Codex Chooses Malnutrition

By Scott C. Tips
The Sleuth Journal
December 26, 2012

In a stunning display of nutritional ignorance, three women ram through a Codex standard that leaves many with sub-optimal nutrition

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) just finished meeting all last week (December 3-7) in Bad Soden, a small German city near Frankfurt am Main. Nearly 300 delegates were in attendance, comprised of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives. 

So, for one week, the assembled delegates – including the INGO delegation of the National Health Federation (NHF)[1] –met, discussed, and debated a wide number of food and food-supplement issues, including the controversial draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for vitamins and minerals.

Remember, the food guidelines and standards adopted by this Committee, and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, are important because they are then used domestically by numerous countries worldwide and by virtually all countries in international food trade.

Nutrient Reference Values
Those who have been following the National Health Federation’s efforts at Codex since the mid-1990s will recall that at the Codex Nutrition Committee meeting in Dusseldorf, Germany in 2009, the NHF singlehandedly launched the opposition that stopped the Australian delegation and others from “dumbing down” these Nutrient Reference Values.[2]

Australia and its supporters had wrongly proposed that lower NRVs be adopted for certain important vitamins and minerals, including Vitamin C.  For example, the Proposed Draft Additional or Revised NRVs for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling suggested reducing the Vitamin A NRV from 800 micrograms down to 550 micrograms, Vitamin C down from an already-abysmally-low 60 milligrams to 45 milligrams, Thiamin down from 1.4 milligrams to 1.2 milligrams, Niacin from 18 milligrams down to 15 milligrams, Magnesium down from 300 milligrams to 240 milligrams, and so forth.[3]

These values are already at subsistence levels, and most consumers need far more than the miserable amounts that Codex would parsimoniously dole out to them in order to enjoy optimal and robust health.  Yet Australia and its supporters are so fixated on reducing the values even more that they have blinded themselves to the real science showing the absolute need for more nutrient intake, not less.

Fortunately, thanks to NHF and its key supporters India and Iraq at the 2009 meeting, the Committee wisely chose not to move forward with any of those proposed NRVs and instead held the work back for further review and study.  Three years have passed since we first stopped these NRVs from being adopted, and each year of non-adoption has been a victory for NHF, and for you.

The Electronic Working Group
Last year, the Committee created an electronic Working Group (eWG) – chaired by ever-present Australia – to look at the hard numbers for each of the vitamins and minerals under consideration.  NHF was a member of that group along with twenty other delegations.  Working through e-mails, the Australian-led eWG gradually prepared a report; and the NHF and other delegations submitted comments throughout 2012, to be included in that report.

Unfortunately, the United States seemed to have had more of Australia’s ear than anyone else; and the eWG accordingly submitted to this year’s Committee a Final Report (over NHF’s objections) that essentially split the vitamins and minerals into two groups: One that the “eWG” (read here, Australia and the United States) considered “suitable” for adoption; and a second group that was considered “unsuitable” and would need further work.[4]

Strangely enough, this was exactly the approach pushed by the United States at the 2010 CCNFSDU meeting held in Santiago, Chile, but which NHF, the European Union, and others had opposed and defeated back then.  Resurrected from its vampire grave just in time for this 2012 meeting, this plan found support with both Australia and the United States working hard to ensure that, this time, at least half of the dumbed-down nutrient values could be pushed forward towards adoption.

The 2012 Meeting

As planned, the Committee once again took up discussion of the appropriate NRVs for Codex to adopt, using the eWG Report as its starting point. Of course, the Committee covered other topics, such as draft guidelines on the addition of essential nutrients to foods and formulated supplementary foods for older infants and children.  The latter was as hotly-debated a topic as the NRVs.

The Chairwoman was once again Dr. Pia Noble, appointed by the German Health Ministry.  Co-NHF delegate, Katherine Carroll, spent time during breaks speaking with Dr. Noble to advance NHF, but it is clear that Dr. Noble has little regard for the INGOs, who are just nuisances getting in the way of pushing her agenda forward.  Not surprisingly, Dr. Noble is popular with some of the delegates because, as they put it, “she moves things along.”
Well, “moving things along” – like “Fly Me To The Moon” – has become something of a theme song for this Codex Committee.

Real nutritional science is trampled into the mud as the Committee rushes pell-mell to adopt guidelines and standards without considering the consequences of what it is doing. Unfortunately only a few delegates realize what is happening, the majority are content to drift along in concert with and at the direction of the few leaders.

On the second day of the meeting, just before the lunch break, the Australian delegate, Janine Lewis, read through her eWG Final Report while we all listened. I knew what was coming because I had spoken with her before the meeting had started, asking her to, at the very least, withhold calcium from her “suitable” list of nutrients that she would advance for adoption.[5]  When she asked and heard in response that I had only spoken with her and the U.S. delegate about that, her position visibly hardened and she told me simply, “Let’s see what the Committee does.”

It became obvious soon enough what the Committee would do, as I pushed the button on my microphone to speak when the meeting resumed after the lunch break.  As in 2009, I was the second person to speak!  This is highly unusual since the Codex procedure is to let all of the country delegations speak first, and only then allow the INGOs to speak.  Being second meant that there were few who wanted to speak out on this issue.

Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, had spoken immediately before me and said the U.S. “liked these [NRV] figures” and thus liked the idea of advancing the “suitable” nutrients[6] to the Commission for adoption.  With that, my microphone illuminated red and it was my turn to speak.  I told the Committee that, except for calcium (whose value had been increased while magnesium’s had been decreased, the exact opposite of what should happen with these twin minerals), the Australian figures were all too low, that the NRVs were being reduced by anywhere from 15% to 25%, and questioned why Australia was always choosing the lowest values it could find, even lower than what the guidelines would call for. 

The safety of vitamins and minerals, I argued, was unparalleled, so that there could be no problem with having higher levels of these nutrients. Moreover, lowering the NRVs was inconsistent with Codex’s announced goal of preventing malnutrition.

NHF delegate Kat Carroll conferring with Benin and Malaysian delegates

The International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplements Associations (IADSA) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) spoke up after NHF, both attacking the proposed values of a specific nutrient – IADSA advocating a higher value for Biotin and IDF a lower value for Calcium (because the higher value would mean that milk could no longer be considered a “rich” source of calcium). 

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), to the confusion of many, simply said “We would like to stress the scientific underpinnings of these numbers.”  Did that mean they supported the values, or opposed them?  It sounded more like the former, but we could not tell.

As expected, Australia responded in defense of the dumbed-down NRVs; and NHF then challenged those numbers yet again.  But this time, the Malaysian, Iranian, and South African delegates spoke up one right after another in strong support of NHF and in favor of more sensible NRVs. It was heartening to hear these three women speak out for sensible nutrition based upon real science.[7]

NHF and IADSA spoke up again, respectively opposing the adoption of any of these values and, in the case of IADSA, the Biotin value.  The European Union (EU) delegate, Basil Mathioudakis, quite sensibly asked the Chairwoman what logic did it make to advance some and not all of the NRVs at the same time. 

Switzerland disagreed with the EU, but NHF spoke up in support of the EU’s question and suggested that the so-called “suitable” NRVs be held back, or at the very least some of the more questionable ones such as Calcium and Vitamin K.  IADSA, in turn, pointed out that the Committee was going against its own guidelines by not selecting the proper value, a higher value, for Biotin.

But the Chairwoman, Pia Noble, was having none of that and insisted that these “suitable” NRVs were going forward despite the substantial opposition.  In a last-ditch effort, I asked the Chairwoman to at least move the Vitamin K, Biotin, and Calcium from the “suitable” Table to the “unsuitable” category. Not only was the answer “no,” but Dr. Noble decided that since opposition might grow against these so-called “suitable” NRVs, then they should be advanced along the path of adoption as quickly as possible.

  So, she unilaterally undertook to advance them along the 8-Step adoption process to Step 5/8, where they now hover on the edge of full adoption by the Commission itself next year.
As an added insult, the following day, the Committee discussed another Agenda Item, that is, revisions to the Codex General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods, which in small but important part dealt with the question of whether Codex should or could state that nutrients can prevent or reduce the risk of disease. 

Amazingly enough, many delegations spoke out against such language.  Only the U.S. delegation and two INGOs (NHF and GAIN) defended this statement.

Scott Tips and Benin delegate Zinsou discuss the NRVs

Post-Script
The Troika of Pia Noble, Janine Lewis, and Barbara Schneeman succeeded in finally pushing forward eleven of the nineteen vitamins and minerals further along the road to adoption.  At the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting next July there will be a further push to adopt these eleven vitamins and minerals and set their low (except for Calcium) values in stone.  Barbara Schneeman, the U.S. delegate, will not be there as her retirement was announced at the CCNFSDU meeting.

 Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to derail this effort to steam-roller consumers into ill-health and NHF intends to make the most of it.

In addition, the Chairwoman reauthorized the eWG to continue its work on the “unsuitable” nutrient values and the NHF is taking an active part in that working group’s activities.  The eWG will report back to the CCNFSDU when it meets again next Fall in Germany.

Legacy
Barbara Schneeman’s legacy at Codex has been an unfortunate one of pushing big corporate interests while thumbing her nose at consumers.  Whether it was her obstinate opposition to adopting a guideline for labeling GMO foods (at the Codex Committee on Food Labelling) or her questionable support for dumbing-down NRVs (at CCNFSDU), she has unfortunately been too often on the wrong side of the issues.  Perhaps, in the interests of better health for consumers worldwide, her retirement from Codex could have happened a few years earlier.  While this might sound uncharitable, inflicting ill-health upon billions of humans is far less charitable still.

Final Thoughts
The Troika has cleverly pushed forward some of the nutrient NRVs in the hope that the others must inevitably follow along.  Whatever their agenda might truly be, the sad fact is that consumer health will suffer from their thoughtless and stercoraceous actions.
The problem facing consumers is not vitamin-and-mineral toxicity, it is widespread deficiencies of those nutrients.

  Too many Codex delegates are stuck in the mindset that human populations only need bare subsistence nutrition; that is, that nutrition that merely keeps them breathing and their feet moving one step at a time.  The concept that there is a greater level of nutrition – of optimal nutrition – is as foreign to them as space flight would be to Stone Age people. 

They fail to comprehend that nutrients at proper levels can actually enable individuals to function at more proficient levels and without those diseases that afflict sub-optimally fed populations.
The disservice done to Humanity by those too lazy to think and then act is so profound as to be disheartening to many others

.  Many among us question the motivations of those who want to only push a guideline or standard forward to final adoption simply to “get it done and out of the way.”  Is their thinking really as shallow as that?  Maybe we better hope it is, as that is an easier mindset to deal with than one of active malevolence.

---

[1] The National Health Federation delegation consisted of Scott Tips and Katherine A. Carroll. The NHF-Germany Executive Director, Petra Weiss, took ill and could not attend this year.  Attorney Jeannine Stewart and others helped Scott Tips draft the NHF’s submission paper arguing for higher levels of NRVs.  This NHF paper was published by the German Codex Secretariat as Conference Room Document 13 (CRD 13) and made available to all of the CCNFSDU delegates at the meeting and can be found on-line at www.thenhf.com/codex/. All photographs in this article were taken by Katherine Carroll.

[2] Not to be confused with Maximum Upper Permitted Limits, NRVs are nothing more than souped-up RDAs.  These are numerical values assigned to specified nutrients that will supposedly cover 98% of the population’s nutritional needs for that nutrient. By referring to the NRV for a vitamin or mineral, the consumer is supposed to know whether he or she is getting an adequate intake of that nutrient, even if, as in the case of Vitamin C, 100% of the NRV is defined as 45 milligrams! These values are claimed to be set according to rigorous scientific evidence; but, in reality, “science” at Codex levels is often nothing more than a flimsy set of assumptions and erroneous conclusions cobbled together to justify keeping consumers “safe” from “dangerous” vitamins and minerals.

[3] The proposed Codex NRVs are: Vitamin A (dropped from 800 mcg to 550 mcg); Vitamin D (5 mcg or 200 IUs); Vitamin E (8.8 mg); Vitamin K (60 mcg); Vitamin C (dropped from 60 mg to 45 mg); Thiamin (dropped from 1.4 to 1.2 mg); Riboflavin (dropped from 1.6 mg to 1.2 mg); Niacin (dropped from 18 mg to 15 mg); Vitamin B6 (dropped from 2 mg to 1.3 mg); Folate (raised to 400 mcg); Vitamin B12 (2.4 mcg); Pantothenate (5 mg); Biotin (30 mcg); Calcium (raised from 800 mg to 1000 mg); Magnesium (dropped from 300 mg to 240 mg); Iodine (150 mcg); Iron (14.3-43.1 mg depending upon bioavailability); Zinc (dropped from 15 mg to 3.6-11.9, depending upon bioavailability); Selenium (30 mcg); Phosphorus (700 mg); Chloride (2.3 grams); Copper (900 mcg); Fluoride (3.5 mg); Manganese (2.1 mg); Chromium (30 mcg); and Molybdenum (45 mcg).
[4] See CCNFSDU document number CX/NFSDU 12/34/8.

 [5] NHF has been opposed to Australia’s desire to raise the Calcium NRV from 800 mg to 1000 mg for several reasons. First of all, it is infantile nutritional science to think that health can be improved by raising Calcium intake while simultaneously lowering Magnesium intake (here, from 300 mg to 240 mg!).  Magnesium and Calcium are twin minerals and raising Calcium intake while lowering Magnesium intake is a certain recipe for disaster, as it invites the calcium to settle into the soft tissue like the skin and arteries and not go to where it properly belongs, in the bones and teeth.  Secondly, by fixing the NRV for Calcium, the Committee has limited the range in which the Committee may now set the NRV for Magnesium.  If the Committee is to follow sound nutritional science, then the Magnesium NRV cannot now be set any lower than 500 mg.  That is a great distance from the measly 240 mg value that the Chairwoman and Australia would like to establish.

 [6] Vitamin K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenate, Biotin, Calcium, and Iodine.

[7] These three strong-willed delegates are: Fatima Sulong (Malaysia), Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam (Iran), and Andiswa Ngqaka (South Africa), who resisted the strong urgings of the Chairwoman to simply look the other way and advance the dumbed-down NRVs.  The three women took an unpopular stand and are true heroines, and to be much commended for speaking out for health.
SUPPORT H.R.3380 – THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENT HEALTH PROTECTION ACT NOW!

You Are A Slave To Your Government

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices.” – George Bernard Shaw

Americans Chained By Illusion Called Brain Washing

Murder In The Medical Matrix

I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:

http://ssristories.com/index.php

It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I've written much about the the FDA. I thought I'd assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.

HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW

by Jon Rappoport

May 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

  

The day of the Smoking Gun has arrived.

The discovery of a page, on the FDA's own website, proves the FDA is fully aware that:

the drugs it certifies as safe have been killing Americans, at the rate of 100,000 per year.

  

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm

 The FDA website page is currently available under the heading, "Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions."

The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.

As an investigative reporter, I have been tracking and writing about pharmaceutically-caused deaths for 10 years. I have, on numerous occasions, cited Dr. Barbara Starfield's report in the July 26th, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, in which she presents the figure of 106,000 deaths per year, in America, as a direct result of these drugs. I have claimed that the federal government and, in particular, the FDA, are aware of these numbers.

And now the page on the FDA's own website confirms the death toll. Yet, nowhere do we see the FDA taking one shred of responsibility for this ongoing holocaust.

Holocaust? Add up the figures. Medical drugs cause 100,000 deaths in America every year: that means a million Americans are killed every decade.

Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.

Yes, the FDA has a "special relationship" with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.

In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.

That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.

On this FDA website page that has just come to light, the FDA also readily admits that deaths from medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.

The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. When the FDA says "serious," they aren't talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. "Serious" means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude. Therefore, per decade, that adds up to 20 million ADRs. 20 million.

Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable crime in the American landscape? And yet the major media have been silent. This is the kind of story that could make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic. If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.

But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn't just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It's collusion to protect "a revered institution"-the medical system.

Also at stake is Obamacare. The connection is vivid and unmistakable. Millions more Americans, previously uninsured, will be drawn into the system and subjected to the very drugs are killing and maiming people at such a horrific rate.

Where has the US Department of Justice been all these years? Is there any way, under the sun, that a million deaths per decade can be excused? Is there any way the FDA and the drug companies can float safely in the upper atmosphere of privilege, while the concept of justice retains any meaning? Where are criminal prosecutions?

The revelations of ongoing knowledge to be found at the FDA website page stagger the mind. Here is yet another implication: what about all the studies on drugs that are published in prestigious medical journals, month after month? These studies unequivocally claim the drugs are safe. What level of fraud must exist for such peer-reviewed studies to attain the false status of medical fact?

Perhaps this quote from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, will clarify that aspect of the scandal:

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

(Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

  

Meanwhile, the FDA pursues an agenda of attacking nutritional supplements, and the latest federal regulations classify these supplements as "potentially dangerous"-despite the fact that supplements have a record of safety that is astonishing.

  

It is time for these murderous government crimes to end. It is time for all responsible parties to be brought to justice, to real justice. It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the US, because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.

  

It is only necessary for Department of Justice officials to climb into cars and drive down the road to the headquarters of the FDA and start making arrests, on a charge of negligent homicide. At minimum.

ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: THE FDA VS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

By Jon Rappoport

June 12, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn't you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let's shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn't you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I'm talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let's get to the latest smoking gun. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: "It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing 'serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'"

The report called this "one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity."

And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA's own database of "serious adverse [medical-drug] events."

Therefore, to say the FDA isn't aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn't saying anything about it, because THE FDA CERTIFIES, AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, ALL THE DRUGS THAT ARE ROUTINELY MAIMING AND KILLING AMERICANS.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; the FDA has a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Google "FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions")

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death last year, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, "Is US health really the best in the world?", was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn't I go along with Janet Napolitano's advice: SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.

This is what I see and this is what I'm saying. Maybe DHS would like to investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization.

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns? Do we need relatives of the people who've all died, in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I'll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.

But you see, the routine deaths of 100,000 Americans a year, after the FDA has certified the drugs are SAFE, isn't a recognized political issue. It doesn't play in a debate between Romney and Obama. It isn't perceived as a left-versus-right, liberal-versus-conservative topic.

Such is the power of the medical cartel. All those phony stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.

It's quite something to behold. But here is the situation. No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That's the rule. Therefore, if the FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and if the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade, and if the FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what's going on, then you have a holocaust. Murder. Not accidental death. Murder.

WHEN MASS MURDER BECOMES ACCEPTABLE

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Five days ago, I broke a story about the FDA. On one of its own web pages, the agency admits that medical drugs kill 100,000 Americans a year.

Of course, none of those drugs would have reached the public, if the FDA had ruled them out as dangerous. The FDA is the single entity responsible for certifying medical drugs as safe and effective. On its web page, the FDA neglected to mention that fact.

Imagine this. You go to an FBI web page and read the following: "Murders committed by FBI agents are the third leading cause of homicides in America every year."

Wouldn't that set off alarm bells? Wouldn't there be a public outcry? Wouldn't the the press go crazy with the story?

Yet somehow, the FDA gets away with its crimes, its homicides. There are no alarm bells, no arrests, no hearings, no public statements, no press reactions, no shakeups at the Agency.

It's a miracle.

As I've been saying and writing for a decade now, the power of the medical cartel is gigantic.

When I was running for a Congressional seat from the 29th District of California, in 1994, and during my participation in the Health Freedom movement of that period, I insisted we had to take the attack to the FDA. We had to make their crimes public.

I was told by the people who were leading the charge for Health Freedom that priority had to be given to passing a law that would protect us all from attacks on nutritional supplements. Then, when we had that law, we could think about going after the FDA.

Well, we got the law, which only gave us temporary protection, and afterward there was no "going after the FDA." It was suddenly a dead issue.

I remember the people who said, "Don't attack the FDA." I remember their attitudes, their faces, their words. They were not my friends, and they weren't your friends. Some of them were yuppies selling "let's be nice" New Age sentiment. A few were most likely plants who had infiltrated the Health Freedom movement to water it down.

Various liars sell their lies through various strategies.

I assure you, there are doctors out there who know the statistics on medically caused death in the US. They know about the drugs that kill. They know what's going on. They know the FDA is accountable. They remain silent. They feel no pressure to make a public statement. They're living under the umbrella of protection provided by the government and the press and the medical system. These doctors are silent witnesses to ongoing mass murder. Just as the FDA is a silent witness to its own mass-murdering practices. And of course, the doctors write the prescriptions for the drugs.

Obama, Bush, Clinton; none of these men have indicated the slightest awareness of the "problem." Did they know? Do they know? Just as I predicted, correctly, that the FDA knows, I say these men do know. They prefer to remain silent as well. They don't want to touch this genocidal crime. They don't have the character or the courage.

Presidents and deans of medical schools know. Teachers at these schools know. Pharmaceutical executives know. Medical researchers know. The CDC knows. The World Health Organization knows. Editors and reporters at major press outlets know. The DEA knows. The US Dept. of Justice knows.

And now, a growing segment of the Internet knows. Will this story, finally, build into an irresistible roar? Or will it again sink back into the shadows?

A Matrix of hypnotic effect and cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. People find it extremely difficult to believe that a federal agency, in broad daylight, year after year, countenances and sustains the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people.

People find it extremely difficult to believe that, were such a story true, they would not have heard about it already.

People want to believe that a crime of this boggling magnitude would already have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

People want to believe the secular religion known as Medicine is devoted to healing in all its forms.

People want to believe that, since doctors can put accident victims back together in one piece and can set broken bones and temporarily reduce inflammation, the practice of medicine must be uniformly successful across the board.

To shatter all these firmly held conviction in one fell swoop is too much for many people to absorb.

FDA DRUG REVIEWER: "ONE FDA MANAGER THREATENED MY CHILDREN"

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In a stunning interview with Truthout's Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety

Cavanagh: "...widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation."

"I was threatened with prison."

"One [FDA] manager threatened my children...I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators."

Cavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn't part of the FDA culture, and Cavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his covert task at the FDA? "Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs." In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanagh's revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the effects of nerve gas, "actually increased the lethality" of certain nerve agents.

Cavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug---and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Read the entire landmark interview for yourself and see what the FDA really is. We are not dealing with isolated incidents of cheating and lying. We are not dealing with a few isolated bought-off FDA employees. The situation at the FDA isn't correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Twelve years ago, the cat was let out of the bag. Dr. Barbara Starfield, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 26, 2000, in a review titled, "Is US health really the best in the world," exposed the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

In interviewing her, I discovered that she had never been approached by any federal agency to help remedy this tragedy. Nor had the federal government taken any steps on its own to stop the dying.

Should we tread daintily when we know the federal agency responsible for drug safety is allowing 100,000 people to die every year? This is murder. It's not really negligent homicide, not when it keeps happening. It's murder. It's on the order of a Nazi war crime.

  

Try this image: you are a gatekeeper. Your job, on the first day of every year, is to unlock the gate and leave it open, so people can pass through. But you know that, when you open the gate, 100,000 people who pass through will die in the following year. Yet, every January 1, you keep opening the gate.

  

That's what the FDA is. That particular gatekeeper.

Satisfy Bacon Craving Without Risking Pancreatic Cancer

The meat-eaters among you may truly believe that bacon makes everything better; and folks from Iron Chefs to everyday-Joe's will pay up to $35 a pound for gourmet bacon cuts. However, these delectable pieces of smoked pig are highly processed with numerous toxic chemicals such as nitrites, sodium nitrate, and other products that cause cancer.

 In particular, your risk of pancreatic cancer increases two-fold after eating processed meats such as bacon and sausages, reports the British Journal of Cancer. As little as one sausage or two slices of bacon can increase your risk factors for pancreatic cancer by 51 percent.

If you're one of the devoted, living on a bacon diet, adding it to brownies, crumbling it on ice cream or just eating it plain -- think about this before you eat it again. Some of the chemicals used to give bacon its distinctive and delicious flavor are altered by your body into toxins that actually change the nature of your DNA, says The Guardian. The damage goes deep and processed meats contribute to colorectal, breast, and pancreatic cancer.

If you respect your body, or even if you're just simply scared to hell of cancer, it's never too late to make a different food choice and reach for a more nutritious tasty morsel.

What's a bacon lover to do?

Giving up the bacon diet may be as painful to some as relinquishing candy bars or sodas for sugar addicts. But you can still satisfy your bacon craving by eating homemade, seasoned turkey crisps. Organic, free range turkey is lower in fat than bacon, and has no added chemicals, hormones or antibiotics.

 It's minimally processed and supplies a natural source for the amino acid, L-tryptophan, which stimulates the release of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Researchers believe there is a link between low serotonin levels and depression. Naturally stimulating serotonin levels may improve your moods and provide a healthy alternative to taking dangerous, pharmaceutical drugs.

Eating turkey also protects you from the risks of pancreatic cancer because it contains selenium, an essential trace mineral. Selenium boosts the immune system, supports thyroid function and provides antioxidants to help eliminate cancer-friendly free radicals.

Making turkey crisps

The easiest way to make turkey crisps is by using organic, sliced turkey that's been minimally processed. Alternatively, you can roast an organic turkey and slice it thin.

It's as simple as melting enzyme-rich, organic or raw butter in a stainless steel pan and placing several turkey slices in the butter to cook. If you don't eat butter, use one of your favorite oils like coconut or walnut to coat the pan. Season with spices, like organic garlic and onion powder and cook on a medium-high heat. Repeatedly turn the meat until it's golden brown and leathery in appearance -- like bacon. Drain it on a paper towel and serve like bacon. Use smoked turkey or add a few dribbles of organic smoke flavor as you're cooking. The organic smoke liquid is available at health food stores and is chemical free.

Don't be shy about how you prepare turkey crisps. Sprinkle some cinnamon and pure maple sugar on them for a sweet treat; douse them with organic, grade B maple syrup alongside breakfast pancakes; shake on thyme and sage for a savory, Thanksgiving-flavored snack. Store extras in the fridge in a plastic bag and eat as you like -- if you actually have leftovers.

Substituting organic turkey crisps for bacon can turn a cancer-causing bacon diet into nourishing nutrition that reduces your risk of pancreatic cancer.

#Firearm Confiscation Plan Announced With Forced Buy Back

US senators, state governors and others are testing the waters to see if they can sell a national confiscation buy back program under an Obama executive order. This is a way of making all gun owners terrorist. This is the plan, the facts are indisputable. We are in deep sh!t.

She Survivied Hitler But Is Concerned About America

Kitty Werthmann survived Hitler.

“What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.

“I am a witness to history.

“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.

Adolph Hitler

“We voted him in.”

If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.

She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.

“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

No so.

Hitler is welcomed to Austria

“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

Austrian girls welcome Hitler

“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

Austrians saluting

“After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

“Then we lost religious education for kids

Poster promoting “Hitler Youth”

“Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,’ and had physical education.

“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.”

And then things got worse.

“The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.

“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

“My mother was very unhappy,” remembers Kitty. “When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.

“I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.

A pro-Hitler rally

“Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time, unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.

“It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

“Then food rationing began

“In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.

“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

“Soon after this, the draft was implemented.

Young Austrians

“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.

“They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.

“When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.

“Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.

“You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.

“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

“Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna..

“After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.

“When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.

“

If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

“As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.

“All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

“We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.

“ Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.

“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

“We had consumer protection, too

Austrian kids loyal to Hitler

“We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.

“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.

“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.

“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.

“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

“Then they took our guns

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

Kitty Werthmann

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eye-witness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is truly is the greatest country in the world.

“Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”

Lies, Damned Lies And Gun Control

Mark Twain once lamented that there were “lies, damned lies and statistics”, with the third being the most deceptive at all. I was reminded of this the other evening when examining a “hit piece” that was circulating on Facebook last Friday in the aftermath of the horrific mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

I was feeling a bit wonkish and I thought I would look up some statistics on violence and gun ownership around the world. One study I found was from the 2007 Small Arms Survey that dealt with the number of guns per capita in 177 nations around the world. The other was a 2012 U.N. study on the number of intentional homicides in nations around the world.

While I am not a professional statistician, we can conclude one thing: there simply is no correlation between the murder rates and rates of firearms ownership.
Let’s first consider the countries on the above graphic:

• Japan has almost no gun ownership.
• England has a low rate of gun ownership.
• Switzerland ranks fourth in the world in guns per capita.
• Canada ranks thirteenth in the world in guns per capita.
• Israel has a moderate rate of guns per capita.
• Sweden ranks tenth in the world in guns per capita.
• Germany ranks fifteenth in the world in guns per capita.
• The United States has the highest gun ownership rate on earth.

Now let’s consider just a few statistics from the two surveys:

• Honduras has the highest homicide rate on earth, and a gun ownership rate similar to that of Great Britain.
• Rounding out the top five countries for highest homicide rate are El Salvador, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica and Venezuela, all of which have fairly low rates of gun ownership.
• North Korea has a homicide rate over three times that of the United States and almost no gun ownership.
• Yemen has the third highest rate of gun ownership and a homicide rate about equal to that of the United States. Serbia, with the second highest rate of gun ownership, has a homicide rate about one-third that of the United States.
• Norway ranks eleventh in the world in gun ownership and near the bottom in homicide. (Yes, someone went nutzoid there in the summer of 2011. However, five million other Norwegians didn’t.)
• Mexico has the same rate of gun ownership as Australia, and 16 times the homicide rate.
• Several dozen countries have higher homicide rates than the United States.

On Friday evening, I posted the following graphic about gun control and received some interesting comments.

One person was most indignant that I would make a connection between the genocide of Nazi Germany and the murder of innocents in Newtown, Connecticut. Both were gun-free zones where victim disarmament did not prevent mass murder.

Another asked why every government of a disarmed nation is not killing their own citizens en masse. To be sure, not every disarmed nation has experienced genocide. However, numerous genocides – e.g., Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, North Korea – have followed citizen disarmament. Do you want to run that risk here in America?

The issue is not gun ownership. Rather, it is the evil that resides in the human heart. Depriving people of a tool – any tool – will not cure this. If people intent on crime cannot use one tool, they will use another. And when someone wants to victimize you, do you, in that most dreadful of moments, want to be denied the means of self-defense?

No?

Me neither.

And just what if someone at Sandy Hook Elementary School had been armed on the morning of December 14? How many innocent lives would have been spared?

Gun Myths Busted

People who don't own guns are wildly ignorant about them, and they're easily suckered into liberal media myths that willfully repeat total lies such as being able to "buy guns online" or the idea that you can easily buy "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles." These are all complete lies. Let's expose the myths right here: Myth #1: You can buy automatic weapons at any gun shop This is completely and utterly false. Automatic weapons are highly regulated, extremely expensive ($15,000+) and VERY difficult to acquire. They're also extremely rare and have NEVER been used in any school shooting in America. Just to acquire an "automatic weapon," you must go through extensive background checks and fingerprinting. You must apply to the federal government (ATF) for permission, then wait six months or longer to be "approved" by the ATF. I don't own any automatic weapons and have no desire to. Automatic weapons are wildly inaccurate. Even soldiers almost never use automatic fire. They almost always use their own rifles on either single shot or a three-round burst. Full auto is just a really fast way to waste ammo and hit nothing. Myth #2: You can buy guns online Many liberals think you can just buy guns online. This is completely and utterly false. You can PAY for a gun online, but gun dealers cannot (and will not) ship a firearm directly to any customer. All guns that are PAID FOR online must be shipped to FFL dealers, which are federally licensed and regulated by the ATF. A person who pays for a gun online must go through a federal FBI background check just to pick up their gun at the FFL dealer, and they must fill out an extensive form which includes detailed questions on mental health, criminal history and so on. It is impossible to buy a gun online, but the liberal media keeps lying about this, hoping people will believe their lies. Myth #3: You don't need a background check to buy guns This is also a lie. To buy a gun from any gun dealer, whether at a local store or at a gun show, a background check is required by law. Gun dealers cannot, under any circumstances, sell a gun to somebody without either an FBI background check or, in some states, proof that the buyer has a concealed carry permit, which itself requires an FBI background check. The only exception to the background check rule is when an individual, who is not engaged in the business of firearms sales, wishes to sell his own personal firearm to another individual. This person-to-person sale does not require a background check because it is a non-commercial, non-dealer transaction founded on the fundamental right to engage in personal commerce. Myth #4: You can easily buy "Assault" rifles in America Although people banter around the term "assault rifle" a bit too casually, in truth you cannot buy an assault rifle in America without going through an extensive ATF investigation and spending $20,000+ (usually $40,000 or more) on a rare firearm. What makes a rifle an "assault" rifle? It must have a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire. None of the civilian AR-15s have these features. Neither do any of the "scary-looking" battle rifles sold in gun shops. Liberals call something an "assault rifle" because of the way it looks. If it looks "scary" (i.e. has a black composite stock instead of wood) then it must be a BAD gun. Seriously. This is how they think. But in truth, even a composite stock AR-15 purchased at a gun shop right now has absolutely no capability for a 3-round burst or full-auto. That firepower is reserved exclusively for the U.S. military. So when Obama says things like, "We don't need military rifles on the streets of America," he is LYING to you. We don't have military rifles on the streets of America. What we have is semi-auto, single-shot rifles in the hands of Citizens. Virtually no one has a military "assault" rifle. (The media routinely lies about this...) Click here for an excellent explanation of what an assault rifle really is. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." ~ Patrick Henry Myth #5: The Second Amendment is about hunting The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense. It has to do with the People of America maintaining a military force for the sole purpose of overthrowing a government that becomes too tyrannical. That is the 100% documented, non-debatable intent of the Second Amendment. Trench Coxe was one of our nation's founding fathers. He was a consultant to Thomas Jefferson and his newspapers were instrumental in publishing the truth during a time with British troops had DISARMED the colonial populations and banned all guns. Why did they ban guns? So that the people could not fight back against tyranny, of course. As Coxe wrote in 1788: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ~ Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. That same web page goes on to explain how the British General Howe used gun control to oppress the people: When occupying Philadelphia in 1778, British General Howe had disarmed the population. As reported in Philadelphia newspapers, General Gage had done the same to the citizens of Boston in 1775. Stewart Rhodes is a modern-day founding father. He's an award-winning constitutional scholar and a champion of liberty for all Americans. Here's what he says about the Second Amendment: Aybody who tells you that it's okay and constitutional to take away your M1A, your Garand, your FAL, your HK91, your M4 is a liar. They are lying to you. They are either a useful idiot or a traitor who are lying to you, trying to deceive you to think that it's about duck hunting, or even personal defense. It's not even about personal defense. It's about the military capacity of the American people to overthrow a tyrant. That what it's about. ~ Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers, on the December 19th, 2012 episode of the Alex Jones Show. A Pledge of Personal Resistance On December 19th, 2012, Stewart Rhodes published the widely-celebrated article, My Personal Pledge of Resistance Against Any Attempt to Disarm Us by Means of an "Assault Weapons Ban" We reprint that pledge here, in its entirety: My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out. The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don't want to disarm us- oh, no! They just want to take away our "assault weapons" – our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles – and the "high capacity" magazines that feed them. They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed. That is a LIE. The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty. When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED. At that time, the lion's share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted). It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns. And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call "sniper rifles" (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!). And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds, or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don't need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22's (as was done in England) and on down the line. So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not "disarmed" while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range). We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament. And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now. When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant. Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted. And so, in response to this obvious assault on our right to keep and bear arms (as in military arms), I feel compelled to make the following personal pledge: I Stewart Rhodes, as an American, as a military veteran, and as a father, pledge the following: I Pledge to never disarm, and in particular, to never surrender my military pattern, semi-automatic rifles (and full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them), regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. I also pledge to pass on those military pattern rifles to my children and my children's children, as well as the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition to needed to use them, regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution: The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ~ Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. And that "power of the sword" – those "terrible implements of the soldier," includes the people's battle rifles and carbines – their M1As, their FN-LARs, their HK 91s, their Grandfathers' M1 Garand, their AK 47s, their ARs and M4s, etc. – all of the weapons listed as being targeted for Feinstein's new and improved "Assault Weapons Ban." The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals – against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe). Above all other firearms currently available to the American citizen, modern military pattern, semi-automatic rifles provide that military capacity. Protecting the keeping and bearing of such arms of military utility is the heart and soul of the Second Amendment. Thus, any attempt to ban their possession, sale, purchase, or transfer, is an attempt to disarm the American people. Nor will I surrender my accurate, scoped, bolt action rifles, which are also great force multipliers of military utility in the roles of sniper and marksman. Invaders, tyrants and usurpers fear the sniper and marksman for good reason, and millions of American hunters have the well practiced field-craft and marksmanship skills to serve in those rolls most effectively. We must preserve their means of doing so, including preserving our .50 caliber sniper rifles, our .338 Lapua's, our .300 Win Mags, and other powerful, long-range capable calibers. Nor will I surrender my semi-automatic pistols with full capacity magazines, which provide me with the capacity to effectively defend against close range, sudden attack. I will not disarm, regardless of what law is passed by the oath breakers in Congress, or signed into law by the oath breaker in the White House, and I WILL pass on to my children every terrible implement of the soldier currently in my possession. Further, I will ask my children to also pledge to never surrender those family arms and equipment, regardless of what illegitimate, Bill of Rights violating law is passed by the oath breakers in Washington DC, and regardless of whatever any oath breaking judge may rule. Further, I pledge to refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms, the full capacity magazines needed to load and fire them, or the parts and ammunition needed to keep them firing. I will use nullification, civil disobedience, and active resistance against all such laws. I will nullify, disobey, and resist as an individual, and I will work with my neighbors to nullify, disobey, and resist as towns, counties, and states. We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist. Further, I pledge to refuse to vote for, and to actively work to purge from office any elected official, of any party, who violates their oath of office by supporting, endorsing, or voting for any law, action, or decree that attempts to disarm me, my children, or my children's children of any of the above noted arms. I pledge to root the oath breakers out, in a scorched earth policy. I will not buy into the "lesser of two evils" con game, and regardless of what party an oath breaking politician is in, and regardless of the outcome of elections, that oath breaker will not get my vote, ever again, once they betray my trust and violate their oath by voting for an assault weapons ban or any other attempt to curtail my right to bear arms. Finally, I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any "assault weapons ban" or any other illegitimate "law" passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm. We will resist. And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day. If we are presented with the "choice" of submission to tyranny or fighting in defense of our natural rights, we will fight, as our forefathers fought, when the British Empire attempted to disarm them and confiscate the military pattern arms, ammunition, and supplies of their time. We will make the same choice as Patrick Henry made, when he rejected "peace" purchased at the price of chains and slavery, and said "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" I too choose liberty or death. I hereby reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor in defense of the principles of liberty enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, for which our forefathers spilled their blood. We will not let the Republic fall without a fight.