.
It's about power.
There are many people (most of them liberals) who will call me paranoid after reading this report and it might even be true. But there is something they ought to remember: even a paranoid can have enemies.
THE SAME ISSUE Everybody thinks the anti-smoking and the anti-gun propaganda campaigns now being waged are separate issues, but they're not. They're both part of the same issue: the power to tell you that you can't. One of our [former, thank goodness -RT] top-level bureaucratic social engineers (FDA Director David Kessler) said it very plainly when he demanded that the U. S. Government either declare that tobacco is a drug and let him regulate it, or let him ban it altogether. And that if they didn't, he'd do it anyway, administratively. Meaning he'll make regulations (not backed by statute) to accomplish his aims whether or not Congress goes along with it. This is "unbridled power" and is exactly what all bureaucrats want. It's also unconstitutional.
ABOVE THE LAW What that means is he believes he is above the law. And that if Congress doesn't do what he wishes, he can make regulations to do it against their will. The anti-smoking fanatics and the anti-gun fanatics use the same tactics in their respective propaganda campaigns: misinformation, disinformation, and many so-called studies that not only ignore figures that tend to prove them wrong, but use these flawed figures to make erroneous declarations. Example: the former Surgeon General's famous report that purported to prove statistically that smoking was bad for your health. Did you actually read that report? I did.
THEY DIDN'T READ IT But most of the anti-smoking fanatics didn't. Or if they did, they just don't care that at the end of each study's so-called findings is the disclaimer that much more work needs to be done before considering it to be a definitive study. Yet the surgeon general used these studies as the basis for the announcement that will probably result in cigarettes ultimately being banned, just as alcohol was banned, to our continual shame at our governmental stupidity.
I DON'T SMOKE AND I'M NOT A GUN NUT At this point, I deem it important to tell you that I do not smoke. Neither do I drink alcohol, and never have. At this writing, I don't even own a gun, although I'm seriously considering getting one for self-protection. So I have no bone to pick, except to bring out in public the tactics used by the social engineers to take your rights away from you and unto themselves.
LABEL CRITICS In both campaigns, they use the same tactics to refute challenges to their pronouncements. They don't answer the charges: they merely label the person who is making the charges as being "...with the National Rifle Association" or as "...part of the tobacco lobby." The inference is that "…nothing that members of either group says can be believed, so it isn't necessary to answer their charges." So are government agencies and anti-smoking or anti-gun organizations to be automatically believed?
THEY LIE ROUTINELY Serious questions have been raised in the scientific community about the methods used by EPA to arrive at the conclusions presented in their celebrated report on ETS (Environmentally Transmitted Smoke, or "Second-Hand Smoke"). This leads to real doubts about the validity of the report. News reporters never read these reports, nor do they look into the methodology that is used in compiling them. They just take what the social engineers say at face value and write their articles. In this, they are very gullible -- or in collusion. What is it they should have looked into?
- Why weren't these doubts widely reported?
- Why did no one follow up on an article in a major scientific magazine that called the EPA report fancy statistical footwork? (A recent issue of Forbes Media Critic (not a tobacco industry publication) published a detailed analysis of the methods EPA used in compiling their bogus report.)
- Why did EPA disregard generally accepted standards of statistical analysis?
- The EPA used eleven U. S. studies in compiling its report. Not a single one of them concluded that there is a statistically significant overall association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Why then, did EPA claim such a link, using these same studies as their evidence?
GOVERNMENT AGENCY EXPOSES THEIR LIES A recently released report by the federal government's own Congressional Research Service revealed that they had done a two year study of the same data used by the EPA in their ETS scam and found the whole report to be contrived (See Special Report #21: "EPA Lies: Press Swears To It").
HOW ABOUT GUNS? Just a few questions about the anti-gun campaign:
- Why would anybody believe that criminals -- whose entire reason for being is to break the law -- are going to obey a law that makes gun ownership illegal?
- Many government officials have come right out and said that police can no longer protect us. Why then, are they (and the police) so adamant about taking away our ability to defend ourselves?
- Why do they want to provide the criminals with a steady stream of unarmed victims?
I'm not going to go into detail about the similarity of methodology used by the anti-gun fanatics to that used by the anti-smoking fanatics. I just don't have the room here. But what I am going to do is to challenge you to read between the lines in every piece of propaganda you see in the papers, on the radio and on TV. Check the sources and the methodology, and never -- never believe anything you read or hear unless you see the proof for yourself.
Don't let them con you.
The first thing you must do to help in this fight is to keep yourself informed as to things the power seekers don't want you to know. To do that, join my Forced Altruism List to get a daily update on what's happening and where you can express your own gripes and frustrations. Or you can subscribe to "Beyond Common Sense," an online fortnightly newsletter.
Email -|- HOME