The Faster and More Furious

Part 1

　

 

In the wake of a string of unspeakable tragedies linked to gun violence at the hands of non-descript, seemingly socially-ostracized assailants, including but not limited to the recent June 7, 2013 shooting in Santa Monica, California, as well as the December 14, 2012 massacre of 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, America finds herself faced with addressing an issue of which the true intent of her leaders may possibly be just as vague and nefarious as the motives of the alleged killers themselves. In fact, they may even be intrinsically linked if not one in the same.

In the midst and aftermath of such tragedies, reason and rationale succumb to the blunter force of fear and uncertainty, resulting in the differences between a symptom and the source of a problem becoming blurred and indistinguishable to the common citizen who then merely begs for a solution - any solution - that would reinstate their emotional safety and security and return them to their respective place of normalcy despite the long-term and adverse effects of that supposed solution.

Such a state of fear and uncertainty is one that governments often take full advantage of when attempting to pass legislation that works to the advantage of special interests and to the detriment of its citizens. In the event that the citizens don’t respond accordingly or as expected, the governments simply get faster and more furious in their approach and resort to even more extreme measures of fear-mongering until the will of the people is dogged and destroyed to the point that they acquiesce and willfully throw away their freedom in exchange for security.

Such examples would include the speedy pass of the PATRIOT Act after 9/11, which, propelled by the wings of extreme fear, not only passed beneath the awareness of the American people, but nor was it read by the senators or members of Congress that passed it.

A second and more recent example would be last year’s passing of the NDAA bill which anointed the U.S. government with the right to kill it’s own citizens domestically and abroad with drones and other military armaments without exercising due process.

To little surprise, and just barely 2 months after finally admitting the possibility of the U.S. government attacking it’s own citizens on domestic soil while downplaying it as an improbable hypothetical, Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has now recently revealed that the U.S. has in fact killed 4 U.S. citizens on foreign soil - 1 intentionally, and 3 unintentionally - while justifying the act as a response against an “imminent” terroristic attack; the word imminent being the condition nestled in the wording of the NDAA bill to allow the legal disregarding of the right and effort of due process.

All things considered, it appears to many that the scene is being set and orchestrated to prep us for our own demise by eroding the very freedoms that make us proud to call ourselves Americans. We are now more committed to holding onto the perception of America than we are to holding onto the principles of what it means to be American. To little surprise, our pledges and mantras are now as hollow as the souls of the criminals whom we’ve elected to protect them.

Resultantly we have become comfortable with living in fear, shrugging it off as merely a sign of the times as we allow ourselves to be conditioned to accept the worst of mediocrity and the best of incompetence. We no longer strive to raise the bar. Instead, we silently suffer beneath the weight of those who lower it, singing their praises as we steadily become unworthy residents of the former “home of the brave."

Once strong, we now are in fear of shoes, suitcases and stray backpacks as we shudder and recoil at the mere mention of the words ‘bomb’ or ‘gun.’ Diversity has now become a characteristic of suspicion as ignorance has become a legitimate excuse for doing so. Everyone and everything are now things to be feared - potential terrorists - as fascism enters in upon the backs of our phobias and through the cracks in our conscience.

If 9/11 was the official demarcation on our war against terror then it is clear that we’ve lost as our fears and insecurities are greatest now than they’ve ever been. Terrorism has left us terrified. Now, we are slowly awakening to the realization that the true terrorists aren’t nearly as remote and unfamiliar as we once thought or were led to believe as we lift the thobes to find Italian-made suits bearing U.S. flag pens on the lapels hidden beneath. 

After all, it wasn’t Al-Qaeda or the Taliban that passed the bills that changed our laws and way of life, nor is it the Mujahideen who are indiscriminately tapping our cell phones and internet activity against the writ of our constitution. And even if it were, that would simply further prove my point.

“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” - Benjamin Franklin

But what does any of this have to do with guns and school shootings? Well, I’m glad that you asked.

As it relates to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in December of 2012, the Virginia Tech shooting back in 2007, the Success Tech Academy shooting in 2007, as well as the notorious Columbine High School massacre back in 1999, an interesting and undeniable commonality in these crimes in addition to the fact that they were all school shootings is that the shooters of these massacres were not only reportedly taking psychiatric medications to address mental illnesses, but all of them also reportedly committed suicide immediately after their killing sprees.

The recent shooting spree (June 7, 2013) in Santa Monica, California, at the hands of 23-yr old John Zawahri can also be added to this list as that he too was reportedly suffering from mental health issues. The only difference being that he didn’t kill himself, instead, he was killed by police officers after a gunfight in the Santa Monica College library.

Even James Holmes, the alleged gunman in the Dark Knight movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado, was reported to have been taking prescription drugs for an undisclosed mental illness. However, this killing spree didn’t end in a suicide nor his death at the hands of officers. Instead, it ended without incident as that Mr. Holmes was found behind the theater calm, stoic and detached from the whole event, presumably by some to be under the influence of some narcotics/drugs. Per the testimony of one of the arresting officer, Jason Oviatt, he states, “He [James Holmes] was completely compliant. There wasn’t even normal tension in him. He seemed very, very relaxed. It was like there weren’t normal emotional responses to anything.”

Coincidence? Maybe. But when one considers an excerpt from a famous book entitled Behold The Pale Horse written in 1991 by William C. Cooper which was written with the intent of empowering “the people" by exposing past, present, and future government conspiracies and programs by revealing official, secret government documents, witness/insider testimony, and alternate theories, a different picture begins to emerge which potentially sheds a little more light onto the source of this gun problem and school shootings.

Here’s the excerpt from Behold The Pale Horse [page 225]:

“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the anti-gun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Author's Note: I have found that these events have indeed happened all over the country. In every instance that I have investigated — the incident at the women's school in Canada, the shopping center incident in Canada, the Stockton, California, massacre, and the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane — the shooters were all ex-mental patients or were current mental patients who were ALL ON THE DRUG PROZAC!

This drug, when taken in certain doses, increases the serotonin level in the patient, causing extreme violence. Couple that with a post-hypnotic suggestion or control through an electronic brain implant or microwave or E.L.F. intrusion and you get mass murder, ending in every case with the suicide of the perpetrator.

Exhume the bodies of the murderers and check for a brain implant. I think you are going to be surprised. In every case the name of the murderer's doctor or mental treatment facility has been withheld.

I believe we will be able to establish intelligence-community connections and/or connections to known CIA experimental mind-control programs when we finally discover who these doctors of death really are.”

Still a coincidence? Not likely, especially when one considers the first sentence - “The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of firearms for the criminals to use” - along with last year’s revelation of the botched “Fast and Furious” operation that revealed that the highest levels of U.S. government, the Justice Department, and the ATF were involved in and/or were aware of a gun-walking effort to intentionally put thousands of high-powered assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels by way of straw sales via firearm dealers with the alleged intent of tracking the firearms to it’s members. Not only were all of the weapons not successfully tracked, but this effort also resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Protection agent (Brian Terry) by one of the weapons as well as thousands of unmarked assault weapons spreading between Mexico and the United States.

The trail of this program was traced all the way up to Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, who was then held in contempt of Congress for not providing - in fact withholding - relevant documentation regarding the program. Soon after, President Obama asserted executive privilege as to prevent this documentation from being brought forth; an identical move that the President himself previously criticized President Bush for citing it as an attempt to hide behind something “shaky.”

Still a coincidence? Yes, only if you’re in denial, and in such a state of denial coincidence merely becomes an excuse for willful ignorance. After all, the Obama Administration didn’t deny the program’s existence, they only denied their prior knowledge of it, all of which raises a bevy of questions.

For example, shouldn’t American citizens be concerned that the government is knowingly and intentionally involved in secret gun-walking programs designed to put high-powered assault rifles into the hands of criminals while simultaneously attempting to pass legislation making it illegal - or at a minimum more difficult - for law-abiding citizens to protect and defend themselves with the same? Why arm the villains and disarm the citizens?

There’s no question whether or not a solution is needed in order to resolve the “gun control” issue. We all agree there. But shouldn’t we be striving for the right solution as opposed to any “right now” solution? Why do something simply for the sake of saying that we did something? Do we not at least owe it to ourselves to make sure that we do the “right” thing that strengthens and protects the citizens that the American government has sworn to protect and serve?

More importantly, isn’t it a contradiction, or at a minimum suspicious, for a government to use weapons and guns to protect and defend itself, to then pass a bill (NDAA) stating that it has the right to use these very weapons and guns against it’s own people domestically and abroad, to further add insult to injury by proposing legislation depriving these very people of the right to protect and defend themselves with the same?

Someone with the true intent to protect and defend you would NEVER obstruct or limit your ability to protect and defend yourself. Quite the contrary. They would in fact train, educate, and even equip you with the best ways to self-sufficiently defend and protect yourself, not unlike what the U.S. has and continues to do for it’s allies in an effort called “building partner capacity,” one of the very reasons, allegedly, that we are still in Iraq and other countries; to provide them the training and infrastructure so that they can successfully protect and defend themselves. 

So why not do this domestically? Shouldn’t the American people be treated as partners/allies also? Why train and equip our allies but not train and equip our own citizens? To not do so - to in fact do the opposite - is indicative of a deeper, more sinister and likely ulterior motive that sits and waits in the shadows of American ignorance and complacency at the behest of government corruption that is getting faster and more furious by the minute.

Case and point: An automobile is a deadly weapon in untrained or malicious hands, but we don’t see the government trying to limit the access or ability of automobiles do we? No. In fact we see quite the opposite.

The highest maximum speed limit on U.S. highways is 85mph (Texas), yet, the U.S. has no problem with selling automobiles that can exceed that speed limit (more than twice that speed on many automobiles). Yet, they argue that limiting the capacity of gun magazine to 10 rounds makes sense because anything more than that is excessive and unnecessary. Really? Couldn’t the same be said for cars that can exceed the speed limit? So why not simply offer the same type of handling and safety education and training for guns that we do with automobiles? After all, more people are killed by the illegal use of automobiles than they are by the illegal use of guns. Without the training it is safe to assume that vehicular deaths would increase, therefore, it can be equally and logically concluded that weapons training would result in a decrease in gun-related crimes and accidents.

Following haphazardly along this gun-automobile paradigm, the District of Columbia has recently, and shortsightedly, proposed a bill requiring gun owners to purchase $250,000 in liability insurance. The bill, B20-170, would mandate coverage for negligent and intentional acts in which a gun is used in situations other than self-defense in which the money raised would be used to compensate victims of gun violence. The bill would be retroactive, requiring those who already possess gun licenses to purchase the liability insurance within 30 days of the bill’s effective date.

Once again, a desperate and thoughtlessly proposed solution is offered while leaving more questions in it’s wake than answers. For example, how would such a bill stop or curb the gun-related massacres that have spawned the current anti-gun lobby, namely, the Newtown, Connecticut massacre or any other killing in which the weapons were/are stolen? Assuming the extremely unlikely possibility of a premeditating murderer purchasing liability insurance for a stolen gun, would such an insurance policy still honor the agreement and compensate the victims while penalizing the legitimate owner of the stolen weapon? 

And what if the policy owner decides to cancel his/her insurance or allows it to lapse before committing the murder, how does this help or protect the victims or limit the victimizer? Is a person who is hellbent on mass murder really concerned or threatened by the consequences of not carrying adequate insurance, especially if they are planning on killing themselves? Not likely. So all in all, how does such a law stop a killer or protect the law-abiding citizens who merely purchases a weapon for target shooting or personal protection?

Simply put, it doesn’t.

It seems that such laws in all of their opportunistic glory do more to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens by discouraging or penalizing them for gun ownership than they do to discourage and/or impede criminal activity, which, in the eyes of many, and as chronicle in William Cooper’s book, is the true desire and intent of the powers-that-be; to “foster a feeling of insecurity” by injecting fear into the consciousness of the majority, resulting in the willful submission and capitulation of their civil and human rights. 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what we see happening today. So, was William C. Cooper telling the truth, or was it just a coincidental lucky guess?  Many would have you believe that it's the latter.

Let’s be clear. This commentary isn’t written with the intent of supporting guns and/or the idiots that misuse them, but rather, for the support of common sense in the face of idiocy. After all, like any other tool, guns are only as deadly as their Holder (pun intended if you so desire).

　

We Must Change

During his speech on December 17th, 2012, regarding gun control and the Newtown massacre, President Obama stated, “We can’t tolerate this any more. These tragedies must end. And to end them we must change.” 

While that sentiment rings beyond the halls of truth, how do we accomplish that without first being honest with ourselves? After all, aren’t wars tragedies? Aren’t guns used in wars? Aren’t babies killed by guns in wars? And more importantly, isn’t America involved and complicit in wars?

America undoubtedly has every right to protect and defend herself as does any other country. But shouldn’t this right apply to her citizens as well?

If it is okay for us as citizens to protect and defend our country publicly, shouldn’t it be okay for us protect and defend ourselves and our families personally? Otherwise, who or what exactly are we protecting and defending??? It’s like being allowed to defend your apartment building while not being allowed to defend your apartment.

We can no longer continue to ignore the obvious elephants in the room while in the right mind believing that we won’t get trampled.

Sad truth: The history and legacy of America is earmarked and defined by guns and weaponry. Guns are as much a part of the American culture as the starred and striped flag, each being used to defend the other. We boast about our war successes while our memory-ingrained national anthem speaks of “bombs bursting in the air” as we proudly lay our hands over our hearts during its recital. We encourage our children to pick up arms and join the military so that they can be all that they can be, and then we have mixed emotions when they become what we’ve always been; barbarians.

The respect that we garner as a nation comes by way of the fear that we yield, which itself comes by way of the weapons we wave, none of which we are willing to relinquish or compromise because deep down we know that it is not respect that we command at all, but simply fear; and fear is always in search for it’s opportunity to no longer be afraid. Therefore, we always have to watch our backs. One who is respected has no such burden.

So what would we be - or who would we have been - without guns? More importantly, what would guns be without us? They would be just inert fixtures of metal, wood, and polymer, no different then any other tool or automobile. So instead of trying to further dumb down the inanimate object beyond it’s base composition, why not instead increase the intelligence of the object’s animator and/or holder beyond their base composition? After all, guns don’t kill. People do.


Tungz