Written by henri cole Friday, 02 May 2008 A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.
Background
FBI agents, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and The Washington Post and Rolling Stone have all stated that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies "as an initial matter only" that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes.
But would the government actually kills its own people to instill sufficient fear so that it can get what it wants? Read what the following very smart people are saying, and then judge for yourself:
The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reaganadministration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:
"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:
If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.
A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.
Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?
Sorry to have to tell you, but "false flag terror" -- that is, state-sponsored terrorism, blamed on the "bad guys" of choice -- is an age-old trick which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years to consolidate power and create support from their people. See this article on the Reichstag fire, and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.
But even recent events provide a glimpse into the world of false flag terror:
9-11 Ballot Initiative Youtube Clip - Send to everyone in NYC, put it in your youtube fav's, give it 5 stars, post it on message boards, etc.
There is a grassroots action which is designed to obtain an honest, independent investigation of 9/11 by placing an initiative on the ballot of the Nov. 6th, 2008 general election allowing registered New York City voters to create a new Commission.
YOU can help achieve the goal of passing this important referendum by becoming a part of a historic campaign called the NYC 911 Ballot Initiative.
Why GUNS are important. A history lesson... This is for all my fellow democrat friends. Although I used to be a democrat and big supporter on gun bans, I was also apparently historically inept in this department. After much research I’ve concluded that the population MUST be armed and it is our Constitutional right for a reason.
Subject: Gun Control History Lesson...Please Repost
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.
6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note, that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and the expense of successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ’citizens’. Without them, we are ’subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
Conspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3 1994. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Canada. At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who ordered all copies destroyed.
A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired FBI Agent Ted L. Gunderson. While the video quality is not top grade, this tape is a blockbuster in what is revealed by its participants involved.
This information is important to us today because while we all go out and fight for our causes, we are doing so not knowing that this activity is still happening under all our noses.
Go to http://video.google.com and search for "Conspiracy of Silence" to watch.
Google "Bush and Clinton Satanic Rituals": 13,200 results!
Chavez was not off the mark when he linked Bush with satanism. In addition to the numerous crimes committed by the Bush regime, it appears that Bush and many government officials believe in the occult.
Here are some pictures that show that Bush is not quite the devout Christian he portrays himself to be. An analysis follows below. Please note, these are not hook-em horns. Bush did not attend UT, he attended Yale.
His disciples:
You might think that many of the above pictures are harmless, but consider Bohemian Grove: The elite of politics and business worship a giant 45-foot stone owl called Moloch, to which they offer a sacrificial human effigy.
And consider Skull and Bones, aka The Brotherhood of Death:
Check out Alex Jones' analysis of the Bohemian Grove ritual:
It should worry you that your leaders engage in such behaviours, whether or not you are religious. I think we can all find some relief, however, in the very real possibility that the 'elites' have conducted most of their rituals wrongly. I understood from my reading of Manly P Hall's 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' that the pagans and other early civilisations represented various natural and universal powers by use of symbolic statues, idols and monuments.
The initiates of old warned their disciples that an image is not a reality but merely the objectification of a subjective idea. The images of the gods were not designed to be objects of worship but were to be regarded merely as emblems or reminders of invisible powers and principles. [The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Manly P Hall, p74]
So, the 'common people' would see these idols and worship them in a literal manner - as the physical entities they depicted. The priest classes and elites however refrained from such worship, as they knew the statues were merely symbolic of non-corporeal natural effects. The worship of Moloch falls into this category, surely?
If not, then the elites may have found something substantial to worship, and that raises new questions - and also provides plenty of ammunition for disinfo agents.
The recent Alex Jones show dealt with some of the most disturbing aspects of this issue, if you are really curious.
Now, this latest picture shows Bush showing the hand sign while posing to the camera with Queen Elizabeth II:
To counter claims that the gesture was a mere accident, the pictures above repeatedly show Bush flashing the same hand gesture in front of the cameras, which at the time was explained away as a 'hook-em horns' sign from UT. Furthermore, although the hand in the picture is small, the zoom in along with the muscular effort required to extend the pinky and the index makes it apparent that Bush made his hand gesture deliberately. Thus the gesture that he made along the side of his body is a covert hand signal and not merely a nervous tic. Bush's facial expression does not show any playful mood that could make his hand signal benign.
The question thus remains, why would he choose such a moment to covertly display a hand sign supposedly associated with the University of Texas? It is safe to assume that Queen Elizabeth did not attend UT; nor for that matter did Bush, who attended Yale and was a member of the Skull and Bones. On the other hand, they still have more things in common than would be readily apparent to the public. It is known, for example, that the Bush family is related by blood to the Windsor family. While this alone may seem trivial or genealogically coincidental, it is worth noting that both families played significant roles in helping the Nazis during WWII. Prince William from the Windsor family is also shown above flashing the same hand signal to the camera. Incidentally, the Nazis were known for their fascination for the occult.
Those observations alone may seem inconclusive. Even if they were conclusive, it may be argued that their beliefs, whether satanic as alleged or not, are a matter of private interest. However, what is at issue is not merely the beliefs and the rituals of those people, but the fact that they engage in them covertly whilst having been elected by people who thought they were voting for Christians. The hand sign displayed by Bush, whether satanic or not, implies a secret allegiance to a group that is hidden and unaccountable to the public. This betrays the trust of the public, and is therefore undemocratic.
Worse yet, it is worth noting some other members of the Skull and Bones:
John Kerry, Bush's supposed presidential opponent;
George Herbert Walker Bush;
Prescott Bush, known for funding the Nazis during WWII;
George Herbert Walker, co-sponsor of the Nazis with Prescott Bush
Watch Bush and Kerry avoid the issue of their membership to Skull and Bones:
Wesley Snipes Is Acquitted of Tax Felonies: Proof YOU Don’t Have to Pay Income Taxes?
Wesley Snipes Is Acquitted of Tax Felonies
The Snipes case is the fourth significant loss by Justice Department prosecutors who brought felony charges against people who were leading figures in the tax denier movement.
Like it or not, the Wesley Snipes tax case is going to introduce a wider segment of the American public to the possibility that the Federal Income Tax is not entirely legal, that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, and that "income" means gain from corporate activity, NOT wages and salaries which are exchanged for labor of equal worth.
The problem is that the majority of Americans are well aware that the US Government lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And as they struggle to pay their bills, they will probably be taking a good hard look at that 1040 form and wondering just how a supposedly free society came to have a government so greedy.
So inevitably, the same media that helped sell that lie about Saddam's "nookular" bombs is trying to reassure us serfs that taxes are legal, that we can trust the US Government when it says that the 16th Amendment was ratified (even though nobody is able to document that fact), and that we should go on making do with less so that the government can have more.
All we ask is that you study the matter carefully and think for yourself. Do not let the TV talking heads tell you what truth is, for they do not know themselves. Certainly do not listen to judges who claim that taxes are legal, for after all, they are paid from tax revenues, and more to the point, the Constitution does not allow a judge to declare something legal from the bench when it is not so, nor does the Constitution compel us to accept such a judicial declaration when we know it to be untrue.
For A Documentary With Many Arguments Against Your "Mandate" To Pay Taxes: Freedom To Fascism
If you still don't believe that election fraud can be committed in this country, click here to watch Velvet Revolution's interview with Allen Raymond, former GOP/RNC insider, and co-author of the new book How To Rig An Election.
The government is sending us tax-rebates back soon; $500-$800/per person or something... dish out the money now to get Ron Paul elected and you'll never pay an income tax again.
p.s. Looks like the Republican Party is going to have a brokered convention. In 34 states, the popular vote of the primary is non-binding. In almost all states, the delegates are only bound for the first vote. If no one gets 51% the first vote around - delegates are legally able to vote their conscious. Ron Paul's campaign is strategically looking to get a majority of delegates even if they don't win too many state primaries. The mainstream media doesn't know or care about this; but I do. We could take over the convention and win in September. Please continue supporting this effort, you won't regret it.
Feeling Safe vs. Being Safe: The Undebatable Facts Speak for Themselves
Every day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.
Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.
Campus "gun free zones" may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.
Learn The Facts:
Argument: "Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime."
Answer: "Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes."
*"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997); "An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population," William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State, "Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report," 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association
Argument: "It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to violence is 'more guns.'"
Answer: "One might have just as easily told Edward Jenner, the man who discovered in the late eighteenth century that the cowpox virus could be used to inoculate people against smallpox, 'It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to disease is "more viruses."'"
Argument: "Guns on campus would distract from the learning environment."
Answer: "Ask anyone in a concealed carry state when he or she last noticed another person carrying a concealed handgun. The word 'concealed' is in there for a reason. Concealed handguns would no more distract college students from learning than they currently distract moviegoers from enjoying movies or office workers from doing their jobs.
"In most states with 'shall-issue' concealed carry laws, the rate of concealed carry is about 1%. That means that one out of a hundred people is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. So, statistically speaking, a packed 300-seat movie theater contains three individuals legally carrying concealed handguns, and a shopping mall crowded with 1,000 shoppers contains ten individuals legally carrying concealed handguns. Students who aren't too afraid to attend movies or go shopping and who aren't distracted from learning by the knowledge that a classmate might be illegally carrying a firearm shouldn't be distracted from learning by the knowledge that a classmate might be legally carrying a firearm."
Argument: "Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons."
Answer: "Colleges are no more crowded than movie theaters and office buildings, where concealed handgun license holders are already allowed to carry their firearms. The widespread passage of concealed handgun laws has not let to a spate of shootings or gun thefts at movie theaters and office buildings."
Argument: "A person with a gun could 'snap' and go on a killing spree."
Answer: "Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply 'snapping' and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A person's downward spiral toward violence is usually accompanied by numerous warning signs."
Argument: "A dangerous person might jump someone who was carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm."
Answer: "Even assuming this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed individual."
Argument: "Dorms are notoriously vulnerable to theft. It would be too easy for someone to steal an unattended firearm from a dorm."
Answer: "The vulnerability of dorms to theft does not necessitate a campus-wide ban on concealed carry by licensed individuals. There are numerous other options, from community gun lockers to small, private gun safes that can be secured to walls, floors, bed frames, etc."
Note: Even at the University of Texas—a major university with over 50,000 students—a quick comparison of campus housing statistics and concealed handgun licensing statistics reveals that there would likely be less than twenty concealed handgun license holders living in on-campus housing.
Argument: "It's possible that a gun might go off by accident."
Answer: "Accidental discharges are very rare—particularly because modern firearms feature multiple safety features and because a handgun's trigger is typically not exposed when it is concealed—and only a small fraction of accidental discharges result in injury. SCCC feels that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is accompanied by a negligible risk."
Note: Only about 2% of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. are accidental. A person is five times more likely to accidentally drown, five times more likely to accidentally die in a fire, 29 times more likely to die in an accidental fall, and 32 times more likely to die from accidental poisoning than to die from an accidental gunshot wound.
Argument: "It's unlikely that allowing concealed carry on college campuses could help prevent a Virginia Tech-style massacre because most college students are too young to obtain a concealed handgun license."
Answer: "Nineteen of the thirty-two victims of the Virginia Tech massacre were over the age of twenty-one (the legal age limit for obtaining a concealed handgun license in Virginia)."
Argument: "Self-defense training is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant."
Answer: "If you're going to try to manually disarm an assailant, you'd better be within an arm's length of him, be standing on firm ground, not have any obstacles between you and him, and be in relatively good physical condition. If the assailant is standing four feet away, you're probably out of luck. If you're sitting in a chair or lying on the floor, you're probably out of luck. If there is a desk between you and the assailant, you're probably out of luck. And if you're elderly or disabled, you're probably out of luck. Even a well-trained martial arts expert is no match for a bullet fired from eight feet away. Why should honest, law abiding citizens be asked to undergo years of training, in order to master an inferior method of self-defense?"
Argument: "Colleges are emotionally volatile environments. Allowing guns on campus will turn classroom debates into crime scenes."
Answer: "Before concealed handgun laws were passed throughout the United States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking spaces and traffic accidents into shootings. This did not prove to be the case. The same responsible adults--age twenty-one and above--now asking to be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already allowed to do so virtually everywhere else they go--office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc. They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college campuses."
Argument: "The college lifestyle is defined by alcohol and drug abuse. Why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?"
Answer: "This is NOT a debate about keeping firearms out of the hands of college students. This is a debate about allowing licensed individuals to carry their concealed firearms into campus buildings, the same way they carry them virtually everywhere else they go. College students can already legally purchase firearms, and every state that provides for legalized concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while under the influence. Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither put guns into the hands of more college students nor make it legal for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence."
Note: Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would have no impact on the laws regulating concealed carry at bars or off-campus parties—the places where students (particularly students of legal age to obtain a concealed handgun license) are most likely to consume alcohol.
Argument: "In an active shooter scenario, like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse."
Answer: "What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How can any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered 'worse' than allowing that killer to continue undeterred?"
Argument: "The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilantes getting into a shootout with a madman, particularly since it's been proven that trained police officers have an accuracy rate of only about 15%, in the field."
Answer: "Citizens with concealed handgun licenses are not vigilantes. They carry their concealed handguns as a means of getting themselves out of harm's way, not as an excuse to go chasing after bad guys. Whereas police shooting statistics involve scenarios such as pursuits down dark alleys and armed standoffs with assailants barricaded inside buildings, most civilian shootings happen at pointblank range. In the Luby's Cafeteria massacre, the Columbine High School massacre, and the Virginia Tech massacre, the assailants moved slowly and methodically, shooting their victims from pointblank range. A person doesn't have to be a deadeye shot to defend himself or herself against an assailant standing only a few feet away. It is highly unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed citizen and a deranged killer would lead to more lives lost than would simply allowing an onslaught of execution-style murders to continue unchecked. Contrary to what the movies might have us believe, most real-world shootouts last less than ten seconds*. Even the real Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, a shootout involving nine armed participants, lasted only about thirty seconds and ended with only three of the participants being killed. It is unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen would last more than a couple of seconds before one or both parties were disabled. And if the assailant were disabled, he would be unable to do any more harm."
*In The Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Institute of Justice, 1997
Argument: "How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed students and armed assailants?"
Answer: "This hasn't been an issue with concealed carry license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It's not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys--from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians--in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the civilians, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the civilians."
Argument: "Some states allow citizens to be issued concealed handgun licenses at the age of 18."
Answer: "Among the thirty-six 'shall-issue' states*—states where local authorities cannot require qualified applicants to "show a need" before the applicant is issued a concealed handgun license/concealed carry weapons permit—six states allow, without special provision, for any person eighteen years or older to be issued a concealed handgun license. These states are Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Indiana – 30 Montana – 42 South Dakota – 47 New Hampshire – 48 North Dakota – 50 Maine – 51
"Not only are Maine, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota four of the five** U.S. states with the lowest crime rates, Montana has the tenth lowest crime rate, and Indiana isn't even in the top 50%. Clearly these states' lenient concealed handgun laws are not breeding generations of young violent offenders.
"The extraordinarily low crime rates in these six states, coupled with the fact that these states have a combined population of only about 10,900,000 (approximately 1.6 million less than the combined population of America's two largest cities—New York, NY, and Los Angeles, CA—and at approximately 1/3 the combined violent crime rate of those two cities) has led Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to focus on the majority of 'shall-issue' states where the minimum age to receive a concealed handgun license is 21."
*Alaska (licenses are offered but not required to carry a concealed handgun), Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
**Vermont is ranked at 49—the third least violent state. Vermont neither requires nor offers a license to carry a concealed handgun.
From the horse's mouth:
"I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." -- Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97
"I ... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless." -- Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97
"Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated." -- Fairfax County, VA, Police Major Bill Brown, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97
"I was wrong. But I'm glad to say I was wrong." -- Arlington County, VA, Police Detective Paul Larson, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97
"The concerns I had - with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons - we haven't experienced that." -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97
"It turns out, until 9 years ago, the government had the right, under U.S. law, to conduct secret testing on the American Public, under "specific conditions." Only public outcry repealed part of that law, with some exceptions." -News Reporter in the following Newscast:
