Arizona GOP: Democrats Are Behind Most Mass Shootings

In 1984 James Huberty a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherril a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Lubys cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in an attempt to kill President George W. Bush.
In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes shot and killed 12 people in a Colorado movie theater.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
On 9/16/2013, another mentally ill liberal, Aaron Alexis, shot and killed 12 coworkers at the Navy Yard in Washington DC.

Look Up The Word "Leftist" In Latin...

Another Joke Of A War: The Equal Pay War...

Remember Januray 3rd 2007...

Many "Friends" of Clintons...

Lest we forget the Clinton's past. Suggested reading, "Compromise" by Terry Reed and John
Cummings. Sheds light on Mena Arkansas happenings. Does anyone remember when Bill was
Arkansas Governor?......
Food for Thought
Just a quick refresher course lest we forget what has happened to many " friends " of the Clinton's.
1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in
Georgetown . The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the
White House.

3 - Vince Foster - Former White House counselor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law
firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a
plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull
resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his
willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the
air traffic controller committed suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane
crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director
found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock,
September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted adviser".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound
to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton
groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a
deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Parks son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people
which
contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater..

Evil Preaches Tolerance...

Angry Push Back Against Islam in Public School Text Books Continue To Take America by storm...

Angry pushback against Islam in public school textbooks continues to take the country by storm

TEXAS and TENNESSEE join parents around America who are outraged that their children are being taught history with an Islamo-centric focus, with the study of Islam taking up major portions of school textbooks, while the other religions are hardly mentioned. What most people don’t realize is that approx. 80% of these history/social studies books are fully funded by the Saudis and provided free of charge to the schools.

Citizen Warrior  We all know of plenty of examples of the bias in social studies textbooks revealed by various groups and individuals. Concerned Tennessee citizens formed a group called Textbook Advocates that conducted reviews of over 50 textbooks that can be found here. Many of those errors involved Islam to include incomplete information on Muhammad, overstating Islam’s influence and simple disparity in word/sentence count on discussions of Islam versus other religions. Their findings are not surprising to readers of Citizen Warrior and others who follow this topic.

The cleverly named, The Textbook Tattler was published to provide citizens with a synopsis of the typical errors found. It is likely these same errors are found in many of the textbooks found in states around the country. Tennessee’s efforts resulted in the current methodology of textbook selection to be under review and will most likely be replaced in the next legislative session. Their landmark success has inspired others to follow their lead including a group in Texas. 

In early 2014 Texas begins the process of reviewing Social Studies textbooks that will be used for the 2015-16 school year. A group called “Truth in Texas Textbooks” or “Triple T” have begun recruiting volunteers from inside of Texas and outside who would be willing to help review the Social Studies textbooks that will be submitted by publishers. 

Over 48 million textbooks are sold in Texas alone! This is a huge contract for publishers. Estimates range from 50-80% of school districts in the nation choose the same textbooks as those used in Texas schools. Publishers know, what sells in Texas will lead to millions of dollars in other states!

The purpose of TTT is simple, to provide Social Studies textbooks that are truthful and factual that meet the Texas Education Knowledge Standards (TEKS) as defined here. Fortunately Texas has put in place a well-defined set of standards that were recently updated with this resolution on eliminating the pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias found in the current social studies textbooks.

TTT will not simply focus on eliminating this bias but many other “PC” related themes that are so often found in textbooks today. We are not affiliated with any other NPO or national organization but are independent and have reached out to groups and individuals around the country (including Tennessee) for volunteers who are willing to help us.

The long-term goal would be to have one site, such as www.textbookadvocates.com be the single depository of these textbook reviews being done around the country so teachers, parents, advocates can have a single one stop shopping place to go and see a consolidated list of reviews of textbooks.

School field trip to a mosque

Publishers get away with their PC tainted textbooks because in the past groups around the country didn’t talk to each other or communicate their findings. Building on what Tennessee has done Texas wishes to continue this movement to put these reviews, along with others, in the public domain at a single website that will give information to everyone who is interested.

Anti-smokers advocacy groups weren’t effective until they banded together against the tobacco companies and shared the data from all their findings. TTT wishes to take the same approach.

The most effective method for having an impact on your children’s textbooks may very well lie on not focusing on your own local school or state but helping Texas adopt the most accurate and factual textbooks which will in turn be likely to show up in your own school district. Additionally you can go through a process with other like-minded individuals who can help you learn the process for conducting reviews.

Collaborative online project management tools, conference calls, use of webinars and other methods will be used to coordinate the efforts of those interested in volunteering. It doesn’t matter where you live, you can help Texas and in turn help millions of other children around the country by joining TTT and volunteering. Please share this with teachers, active and retired who are tired of teaching inaccurate or misleading information.

For those interested in serving on the TTT review team, please email truthintexastextbooks@gmail.comand get on the mailing list. You will be asked to complete a survey of interest, experience and level of commitment to the effort. TTT will conduct training beginning in early 2014 to provide reviewers with materials and templates of the best practices found among those experts who review textbooks. If you want to stop the spread of PC myths disguised as facts in social studies textbooks and pro-Islamic/anti-Judeo-Christian biases then please join the TTT team.

Recruiting for experts in the field of US government, history, world history, civics, constitutional law, world history, geography are some of the specific knowledge sets that are needed. Advanced degrees or self-taught are the same to TTT; your knowledge and effort in this endeavor will benefit millions of children for years to come.

______________________

Roy White, Chapter Coordinator
ACT! for America San Antonio, Bexar, Kendall
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/actbexar
Twitter: @ACTBexar

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/12/23/angry-pushback-against-islam-in-public-school-textbooks-continues-to-take-the-country-by-storm/

Moments Of Pride For Democrat Party...

Inner city Plantations, Detroit, Philly, the latest place of Pride for Democrats...

I'm Sorry You Find Yourself In This Situation....

Washington State Rejects President's Proposals to Extend Canceled Policies - Unwilling and Unable...

It did not take long for Obama's proposal as detailed in Obama Changes His Mind (But Only For a Year); You Can Keep Your Plan IF Insurers Reinstate Them to blow sky high.

Two hours, to be precise.

Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal

 The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.

Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.

“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”

“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”

Unwilling and Unable!

I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...

Hello Mish

My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.

I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.

I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums.  It was what consumers could afford to buy.  The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.

Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.

Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;

Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time.  Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.

Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.

WSA

Yesterday's Recap

Sens. Mary Landrieu

 (D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people

 keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.

My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?

Still More Questions

While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.

Will insurers bother?

For a year?

Why?

What incentives do they have?

Bonus Questions

Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?

What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?

An Answer and a New Question

It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.

This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/ 

It did not take long for Obama's proposal as detailed in Obama Changes His Mind (But Only For a Year); You Can Keep Your Plan IF Insurers Reinstate Them to blow sky high.
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”

Unwilling and Unable!
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...

Hello Mish
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums.  It was what consumers could afford to buy.  The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;

Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time.  Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.
WSA

Yesterday's Recap

Sens. Mary Landrieu
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?

An Answer and a New Question
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/#fou62zMml9yfUB6C.99

It did not take long for Obama's proposal as detailed in Obama Changes His Mind (But Only For a Year); You Can Keep Your Plan IF Insurers Reinstate Them to blow sky high.
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”

Unwilling and Unable!
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...

Hello Mish
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums.  It was what consumers could afford to buy.  The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;

Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time.  Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.
WSA

Yesterday's Recap

Sens. Mary Landrieu
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?

An Answer and a New Question
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/#fou62zMml9yfUB6C.99

It did not take long for Obama's proposal as detailed in Obama Changes His Mind (But Only For a Year); You Can Keep Your Plan IF Insurers Reinstate Them to blow sky high.
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”

Unwilling and Unable!
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...

Hello Mish
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums.  It was what consumers could afford to buy.  The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;

Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time.  Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.
WSA

Yesterday's Recap

Sens. Mary Landrieu
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?

An Answer and a New Question
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/#fou62zMml9yfUB6C.99

Media Buries Psychiatric Drug Connection to Navy Shooter...

Networks don’t want to risk losing $2.4 billion in ad revenue from pharmaceutical giants...

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 18, 2013

Despite every indication that Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis was on SSRI drugs that have been linked to dozens of previous mass shootings, the mainstream media has once again avoided all discussion of the issue, preferring instead to blame the tragedy on a non-existent AR-15 that the gunman didn’t even use.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

We now know that Alexis “had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems.”

As Mike Adams points out, “This is proof that Aaron Alexis was on psychiatric drugs, because that’s the only treatment currently being offered by the Veterans Administration for mental problems. Alexis’ family members also confirmed to the press that he was being “treated” for his mental health problems. Across the medical industry, “treatment” is the code word for psychiatric drugging.”

Alexis also suffered from PTSD, blackouts and anger issues – all of which are treated with SSRI drugs. The most common form of treatment for PTSD is Paroxetine, which is listed as the number 3 top violence-causing drug by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).

The Navy Yard shooter was clearly on some form of psychiatric drug, but the media has shown no interest in discovering its identity.

Despite it being reported that prescription drugs were found in the apartment of ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes days after the Aurora massacre, it took nine months to find out exactly what those drugs were. Like Columbine killer Eric Harris, Holmes had been taking Zoloft, another SSRI drug linked with violent outbursts.

The length of time it took to find out that Holmes was on Zoloft was partly because the media habitually shows zero interest in pursuing the link between anti-depressants and violence.

As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. The number of cases is staggering.

Why is the corporate media so disinterested in pursuing this clear connection?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue.

While failing to ask questions about what SSRI drugs Aaron Alexis was taking prior to his rampage, the media instead blamed the shooting on assault rifles, even after it had been confirmed that no AR-15 was used by Alexis during the massacre.

FBI assistant director Victoria Parlave stated at a press conference on Tuesday that authorities, “do not have any information at this time that [Alexis] had an AR-15 in his possession.”

Despite there being no evidence that an AR-15 was used, the New York Daily News ran a front page headline yesterday morning entitled, “Same Gun Different Slay,” next to a picture of an assault rifle.

Hours after the FBI stated that no AR-15 had been used, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, who previously blamed the Boston bombings on Alex Jones, continued to use an animated graphic depicting Alexis carrying an assault rifle during the massacre.

Anti-second amendment crusader Piers Morgan also erroneously blamed the shooting on “a man with a legally purchased AR-15, who just committed the same kind of atrocity as we saw at Sandy Hook, and Aurora,” during his CNN show on Monday.

CNN’s live news coverage also reported that Alexis had “recently purchased (an) AR-15 shotgun,” when in fact that purchase had been denied.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post also falsely reported that an AR-15 had been found on Alexis after the massacre.

D.C. gun grabbers Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin also regurgitated the false claim that Alexis used an AR-15 during the rampage.

The U.S. press has once again behaved like state media in the aftermath of the Navy Yard shooting by pursuing the assault rifle angle – despite the fact that it was patently false – in order to bolster the White House’s gun control agenda.

In doing so, they have concurrently buried an integral aspect of mass shootings that needs to be highlighted as part of a national conversation – the clear connection between violent outbursts and SSRI drugs.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 11:29 am

Tags: domestic news, mainstream media, pharmaceutical

http://www.infowars.com/media-buries-psychiatric-drug-connection-to-navy-shooter/