Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights

By: Brandon Smith / Personal Liberty Digest

PHOTOS.COM

In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.

Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear.

Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.

This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.

When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him.

To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.

A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.

Let’s first be clear about the kind of rag we are dealing with. The Daily Beast was launched by Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker who was also a British citizen until 2005.

I would say she’s a kind of female Piers Morgan. For anyone who might take that as a compliment, trust me; it isn’t. Brown and Morgan are European collectivists who immigrated to America just to tell us how our Constitutionally conservative heritage of independence is outdated; meanwhile, the EU is in the shambles of failed socialism. We used to drive such people into the ocean, and now they breathe our oxygen while telling us what is politically “fashionable.”

In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, a magazine notorious for its statist crush on the Federal government (and now out of print). To say that The Daily Beast is a socialist platform and a mouthpiece for the Administration of President Barack Obama is an understatement, but I would point out that the website also tends to agree with politicians and judges on the right that also promote a “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Whether right or left, if you believe that the Bill of Rights is up for constant interpretation and revision or outright destruction, then you are the bee’s knees in the eyes of The Beast.

The article focuses on gun rights and how silly conservatives foolishly cling to the idea that some lines in the sand should never be crossed in terms of personal freedom. In a rather mediocre and rambling analysis, The Beast uses two primary arguments to qualify this stance, essentially asserting that:

1. Compromises have already been made to the Bill of Rights; therefore, nothing is sacred.
2. Even some Republicans agree with compromises to the Bill of Rights when it comes to other Amendments, so why are we being so childish about “reinterpreting” the 2^nd Amendment?

First, the revisionist methodology of the Bill of Rights consistently ignores the history of its writing.

The colonists and Founding Fathers of our Nation, having successfully triumphed in a bloody revolution against what many then considered the most advanced elitist military empire on Earth, had absolutely no trust whatsoever in the concept of centralized government. Many of the colonials were anti-Federalists who believed that an overly powerful central government was a threat to future liberty. They felt that an immovable and unchangeable legal shield had to be created in order to ensure that a tyrannical system never prevailed again.

Thomas Jefferson said: “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

This statement includes modern governments as well. Technological advancement does not change the rules surrounding timeless inherent moral principles, as much as statists would like to argue otherwise.

The colonials demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for the establishment of the Federal government. This means that the Federal government owes its entire existence to a very strict agreement made on the Bill of Rights. By extension, if the Bill of Rights is politically diluted or denied, then the legitimacy of the Federal government must also be denied, for it has violated the very charter that gave it life.

The writer of the article, Michael Tomasky, lists numerous transgressions against our Constitutional protections; but he does not do so in the spirit of activism. Rather, he lists them as examples of how “compromise” on our freedoms is necessary (or somehow inevitable) in the name of the collective good. He claims Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice certain liberties, like freedom of speech, privacy or even Miranda rights, in the name of political expediency.

I wholeheartedly agree that our civil liberties have been whittled away by the establishment. I also agree that many so-called Republicans have betrayed the founding values of our culture and even voted to diminish or destroy the 2^nd Amendment. But let’s think hard about the faulty logic behind Tomansky’s position. Do two wrongs or hundreds of wrongs really make a right? Tomansky is saying that because we have failed as a society to fully protect our freedoms and because our government has been successful in criminally neglecting them, we should simply give in and relinquish all freedom.

He would respond to this accusation by claiming that he is not calling for the relinquishment of all liberties, only the liberties he thinks are dangerous to society. The problem is, that is not how the Constitution was designed. Amendments can be made, yes. But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. No Federal law, no State law and no Amendment can be enforced that violates those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.

As far as Republican attacks on the Constitution are concerned, Tomasky has obviously never heard of the false/left right paradigm. He finds solace in the totalitarian actions of neocons because neocons are not conservative; they are statists. Ultimately, there is no right or left. Only freedom and decentralization, or slavery and collectivism exist. There are those who revel in control and those who rebel against control. The rest of the debate is nonsense and distraction.

Tomsky opines: “Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment–and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans.”

Actually, any true conservative would be standing right beside those liberals, as many of us in the liberty movement have done in the past in activism against the transgressions of fake conservatives like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, with his dismal anti-Constitution voting record. Frankly, who cares what “average Americans” think about our battle for what is right? Does Tomasky base all of his personal convictions on what happens to be popular at the moment? I think so.

What statists also don’t seem to comprehend is that there is a factor in the fight over Constitutional law that goes far beyond the Constitution itself.

The Constitution, as a document, is not what we as Americans and human beings obtain our rights from. The Constitution is only a written representation of the inborn freedoms derived from natural law and inherent conscience. We are born with a sense of liberty and that includes a right to self-defense from any enemy, foreign or domestic. No amount of political gaming, twisted rationalizations or intellectual idiocy is ever going to change these pre-existing rights.

Tomasky insists that: “[T]he idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.”

He uses the tired argument that some restrictions on personal liberty, including restrictions on gun rights, are “reasonable” given the circumstances of the times. And, it only follows that he and other statists should be the ones to decide what is reasonable.

I disagree, along with millions of other Americans; and believe me, this is a serious problem for statists. If Tomasky and The Daily Beast want to impose their collective worldview on the rest of us and dismantle our individual freedoms guaranteed in natural law and the Bill of Rights, then I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them. In the end, legal precedence is irrelevant. Political precedence is irrelevant. Political party is irrelevant. Historical precedence is irrelevant. The theater of words is irrelevant. Statists need to understand that there is no alternative. There is no “silver bullet” argument that will make us forget what is fundamentally true. There is no juxtaposition of logic that will muddle our resolve or confuse our principles. Some rights are indeed absolute; and we will not yield them, ever. The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.

Maxine Waters loves convicted terrorist

Democrat defends Cuba's asylum for FBI's most wanted

By: Aaron Klein / WND

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is a staunch defender of convicted cop killer and domestic terrorist Joanne Chesimard, who just became the first woman ever to be placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

Chesimard, living under asylum in Cuba, also goes by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur. She was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted by a jury of the 1979 murder of a New Jersey state trooper. Less than two years later, Chesimard escaped from prison and lived underground before surfacing in Cuba in 1984.

On Sept. 14, 1998, the House of Representatives, of which Waters was a member, passed a unanimous resolution requesting Fidel Castro extradite Chesimard to the United States. The name on the resolution, affirmed by Waters, was Joanne Chesimard and not Assata Shakur.

Waters said she only realized Chesimard’s identity after the vote and wrote a letter to Fidel Castro explaining that she, as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and other CBC members had “mistakenly voted” in favor of the resolution.

Waters claimed the Republicans had “slipped” the bill into an accelerated calendar in order to look “tough on Cuba” for the November elections. Waters claimed the Republicans had deliberately used Chesimard’s given name to deceive. Had she known Chesimard’s identity, she wrote, she would have voted otherwise.

On May 2, 1973, Chesimard and a pair of accomplices were stopped by two troopers for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike. At the time, Chesimard – a member of the violent revolutionary activist organization known as the Black Liberation Army – was wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery.

According to the FBI, Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One officer was wounded, and his partner – Trooper Werner Foerster – was shot and killed at point-blank range. One of Chesimard’s accomplices was killed in the shootout, and the other was arrested and remains in jail.

“Joanne Chesimard is a domestic terrorist who murdered a law enforcement officer execution-style,” said Aaron Ford, special agent in charge of the Newark Division. “Today, on the anniversary of Trooper Werner Foerster’s death, we want the public to know that we will not rest until this fugitive is brought to justice.”

Mike Rinaldi, a lieutenant in the New Jersey State Police and member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Newark, said the case “is just as important today as it was when it happened 40 years ago.”

“Bringing Joanne Chesimard back here to face justice is still a top priority,” he said.

Waters defends terrorist as victim

In 1998, Waters released a statement defending Castro’s right to grant asylum to Chesimard despite her conviction for murder in the U.S.

Stated Waters: “I support the right of all nations to grant political asylum to individuals fleeing political persecution. The United States grants political asylum to individuals from all over the world who successfully prove they are fleeing political persecution. Other sovereign nations have the same right, including the sovereign nation of Cuba.”

In her statement, Waters further defended Chesimard, claiming the convicted domestic terrorist was a victim of political persecution.

“The second reason I oppose this measure,” stated Waters, “is because I respect the right of Assata Shakur to seek political asylum. Assata Shakur has maintained that she was persecuted as a result of her political beliefs and political affiliations. As a result, she left the United States and sought political asylum in Cuba, where she still resides.

“In a sad and shameful chapter of our history, during the 1960s and 1970s, many civil rights, Black Power and other politically active groups were secretly targeted by the FBI for prosecution based on their political beliefs.”

Notably, domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn named one of their children after Zayd Shakur, Chesimard’s associate who was killed in the gun battle with the police. Ayers’ and Dohrn’s son, a playwright, now goes by the name Zayd Dohrn.

Now more than ever, we have to educate the American people

A message from Pamela Geller:

Now more than ever, we have to educate the American people. You see the spin the enemedia is in in the wake of the Boston jihad. And they blew up our families in our streets. Help us get our ads up. Go here.

 

As you know, ads calling Israel an apartheid state are running on NY Metro platforms (above). Our Islamic apartheid ads are going up on NY subways and DC dioramas this week to counter the Muslim lies and expose the truth about the sharia. We need your help. We have five days left on our crowdfunder campaign. Please contribute.

America First PAC Launches to “Restore American Values”

By JAVIER MANJARRES / The Shark Tank

http://bit.ly/16SbVVv

Former Republican Congressional candidate Karen Harrington, who has not announced whether or not she would make another attempt to campaign for Congress in 2014, has decided to launch the America First Political Action Committee.

Harrington lost to incumbent Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the 2010 & 2012 general elections, but was able to garner unprecedented national support for her 2012 campaign, raising $2.1 million and locking down endorsements from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Marco Rubio, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as well as from other members of the U.S. Congress and organizations.

According to the website, America First PAC was founded to ” restore American values and to support leaders with bold ideas and the courage to shape our nation so that future generations inherit a better America.”

By forming this PAC, Harrington would be keeping her name in the political game, perhaps paving the road for another congressional run for office in 2014.

America First PAC is a federally registered political action committee (PAC) that was started to help restore American values and to support leaders with bold ideas and the courage to shape our nation so that future generations inherit a better America.

America First PAC supports federal, state and local candidates that fight for tax reform, stand for a balanced budget amendment, and strive to end wasteful government spending.

America First PAC believes that small business has and will continue to be the core of our great country’s economic advancement. By reforming the business and personal tax code, balancing the national budget, and promoting responsible government, more and more Americans will be able to prosper and live the American dream.

America First is dedicated to fighting the runaway spending and reckless government policies that are the hallmark of the Obama administration and the failed leadership in Washington, D.C. Our efforts are focused not only on identifying principled candidates, but also on targeting potential voters and getting them to the polls.

-Karen Harrington, Chairman America First PAC  http://amfirstpac.com/

Op-ed: 
One more day until we know the truth
By: Diane Sori

The ever-expanding web of Obama’s lies and cover-ups is starting to unravel as more information is coming to light about what the three whistleblowers will testify to on Wednesday when they appear before Darrel Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Countering the official statements made by Barack HUSEIN Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice that the Benghazi Consulate attack was a ‘spontaneous’ demonstration against an anti-islam YouTube video, whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the second-in-command in Libya during the time of the attack, told Congressional investigators in private testimony that when he contacted Washington on the night of the attack, “I never reported a demonstration, I reported an attack on the consulate.”

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go.”

‘A terrorist attack from the get-go’…yet this miserable excuse of a president and his equally miserable administration kept insisting…kept LYING…about what happened that night as it was more important to protect, lie for, and placate ‘the brethren’…and of course NOT have these ‘bumps in the road’ tarnish the Obama campaign tour then it was to seek justice and truth for Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and ex-SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

These words of Gregory Hick’s cannot be stressed enough, “I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.” He also said that Ambassador Stevens’ “final report stated, ‘Greg, we are under attack.’”

How much clearer can that be said…’We are under attack.” Under attack…under attack…NOT dealing with demonstrators with picket signs peacefully protesting…and still Obama and crew knowingly and willingly perpetrated the LIE of a demonstration gone sadly awry.

Making this even more alarming was that the day after the attack Mohamed al-Megaryef, president of Libya’s highest political authority, the General National Congress, gave a press conference and apologised to the United States for the attack in Benghazi declaring that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and yet Obama and crew continued to perpetrate the LIE about a video.

Here’s what Gregory Hicks said after hearing Obama spew that lie:

“The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about… My jaw hit the floor as I watched this. I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”

This group of traitors…and they are indeed traitors…deliberately covered-up the truth to protect barbaric muslim bast*rds so as NOT to upset the sensibilities of muslim leaders….you know, those of the sort that Barack HUSSEIN Obama likes to bow down to.

And to make this all even more horrific is that…help…rescue…back-up…could have stopped the attack and maybe saved the lives of Ambassador Stevens and the others. In fact, a team of Special Forces was prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attacks but were told to ‘stand down’ by US Special Operations Command Africa. Commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi BEFORE the second attack even happened but Lt. Col. Gibson got a phone call from SOCAFRICA saying, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’

And in the time it took Lt. Col. Gibson to take that phone call the C-130 had gone. How strangely ‘convenient’ was that.

And so Americans were left to die horrible deaths at the hands of jihadists, because ‘someone’ in authority didn’t give them permission to go.

The question is who told Special Operations Command to give those orders to ‘stand down’…it had to be someone high up in the chain of command…or from the White House itself.

So while Obama, Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey keep insisting that NO military resources could have made it in time to thwart the seven hour attack they are LYING through their teeth, because the US Souda Bay Naval Base is just an hour’s flight away from Libya, and according to whistleblower Hicks, “I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

And oh yes, let’s NOT forget that our wonderful president (gag) went to sleep knowing Americans were in trouble. But with Benghazi happening too near the election, Obama couldn’t have this ‘bump in the road’ tainting his campaign bloviations that al-Qaeda was “decimated” or “on the path to defeat”…words he spewed forth dozens of times prior to the November election, so he went to sleep to block it all out and pretend it never happened.

Thankfully, tomorrow the truth will come out from these brave men who were there…men who will supposedly be naming high-level officials who were involved in the web of lies and cover-ups…senior officials who most likely will be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and our ever-loving Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

And like most patriotic Americans demanding to know the truth I will be glued to my television with notepad in hand.

Indoctrinating for jihad in charter schools

Exclusive: Pamela Geller has quotes from insider teacher about 'The Gulen Movement'

By: Pamela Geller / WND COmmentary

The “Turkish Khomeini,” Fethullah Gulen, lives in Pennsylvania. From there he runs a $25 billion international network. He is a prime mover behind the rapid Islamization of Turkey, and he urges Muslims to build schools to indoctrinate an entire generation. He is tied to hundreds of Gulen charter schools right here in the United States. (Texas alone has 36 of these Gulen charter schools.)

I recently heard from a teacher at a Gulen Movement school. “There are so many ethical violations occurring here every day,” he told me, “that it is hard to know where to start.” And worse, there is open support for jihad: When news broke of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings, several students defended the attack and expressed concern for the well-being not of the victims, but of the bombers.

“They have also,” said the teacher, “expressed theories that 9/11 was a hoax and that Americans and the West are Islamophobic.”

 

Beyond that, the educational standards and priorities are abominable. “This school cares little for education and more for PR,” says the teacher. The administration, he says, doesn’t appear to have any background or training in either education or leadership. “Our vice principal has no idea what he is doing; this is evident in the fact that no one can ever find him, and he does not seem to know even basic information about mission statements, curriculum, standards, etc.” The dean of academics “does not even know what is in our curriculum, and he has frequently asked teachers to go easier so that students can get good grades.”
 
That could be said of many schools. But in this Gulen school, “as far as curriculum goes, the priority is Islam, not education. Evolution and Darwin are forbidden in biology, and literature classes are censored in order to ensure no one talks about relationships. In fact, ‘Persepolis’ was pulled from the classroom because it spoke poorly of veiling (despite being written by a woman who lived through the Iranian Revolution) and because the writer was ‘the wrong kind of Muslim.’ In addition, students asked to see the film ‘The Great Gatsby’ in junior year, as they read the novel in class (obviously). It was forbidden because it was ‘too sexual.’ The movie has not come out yet, of course, but is rated PG-13; the decision was made based on a preview.”

The school doesn’t have a library, teacher evaluations are nonexistent, and “the cheating here is rampant – and encouraged. Students have broken into teachers’ rooms; they not only steal tests but they also think that the entirety of the building exists for them alone.” Not only that, but “in the dorms, the students are ‘chaperoned’ by several young Turkish men who do not speak English. The chaperones are tasked with ensuring that the students adhere to Islam, and they have meetings in the dorms to pressure kids into practicing their faith. School days are planned around Islamic prayer (Fridays are shortened, for example; during the winter months, there is a 90-minute break in the middle of the day for lunch and prayer). The school is registered as nonsectarian, yet every student is Muslim.”

When all of the teachers were fingerprinted and had background checks per state law, the chaperones were not required to do so. It will come as no surprise that the finances of the school are suspicious at best. Staff is paid sporadically, and there have been numerous occasions this year when they were not paid on time.

The teacher concludes: “There are so many things that are happening here that this is only the tip of the iceberg. What amazes me is that they are still in business. They seem to have local politicians in their pockets. In addition to the ethical problems this school poses, I am also concerned with the real reason for its existence. Clearly academics are not important, but is this simply a moneymaking scheme? Is it a visa factory to bring in more and more Turkish nationals? Or is it something more sinister, an attempt to guarantee that Islam is being followed in America as well as overseas?”

Whatever the truth may be, it needs to come out. Gulen Movement schools in the U.S. must be investigated.

Get the Facts and Save Lives With Guns

Katie Kieffer ' Townhall Columnist

Teach gun safety in classrooms and leave sex education to parents. Plan B won’t save young people from incurable STDs, but guns will protect women and children from being raped or murdered. The more young people know about guns, the safer our society will be.

Rush Limbaugh said on his talk radio show on May 1: “We know kids are gonna get guns anyway, why not teach them how to use them?” The king of talk was right. Instead of pushing morning-after pills on 15-year-old girls, we should be showing young people how to responsibly use the preeminent tool they have to defend themselves in the event of a violent attack—a gun.

Over the past decade, overall violent crime in the United States has steadily decreased according to FBI reports. Meanwhile, gun ownership is at an all-time high. The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the best ways to gauge the number of new gun purchases. In 2011, there was an all-time record high of 16.5 million checks. In 2012, Americans set a new record for gun ownership: 19.5 million background checks.

Americans use guns to hold off assault far more than they use guns to commit murder or violent crime. Indeed, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has shown that Americans use guns to defensively prevent crime about 2 million times a year—often by merely brandishing a weapon in front of a would-be-assailant. “…most violent crimes end if the victim simply exposes a firearm.

Most criminals want to leave the scene with the same number of holes they started with,” writes Michael Martin in his book, Concealed Carry and Home Defense Fundamentals.

On top of all this, the only gun legislation that has consistently been shown to reduce violent crime is concealed carry permit legislation.

All of the data on guns and crime brings us to one conclusion: More guns in the hands of honest Americans equates to less violent crime.

Here are three ‘solutions’ to mass shootings that will NOT work:

1.) Background Checks
Even Democrats admit that background checks don’t work. When they have a slip of the tongue and speak their mind, they say things like this: “…let’s be honest, criminals aren’t going to buy a gun and go through a background check.” (That is exactly what Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY recently said.)
Dr. John Lott writes for Fox News: “There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.”

2.) Gun Free Zones
You can’t stop a criminal with a sign. But you can welcome a criminal with a sign that says: “Gun Free Zone,” which a criminal interprets as: “Walk Right In… And Bring Your Guns!”

Adam Lanza specifically went to a ‘gun free zone’ to fatally shoot 20 children and six adults in the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy. He brought guns into an elementary school, not into the Pentagon.

3.) Psychiatric Drugs
More and more, psychiatric drugs are being miss-prescribed or abused and President Obama’s FDA is contributing to this mess. Medications are increasingly being prescribed to young people that could be setting them up for violent behavior. Instead of prescribing talk therapy, we are loading young people up on meds that are known to cause suicidal thoughts and/or incite aggression.

Lanza was mentally unstable. Mentally unstable people do not follow “rules” printed on signs.

Mentally unstable people do unpredictable things.

If you look at every mass school shooting over the past 15 years, they almost all have one thing in common, according to Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute: The gunman: “…has been on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs…Yet, federal and state governments continue to ignore the connection between psychiatric drugs and murderous violence, preferring instead to exploit these tragedies in an oppressive and unconstitutional power grab to snatch guns away from innocent, law-abiding people.”

Big pharmacy is peddling drugs to youngsters that have highly questionable side effects and Hunter says: “It is pharmaceutical makers, not law-abiding gun owners or gun manufacturers, who should be held to account for the series of ‘lone-wolf’ mass shootings that have occurred since the widespread use of psychiatric drugs began.”

Expert psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin has told Fox News: “One of the things in the past that we’ve known about depression is that it very, very rarely leads to violence. It’s only been since the advent of these new SSRI drugs that we have murderers, sometimes even mass murderers, taking antidepressant drugs.”

When you look at the facts, guns save lives. And the more comfortable and knowledgeable we are regarding guns, the more lives we will save. It’s time for young people to go through gun education before their teachers brainwash them about gun control.