accused of going rogue, listened quietly as Special Agent Benjamin Stevenson described finding severed fingers near where members of the unit lived.

Army prosecutors allege Holmes participated in the execution of an Afghan the southern Kandahar province in January, kept a finger bone from an Afghan corpse and smoked hashish with some of the other killers.

On Monday, Stevenson, testifying by speakerphone, said he had a map provided by the army's star witness, Corporal Jeremy Morlock, showing where investigators could find the digits allegedly taken from Afghan civilians.

Using Morlock's map, Stevenson said he and another agent located a large, protective dirt barrier near the soldiers' residences in Forward Operating Base Ramrod.

On top of the barrier, they found a plastic bottle containing two fingers, wrapped in cloth.

"Right where we were told the fingers would be, there they were," Stevenson said. Another bone was found nearby.

Investigators also discovered a bone over a foot (30 cm) long, possibly a leg, in a house believed to be that of another soldier, Adam Kelly, who faces charges over covering up the alleged killings, but is not charged with murder.

Holmes's attorney Dan Conway pointed out that the bones were found near the housing unit of Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, the alleged ringleader of the rogue unit.

Speaking with reporters during a break, Conway said his client did once have a bone that a superior officer forced him to take and that Holmes got rid of it "as soon as practically possible."

Specialist Ryan Mallet, an eye-witness to the January shooting leading to Holmes murder charge, testified that he was on a hill in a small village when he saw Morlock call a man over from a field.

Mallet looked away, but then heard Morlock yell: "Grenade, hes got a grenade. Holmes, shoot him."

Holmes fired several rounds, according to Mallet, after which the man was still standing. The defense contends that Holmes did not fire the fatal shots and is fighting with the army to release photos Conroy says will show that.

After the rounds were fired, a grenade exploded, Mallett said.

When the dust cleared, the Afghan man was on the ground, unmoving.

Another soldier shot him twice.

Mallet, who described Holmes as a friend, said that the odd thing about the shooting was that despite shouting a grenade warning, Morlock "never raised his rifle that I could see."

Conway told reporters that Holmes did not know that his team leader was staging a killing and that his team leader was using him as an unwitting participant in a cover story.

The soldiers participating in the alleged execution plots, allegedly orchestrated by Gibbs, were all members of the Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Division's Stryker brigade at Ramrod.

Morlock, the army's main witness against the accused killers including Holmes, is also charged with murdering Afghan civilians. He was the first to face a pre-trial hearing in September, and his case will now go to a full court martial.

Monday's proceeding is part of a series of pre-trial hearings to determine if the soldiers accused in the murders and the cover-up of the killings will face full courts-martial.

The Holmes pre-trial hearing is due to wrap up on Tuesday.